<DOC>
[DOCID: f:63324.wais]
S. Hrg. 106-221
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT-
ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2084/S. 1143
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Transportation
General Accounting Office
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-324 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-059717-X
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
SLADE GORTON, Washington HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
Staff
Wally Burnett
Joyce C. Rose
Paul Doerrer
Peter Rogoff (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 25, 1999
Oversight Hearing on Department of Transportation Management Issues
Page
General Accounting Office........................................ 1
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........ 1
Department of Transportation..................................... 1
Thursday, March 4, 1999
Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation Budget Overview
Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary............ 107
Wednesday, March 10, 1999
Amtrak Finance and Operational Issues
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)................. 161
Department of the Transportation: Office of Inspector General.... 161
Tuesday, March 23, 1999
Federal Aviation Administration Budget and Programs
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 249
Thursday, March 25, 1999
Coast Guard Budget and Programs
Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard................... 315
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing For Formal Hearings
Department of Transportation:
Amtrak Reform Council........................................ 367
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 374
Federal Transit Administration............................... 474
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 568
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 598
Surface Transportation Board................................. 657
Nondepartmental witnesses:
Aviation-related testimony................................... 693
Highway-related testimony.................................... 707
Rail-related testimony....................................... 730
Transit-related testimony.................................... 743
Highway safety-related testimony............................. 785
Hazardous materials and pipeline-related testimony........... 787
U.S. Coast Guard-related testimony........................... 796
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, and Lautenberg.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ANDERSON, JR., DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. This
oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations will come to order, as I have said. I want to
extend a welcome to the first hearing held by the subcommittee
on transportation in 1999.
This morning's hearing has a different focus than most
hearings held by this committee. Normally, the Appropriations
Committee responds to the administration's budget proposal with
a series of hearings and submitted record questions that are
designed to get more information about the budget, to compare
the new request to ongoing efforts by the administration, and
to justify new initiatives proposed by the President. This
information helps the committee make informed decisions as it
develops appropriations legislation.
However, there is another side to the responsibilities of
the Appropriations Committee: oversight of the Federal agencies
that we fund. It is imperative to ensure that Federal taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely and well.
Proper management of Federal funds cannot be taken for
granted. That is why Federal agencies have inspectors general
to audit and to investigate agency management and detect cases
of fraud, waste, or abuse. The General Accounting Office, an
investigative arm of the legislative branch, performs audits
and evaluations of Government programs and activities, often at
the direction of Congress.
Today we are joined by John Anderson, Director of
Transportation Issues at GAO; Ken Mead, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General. Welcome. Both GAO and the IG
have published recent reports on management issues at the
Department of Transportation. And the Department is represented
this morning by Assistant Secretary of Budget and Programs,
Jack Basso, who will respond to the concerns raised in these
reports and tell us how DOT is addressing its management
challenges.
The December 9, 1998, Inspector General report titled the
Top Ten Management Issues at the Department of Transportation
sets out 10 top priority management issues, of which 5 are
aviation related. This skew toward the Federal Aviation
Administration gave me pause. Does this mean that the FAA is a
more troubled agency than the Federal Highway Administration or
the Coast Guard?
I want to explore that further, but I would point out that
the Federal Government is much more directly involved in
commercial air transportation than it is in other modes of
travel. Every air traffic control tower is staffed by Federal
employees. Every plane is inspected by FAA inspectors and
technicians. Every aviation policy decision is made at the
Federal level, and every airport is built in part with tax
dollars that are distributed by the Federal Government. There
is no parallel to this level of Federal interest and control in
the highway, marine, rail, or transit arenas. So, perhaps the
number of management issues cited by the IG is not
disproportionate, considering the level of Federal investment
and interest.
Both the GAO and the IG reports cite aviation safety and
security as priority management issues. In fact, the Inspector
General lists aviation safety as its first priority management
issue. Department-wide transportation safety is the number one
strategic goal, safety in all modes of transportation, air,
surface, and water. It must be noted that flying is
immeasurably safer than any other mode of transportation,
however. Highway fatalities claim more than 40,000 lives
annually, an average of 110 people every day. Rail and transit
accidents account for an additional 850 lives lost each year.
But by comparison in 1998, there were no deaths, zero, on a
major U.S. air carrier or commuter plane.
However, once again, we are comparing very different
systems. By and large, highway safety is enforced at the State
and local level; aviation safety is enforced at the Federal
level. I think it would be appropriate and helpful to this
committee to explore the role of the Federal Government in
highway and rail safety, to ensure that the management of these
safety programs is as effective as possible.
Another management issue highlighted by both GAO and the IG
is Amtrak's financial condition. In November 1998, an
independent assessment of Amtrak's financial requirements was
published, as required by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability
Act. The Inspector General's office closely monitored the
assessment process and probably has the clearest view of
Amtrak's current financial condition and of whether the
projections on which the railroad has based its plan to reach
self-sufficiency by 2002 are realistic and achievable. The GAO
has prepared many reports on Amtrak's financial and operating
performance, including the May 1998 report on the financial
performance of Amtrak's 40 routes nationwide, which showed that
Amtrak's operating expenses far outstrip its revenue. In fact,
only one route, the Metroliner, actually makes a profit, and
overall Amtrak's expenses are almost twice as great as its
revenues. This is a management issue, a labor issue, and a
political issue, and it is an issue that has cost the American
taxpayers over $22.5 billion over the last 27 years.
There are many other issues that require close oversight by
the appropriations subcommittee. For instance, both the IG and
GAO have concerns about the serious challenges faced by FAA in
making its computer systems ready for the year 2000. However,
Chairman Stevens has held two full committee hearings on this
topic, and my staff have been involved with them. In addition,
there will be a follow-up subcommittee hearing with FAA where
we will address the Y2K issues.
Last October, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill
provided $343 million in supplemental funds to the U.S. Coast
Guard for anti-drug efforts, primarily interdiction. This is a
lot of additional funding for the country's smallest armed
force. And I want to find out more about how this funding will
be spent, especially since this is a multi-agency program, of
which the Coast Guard represents only a small part. How are
operational and funding decisions made at the Office of
National Drug Control Policy? What is the level of coordination
among the affected agencies? These are management issues that
could have direct bearing on future funding decisions.
I believe oversight is an important part of the
Appropriations Committee's responsibilities. The committee
allocates Federal funds based on informed decisionmaking. This
requires a close examination of the administration's budget and
oversight of how funds, once allocated, are managed. I hope
that today's hearing will help us better perform this duty by
exploring together some management challenges that have been
raised by both the executive and legislative branch
investigative bodies.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
commend you for your timely start. I think you beat the clock
by 36 seconds. I wonder whether the chairman of the committee's
presence had anything to do with it.
Senator Shelby. It is always a little nudge when we observe
the chairman here.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for using this
opportunity to conduct appropriate oversight of the management
challenges facing our Department of Transportation.
Now, many of the issues that we are discussing this morning
are not new to the subcommittee, issues such as the need to
improve our air traffic control infrastructure, improve the
Department's data collection efforts, better ensure safety on
our highways and at our airports, and still it is not often
that we have the opportunity to review these issues in adequate
detail, especially once we turn our attention to the details of
the President's budget request for each of the offices within
DOT.
Today we look forward to the testimony from representatives
of the office of the Inspector General and the General
Accounting Office, along with our Assistant DOT Secretary for
Budget. The IG and the GAO have, over the years, provided an
invaluable service to the subcommittee by auditing and
reporting on a great many issues regarding the management of
DOT and the effectiveness of its programs. And in that regard,
their findings are valuable not only to us, but also to the
Secretary and his sector administrators.
Within the last couple of years, both the IG and the GAO
have had critical things to say about the Federal Highway
Administration's Office of Motor Carriers. The OMC is our
principal agency for maintaining safety and enforcing
regulations pertaining to trucks and buses.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I report that over the recent
holiday, in just a 5-day period, we had three serious bus
accidents in the State of New Jersey. One of those accidents,
which took place on Christmas Eve, resulted in eight
fatalities, as well as dozens of serious injuries. A review of
the circumstances surrounding the bus company and the bus
driver involved in this accident is instructive in
understanding why we need a stronger and more effective Office
of Motor Carriers.
In April 1996, the OMC performed a compliance review on the
bus company in question. The name of the company is the Bruin
Transportation. The OMC found the operator to be in
unsatisfactory condition and gave them 45 days to clean up
their act or shut down. April 1996 we are talking about. There
were serious problems with the conditions of their vehicles,
the qualifications of their drivers, and the company could not
show evidence that they were complying with the hours of
service laws or performing mandatory drug and alcohol testing
of their drivers.
And now, almost 3 years and eight fatalities later, OMC has
gone back to look at the Bruin company and found many of the
same problems they discovered in 1996. Once again, they have
been given 45 days to clean up their act or shut down. One
hopes that the result of this inspection will get us someplace
and not permit them to wantonly disregard the rules. The
question has to be asked, did this company just clean up their
act for a 2-month period back in 1996 only to go right back to
the same old ways of doing business?
And when you look at the driver of the bus, the picture is
even more grim. The driver had his licensed revoked back in
June 1997 because of a combination of speeding tickets and the
violation in which he drove a commercial bus past a stopped
school bus. He got his license back only through attending
driving school. After the accident, he was cited for reckless
driving, and it was found that his hours of service
documentation was out of order.
I would like to say that this situation is the exception
rather than the rule, but I have not seen any evidence to date
to confirm that. To the contrary, I have seen even more
worrisome data indicating the OMC has only performed compliance
reviews on fewer than one in four interstate bus operators in
the United States. Put another way, our Federal safety agency
has effectively no knowledge of the safety performance of more
than three-quarters of the Nation's motor carriers whose
principal cargo is human lives.
Now, I am aware that the chairman of our companion House
committee, Mr. Wolf, took testimony earlier this week on the
adequacy of OMC's efforts on truck safety. Now, he has taken
the position that the OMC needs to be moved out of the Federal
Highway Administration and into the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Frankly, I am keeping an open mind on
this proposal, but it is my sincere hope that the debate over
the appropriate agency to oversee the OMC not detract from our
focus on the daily workings of the OMC and the need to boost
substantially their levels of effort at improving safety.
Now, I will take advantage of the opportunity to respond to
something my friend and the distinguished chairman of this
subcommittee said about Amtrak. It is true. Amtrak's financial
condition is not really a very attractive one, and we have put
a lot of money in it. I think it is getting better. I am a
perpetual optimist about Amtrak for one reason: Look at what is
happening in Boston today. The forecast is for 2 feet of snow.
The airport is almost shut down already. People would be
virtually locked in.
I have had the bad fortune of traveling out of National
Airport to the New York/New Jersey area. I have an option of
Newark Airport or LaGuardia Airport, depending on the time they
leave. And twice now I have been held up for more than 3 hours,
weather conditions, and twice I ran for Amtrak at Union
Station. And I will tell you, when the weather is bad, those
trains are filled. It is an emergency relief for us. We have to
have that.
There is some cost involved, but I submit that we have to
examine the cost that occurs to aviation, lost business, missed
connections, et cetera. I met people in the airport who had
planned for a vacation. They had to connect from Washington
National to New York and missed a vacation that the wife and
the husband and the little kids have all planned for. There is
a heck of a cost associated with it. I think when we do the
analysis of the cost to Government of Amtrak service, that we
include some of the costs that are not directly obvious, Mr.
Chairman. We have to look at all these things. And I know that
you have been diligent about them and we have had our chance to
debate Amtrak.
But that is not our only subject. Safety is our principal
subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear from our
witnesses.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, I congratulate you having the
oversight hearing, and I hope that you will even go down into
some of the particular issues and hold separate oversight on
some of the separate issues because I do think that
Transportation has some real substantial issues that we ought
to address, not only from an appropriations point of view, but
from a legislative point of view.
One of our great problems is we have been inclined lately
to consider legislation without knowing what the facts are. I
think we ought to get into the oversight on specific issues.
Particularly I am concerned about the air traffic control
modernization concept, and I am concerned about the whole
problem of transportation computer security. I think the year
2000 issues are pretty well covered by now by Senator Bennett's
committee, but we should continue to keep ahead on that.
I do think that last one, the GPRA, is something that we
ought to have the full committee review, Department by
Department, to see what has happened and how the agencies are
fulfilling the requirements of that act.
But I am pleased to have a chance to be here and listen.
Senator Shelby. Our witnesses today, as I indicated
earlier, are Mr. John Anderson, Director of Transportation
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; the Honorable Kenneth
Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; and
Peter Basso, Assistant Secretary of Budget and Programs, U.S.
Department of Transportation. Mr. Anderson, if you will
proceed. All of your written testimony will be made part of the
record in its entirety. If you would just sum up the high
points of your testimony in about 5 minutes, we can have a
chance to have a little dialogue.
statement of john h. anderson, jr.
Mr. Anderson. All right. I will be glad to do that, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
asking me here today to discuss the critical management
challenges that are facing the Department of Transportation. My
testimony is based on a report that we issued in January as
part of a GAO series on major management challenges and program
risks facing the entire Federal Government. The challenges that
we identified are not new to the Department, as the chairman
pointed out. The problems and their solutions have been
reported by us, the Inspector General, and others.
aviation challenges
First, I will discuss FAA which faces numerous challenges
in managing its programs which are critical to our Nation's air
traffic system. Over the past 17 years, FAA's multi-billion
dollar air traffic control modernization program has
experienced significant cost overruns, delays, and performance
shortfalls. While FAA has initiated activities to address many
of our concerns about this program, none are completed. And as
we reported recently, several major components of the program,
such as the standard terminal automation replacement and wide
area augmentation systems, continue to encounter problems that
could affect their cost, schedules, and performance. These two
systems alone are expected to cost several billion dollars.
FAA also faces considerable challenges in making its vast
network of computer systems ready for the year 2000. Last
August we testified that FAA was unlikely to complete critical
testing activities in time and that unresolved risks, including
those associated with data exchanges, international
coordination, reliance on the telecommunications
infrastructure, and business continuity and contingency
planning, threatened aviation operations. Although FAA is
taking steps to address these issues, much work remains to be
done.
The Congress, as well as the Department, face a challenge
in reaching agreement on the amount and source of long-term
financing for FAA and the Nation's airports. The administration
recently proposed shifting funding for FAA away from the
general fund and instead relying solely on user charges in the
form of excise taxes or new cost-based charges. However, any
cost-based financing depends on accurate and reliable data
which FAA currently lacks.
FAA will need to continue its efforts to implement a cost
accounting system. In addition, continued funding for airports
will be critical to ensure adequate capacity for the national
airport system. Planned development at airports might require
as much as $3 billion more per year nationwide than has
historically been spent.
We have also identified the need for FAA to address
shortcomings in its safety and security programs and to improve
its inspection, oversight, and enforcement activities.
surface transportation challenges
Another challenge is surface transportation programs. Large
dollar highway and transit projects, each costing hundreds of
millions to billions of dollars have experienced cost increases
and delays and have had difficulties acquiring needed
financing.
Legislation was enacted last year requiring projects
costing a billion dollars or more to submit financial plans to
DOT for review. This should improve Federal oversight of the
financing of significant projects. However, the Congress needs
to decide if additional Federal oversight is needed of the cost
and scheduling for these projects as well.
Congressional action is also going to be needed to address
Amtrak's tenuous financial condition and the future of
passenger rail service in the United States.
coast guard challenges
Turning now to the Coast Guard, it is starting to address
the problems that we reported on recently concerning its 20-
year, $9.8 billion project to replace or modernize its
deepwater ships and aircraft. We found that the Coast Guard had
not adequately documented the project's justification nor its
affordability. In addition, it significantly underestimated the
remaining life of its current aircraft and, to a lesser extent,
its ships. DOT and the Coast Guard need to fix the systemic
problems that caused the situation by improving their planning
processes, and in addition, issues still need to be resolved
concerning the project's affordability.
department-wide challenges
Finally, at the Department level, DOT's lack of
accountability for its financial activities, which the
Inspector General has repeatedly documented, impairs its
ability to manage and improve programs and exposes the
Department to potential fraud, waste, and abuse.
In conclusion, many of the problems we identified are
longstanding and will require sustained attention by DOT over a
long period of time. The Congress will need to play a prominent
role, including holding hearings like this one, to make sure
that things get fixed.
I believe the DOT's leadership is fully committed to
improving its programs. Mr. Basso has been with the Department
for some time and fully understands the challenges it faces. I
know that he and the rest of the DOT's top management team will
continue to work hard to make improvements. And I know that my
colleague, Ken Mead, who I used to work with when he was at
GAO, will provide the tenacious oversight and guidance needed
to keep DOT's ship moving in the right direction.
And finally, GAO is committed to working with the
Department and assisting with congressional oversight.
prepared statement
This completes my oral statement. I will be glad to answer
questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are here today to
discuss the critical management challenges facing the Department of
Transportation (DOT). My testimony is based on a report we issued in
January as part of GAO's performance and accountability series on major
management challenges and program risks facing the federal
government.\1\ With a budget request of over $50.5 billion for fiscal
year 2000, the Department faces critical challenges in achieving its
goals of ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and goods
and in making cost-effective investments in the nation's transportation
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation'' (GAO/OCG-99-13, Jan. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOT has had many successes in improving the nation's
transportation systems, it has also experienced problems that have
impeded its ability to achieve its goals. We, DOT's Inspector General,
and the Department have documented these problems and recommended
solutions. Although some corrective actions have been taken, major
performance and management challenges remain for DOT's agencies that
cover aviation and surface transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
the Department itself. In summary:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) faces considerable
challenges in managing its multibillion-dollar air traffic control
modernization program, making its computer systems ready for the year
2000, and addressing shortcomings in its safety and security programs.
Additional challenges include funding uncertainties facing FAA and the
nation's airports and the lack of airline competition in some
communities. While DOT has started to address some of these issues,
more needs to be done. For example, FAA has initiated activities to
address many of our concerns about its air traffic control
modernization program but none are completed. Moreover, because of its
size, complexity, cost, and past problems, since 1995, we have
designated the air traffic control modernization program as a high-risk
information technology initiative.
DOT and the Congress face challenges in continuing to improve the
oversight of highway and transit projects and in determining the future
of passenger rail. Large-dollar highway and transit projects have
experienced cost increases and delays and have had difficulties
acquiring needed financing. While some improvements can be made by
DOT's agencies, others may require congressional action. For example,
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has implemented a new tracking
system to help ensure the correction of deficiencies found during its
oversight review of grants, but we have not reviewed it to determine if
it addresses our concerns about the agency's need for complete, timely
information. Other improvements--such as addressing Amtrak's tenuous
financial condition and changing the federal oversight role for large-
dollar highway projects--will require congressional action.
The Coast Guard had not thoroughly addressed planning issues for
its 20-year, $9.8 billion project to replace or modernize many of its
deepwater ships and aircraft. We found that the Coast Guard had not
adequately addressed this project's justification and affordability,
and we recommended that DOT and the Coast Guard take several steps to
improve their planning processes. The Coast Guard has begun
implementing our recommendations, but it has not resolved issues
concerning the project's affordability.
DOT's lack of accountability for its financial activities impairs
its ability to manage programs and exposes the Department to potential
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Over the years, the Inspector
General has been unable to express an audit opinion on the reliability
of the financial statements of the Department and some of its agencies.
DOT faces considerable challenges in achieving an unqualified audit
opinion on its fiscal year 1999 financial statements due to the
numerous problems that need to be addressed, and the serious financial
management weaknesses at FAA have contributed to these problems.
Consequently, this year we designated financial management at FAA as a
high-risk area.
aviation challenges
Over the past 17 years, FAA's multibillion-dollar air traffic
control modernization program has experienced cost overruns, schedule
delays, and performance shortfalls of large proportions. The Congress
appropriated over $25 billion for the program through fiscal year 1998,
and FAA estimates that the program will need an additional $17 billion
for fiscal years 1999 through 2004. Because of its size, complexity,
cost, and problem-plagued past, we have designated this program as a
high-risk information technology initiative since 1995. Among other
things, FAA needs to adopt disciplined acquisition processes and change
its organizational culture so that employees become strongly committed
to mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability.
Although FAA has initiated activities to address many of our concerns,
such as improving its software acquisition capabilities, none are
completed. Additionally, we recently reported that FAA is not
effectively managing information security for future air traffic
control modernization systems and we made several recommendations. For
example, we recommended that FAA ensure that specifications for all new
air traffic control systems include security requirements based on
detailed assessments.
FAA also faces considerable challenges in making its computer
systems ready for the year 2000. In August 1998, we testified that FAA
was unlikely to complete all critical tests of its computer systems in
time and that unresolved risks--including those associated with data
exchanges, international coordination, reliance on the
telecommunications infrastructure, and business continuity and
contingency planning--threatened aviation operations. The implications
of FAA's not meeting the Year 2000 deadline are enormous and could
affect hundreds of thousands of people through customer inconvenience,
increased airline costs, grounded or delayed flights, or degraded
levels of safety. FAA is making progress in addressing the Year 2000
computing problem. Earlier this month, DOT reported that FAA validated
74 percent of its mission critical systems undergoing repair, up from
20 percent in November 1998. However, much remains to be done to
complete validating and implementing the repairs and the replacements
of FAA's mission critical systems. As of January 31, 1999, FAA had
implemented only about 15 percent of its mission critical systems
undergoing repair. In addition, airports and airlines depend on
computer technology and, thus, will face Year 2000 risks. We reviewed
the status of airports' preparations for the year 2000 and found that
nearly one-third of the more than 330 airports that responded to our
survey did not report that they would meet the June 1999 date
recommended by FAA to complete preparations for the year 2000 and that
they did not have contingency plans for Year 2000-induced failures.
Because of the interdependence among airline flights and airport
facilities, equipment malfunctions related to the date change at one
airport could decrease efficiency and cause delays at other airports
and eventually impede the flow of air traffic throughout the nation,
especially if those delays occur at airports that serve as hubs.
DOT and the Congress face a challenge in reaching agreement on the
amount and the source of long-term financing for FAA and the nation's
airports. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission recommended
that the Congress fund FAA through a combination of cost-based user
charges, fuel taxes, and general fund revenues. The administration's
proposal to authorize FAA for fiscal years 1999 through 2004 would fund
the agency through user charges--in the form of excise taxes or new
cost-based charges--and would shift funding away from the general fund.
But any cost-based system depends on accurate and reliable data, which
FAA presently lacks. FAA will need to continue its efforts to fully
implement its cost accounting system so that it can use reliable and
accurate data to improve its management and performance and establish
user fees as mandated by the Congress. In addition, continued funding
for airports will be critical to ensuring adequate capacity for the
nation's airport system. From 1997 through 2001, planned development at
airports might require as much as $10 billion per year nationwide
compared to about $7 billion in funding at historical levels. Several
proposals to increase airports' funding have emerged in recent years,
including increasing the amount of funding from FAA, but some of them
are controversial. In addition, FAA's prior efforts to address airport
funding needs--such as pilot programs to use grants in more innovative
ways--might provide additional flexibility, especially if changes are
made to expand the number of projects and reduce some restrictions.
We have identified numerous shortcomings in FAA's safety and
security programs. These include the need for the agency to improve its
oversight of the aviation industry, record complete information on
inspections and enforcement actions, provide consistent information and
adequate training for users of weather information, and resolve data
protection issues to enhance the proactive use of recorded flight data
to prevent accidents. While FAA is taking some steps to address these
shortcomings, including totally revamping its inspection program,
resolving the problems will take considerable time and effort. In
addition, while progress has been made in strengthening airport
security, it will take years for FAA and the aviation industry to fully
implement current initiatives.
A final aviation challenge is the lack of airline competition in
some communities. Although DOT and others generally consider airline
deregulation to be a success, contributing to better service and lower
fares for most travelers, not all communities have benefited. In a
number of small and medium-sized communities, a lack of airline
competition contributes to higher fares and/or poorer service.
Operating barriers--such as long-term, exclusive-use gate leases and
``slot'' controls that limit the number of takeoffs and landings at
certain congested airports--contribute to higher fares and service
problems by deterring new entrant airlines while fortifying established
airlines' dominance at key airports. Recently proposed alliances
between the nation's six largest airlines have raised additional
concerns about competition. DOT has attempted to address problems with
competition by such efforts as granting a limited number of additional
slots at two airports. Additional actions--some of which are
controversial--may be needed by the Congress, DOT, and the private
sector. In this regard, various bills have been introduced to address
competition issues and the administration has proposed legislation that
would eliminate slot restrictions at three of the four slot-controlled
airports.
highway, transit, and passenger rail challenges
Many large-dollar highway and transit projects, each costing
hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, have incurred cost
increases, experienced delays, and had difficulties acquiring needed
financing. In fiscal year 1998, DOT's Federal Highway Administration
provided over $21 billion to assist the states in building and
repairing highways and bridges. We have identified several options to
help improve the management of these projects, particularly those
involving large amounts of dollars, depending on the oversight role
that the Congress chooses for the federal government. For example, one
option would be to establish performance goals and strategies for
controlling costs as large-dollar projects move through the design and
construction phases.
FTA has improved its oversight of federal transit grants, but
shortcomings exist in its follow-up on noncompliance. Our prior work
indicated that, frequently, some grantees did not meet FTA's time
frames for corrective actions and that FTA had allowed compliance
deadlines to be revised, which enabled grantees to delay corrective
actions. Also, FTA did not have complete, timely information to help
ensure the correction of deficiencies found during its oversight
reviews of grants. The agency has implemented a new tracking system,
but we have not reviewed it to determine if it addresses our concerns.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) financial
condition remains tenuous. Despite efforts to control expenses and
increase revenues, Amtrak's financial condition has deteriorated in
recent years. Since it began operations in 1971, Amtrak has received
nearly $22 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital
expenses, and it is likely to remain heavily dependent on federal
assistance well into the future. Amtrak loses about $2 for every dollar
it earns in revenues from its train service, and only one of Amtrak's
40 routes covers its costs. The business decisions that Amtrak makes
regarding the structure of its route system will play a crucial role in
determining its long-term viability. Because there is no clear public
policy that defines the role of passenger rail in the national
transportation system and because Amtrak is likely to remain dependent
on federal assistance, the Congress needs to decide on the nation's
expectations for intercity rail and the scope of Amtrak's mission in
providing that service.
coast guard challenges
The Coast Guard did not thoroughly address planning issues for its
20-year, $9.8 billion Deepwater Capability Replacement Project to
replace or modernize many of its ships and aircraft. This effort, which
is potentially the largest acquisition project in the agency's history,
is still in its early stages. We found that the Coast Guard did not
adequately address the project's justification and affordability. In
fact, the remaining useful life of its aircraft--and perhaps ships--may
be much longer than the agency originally estimated. We recommended
that DOT and the Coast Guard take several steps to improve their
planning processes, such as expediting the development and the issuance
of updated information on the remaining service life of the agency's
aircraft and ships and revising acquisition guidelines so that future
projects are based on more accurate and complete data. The Coast Guard
has begun implementing our recommendations, but has not resolved issues
concerning the project's affordability.
departmentwide challenge
DOT's lack of accountability for its financial activities impairs
its ability to efficiently and effectively manage programs and exposes
the Department to potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
Since 1993, when the Office of Inspector General began auditing the
financial statements of certain agencies within the Department, it has
been unable to determine whether the reported financial results are
correct and has thus been unable to express an audit opinion on the
reliability of these statements. The Inspector General also has been
unable to express an opinion on the reliability of the departmentwide
statements since these statements were first audited in fiscal year
1996. A key issue affecting the ability to express an opinion on these
financial statements has been DOT's inability to reliably determine the
quantities, the locations, and the values of property, plant, and
equipment and inventory, reported at $28.5 billion as of September 30,
1997. Serious financial management weaknesses at FAA have contributed
to this situation. Consequently, we have designated financial
management at FAA as a high-risk area. In addition, as we previously
mentioned, DOT lacks a cost-accounting system or an alternative means
to reliably accumulate and report the full cost of specific projects
and activities. Due to the deficiencies in its financial
accountability, it is unlikely that DOT can accurately determine costs
and meaningfully link them to performance measures. On September 30,
1998, DOT submitted a plan to the Office of Management and Budget for
resolving the financial management deficiencies that had been
identified in its financial statement audits. However, the Department
faces significant challenges in achieving its goal of receiving an
unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 1999 financial statements
due to the numerous problems that need to be addressed.
In summary, many challenges we identified are long-standing and
will require sustained attention by DOT and the Congress. While DOT has
initiatives underway to address the shortcomings in some of its
programs, these activities are only in the early stages of
implementation. It will take time to fully address the issues we and
others have identified and to assess whether the Department has fully
resolved them. Furthermore, congressional actions will also be required
to address certain challenges facing the Department. Finally,
congressional oversight, such as provided by this hearing, will help
ensure the effective resolution of these challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. I will be glad to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
make two points on a personal note to the committee. I hope
this does not eat into my time too much.
First of all, just to echo what Chairman Stevens said, it
is very healthy from time to time for the Inspector General and
the GAO to pause and reflect on what the key issues are facing
the Department. I want to say I found this exercise quite
useful inside DOT. The Secretary was very responsive and
Department officials listen when they know the Congress is
paying attention. That really helps.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute Senator
Lautenberg for all your support and contributions to
transportation safety over the years. We have been through a
lot of hearings together, and some of these issues, as you
said----
Senator Lautenberg. We have heard before. [Laughter.]
Mr. Mead. There is some vintage behind them.
The chart lists these top 10 issues, at least as we see
them. They are very similar to GAO's. I will just hit the
highlights as I go down through them.
dot's top 10 management issues
First, aviation safety. It was a very good year for U.S.
commercial aviation--no fatal accidents. To continue that
record, FAA must have a proactive approach to preventing
accidents. There are numerous targets of opportunity.
Reducing runway incursions is one of them. Runway
incursions are when aircraft are at risk of colliding with an
object on the ground, such as another aircraft. Runway
incursions, Mr. Chairman, have been steadily increasing since
1993, substantially so. There were about 300 of them across the
country in 1998.
Second, surface safety. Highway accidents claim more than
40,000 lives annually. Of those, more than 5,000 involve large
trucks. This is an area where improvement is truly and urgently
needed. A small portion of the industry puts profit first and
safety second. DOT can do a better job in getting the problem
companies to change their behavior or get them off the road.
Third, the year-2000 computer problem. DOT got a late start
in this area. I think that is very well-known by now. However,
we have got a much higher confidence level than we did a year
ago that DOT will complete the job with its own systems. A
great deal of work remains, especially for FAA, which over the
next several months must ensure that the repairs it has made to
all its computers are now fielded in the various installations
around the United States. Outside of DOT, both the U.S.
transportation industry and foreign transportation systems--
specifically foreign air traffic control deserve very close
watching.
Fourth, air traffic control modernization. The record here
for developing and installing new equipment has not been good.
Recently there have been some successes, such as the
commissioning of new controller displays at the en-route
centers, and replacement of the HOST computer, which is also
going reasonably well. Both those, though, are not software-
intensive acquisitions. Two other air traffic systems--you will
hear them referred to as STARS and WAAS--do involve intensive
software and development. Both have experienced significant
cost and schedule problems. The STARS system, to upgrade
displays, software and computers in terminals, experienced
substantial human factor problems late in the acquisition.
Fifth, FAA financing. We know Congress will be considering
how best to finance FAA. Its budget has increased nearly 70
percent since 1988. But a stable and agreed-upon means of
financing FAA is only part of the equation. A watchword here
must also be cost control. A large part of the increase in
FAA's requirements is due to the rising cost of its work force,
a cost which now comprises 57 percent of the FAA budget. These
rising costs have already begun to crowd out what would
otherwise be available for other critical functions.
Sixth, infrastructure. As you know, with TEA-21, we are
infusing billions of dollars into surface transportation
infrastructure. The watchword here must be: Be on the alert for
fraud, waste, and abuse. There's a lot of money going into
infrastructure programs. Look back in history to the Eisenhower
administration and see what happened when we infused a lot of
money into the interstate system. We want to be vigilant not to
let that occur again.
Also, discretionary money ought to be going to the high-
priority projects.
And at airports, we need to be vigilant to guard against
revenue diversion, especially if Congress is going to increase
the passenger facility charge.
Seventh, security. We are making a significant investment
in new airport and aviation security procedures and new
explosives detection equipment. All these different systems
need to work together. Explosives detection equipment is being
deployed in the field, and a considerable amount has been
deployed in just the last 12 months. Time will be required to
make sure usage of these machines is effective and optimal,
that consistent protocols are followed for usage of those
machines, and that everybody does the same thing when the
machines detect a suspect substance.
Eight, financial statements. Now, this may seem like a
fairly dry subject, financial statements, but most corporations
have them and they usually get a clean opinion or they hear
from their stockholders. DOT has made several major
improvements in this area over the last several years, but for
the Department to get an unqualified or clean opinion on its
financial statements, both FAA and the Coast Guard must account
for property and equipment totaling about $20 billion. Now, the
credibility of a cost accounting system for FAA and any user
fees is going to depend on FAA getting a clean opinion on its
financial statements.
Ninth, Amtrak's financial outlook. Amtrak has some very
promising opportunities in the next few years with which to
improve its financial outlook. Mail and express package service
and high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor could prove to be
very significant revenue sources. But there is still some very
red ink. In fiscal year 1998, Amtrak lost more than $800
million. Now, that was less than projected, but it still was
the second largest loss in the past 10 years.
Finally, the Government Performance and Results Act. I
think you know DOT's strategic plan and its performance plan
were rated among the very best in Government. The challenge for
us all now is meeting or exceeding the many quantitative goals
set forth in that plan. Safety and efficiency are among them.
The first report card will be submitted to the Congress in
March 2000.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I will defer to
my fine colleague here, Mr. Basso.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kenneth M. Mead
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the major management issues
facing the Department of Transportation.
We recently prepared a report on the 10 top-priority management
issues at the request of the House Majority Leader and the Chairman of
the House Committee on Government Reform. We grouped these issues into
the following areas:
1. Aviation Safety
2. Surface Transportation Safety
3. Year-2000 Computer Issues
4. Air Traffic Control Modernization
5. FAA Financing
6. Surface, Marine, and Airport Infrastructure Needs
7. Transportation and Computer Security
8. Financial Accounting as Related to the Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act
9. Amtrak Financial Viability/Modernization
10. DOT Implementation of the Government Performance and Results
(GPRA) Act
In addition to the 10 management issues presented, aviation
competition is a policy area we believe will become an increasingly
important policy matter during the next year for the Department, the
Congress, and the aviation community. Key departmental activities
affecting aviation competition include capacity-building at the
nation's airports, the Department's proposed guidelines on unfair
competitive practices, measures to ensure and increase competition at
hub airports, and the cost and quality of service at small- and medium-
size airports.
Secretary Slater has set the tone for DOT to be visionary and
vigilant in all aspects of transportation. As a result, DOT can proudly
point to a number of successes to which it contributed this past year.
For example, there have been no fatalities in U.S. commercial aviation,
investment in surface infrastructure has been funded to record levels,
and DOT's Strategic Plan was rated the best in government. A few weeks
ago, the Coast Guard seized nearly 5 tons of cocaine with a street
value of about $350 million--one of the largest cocaine seizures ever
recorded. These successes deserve recognition, but more needs to be
done to ensure that the American transportation system remains safe and
efficient.
It is also important to recognize the linkage between the
management issues we identified and the goals established by DOT.
Indeed, DOT's ability to achieve its goals depends greatly on how
effectively it addresses these key management issues.
To its credit, DOT's 5 Strategic Goals correlate with 7 of the 10
issues we identified and its Performance Plan outlines actions to
address those issues. The remaining 3 issues--the Year-2000 computer
problem, financial accounting and the Chief Financial Officers Act, and
DOT implementation of GPRA--are not explicitly included in DOT's
Strategic Goals. They are, however, addressed in DOT's Corporate
Management Strategies, which are a part of the 1999 Performance Plan.
We are working closely with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and
Operating Administrators to address these issues. We will continue to
monitor the issues and advise the Secretary and the Congress of the
Department's progress, problems, and recommended solutions.
The 10 top-priority management issues we identified are similar to
those identified by the General Accounting Office. They cover a vast
amount of subject matter and cannot be comprehensively addressed in one
statement or covered in a single hearing.
I will briefly discuss each of these issues today and identify
actions needed to effectively address them. The report we issued in
December discusses each issue and the conditions identified by our
audit and investigative work. It also references each issue to the
relevant goals in the Department's Strategic and Performance Plans.
aviation safety
Despite last year's exemplary record, DOT needs to continually
identify air transportation safety risks and proactively reduce those
risks. Aviation safety has been a focus area for our office for a long
time. Our major aviation-safety concerns today are:
Reducing runway incursions (i.e. situations when an aircraft is at
risk of colliding with another object on the runway), which are
increasing.
--Effectively implementing FAA's new inspection process and providing
training to the inspector workforce.
--Ensuring that safety risks are called to the attention of top FAA
management and acted on promptly.
--Evaluating the safety implications of U.S. air carrier code-share
agreements and international alliances that involve foreign air
carriers and--if necessary--modifying approaches to oversight
and code-share approval.
Industry and government leaders recognize that if the runway
incursion rate is not reduced, and air traffic increases as projected,
there will be an increase in the number of accidents. This is
unacceptable. FAA has recognized this risk, adopted a focused safety
agenda, and taken some important preventive steps such as the Safe
Skies program aimed at critical safety problems. FAA must now make sure
that the actions it identified in the agenda are implemented.
The number of runway incursions increased by 70 percent between
1993 and 1997 from 186 to 318. Because of this trend, and the
devastating consequences of a collision on the ground, preventing
runway incursions is one of FAA's safety goals. Our work shows that FAA
has a good plan to reduce runway incursions. However, runway incursions
continued to rise in 1998 and remain a significant problem. The key for
FAA to reduce runway incursions is to follow through on implementation
of the existing plan.
Another important area is the use of data to identify safety
problems and effectively deploy safety-inspection resources. FAA's
efforts to collect data from airlines, to improve its own data
collection, and to analyze the data and then act as soon as problems
are identified are essential for accident prevention. This program must
get off the ground this year.
FAA's strong oversight of the aviation industry is critical.
Recognizing past problems, FAA has begun to revise its safety-
monitoring process. While suspected unapproved parts continue to be a
problem, we have seen improvements in FAA's attitude and its oversight.
Equally important to aviation safety is how well DOT adapts to
industry change. During a 4-year period, code-share agreements between
U.S. and foreign carriers have more than doubled, to 163. The rapid
increase in the number of code-share agreements and the movement toward
global alliances may necessitate new approaches to safety oversight and
approval of code-share agreements. We are currently reviewing this
issue.
surface transportation safety
By far, the greatest number of transportation-related fatalities
involve motor vehicles. Highway accidents claim more than 40,000 lives
annually. Rail and transit account for an additional 850 lost lives. It
is critical that DOT address surface transportation safety issues, such
as:
--Improving the effectiveness of the Department's motor-carrier
safety program for vehicle maintenance, driver qualifications,
and compliance with hours-of-service requirements. This
includes taking prompt, tough enforcement action against
carriers that fail to comply with the rules after appropriate
warnings have been issued.
--Increasing the safety of commercial trucks and drivers entering the
U.S. from Mexico.
--Reducing grade-crossing and rail-trespassing accidents through
enforcement, education, and technology.
--Improving safety-regulation compliance by transporters of hazardous
materials.
--Increasing the effectiveness of the Federal Railroad
Administration's Safety Assurance Compliance Program, and
bringing enforcement into play when voluntary and collaborative
initiatives fall short.
Educating drivers, reducing risky behavior and using seat belts can
do more to reduce highway fatalities than anything else. DOT is
aggressively pursuing these actions.
However, truck-related accidents account for more than 5,000 deaths
annually or about 15 deaths every day. This is equivalent to a major
aviation accident every 2 weeks. Though the fatality rate involving
trucks has remained at about the same level, the number of deaths is
unacceptable. Strong action is needed to control truckers who disregard
public safety.
Most trucking firms follow the rules. But there is a segment of the
industry willing to cut corners to increase profits. They put others at
risk and give the rest of the industry a bad name by using unqualified
drivers, operating unsafe vehicles, and requiring drivers to work
without necessary rest. They are the ones who must be targeted for
stringent enforcement action--and given the choice of complying or
being removed from the nation's highways.
During the past 18 months, our investigations of such companies
have resulted in 33 indictments of truckers and/or companies. We have
an additional 30 investigative cases underway and expect to pursue many
more.
The FHWA Office of Motor Carriers' (OMC) ability to oversee the
trucking industry and its effectiveness in doing so has been
challenged. Recently we released results of an investigation into
allegations that senior OMC officials had initiated industry lobbying
to defeat legislation to transfer this office to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. We concluded there were violations of
specific rules and that, in this instance, there was evidence of an
improper relationship between senior officials at OMC and the trucking
industry they regulate. There was a distinct appearance that OMC senior
leadership did not have the ``arm's-length'' relationship needed
between government safety regulators and the industries they regulate.
At the request of House and Senate members, we are reviewing the
effectiveness of DOT's oversight of the motor-carrier industry. As part
of the review, we are examining organizational options and other steps
that can be taken to improve the effectiveness of this critical DOT
safety mission. We expect to complete our work in a few weeks.
Another motor-carrier safety issue is the ability of Federal and
state inspectors to make sure trucks entering the U.S. from Mexico meet
U.S. safety standards. Presently, only California does a good job
inspecting Mexican trucks. Because safety inspections have a deterrent
effect, the out-of-service rate for trucks entering California from
Mexico is 28 percent. By comparison, in states where inspections are
less-frequent or less-stringent, the out-of-service rates are much
higher: 37 percent in New Mexico, 42 percent in Arizona, and 50 percent
in Texas. The out-of-service rate for U.S. trucks is 26 percent, which
is still too high.
For years, DOT and the border states have pointed to each other
when asked who has the responsibility for inspecting trucks crossing
the border. It is time to end this debate and put the necessary
resources and processes in place to ensure that all trucks entering our
borders are safe.
year-2000 computer issues
After a slow start, the DOT, including FAA, has made a great deal
of progress addressing the Year-2000 (Y2K) computer issue. The
department is also making extensive efforts to increase Y2K awareness
in the transportation industry.
While much remains to be done on DOT's systems, we have a higher
confidence level than we did a year ago that DOT will complete the job.
We are not in a position to express the same level of confidence with
regard to foreign operators of transportation systems, such as foreign
air traffic control systems.
The major issues that DOT must still address are:
--Completing Y2K work on all missioncritical computer systems by
March 31, 1999.
--Testing all repaired systems to make sure they work as a unit and
as part of a network.
--Obtaining meaningful assurances that the transportation industry,
including aviation, transit and shipping, will be Y2K-
compliant.
--Ensuring that DOT computers properly link up with other public and
private computers, and that contingency plans are at the ready
if critical systems fail to operate after December 31, 1999.
As of December 31, 1998, 50 of FAA's and 3 of the U.S. Coast
Guard's mission-critical systems would not be tested and implemented by
Office of Management and Budget's milestone of March 31, 1999. As of
December 31, 1998, 280 of DOT's 291 missioncritical systems that had
Y2K problems were repaired.
air traffic control modernization
FAA has been trying to modernize its air traffic control system
since the early 1980s. The first comprehensive program, called the
Advanced Automation System or AAS, was a failure. It was canceled in
the early 1990s and wasted $1.5 billion.
Today, FAA's multi-billion dollar air traffic control modernization
effort remains a major challenge. FAA said Federal procurement and
personnel rules made it difficult to modernize its equipment. Congress
therefore exempted FAA from many rules that still apply to other
government agencies.
FAA has since proceeded with several major systems-development and
acquisition efforts. FAA has had some successes, such as the Display
System Replacement, and other systems such as the HOST computer are
doing reasonably well. Two systems, however--the Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System or STARS, and the Wide Area Augmentation
System, or WAAS--have already experienced significant cost increases
and schedule slippage. The cumulative cost over the life of these
systems exceeds $5 billion. Both systems require extensive software
development--a problem area for FAA, historically.
Human-factors issues--that is, the interface between the system and
air traffic controllers or maintenance technicians--were not adequately
considered before STARS was designed. Incorporating changes late in the
process will result in a system that will cost much more than planned
and be delivered much later than scheduled. In the case of WAAS, the
problems involve a critical software package that monitors, corrects,
and verifies the performance of the systems.
For both STARS and WAAS, critical decisions needed early in the
process were overlooked until late in development. Some of these
decisions have not been resolved. FAA must make sure problems like
these are not repeated in the development of future systems such as
Data Link, a critical component of Free Flight.
In our opinion, the FAA must:
--Reassess and rebaseline plans for the transition to satellite
communications, navigation, and surveillance, including ``Free
Flight.'' This issue includes determining whether the Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the WAAS will be the sole means of
navigation or if a secondary systems will be needed.
--Incorporate human factors in the design and development of new ATC
systems such as Data Link and the user-request evaluation tool,
in order to avoid the problems similar to those experienced by
STARS.
--Strengthen its capacity to oversee multi-billion dollar software-
intensive development contracts. These contracts have typically
resulted in large cost increases and major schedule slippage--
an issue that has affected the pace of air traffic
modernization for more than a decade. Strong oversight by the
Department and the OIG is critical to ensuring contractor
accountability and clear agency requirements.
federal aviation administration financing
Financing FAA is a major issue that the Department, the Congress,
and the aviation community will address this year. FAA faces
significant risks in meeting rising operations costs (principally
workforce costs). This presents a corollary problem that operating
costs could ``crowd out'' adequate funding levels for air traffic
control modernization, research and development, and airport grants.
During the past 10 years, FAA's annual operating requirements
almost doubled from $3 billion to nearly $6 billion, and the cost of
operations is expected to continue to rise. FAA's total budget is about
$10 billion. The recent increase in pay for air traffic controllers
could require as much as $1 billion in additional funding over the next
5 years. Also, cost increases in air traffic control modernization
initiatives, such as WAAS and STARS, constrain spending in other
legitimate need areas, such as technologies that hold promise for
reducing runway incursions.
Even with increased funding from the Aviation Trust Fund, receipts
may fall substantially short of even the most conservative estimates of
FAA needs by 2002. Therefore, some funding source--the General Fund of
the Treasury, user fees, or higher ticket taxes--will have to be
considered to cover additional costs. The General Fund, of course, is
already used to cover approximately 30 percent of FAA costs, or an
average of $2.7 billion per year.
However, there are limits on revenues that can or should be
assessed, regardless of whether they are called ticket taxes, user
fees, segment fees, or passenger facility charges (PFC). On a round-
trip $100 ticket, ticket taxes, PFCs, and segment fees currently amount
to 18 percent of the base ticket cost. That is why the FAA, like other
public or private sector organizations, must show discipline in
controlling costs, particularly for operations and air traffic control
acquisitions. Cost-control should be just as important in the current
debate as the matter of how best to finance FAA.
FAA plans to try to free up funding by controlling costs,
increasing productivity and more tightly managing its budget. However,
FAA will not be able to credibly say whether any of these things are
happening until it has an effective cost-accounting system in place.
Such a system will improve FAA management, regardless of the policy
decision on user fees. Further, FAA cannot implement a credible and
reliable cost-accounting system until it first ensures its financial
systems accurately capture and allocate cost data and it obtains an
unqualified opinion on its financial statements. As we have reported to
the Congress, the Secretary, and the FAA Administrator, FAA's
financial-management systems do not currently capture this data and,
until they do, FAA cannot receive an unqualified opinion. It is
critical that FAA put its financial affairs in order.
surface, marine, and airport infrastructure needs
Replacement of transportation infrastructure and construction of
projects is crucial to U.S. economic viability and quality of life. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides $198
billion over a 6-year period to improve safety and to maintain and
improve America's highways, bridges, and mass-transit systems. It is
imperative that these funds, as well as Airport Improvement Funds, be
used effectively and efficiently.
Since October 1997, we have issued 5 audit reports covering
selected major highway and transit infrastructure projects priced at $1
billion or more (Megaprojects), including the Central Artery project in
Boston; Metrorail in Washington, DC; the Cypress Freeway Project in
Oakland, California; the Red Line in Los Angeles; and Interstate 15 in
Utah. The audits focused on current costs, work completed, the accuracy
of supporting data, and the potential financial and schedule risks for
each Megaproject. These as well as other reviews of DOT programs and
projects have shown that:
--Discretionary funds were frequently not awarded to projects
identified as the highest priority (59 percent of the FHWA
awards and 15 percent of the FAA awards) nor was there an
explanation or documentation for the rationale for these
decisions. DOT has agreed to take appropriate corrective
action.
--A proactive investigation process is needed to deter unscrupulous
contractors. For example, earlier this month, as a result of an
OIG and FBI investigation, an Illinois contractor pleaded
guilty and agreed to pay a $12 million fine for submitting
false weight tickets for highway construction projects and
underpaying work benefits.
--Airport sponsors continue to improperly divert funds from the
airports and legislated controls to stop the practice have not
been implemented. More than 4 years after Congress established
the requirements that FAA issue/establish policies and
procedures on permitted and prohibited airport revenue use, FAA
has not finalized them. Until FAA takes effective action to
eliminate revenue diversions, it will be difficult to justify
additional PFCs.
In order to effectively and efficiently invest in infrastructure,
we recommend:
--Strengthening internal controls to ensure adequate management and
oversight.
--Developing sound financial plans for high-cost projects before the
work begins, including funding sources and full disclosure of
interest costs.
--Promoting the use of cost-saving techniques such as value
engineering, design-build procurements, and owner-controlled
insurance programs. (A recent report by DOT showed that value
engineering saved more than $750 million in construction costs
for fiscal year 1998).
--Selecting high priority projects for discretionary grants, awarded
according to established criteria and explaining in writing any
deviations.
--Eliminating the prohibited diversion of airport revenues by airport
sponsors.
transportation and computer security
In a society that thrives on unimpeded mobility, protecting the
public from terrorism is very difficult. The nation's airports have
security processes specified by FAA. However, access to transit, buses,
railroads, bridges and other infrastructures is largely uncontrolled.
At airports, where security processes have been established,
compliance is a well-known problem. Our recent work has shown that
improvements are needed in passenger screening, baggage and cargo
screening, access to aircraft operating areas, preventing the
transportation of hazardous materials on passenger aircraft and
effective use of costly explosives-detection equipment.
Likewise, vital computer systems are at risk because networks do
not have adequate security built in and access monitoring has been
minimal. In May 1998, Presidential Decision Directives 62 and 63 were
issued. These require Federal agencies to take a more systematic
approach to fighting terrorism and securing initial information systems
within 2 years.
Extensive work will be needed to enhance aviation and computer
security. That work must include:
--Enhancing the use of new technologies such as explosives-detection
equipment.
--Improving compliance with shipping requirements related to cargo
safety and security.
--Developing technical capabilities to detect intrusions into DOT and
FAA computer networks and acting to reduce vulnerability.
financial accounting/chief financial officers act
DOT has made major improvements in its accounting system since
Congress enacted the CFO Act. Despite these improvements, neither FAA
nor the Department as a whole has earned an unqualified audit opinion
on its financial statements. The primary problem now is real and
personal property accounts. Like DOD and other departments that have
large amounts of property, assigning value and adequately supporting
the amount recorded continues to be a problem--particularly for FAA and
the Coast Guard, with combined balances of $20.6 billion. As previously
noted, FAA must have an unqualified opinion on its financial statements
before it can have a credible and defensible cost-accounting system
that will support a fee structure.
We are closely working with the Chief Financial Officer as well as
with FAA and Coast Guard officials to meet the President's goal for an
unqualified opinion in fiscal year 1999. This will be a major challenge
for DOT. To meet the challenge:
--FAA needs to account for, and value, property and equipment
accounts totaling about $12 billion and manage its multi-
billion-dollar ``work-in-process'' accounts for air traffic
control modernization.
--The Coast Guard must arrive at a reliable estimate of its future
liability for military retirement pay and health-care costs,
and account for and value its property and equipment.
--The Treasury Department must develop adequate support for trust
fund revenues and account balances totaling $28 billion.
amtrak financial viability/modernization
Amtrak managers have characterized fiscal year 1998 as a good year
for the railroad. This should be placed in context. Amtrak's loss of
more than $800 million was less than had been projected but was the
second-largest in the past 10 years.
Congress has mandated that Amtrak no longer receive a Federal
subsidy to pay operating costs after 2002. Based on our assessment of
Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan, achieving that goal will
present a significant challenge. We concluded that portions of the plan
are at risk, and that if the plan were followed without modification,
Amtrak's cash loss over the period fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2003
would be $800 million higher than forecast in the plan, $2.9 billion
rather than $2.1 billion. A significant portion of this restatement
reflects our belief that revenue from high-speed rail will fall short
of Amtrak's projections, especially in the early years. Amtrak is
relying heavily on increased revenues from high-speed rail service in
the Northeast corridor to improve its bottom line. Reducing the
operating loss is critical because every dollar Amtrak uses to cover
its operating loss is a dollar that could be spent on needed capital
improvements.
We estimated that Amtrak's capital needs range from $2.7 billion to
$4.7 billion for the period fiscal year 1999 through 2003. We project a
funding shortfall of $500 million for Amtrak to meet even its minimum
capital needs. We do not believe this minimum level is adequate if
Amtrak is to remain viable.
The new Amtrak Reform Board is aware of our concerns and is
developing and implementing plans to increase revenue and reduce cost.
The Congressionally established Amtrak Reform Council is also working
on this issue. We will continue to work with both groups. As mandated
by Congress, we are updating our independent assessment by examining
Amtrak's 1999 Strategic Business Plan and will provide a report this
spring.
dot implementation of gpra
DOT's first steps to implement GPRA have been very successful. Its
strategic plan and the performance plan were rated by Congress to be
among the best in government. These were only first steps, however, and
DOT cannot rest on its accomplishments.
The difficult job of collecting accurate outcome data, measuring
success or lack of sufficient progress, and making programmatic changes
remains.
DOT's ability to measure performance is dependent on data that must
be obtained from outside sources. Furthermore, actions of third parties
have a significant impact on the outcomes DOT is trying to achieve. For
example, without strong enforcement of seat-belt laws by the states,
DOT's goals for reducing highway fatalities may not be achieved. Fiscal
year 1999 is critical because the first GPRA report must be submitted
to Congress on March 31, 2000.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
General Accounting Office Report
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation
(Letter Report, 01/01/99, GAO/OCG-99-13).
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
This report addresses the major performance and management
challenges that have limited the effectiveness of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) in carrying out its missions. It also addresses
corrective actions that DOT has taken or initiated on some of these
challenges and further actions that are needed. For many years, we and
others have documented challenges for the performance and management of
the Department that encompass major program areas--in acquisition
management, Year 2000 compliance, and safety and security programs in
the aviation area; acquisition management by the Coast Guard; the
oversight of large-dollar highway and transit projects; and
departmentwide financial management. In addition, we have documented
unique challenges facing airline competition and Amtrak's financial
viability.
Many of the challenges we identified are long-standing and will
require sustained attention by DOT and the Congress. While DOT has
efforts under way to address issues in some of its programs, these
activities are in the early stages of implementation. It will take time
to fully address the issues we and others have identified and to assess
whether the Department has resolved them. We have designated as high
risk two major challenges facing DOT--significant cost overruns,
schedule delays and performance shortfalls experienced by the
multibillion-dollar air traffic control modernization program and
serious financial management weaknesses at the Federal Aviation
Administration.
This report is part of a special series entitled the Performance
and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges and Program
Risks. The series contains separate reports on 20 agencies--one on each
of the cabinet departments and on most major independent agencies as
well as the U.S. Postal Service. The series also includes a
governmentwide report that draws from the agency-specific reports to
identify the performance and management challenges requiring attention
across the federal government. As a companion volume to this series,
GAO is issuing an update to those government operations and programs
that its work has identified as ``high risk'' because of their greater
vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. High-risk
government operations are also identified and discussed in detail in
the appropriate performance and accountability series agency reports.
The performance and accountability series was done at the request
of the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Dick Armey; the
Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Dan Burton; the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich; the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Fred Thompson; the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici; and Senator
Larry Craig. The series was subsequently cosponsored by the Ranking
Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee, Henry A.
Waxman; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, House Government Reform
Committee, Dennis J. Kucinich; Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; and Senator
Carl Levin.
Copies of this report series are being sent to the President, the
congressional leadership, all other Members of the Congress, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of
Transportation, and the heads of other major departments and agencies.
David M. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States.
overview
With a budget of $48 billion in fiscal year 1999, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) faces critical challenges as it attempts to ensure
the safe and efficient movement of people and the cost-effective
investment of resources in the nation's transportation infrastructure,
including its highways and transit systems, airports, airways, ports,
and waterways. While DOT has had many successes in improving the
nation's transportation systems, it has also experienced problems that
have impeded its ability to achieve these objectives. We, DOT's
Inspector General, and the Department itself have documented these
problems and recommended solutions. Although some actions have been
taken to address these recommendations, major performance and
management challenges remain.
the challenges
Acquisition of major aviation and Coast Guard systems lacks adequate
management and planning
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) and the U.S. Coast
Guard's major acquisition programs continue to face significant
challenges that require management attention. Over the past 17 years,
FAA's multibillion-dollar air traffic control modernization program has
experienced cost overruns, delays, and performance shortfalls of large
proportions. The Congress has appropriated over $25 billion for the
program through fiscal year 1998, and FAA estimates that the program
will need an additional $17 billion for fiscal years 1999 through 2004.
Because of its size, complexity, cost, and problem-plagued past, we
have designated this program as a high-risk information technology
initiative since 1995. The Coast Guard is planning potentially the
largest acquisition project in its history, a 20-year, $9.8 billion
project to replace or modernize many of its ships and aircraft.
However, we found that the Coast Guard needs to more thoroughly address
the project's justification and affordability. For example, the
remaining useful life of the aircraft--and perhaps the ships--may be
much longer than the agency originally estimated. We recommended that
DOT and the Coast Guard take several steps to improve their planning
process, such as revising acquisition guidelines so future projects are
based on accurate and complete data.
Serious challenges remain in resolving FAA'S year 2000 risks
FAA faces considerable challenges in making its computer systems
ready for the year 2000. In August 1998, we testified that FAA was
unlikely to complete all critical tests in time and that unresolved
risks--including those associated with data exchanges, international
coordination, reliance on the telecommunications infrastructure, and
business continuity planning--threatened aviation operations. The
implications of FAA's not meeting the Year 2000 deadline are enormous
and could affect hundreds of thousands of people through customer's
inconvenience, increased airline costs, grounded or delayed flights, or
degraded levels of safety.
FAA and the nation's airports face funding uncertainties
DOT and the Congress face a challenge in reaching agreement on the
amount and source of long-term financing for FAA and the nation's
airports. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission recently
recommended that the Congress fund FAA through a combination of cost-
based user charges, fuel taxes, and general fund revenues. However, we
and others have noted that FAA lacks sufficiently detailed and reliable
cost data to accurately determine the agency's costs. In addition,
continued funding for airports will be critical to ensuring adequate
capacity for the national airport system. From 1997 through 2001,
planned development at airports might require as much as $10 billion
per year nationwide, which would need to be obtained from a variety of
public and private sources. Several proposals to increase airports'
funding have emerged in recent years, including increasing the amount
of funding from FAA, but many of them are controversial.
Aviation safety and security programs need strengthening
Over the years, we have identified numerous shortcomings in FAA's
safety and security programs. Shortcomings in FAA's safety programs
include the need for the agency to improve its oversight of the
aviation industry, record complete information on inspections and
enforcement actions, provide consistent information and adequate
training for users of weather information, and resolve data protection
issues to enhance the proactive use of recorded flight data to prevent
accidents. In addition, while progress has been made in strengthening
airport security, it will take years for FAA and the aviation industry
to fully implement current initiatives.
Lack of aviation competition contributes to high fares and poor service
for some communities
Although airline deregulation is generally considered to be a
success by DOT and others, contributing to better service and lower
fares for most travelers, not all communities have benefited from it.
In a number of small and medium-sized communities, a lack of aviation
competition contributes to higher fares and poorer service. Operating
barriers--such as exclusive-use gate leases and ``slot'' controls that
limit the number of takeoffs and landings at certain congested
airports--contribute to higher fares and service problems by deterring
new entrant airlines while fortifying established airlines' dominance
at key airports. Recently proposed alliances between the nation's six
largest airlines have raised additional concerns about competition.
DOT needs to continue improving oversight of surface transportation
projects
Many large-dollar highway and transit projects, each costing
hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, continue to incur cost
increases, experience delays, and have difficulties acquiring needed
financing. DOT's Federal Highway Administration provided over $21
billion in fiscal year 1998 to assist the states in building and
repairing highways and bridges. We have identified several options to
help improve the management of these projects, particularly those
involving large amounts of dollars, depending on the oversight role
that the Congress chooses for the federal government. DOT's Federal
Transit Administration (FTA)--with a budget of $4.8 billion in fiscal
year 1998--has improved its oversight of federal transit grants.
However, the agency needs complete, timely information to help ensure
the correction of deficiencies found during its oversight reviews.
Amtrak's financial condition is tenuous
Despite efforts to control expenses and increase revenues, the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) financial condition
has substantially deteriorated in recent years. Since it began
operations in 1971, Amtrak has received nearly $22 billion in federal
subsidies for operating and capital expenses, and it is likely to
remain heavily dependent on federal assistance well into the future.
Amtrak loses about $2 for every dollar it earns in revenues from its
train service, and only 1 of Amtrak's 40 routes covers its costs.
Amtrak's deteriorating financial condition has raised the possibility
of both bankruptcy and liquidation. The business decisions that Amtrak
makes regarding the structure of its route system will play a crucial
role in determining its long-term viability. While Amtrak has proposed
cutting routes to improve its overall financial performance, it has
encountered opposition because of the desire of local communities to
see their service continued. Because there is no clear public policy
that defines the role of passenger rail in the national transportation
system and because Amtrak is likely to remain dependent on federal
assistance, the Congress needs to decide on the nation's expectations
for intercity rail and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that
service.
DOT lacks accountability for its financial activities
DOT's lack of accountability for its financial activities impairs
its ability to efficiently and effectively manage programs and exposes
the Department to potential waste, fraud, mismanagement, and abuse.
Since 1993, when the Office of Inspector General began auditing the
financial statements of certain agencies within the Department, it has
been unable to determine whether the reported financial results are
correct and has thus been unable to express an opinion on the
reliability of these statements. The Inspector General also has been
unable to express an opinion on the reliability of the departmentwide
statements since these statements were audited beginning with fiscal
year 1996. A key issue affecting the ability to express an opinion on
these financial statements has been DOT's inability to reliably
determine the quantities, the locations, and the values of property,
plant, and equipment and inventory, reported at $28.5 billion as of
September 30, 1997. Serious financial management weaknesses at FAA
contribute to this situation. Consequently, we have designated
financial management at FAA as high-risk. In addition, DOT lacks a
cost-accounting system or an alternative means of reliably accumulating
and reporting the full cost of specific projects and activities. Due to
the effects of the property, plant, and equipment, inventory, and cost-
accounting deficiencies, it is unlikely that DOT can accurately
determine costs and meaningfully link costs to performance measures.
Progress and next steps
Many of the challenges facing DOT are not new to either the
Department or the Congress. Individual agencies within DOT have efforts
under way to address some of them, but more remains to be done. For
example, FAA has initiated activities to address many of our concerns
about its air traffic control modernization program, such as developing
a complete air traffic control systems architecture, but none are
completed. FAA is also taking steps to address its Year 2000
challenges, such as working with the International Civil Aviation
Organization on international issues, although much remains to be done.
We are continuing to review FAA's progress in these areas.
FAA will need to continue efforts to fully implement its cost-
accounting system so that it can use reliable and accurate data to
improve its management and performance and to establish user fees as
mandated by the Congress. While FAA is taking some steps to address
shortcomings with its aviation safety program, including totally
revamping its inspection program, eliminating the shortcomings will
take considerable time and effort. We are also reviewing FAA's efforts
in this area.
To improve FTA's oversight of transit grants, the agency needs to
complete implementation of a new information tracking system. This
system will enable headquarters officials to better oversee grantee's
performance. In addition, DOT has a plan for resolving the financial
management deficiencies that were identified in its financial statement
audits. However, the Department faces significant challenges in
achieving its goal of receiving an unqualified audit opinion on its
financial statements because of the numerous shortcomings that need to
be addressed. Although strategic and annual performance plans,
completed under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,
discuss several of the challenges we identified, these plans generally
provide insufficient details to address them.
Adequately addressing many of the challenges we identified will
require sustained attention by DOT and the Congress. For example, while
DOT has attempted to enhance airline competition by such efforts as
granting a limited number of additional slots at two airports, further
actions, some of which are controversial, may be needed by the
Congress, DOT, and the private sector. Finally, additional actions may
be needed by the Congress to address long-term financing for FAA, the
federal oversight role for large-dollar highway projects, and the
future of Amtrak.
major performance and management issues
With a budget of $48 billion in fiscal year 1999, DOT is
responsible for ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and
the cost-effective investment of resources in the nation's
transportation infrastructure, including its highways and transit
systems, airports, airways, ports, and waterways. DOT employs about
100,000 civilian and military people across the country, and its
programs are administered by 10 operating administrations and
bureaus.\1\ While DOT has had many successes in improving the nation's
transportation systems, it has also faced challenges that have impeded
its ability to achieve its objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOT's administrations and bureaus are FAA, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, FTA, the Maritime
Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the
Research and Special Programs Administration, the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, we, DOT's Inspector General, the Department itself,
and others have documented shortcomings with the performance and
management of the Department and unique challenges facing air and
passenger rail travel. This report summarizes our recent findings and
recommended solutions concerning acquisition management by FAA and the
Coast Guard, Year 2000 compliance by FAA, long-term funding for FAA and
the nation's airports, aviation safety and security, aviation
competition, oversight of surface transportation projects, Amtrak's
financial condition, and financial management issues. This report also
describes how DOT has addressed some of its weaknesses through plans
that it has developed in response to the Government Performance and
Results Act. In many cases, addressing the challenges we identified
will require a sustained effort by DOT, working with other federal,
state, and local stakeholders and the Congress.
The acquisition of major aviation and Coast Guard systems lacks
adequate management and planning
FAA and the U.S. Coast Guard are undertaking long-term, costly
programs to modernize and replace aging equipment. Our work has shown
that these agencies need to improve the management of these programs to
ensure that federal funds are effectively and efficiently used.
The inadequate management of air traffic control modernization has led
to many difficulties
Faced with rapidly growing volumes of air traffic and aging
equipment to control air traffic, in 1981 FAA initiated an ambitious
air traffic control modernization program. The cost of this effort--
which involves acquiring a vast network of radar and automated data-
processing, navigation, and communications equipment and air traffic
control facilities--is expected to total $42 billion through fiscal
year 2004. The Congress has appropriated over $25 billion of the $42
billion through fiscal year 1998, and FAA estimates that the program
will need an additional $17 billion for fiscal years 1999 through 2004.
Over the past 17 years, the modernization program has experienced cost
overruns, delays, and performance shortfalls of large proportions.
Because of its size, complexity, cost, and problem-plagued past, we
designated the air traffic control modernization program as a high-risk
information technology initiative in 1995. Many of the shortcomings we
reported then remain unresolved, and we continue to believe this
program remains at high risk.
Our work has identified some of the root causes of the
modernization program's problems and pinpointed solutions to address
them:
--The many systems in the modernization program have been developed
without the benefit of a complete systems architecture, or
overall blueprint, to guide the program. The result has been
unnecessarily higher spending to buy, integrate, and maintain
hardware and software. We recommended that FAA develop and
enforce a complete systems architecture and implement a
management structure that is similar to the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
--FAA lacks the reliable cost-estimating processes and cost-
accounting practices needed to effectively manage information
technology investments, leaving it at risk to make ill-informed
decisions on critical multimillion-, even billion-, dollar air
traffic control systems. We recommended that FAA
institutionalize defined processes for estimating the projects'
costs and develop and implement a managerial cost-accounting
capability.
--FAA's processes for acquiring software, the most costly and complex
component of air traffic control systems, are ad hoc, sometimes
chaotic, and not repeatable across projects. As a result, FAA
is at great risk of not delivering promised software
capabilities on time and within budget. Furthermore, FAA lacks
an effective approach to improve software acquisition
processes. We recommended that FAA improve its software
acquisition capabilities by institutionalizing mature
acquisition processes and reiterated our prior recommendation
that a CIO organizational structure be established.
--FAA's organizational culture has impaired the acquisition process.
Employees have acted in ways that did not reflect a strong
enough commitment to mission focus, accountability,
coordination, and adaptability. We recommended that FAA develop
a comprehensive strategy for addressing this issue.
FAA is responding to many of these recommendations. Specifically,
FAA has initiated activities to develop a complete air traffic control
systems architecture, to institutionalize defined cost-estimating
processes, to acquire a cost-accounting system, to improve its software
acquisition capabilities, and to improve its organizational culture.
Most recently, FAA has committed to hiring a CIO who would report
directly to FAA's Administrator, a structure similar to the provisions
of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. In addition, DOT's 1999 performance
plan, which was submitted to the Congress in February 1998, describes
FAA's actions to improve certain aspects of the air traffic control
modernization program, such as poor processes for estimating costs and
poor accounting practices. However, the plan does not include goals for
mitigating the risks associated with the modernization or measures for
determining progress towards these goals.
Moreover, in an effort to restructure the modernization program,
FAA--in consultation with the aviation community--is developing a
phased approach to modernization, including a new way of managing air
traffic known as ``free flight.'' Free flight would allow pilots more
flexibility in choosing routes for their aircraft than the present
system of highly structured rules and procedures for air traffic
operations. Free flight, which will be implemented in phases, is
expected to provide benefits to users and help improve aviation safety
and efficiency. The agency, however, faces many challenges in
implementing free flight in a cost-effective manner. The challenges for
FAA include (1) providing effective leadership and management of
modernization efforts, (2) developing plans in collaboration with the
aviation community that are sufficiently detailed to move forward with
the implementation of free flight, and (3) addressing outstanding
issues related to the development and deployment of technology.
While improvements have been initiated, FAA's efforts to address
our concerns are not yet completed, and several major systems
development projects continue to face challenges that could affect
their costs, schedules, and performance. For example, in March 1998 we
reported that the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System--
which entails replacing old computers, controller workstations, and
related equipment at about 170 of FAA's terminal air traffic control
facilities--is facing difficulties staying within its cost baseline.
Costs for the new air traffic controller workstations are increasing
because of such unexpected factors as the need for additional resources
to maintain the program's schedule and design changes that air traffic
controllers called for after reviewing the equipment. These unexpected
factors led FAA to reprogram $29 million in fiscal year 1998 funds for
the project. In addition, the project's baseline schedule called for
equipment to become operational at the first sites in December 1998.
Since that time, we have reported that FAA estimates that the project's
cost has the potential to increase from $294 million to $410 million
over the approved baseline and that the project's initial completion
could be delayed by almost 2\1/2\ years.
Additionally, we recently reported that FAA is not effectively
managing information security for future air traffic control
modernization systems. The agency does not consistently include well-
formulated security requirements in specifications for all new
modernization systems, as required by FAA policy. Furthermore, FAA does
not have a well-defined security architecture, a security concept of
operations, or security standards--all of which are needed to define
and help ensure adequate security throughout our nation's air traffic
control network. We recommended that FAA ensure that specifications for
all new air traffic control systems include security requirements based
on detailed security assessments and that the agency establish and
implement a security architecture, a security concept of operations,
and security standards. The agency has not yet officially responded to
our recommendations.
The Coast Guard needs to more thoroughly address acquisition-planning
issues
The U.S. Coast Guard is planning what is potentially the largest
acquisition project in its history. This effort, the Deepwater
Capability Replacement Project, involves replacing or modernizing many
of the Coast Guard's 92 ships and 209 airplanes and helicopters.
However, in October 1998, we reported that the Coast Guard needs to
more thoroughly address the project's justification and affordability.
The Coast Guard initially estimated that the project would cost $9.8
billion (in constant dollars) over a 20-year period. The project is
still in its early stages, but initial planning estimates call for
spending $300 million starting in fiscal year 2001 and $500 million
each year over the next 19 years.
Although the Coast Guard is correct in starting now to explore how
best to modernize or replace its deepwater ships and aircraft, the
Deepwater Project's only formal justification that was developed at the
time of our review did not accurately or fully depict the need for
replacement or modernization. In fact, the remaining useful life of the
Coast Guard's deepwater aircraft--and perhaps its ships--may be much
longer than the agency originally estimated. The Coast Guard withdrew
the justification on the basis of concerns expressed by the Office of
Management and Budget and is developing more accurate and updated
information. We recommended that DOT and the Coast Guard take several
steps to improve their planning processes, such as expediting the
development and the issuance of updated information on the remaining
service life of ships and aircraft and revising its acquisition
guidelines so that future projects are based on more accurate and
complete data. In addition, the agency could face major financial
obstacles in proceeding with a project that costs as much as initially
proposed. At an estimated $500 million a year, expenditures for the
project would take virtually all of the Coast Guard's anticipated
spending for capital projects. To align contractors' proposals more
realistically with the agency's budget and other capital needs, we
recommended that the Coast Guard evaluate whether contractors should
base their proposals on a funding level that may be lower than $500
million each year. While Coast Guard officials seemed receptive to our
recommendations, DOT has not officially responded to our report.
Key contacts
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems
Accounting and Information Management Division, (202) 512-6408,
willemssenj.aimd@gao.gov
Serious challenges remain in resolving FAA's year 2000 risks
To perform its mission, FAA depends on an extensive array of
information-processing and communications technologies. Without these
specialized computer systems, the agency could not effectively control
air traffic, target airlines for inspection, or provide up-to-date
weather information to pilots and air traffic controllers. For example,
each of FAA's 20 en route air traffic control facilities, which monitor
aircraft at the higher altitudes between airports, depends on about 50
interrelated computer systems to safely guide and direct aircraft. The
implications of FAA's not meeting the Year 2000 deadline are enormous
and could affect hundreds of thousands of people through customers'
inconvenience, increased airline costs, grounded or delayed flights, or
degraded levels of safety.
In early 1998, we reported that FAA was severely behind schedule in
implementing an effective Year 2000 program and warned that systems
that support critical operations--such as monitoring and controlling
air traffic--could fail to perform as needed unless proper date-related
calculations could be ensured. We made a series of recommendations
aimed at assisting FAA in completing critical Year 2000 activities,
including (1) completing an agencywide plan that provides the FAA Year
2000 program manager with the authority to enforce policy and that
outlines the agency's overall strategy and (2) completing inventories
and assessments of all systems and data interfaces. FAA agreed with
these recommendations and has made progress in implementing them. For
example, a Year 2000 program manager now reports directly to FAA's
Administrator and oversees a program plan with specific goals and
milestones.
More recently, however, we testified that FAA still faces serious
challenges in addressing its Year 2000 problem. Specifically, in August
1998, we testified that FAA was unlikely to complete critical testing
activities in time because its projections for completing testing and
implementation activities were based on very optimistic schedules and
because of the complexity of the agency's testing process. We also
reported that unresolved crosscutting risks--including risks associated
with data exchanges, international coordination, reliance on the
telecommunications infrastructure, and business continuity planning--
threatened aviation operations. FAA is taking steps to address these
issues. For example, FAA is working with the International Civil
Aviation Organization on international issues. We are continuing to
review FAA's progress in addressing these risks.
Key contact
Joel C. Willemssen, Director. Civil Agencies Information Systems
Accounting and Information Management Division, (202) 512-6408,
willemssenj.aimd@gao.gov
FAA and the nation's airports face funding uncertainties
DOT and the Congress face a challenge in reaching agreement on the
amount and source of long-term financing for FAA and the nation's
airports. At present, FAA's funding is made available by the Congress
from general fund and Airport and Airway Trust Fund appropriations,
which was established to finance FAA's investments in the airport and
airway system, including construction and safety improvements at
airports and technological upgrades to the air traffic control system.
The Trust Fund receives revenues from taxes on domestic and
international travel, domestic cargo transported by air, and
noncommercial aviation fuel. With the uncommitted balance in the Trust
Fund estimated to increase to over $40 billion by 2008, some have
advocated taking the fund off budget to allow FAA to spend all of the
revenues collected from aviation taxes. Despite several assessments
over the past 2 years, a consensus does not exist regarding how to meet
FAA's future funding needs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Federal Aviation Administration: Independent Financial
Assessment,'' Coopers & Lybrand (Feb. 28, 1997); ``Avoiding Aviation
Gridlock & Reducing the Accident Rate,'' National Civil Aviation Review
Commission (Dec. 1997); and ``Air Traffic Control: Issues in Allocating
Costs for Air Traffic Services to DOD and Other Users'' (GAO/RCED-97-
106, Apr. 25, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest proposal for funding FAA comes from the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission, which recommends that the Congress fund FAA
through a combination of cost-based user charges, fuel taxes, and
general fund revenues. In the past, we and others have noted that FAA
has lacked sufficiently detailed or reliable cost data. These concerns
are still relevant. The Commission's report acknowledges that reliable,
comprehensive cost-accounting data are needed to accurately determine
the agency's costs. FAA has begun implementing a cost-accounting
system, which will be a cornerstone for FAA's improving its efficiency.
Program officials had planned to begin collecting cost data for air
traffic services by October 1998, but complications associated with the
method used to allocate costs have delayed this milestone. FAA will
need to continue with efforts to fully implement its cost-accounting
system so that it can use reliable and accurate data to improve its
management and performance and to establish user fees, as mandated by
the Congress.
Continued funding for airports will also be critical to ensuring
adequate capacity for the national airport system and avoiding
congestion and delays. In April 1997, we reported that planned
development at airports might cost as much as $10 billion per year over
the next 5 years. Airports rely on a variety of public and private
funding sources to finance their capital development. In 1996, $1.4
billion in federal funding was made available for capital development
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Other major sources of funding
include airport and special facility bonds and passenger facility
charges paid on each airline ticket. The amount and type of funding
vary with each airport's size. While the need for funding at larger
airports may be considerable, these airports also have access to many
funding sources, particularly tax-exempt bonds. The more difficult
challenge may rest with meeting the funding needs of smaller airports.
Smaller airports confront a potential funding shortfall that, in
percentage terms, is far greater than for larger airports. Moreover,
these airports have the fewest funding options, relying on federal
grants for half of their funding. Maintaining the financial viability
of these smaller airports will require adequate funding from existing
federal and state grant programs as well as more innovative
applications of existing funding.
Several proposals to increase airport funding have emerged in
recent years. These include increasing the amount of funding for FAA's
Airport Improvement Program, raising or eliminating the ceiling on
passenger facility charges, and leveraging existing funding sources.
Many of these proposals are controversial and vary in the degree to
which they help specific types of airports. For example, increasing the
amount of funding for the Airport Improvement Program would help
smaller airports more, while raising passenger facility charges would
help larger airports more. In addition, airports and airlines have
disagreed on the need to increase the ceiling on passenger facility
charges above its current $3.00 level. Airport officials contend that
many needed projects are going unfunded, while airline representatives
dispute this, saying that airlines are willing to fund important
projects through airline assessments. To address the funding issue, FAA
has been testing several innovative funding approaches through a small
pilot program. However, we believe that this pilot program is likely to
yield only marginal benefits because of the limited participation by
airports.
Key contact
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
Aviation safety and security programs need strengthening
The aviation accident rate per mile traveled has remained low but
flat over the last 2 decades. Unless the accident rate is reduced,
however, as air travel continues to grow, the actual number of
accidents will increase. We have identified numerous weaknesses in
FAA's inspection, oversight, and enforcement activities. During the
last year, we have also noted shortcomings in other safety programs,
such as (1) the lack of consistent information or adequate training for
users of weather information and (2) unresolved data protection issues,
which impede the proactive use of flight data to prevent accidents.
While FAA is taking some steps to address the shortcomings in its
safety programs, eliminating those shortcomings will take considerable
time and effort. In addition, while progress is being made in
strengthening airport security, it will take several years to address
all problem areas, and FAA's weak computer security practices present
significant vulnerabilities to the air traffic control system.
Weaknesses in aviation safety programs need to be addressed
We have found substantial weaknesses in FAA's safety inspection,
oversight, and enforcement activities. FAA's aviation safety programs
provide for the initial certification, periodic surveillance, and
inspection of airlines, airports, repair stations, and other aviation
entities, as well as of pilots and mechanics. These inspections are
intended not only to detect actual violations but also to serve as part
of an early warning system for identifying potential systemwide
weaknesses.
Over the years, we have examined FAA's inspection program and
recommended improvements. In our most recent report, we pointed out
that work performed by aviation repair stations--the 2,800 facilities
that repair and maintain nearly half of all U.S. passenger and cargo
aircraft--was cited as a factor in several accidents. About 600 of
FAA's 3,000 inspectors are responsible for inspecting repair stations
to ensure that work conducted by these facilities is competently done.
FAA is meeting its goal of inspecting every repair station at least
once a year by relying primarily on reviews by individual inspectors.
However, when FAA uses teams rather than individual inspectors to
review facilities, the review is more effective, uncovering more
systemic and long-standing problems. Furthermore, we could not find
sufficient documentation to determine how well FAA followed up to
ensure that the deficiencies found during the inspections were
corrected.
To improve its oversight of repair stations, we recommended that
FAA expand the use of locally based teams to inspect them, particularly
those that are large, are complex, have higher rates of noncompliance,
or meet predetermined risk indicators. In addition, we recommended that
FAA specify what documentation should be kept on inspection results,
monitor efforts to improve the quality of data for its new management
information system, and expedite efforts to upgrade regulations
concerning the oversight of repair stations. FAA agreed with these
recommendations but has not indicated how or when they would be
implemented.
When FAA's inspectors identify violations, agencywide guidance
requires that they be investigated and appropriately addressed, and
program office guidance requires that they be reported. We found that
FAA's information on compliance in the aviation industry is incomplete
and of limited use in providing early warning of potential risks and in
targeting inspection resources to the greatest risks. Many inspectors
do not report all problems or violations they observe, and many
inspections are not thorough or structured enough to detect many
violations. In addition, FAA cannot readily set risk-based priorities
for resolving enforcement cases, in part, because its enforcement
database does not distinguish major from minor cases. Finally, the
impact of FAA's enforcement actions on compliance is difficult to
assess because the agency has not followed up on the aviation
industry's implementation of corrective actions.
We recommended several actions to improve the usefulness of FAA's
inspection and enforcement databases and the coordination of inspection
and enforcement efforts, including (1) revising FAA's order on
compliance and enforcement to specify that inspection staff are
required to report all observed problems and violations and (2)
providing guidance to inspectors on how to distinguish major from minor
violations and to legal staff on how to identify major legal cases. In
response to our recommendations and others' criticisms, FAA has
developed and begun to implement a fundamentally reengineered system--
the Air Transportation Oversight System--to oversee airline safety. We
are monitoring the program's implementation and will report on its
progress in the spring of 1999.
Poor weather conditions have been cited as a cause or a
contributing factor in nearly a quarter of the aviation accidents
during the last 10 years. Because of the significant impact of
hazardous weather on aviation safety and efficiency, improving the
weather information available to all users of the aviation system
should be one of FAA's top priorities. However, a panel of experts that
we convened concluded that FAA has done a poor job in addressing the
most significant concerns raised by previous reports by the National
Research Council and an FAA advisory committee. For example, the panel
concluded that FAA has not exercised leadership for aviation weather
services, partly because it has lacked a clear policy defining its role
in aviation weather activities and partly because of organizational
inefficiencies. The panel also concluded that providing consistent
weather information and training for users has remained a low priority
for FAA. The implementation plan FAA proposes to issue later this year
provides the agency with an opportunity to respond to these continuing
concerns with stronger evidence of its commitment to weather issues.
The analysis of aircraft data recorded during flight has played a
crucial role in determining the causes of crashes. Recently, however,
some airlines have begun to proactively analyze flight data from
uneventful airline flights to identify potential problems and correct
them before they lead to accidents. The early experiences of airlines
that have established such programs--called Flight Operational Quality
Assurance programs--attest to the ability of such programs to enhance
aviation safety. In December 1997, we reported that 4 U.S. airlines and
33 foreign airlines had implemented such programs. The primary factor
impeding further implementation is unresolved data protection issues.
Airline managers and pilots have raised concerns about the use of such
data by FAA for enforcement or disciplinary purposes and about
disclosure to the media and public. The Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act of 1996 directed the Administrator to issue
regulations protecting data collected under the programs from public
disclosure. As of November 1998, FAA had not issued a rulemaking to
implement policies on either enforcement or disclosure.
DOT's 1999 performance plan includes a goal to improve aviation
safety by reducing by 80 percent the number of fatal aviation accidents
per 100,000 departures by 2007. However, the plan needs baseline data
from which to measure the reduction.
Challenges remain in addressing aviation security issues
Over the last several years, the changing threat of terrorist
activities has heightened the need to improve domestic aviation
security. We and others have highlighted improvements needed to address
this threat. As a result, FAA is implementing recommendations made in
February 1997 by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security (the Gore Commission) and mandates contained in the Federal
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 to improve security
at airports. Expeditious implementation of the security initiatives by
FAA and the aviation industry is crucial to improving the security of
domestic aviation.
FAA has made some progress in five critical areas as recommended by
the Gore Commission and mandated by the Congress, but, given the
current implementation schedule, it will take years for FAA and the
aviation industry to fully implement all the initiatives. These five
areas, which we reported on in May 1998, are passenger profiling,
explosives detection technologies, passenger-bag matching,
vulnerability assessments, and the certification of screening companies
and the performance of security screeners. We reported that FAA had
encountered delays of up to 12 months in implementing these
initiatives, in part, because they are more complex than originally
envisioned and involve new and relatively untested technologies. Delays
have also been caused by limited funding and problems with equipment
installation and contractors' performance.
While progress has been made in strengthening aviation security,
completing the current initiatives will require additional financial
resources and a sustained commitment by the federal government and the
aviation industry. For example, current funding is sufficient to
provide only a limited percentage of the flying public at selected
airports with protection against concealed explosives in checked
baggage. Several years ago, FAA estimated that the cost of acquiring
and installing the certified systems at the nation's 75 busiest
airports could range from $400 million to $2.2 billion, depending on
the number and the cost of the machines installed.
Additional improvements in airport security will need sustained,
long-term efforts by FAA and the aviation industry. To maintain
momentum, it is important for the Congress to provide continual
oversight and to address funding issues. Starting with fiscal year
1998, FAA began including goals and specific performance measures for
its security program in its annual budget submissions. FAA also
incorporated goals and performance measures for airport security into
its 1998 strategic plan. By using these established goals and
performance measures, the Congress can better oversee FAA's progress in
improving airport security.
Securing our nation's airports alone does not ensure safe air
travel. It is also critical to secure FAA's air traffic control
computer systems that provide information to air traffic controllers
and aircraft flight crews to help ensure the safe and expeditious
movement of aircraft. A failure to adequately protect these systems, as
well as the facilities that house them, could cause a nationwide
disruption of air traffic or even the loss of life due to collisions.
We found that FAA is ineffective in all the critical areas included in
our computer security review of its air traffic control computer
systems.
In the area of physical security, known weaknesses exist at many
air traffic control facilities. For example, a March 1997 inspection of
one facility that controls aircraft disclosed numerous physical
security weaknesses, including unauthorized personnel being granted
unescorted access to restricted areas. FAA did not know of weaknesses
that may have existed at other locations because it had not assessed
the physical security controls at 187 facilities since 1993. Similarly,
FAA does not know how vulnerable its operational air traffic control
systems are and cannot adequately protect them until it performs the
appropriate risk assessments of these systems and certifies and
accredits them. In addition, the agency does not consistently include
well-formulated security requirements in its specifications for new
modernization systems. Finally, FAA's management structure and
implementation of policy for air traffic control computer security are
not effective. Security responsibilities are distributed among three
organizations, all of which have been remiss in their security duties.
In December 1998, we reported that FAA officials indicated that
they had inspected all 368 facilities and had accredited over half of
these facilities. However, the agency still needs to take action on our
remaining recommendations that included (1) ensuring that all systems
are assessed, certified, and accredited at least every 3 years and (2)
establishing an effective management structure for developing,
implementing, and enforcing air traffic computer security policy.
Key contacts
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems
Accounting and Information Management Division, (202) 512-6408,
willemssenj.aimd@gao.gov
Lack of aviation competition contributes to high fares and poor service
for some communities
Deregulation of the airline industry in 1978 is generally
considered to be a success by DOT and others, contributing to lower
fares and better service for most air travelers largely because of
increased competition spurred by the entry of new airlines into the
industry and established airlines into new markets. However, a number
of small and medium-sized communities have not experienced such entry
and thus have experienced higher fares and/or less convenient service
since deregulation.
Problems with access to certain airports and the cumulative effect
of marketing strategies employed by established airlines have
contributed to higher fares and poor service. To minimize congestion
and reduce flight delays, FAA has set limits since 1969 on the number
of takeoffs or landings--referred to as slots--that can occur during
certain periods of the day at four congested airports--Chicago's
O'Hare, Ronald Reagan Washington National, and New York's Kennedy and
LaGuardia. A few airlines control most of the slots at these airports,
which limits new entrants. Furthermore, the vast majority of gates at
six airports in the East and Upper Midwest are exclusively leased--
usually to just one airline--making it very difficult for other
airlines to gain competitive access to these airports. In addition, by
prohibiting flights to and from LaGuardia and National airports that
exceed certain distances, perimeter rules limit the ability of airlines
based in the West to compete at these airports. These operating
barriers, combined with certain marketing strategies by established
carriers, have deterred new entrant airlines while fortifying
established carriers' dominance at key hubs.
In addition, recently proposed alliances between the nation's six
largest airlines have also raised concerns about competition. Three
pairs of alliances have been proposed--between Northwest Airlines and
Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, and American
Airlines and US Airways. In June 1998, we testified that, while the
alliances might offer some benefits to consumers, if all three occur,
the number of independent airlines providing service on a significant
number of domestic airline routes could decline, potentially reducing
the choices for millions of passengers each year. We are further
reviewing the proposed alliances and plan to report on them early in
1999.
Increasing competition and improving air service at airports
serving communities that have not benefited from deregulation will
likely entail a range of solutions--some of which are controversial--by
DOT, the Congress, and the private sector. To enhance competition, DOT
has begun to grant a limited number of slots to new entrants at O'Hare
and LaGuardia airports. In addition, DOT has expressed concerns about
potentially overaggressive attempts by some established carriers to
thwart new entry. According to DOT, in recent years, there has been an
increasing number of alleged anticompetitive practices--such as
predatory conduct--aimed at new competition, particularly at major
hubs. In April 1998, DOT issued a draft policy that identifies
anticompetitive behavior and factors that DOT will consider if it
decides to pursue formal enforcement actions to correct such behavior.
The proposed guidelines have been very controversial, and DOT has
received hundreds of comments about them. The Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 requires
DOT to send the final guidelines to the Congress and stipulates that
they shall not become effective until at least 12 weeks after receipt.
In addition, legislation was introduced, but not passed, in the
Congress in 1997 that addressed several barriers to competition: slot
controls, perimeter rules, and predatory behavior by air carriers.
These issues are expected to be raised again by the next Congress.
Other issues--such as improving the availability of gates and
determining whether or not to relax restrictions on the foreign
ownership and control of U.S. airlines--may also need to be considered.
DOT expects to complete a study in the spring of 1999 that will address
airports' practices, including the availability of gates, and their
effects on competition.
Key contact
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
dot needs to continue improving oversight of surface transportation
projects
Many large-dollar highway and transit projects, each costing
hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, continue to incur cost
increases, experience delays, and have difficulties acquiring needed
financing. We have found, particularly for large-dollar projects, that
costs have increased and financing has become more difficult at the
same time that federal, state, and local governments must deal with the
need for balanced budgets and many competing priorities. This situation
is even more critical in light of the recently passed 6-year, $218
billion Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which will fund
thousands of new major highway and mass transit projects.
Improvements possible in oversight of highway projects
DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided over $21
billion in fiscal year 1998 to assist the states in repairing and
replacing their aging infrastructure and enhancing the performance of
their highways and bridges. In many cases, meeting these needs takes
the form of projects costing hundreds of millions to billions of
dollars. These projects traditionally take longer to build and have a
greater potential to experience substantial cost increases and delays.
For example, the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston is the most
expensive and complex federally assisted highway project ever
undertaken. Scheduled to be completed in 2004, the project will build
or reconstruct about 7.5 miles of urban highways, about half of which
will be underground. The state of Massachusetts has been taking steps
to contain costs, but, unless additional savings can be found,
increased construction costs are likely to push the project's total net
cost higher than the current $10.8 billion estimate.
In February 1997, we reported several options that could improve
the management of large-dollar highway projects, depending on the
oversight role that the Congress chooses for the federal government.
--One option--once DOT or the Congress establishes an appropriate
dollar threshold and definition for large-dollar highway
projects--would be for states to prepare total cost estimates
for such projects. We have found that one reason costs increase
on large-dollar projects over time is that the initial cost
estimates are preliminary and not designed to be reliable
predictors of a project's total costs.
--Another option would be for states to track progress on these
projects against their initial estimates of baseline costs.
While cost growth has occurred on many large-dollar projects,
the amount of and reasons for these increases cannot be
determined because data are not readily available from FHWA or
state highway departments. Preparing estimates of baseline
costs and schedules could improve the management of large-
dollar projects by providing managers with real-time
information for identifying problems early and for making
decisions about changes to the projects that could affect
costs. Tracking progress could also create a database that
would allow for the identification of problems commonly
experienced by projects and would provide a better basis for
estimating costs in the future.
--Another option would be to establish performance goals and
strategies for controlling costs as a large-dollar project
moves through its design and construction phases.
--Finally, another option would be to establish a process for the
federal approval of large-dollar projects. FHWA does not
approve projects at their outset; its approval consists of a
series of incremental approvals that occur over the years
required to plan, design, and build them. Requiring federal
approval at the outset--including the approval of cost
estimates and finance plans--could provide greater certainty in
state planning and could help ensure successful financing by
providing additional assurances to potential funding sources.
The Congress has recently taken steps to improve the management of
large-dollar highway projects. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century requires the states to submit finance plans for highway
projects that are expected to cost $1 billion or more. However, it will
be up to FHWA to develop regulations that indicate the specific
standards and information requirements for these plans.
oversight of transit projects improving, but better follow-up on
noncompliance needed
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)--with a budget of $4.8
billion for fiscal year 1998--has improved its oversight of federal
transit grants. However, the agency needs to continue to do more to
help ensure the timely correction of deficiencies found during its
oversight reviews. In 1992, we designated FTA's management and
oversight of its grants as a high-risk area that was especially
vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In 1995, as a
result of various initiatives that FTA was undertaking to improve its
grants management oversight, we removed the agency from our high-risk
list with the understanding that we would continue to monitor the
progress of its oversight initiatives. In April 1998, we reported that
FTA had strengthened its oversight of federal transit grants. FTA is
continuing to enhance the quality and the consistency of its oversight
by improving guidance and training for staff and grantees,
standardizing oversight procedures, and effectively using contractor
staff. In particular, the agency's risk assessment process helps target
limited oversight resources and provides a strong foundation for
improved oversight. FTA is emphasizing not only the local financial
commitment of grantees seeking federal funding for new projects but is
also hiring financial management contractors to review and oversee the
financial viability of projects with existing grant agreements.
However, FTA needs to continue to do more to help ensure the timely
correction of deficiencies found during its oversight reviews of
transit grants. We found that, frequently, some grantees still did not
meet FTA's time frames for corrective action and that FTA had allowed
compliance deadlines to be revised, which enabled grantees to delay
corrective action. Also, FTA's oversight information system lacks
complete, timely data; hence, the information cannot be used
effectively by FTA's headquarters officials to manage and monitor
grantees' compliance with the agency's requirements. The system is
intended to track the resolution of oversight findings and has the
potential to be a useful tool in monitoring compliance, identifying
problems, and assessing the overall effectiveness of the oversight
program in meeting performance standards. Currently, however, the
information in the system is not updated as required by regional staff,
nor is it used by headquarters officials to help manage or monitor the
oversight activities of regional staff--leaving FTA susceptible to and
unable to quickly respond to situations in its regional offices that
might compromise good oversight. According to FTA, a new tracking
system has been developed to address these concerns, but it has not
been fully implemented yet.
Key contact
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
amtrak's financial condition is tenuous
Since it began operations in 1971, Amtrak has never been profitable
and, in recent years, has had to borrow money to meet its operating
expenses. Since its inception, Amtrak has received nearly $22 billion
in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. Despite
efforts to control expenses and increase revenues, Amtrak's financial
condition has substantially deteriorated in recent years, and it is
likely to remain heavily dependent on federal assistance well into the
future. In fiscal year 1998, Amtrak's annual net loss was $854 million,
$92 million more than its 1997 net loss of $762 million.
Amtrak has stated that it will eliminate the need for federal
operating support by 2002. If Amtrak requires federal operating
subsidies after December 2002, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
of 1997 provides for the Congress to consider either restructuring or
liquidating Amtrak. Predicting how Amtrak might be restructured is
difficult. In a liquidation, not only might Amtrak's creditors (or
their insurers) face losses, but the 100 million passengers each year
in the Northeast Corridor, as well as millions of others in the rest of
the country, could face disrupted rail service. At the time of
liquidation, the losses suffered by creditors will depend on such
circumstances as Amtrak's debt and financial obligations and the market
value of its assets, as well as the proceeds from their sale. As of
September 1997, Amtrak's data showed that combined secured and
unsecured debt liability could be about $2.2 billion. We believe, and
DOT agrees, that the federal government would not be legally liable for
secured and unsecured creditors' claims in the event of Amtrak's
liquidation. Nevertheless, we recognize that creditors could attempt to
recover losses from the United States.
The financial performance of Amtrak's intercity routes is
indicative of Amtrak's financial problems. In 1997, expenses for
Amtrak's core intercity passenger services were almost twice as great
as revenues.\3\ Moreover, Amtrak's expenses were at least twice as much
as its revenues for 28 of its 40 routes in that year. Amtrak's expenses
on 11 of these routes were 2\1/2\ times or more than its revenues for
each route. Finally, 14 routes lost more than $100 per passenger
carried. Only one route--the Metroliner's high-speed service between
Washington, D.C., and New York City--was profitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Overall, Amtrak's expenses were $1.86 for every dollar in
operating revenue that it earned. Core intercity passenger services
include mail and express merchandise services but exclude revenues and
expenses from Amtrak's commuter operations, other reimbursable
activities, and commercial development. Expense amounts include
depreciation, which is a noncash expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, Amtrak has focused on improving its financial performance
by identifying growth opportunities rather than by reducing service. In
explaining the rationale for not cutting Amtrak's route system further
at this time, officials at Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) pointed to Amtrak's mission of maintaining a
national route system, noting that such a system will consist of routes
with a range of profitability, including routes with lower performance
that may provide connecting service with other routes or that may
provide public benefits, such as serving small cities and rural areas.
In the spring of 1998, Amtrak started a year-long market analysis of
the role and growth potential of the national route system. The
analysis is to assess service, demand, and revenues on Amtrak's current
route system and alternative systems. The analysis will be used to
identify service amenities, price changes, and changes to the existing
route system that may improve ridership and revenues.
Because it loses money on 39 of its 40 routes, the business
decisions that Amtrak makes regarding the structure of its route system
will play a crucial role in determining its long-term viability.
However, Amtrak has encountered opposition when it has proposed to cut
routes to improve its overall financial performance because of the
desire of local communities to see passenger service continued. FRA
officials acknowledge that no clear public policy currently defines the
role of passenger rail in the national transportation system. As a
result, the Congress needs to decide on the nation's expectations for
intercity rail and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that
service. These decisions require defining expectations for a route
network, determining the extent to which the government would
contribute funds, and deciding on the way any remaining deficits, if
any, would be covered. We believe that Amtrak, as currently
constituted, will need substantial federal operating and capital
support well into the future. Whether Amtrak will be able to improve
its position substantially in the near term is doubtful. If not, the
Congress will be asked to provide substantial sums of money each year
to support Amtrak. If the Congress is not willing to provide such
levels of funds, then Amtrak's future could be radically different, or
Amtrak may not exist at all.
Key contact
John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, (202) 512-2834,
andersonj.rced@gao.gov
dot lacks accountability for its financial activities
DOT's lack of accountability for its financial activities impairs
its ability to efficiently and effectively manage programs and exposes
the Department to potential waste, fraud, mismanagement, and abuse.
Since 1993, when the Office of Inspector General began auditing the
financial statements of certain agencies within the Department, it has
been unable to determine whether the reported financial results are
correct and thus has been unable to express an opinion on the
reliability of those statements. The Inspector General has also been
unable to express an opinion on the reliability of the departmentwide
statements since those statements were audited beginning with fiscal
year 1996. In addition, DOT lacks a cost-accounting system or an
alternative means of accumulating the full cost of specific projects
and activities. DOT has efforts under way to correct its financial
management deficiencies, but its goal of correcting all deficiencies
for its fiscal year 1999 financial statement may be difficult to attain
because of the numerous problems that need to be addressed.
The accuracy of financial data is uncertain
On March 31, 1998, the Office of Inspector General was unable to
express an opinion on the reliability of the departmentwide financial
statements for fiscal year 1997 because it could not verify the
reliability of the amounts for property, plant, and equipment reported
at $26.5 billion, inventory reported at $2.0 billion, postemployment
benefits (primarily the Coast Guard's pension liability) reported at
$14.0 billion, and excise tax revenue reported at $28.4 billion.
Because of actions by DOT and others, the latter two audit issues have
a reasonable chance of having been corrected for fiscal year 1998.
However, serious financial management weaknesses at FAA contribute to
the remaining issues.
In its report, the Office of Inspector General also cited problems
with the Department's accounting systems, which prevented the agency
from complying with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of
1996.\4\ The Inspector General concluded that for the agency to comply
with the act, it needs to (1) modify its accounting systems to be the
primary source of financial information to prepare the consolidated
financial statements and (2) complete assessments of Year 2000 computer
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This act requires agencies to implement and maintain financial
management systems that comply substantially with Federal Financial
Management System Requirements, applicable federal accounting
standards, and the U.S. Standard General Ledger at the transaction
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the property, plant, and equipment account and inventory
amounts reported, the Inspector General concluded that FAA and the
Coast Guard could not reliably determine the quantities and the
locations of these assets or provide sufficient information to verify
their values. Specific deficiencies included (1) the lack of
comprehensive physical inventories, (2) inaccurate general ledger
balances, (3) inadequate subsidiary records, (4) the lack of supporting
documentation, (5) unreconciled discrepancies between balances
maintained in their accounting systems and the detailed subsidiary
records, and (6) the lack of a cost-accounting system.
We have reported that problems in accounting for property, plant,
and equipment affect DOT's ability to properly manage these assets and
may result in operating inefficiencies. For example, in FAA, mission-
critical equipment, such as radar and other air traffic control
equipment, may be difficult to locate when needed, which could
exacerbate an emergency situation. Also, theft could go undetected, and
funds could be spent unnecessarily to acquire equipment that is already
on hand.
We have also reported that DOT's lack of inventory accountability
can result in program officials' inability to make prudent business
decisions and to adequately safeguard assets. It may also impair
operational effectiveness. For example, because of inaccurate inventory
information, funding requests may not be based on actual needs,
unnecessary purchases may be made, and inventory may be overstocked or
hoarded because of concerns about availability. The resulting excesses
as well as spare parts for equipment no longer in service would require
storage, inventory control, and other activities that consume operating
resources. Inaccurate inventories can also result in the shortage of or
the inability to locate essential parts necessary to repair mission-
critical systems. Furthermore, these underlying data deficiencies
preclude DOT from accurately determining the cost of its operations and
may permit undetected waste, fraud, and abuse related to these assets.
systems to determine full cost have not been implemented
DOT lacks a cost-accounting system or an alternative means to
accumulate costs. This means that DOT's financial reports (1) may not
be capturing the full cost of specific projects and activities and (2)
may lack a reliable ``Statement of Net Cost,'' which includes
functional cost allocations. The lack of cost-accounting information
limits FAA's and others' ability to make effective decisions about
resource needs and to adequately control major projects, such as the
$42 billion air traffic control modernization program. For example, we
have reported that without good cost information, FAA cannot reliably
measure the actual cost of the modernization program against
established baselines and cannot improve future cost estimates.
Finally, the lack of reliable cost information limits DOT's ability to
meaningfully evaluate performance in terms of efficiency and cost-
effectiveness, as called for by the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993.
DOT, especially FAA, has made substantial progress in developing
its cost-accounting system, but more still needs to be done. For
example, an August 1998 report by DOT's Inspector General identified
four systems design issues potentially involving billions of dollars
that FAA needs to address before its cost-accounting system can
accurately account for the full cost of operations. These issues
include establishing a method to identify and reflect (1) the cost of
accounting adjustments, (2) the cost for all development projects, (3)
the cost incurred by other agencies for air traffic services, and (4)
the correct labor cost charged to appropriate projects.
corrective actions are under way, but progress in some areas is slow
On May 26, 1998, the President requested DOT, among other agencies,
to submit to the Office of Management and Budget by July 31, 1998, a
plan for resolving the financial reporting deficiencies that were
identified in its financial statement audits. DOT submitted the
required plan, though not until September 30, 1998. This plan (1)
identified actions by DOT, especially FAA and the Coast Guard, to
correct weaknesses reported in the Inspector General's audits and (2)
established the goal of an unqualified audit opinion on DOT's fiscal
year 1999 financial statements. For example, the plan called for
completing physical counts of and developing appropriate support for
the valuation of property, plant, equipment, and inventory at FAA and
the Coast Guard. It also called for developing adequately documented
processes and reconciling detailed records to summary accounts.
DOT is taking actions outlined in its plan to correct financial
management deficiencies, but it faces significant challenges owing to
the numerous problems that need to be addressed. For example, FAA and
the Coast Guard have developed plans to improve cost information,
reconcile data, help ensure that the integrity of information systems
is maintained, and prepare reliable financial statements by September
30, 1999. However, progress has been slow in some areas, and much
remains to be done. For example, FAA's original plan called for full
implementation of its cost-accounting system by October 1, 1998; FAA
subsequently revised this date to March 31, 1999, which has been
described by the Inspector General as ``very ambitious.'' If DOT
continues to fall behind in meeting its planned completion dates, it is
questionable whether it will achieve its goal of receiving an
unqualified audit opinion for fiscal year 1999.
The financial management weaknesses discussed above are
particularly troublesome at FAA because of their long-standing nature
and the agency's slow progress in resolving them. Timely resolution is
especially key, given that FAA is in the midst of a $42 billion program
to modernize its air traffic control systems. Until FAA's serious
financial management problems are resolved, we will continue to
designate financial management at the agency as high-risk.
Key contact
Linda M. Calbom, Director, Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division Accounting and Financial Management Issues,
Accounting and Information Management Division, (202) 512-9508,
calboml.aimd@gao.gov
related gao products
Acquisition management
Air Traffic Control: Status of FAA's Modernization Program (GAO/
RCED-99-25, Dec. 3, 1998).
Coast Guard's Acquisition Management: Deepwater Project's
Justification and Affordability Need to Be Addressed More Thoroughly
(GAO/RCED-99-6, Oct. 26, 1998).
National Airspace System: FAA Has Implemented Some Free Flight
Initiatives, but Challenges Remain (GAO/RCED-98-246, Sept. 28, 1998).
Air Traffic Control: Immature Software Acquisition Processes
Increase FAA System Acquisition Risks (GAO/AIMD-97-47, Mar. 21, 1997).
Air Traffic Control: Complete and Enforced Architecture Needed for
FAA Systems Modernization (GAO/AIMD-97-30, Feb. 3, 1997).
Aviation Acquisition: A Comprehensive Strategy Is Needed for
Cultural Change at FAA (GAO/RCED-96-159, Aug. 22, 1996).
Year 2000 compliance
Responses to Questions on FAA's Computer Security and Year 2000
Program (GAO/AIMD-98-301R, Sept. 14, 1998).
FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and
Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, Aug. 6, 1998).
Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System
Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May 1,
1998).
Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems
Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, Feb. 4, 1998).
FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases
Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, Jan. 30, 1998).
Aviation financing
Airfield Pavement: Keeping Nation's Runways in Good Condition Could
Require Substantially Higher Spending (GAO/RCED-98-226, July 31, 1998).
Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development (GAO/
RCED-98-71, Mar. 12, 1998).
Transportation Financing: Challenges in Meeting Long-Term Funding
Needs for FAA, Amtrak, and the Nation's Highways (GAO/T-RCED-97-151,
May 7, 1997).
Airport Development Needs: Estimating Future Costs (GAO/RCED-97-99,
Apr. 7, 1997).
National Airspace System: Issues in Allocating Costs for Air
Traffic Services to DOD and Other Users (GAO/RCED-97-106, Apr. 25,
1997).
Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to Make
Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions (GAO/AIMD-97-20, Jan.
22, 1997).
Aviation safety and security
Air Traffic Control: Weak Computer Security Practices Jeopardize
Flight Safety (GAO/AIMD-98-155, May 18, 1998).
Aviation Safety: FAA Has Not Fully Implemented Weather-Related
Recommendations (GAO/RCED-98-130, June 2, 1998).
Aviation Security: Progress Being Made, but Long-Term Attention Is
Needed (GAO/T-RCED-98-190, May 14, 1998).
Aviation Security: Implementation of Recommendations Is Under Way,
but Completion Will Take Several Years (GAO/RCED-98-102, Apr. 24,
1998).
Aviation Safety: Weaknesses in Inspection and Enforcement Limit FAA
in Identifying and Responding to Risks (GAO/RCED-98-6, Feb. 27, 1998).
Aviation Safety: Efforts to Implement Flight Operational Quality
Assurance Programs (GAO/RCED-98-10, Dec. 2, 1997).
Human Factors: FAA's Guidance and Oversight of Pilot Crew Resource
Management Training Can Be Improved (GAO/RCED-98-7, Nov. 24, 1997).
Aviation Safety: FAA Oversight of Repair Stations Needs Improvement
(GAO/RCED-98-21, Oct. 24, 1997).
Aviation competition
Aviation Competition: Proposed Domestic Airline Alliances Raise
Serious Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-215, June 4, 1998).
Domestic Aviation: Service Problems and Limited Competition
Continue in Some Markets (GAO/T-RCED-98-176, Apr. 23, 1998).
Aviation Competition: International Aviation Alliances and the
Influence of Airline Marketing Practices (GAO/T-RCED-98-131, Mar. 19,
1998).
Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Entry Continue to Limit
Competition in Several Key Domestic Markets (GAO/RCED-97-4, Oct. 18,
1996).
Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at
Small, Medium-Sized, and Large Communities (GAO/RCED-96-79, Apr. 19,
1996).
Surface transportation infrastructure
Mass Transit: Grants Management Oversight Improving, but Better
Follow-Up Needed on Grantees' Noncompliance (GAO/RCED-98-89, Apr. 3,
1998).
Surface Infrastructure: Costs, Financing, and Schedules for Large-
Dollar Transportation Projects (GAO/RCED-98-64, Feb. 12, 1998).
Transportation Infrastructure: Managing the Costs of Large-Dollar
Highway Projects (GAO/RCED-97-47, Feb. 28, 1997).
Amtrak
Intercity Passenger Rail: Financial Performance of Amtrak's Routes
(GAO/RCED-98-151, May 14, 1998).
Intercity Passenger Rail: Outlook for Improving Amtrak's Financial
Health (GAO/T-RCED-98-134, Mar. 24, 1998).
Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible Amtrak
Liquidation (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2, 1998).
Intercity Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions
Threaten Amtrak's Long-Term Viability (GAO/RCED-95-71, Feb. 6, 1995).
Financial management
Financial Management: Federal Aviation Administration Lacked
Accountability for Major Assets (GAO/AIMD-98-62, Feb. 18, 1998).
Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to Make
Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions (GAO/AIMD-97-20, Jan.
22, 1997).
Other GAO products
Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's
Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 1999 (GAO/RCED-98-180R, May 12,
1998).
DOT's Budget: Management and Performance Issues Facing the
Department in fiscal year 1999 (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-76, Feb. 12, 1998).
Federal Management: Addressing Management Issues at the Department
of Transportation (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-97-172, May 21, 1997).
performance and accountability series
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective (GAO/OCG-99-1)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Agriculture (GAO/OCG-99-2)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Commerce (GAO/OCG-99-3)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Defense (GAO/OCG-99-4)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Education (GAO/OCG-99-5)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Energy
(GAO/OCG-99-6)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Health
and Human Services (GAO/OCG-99-7)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Housing and Urban Development (GAO/OCG-99-8)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Interior (GAO/OCG-99-9)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Justice (GAO/OCG-99-10)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor
(GAO/OCG-99-11)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of State
(GAO/OCG-99-12)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Transportation (GAO/OCG-99-13)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the
Treasury (GAO/OCG-99-14)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of
Veterans Affairs (GAO/OCG-99-15)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Agency for
International Development (GAO/OCG-99-16)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency (GAO/OCG-99-17)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (GAO/OCG-99-18)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (GAO/OCG-99-19)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Social Security
Administration (GAO/OCG-99-20)
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: U.S. Postal Service
(GAO/OCG-99-21)
High-Risk Series: An Update (GAO/HR-99-1)
The entire series of 21 performance and accountability reports and
the high-risk series update can be ordered by using the order number
GAO/OCG-99-22SET.
______
Synopsis of Top Ten DOT Issues
aviation safety
DOT needs to continually identify risks to air transportation
safety and proactively reduce the major risks that can lead to
accidents, fatalities, and associated economic costs. In an aviation
environment that projects significant increases in air traffic, a
proactive approach is essential. Major elements of the aviation safety
issue include:
--Reducing the number of runway incursions--a major risk factor at
airports.
--Effectively implementing FAA's new inspection process, improving
the accuracy of safety databases, and enhancing the quality of
inspector training.
--Establishing management systems that assure safety risks are called
to the attention of top FAA management and promptly acted upon.
--Evaluating the safety implications of U.S. code share agreements
and international alliances that involve foreign air carriers
and foreign air carrier equipment; if necessary, modify safety
oversight and code share approval approaches accordingly.
surface transportation safety
Highway fatalities, other than those involving trucks, claim more
that 35,000 lives annually. Truck accidents claim more than 5,000 lives
annually. Rail and transit account for an additional 850 lost lives.
Though the rates have been declining, they are still unacceptably high.
Major surface transportation safety issues that DOT must address
include:
--Improving DOT's motor carrier safety program for vehicle
maintenance, driver qualifications, and compliance with hours
of service requirements and take prompt and meaningful
enforcement action for carrier noncompliance that endangers the
public safety.
--Increasing the level of safety of commercial trucks and drivers
entering the U.S. from Mexico.
--Increasing seat belt usage through primary enforcement of seat belt
laws, education, and other strategies.
--Reducing grade crossing and rail trespasser accidents through
enforcement, education, and technology.
--Improving compliance with safety regulations by entities
responsible for transporting hazardous materials.
--Enhancing the effectiveness of the Federal Railroad
Administration's Safety Assurance Compliance Program and using
enforcement actions when voluntary and collaborative
initiatives with a railroad do not promptly achieve the desired
results.
year 2000 computer issues
After a late start, the DOT, including FAA, has made a great deal
of progress addressing its Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems. DOT
agencies are also making substantial efforts in their outreach to the
transportation industry to increase awareness of Y2K issues. As of
November 13, 1998, DOT has repaired 281 of its 295 mission-critical
systems that had Y2K problems; however, the risk of system failure
remains until these repaired systems are adequately tested. DOT needs
to continue with a sense of urgency, especially in FAA and the Coast
Guard. Major issues that DOT must still address are:
--Completing Y2K work on all mission-critical computer systems by
March 31, 1999.
--Testing all repaired systems to ensure they properly function as a
unit, and together as a system.
--Obtaining assurances that the transportation industry will be Y2K
compliant.
--Assuring DOT computers properly interface with those of other
Government agencies, network service providers such as private
telecommunications providers, and the transportation industry;
develop contingency plans that can be used if critical systems
fail to operate after December 31, 1999.
air traffic control modernization
FAA's multi-billion dollar air traffic control (ATC) modernization
effort remains a major challenge. Cost overruns, schedule delays, and
shortfalls in performance of the past should not be repeated and new
systems must come in approximately on time and on budget and meet the
requirements of a dynamic and growing aviation system. Key elements of
this management issue include:
--Reassessing and rebaselining plans for transitioning to satellite
communications, navigation, and surveillance, including Free
Flight. This issue includes determining whether the Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS) will be the sole means of navigation or if secondary
systems will be needed.
--Incorporating human factors in the design and development of new
ATC systems and avoiding the problems experienced with new
systems such as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement
System (STARS).
--Strengthening DOT's capacity to oversee multi-billion dollar
software intensive development contracts. Software intensive
development contracts have typically resulted in large cost
increases and major schedule slippage--an issue that has
affected the pace of ATC modernization for more than a decade.
While this is a significant problem associated with the FAA ATC
Modernization Program, it also is an issue that bears watching
during the development of Intelligent Transportation Systems by
the Federal Highway Administration. Strong oversight by the
Department and the OIG to, among other things, assure
contractor accountability, clear agency requirements, and
strengthened internal controls, will help minimize what has
historically been an area of unacceptable cost growth and
schedule delays.
federal aviation administration financing
Financing FAA activities and the air traffic control system is a
major issue that the Department, the Congress, and the aviation
community need to address. For example, the operations account, which
pays for air traffic controllers, will need an additional $1 billion
over the next 5 years. Operations will soon account for nearly $6
billion of the approximately $10 billion FAA budget. Substantial
funding also will be needed for the facilities and equipment account,
which pays for air traffic control modernization. Key issues associated
with FAA financing include:
--Accurately determining the amount of funds that will be needed to
finance FAA and determining what portion of FAA's operations,
air traffic control modernization, and airport infrastructure,
should be financed by the trust fund, general fund, or other
sources of funds such as passenger facility charges. This is a
matter that will be debated in the next Congress.
--Developing a cost accounting system on which FAA can be better
managed and upon which ``user fees'' could be based. FAA cannot
implement a credible and reliable cost accounting system until
it first ensures its financial systems accurately capture and
allocate relevant cost data and FAA obtains an unqualified
opinion on its financial statements. FAA's financial management
systems do not currently capture accurate, reliable data and
until they do, FAA cannot receive an unqualified opinion.
surface, marine, and airport infrastructure needs
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
guarantees $198 billion over a 6-year period to improve safety and
maintain and improve America's highways, bridges, and mass transit
systems. These funds, as well as Airport Improvement Funds, must be
effectively and efficiently used. Additional funding will be needed to
maintain and upgrade the maritime infrastructure to meet the future
needs of the marine industry. Key elements of this management challenge
include:
--Strengthening internal controls to ensure adequate management and
oversight of the infusion of substantial additional Federal
funds for surface infrastructure projects; preventing fraud,
embezzlement, and abuse of funds; and ensuring the development
of sound financial plans for high-cost transportation
infrastructure projects.
--Promoting the use of cost-saving techniques such as value
engineering, design-build procurements, and owner-controlled
insurance programs.
--Selecting high value projects for discretionary grants, awarded
according to established criteria.
--Providing leadership to maintain, improve, and develop the port,
waterway and intermodal infrastructure to meet current and
future needs including megavessels; identifying funding
mechanisms to maintain and improve the harbor infrastructure of
the United States.
--Eliminating the prohibited diversion of airport revenues by airport
sponsors.
transportation and computer security
Presidential Decision Directives 62 and 63 require DOT to advance
the nation's vital security interest by ensuring that the
transportation system is protected and that our computer systems are
safe from intrusion. The ability to prevent terrorist attacks within
this vast system, and fraudulent intrusions into computer systems must
be strengthened. Key elements of these issues are:
--Reducing the vulnerabilities in airport security controls.
--Enhancing the use of new technologies such as explosive detection
equipment.
--Improving compliance with shipping requirements related to
hazardous materials and dangerous goods.
--Developing staff expertise and technical capabilities to detect
intrusions to DOT and FAA computer networks and acting to
reduce vulnerabilities.
financial accounting/chief financial officers act
DOT has made significant progress in improving its financial
accounting and reporting systems. Three major issues stand in the way
of DOT receiving an unqualified opinion on its financial statements,
the most challenging being the FAA property and equipment accounts
totaling about $12 billion. Major financial areas that need to be
addressed are:
--Developing and implementing a plan for FAA to account for and value
its property and equipment, including its multi-billion dollar
work-in-process accounts for Air Traffic Control Modernization.
--Computing a reliable estimate of Coast Guard's future liability for
military retirement pay and health care costs.
--Ensuring that the Treasury Department develops adequate support for
trust fund revenues and account balances totaling $28 billion.
amtrak financial viability/moderization
Amtrak needs to continue to seek opportunities to increase revenues
and contain costs as it strives to fulfill its Congressional mandate of
achieving operating self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 Strategic Business Plan established a 5-year
plan to reach this goal. The plan indicates that Amtrak will have a
cash loss in fiscal year 2003, but Amtrak does not anticipate needing
Federal operating funds to cover it.
We issued a report on the congressionally mandated Independent
Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Requirements Through fiscal year 2002
on November 23, 1998. We identified a projected cash loss of $0.8
billion more than Amtrak estimated, if the Strategic Business Plan were
followed, with no adjustments, through fiscal year 2003. Amtrak's
capital requirements after fiscal year 2000 exceed projected available
capital resources. Additional cash losses, as projected in the
Independent Assessment, would further constrain Amtrak's already-
limited ability to address significant system-wide capital needs and
would likely be beyond Amtrak's ability to finance without Federal
assistance. To eliminate the need for Federal operating funds, Amtrak
will have to continuously review, amend, and implement programs and
practices to improve its revenue and reduce its operating costs.
dot implementation of gpra
The Department of Transportation's strategic and performance plans
were rated by Congress as the very best in the Federal Government. Yet,
the difficult tasks of accurately assessing performance against the
established outcome measures and modifying programs as needed to
achieve the intended results remains to be accomplished. These matters
require a sense of urgency since the first performance report to
Congress is due on March 31, 2000.
Many of DOT's outcomes such as improved safety, reduction in
fatalities and injuries, and well-maintained highways depend in large
part on actions taken and assistance provided by third parties outside
the Department, including other Federal agencies, states, and various
components of the transportation industry. Their assistance will be
critical in meeting DOT's goals. Another major factor that will impact
DOT's ability to achieve its goals is the effective utilization of
human resources. DOT must effectively manage the workforce, recruit
highly qualified individuals for vacant positions, and provide
requisite technical and other training in order to successfully meet
the management, safety, and efficiency challenges facing the U.S.
transportation system.
Starting in fiscal year 1998, as part of our routine projects, we
began to selectively (1) verify and validate performance data, and (2)
assess various performance and outcome measures to determine their
appropriateness for measuring progress toward stated goals (e.g.,
increased transportation safety). We plan to continue this oversight
through fiscal year 1999. We also developed a 2-day course on auditing
GPRA implementation to further enhance our work in this area.
detailed briefing papers
aviation safety
The Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to continually
identify risks to air transportation safety and proactively reduce the
major risks that can lead to accidents, fatalities, and associated
economic costs. In an aviation environment that projects significant
increases in air traffic, a proactive approach to aviation safety is
essential. Recognizing the national need for a safe transportation
system, DOT has made transportation safety its number one strategic
goal.
DOT Strategic Goal # 1
Safety.--``Promote the public health and safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage.''
Key OIG Contact.--Alexis M. Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Aviation, 202-366-0500.
Background
The aviation industry expects continued increases in air traffic--a
result of increased demand--and expects closer spacing between aircraft
due to more precise, satellite-based tracking and navigation
capabilities. The U.S. aviation accident rate has remained nearly flat
since more reliable jet engine powered aircraft began to dominate the
commercial aviation fleet. However, as the number of flights increase,
the number of accidents is statistically likely to rise in the absence
of action by DOT and the aviation industry. FAA has recognized this
risk and has adopted a focused safety agenda to bring about a five-fold
reduction in fatal accidents over the next decade. FAA must now
concentrate its resources on effectively implementing practices and
programs to prevent the most prevalent causes of aircraft accidents.
FAA's focused safety agenda recognizes weaknesses and improvements
needed in its safety processes. Actions taken this past year by FAA are
encouraging. For example, FAA issued several airworthiness directives
to improve safety, including directives to aid in preventing
uncontained engine failures. However, the issues described below are of
a longstanding nature that require rigorous oversight. The key to
ensure success will be FAA and aviation industry follow-through.
Preventing runway incursions is one of FAA's safety agenda goals.
The number of runway incursions increased by over 70 percent, from 186
incursions in 1993 to 318 in 1997. FAA's preliminary data show 250
incursions through September 1998, about the same level as in 1997.
FAA's near-term goal is to reduce runway incursions by 15 percent of
the 1997 level, to 272, by the year 2000.
FAA also recognized problems exist in its aviation safety
inspection process. In 1996, a FAA task force conducted a 90-day review
of the way FAA conducts safety inspections. Two of the most significant
recommendations as a result of the 90-day review were to:
--Create a national certification team to assist in processing new
air carrier certifications, and
--Initiate a project to make surveillance of air carriers more
targeted and systematic.
In 1997, FAA created the Certification Standardization and
Evaluation Team (CSET) to certify new entrant air carriers. To address
the surveillance of air carriers, FAA teamed with Sandia National
Laboratories to conduct a comprehensive analysis of FAA's certification
and surveillance processes. This reengineering project took 8 months
and was a precursor to FAA's decision to develop a new system called
the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS). The goal of ATOS is to
aid the inspectors in targeting inspections so that system safety
problems are identified and corrected before they lead to accidents. In
October 1998, FAA began implementing ATOS for the 10 major passenger
air carriers as well as any new entrant air carriers certified by FAA.
The 10 major air carriers transport 90 percent of the flying public.
Improving safety data quality, collection, and analyses is another
one of FAA's safety agenda goals. FAA implemented the Safety
Performance Analysis System (SPAS) as a tool for inspectors to identify
potential high risk areas. It is used to evaluate safety-related
aviation data from several of FAA inspection, incident, and accident
databases.
Another area of concern is the implications on safety of foreign
air carriers who operate in the U.S. and/or carry U.S. citizens as
passengers, especially given the recent increase in the number of
codesharing agreements. From 1994 to 1998, the number of codesharing
agreements has more than doubled from 61 to 163. Airlines throughout
the world continue to form alliances and enter into codesharing
agreements to strengthen or expand their market presence or competitive
ability. The rapid increase in the number of codeshare agreements
between the U.S. and foreign air carriers, as the movement toward
global alliances continues, raises questions as to whether approaches
to safety oversight and approving codeshare agreements should be
modified.
Audit Coverage
In recent years, DOT's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the
General Accounting Office (GAO) have issued reports identifying
shortcomings in FAA's safety programs. In 1997, the OIG and FAA
conducted a joint follow-up review to assess the implementation of
recommendations made by FAA's 90-day safety review task force. We found
that corrective actions to address the most significant recommendations
identified by the 90-day safety review task force remained in process.
A 1998 OIG audit also concluded that FAA's agreement to reduce the
number of air traffic control supervisors will not negatively impact
safety of air traffic operations, if the FAA first identifies and
implements the duties that controllers-in-charge will assume from
supervisors. Aviation safety issues include:
--Reducing the number of runway incursions--a major risk factor at
airports,
--Effectively implementing FAA's new inspectionprocess, improving the
accuracy of safety databases, and enhancing the quality of
inspector training,
--Establishing management systems that assure safety risks are called
to the attention of top FAA management and promptly acted upon,
and
--Evaluating the safety implications of U.S. codeshare agreements and
international alliances that involve foreign air carriers and
foreign air carrier equipment; if necessary, modifying safety
oversight and codeshare approval approaches accordingly.
Continued Rise in Runway Incursions.--In November 1997 testimony
before Congress, OIG reported that the Runway Incursion Program needed
to expedite solutions to systemwide problems that cause incursions.
Further, OIG concluded local initiatives must be developed to end
incursion threats specific to individual airports. OIG also reported
that new technology is expected to help prevent human errors that lead
to incursions. However, expected completion of two new systems in 1999
and 2000 will be 4 years later than initially planned. FAA issued a new
Airport Surface Operations Safety Action Plan in October 1998 to
strengthen its runway incursion prevention efforts, which includes
actions to address OIG recommendations. We recently initiated an audit
to follow up on the status of our prior recommendations, to assess
FAA's progress in implementing new technologies to reduce runway
incursions, and to evaluate FAA's implementation of its Airport Surface
Operations Safety Action Plan.
Effectiveness of FAA's Inspection Process.--As early as 1987, GAO
identified FAA's need to develop criteria for targeting safety
inspection resources to areas with heightened likelihood of safety
problems, such as new carriers, commuter airlines, and aging aircraft.
In 1995, OIG found FAA's targeting of inspection resources had not
improved. A 1997 OIG audit also identified targeting problems with
certifications and periodic inspections of airports. In another 1997
report, OIG found that FAA airworthiness inspectors were not routinely
given basic technical training, or updated training, for the systems
they were responsible for inspecting.
To further evaluate FAA's inspection process, in 1998 we initiated
reviews of FAA's National Aviation Safety Inspection Program and
oversight of air tour operators. These reviews are nearing completion.
Additionally, in 1998 the OIG reported that the inactivation of the
military specification for testing threaded fasteners and components
(screws, nuts, and bolts with internal or external threads used in high
stress systems and threaded products, such as engine drive shafts)
could pose an aviation safety risk. To more fully evaluate safety
risks, in fiscal year 1999 we plan on evaluating FAA's oversight of
manufacturers' quality assurance systems for threaded fasteners and
components and FAA's oversight of all-cargo air carriers.
Quality of Aviation Safety Databases.--OIG reported that FAA's
databases contained inaccurate and incomplete data on runway
incursions. In addition, in 1995 GAO found that FAA needed to improve
the reliability of its Safety Performance Analysis System, which
integrates and analyzes information from other databases so it can be
used to target areas of greatest risk. For fiscal year 1999, we plan to
review FAA's use of safety data generated from industry self-disclosure
programs, including flight operational quality assurance data to
improve safety.
Safety Oversight of Foreign Air Carriers.--In fiscal year 1999, we
plan to initiate work to address the complexities of codesharing in the
aviation industry and the responsibilities for aviation safety
oversight when U.S. air carriers codeshare with foreign air carriers.
Investigative Coverage
Suspected Unapproved Parts.--OIG has in recent years developed an
extensive investigative and training program to combat suspected
unapproved parts (SUPs) sold for servicing commercial aircraft. One OIG
investigation involved the armed robbery of two FAA-certified repair
stations by five defendants in Miami, Florida. The stolen parts
included jet engine disks, blades, and vanes, which were subsequently
sold or ``laundered'' through two aviation parts companies. The
defendants falsified airworthiness and parts traceability
certifications for the stolen parts, which endangered the safety of
aircraft. The leader of the conspiracy was sentenced to over 12 years
in prison, 36 months probation, and $1.3 million restitution.
In 1997 OIG, FAA, and several other agencies formed a working group
to combat trafficking in unapproved parts. Agencies involved seek a new
criminal statute to combat such violations. OIG in the past year has
conducted 22 SUP-suppression classes for more than 500 FAA safety
inspectors and more classes are slated this year.
surface transportation safety
Highway fatalities, other than those involving trucks, claim more
than 35,000 lives annually. Truck accidents claim more than 5,000 lives
annually. Rail and transit account for an additional 850 lost lives.
Though rates have been declining, they are still unacceptably high. DOT
has established as its first strategic goal to marshal its resources to
reduce the number of accidents that lead to fatalities, injuries, and
associated economic costs.
DOT Strategic Goal # 1
Safety.--``Promote the public health and safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage.''
Key OIG Contacts.--Patricia J. Thompson, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Surface Transportation, 202-366-0687; Todd Zinser,
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, 202-366-1967.
Background
The Department of Transportation continues to dedicate and focus
substantial DOT resources to work toward ensuring the American public
has the safest transportation system possible. This is a formidable
challenge, considering the number of fatalities and injuries and
property damage resulting from automobile and motor carrier accidents
each year. Railroad, rail-highway grade crossings, rail trespass,
commuter rail transit, and hazardous materials accidents also result in
loss of life and costly property damage. To its credit, DOT has
dedicated resources to educational programs in support of safety, such
as programs to promote increasing seat belt usage and the primary
enforcement of seat belt laws. However, it is essential that DOT
continues to provide vigorous and effectual enforcement of all safety
regulations when other methods are not effective.
Key surface transportation challenges include:
--Improving DOT's motor carrier safety program for vehicle
maintenance, driver qualifications, and compliance with hours
of service requirements. Take prompt and meaningful enforcement
action for carrier noncompliance that endangers the public
safety,
--Increasing the level of safety of commercial trucks and drivers
entering the U.S. from Mexico,
--Increasing seat belt usage through primary enforcement of seat belt
laws, education, and other strategies,
--Reducing grade crossing and rail trespasser accidents through
enforcement, education, and technology,
--Improving compliance with safety regulations by entities
responsible for transporting hazardous materials, and
--Enhancing the effectiveness of the Federal Railroad
Administration's Safety Assurance Compliance Program and
aggressively using enforcement actions when voluntary and
collaborative initiatives with a railroad do not promptly
achieve the desired results.
Audit Coverage
A 1997 OIG audit report on the Federal Highway Administration's
Motor Carrier Safety Program found that as of 1995 only 2.5 percent of
the Nation's interstate motor carriers were inspected as part of safety
compliance reviews. A sampling of motor carriers found that 75 percent
did not sustain a satisfactory rating on safety compliance reviews. In
a 1998 review, we found that 3.5 million Mexican commercial trucks
entered the United States during fiscal year 1997. Of those trucks
inspected, 44.1 percent were placed out of service for serious safety
violations. Motor carrier safety is a major management issue for the
Department, and the OIG will provide audit coverage in fiscal year
1999.
The Department and the OIG have also placed high priority on the
transportation of hazardous materials. OIG and RSPA are jointly leading
a Department-wide Program Evaluation of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Program. The objectives of the program evaluation are to
(i) document the system of hazardous materials movements in U.S.
commerce and DOT agency intervention actions, such as regulations,
inspections, enforcement, and outreach programs, and (ii) assess the
effectiveness of DOT's program as it intervenes in and affects each
step in the hazardous materials transportation process. The program
evaluation will document the points at which the current hazardous
materials program intervenes in the transportation of these materials,
from packaging to shipper to carrier to receiver, and how effectively
DOT applies intervention and enforcement tools to hazardous materials
shipments in the transportation stream.
Motor Carrier Safety Program.--In a fiscal year 1997 audit report,
the OIG concluded that improvements were needed in FHWA's motor carrier
compliance review program to expand review coverage of the motor
carrier population, more accurately target carriers for review, induce
prompt and sustained motor carrier compliance with safety regulations,
and ensure the quality of reviews. We reported that during fiscal year
1995, only 8,666 of 345,500 (2.5 percent) interstate motor carriers
received compliance reviews, and 64 percent of the Nation's carriers
remain unrated. We found that FHWA's enforcement efforts were not
effective in inducing prompt and sustained compliance with regulations
and safe on-the-road performance. In addition, FHWA did not ensure
compliance review procedures were followed or that critical review
steps were thoroughly performed. OIG is currently auditing the
effectiveness of the FHWA Motor Carrier Program and will determine
whether recommendations made in earlier reports were implemented.
Motor Carrier Safety Program for Commercial Trucks at U.S.
Borders.--OIG found that Mexican motor carriers had limited experience
operating within U.S. safety standards, and the FHWA's strategy for
opening the Mexican-U.S. border to Mexican commercial truck traffic did
not provide reasonable assurance, in the near term, that trucks
entering the United States will comply with U.S. safety regulations. We
also found that neither FHWA nor the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and
Texas provided sufficient numbers of inspectors at border crossings.
California, however, did provide sufficient inspectors. OIG identified
a direct correlation between the condition of Mexican trucks entering
the U.S. commercial zones and the level of inspection resources at the
border. California has the best inspection practices, and the condition
of Mexican trucks entering at the Mexico-California border is much
better than those entering all other border States. During fiscal year
1997, the out-of-service rate for Mexican trucks inspected in
California was 28 percent compared to 42 percent in Arizona, 37 percent
in New Mexico, and 50 percent in Texas.
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program.--OIG found FRA's Safety
Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) partnership and systemic
approach to rail safety has improved communication and cooperation
among railroad management, labor, and FRA. SACP has also been
successful in identifying and eliminating systemic safety problems.
However, the SACP process is not as comprehensive as it needs to be to
achieve the desired results. FRA must strengthen the effectiveness of
SACP by: (i) defining SACP policies and procedures more clearly, (ii)
developing better railroad safety profiles, (iii) identifying systemic
safety issues in safety action plans, and (iv) monitoring and enforcing
railroad implementation and compliance with safety action plans.
Follow-up must be improved and firm enforcement action must be taken
when a railroad does not comply with safety plans.
Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan.--OIG has initiated an
audit of the Department's Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan. The
action plan involves the Department, FRA, FHWA, NHTSA, and FTA, working
in partnership with the railroad and transit industries, state and
local governments, the Congress, and Operation Lifesaver. The plan
presented 55 initiatives in the areas of enforcement, engineering,
education, research, and legislation, intended to improve safety at the
nation's railroad-highway public and private grade crossings (which
total 261,317 as of September 1998). Nine out of ten fatalities
involving trains occur at rail-highway crossings or as the result of
trespassing on railroad tracks. In 1997, collisions at rail-highway
grade crossings caused 461 fatalities and 1,540 injuries. In addition,
533 people were killed and another 519 were injured while trespassing
on railroad property. OIG is focusing on evaluating DOT's effectiveness
in completing the action plan's initiatives and recommendations and
assessing the progress toward achieving the Department's 10-year goal
to reduce rail-highway crossing accidents and casualties, including
those resulting from trespassing, by at least 50 percent.
Investigative Coverage
OIG is focusing resources on investigating criminal acts that
result in or contribute to accidents, including driver hours of service
violations, falsification of drivers' and engineers' logs, drug and
alcohol use, inaccurate maintenance records and repair logs, and the
illegal transportation of hazardous materials. In 1996, large trucks
contributed to one of every eight vehicle accidents. Fatigue is a
significant contributing factor in many of those accidents--according
to a study by the National Transportation Safety Board, fatigue is a
factor in 30 percent to 40 percent of all truck accidents.
OIG has established a major investigative initiative in support of
the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) pursuit of motor carriers and
drivers who falsify drivers' logs of time on the road. OIG currently
has over 30 such cases open and has obtained 33 indictments for related
violations in the past 18 months. In one Pennsylvania case, a Florida
truck driver pleaded guilty in Federal court to a false statement
pertaining to falsified driver's logs. Previously, the driver had plead
guilty in state court to homicide by vehicle when his tractor-trailer
crossed a center dividing line and struck five other vehicles, killing
one driver and seriously injuring others. A joint OIG investigation
with the state police and OMC disclosed the driver's log falsely
reflected he had been off-duty the day prior to the accident, when he
had actually been on duty in excess of the permissible number of hours.
The driver was sentenced in state court to 12 months incarceration, 24
months probation, and fined $1,800. He was sentenced in Federal court
to 21 months imprisonment, 3 years probation, and $145,000 restitution.
The investigation of illegal transportation of hazardous materials
is also one of OIG's highest priority programs. Investigations have
focused on the false certification of shipping manifests
misrepresenting materials being shipped, false statements, mail and
wire fraud, and conspiracy. Investigations in 1997 and 1998, many
conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section, and the
Environmental Protection Agency, have resulted in 34 indictments and 23
convictions, with total fines of $2.16 million. In a recent case, a
chemical wholesaler was charged with illegally shipping flammables
aboard a Federal Express aircraft. In addition, a barge company
employee was found guilty of violating Clean Water Act regulations by
polluting the Mississippi River north of New Orleans over an 11-year
period.
year 2000 computer issues
After a late start, the DOT, including FAA, has made a great deal
of progress addressing its Year 2000 computer problems, but needs to
continue with a sense of urgency in completing its work, especially in
FAA and the Coast Guard. The threat of computer-system failures is
significant to DOT, the transportation industry, and the traveling
public. With about 1 year left, much work still needs to be done. Most
DOT mission-critical systems with identified Year 2000 problems have
been repaired; however, the risk of system failure remains until these
repaired systems are adequately tested as a unit and as a system with
multiple units, including external systems with which DOT systems
interface, such as the MCI telecommunications network used by the FAA
Air Traffic Control System. For the transportation industry, DOT met
with representatives from various transportation sectors to promote
Year 2000 awareness, and will perform a preliminary assessment of the
industry's readiness by December 1998.
OIG has taken an active oversight role on both DOT internal systems
and the outreach efforts. OIG has been validating the accuracy of DOT
quarterly reports to OMB. For the upcoming testing phase, OIG will
observe actual operational testing as part of our continuing oversight,
to include interface testing with external systems. Having fully
functioning computer systems is a key corporate management strategy of
the Department.
DOT Corporate Management Strategies
Information Technology.--``Improve mission performance, data
sharing, system integrity, communications, and productivity through
deployment of information systems which are secure, reliable,
compatible, and cost effective now and beyond the Year 2000.''
Key OIG Contact.--John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Financial, Economic, and Information Technology, 202-366-1496.
Background
It has been customary in computer programming to represent years by
their two final digits, a practice that for decades posed no problems.
However, the arrival of the new millennium will change the presumed
first two digits from 19 to 20. When the year 2000 arrives, computer
systems may fail if programs cannot recognize ``00'' as signifying the
year 2000, rather than 1900. All Federal agencies--indeed, all users of
computers--are advised to determine whether the shift poses the threat
of breakdown to the programs upon which they rely, or has the potential
to render crucial data inaccurate. Current cost estimates to assess,
repair, and test DOT systems stand at over $300 million.
We also see a major issue involving external systems that interface
with DOT internal systems. Major network service providers, such as
MCI, are reporting their telecommunication systems will not be Year-
2000 ready until June 1999, so DOT will not be able to fully test its
systems until the external systems are compliant.
Noteworthy Progress
In August 1998, we testified that 102 of FAA's mission-critical
systems would not be tested and implemented by OMB's milestone of March
31, 1999. After a very late start, DOT, including FAA, has made
substantial progress on its Year 2000 computer problems. As of November
13, 1998, a total of 281 of 295 mission-critical DOT systems with Year
2000 problems have been repaired, but have not been tested as a system
to be certain the repairs fixed the problems. DOT has met with
representatives from the aviation, maritime, surface, and rail
industries to promote Year 2000 awareness and develop a high-level
action plan for the Intelligent Transportation Systems. DOT also has
made Year 2000 funding available under the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21th Century (TEA-21) and the Airport Improvement Program.
Under the direction of the Year 2000 Conversion Council, DOT sent
questionnaires in November 1998 to organizations (e.g., trade
associations) in the transportation industry. Based on the response,
DOT will assess the transportation industry's readiness and report the
results to the White House by December 11, 1998.
Audit Coverage
Since May 1997, OIG has issued four audit reports and testified
before Congress twice. Major issues that DOT must still address are:
--Completing Year 2000 work on all mission-critical computer systems
by March 31, 1999,
--Testing all repaired systems to ensure they properly function as a
unit, and together as a system,
--Obtaining assurances that the transportation industry will be Year
2000 compliant, and
--Assuring DOT computers properly interface with external systems of
other Government agencies, network service providers such as
MCI, and the transportation industry, and developing
contingency plans that can be used if critical systems fail to
operate after December 31, 1999. Contingency plans are
increasingly important, even if internal agency systems are
Year 2000 compliant because, if the external systems fail, DOT
must still be able to operate.
DOT Needs To Accelerate Year 2000 Work Schedule.--On February 4,
1998, OIG testified that FAA needed to accelerate Year 2000 work
because it was 7 months behind the OMB schedule. As of November 13,
1998, DOT reported that 56 of its mission-critical systems will not be
tested and implemented by March 31, 1999. DOT still needs to accelerate
its schedule to meet OMB's March 1999 date.
Testing of Renovated Systems.--Upon completion of the repair work,
DOT needs to test all systems to ensure they properly function as a
unit, and together as a system. This is extremely important for the Air
Traffic Control System which is a very complex and interdependent
system.
Industry Awareness.--DOT agencies have made significant efforts
outreaching to industry to increase awareness of Year 2000 issues.
Continued proactive attention is needed with national and international
industry representatives in obtaining assurances that the
transportation industry will be Year 2000 compliant.
Interfacing and Contingency Plans.--While much work has been done
on fixing DOT computers, more needs to be done to ensure DOT computers
can interface with other Government agencies, network service providers
like MCI, and the transportation industry. Network service providers
are reporting their systems will not be Year 2000 ready until June
1999. Contingency plans are essential due to the unknowns associated
with the Year 2000.
air traffic control modernization
FAA's multibillion-dollar air traffic control (ATC) modernization
effort remains a major challenge. Cost overruns, schedule delays, and
shortfalls in performance of the past should not be repeated and new
systems must come in close to budget and meet the requirements of a
dynamic and growing aviation system. Modernizing the nation's ATC
system is closely linked to three DOT strategic goals. They are:
DOT Strategic Goal # 1
Safety.--``Promote the public health and safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 2
Mobility.--``Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation
system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers
flexibility of choices.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 3
Economic Growth and Trade--``Advance America's economic growth and
competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and
flexible transportation.''
Key OIG Contact.--Alexis M. Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Aviation, 202-366-0500.
Background
FAA is immersed in a multi-billion dollar, mission-critical capital
investment program to modernize its aging air traffic control system.
This effort involves the acquisition of a vast network of radars and
automated data processing, navigation, and communications equipment.
Programs like the Display System Replacement (DSR) and the early phases
of the HOST and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOST Replacement)
mainly replace existing equipment and functionality, and are not
considered software intensive development projects. DSR provides new
controller displays and workstations, and upgrades the network
infrastructure at FAA's en route centers. The HOST Replacement,
currently in its first phase, replaces the mainframe HOST and oceanic
computers at the en route centers. The HOST computers process flight
and radar data and are the heart of the automation system used to
control air traffic in the National Airspace System. Subsequent phases
upgrade software and replace peripherals such as printers and tape
drives. Hopefully, these programs will continue to proceed well.
Other acquisitions like FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
and the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) pose
significant challenges and are experiencing problems with software
development and human factors issues. WAAS is a system of ground
reference stations, communications satellites, and complex software
that will augment the Department of Defense's Global Positioning System
to provide navigation, approach, and landing capabilities for civilian
use in the National Airspace System. STARS will replace air traffic
controller and maintenance workstations with color displays, as well as
computer software and processors, at FAA's 172 terminal air traffic
control facilities. Successful deployment of WAAS and STARS is
considered crucial to the implementation of Free Flight.
In addition to replacing existing systems, FAA's modernization
program also includes developing new technologies to meet the emerging
safety and capacity demands of the National Airspace System. These new
technologies include satellite-based navigation and communications
capabilities, methods to reduce runway incursions, and capabilities to
move the aviation industry toward Free Flight, such as data link.
FAA estimates the cost of modernizing the system will total about
$40 billion from 1981 through 2003. Congress has appropriated about $27
billion through fiscal year 1999. FAA acknowledges the problems of the
past and is addressing them with a new approach to major systems
acquisitions. OIG is closely monitoring FAA's efforts to modernize its
ATC systems and making recommendations to minimize further cost
overruns, schedule slippages, and otherwise mitigate acquisition risks.
Audit Coverage
Both OIG and GAO have reported that ATC modernization projects have
experienced substantial cost overruns, lengthy delays, and significant
shortfalls in performance that have affected FAA's ability to deliver
systems as promised. Significant issues that FAA must address include:
--Reassessing and rebaselining plans for transitioning to satellite
communications, navigation, and surveillance technology,
including Free Flight. This issue includes determining whether
GPS and WAAS will be the sole means of navigation or if
secondary systems will be needed. In addition, the WAAS Program
recently announced software development problems associated
with the integrity monitoring software. FAA and the prime
contractor must resolve these software problems as soon as
possible,
--Incorporating human factors in the design and development of new
air traffic control systems and avoiding the problems
experienced with new systems such as STARS,
--Strengthening DOT's capacity to oversee multi-billion dollar
software intensive development contracts. Software intensive
development contracts have typically resulted in large cost
increases and major schedule slippage--an issue that has
affected the pace of ATC modernization for more than a decade.
While this is a significant problem associated with the FAA ATC
Modernization Program, it also is an issue that bears watching
during the development of Intelligent Transportation Systems by
the Federal Highway Administration. Strong oversight by the
Department and the OIG to, among other things, assure
contractor accountability, clear agency requirements, and
strengthened internal controls, will help minimize what has
historically been an area of unacceptable cost growth and
schedule delays,
--Eliminating systemic deficiencies and adopting a complete systems
architecture for its major acquisitions,
--Improving cost-estimating and cost-accounting processes, and
--Increasing air traffic controller proficiency on a critical backup
system.
We will continue to closely monitor FAA's WAAS and STARS programs,
focusing on the software development problems and resolution of human
factors issues. In addition, our ongoing work includes reviews of the
HOST replacement, and FAA's acquisitions of technologies to reduce
runway incursions and to provide data link capabilities. We also plan
to initiate reviews of other technologies needed to implement Free
Flight as well as FAA's program to acquire automation capabilities for
the oceanic airspace.
Transition to Satellite Technology.--OIG reported that FAA's
transition plan for air traffic management satellite technology needed
to fully address costs, financing sources, components, and timing. To
successfully implement the satellite-based systems, FAA also needs to
resolve issues about availability of a second signal, effects of solar
activity on signals, and security from ``jamming.'' In 1998, OIG
reported that FAA needed to determine whether its WAAS Program will be
a sole or primary means of navigation and stated that a back up system
would be needed for the foreseeable future. OIG also reported on
program financial limitations, the need to establish more realistic
schedules, deferring a commitment for additional satellites, and
extending the decommissioning schedule for existing navigation systems.
Design and Development of New Air Traffic Control Systems.--OIG
reported that FAA did not adequately consider users' needs in the
design and development of STARS, a new computer system that tracks and
displays airplanes for air traffic controllers. Controllers and
maintenance technicians have identified numerous potential problems
with STARS that could affect its utility to them and, as a consequence,
affect air safety. OIG reported three additional areas that posed risks
to the program's costs and schedule. A 1998 OIG review found that FAA
did not adequately budget funds for controller display equipment and
had no definitive plans to acquire the needed equipment for the
program. The STARS Program will not meet its original schedule and
program costs are projected to increase by nearly $300 million. Because
of concerns about the significant cost growth for software development
on major systems, OIG plans to initiate an audit in this area in fiscal
year 1999.
Systemic Deficiencies in Major Acquisitions.--OIG found systemic
problems in FAA's major modernization acquisitions. The problems
included frequently changing requirements, inadequate oversight of
contractors, poor contract specifications, and lack of comprehensive
cost-benefit analyses. In a series of reports, OIG noted that
deficiencies in FAA's Advanced Automation System (AAS) Program
contributed to large cost overruns and lengthy schedule delays. In a
1998 review of AAS, OIG estimated that FAA wasted $1.5 billion on the
program. In another review, OIG recommended FAA reinstitute the use of
checklists and followup processes, and strengthen planning for the
integration of multiple systems. In addition, due to serious
supportability and Year 2000 concerns, OIG recommended FAA accelerate
its program to acquire new mainframe computers at its enroute air
traffic control centers.
Systems Architecture for Major Acquisitions.--GAO found that FAA
failed to define and enforce a complete air traffic control systems
architecture; a comprehensive blueprint to guide and constrain the
development of the related systems. FAA also lacked detailed
information technology and communications standards. FAA's failure to
define and hold to a complete architecture has spurred
incompatibilities among existing systems, and the likelihood that
future systems will not be compatible. FAA has recently issued a draft
National Airspace System architecture and is working closely with the
aviation industry to obtain consensus.
Cost-Estimating and Cost-Accounting Processes.--FAA's air traffic
control modernization program lacks reliable cost information. FAA's
weak cost-estimating processes lead to estimates that are not
analytically derived and supported. FAA also lacks an accounting system
that accumulates all project costs, increasing the likelihood of poor
investment decisions throughout the life cycle of the projects.
Air Traffic Controller Training on Critical Backup System.--OIG
recently reported that air traffic controllers at FAA's en route
centers needed increased proficiency training using the HOST computer's
backup system. While we concluded that the backup system, called Direct
Access Radar Channel (DARC), was reliable, we noted DARC has
limitations that reduce controller efficiency. OIG found that reliance
on DARC is expected to increase during the HOST Replacement transition
period. Further, a large number of air traffic controllers at the five
en route centers we visited had very limited or no operational
experience controlling air traffic using DARC. Thus, in order to
minimize the impact of outages during the HOST Replacement, we
recommended FAA ensure all center air traffic controllers receive
additional training using DARC.
faa financing
Financing FAA activities and the air traffic control system is a
major issue that the Department, the Congress, and the aviation
community need to address. Currently, FAA faces significant risks in
meeting rising operations costs. Over the past 10 years FAA's annual
operations requirements have almost doubled from $3 billion to almost
$6 billion and the cost of operations is expected to continue to rise.
For example, a recent increase in pay for air traffic controllers could
require as much as $1 billion in additional funding over the next 5
years.
FAA needs to find ways to manage within budgets that are not
expected to keep pace with the growth in operations costs. FAA must
mitigate the risks of funding shortfalls by controlling costs and
increasing productivity. Also, a reliable cost accounting system is
needed to support management decisions, and help identify actions that
can reduce operating costs. Credible information will strengthen FAA's
capacity to justify sufficient funding. Adequate financing for FAA
activities underpins all five DOT strategic goals and one key
Departmental corporate management strategy. They are:
DOT Strategic Goal # 1
Safety.--``Promote the public health and safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 2
Mobility.--``Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation
system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers
flexibility of choices.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 3
Economic Growth and Trade.--``Advance America's economic growth and
competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and
flexible transportation.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 4
Human and Natural Environment.--``Protect and enhance communities
and the natural environment affected by transportation.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 5
National Security.--``Advance the nation's vital security interests
in support of national strategies such as the National Security
Strategy and National Drug Control Strategy by ensuring that the
transportation system is secure and available for defense mobility and
that our borders are safe from illegal intrusion.''
DOT Corporate Management Strategy
Resource and Business Process Management.--``Foster innovative and
sound business practices as stewards of the public's resources in our
quest for a fast, safe, efficient and convenient transportation
system.'' Included under this strategy are budget management,
resources, financial management, and asset management.
Key OIG Contacts.--John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Financial, Economic, and Information Technology, 202-366-1496;
Alexis Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Aviation, 202-
366-0500.
Background
FAA's funding predicament for fiscal year 1999 operations is
caused, in part, by a new pay system agreed to between FAA and the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The new pay system could
increase costs as much as $1 billion over the next 5 years with an
immediate impact of $102 million on FAA's fiscal year 1999 budget. To
further compound this issue, FAA has been prohibited by federal court
from collecting approximately $93 million in user fees. FAA will need
to identify offsetting savings and productivity gains to meet its
funding requirements. Achieving the necessary funding goals will
require difficult decisions on what will be cut.
Securing adequate and stable funding sources for FAA is a critical
issue facing DOT and the Congress. Recognizing the seriousness of FAA's
long-term financing problems, Congress directed that an independent
assessment be made of FAA's budgetary requirements. The National Civil
Aviation Review Commission was created to analyze FAA's budgetary
requirements through fiscal year 2002, including ways to fund the needs
of the aviation system. In December 1997, the Commission recommended
that FAA be shielded from discretionary budget caps and that a direct
link be established between revenues from aviation users and spending
on aviation services. The Commission also recommended that: air traffic
control become a performance-based service; FAA have a cost accounting
system and authority to start innovative leasing and borrowing
programs; and FAA adopt cost-based user fees to support its air traffic
system, with government funding for aviation security, safety, and
government use of the system.
However, even with more liberal budgetary treatment, there are
limits on revenues that can be derived from passengers, whether they
are called user fees, taxes, or charges. Passengers currently pay an 8
percent tax on airline tickets and many airports impose Passenger
Facility Charges to obtain funds for infrastructure projects. FAA, like
other performance-based organizations in the public or private sector,
must show discipline in controlling costs, particularly for operations
and air traffic control acquisitions.
Audit Coverage
OIG has issued reports identifying FAA funding and accounting
problems. Currently, the OIG is working on an analysis of FAA funding
levels and the various assumptions used by the agency to project
receipts from the trust fund, the general fund, or other sources and
comparing them to various funding scenarios for operations and
maintenance; facilities and equipment; airports; and research,
engineering, and development accounts. Key issues associated with FAA
financing include:
--Accurately determining the amount of funds that will be needed to
finance FAA and determining what portion of FAA's operations,
air traffic control modernization, and airport infrastructure,
should be financed by the trust fund, general fund, or other
sources of funds such as passenger facility charges. This is a
matter that will be debated in the next Congress.
--Developing a cost accounting system on which FAA can be better
managed and upon which ``user fees'' could be based. FAA cannot
implement a credible and reliable cost accounting system until
it first ensures its financial systems accurately capture and
allocate relevant cost data and FAA obtains an unqualified
opinion on its financial statements. FAA's financial management
systems do not currently capture this data and until they do,
FAA cannot receive an unqualified opinion.
Workforce Cost Increases.--FAA and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association have negotiated a new pay system for air
traffic controllers that could increase the agency's total costs of
operations by as much as $1 billion over the next 5 years. FAA did not
request additional funds for this pay increase in its fiscal year 1999
budget. If FAA's future funding does not include offsetting
appropriations or new revenue, and if performance improvements are not
realized, the agency will face significant risks in funding the new pay
system while, at the same time, meeting other critical agency
requirements. These risks could be further compounded if similar pay
programs are developed in current negotiations with FAA's two other
largest unions.
Cost Accounting System.--The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act
of 1996 directed FAA to develop a cost accounting system that reflects
investments, costs, revenues and other financial aspects. A fully
operational cost accounting system would help FAA measure air traffic
control performance, establish cost accountability, and be a basis for
user fees. FAA initially promised Congress the cost accounting system
would be operational by October 1, 1998.
In August 1998, OIG reported the implementation of FAA's cost
accounting system was not on schedule. While the original schedule
called for full implementation by October 1, 1998, the OIG found the
schedule was overly aggressive, contained conflicting tasks, and
omitted responsibilities and resource needs. We also reported FAA had
yet to establish a systematic method to identify and reflect (1) the
cost of accounting adjustments, (2) cost for all development projects,
(3) cost incurred by other agencies for air traffic services, and (4)
the correct labor cost charged to appropriate projects. In addition,
FAA had not decided how to allocate its costs.
FAA has revised its implementation goals into two stages; an
initial operational cost accounting system by December 31, 1998, and a
fully operational system by March 31, 1999. In addition, allocation
rules have been drafted and are currently being validated. In our
opinion, the March 31, 1999, revised deadline for a fully operational
cost accounting system is not a credible deadline and is highly
unlikely to be achieved. FAA must have an unqualified opinion on its
financial statements before they can have a credible and defensible
cost accounting system.
Financial Accounting and Reporting Process.--OIG identified
material internal control weaknesses with FAA's financial accounting
and reporting process, which resulted in OIG disclaiming an opinion on
FAA's financial statements for fiscal years 1992 through 1997. Based on
work done as of December 2, 1998, we also expect to issue a disclaimer
on FAA's fiscal year 1998 financial statements. These problems are
discussed further under Issue 8, Financial Accounting. Until FAA
resolves its underlying financial control deficiencies, its cost
accounting system will not produce accurate and defensible cost data
and FAA will not be able to sustain a cost-based user fee program.
surface, marine, and airport infrastructure needs
Replacement of transportation infrastructure and construction of
projects triggered by new needs is crucial to U.S. economic viability
and quality of life. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) provided an enormous infusion of funds for surface
transportation infrastructure. Numerous major transportation
infrastructure projects are in progress at a cost of billions of
dollars. It is imperative that DOT funds are used effectively and
efficiently to improve and expand highway, transit, airport, and
maritime infrastructure projects. Meeting U.S. transportation
infrastructure needs is tied to three DOT strategic goals. They are:
DOT Strategic Goal #2
Mobility.--``Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation
system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers
flexibility of choices.''
DOT Strategic Goal #3
Economic Growth and Trade.--``Advance America's economic growth and
competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and
flexible transportation.''
DOT Strategic Goal #4
Human and Natural Environment.--``Protect and enhance communities
and the natural environment affected by transportation.''
Key OIG Contacts.--Alexis Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Aviation, 202-366-0500; Patricia J. Thompson, Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Surface Transportation, 202-366-0687;
Tom Howard, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Maritime and
Departmental Programs, 202-366-1534; and, Todd Zinser, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations, 202-366-1967.
Background
TEA-21 guarantees a record $198 billion investment over a 6-year
period to maintain and improve America's transportation infrastructure.
Significant funding is provided for highway and transit programs,
highway safety, and bridge replacement and rehabilitation. TEA-21
provides funding for programs to protect or enhance the environment,
such as $8.1 billion for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality improvements
and $500 million for clean fuels. Intelligent Transportation System
projects will receive $1.3 billion to develop and deploy advanced
technologies.
TEA-21 also provides increased funding for transportation research
and development on a variety of new technologies addressing critical
infrastructure and safety problems, including $228 million for
university education and research programs. Highway and transit
discretionary grants funding will receive $16.7 billion for fiscal
years 1999 through 2003. Improving and expanding the highway and
transit infrastructure demands increased vigilance by the Department to
guarantee the maximum impact. Because of the large influx of funds,
there will be greater potential for fraud, embezzlement and abuse. OIG
is therefore increasing its oversight of the Department's management of
significant infrastructure projects.
Audit Coverage
Since October 1, 1997, OIG issued six audit reports covering
selected major highway and transit infrastructure projects priced at $1
billion or more (``mega projects''). The audits focused on current
costs, work completed, the accuracy of supporting data, and the
potential financial and schedule risks for each mega project. As a
result of these reviews, we identified lessons learned and best
practices that offer opportunities for cost-savings in future large
infrastructure projects, including the use of value engineering, the
design-build contracting approach, owner-controlled insurance programs,
and the need for a sound financial plan. Key issues include:
--Strengthening internal controls to ensure adequate management and
oversight of the infusion of substantial additional Federal
funds for surface infrastructure projects, preventing fraud,
embezzlement, and abuse of funds, Ensuring the development of
sound financial plans for high-cost transportation
infrastructure projects,
--Promoting the use of cost-saving techniques such as value
engineering, design-build procurements, and owner-controlled
insurance programs,
--Monitoring major on-going infrastructure projects concerning
current costs, work completed, and potential financial and
schedule risks,
--Recording baseline data on planned mega highway and transit
projects to provide timely and comprehensive information and
prioritize future reviews, and
--Selecting high value projects for discretionary grants, awarded
according to established criteria.
In fiscal year 1999, OIG will continue to dedicate significant
resources to assess DOT's oversight of infrastructure projects through
baseline reviews to develop basic data points. We also will make in-
depth reviews of major construction projects and follow up reviews on
projects reviewed in previous years.
Central Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project.--OIG found costs to
complete the Boston Central Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project, which
include the replacement of a segment of urban highway and a new
airport-access tunnel under Boston Harbor, could rise as high as $11.2
billion. We also concluded there was a likelihood of higher-than-
budgeted costs for change orders, contract awards, and consultant costs
in the absence of aggressive cost-controls. We are currently conducting
a follow up review on the project's costs, funding, and schedule.
Completion of the Metrorail System, Washington, DC.--OIG found
Federal, state, and local funding is sufficient to pay for construction
of the four segments of the Metrorail system, with final construction
costs estimated to be below the original cost estimates. The report
also disclosed that the scheduled opening of one segment is at some
risk, and another segment, though also at risk, is likely to open on
time.
Cypress Freeway Project, Oakland, California.--OIG found Federal
and state funding is sufficient to pay for construction of the project,
and the construction costs may be less than state estimates.
Review of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Metrorail Red Line.--OIG found the cost and schedule estimates of the
Red Line are reasonable; however, there were still funding risks.
Because the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
lacked an up-to-date, comprehensive Finance Plan, the agency did not
recognize it had insufficient revenues to fund all competing capital
projects and commitments. FTA concurred with our recommendation to
require MTA to develop and keep current a Finance Plan. Subsequently,
on May 13, 1998, the Board adopted a Recovery Plan (Finance Plan) which
identified how MTA would finance the cost to complete the on-going
segments of the Red Line; meet its other responsibilities, such as a
court-ordered Consent Decree to improve bus service; and fund its
operating costs. OIG reviewed MTA's Recovery Plan and found it to be
reasonable. We noted, however, that vigilant oversight by management
will be required to ensure that the project meets Recovery Plan goals.
We will continue to monitor the project and update previous audit work.
Interstate 15 Reconstruction Project in Utah.--OIG found the use of
the Design-Build contracting approach will enable the project to be
completed ahead of schedule, saving an estimated 3 years of time
compared to traditional contracting methods. The project is scheduled
to open 7 months before the start of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in
Salt Lake City and surrounding environs. OIG also found the $1.6
billion cost of the project is reasonable, but funding had not been
identified to cover all I-15 project costs. In August 1998, Utah's
Department of Transportation requested additional Federal funding under
Section 1223 of TEA-21 to cover the identified shortfall.
Allocating Discretionary Funds.--OIG found that Departmental
officials were frequently not funding projects identified as the
highest priority (59 percent of the FHWA awards and 15 percent of the
FAA awards), nor explaining or documenting the rationale for these
decisions. The OIG recommended that the Secretary develop appropriate
implementing guidance on allocating discretionary funds, particularly
the funding of the highest national priority projects and documentation
of decision rationale. The Department notified Congress that it would
publish selection criteria for highway discretionary programs. In
addition, the Department will provide the appropriate Committees with
quarterly lists of discretionary projects selected for funding and an
explanation of how the projects were selected based on the criteria.
The Department also agreed that discretionary funding decisions should
be documented appropriately, and Departmental officials will take the
steps necessary to ensure such documentation is kept.
Investigative Coverage
OIG has made the investigation of infrastructure contract/grant
fraud as one of its highest priorities. With the infusion of the
tremendous amount of TEA 21 funds into rebuilding the nation's highways
and transit facilities, the Office of Investigations has developed a
TEA 21 strategy to protect the expenditure of Federal funds. The
foundation of this strategy encompasses outreach and liaison by OIG in
working with FHWA, FTA, DOT grantees, and other law enforcement
agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state
criminal investigations units, to ensure that public monies are spent
wisely and efficiently.
OIG has actively promoted measures within the Department to deter
criminal activities. For example, as a follow up to a false claims case
involving a highway construction project, OIG recommended that FHWA
establish procedures in all States that require a certification
statement on all claims and supplemental agreements, similar to the
statement required for progress payments on highway construction
contracts. The contractor would affirm that all information contained
on a claim is true, correct, and accurate, subject to criminal
prosecution for false statements. This would aid in the prosecution of
contractors who file misleading and false claims.
Contractor ``Kickbacks''.--An ongoing investigation by the OIG and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation led to three guilty pleas involving
conspiracy, bribery, and money-laundering. One FHWA employee was
sentenced to 37 months incarceration, 3 years supervised release, and
fined $5,000 for soliciting and receiving more than $150,000 in cash
and money orders from government contractors. Two contractors have
pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges on FHWA contracts involving
advanced vehicle highway technologies. A separate investigation
involving the payment of gratuities to an FTA grantee employee resulted
in a guilty plea by the vice president of a Cambridge, MA, construction
company and charges of corruption for soliciting and obtaining money
and property.
Contractor Fraud/False Billing.--As a result of an OIG
investigation, on November 12, 1998, in Madison, Wisconsin Federal
Court, Daniel Benkert pleaded guilty to making false statements on
highway construction projects. Benkert was a supervisor for Yahara
Materials, a road construction company that also owns several aggregate
pits which provide materials for the construction industry. Benkert
instructed his subordinates to prepare at least 148 false weight
tickets representing truck loads of gravel or aggregate that were never
delivered, but billed, to a Federal-aid highway project.
Maritime Infrastructure
Background
The United States is dependent on the marine transportation system
for 95 percent of overseas international trade and 25 percent of
domestic trade. This system, which is comprised of the nation's
waterways, ports, and intermodal connections, requires coordination to
operate efficiently and effectively. Although national, state, and
local government agencies share ownership, management, and operation of
the marine transportation system with the private sector, there is no
coordinated national leadership. Without coordinated leadership, the
nation's mobility, safety, economic growth, competitiveness, natural
environment, and security may be adversely impacted.
The Department of Transportation needs to provide leadership to
maintain, improve, and develop port, waterway, and intermodal
infrastructure and services to meet current and future needs. For
example, the marine transportation infrastructure (channel depths and
widths, deep-draft anchorages, portside facilities, and rail and
highway access) is not adequate to meet the nation's growing demand for
moving passengers and cargo. Maritime trade is predicted to double
within the next generation with megaships, including large container
vessels capable of carrying over 6,000 20-foot container equivalent
units, and passenger vessels with capacities exceeding 3,000
passengers. U.S. competitiveness and economic growth will be dependent
upon the ability of U.S. ports to accommodate these vessels.
Since most of the nation's channels and harbors are not naturally
deep enough to accommodate modern vessels, dredging is essential.
Currently, only three U.S. ports, all located on the West Coast,
provide channel depths of 50 feet or more that are capable of handling
a fully loaded megaship. However, dredging has become controversial
given concerns about dredged material disposal, increasing
environmental awareness, and recognition of the sensitivity and value
of the coastal ecosystems. In addition, since many ports are publicly
owned state or local entities with limited budgets for dredging,
economic issues must be resolved. The U.S. port industry is concerned
over the Supreme Court decision that the Harbor Maintenance Tax on
exports was unconstitutional. During fiscal year 1997, the trust fund
generated by this tax provided about $546 million for dredging.
Effectively addressing these factors is critical to economic growth and
environmental stewardship.
There is a need to develop a dedicated funding stream for maritime
infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The Congress did not
approve the Administration's recently proposed replacement for the
Harbor Maintenance Tax. Also, user fees are unpopular and funding for
system projects is administered by numerous federal agencies.
Inadequate and uncoordinated funding will adversely impact dredging,
port development, and ultimately port selection by carriers. Finding
opportunities for cost-sharing ventures and public-private partnerships
to improve the maritime infrastructure is critical to U.S.
competitiveness.
The Office of Inspector General plans to review the Department's
efforts to maintain and upgrade the maritime infrastructure, especially
as they relate to megaport development, environmental issues, and
funding mechanisms. We will focus our work on initiatives resulting
from the Department's November 17-19, 1998, conference on the Marine
Transportation System.
Airport Infrastructure
Background
The majority of funds to maintain and improve the nation's airport
infrastructure come from three sources: airport and special facility
bonds, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, and passenger facility
charges (PFC) on airline tickets. Airport industry associations
estimate that through the year 2002, airports in the National Airport
System will need $10 billion annually for capital investments to
maintain the integrity of airport infrastructure. This estimate
includes all capital projects, whether or not eligible for AIP grants.
Airports in the National Airport System are eligible for AIP grants
awarded by the FAA. AIP grants are funded through the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund, which is supported entirely by taxes on aviation
users. AIP funding in fiscal year 1998 was $1.7 billion. AIP funding
for fiscal year 1999 is $1.95 billion, but only $975 million can be
obligated through March 1999 or prior to reauthorization of the AIP.
FAA gives the highest priority for AIP funds to projects that address
safety, security, noise mitigation, and rehabilitation/reconstruction
of existing airfields. According to FAA records, from 1982 through
1996, 53 percent of AIP funds were spent for runways, taxiways, and
aprons. The next largest use of AIP funds was noise projects, which
accounted for 11 percent of total AIP expenditures. The OIG will
continue to review the use of airport revenue to help the FAA ensure
that maximum benefits to the flying public accrue from these funds.
Audit Coverage
In recent years, the OIG has issued a series of reports on airport
infrastructure subjects. Key issues that must still be addressed in
funding airport infrastructure needs include:
--Eliminating the prohibited diversion of airport revenues by airport
sponsors,
--Strengthening prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse especially in
view of the infusion of substantial additional amounts of
Federal funds for infrastructure,
--Selecting high value projects for AIP grant funds, and
--Establishing policy on PFC funding eligibility requirements.
Diversion of Airport Revenue.--The OIG has issued two reports since
January 1998 identifying airport revenues used for prohibited purposes.
One report found that the local county commission diverted $2.6 million
in airport generated revenue to the county general fund for nonairport
related purposes. In September 1998, OIG notified FAA of an additional
$1 million in potential revenue diversions at five airports nationwide.
Airport Financial Reports.--OIG found that 4 years after Congress
legislated requirements associated with airport revenue use, FAA had
not taken action to issue final policies. In addition, FAA did not
provide effective oversight of airport financial reports. About 20
percent of the airport sponsors required to file reports had not done
so, and the majority of the reports that were filed contained
incomplete and inaccurate information.
The FAA Associate Administrator of Airports has made issuing final
policy on the use of airport revenue a top priority and plans to
publish the policy by the end of December 1998. In addition, FAA
incorporated a specific standard on the use of airport revenue in the
fiscal year 1999 performance plans of the Associate Administrator of
Airports, the Director of Airport Safety and Standards, and the Manager
of the Airports Compliance Division. Also, FAA issued Advisory Circular
(AC) No. 150/5100-19, Guide for Airport Financial Reports Filed by
Airport Sponsors, on September 10, 1998, which updates airport
financial reporting forms and instructions.
Awarding of Discretionary Funds.--FAA has developed criteria and
was following its established process for identifying and prioritizing
projects for discretionary funding. However, we found FAA sometimes
direct funds to lower priority projects within a region instead of
funding the highest national priority. FAA allocated $100 million, or
15 percent of its $669 million in fiscal year 1997 discretionary funds
to lower priority projects. Also, contrary to FAA policy, some airport
sponsors requested discretionary funds for high priority projects while
planning to use entitlement funds for lower priority projects that
would not compete favorably for discretionary funds in the national
priority system.
PFC Policy Issues.--PFCs have become an important funding source
for airport projects. However, FAA does not currently have a policy to
address the funding of ``landside'' projects with PFCs, such as the
light-rail extension recently approved at JFK airport. In our opinion,
the FAA Administrator, prior to approving any such PFC request, should
make a determination of: (1) the extent to which the ``landside''
project is likely to result in additional air transport passengers; (2)
any impacts the approval would have on the financing of airside
projects related to safety, security, capacity, or noise reduction;
and, (3) whether cost sharing or the use of surface transportation
funds should be used to finance a portion of such projects. This issue
is of even more significance given the likelihood that proposals to
increase the current $3 PFC cap may be considered during the FAA
reauthorization process.
transportation and computer security
DOT needs to advance the nation's vital security interest by
ensuring that the transportation system is secure and that our computer
systems are safe from illegal intrusion. Protecting the security of the
traveling public is among DOT's most challenging tasks. Transportation
and computer security are linked to two DOT strategic goals and one DOT
corporate management strategy. They are:
DOT Strategic Goal # 1
Safety.--``Promote the public health and safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and
property damage.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 5
National Security.--``Advance the nation's vital security interests
in support of national strategies such as the National Security
Strategy and National Drug Control Strategy by ensuring that the
transportation system is secure and available for defense mobility and
that our borders are safe from illegal intrusion.''
DOT Corporate Management Strategies
Information Technology.--``Improve mission performance, data
sharing, system integrity, communications, and productivity through
deployment of information systems which are secure, reliable,
compatible, and cost effective now and beyond the Year 2000.''
Key OIG Contacts.--John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Financial, Economic, and Information Technology, 202-366-1496; and
Alexis Stefani, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Aviation, 202-
366-0500.
Background
Presidential Decision Directives 62 and 63, dated May 22, 1998,
require Federal agencies to implement a more systematic approach to
fighting terrorism, secure their critical information systems and
facilities within 2 years, and assist industries to secure the national
transportation infrastructure within 5 years. The U.S. transportation
system includes 3.9 million miles of public roads, 1.5 million miles of
oil and natural gas pipelines, 123 thousand miles of major railroads,
over 24 thousand miles of commercially navigable waterways, over 5
thousand public-use airports, 508 public transit operators in 316
urbanized areas, and 145 major ports on the coasts and inland
waterways. The ability to prevent terrorist attacks within this vast
system, and fraudulent intrusions into computer systems must be
strengthened. Vulnerabilities of the information and communications
infrastructure also affect every aspect of the transportation industry.
Civil aviation security remains a top priority. In February 1997,
the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security reported to
the President and made 31 recommendations to improve security for
travelers. FAA was responsible for implementing 21 of the
recommendations. As of October 1998, FAA has completed actions on 10 of
the recommendations and improvements to address the remaining
recommendations are in-progress.
Audit Coverage
In recent years, OIG has issued reports on aviation and computer
security highlighting various weaknesses. Key elements of these issues
are:
--Reducing the vulnerabilities in airport security controls,
--Enhancing the use of new technologies such as explosives detection
equipment,
--Improving compliance with shipping requirements related to
hazardous materials and dangerous goods, and
--Developing staff expertise and technical capabilities to detect
intrusions to DOT and FAA computer networks and acting to
reduce vulnerabilities.
In addition, OIG testified on aviation and computer security issues
requiring immediate DOT attention.
Airport Security.--OIG reported that airports and air carriers were
not complying with access control and challenge requirements, and
passenger screening checkpoint operators failed to detect improvised
explosives devices at an alarming rate. OIG is currently conducting
audits of FAA's oversight of the aviation industry's compliance with
airport access control requirements, and passenger profiling and
checked baggage screening requirements.
Deployment of Explosives Detection Equipment.--A 1998 audit of
FAA's deployment of explosives detection equipment found that air
carriers were underutilizing the equipment already deployed for
screening checked baggage, and the equipment performance in airports
differed from its performance during certification testing. OIG
continues to monitor FAA's explosives detection equipment deployment
activities and progress.
Dangerous Goods/Cargo Security.--A 1997 audit found substantial
rates of noncompliance with dangerous goods regulations and cargo
security requirements during assessments and tests of air carrier and
airfreight forwarders operations. Also, a 1997 OIG/FAA joint review of
air courier operations found compliance with cargo security
requirements unacceptable and controls over air courier shipments
inadequate.
Aviation Security.--In May 1998, OIG testified that to meet current
and future threats to aviation security, FAA needs an integrated
strategic plan to guide its efforts and prioritize funding needs. The
strategic plan should include a balanced approach covering basic
research, equipment deployment and use, certification and operations
testing processes, data collection and analysis on actual operator
performance, and regulation and enforcement of aviation security
requirements.
Computer Security.--In August 1998, OIG testified that DOT had not
obtained assurances of compliance with DOT security requirements from
outside users of its computer networks, and only 1 of the 20 major DOT
networks had been certified as secured. FAA also needs to implement
more sophisticated network security measures when modernizing the
National Airspace System with open system and common network
technologies. Physical security over the Host computers in the en-route
centers needs to be improved to avoid losing both the primary and
backup computers to a single catastrophic event.
financial accounting/chief financial officers act
DOT has made significant progress in improving its financial
accounting and reporting systems. The President has established a goal
to earn an unqualified audit opinion on the Governmentwide fiscal year
1999 financial statements. The Department also has adopted this goal
for its financial statements. Three major issues stand in the way of
DOT receiving an unqualified opinion on its financial statements, the
most challenging being the FAA property and equipment accounts totaling
about $12 billion. FAA cannot implement a reliable and credible cost
accounting system until it receives an unqualified opinion on its
financial statements. The Department has developed a plan to correct
problems with its property and equipment accounts. Sound financial
accounting is a key corporate management strategy in the Department.
DOT Corporate Management Strategy
Resource and Business Process.--``Foster innovative and sound
business practices as stewards of the public's resources in our quest
for a fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system.''
Key OIG Contact.--John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for Financial, Economic, and Information Technology, 202-366-1496.
Background
Four Federal statutes have established new standards for financial
accounting and reporting by federal agencies, starting with the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO). These laws aim to improve
financial management, control of funds, and reliability of financial
information. Pertinent laws adopted subsequent to the CFO Act include
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994, and the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act of 1997.
Audit Coverage
Since passage of the CFO Act, OIG has issued 33 audit reports on
DOT financial statements. Those reports made 295 recommendations
regarding 196 findings.
OIG's most current work includes three audit reports in March 1998
on DOT's fiscal year 1997 Financial Statements; the DOT Consolidated
Financial Statements, and the financial statements for the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Highway Trust Fund. Major financial
areas that need to be addressed are:
--Developing and implementing a plan for FAA to account for and value
its property and equipment, including its multi-billion dollar
work-in-process accounts for Air Traffic Control Modernization,
--Computing a reliable estimate of Coast Guard's future liability for
military retirement pay and health care costs, and
--Ensuring that the Treasury Department develops adequate support for
trust fund revenues and account balances totaling $28 billion.
We also reported that the Department's core accounting system did
not support the financial statements, and the Department does not have
a cost accounting system in place. For fiscal year 1998 financial
statements, cost accounting systems are needed to provide cost
information to evaluate program accomplishments and performance
measures included in the Department's Strategic Plan.
With respect to FAA, on December 2, 1998, we identified three major
issues standing in the way of FAA getting an unqualified audit opinion
on its financial statements.
--The work-in-process account, with a current balance of $3.7
billion, includes erroneous cost data and projects that were
completed over 5 years ago. Only active projects should be in
this account.
--FAA cannot provide supporting documentation for its real property
(land, buildings and structures) valued at $2.5 billion, and
must use alternative procedures to compute supportable real
property values.
--Personal property (equipment) was valued at $4.4 billion, but FAA
cannot support its acquisition costs because much of the costs
were ``written off'' as operating expenses.
At this late stage, there are no easy solutions. Hard work,
effective teamwork, accountability, and operating with a sense of
urgency are a must. DOT and OIG are working together closely to correct
problems identified in audits. Some fixes will be time consuming and
costly. Further, some of DOT's financial management systems are out of
date and are in the process of being replaced. The Department is
developing temporary processes to provide adequate support for
financial statements until old systems are replaced.
amtrak financial viability/modernization
Congress created the National Passenger Railroad Corporation,
``Amtrak'', in 1971 to provide a national system of modern intercity
passenger rail. Since its creation, it has been the shared goal of
Congress and Amtrak for the service to operate without Federal
operating assistance. However, Amtrak has continued to rely heavily on
Federal funds to cover its annual operating losses. Amtrak's current
plans are to eliminate the need for this assistance by the end of
fiscal year 2002 because it is uncertain how much longer, and to what
extent, Congress will be willing to provide operating assistance.
Amtrak modernization is closely linked to three DOT strategic goals.
They are:
DOT Strategic Goal # 2
Mobility.--``Shape America's future by ensuring a transportation
system that is accessible, integrated, efficient, and offers
flexibility of choices.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 3
Economic Growth and Trade.--``Advance America's economic growth and
competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and
flexible transportation.''
DOT Strategic Goal # 4
Human and Natural Environment.--``Protect and enhance communities
and the natural environment affected by transportation.''
Key OIG Contact.--Mark Dayton, Director, Technical Staff, 202-366-
2001.
Background
Section 202 of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997
(ARAA) directed the Office of Inspector General to contract with an
independent entity to conduct a complete analysis of Amtrak's financial
needs through fiscal year 2002. The contract was awarded in May 1998
and a final report has been issued. The law requires the OIG to monitor
the contractor's progress and to perform such overview and validation
or verification of data as is necessary to assure that the independent
assessment meets the requirements of the ARAA.
The assessment validated Amtrak's reporting of its current
financial status and reviewed Amtrak's systems for financial reporting.
A key element of the assessment was to analyze Amtrak's Strategic
Business Plan to determine whether its projections for achieving self-
sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002 were reasonable. The
assessment reviewed Amtrak's estimates of capital needs and produced
alternative capital requirements scenarios. The assessment compared the
various estimates of capital needs to projected available capital
investment resources to identify any potential funding shortfalls.
Audit Coverage
OIG has performed several Amtrak-related reviews in recent years.
Significant issues that must be addressed include:
--Implementing substantial infrastructure improvements to the
Northeast Corridor in order to realize the projected benefits
of high-speed rail service, and
--Mitigating the risks in Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan. Amtrak
has significant capital needs and the projected level of
Federal funding between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2003
is likely to fall short of needs by $0.5 billion to $1.8
billion. To the extent that Amtrak's operating losses are
greater than projected, this capital shortfall will increase as
Amtrak will need to use more of its Federal funding to cover
operating losses, leaving less for capital spending. Amtrak's
plans, if not adjusted, will result in operating losses in
fiscal year 2003 and beyond that will likely require continued
Federal operating support.
High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor.--Amtrak plans to begin
high-speed rail service in October 1999. When fully implemented,
service between Boston and New York will take 3 hours, 10 minutes and
service between New York and Washington, D.C. will take 2 hours, 45
minutes.\1\ Amtrak's original 1995 budget for trains, maintenance
facilities, and infrastructure improvements was $1.9 billion; by
October 1998 it had grown to $2.47 billion. Delays in the
electrification project construction schedule will make the October
1999 start-up date a challenge, but it is one Amtrak is confident will
be met. Finally, if they are not addressed, an estimated $3.2 billion
in remaining Northeast Corridor infrastructure needs will negatively
affect the speed and reliability of this service, which will ultimately
stifle ridership and constrain revenues. As Amtrak attempts to meet its
congressional mandate of becoming operationally self-sufficient by the
end of fiscal year 2002, high-speed rail revenues are expected to play
a critical role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current running times are: 4 hours, 45 minutes (New York to
Boston); 3 hours, 2 minutes (New York to Washington, DC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Assessment of Amtrak.--This was completed in November
1998, and assessed the likelihood that Amtrak will meet its goal of
achieving operating self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002. We
reviewed the projections in Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan to
determine whether the actions Amtrak has specified as a means of
reaching this goal are reasonable. We found that portions of the plan
are at risk, and that if the plan were followed without modification,
Amtrak's cash loss over the period fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2003
would be $0.8 billion higher than forecast in the plan, $2.9 billion
versus $2.1 billion. We fully expect that Amtrak will make adjustments
to its business plan, as it has in fiscal year 1998, and replace
nonperforming activities with new activities to increase revenues or
decrease costs, thereby mitigating at least some of this additional
loss.
Amtrak has estimated its capital needs total between $3.9 billion
and $4.7 billion for the period fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year
2003. Expected Federal funding during this period is $2.2 billion which
would result in a funding shortfall of at least $1.7 billion. We
believe Amtrak's bare minimum capital needs total $2.7 billion, but
recommend a higher level to sustain Amtrak beyond fiscal year 2003 and
provide funds to invest in new business ventures. This level would be
between $3 and $4 billion during the period fiscal year 1999-fiscal
year 2003. We note that the funding shortfall for even meeting minimum
needs would total $0.5 billion. These projected shortfalls assume that
Amtrak's operating losses would not exceed what it projects in its
business plan. If they do, Amtrak will need to use more of its capital
funding to offset the losses, which would further deplete the amount of
funding available for capital investment.
The Amtrak Board is aware of the risk and has informed the OIG that
it has already initiated changes to the Strategic Business Plan that
will eliminate at least $390 million of at-risk revenues and cost
reductions cited in the assessment.
The ARAA requires the OIG to assess Amtrak's 1999 Strategic
Business Plan. OIG has taken note of the Amtrak Board's observations,
concerns, and changes to its Strategic Business Plan, and will address
their validity during the next phase of OIG's congressional mandate.
dot implementation of gpra
Many of DOT's outcomes such as improved safety, reduction in
fatalities and injuries, and well-maintained highways depend in large
part on actions taken and assistance provided by third parties outside
the Department, including other Federal agencies, states, and various
components of the transportation industry. Their assistance will be
critical in meeting DOT's goals. Another major factor that will impact
DOT's ability to achieve its goals is the effective utilization of
human resources. DOT must effectively manage the workforce, recruit
highly qualified individuals for vacant positions, and provide
requisite technical and other training in order to successfully meet
the management, safety, and efficiency challenges facing the U.S.
transportation system.
Key OIG Contact.--Mark Dayton, Director, Technical Staff, 202-366-
2001.
Background
GPRA required the development, by all Federal agencies, of 5-year
strategic plans and annual performance plans and reports. DOT issued
its first strategic plan in September 1997, and its first performance
plan for fiscal year 1999 in February 1998. In a rating of agency plans
by Congress, both were found to be the best among those submitted by 24
Federal agencies. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office has
identified several weaknesses in these plans, especially in the area of
crosscutting issues and the verifying and validating of performance
data. The Department's first performance report to Congress is due
March 31, 2000.
Audit Coverage
In fiscal year 1998, we issued 19 audit reports that addressed
DOT's implementation of GPRA. Although DOT's strategic and performance
plans were highly rated, we identified a number of programmatic and/or
operational areas requiring improvement. Some of the areas include:
--Establishing performance goals and measures for: (1) FAA's
personnel reform initiatives and runway incursion program, (2)
USCG's oversight of private sector oil spill response
capabilities, and (3) FRA's commuter rail safety requirements,
--Completing performance goals and measures for: (1) the diversion of
airport revenue, and (2) risk of terrorism to U.S. passengers
at foreign and domestic ports and waterfront facilities, and
Improving performance goals and measures for: (1) FAA's contract
tower program, and (2) DOT's and FAA's fiscal year 1997 Financial
Statements.
As stated in DOT's fiscal year 1999 performance plan, OIG will
selectively: (1) verify and validate performance data, and (2) assess
performance measures to determine their appropriateness for measuring
progress toward stated goals. Moreover, to further enhance our work in
this area, we have developed a 2-day course on auditing GPRA
implementation. This course, which is being given to all audit staff,
addresses relevant GPRA regulations, policies, and guidelines; OIG
oversight responsibilities; and approaches for auditing performance
goals, measures, and data. To date, nearly 50 auditors have received
the training.
bibliography
aviation safety
Staffing: Reductions in the Number of Supervisors Will Require
Enhancements to FAA's Controller-in-Charge Program, OIG Report Number
AV-1999-020, November 16, 1998
FAA Aviation Industry Notification Regarding Testing Specifications
for Threaded Fasteners and Components, OIG Report Number AV-1998-177,
July 17, 1998
FAA Deviations and Exemptions to Safety-Related Regulations, OIG
Report Number AV-1998-171, July 16,1998
Status of the FAA 90-Day Safety Review Recommendations, Joint OIG/
FAA, Report Number AV-1998-090, March 3, 1998
Report on Audit of the Runway Incursion Program, OIG Report Number
AV-1998-075, February 9, 1998
Avoiding Aviation Gridlock and Reducing the Accident Rate: A
Consensus for Change, National Civil Aviation Review Commission,
December 1997
Airport Certification Program, OIG Report Number AV-1998-025,
November 21, 1997
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Federal Aviation
Administration's Runway Incursion Program, Report Number AV-1998-015,
November 13, 1997
Management Advisory on Aviation Inspection Program, OIG Report
Number AV-1998-005, November 4, 1997
FAA 90 Day Safety Review, FAA, September 16, 1996
Targeting and Training of FAA's Safety Inspector Workforce, GAO
Report Number GAO/T-RCED-96-26, April 30, 1996
Data Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis System, GAO
Report Number GAO/AIMD-95-27, February 8, 1995
Aviation Inspector Program, OIG Report Number R6-FA-2-084, May 29,
1992
Aviation Safety: Needed Improvements in FAA's Airline Inspector
Program are Underway, GAO Report Number GAO/RCED-87-62, May 19, 1987
surface transportation safety
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program, OIG Report Number TR-1998-
210, September 30, 1998
Hazardous Materials Registration Program, OIG Report Number TR-
1998-110, April 3, 1998
Inspection of Federally Owned Bridges, OIG Report Number TR-1998-
079, February 11, 1998
Motor Carrier Safety Program, OIG Report Number AS-FH-7-006, March
26, 1997
year 2000 computer issues
The Year 2000 Computer Program and Computer Security Challenges,
OIG Report Number FE-1998-187, August 25, 1998
Testimony on the Year 2000 Computer Program and Computer Security
Challenges, August 6, 1998
The Year 2000 Computer Challenges, OIG Report Number FE-1998-068,
February 23, 1998
Testimony on the Year 2000 Challenges for the Air Traffic Control
System, February 4, 1998
Assessing the Year 2000 Computer Problem, OIG Report Number FE-
1998-053, December 18, 1997
Management Advisory on Year 2000 Computer Problem, OIG Report
Number FE-1998-027, November 26, 1997
air traffic control modernization
Using the Direct Access Radar Channel During the Host Replacement
Program, OIG Report Number AV-1999-030, November 30, 1998
Wide Area Augmentation System, OIG Report Number AV-1998-189,
August 10, 1998
Report on Implementation of Cost Accounting System, OIG Report
Number FE-1998-186, August 10, 1998
STARS Main Display Monitors, OIG Report Number AV-1998-169, July 9,
1998
Wide Area Augmentation System, OIG Report Number AV-1998-117, May
13, 1998
Report on FAA's Advanced Automation System, OIG Report Number AV-
1998-113, April 15, 1998
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation, Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House
of Representatives, Air Traffic Control Modernization, OIG Report
Number AV-1998-089, March 5, 1998
Management Advisory on Deployment Readiness Review, OIG Report
Number AV-1998-041, December 8, 1997
FAA's Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), OIG
Report Number AV-1998-012, November 12, 1997
Testimony on Observations on the Federal Aviation Administration's
Plan to Use Satellite Technology for Air Traffic Management, OIG Report
Number AV-1998-001, October 17, 1997
Air Traffic Control: Complete and Enforced Architecture Needed for
FAA Systems Modernization, GAO Report Number: GAO/AIMD-97-30, February
3, 1997
Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to Make
Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions, GAO Report Number:
GAO/AIMD-97-20, January 22, 1997
faa financing
Implementation of Cost Accounting System, OIG Report Number FE-
1998-186, August 10, 1998
FAA Control of Appropriations, OIG Report Number FE-1998-167, July
6, 1998
FAA Formal Reprogramming of Facilities and Equipment
Appropriations, OIG Report Number FE-1998-132, May 7, 1998
FY 1997 Financial Statements, OIG Report Number FE-1998-098, March
25, 1998
Management Advisory Memorandum on Resource Requirements Planning
for Operating and Maintaining the National Airspace System, OIG Report
Number AS-FA-7-004, January 13, 1997
surface, marine, and airport infrastructure needs
Review of Interstate 15 (I-15) Reconstruction Project in Utah, OIG
Report Number TR-1999-028, November 24, 1998
Review of Alameda Corridor Project, OIG Report Number TR-1999-010,
October 16, 1998
Completion of the Metrorail System-Washington, DC, OIG Report
Number TR-1998-213, September 30, 1998
Cypress Freeway Project, Oakland, California, OIG Report Number TR-
1998-212, September 30, 1998
Airport Financial Reports, OIG Report Number AV-1998-201, September
11, 1998
Imperial County Airport Hotline Complaint, OIG Report Number AV-
1998-196, September 1, 1998
Coolidge Municipal Airport Hotline Complaint, OIG Report Number AV-
1998-195, August 28, 1998
Awarding Discretionary Funds in the U.S. Department of
Transportation, OIG Report Number MA-1998-155, June 12, 1998
Review of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Metrorail Red Line, OIG Report Number TR-1998-154, June 12, 1998
Central Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project, OIG Report Number TR-
1998-109, April 3, 1998
Diversion of Airport Revenue, Augusta-Richmond County Commission,
OIG Report Number AV-1998-093, March 12, 1998
Application to Impose and Use a Passenger Facility Charge for a
Light Rail System at JFK Airport, January 21, 1998
transportation and computer security
Deployment of Explosives Detection Systems, OIG Report Number AV-
1999-001, October 5, 1998
Security for Passenger Terminals and Vessels, OIG Report Number MA-
1998-204, September 11, 1998
The Year 2000 Computer Program and Computer Security Challenges,
OIG Report Number FE-1998-187, August 25, 1998
Testimony on the Year 2000 Computer Program and Computer Security
Challenges, August 6, 1998
Dangerous Goods/Cargo Security Program, OIG Report Number AV-1998-
178, July 23, 1998
Efforts to Improve Airport Security, OIG Report Number R9-FA-6-014,
July 3, 1998
Maritime Security Program, OIG Report Number MA-1998-156, June 12,
1998
Management Advisory on Review of Security Controls Over Air Courier
Shipments, OIG Report Number AV-1998-149, June 2, 1998
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,
Aviation Security, OIG Report Number AV-1998-134, May 27, 1998
FAA Administration of Security Guard Contracts, OIG Report Number
AV-1998-113, April 17, 1998
financial accounting/chief financial officers act
FAA Report on Implementation of Cost-Accounting System, OIG Report
Number FE-1998-186, August 10, 1998
Actuarial Estimates for Retired Pay and Health Care Cost, OIG
Report Number FE-1998-151, June 2, 1998
FY 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements, OIG Report Number FE-
1998-105, March 31, 1998
FY 1997 Highway Trust Fund Financial Statements, OIG Report Number
FE-1998-099, March 27, 1998
FY 1997 Financial Statements, OIG Report Number FE-1998-098, March
25, 1998
amtrak financial viability/modernization
Summary Report on the Independent Assessment of Amtrak's Financial
Needs Through fiscal year 2002, OIG Report Number TR-1999-027, November
23, 1998
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Before the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, Assessing Amtrak's Future, Report Number TR-1998-095, March 24,
1998
dot compliance with gpra
Personnel Reform: Recent Actions Represent Progress But Further
Effort Is Needed To Achieve Comprehensive Change, OIG Report Number AV-
1998-214, September 30, 1998
Airport Financial Reports, OIG Report Number AV-1998-201, September
11, 1998
Security for Passenger Terminals and Vessels, OIG Report Number MA-
1998-204, September 11, 1998
Postgraduate Training Program, OIG Report Number MA-1998-148, May
26, 1998
Federal Contract Tower Program, OIG Report Number AV-1998-147, May
18, 1998
Management Advisory on Hazardous Materials Registration Program,
OIG Report Number TR-1998-110, April 3, 1998
FY 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements, OIG Report Number FE-
1998-105, March 31, 1998
FY 1997 Highway Trust Fund Financial Statements, OIG Report Number
FE-1998-099, March 27, 1998
FY 1997 Financial Statements, OIG Report Number FE-1998-098, March
25, 1998
Diversion of Airport Revenue, Augusta-Richmond County Commission,
OIG Report Number AV-1998-093, March 12, 1998
Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's
Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 1999, GAO Report Number GAO/
RCED-98-180R, March 12, 1998
Passenger Origin-Destination Data Submitted by Air Carriers, OIG
Report Number AV-1998-086, February 24, 1998
Inspection of Federally Owned Bridges, OIG Report Number TR-1998-
079, February 11, 1998
Report on Passenger Rail Safety Emergency Orders, OIG Report Number
TR-1998-078, February 10, 1998
Runway Incursion Program, OIG Report Number AV-1998-075, February
9, 1998
Management Advisory on Selected Chief Information Officer
Functions, OIG Report Number FE-1998-049, December 16, 1997
Management Advisory on Unexpended Obligations on Complete and
Inactive Highway Projects, OIG Report Number TR-1998-045, December 11,
1997
FAA's Runway Incursion Program, Statement by Kenneth Mead before
the House Subcommittee on Aviation, OIG Report Number AV-1998-015,
December 8, 1997
Airport Certification Program, OIG Report Number AV-1998-025,
November 21, 1997
Management Advisory Report on the Oversight of Private Sector Oil
Spill Response Capabilities, OIG Report Number MA-1998-006, October 15,
1997
Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's
Draft Strategic Plan, GAO Report Number GAO/RCED-97-97-208R, July 30,
1997
STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO
Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso.
Mr. Basso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might just take a
minute of personal privilege myself, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Lautenberg. I have been with the Department for over 30 years.
It is the first opportunity that I have had to appear before
this committee, having been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I
want to take a moment to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you,
Senator Lautenberg, for both your guidance and your support
through that process.
Senator Shelby. You folks know he is going to be here 2
more years anyway.
Mr. Basso. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to be hanging on by my--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Basso. In that regard, Senator Lautenberg, we have had
a chance to work together for many years. You have always given
us tremendous support and advice. On behalf of the Secretary
and myself, I would like to acknowledge that support here.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure
to be here this morning and to address issues that really are
top priorities of the Department. We face a variety of
challenges, but we are focusing strategically and smartly on
those issues.
As a Nation, we face growing travel demand, demographic
changes that seriously challenge the transportation system.
Highway miles that are traveled will grow 25 percent by the
year 2010. Commercial aircraft operations will likewise grow 25
percent. Populations most at risk on our highways will grow. As
our economy grows, demand for freight transportation will
continue to rise.
As Secretary Slater has often said, transportation safety
is and should be the Department's top priority. Last year there
were nearly 42,000 Americans killed and 3.4 million were
injured on our roads. As highway crashes remain the leading
cause of death for people ages 6 to 27, we must do better at
the Department. We know that seat belts and child safety seats
work. Today the seat belts save over 10,000 lives annually, but
again we must do better.
Annually 5,000 people die in crashes involving heavy
trucks, and Senator Lautenberg, I want you to know on the bus
issue, we are particularly mindful of those issues and are
taking specific steps to try to address those more effectively.
In that regard, 5,000 deaths a year is totally unacceptable. We
have to take steps. We have to break through that ceiling and
make changes.
As the Inspector General noted, there were no fatal crashes
of U.S. scheduled airlines last year, and that is significant.
But we again need to do better and make the processes better
that will ensure that our skies are safer and that continues to
be the watchword in the future.
Grade crossing and rail trespasser accidents present tough
problems, but DOT will continue its successful partnerships and
advance public awareness on those efforts.
In hazardous materials one of the things that I think we
are doing that is very effective is, having joined with the
Inspector General and various staffs of the Department, we are
conducting a very rigorous program evaluation of our hazardous
materials programs throughout the Department and, hopefully,
using the GPRA process, will make progress in those areas as
well.
On the question of investment, investment in transportation
infrastructure is critical to the Nation's economic prosperity
and quality of life. At DOT, we have taken a number of steps to
control the management of the larger dollar projects. We know
there are many challenges in the long term that need to be met.
Financing of our aviation system needs is a critical
priority. We want to work with the Congress to establish cost-
based user fees for air traffic control operations, and we are
committed to implementing an effective cost accounting system
that can be relied on and that allows our financial statements
to be creditable in that regard.
Financing for Amtrak has certainly been mentioned here. It
is a significant priority. Amtrak needs to increase its revenue
and reduce its operating costs, and we are here to try to help
them do that as best we can.
We have learned several lessons along the way toward
modernizing our assets as well. FAA has put in place several
new tools to better manage its acquisitions and the Coast Guard
analyzed its options for modernizing its deepwater assets. We
have taken into account the GAO recommendations and are
implementing them vigorously.
On the Y2K issue, one of the things I would note is the
Department received a failing grade just the other day on this
issue. I am here to tell you this morning that I feel, Mr.
Chairman, we will make, by the end of March, the significant
breakthrough progress we need to demonstrate that we will get
to where we need to get on time and in proper order. Senator
Stevens, I am mindful of a particular issue that affects Alaska
in that regard, and the Coast Guard is working diligently to
address that issue. I want you to know that.
On our corporate management strategies, to help meet the
challenges, DOT is taking performance planning very seriously.
We have over 60 ambitious performance goals which deal with
outcomes, not output. We are tracking progress toward our plan
in fiscal year 1999 and will be using program evaluations to
assess DOT's contribution to the outcomes that we intend to
achieve. We are putting customers first. We are cutting red
tape, empowering employees, using the principles the Vice
President laid out in the National Performance Review, and we
can point to the FAA personnel and procurement reforms as
starting to make progress and demonstrate results.
Finally, as the CFO of the Department, I am committed to
delivering for fiscal year 1999 unqualified financial
statements. I feel it is a personal responsibility, and we are
working collaboratively and effectively with the Inspector
General and with the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Coast Guard to ensure that that happens.
We are bringing together intermodal energy and expertise to
bear on transportation problems that will create efficiencies
and leverage the diversity of the talents we have in the
Department.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think we have made significant
progress in making management a top priority. We are advancing
transportation safety. We are addressing the Y2K problem,
focusing our attention on acquisitions and investment. We are
developing sound financial proposals for our programs, and we
will develop creditable accounting systems. These remain
challenges, but we are approaching them aggressively as one
Department of Transportation and we look forward to working
with the Congress.
prepared statement
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Basso
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on management issues, challenges and
accomplishments of the Department of Transportation.
overview
In the 21st century, Americans will compete in a global
marketplace. This marketplace will be fiercely competitive, and our
success as a Nation will be determined in part on how safely, reliably
and cost-effectively we can move people, goods and information.
Americans demand mobility and we have an obligation to provide a
transportation system that meets both our economic and mobility
requirements in the next century in a safe and environmentally friendly
way.
As we look to the future, it is clear that our nation's
transportation system faces a number of challenges.
We face rapidly-growing travel demand. One measure of this demand
is that the Federal Aviation Administration forecasts that over the
next ten years the number of commercial aircraft operations will grow
by 25 percent. Virtually every segment and activity in aviation will
grow correspondingly, placing similar demands on FAA's safety and
operational programs. Another measure is vehicle miles of travel, also
projected to grow by another 25 percent--to 3 trillion--over the same
ten year period. And similarly, the overall demand for freight
transportation is rising due to the continued expansion of the economy
and higher consumer incomes.
We face challenges in improving transportation safety. The so-
called easy safety improvements, such as roadway and vehicle design,
have been largely made and we now face the tougher issues of changing
behavior (by getting people to buckle-up, and reducing drunk driving)
and of dealing with the transportation safety needs of an aging
population.
The populations most likely to be affected by highway-related
fatalities and injuries are growing. The number of new drivers is
expected to grow 19 percent by the year 2020 and the number of older
drivers is expected to grow 56 percent by the year 2020.
Despite the substantial progress we have made, we see increasing
needs for efficiency and environmental preservation. For example,
larger numbers of businesses seek to make our national transportation
infrastructure part of their assembly lines with ``just in time''
inventory techniques.
Our nation's population continues to grow. The Bureau of the Census
estimates that by 2020, just a little over 20 years away, 53 million
more Americans--and the goods needed to support them--will be competing
for space on our transportation systems.
management
The Clinton Administration has made management of the Federal
Government a top priority. In creating the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government (NPR) the Administration committed itself to a
new contract with the American people, a guarantee of effective,
efficient and responsive government. We in DOT strive to be excellent
managers of DOT's resources, ensuring that we deliver programs that
customers want with maximum efficiency, and that we manage for
results--the mandate of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). To determine how to best deliver programs we emphasize customer
involvement, set goals, and measure progress against these goals to
determine if we are effective and efficient. The Department has been
aggressively implementing GPRA since 1994. Our plans identify outcomes
we seek to effect and describe how we use our resources to achieve
those outcomes. Largely as a result of this focus, both the
Department's strategic and performance plans received high marks from
those who reviewed them.
The Department has also aggressively implemented the
recommendations of the NPR. As part of this Administration's emphasis
on good management, the NPR recommendations focused on putting
customers first, cutting red tape and empowering employees. As an
example of the Department's NPR successes the FAA, using special
authorities granted by the Congress, has cut hiring times for all
positions, and reduced the number of job descriptions by more than
half. And since 1996 the FAA's new Acquisition Management System has
cut in half the time it takes to award major contracts without
sacrificing the integrity of the acquisition process.
Another example is our reinvention of procurement. Among all
government agencies, DOT is a leading user of credit cards for small
purchases. In addition, the Information Technology Omnibus Procurement
(ITOP) program is delivering a wide range of information technology
services in record time and providing highly qualified, proven support
to DOT and other federal agencies. ITOP has streamlined the procurement
process by allowing the use of oral proposals, limiting source
selection criteria, and reducing the amount of paperwork for technical
proposals. ITOP is also creating a data base of references to assist
customers in evaluating contractors' past performance when making a
decision on future contracts. ITOP has proven its success. Initially
granted authority by GSA for up to $1.13 billion over seven years, the
program has been so successful that it has used up this level in less
than three years. ITOP-II was recently provided with authority for $10
billion over seven years, and DOT made all of the awards to contractors
in late January. Similar contracts for other services are being modeled
on this successful effort.
The Department has also cut red tape in administering the employee
transit benefit program, by signing service agreements with other
Federal agencies to administer their programs and distribute benefits
to their employees. Just last month, the Department announced the
receipt of an award to manage the program for the House of
Representatives--possibly a first in providing such services across
branches of the government.
We have one transportation system, and to make it work better
requires a ONE DOT approach. The Department is improving its internal
management to bring intermodal energy and expertise to bear on all
transportation problems. We've made ``working better together''
explicit both through our ONE DOT efforts and through the Secretary's
Management Council. Our ONE DOT corporate management strategy is of
special note. This strategy encourages collaboration across modes and
agencies at all levels. It promotes efficiency and creativity, and
instills in our employees the sense that they represent not just their
operating administration but the whole Department and the nation's
transportation system. This innovative team thinking has led to
intermodal improvements at the nation's largest airports and has
brought Delta Airlines into our ``Buckle Up America'' seat belt
initiative. Closer to home, ONE DOT is bringing a full court press of
the Department's resources to the National Capital Region Congestion
and Mobility Task Force.
The Department's corporate management strategies are integral to
achieving its performance goals. By focusing on working together as ONE
DOT, ensuring that our workforce is diverse and highly skilled,
ensuring that our goals and efforts are focused on our customers'
concerns, advancing critical research and technology, investing in
information technology, and fostering innovative and sound business
practices, we ensure a focus not just on short term results but on the
long term.
As we look to the challenges of the 21st Century we must focus our
attention on what the Department can and should provide and how we can
do that in the most efficient and effective way. We have developed a
common sense approach to all that we do, which has six elements:
--We have developed a customer focus to provide the users of the
system with services and outcomes which they need and want.
--We have used performance based goal setting to identify what we
must accomplish and we have identified important management
strategies to accomplish the work.
--We have invested in our workforce to make sure we have highly
skilled and diverse employees capable of meeting the new
challenges of the global society and information age.
--We have developed strong alliances and partnerships with other
government agencies, the transportation related industries and
the users of the system.
--We have streamlined our internal organizational structures to
ensure that the resources we have are meeting the needs of the
American public.
--We have streamlined our processes to make them work better and we
have harnessed new technologies to better serve us in our work.
My testimony today will address our progress on the management
challenges identified both internally and externally:
--the need to improve transportation safety;
--the need to resolve year 2000 computer glitches and to ensure
computer security;
--the need to modernize both FAA and Coast Guard capital assets;
--the need to implement our proposed financing option for FAA and
support the five-year plan for Amtrak self-sufficiency;
--the need to utilize transportation infrastructure dollars
efficiently and effectively; and
--the need to comply with all aspects of the CFO Act and issue a
credible GPRA performance report in March of 2000.
transportation safety
Transportation safety is, and should be, the Department's number
one priority. Safe and efficient transportation systems are critical to
our economic security and our quality of life. Although our
transportation system is already the safest in the world, much of what
we do is aimed at making it safer, as travel continues to grow. In
managing myriad safety programs in conjunction with the states, other
public authorities, and the private sector, as well as directly through
enforcement, we must constantly focus on strategies that will ensure
that these programs are effective. We must leverage our resources to
focus on outcomes. The fiscal year 2000 budget we have proposed invests
a record $3.4 billion, eight percent above fiscal year 1999, in
transportation safety programs. The following describes the efforts we
are directing toward these programs.
Highway Safety
A major focus of the management of our safety effort is reducing
highway crashes, which account for more than nine out of every ten
transportation fatalities. Last year nearly 42,000 Americans died and
over 3.4 million were injured on our roads. Highway crashes are the
leading cause of death for children, teenagers and young adults. In
addition to the tragic toll on our families, crashes cost our economy
an estimated $165 billion annually. Unless we continue to lower the
fatality rate, the growth in travel created by our expanding economy
will result in an increase in the number of deaths. To cut the fatality
rate, we must focus on all three components of the safety equation:
safer roads, safer vehicles and safer drivers.
The top priority to improve safety is simple--seat belts and child
safety seats work! A person is almost twice as likely to die or sustain
a serious injury in a crash if unbelted. Today, seat belts save about
10,000 lives annually. We can do better, however, and so on April 16th
of 1997 the President set a new national goal of achieving an 85
percent use rate by 2000 and a 90 percent use rate by 2005, and a goal
of reducing child fatalities in motor vehicle crashes by 15 percent by
2000 and 25 percent by 2005. To help our state partners reach these
goals, NHTSA has focused on public information and education, outreach
to targeted groups to increase the buckle up message, and evaluation,
training, and development of new buckle up programs. The Department
will also use the new Safety Incentive grants in the Federal-aid
highway program to expand the states' seat belt programs. Throughout
the Department we are making every effort to get the buckle up message
out--not just from those involved in highway safety, but also those in
aviation, rail and maritime. We want to make it more common for those
landing in an airplane to hear a reminder to buckle up when driving
home from the airport.
The President has also set a goal of making .08 the national
standard for maximum blood-alcohol levels while driving. Although
alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the past ten years,
impaired driving remains a leading cause of traffic fatalities. This is
a serious breach of responsibility by those who drink and drive. And we
intend to sharply reduce their numbers. The fiscal year 2000 budget
includes a 12 percent increase for NHTSA safety programs, to a total of
$404 million, including expanded community-based programs to increase
the use of safety belts and proper use of child safety seats, and
aggressive programs aimed at drinking and driving.
Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Healthy economic growth
and logistical innovations like ``just in time'' delivery have spurred
significant increases in truck travel and have been a boon for the
trucking industry. But while the motor carrier fatality rate has
decreased significantly--from 3.7 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled in 1989 to 2.8 today--the number of large truck crash
fatalities has increased from 4,462 in 1992 to 5,355 in 1997, and the
fatality rate has not decreased significantly since 1995. That's not
good enough.
Federal motor carrier safety programs must be more focused and
strategic, and channel resources to strategies that give us the highest
payoff in reducing crashes. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a
total of $160 million, five percent above fiscal year 1999, for motor
carrier safety programs, with special emphasis on creating a
performance-based motor carrier program. The Inspector General
recommended that FHWA replace its system for prioritizing carriers with
a system that defines problem carriers based upon on-the-road
performance. In response, FHWA implemented what is known as SafeStat
risk assessment criteria, a more results-oriented, performance-based
algorithm for the identification of ``high risk'' motor carriers in
order to get best results from on-site compliance reviews. While the
system isn't perfect, it is much better. We still need to work to get
more complete and timely information.
FHWA is also making progress in nation-wide implementation of its
Performance and Registration Systems Management (PRISM) program, with
20 states expected to be PRISM participants by the end of fiscal year
2000. PRISM uses safety data to identify carriers that are prone to
accident involvement--thus allowing FHWA and the states to focus on
unsafe carriers. In addition, FHWA will be increasing its inspection of
trucks near ports of entry and stepping up the data exchange between
the U.S. and Mexico to increase the level of safety for trucks entering
the U.S. from Mexico.
However, recent events show that we must be ever more vigilant when
it comes to motor carrier safety. That is why the Department has
created a ONE DOT motor carrier safety team, comprised of FHWA, NHTSA,
and OST, to identify ways to improve motor carrier safety, in
conjunction with an independent review of motor carrier safety led by
former House Public Works Committee Chairman Norman Mineta. In the
final analysis, 5,000 deaths per year is an unacceptable number. We
intend to take all steps necessary to break through this plateau, and
then continue to reduce the numbers as well as the rate.
Aviation Safety and Security
The Department is proud that there were no fatal crashes of any
U.S. scheduled air carrier last year. While our aviation system is
safe, better management of the process can make it safer. FAA's Safer
Skies agenda focuses on the most critical safety problems in commercial
and general aviation including loss of control, pilot decision making,
runway incursions, passenger seat belt use, uncontained engine
failures, and survivability. In order to prevent runway incursions, FAA
has set goals for heightened situational awareness for both pilots and
controllers, and is providing training for controllers, developing
procedural initiatives to prevent incursions, using more sophisticated
statistical and trend analysis and fully implementing new technologies
to better identify and prevent such incidents.
FAA is also targeting safety resources to commercial air carriers
based on performance information such as operator experience, safety
trends and company growth. To ensure that safety risks are brought to
the attention of top FAA management, a new safety management system
will be implemented within the FAA by the end of the calendar year. FAA
is also working to resolve data protection issues so that recorded
flight data can be used to prevent accidents--this is common sense
government. A total of $1 billion is proposed for aviation safety
funding in fiscal year 2000, 7 percent above current levels. In
addition to direct safety funding, there is a critical need to invest
in modernization of the air traffic control system, to both preserve
aviation safety as well as support the expected growth in aviation.
Consistent with the recommendations of the White House Commission
on Aviation Safety and Security, two years ago the FAA initiated new
measures to strengthen airport security, including the purchase of a
significant number of explosive detection devices, upgraded x-ray
equipment, and the hiring of 300 security personnel. Management of the
implementation of these strengthened security measures involves
partnership with industry, stepped up procurement, and close
cooperation with other government agencies.
FAA has invited U.S. airports to form security consortia or
partnerships to improve airport security and ultimately increase
compliance. Since the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security report in 1997, over 110 U.S. airports have formed consortia
on a voluntary basis. In fiscal year 1999, FAA will continue to
encourage the expansion of consortia at all airports, and we are
requesting a total of $100 million to purchase additional explosives
detection devices and other security equipment in fiscal year 2000.
Through its streamlined procurement system, the FAA ordered 54
certified explosives detection systems (EDS) in 1997, 15 more systems
were purchased in fiscal year 1998, and an additional five systems that
were used in the demonstration phase of the program were overhauled and
upgraded. Seventy two systems have now been deployed with the two
remaining systems to be installed by next month. Deployment of
explosives trace detection devices began with the installation of two
units in November 1996. Today, 327 trace explosives detection devices
have been deployed, with another 220 devices to be deployed during
fiscal year 1999. In addition, the FAA expanded the Explosives
Detection Canine Team program with the deployment of 154 teams at 39 of
our largest and busiest airports.
Rail Safety
The railroad industry is undergoing an unprecedented period of
dramatic growth. Since 1990, revenue ton-miles of traffic have risen by
more than a third, and rail intermodal traffic has increased more than
40 percent. This means more trains competing for space on increasingly
congested track. Rail lines operating at or near capacity demand zero
tolerance for safety hazards. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
will continue to expand its collaborative efforts with rail operators
and workers to determine the root causes of systemic railroad safety
problems. This approach is producing tangible safety improvements--rail
crashes and fatalities are down by 8 percent and 17 percent
respectively since 1993. DOT's rail safety programmatic and research
efforts will address grade crossings, bridge integrity, other human
factor issues, train control, and new technology.
Grade crossing and rail trespasser accidents are perhaps the
hardest rail safety problems to address. Elimination of grade crossings
is one approach, and DOT will continue its elimination program. Public
awareness efforts must also continue to be pursued along with analysis
of both high profile crossings and the use of train horns at crossings;
FRA will actively work on both of these efforts within the coming year.
A total of $132 million is proposed for rail safety funding in
fiscal year 2000, 38 percent above current levels, in order to improve
rail safety information systems and to support regulatory and
enforcement efforts.
Hazardous Materials Safety
The safe transportation of hazardous materials is critical across
all modes of transportation. The vast majority of hazardous materials
transportation incidents are caused by human error. In fiscal year
2000, we propose total funding of $18.2 million, 13 percent above
current levels, for the Research and Special Programs Administration's
(RSPA) hazardous materials safety program. We are planning to add
additional field and headquarters staff to work directly with industry,
particularly smaller shippers, to make sure safe practices are
followed. RSPA is implementing an intensive effort to reach the hazmat
community through training and customer service, to ensure that all
hazmat shippers are aware of safety requirements. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) will continue site-specific inspections and
address the impact of hazardous materials shipments across five safety
disciplines (motive, power, and equipment; operating practices; track;
hazardous materials; and signal and train control). FAA will add new
positions to address dangerous goods flows through increased
inspection, targeted outreach/education and more focused inspections
(``hazstrikes''). FHWA will focus on hazmat incidents involving motor
carriers and conduct compliance reviews. And Coast Guard's marine
safety programs will enforce shipping regulations aboard U.S. and
foreign ships in U.S. ports, and continue management of the National
Response Center for all reporting of hazardous materials releases.
DOT's goals for this program are ambitious--to reduce the number of
serious hazardous materials incidents by more than 11 percent over four
years. And together with the Office of Inspector General we are
undertaking a joint program evaluation of the hazardous materials
safety program in DOT--to determine the effectiveness of the current
program structure, including the division of responsibilities across
and within modes, and the allocation of resources dedicated to specific
functions. Program evaluation is an important adjunct to performance
measurement. While performance measures can tell us if the intended
outcomes are occurring, program evaluation uses analytic techniques to
assess the program contribution to those outcomes, and to help redirect
the program for greater effectiveness or efficiency.
computer reliability and security
Both the GAO and the IG have recognized the progress the Department
has made in addressing Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problems and have said
that DOT needs to remain vigilant in this effort, since the risk of
system failure remains until all repaired systems are adequately tested
and implemented. We fully support that position.
The senior management of the Department is aware of the
implications if we do not solve the Y2K problem, and is taking
aggressive action to address it. All DOT operating administrations are
required to test their computer systems both internally and externally
to ensure that Y2K problems have been resolved and that interfaces with
outside organizations work correctly. Testing and implementation have
been accelerated, and 242 of 307 systems are expected to finish testing
and implementation by March 31, 1999.
The FAA has completed the renovation phase for its mission-critical
systems. By June of this year, the FAA will have completed all
remediation efforts to ensure that Y2K problems have been resolved and
that all internal and external interfaces work correctly. All other DOT
mission-critical systems will be repaired or replaced by September,
1999 with the exception of one part of a Coast Guard Vessel Traffic
System in Alaska, which will be completed by October 1999.
DOT is getting information from surveys conducted by transportation
industry associations to determine the status of industry Y2K repair
efforts. DOT operating administrations will test agency contingency
plans during 1999 to ensure that system and business operations can be
sustained if there are residual Y2K problems.
Regarding computer security, Presidential Decision Directives 62
and 63 require DOT to advance the Nation's vital security interests by
ensuring that the transportation system is protected and that our
computer systems are safe from intrusion. The biggest concern is with
the air traffic control system. The FAA is currently developing a
comprehensive information systems security program, and in 2000 will
begin to implement additional security measures to prevent intrusion.
This program will include an agency-wide security policy which will
require information systems security measures for all deployed systems
throughout their life. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget requests
$20 million for this effort.
capital modernization in faa and coast guard
Air Traffic Control Modernization
While over the last 15 years FAA has replaced many of the large
surveillance radars and built new terminal control facilities at four
large hubs, clearly a good deal of the air traffic control
modernization occurred later than planned. Most projects were two to
three years behind schedule and costs exceeded estimates on average by
20 percent. Several lessons have been learned. The Advanced Automation
System had the biggest problems with a potential $3 billion cost
overrun and a four year schedule slip. Action was taken early in this
Administration to rectify these problems. The AAS program was scaled-
down and restructured, and a major component of the restructured
program--the Display System Replacement--was dedicated at Seattle
recently, the first of 21 enroute centers to put this new hardware and
software into operational use. So, results have on the whole been
positive, but we do still experience problems that must be dealt with
early on. In general, projects that require large software development
efforts are at risk of cost and schedule increases and we must remain
vigilant in our project oversight.
Another key component of the restructured AAS Program is the
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS). The good news
is that the FAA limited the scope of this procurement to companies that
were producing terminal automation systems already. This allowed the
contract to be awarded in six months instead of 12-18 months. However,
FAA underestimated the depth of human factors issues that controllers
and maintenance technicians would raise with the existing commercial
systems that could be used for STARS. It is clear that more effort
needs to be dedicated to determining human factors problems before
contracts are awarded, as we are now resolving human factors issues
that should have been resolved earlier. FAA continues to involve
employee unions and human factors experts in its efforts to field an
operationally acceptable and suitable STARS system at Reagan National
Airport.
This Subcommittee has requested that FAA determine whether GPS and
WAAS will be the sole means of aviation navigation in the future. This
is a complicated issue, but one that deserves an answer. The FAA is
currently evaluating the vulnerability of GPS and planned augmentations
in order to answer it. The Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins
University just completed an independent assessment of the
vulnerability of GPS and planned augmentation in order to help answer
the questions. Vice President Gore also recently announced an
Administration decision to put a new safety-of-life GPS signal in a
protected aviation frequency band. This signal will provide added
robustness and integrity for future satellite navigation systems.
A total of $2.3 billion, 11 percent above current levels, is
proposed for FAA's capital modernization programs in fiscal year 2000.
You need to be assured that these dollars will be spent wisely. The FAA
has instituted four new tools to help it better manage its
acquisitions. One is a much tighter management of cost and schedule
baselines via a new Acquisition Management System. The second is
increasing the purchase of commercial off-the-shelf equipment and
software. The third is the requirement that all new programs receive a
detailed assessment of human factors issues before final specifications
are developed. And, lastly, in order to minimize software development
problems, the FAA is upgrading its internal ability to manage software
development. However, there is no substitute for active acquisition
management after contracts are awarded, and we still need to pay more
attention to this.
Coast Guard Recapitalization
The Coast Guard is currently undergoing a multi-faceted analysis in
order to assess its acquisition options with respect to modernization
of the assets relied upon to carry out Coast Guard's missions,
especially those in the deepwater area of responsibility. $44 million
has been requested in fiscal year 2000 for this analysis. Coast Guard's
deepwater responsibilities include search and rescue and maritime and
fisheries law enforcement. In a recent report, GAO found that Coast
Guard needs to more thoroughly address the project's justification and
affordability. Coast Guard is in the process of implementing the GAO's
recommendations and will ensure that updated information regarding the
condition of current ships, aircraft and other assets is provided to
the contractor teams analyzing future overall asset requirements. When
the contractor proposals are submitted, project justification and
affordability will be front and center to decision-making, and any
changes from the Coast Guard Roles and Missions analysis will be
factored in.
aviation competition
The U.S. airlines were deregulated 20 years ago. Particularly in
the last year, there has been considerable controversy about the state
of competition among airlines in the United States. The Department has
been concerned about the uneven benefits of deregulation and the
contention that some large airlines have competed unfairly with some of
their smallest competitors. Also, many small and mid-sized communities
have not benefited as much as larger cities from improved air service.
As a consequence, the Department has been active in the debate on this
subject. We have proposed guidelines on how the Department would
determine unfair competition and exclusionary conduct against small
carriers. These guidelines have generated over 5,000 comments.
The Department is cooperating with the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences, which has been
directed to report to Congress on the state of airline competition and
what steps might be taken. This report is due by the spring.
The Department has also included a number of pro-competitive and
air-service-improving legislative initiatives in its FAA
reauthorization legislative proposal, submitted to Congress earlier
this month. Such initiatives include the eventual elimination of
Federally-controlled slots at three of the four high density airports;
increased focus of AIP funding on small, non-hub airports; authority
for airports to increase their passenger facility charges to $5 and a
requirement that such airports submit competition plans; a new five-
year program providing grants to communities seeking to attract air
service; a requirement that code-sharing airlines maintain service to
EAS communities in the event of a strike or comparable event; and the
withdrawal of a slot to a carrier that fails to use that slot as
intended to serve a small community.
aviation and amtrak financing
Just as the Interstate highway system expanded the potential of our
national economy in this century, so aviation is tying us to an
expanded global economy as we enter the 21st century. Aviation has not
only brought Americans closer to each other, it has brought us closer
to the rest of the world. Our aviation system is vital to our domestic
economy and to our nation's global economic competitiveness. I can
assure you that the Department will use the leverage provided by access
to the vast United States market to urge our aviation partners to adopt
more open markets--and to ensure expanded access to their markets for
United States carriers.
Financing all of our aviation system's needs--airports, airway
facilities, security, and FAA operations--is a critical priority for
us. We want to work with Congress to establish cost-based user fees to
fund our air traffic control operations, including capital
modernization needs and research. This will ensure a long term funding
base that will allow the FAA to provide the services our aviation
system needs.
We have been proposing for some time to change the financing
structure for FAA substantially from aviation excise taxes to cost-
based user fees. In the long run, we believe that is an effective way
to promote efficiency in both the provision and consumption of FAA
services and ensure that FAA will continue to receive the resources it
needs to be able to provide the services that aviation users demand.
Integral to cost-based user fees is a cost accounting system and
FAA is making progress towards implementing such a system. Using a
commercial off-the-shelf software package, a significant implementation
milestone was reached with the processing of the first data on direct
and overhead costs associated with air traffic services for enroute and
oceanic flights. By June 1999, the FAA plans to have processed one
year's worth of cost data in support of air traffic overflight fees. In
addition to supporting user fees, the Cost Accounting System will serve
as a managerial tool to assist FAA in managing its programs more
effectively. During the fiscal year 2000-2001 timeframe, the FAA will
implement the system for all lines of business in a phased approach.
The Department has taken steps on a number of issues to resolve
airport revenue diversion matters. First, the Department has focused
efforts on high profile diversion matters in an effort to highlight the
Department's commitment to enforcing prohibitions against revenue
diversion. Second, the Department is now finalizing a national airport
revenue diversion policy, which will be published in 1999, to ensure
that Congressional mandates are met.
Amtrak is a key part of the Nation's intercity transportation
system. A combination of cost savings, revenue generation, and the
capital support proposed in the President's Budget is essential if
Amtrak is to achieve eventual operating self-sufficiency. Amtrak has
made strides recently in increasing ridership and customer
satisfaction. As a member of the Amtrak Board, the Secretary will work
to ensure that Amtrak continuously reviews, amends and implements
programs and practices that improve its revenue situation and reduce
its operating costs. However, it must be made clear that we see the
need for continued capital appropriations to Amtrak in the foreseeable
future.
A total of $571 million is requested for Amtrak in fiscal year
2000, consistent with the five year plan agreed to by the
Administration and Amtrak for Amtrak self-sufficiency. The definition
of capital is proposed to be broadened, consistent with the definition
used for transit. This reflects a continuing commitment to the
financial plans and the long term success of Amtrak and will enable
Amtrak to invest strategically in capital equipment and infrastructure.
Such investment is key to improving on-time service, increasing
revenues, and reducing operating costs.
efficient utilization of transportation infrastructure funding
Strategic investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure
is critical to this nation's economic prosperity and quality of life.
We must make these investments strategically and smarter, as has been
recommended by both GAO and the IG. Working with the Congress, over the
past six years (fiscal years 1994-99) we have increased Federal
investment in highways, transit systems, and other public use
infrastructure to an average of $27.9 billion, more than 32 percent
higher than the average during the previous four years. Total
infrastructure investment proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget, $36
million, is 72 percent greater than the 1990-1993 average. This
investment has produced results, even with many of these projects still
under construction. For example, the latest data on the National
Highway System shows us that the condition of bridges and pavement has
improved significantly. System performance--as measured by peak hour
congestion, a problem for all highway users, which had been
deteriorating--has now stabilized.
The Department is committed to a long-term infrastructure
investment program and has taken steps to bring the management of large
dollar infrastructure projects under control. Overall within the
Department, we are tracking at a senior management level the status of
16 of the largest projects. Project status reports, generally limited
to one page of key information, are updated on a bimonthly basis. The
Secretary has also required financial plans for all high-cost
transportation infrastructure projects--those over $1 billion in value.
Of the 16 projects being tracked regularly, the Central Artery/
Tunnel project in Boston--at a cost of over $1 billion per mile--is the
nation's largest and most expensive highway project. This project has
received substantial attention largely due to concerns over the cost,
project scheduling, State financing ability and project oversight. The
Federal Highway Administration has continually adjusted its staffing
locally to recognize the challenges in oversight of this project and
currently dedicates about half its local workforce to oversight and
stewardship of this project. Formal reviews with headquarters are held
every three months. The Massachusetts Highway Department has updated
its financial plans to account for TEA-21 funding levels, and the
Department has accepted it. They have also provided copies to the IG
and GAO and have received no written comments on the plan thus far.
The Federal Transit Administration has also taken aggressive steps
to deal with management and cost concerns of the Los Angeles Red Line
transit project. FTA required a ``Restructuring Plan'' from the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the MOS-3 Full Funding Grant
Agreement was limited to the North Hollywood component. This segment is
now on budget and estimated to begin passenger service consistent with
the originally scheduled operating date. FTA continues to monitor the
project vigorously.
Strategic investment is helped substantially by leveraging our
dollars as well. In this regard, the new Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program can support several times
its funding levels in maximum credit assistance for infrastructure
projects. These funds will help launch projects sooner by attracting
private and non-federal public investment.
In addition to stretching our dollars further, the Department is
also using technology to expand our transportation system. DOT has made
substantial progress with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)--
applying computer technology to improve transportation system safety
and throughput. DOT's program of ITS research, testing, and technology
transfer is aimed at simultaneously solving congestion and safety
problems, eliminating operating inefficiencies in transit and
commercial vehicles, and reducing the environmental impact of growing
travel demand. Since 1991, the accomplishments of the ITS Program have
included a long-term basic research program, tests of numerous
technology applications, development of a national architecture and
initiation of an unprecedented standards development program. We have
already taken the first steps with model deployments of integrated
travel management systems in 34 of 75 targeted metropolitan areas, and
commercial vehicle intelligent systems in ten states. We believe ITS
infrastructure will provide for our surface modes, in many respects,
what air traffic control has provided for aviation--an ability to
manage operations--for improved safety, greater efficiency within the
same infrastructure, less environmental impact, and greater
predictability for the customer.
dot's financial accounting and performance measurement
As CFO of the Department I am committed to DOT receiving an
unqualified audit opinion on our 1999 financial statements. To do this
will require the following work that is already underway and due to be
completed prior to the close of 1999:
--documentation of historical costs, primarily in FAA and Coast
Guard, so property and equipment can be correctly valued in the
accounting records;
--development of an acceptable actuarial model for estimating the
future liability of Coast Guard post-retirement military health
and benefit costs; and
--linkage of program costs to performance goals in our accounting
system.
The Treasury Department must also continue to work with GAO to
ensure that their management and reporting practices relating to the
various transportation trust funds meets acceptable audit standards. We
are taking a sound, comprehensive approach to correct all of these
deficiencies. This approach requires us to work in a collaborative
manner with Departmental program offices and accounting offices. The IG
is also playing an important consultative role in this process.
We are also continuing to implement improvements to our financial
management systems through technological advances. For example, we are
making innovative use of commercial-off-the-shelf software (COTS) to
implement ``paperless'' travel management systems that tie to our
accounting system. We have automated accounting reports so that
managers have current information. We have closed almost 600 imprest
funds and reduced the amount of cash held outside Treasury by almost $5
million.
New systems will also be necessary to sustain the corrective
actions outlined above. The Department is employing a coherent strategy
with regard to acquiring and implementing these new systems. For
example, we will use COTS software that is able to integrate with other
financial management system applications. These COTS applications will
comply with federal accounting standards.
DOT will also work to remain vigilant in implementing the
performance measurement and reporting required by GPRA. The goals that
we set for ourselves for both fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are
ones that are focused on measurable outcomes that the American public
cares about. While we are pushing ourselves in that some of these are
stretch goals, we think it is important to set high water marks for our
operations--and focus our efforts to achieve them. The first report on
our performance is required in March of 2000. To prepare ourselves for
this report, we at DOT will be internally testing our data and our
ability to interpret the data statistically this year--one year ahead
of schedule. We are doing this because it is good management and will
help us find problems in advance so that we can correct them.
conclusion
The Department's priorities are addressing the challenges and
issues raised by the GAO and the IG and our own assessment of the
Department's management needs. The Department has made good progress in
making management a top priority. We are taking aggressive action to
advance transportation safety. We are taking concrete steps to address
computer reliability and security. We are focusing senior management
attention on major acquisitions and strategic investment in public use
infrastructure. We are developing sound proposals for financing our
programs, and credible accounting systems to achieve an unqualified
audit opinion on our fiscal year 1999 financial statements.
We look forward to working with this Committee, the Congress, GAO
and the Inspector General on these and other issues. The shape of
transportation in this nation and the quality of life of all Americans
depends upon our vigilance in this effort.
common threads
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead and Mr. Anderson, I will address
this to you. I noticed that in the reports from the General
Accounting Office and from the Inspector General's office that
there is a great deal of redundancy in the subject matter. My
initial question to you two is whether you note threads or
general themes of management challenges in your reviews in
management of the Department and the Department's agencies. Mr.
Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. I think I would be surprised if we came
up with significantly different issues. That would mean that we
were not looking at the right things. I think that there are
some common threads. When GAO issued its reports on all the
major Federal Departments and agencies in January, we found
some common threads among those.
You have to have, first of all, a commitment to a results
orientation. You have to have the people knowing what the goals
and objectives are that you want to achieve. I think that that
very often is a problem that happens. I think this has been a
problem with regard to the ATC modernization effort.
I think you have to have the right systems in place to give
you feedback and data and information on how well you are
achieving those goals. I believe that this has been a problem
over the years and is kind of throughout some of the top
problem areas that both the IG and GAO have identified.
I also believe that there has to be a strong partnership
with all the stakeholders that are involved in the
transportation programs, and I think that this has been an
issue that has not been always been working like it should. The
human interface problems that are coming to light now with
regard to the STARS program and that sort of thing shows a lack
of coordination with all the right stakeholders.
Last but not least, I think showing a commitment to a term
that is becoming much more prevalent these days, human capital,
making sure that you have got the right people and the people
are truly part of your assets that you have got to consider,
having them in place and training them and making sure they
understand what you expect of them.
Those are the keys that are throughout all of these things.
If the Department can focus on those types of things, I think
it will go a long way to improving things.
Senator Shelby. Do you have any observation on that, Mr.
Mead?
Mr. Mead. No. I think John gave a good, comprehensive
response to that.
The only thing I would add that I believe is different in
the last several years--and Chairman Stevens alluded to it--is
that number 10, number 9 to a certain extent also, tend to
establish goals or benchmarks that are supposed to be met so we
just do not come back year after year and keep reporting the
same problems. We need to be able to measure some progress.
There is an end state, so to speak. You recall you did that in
Amtrak. You set some goals and that is certainly linked to the
Government Performance and Results Act.
Those are becoming significant drivers at the agency level,
and I think John would agree and Mr. Basso would agree with
that. We are really focused on that: achieving results.
amtrak
Senator Shelby. In 1998, the Inspector General and the
General Accounting Office each performed a very thorough
analysis of Amtrak following two different tracks. The IG was
actively involved in choosing a contractor to perform the
independent assessment of Amtrak's finances, as required by the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, and closely monitored
that process. The GAO, at the direction of this subcommittee,
performed an analysis of the financial performance of Amtrak's
40 routes.
The results of these efforts, as well as many other
reviews, indicate that Amtrak's operating losses continue to
grow and that the railroad is likely to remain heavily
dependent on Federal assistance well into the future if it
continues to operate as currently constituted and managed.
The financial performance of Amtrak's routes varies widely,
but every route but one loses money, and 14 routes lose more
than $100 per passenger trip.
Amtrak's future rides on the railroad's willingness, I
believe, to make changes that could improve ridership and
revenues as well as on the success of the high speed rail
service in the Northeast Corridor.
To Mr. Anderson first, what kinds of changes would Amtrak
have to make in order to reduce its annual operating losses in
your opinion?
Mr. Anderson. I believe that they have got to generate more
revenues. They have got to get more income coming in. They have
got to find a way to get more efficient and deal with some of
the labor issues that they have.
When we took a look and issued that report on the variance
in the profitability of the different routes, one of the ways
that they can get some help is if some of these local areas
that rely so much on Amtrak service--and it is vital to a lot
of the folks in some parts of the country to have Amtrak
service. I fully agree with that. But some areas the State and
local governments and others are contributing more to the
financing of Amtrak. When you look at what happens on those
routes, their financial performance is not as bad as some of
the others. So, I think looking and trying to develop some
dialogue with some of the partners that are involved and see if
there are ways that you could generate some additional income
to help bolster things.
Clearly they have got to continue the capitalization
effort. That is going to be the lifeblood of Amtrak in the long
run.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, the Inspector General's office
has been closely monitoring the ongoing construction and other
preparations for implementing high speed rail service in the
Northeast Corridor and 3-hour trips from New York to Boston.
Will Amtrak be able to meet its schedule to begin high speed
rail service by the end of this year in your opinion?
Mr. Mead. The schedule they have is possible to meet.
Senator Shelby. Is it realistic?
Mr. Mead. I would not be surprised to see some slippage. I
hope it is inconsequential slippage. For example, there is no
room left. They had originally allowed 2 or 3 months for
testing after electrification was completed. Now that is
crunched down to the month of October, and most testing will be
done in phases as various segments are completed. That is when
it is supposed to be electrified. In December they want to
start running the first high-speed train set, and then they
want to phase in the additional high-speed train sets. That is
very critical to the revenue path.
I sure hope they can make it. I think you can do a lot of
things when you set your mind to it, but there is not any fluff
left in the schedule, sir.
Senator Shelby. What are some of the consequences of delay
or glitches if this happened? In other words, what are the
possible consequences of the delay? It depends on how long I
suppose.
Mr. Mead. Yes, it does because they are phasing this in so
that if there is a slippage of just several weeks, it will not
be highly consequential. But since all their revenue
projections are counting on numerous high-speed train sets
coming online in the early part of the year, it is important
that they be ready. High-speed rail, Mr. Chairman, in the
Northeast Corridor, is the big revenue item that Amtrak is
counting on.
Senator Shelby. It has got to be.
Mr. Mead. Yes. So, they really need to press on this
schedule.
proposed amtrak analysis
Senator Shelby. Last year's GAO report on the financial
performance of Amtrak's routes really got some of us to
thinking. It is clear to me that if we continue doing the same
thing in the same way, we are bound to get the same results. We
need to change some factors if we hope to get different
results.
It would be helpful to be able to break out how much of the
losses on each of Amtrak's routes can be attributed to
uncontrollable factors such as the length of the route and how
much can be attributed to factors that can be controlled such
as labor costs or other management issues.
I would like to propose a pilot project that would give
Congress, the Amtrak Reform Council, and other interested
parties a lot of useful information about where the real
problems lay and what can be done to address these problems.
Here is my thought.
Select just one Amtrak route and contract out that route's
operation to another vendor for a limited amount of time and
compare the performance to similar routes on Amtrak's current
system. Any initial reactions? Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. I thought you were going to go to Mr. Anderson on
that. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I will do that. Mr. Anderson, go ahead.
Mr. Anderson. I think that that is something that should be
explored. I think part of the problem, though, is going to be
there was just the one route that was profitable, so finding a
contractor that is going to jump in on any of those other
routes could be problematic.
But then you have got to think about and work out some of
the kinks and the details about how the contractor is going to
interact with the rest of the route in terms of the Amtrak
trains that run there and that sort of thing.
I think it is something that could be explored and I
believe that the concept, the idea, is a good one. There will
be some problems, though, that we are going to have to think
about I believe.
Mr. Mead. I think it is probably worth exploring.
Senator Shelby. What do we have to lose by doing that? In
other words, we would have some evidence of either we cannot
change it or we could change it, could we not, if it worked?
Mr. Mead. You could observe it. Amtrak already contracts
out. They have commuter rail contracts which they operate under
contract. So, various jurisdictions are already contracting it
out.
I suppose Mr. Warrington, the President of Amtrak, might
consider it.
Senator Shelby. It is a thought anyway.
Mr. Mead. Yes. I do not know how you would deal with the
labor issues.
Senator Shelby. I do not either. We will let Senator
Lautenberg advise us.
Mr. Mead. He can answer the question, yes. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Do you have a comment?
Mr. Basso. I think the Inspector General summed it up very
well, Mr. Chairman. We should talk with Mr. Warrington. I do
not know how we deal with the labor issues either, frankly.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. There is a question of how you deal
with the choo-choo issues. If the equipment is acquired via
conventional methods, that means if there is a significant
amount of Government subsidy in there, and are we simply saying
that the only change we make is the labor and the management of
the particular thing?
I am hopeful, and perhaps excessively optimistic, that high
speed rail is in place before I leave Washington. It is
inconvenient as the devil the way it runs. Oh, I am sorry.
Senator Shelby. We want it to be.
Senator Lautenberg. But I think it could make a dramatic
difference.
Travel between the New York region, New York/Newark, and
Washington, about three flights an hour each way. You are
talking about a lot of flights every day. None of them are on
time or rarely are they on time. It is a highly passenger
unfriendly kind of service because getting to the airport,
learning that your flight may be late, very few options at a
given time.
I found out that the distance between the two shuttles to
New York at Washington National is over 3,000 feet. I know
because I carried my luggage back and forth twice. So, 3,000
feet. So, you make two trips, you got over a mile. I made three
trips, each one saying, well, they were not operating but they
thought the other guy was until we got down there.
But in any event, I agree totally with the chairman about
the need to monitor what is happening there, not to just throw
money at them. I do not believe you do that with any program.
And you have to have oversight. You have to know where the
dollars are going.
But the essentiality of Amtrak's operation is one that we
have to look at very carefully. Our skies are so crowded now
wherever you go. There is not room for a lot more traffic, and
Amtrak plays a part. Now, even in a less populated State, let
us say, like Utah, I think Amtrak carries--I do not know
whether anybody here knows precisely. Is there anybody from
Amtrak that would know that here? I think it carries over
50,000 passengers a year.
What is the total Amtrak passenger load a year? Do we know
how many passengers a year Amtrak carries? Huge numbers, but
that is not our only concern today.
bus safety
So, I want to just ask about this. The Motor Carriers
Office has highlighted that they do compliance reviews
principally on bus operators where regular roadside inspections
indicate they are likely to be unsafe. But OMC has conducted
compliance reviews, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, on
less than one-quarter of all the bus operators currently in
operation.
Can we have confidence, do you think, in the fact that the
other three-quarters of the operators do not have an inspection
regularly and can we believe they are operating safely?
Mr. Mead. No. I think you should have a substantially
beefed-up coverage of compliance reviews. Your numbers are
right. There are 13,700 interstate bus companies. 25 percent
have a rating. The good news is that only 1 percent of the
rated companies had unsatisfactory ratings.
In the truck area, it is the same story, except a
substantially greater percentage--7 percent-- have
unsatisfactory ratings and they stay unsatisfactory, sometimes,
for years and they stay on the road. So, you are correct.
And, sir, the number of compliance reviews that the Office
of Motor Carriers has been doing has been declining over the
last several years.
Senator Lautenberg. It declined by more than half in the
last 5 years. That trend appears to be the same whether we are
talking about buses or trucking companies.
Mr. Basso, does OMC give special consideration to the
dangers posed by bus carriers, do you know, when dividing their
available resources?
Mr. Basso. I could tell you, Mr. Chairman, as the Inspector
General mentioned, compliance reviews have generally gone down.
We have not given, so to speak, special attention or extra
attention up until the point that these crashes occurred. But
we certainly are now and intend to, particularly not only
directly with our own resources but the motor carrier
assistance program officers in the States where we have stepped
up our efforts and we are training over 500 State inspectors
annually, particularly in the bus area. We need to really focus
on this.
It is quite clear in the overall numbers--and overall
numbers do not tell everything--the number of deaths in bus
crashes, 1993 to 1997, were relatively low. But the recent
experience certainly suggests we need to step up our efforts in
this area and we are doing that.
Senator Lautenberg. The one thing we know is that all modes
of transportation are increasing their volume of carriage,
whether it is passengers or freight, and supervision has to
expand as well, as well as the resources. It is not easy.
The bus company that I talked about, this Bruin, had a
compliance review in 1996, found to be unsafe, cleaned up their
act long enough to allow continuing operation, and then 2 years
later after the accident killed eight passengers, many of the
same problems were found, again the same as those that occurred
in 1996.
What do any of you propose in order to ensure that once a
carrier takes the necessary safety steps that there is adequate
oversight to ensure that they continue to operate safely? What
kind of suggestions?
Mr. Basso. Senator Lautenberg, I would say this. One of the
things that TEA-21 gave us that was mentioned earlier are
sharper and more effective enforcement tools. If we find
problems like that, I think it is incumbent on us to quickly go
back and inspect and ensure that corrections that have been
made continue in the future, and if necessary, if they are not
continuing to use those enforcement tools as appropriate, to
shut down carriers until such time as we can assure that
safety. I think those are the things we need to do.
Put in summary, we need to enforce the rules that we have
effectively, and we need to zero in on companies who really do
not show proper response to making those corrections.
oversight input
Senator Stevens. Will you yield just 1 minute there? I am
going to have to go.
But Mr. Mead, Mr. Anderson, one of the things that
impresses me about the Inspector General and GAO role is that
we seldom get comments from you as to laws that are either
imprecise or inadequate or as to limitations that we put in
appropriations that render a particular role of an agency
ineffective. I would encourage you to give us your advice on
those things.
This committee has the ability to make minor changes and
fine tune laws in the appropriations process and can leap to, I
think, remove some of the uncertainties in terms of the laws as
they have been interpreted from time to time by an agency.
I would like to see our oversight role become more give and
take and, as the chairman said, more of a dialogue so that we
can improve the efficiency of these agencies and not have an
us-and-them type of relationship. Your two agencies, in
particular, I think could give us a lot of guidance on our
individual subcommittees, and I just throw that out for what it
is worth.
We do hear from the agencies themselves. We get reports.
I was a former Solicitor of the Interior Department, and in
those days we volunteered a lot of comments about the laws and
their adequacy and their limitations and how they might affect
us achieving what we conceived to be the goals that were
established by law.
So, I just throw that in. I think these oversight hearings
are going to become more frequent, and I would encourage you to
give us your advice on what we have done in the past, as well
as your comments about what the agencies are doing pursuant to
those laws.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. My pleasure.
rail as an airline alternative
I want to get back to something I discussed a moment
earlier, and that is the delays at the airports. If you look at
the top 10 largest delay airports in the United States, 5 of
them are in the Northeast Corridor. You have got Logan Airport
in Boston, Newark, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Philadelphia
International. I think it is obvious the main reason that they
are delayed is the fact that they serve the most congested area
in the country.
What do you think the impact might be on these already
delayed airports if we lost Amtrak's Northeast corridor
service? We carry 11 million a year. 11 million people a year.
What would happen? Is there room enough in the skies to throw
up more airplanes if we could get them off the ground?
Mr. Anderson. Senator, I believe that it would exacerbate
the problems that you are already talking about. Clearly with
the regard to the Northeast Corridor especially, there is a lot
of people that rely on Amtrak, and it would just exacerbate
either the air problems or the problems on the highways and
that sort of thing. I know myself the experience that I have
had is that there is nothing worse on counting on a flight and
then it being delayed some period of time. Sometimes the
additional speed that you think you are going to have in
getting there by flying, as opposed to taking the train, is
more than wiped out by the delays and that sort of thing. So, I
think it would be a negative impact.
Mr. Mead. I agree with you.
I think a corollary to that, though, is that Amtrak must
make sure that it actually meets the speed objectives that it
set forth for both the Washington-New York corridor and the New
York-Boston corridor. There is no doubt in my mind that when
you go approximately 4 hours, 45 minutes and go to 3 hours with
high-speed rail, that is going to make a big difference and
there will be diversion from the air markets.
dot and the year-2000 problem
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I hope that we get better balance
because right now the air market is really saturated.
I want to ask one last thing. Mr. Basso, you present a
pretty optimistic picture of DOT's ability to deal with the Y2K
problem. I am concerned, however, that in your most recent
quarterly report to OMB, you reveal that a number of critical
systems in FAA and Coast Guard will not be completed by OMB's
deadline, March 31. Moreover, you point out that most of the
DOT offices still have a great deal of work to do in planning.
You did say something about it before, but I want to just
refocus on the Y2K problems and see, among the three of you,
what level of confidence we might have. I know that it was said
that it looks like we are approaching kind of a breakthrough
period.
Mr. Mead. First of all, you have to look at the Y2K
problem. There are three elements to it: the Department's own
systems, FAA's, the Coast Guard's; and second, the industry;
and third, the foreign systems. Your question is directed more
toward the DOT systems.
The situation in FAA is that all systems have been fixed in
the laboratory essentially. The problem is that FAA has a lot
of different facilities around the country, and now they have
to take what has been tested and has worked in a laboratory,
often Atlantic City, and field it. The next 3 months will be
critical.
Here is where we stand today. 23 percent of the systems
requiring the Y2K fix have been fielded. They are ready to go.
The rest have to be done, and they will not all be done by the
end of the March, the OMB deadline. You are right there. But
they are shooting for the end of June.
Mr. Basso. I might add a comment to that, Senator
Lautenberg. I think I agree with that assessment completely.
My optimism is borne primarily by the fact that I know
during the next 30 to 60 day period, many of these systems will
have been tested in the laboratory, be getting out to where we
can tell that they will be effectively on line. And we do have
strong confidence that they will be in place by June, which
gives us certainly adequate time, particularly where the
aviation systems are concerned. Coast Guard still has some work
to do, but I have substantial confidence in our ability to meet
the time frames and to have these things compliant.
I would add one thing. Externally I think one of the things
that we are mindful of is matters within the control of the
U.S. There are clearly foreign issues in aviation, foreign
airports, foreign computer systems, where we are turning a
substantial amount of our vigilance and trying to assess where
they are going to be. That is going to be a very, very
important part of the international issues.
Mr. Anderson. I would just like to add to it too. I think
that FAA, in particular, has made some progress. This most
recent progress report shows some significant progress. Clearly
there is a lot to be done, and the proof of the pudding is
going to be what happens in the next 60 to 90 days.
But there is another point I want to amplify on just a
little bit. GAO issued a report in January I believe looking at
are the U.S. airports going to be ready for Y2K. There is a
significant number. We did a survey of all the major airports
around the country, and I believe about 330 of them replied to
our survey. Now, take into account that this was back in
September but over a third of those airports indicated that
they would not be ready by June 30, which is FAA's date, and
they did not have any contingency plans.
So, it is not just the foreign countries and it is not just
the Department itself or the agencies, but we have to make sure
all these stakeholders are doing their part. That is something
that I think there is a challenge for FAA there to make sure
that they are bringing in the other stakeholders, the airports
and the airlines and talking and making sure that they are
going to be ready too, because if a major hub airport has some
sort of big computer glitch, that is going to cause a problem
all the way down the line.
Senator Lautenberg. I assume that if the employees working
on this know that they will be unchained from their desks when
it comes to completion, they will kind of rush it along a
little bit. [Laughter.]
Mr. Basso. We have the keys, Senator. We will let them
loose. [Laughter.]
year-2000 and faa: worst-case
Senator Lautenberg. I wonder if in very brief summary
either one of you or has much time as the chairman will allow--
the question of Y2K is a rather arcane thing. For the average
layman, it is an incomprehensible thing. What is the
difference? What is the consequence in, let us say, the
bleakest situation, taking FAA, if we do not meet the deadline?
Mr. Mead. Well, if you did not meet the deadline, you have
to have some type of contingency plan, and I think the
contingency plan would be you would not let planes in the air
and things would slow down very dramatically. FAA's contingency
plans just will not let them into the air, and you will have
major efficiency problems. That is why FAA says there is not a
safety issue, it is an efficiency one.
Senator Lautenberg. Keep those keys handy, Mr. Basso.
Thanks very much for your kind compliments too.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
air traffic control modernization
I also note that both the IG and the GAO reports on
management challenges highlight the difficulty the FAA and the
Department have had in managing the FAA's multi-billion dollar
air traffic control modernization effort. Unfortunately, cost
overruns, schedule slippages, performance shortfalls, and
program cancellations are not uncommon in the modernization
effort and some would say are more the rule than the exception.
I would like to look at this area in steps. To all of you,
first, my sense that the root problem is that the FAA's
approach to modernization is to revolutionize the systems we
have in place rather than to incrementally improve our air
traffic control modernization system through the orderly
replacement of computers, monitors, radars, et cetera. Would
you agree with that simplification of the FAA's approach to
modernization? Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. I believe that in the past that was the
approach and the failure of their approach clearly.
Senator Shelby. Have they changed?
Mr. Anderson. I think they are trying to, but they have got
a culture issue there that they have got to deal with as well.
You do not just tell people that we are going to change and
expect it to change overnight. So, I think it is going to take
some time to show up.
Senator Shelby. What are they doing about the culture?
Mr. Anderson. We issued a report--I believe it was a year
and a half, 2 years ago--on the culture especially with regard
to their acquisitions. They have developed a strategic plan
that is going out and trying to work with the employees, knock
down some of the barriers, and that sort of thing, but it is
going to take some time. It is not going to happen overnight.
You look at the recent problems that have been reported with
regard to STARS and WAAS, problems are still there. You just
have to keep working at it.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. I think some of the phenomenon that you described
is still there. Have you heard of the Free Flight? Have you
heard of that term?
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Mead. This is where they will be able to space planes
closer together.
Senator Shelby. Free Flight phase one?
Mr. Mead. Yes. That is an incremental approach, such as you
are suggesting.
The systems that both Mr. Anderson and I refer to, the
satellite system and the STARS system, were system-wide,
comprehensive approaches.
Now, in the STARS system, what happened was they were going
out to buy commercial, off-the-shelf software, a system that
was ready to go, and then at the 11th hour, the controllers
came in and said, no, there are some major problems with STARS.
What was supposed to be an off-the-shelf software acquisition
turned into a software development acquisition, and that is why
there are all these delays. So, I do think there are some of
the phenomena you described are still there, sir.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your assessment. I
think trying to build a Cadillac with Chevrolet parts did not
work.
I would point to the same point the Inspector General made.
Free Flight phase one offers me a lot of optimism that the
learning curve is improving, that in fact we are understanding
you have to put these things together in manageable parts.
changing FAA's organizational culture
And I also agree that the cultural change is particularly
critical. I have sat in many a meeting and listened to many a
briefing and learned a few things over the few years that I
have been up in the Department.
But I think we have two ingredients that really will drive
us forward in a very positive way. One is Administrator Garvey,
who is a hands-on administrator, who understands these problems
and is dealing with them, and second, the fact that there is a
recognition that in order for FAA to be able to meet its goals
and to have any credibility, frankly, coming to this committee
for budget requests, we have to bring these things in on time
and on budget. I think that will help to drive us in a positive
direction.
Senator Shelby. I believe the administration should be
commended or the Administrator should be commended for her
efforts on Free Flight phase one. Do you share that view
basically?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mead. I do too. In fact, I would add--I know it is not
the Inspector General's job to compliment people necessarily,
but I do think Administrator Garvey took those Y2K problems by
the neck. The progress that has been made is due to the
dedication of the senior leadership of the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, and Ms. Garvey.
Senator Shelby. The FAA is not good at managing large,
complex procurements. Notable examples of the difficulty they
have had with major ATC modernization programs include the
advanced automation program, the microwave landing system
program, and more recently the STARS and WAAS program.
Has the FAA learned anything from the difficulties they
have encountered in managing these problems, or on the other
hand, are we doomed to watch them repeat past failures with
each new generation of ATC modernization? Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I think we have learned several
lessons. One I have already mentioned, segmenting things into
manageable parts; a second, buying commercial products and, in
doing so, making sure that we understand that we have consulted
the people in the agency who have to use those commercial
products that we are getting the right products; and that we
are tightly managing and holding people accountable for the
projects they manage. I think that is something that was
lacking for a long time. And last, ensuring that employees will
be in a position to use that new equipment effectively.
Those challenges certainly will always exist as long as we
deal with complex and cutting edge technology, but it is
attitude and culture that will make the difference in how
effective we are. And I think we have turned the corner by
accepting the fact we have problems that have to be corrected.
role of oversight
Senator Shelby. Mention has been made of the funding
uncertainties facing the FAA and the Nation's airports in the
GAO report. My sense is that there is funding uncertainty
facing the airports because the authorization will expire at
the end of March. I am hard-pressed to find an instance of a
shortage of appropriated Federal funds, both trust funds and
general funds, for the FAA to commit to modernization.
In light of the less than laudable history of managing
money wisely in major procurements, I would, for one, argue
that providing less oversight of the current FAA resources
would not be a wise step on the part of Congress. Would any of
you care to comment? Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. I would agree. I think that what gets watched
gets done, and I think that you need to continue the vigilant
oversight.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Yes. I think I can speak here from both my time
with the legislative branch at GAO and now with the executive
branch. I find in both instances the oversight of the
Appropriations Committee has been commendable and I think has
been a strong influence the direction some of these
acquisitions have gone. In fact, remember the AAS program?
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Mead. I think that Congress had a great deal to do with
the decision to start scrutinizing that program. So, I think it
is healthy.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to acknowledge
many of the problems have resulted from inadequate management,
not from inadequate funding. Anytime operational programs
increase 72 percent--I have been doing budgets a long time.
Those are unprecedented numbers. We have to implement and take
steps, such as accountability, assure that we are getting the
value for what we are spending, and to take the time and effort
to do things right and well. So, yes, I think that is right.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
discretionary grant programs
In June 1998, the Inspector General reported on DOT's
management of the discretionary grant programs. In that report,
the IG stated that a little over $1 billion of the total fiscal
year 1997 Federal transportation funds were awarded at the
discretion of the Department. Of these funds, the IG found that
the Federal Highway Administration awarded 59 percent of its
discretionary grant funds to projects that were not the highest
priority projects according to the agency's own criteria. The
FAA granted 15 percent of its discretionary funds to lower
priority projects.
Secretary Basso, after the IG report was released, DOT
agreed to publish its selection criteria for discretionary
grants and to provide the Appropriations Committee with a
quarterly list of selected discretionary projects, along with
an explanation of how the projects were selected. Have these
been provided to the committee, and if not, why not, and will
they be?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir. Let me answer by saying, first of all,
we have published our criteria, and we even have some statutory
criteria that came in TEA-21. I can tell you the report to this
committee crossed my desk the day before yesterday. I made a
few minor adjustments to it that it needed, and it should be up
here very promptly.
Senator Shelby. Well, I have supported the idea that the
Secretary needs some money for discretionary purposes.
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mead, why do you suppose so many of the discretionary
grants were awarded to projects that were not identified as
highest priority?
Mr. Mead. It is hard to say, because there was no record of
decision. What we did have a record of, sir, was the staff
recommendations. So, we knew where they were going. You will
recall that is one reason we recommended that if DOT decides
not to go along with its criteria, the rationale must be stated
in writing.
Senator Shelby. Can you provide me, Mr. Secretary, an
explanation of why congressional direction is being ignored by
the Federal Highway Administration, that is, in the Federal
Lands program?
Mr. Basso. Yes. I am aware of that concern. We had an
instance here about a month ago where it came to my personal
attention the earmarks had not been honored. That has been
fixed.
Second, you have my assurance that we will honor all the
earmarks.
We are also taking some other proactive steps like making
sure that the States involved know that they have these
earmarks. The one thing we do need their cooperation in is to
at least apply for them. We will help them make sure they get
those applications in proper order.
Senator Shelby. Well, we appreciate the cooperation with
the Secretary and your office in dealing with this.
deepwater procurement
Deepwater procurement. The General Accounting Office's
Management Challenges report notes that the Coast Guard and the
Department need to more thoroughly address acquisition planning
issues. This aggressive and ambitious procurement effort is
unlike anything the Coast Guard or the Department of
Transportation have undertaken, and I believe it is critical
that we get it right the first time.
To Mr. Anderson and to Secretary Basso, the General
Accounting Office report notes that the data that was used to
justify the procurement was withdrawn after the GAO discovered
that the remaining useful life of the Coast Guard's deepwater
aircraft and perhaps its ships might be much longer than the
agency originally estimated. Would that lessen the urgency of
the deepwater procurement for the Department and for the
Congress, as we try to live within the budget caps? Would that
help?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say on the
GAO recommendations, they were very constructive and we
concurred in almost all of those and adopted them.
Senator Shelby. Have they been heeded pretty well?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Now, I will just make one other observation. Part of the
reason for advancing the deepwater project is procuring new
systems as opposed to new ships. One of the things that we all
face is the cost of operations of the Coast Guard rising, and
we believe that introducing these new systems over the next 10
to 15 years will allow us to reduce crew size, reduce costs of
operation, and make real progress.
Senator Shelby. The initial estimate of the deepwater
procurement was close to $10 billion over a 20-year period
above the current capital budget for the Coast Guard. That
represents more than a doubling of the current acquisition,
construction, and improvements baseline budget. This strikes me
as sort of a big bang approach to modernizing the capital
plant.
Mr. Secretary, in light of the difficulty the Department
has had with other major procurements, have any of you given
any thought to whether there might be a less risky and less
costly approach to modernizing the Coast Guard's capital plant?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, we have taken some considerable
efforts to try to deal with that. In fact, one of the things I
had mentioned to you is in the functional design that we put
out for the first phase of the deepwater project. We are
requiring contractors to make significant investments, come up
with designs that really will be about 80 percent complete. So,
I think we are clearly taking those steps, and the Coast Guard
is also taking some very sharp measures to carefully evaluate
those cost estimates and work through them. So, yes, we are
very mindful of that, sir.
infrastructure megaprojects
Senator Shelby. Dealing with the oversight of
infrastructure grant funds, TEA-21 dramatically increased the
guaranteed Federal highway and transit infrastructure funding.
These larger amounts of Federal dollars create greater
potential for fraud, embezzlement, and abuse. Therefore, the
Inspector General's office is increasing its oversight of all
infrastructure contract and grant funds to protect the
expenditure of Federal funds, as you should. At the greatest
risk for management schedule or financing problems are large
dollar infrastructure projects above $1 billion in total cost,
which the Inspector General's report refers to as megaprojects.
To all of you, is the term ``megaproject'' the officially
accepted term to describe projects with a total cost exceeding
$1 billion, and is this the right dollar threshold and
definition to set apart these especially large projects from
other more manageable construction projects? Is there agreement
that such large dollar projects require additional management
and oversight? Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. I think in my opinion these large dollar
projects do require additional oversight.
Senator Shelby. That is just common sense.
Mr. Anderson. Exactly, exactly. I believe that whether or
not $1 billion is the right cutoff point--they are mega in my
terminology. I know when GAO issued a report on all these
projects, we coined the phrase I think mega, and I think mega
might be an appropriate term. But there is a question whether
or not you want to down one level and maybe say a half a
billion dollars or something like that.
Senator Shelby. It is still a lot of money.
Mr. Anderson. It is a lot of money. That is right.
What we found when we did our review of a number of these
megaprojects is that the States cannot come up with very good
cost estimates at the outset. So, you have got to keep watching
them because their costs are going to grow significantly from
the original design estimates that they come up with.
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, a major problem here--I think Mr.
Anderson would share this view--is that a lot of the times, the
work is reactive. There is already some problem that has
manifested itself, and then the auditors come in and say, well,
here is why they have a problem.
The idea here is to develop some baselines on how these
projects are proceeding before problems develop, so we are able
to more proactively say, ``There is a risk factor here,''
before things are totally out of control.
But, yes, I agree with you. I think we need some
flexibility on that $1 billion definition.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Basso?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I might mention, yes, the $1
billion definition certainly is a number that gets your
attention, but we are doing more than that. We have a tracking
system.
Senator Shelby. You have to do more, do you not?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir. We need that surveillance.
I want to let you know we actually have a tracking system
that picks up a number of projects lower than $1 billion but
are large or projects that we think, as Mr. Mead suggests, we
should be proactive on the front end. We have 16 of those
projects that we in the Secretary's office track and report to
the Deputy Secretary regularly on. And we are looking for
exactly those kinds of things up front. Are there things we
should notice and deal with now rather than waiting for an
endpoint?
most-common management problems
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, the Inspector General's office
has done six audit reports I believe on selective megaprojects
over the last year. What are some of the common management
problems you have seen in these projects?
Mr. Mead. There are two common ones.
One is the financing plan behind the project. Where are
they going to get the money to finance the whole project? It
will not all come from the Federal Government, and sometimes
there are different constituencies in a jurisdiction that are
competing for that same dollar bill. We are finding it very
useful to scrutinize those finance plans.
The second is the scope of projects, the definition of a
project. This occurs most commonly in transit projects. The
city is trying to satisfy a lot of people, and the transit
project takes on a definition that cannot possibly be met. L.A.
Metro was an example of that. They finally had to cut back on
two major lines because the money was not there.
Those are two lessons learned. There are a few others, but
those are two important common threads, sir.
Senator Shelby. To Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mead, what are some
ways to address these common problems with larger
infrastructure projects?
Mr. Anderson. I think there are a couple of options that
you could use. You could require, I believe as Mr. Mead
suggested, the project managers to develop baselines at the
outset and track those baselines and make sure that you are
still getting what you want on time and within the cost
estimates. I cannot say enough, I cannot agree more that you
have got to have solid financial plans to make sure that you
have got sources of funds. I think in the past it might have
been sort of the thinking that Uncle Sam will take care of
this. We have got the highway dollars coming in and we are
going to be able to make this up. But in years past, we found
out that there are a lot of competing interests for that $1 or
whatever it is. So, you have got to have that.
I think that you could establish certain goals and
strategies. I think that the Department of Transportation can
be a good clearing house for good practices that certain States
and projects are using out there to get out to some other
States and localities that they could learn from as well.
Senator Shelby. Do you agree, Mr. Mead?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Basso. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Does design-build help address the
problems?
Mr. Mead. Yes. I should caveat that. The early returns are
that it definitely does in construction projects.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, I would agree.
Senator Shelby. You agree with that.
natca agreement
Last year the administration signed a new agreement with
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association which was
initially described as being within the President's budget
request for 1999. Subsequent reports estimate that the
additional cost of the new agreement is substantially more than
the FAA operation resources envisioned in the President's
fiscal year 1999 request.
Can any of you shed more light on what the ultimate costs
of the new agreement are for the current fiscal year and for
the fiscal year 2000?
Mr. Basso. I think I can do that, Mr. Chairman. In fiscal
year 1999, we have estimated the cost to be about $80 million,
including the reclassification of controllers and the
differential for the controllers-in-charge. Looking ahead to
2000, we see that cost as being about $70 million, less about
$2 million, or a little less than $2 million, in savings from
reductions in supervisory positions.
As to your question on the 1999 budget, of course, the
budget was submitted before we reached this agreement. So, what
we have done is recognize we have created this cost; we have to
absorb this cost, make it work within the budget. And we are
doing that in fiscal year 1999.
Senator Shelby. Any comments?
[No response.]
nafta and trucking
Senator Shelby. Mexican trucks entering the U.S. NAFTA
opened up trade and truck traffic between Mexico and the United
States. The Inspector General has found that some border States
do a better job of truck inspection than others, and there is a
direct correlation between the safety condition of Mexican
trucks entering U.S. commercial zones and the level of border
inspection.
How far can Mexican truck companies currently drive through
the border into the U.S.?
Mr. Mead. A lot of people think the NAFTA agreement marked
the first time the Mexican trucks could enter the United
States. But actually they have, for some time, been able to
come across in ``commercial zones,'' 3 to 20 miles. They are
not supposed to go beyond that, and they are supposed to turn
around and go home.
Senator Shelby. Do they?
Mr. Mead. Well, I have never seen a Mexican truck outside
that zone. I have heard that sometimes they continue on north.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Basso. No. I think on the first point that it clearly
is that zone, and I do not really have knowledge of them going
beyond that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to this hearing, the following
information was received regarding Mexican trucks driving
beyond the commercial zone boundaries.]
[The information follows:]
Letter From Kenneth M. Mead
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, June 14, 1999.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shelby: At the February 9, 1999 hearing before your
committee on the Top Ten Management Issues within the Department of
Transportation, you asked if Mexican trucks drive beyond the commercial
zone boundaries of the four border states. The answer is ``yes'', even
though Mexican trucks are not authorized to go beyond the commercial
zones.
All interstate motor carriers operating in the United States,
including Mexican motor carriers operating in the commercial zones, are
required to obtain a Department of Transportation (DOT) identification
number and to display this unique identifying number on their
commercial trucks. We used the identification number to get the
information needed to answer your question.
Under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, state safety
inspectors perform roadside inspections of commercial trucks and
drivers throughout the United States to ensure compliance with U. S.
safety regulations. Therefore, Mexican trucks operating inside or
outside the commercial zones are subject to roadside inspections.
The Office of the Inspector General extracted the DOT
identification numbers for motor carriers identified as domiciled in
Mexico from the Office of Motor Carriers Management Information System.
We compared these unique numbers to the fiscal year 1998 roadside
inspections of commercial vehicles also contained in the Office of
Motor Carriers Management Information System. The results of our
comparison indicate that:
--Roadside inspections were performed beyond the boundaries of the
commercial zone on 68 motor carriers identified as domiciled in
Mexico, and were performed more than once for 11 of the 68
carriers.
--Roadside inspections were performed on the 68 motor carriers at
least 100 times in 24 states not on the U.S.-Mexico border,
which include the States of New York, Florida, Washington,
Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Iowa, South Dakota, and
Wyoming.
--Roadside inspections were also performed on the 68 motor carriers
outside the commercial zones but within the four border states
(Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas) more than 500
times.
This demonstrates that Mexican trucks are operating well beyond the
designated commercial zones. Enclosed is a copy of our recent report on
the Department's Motor Carrier Safety Program. It identifies the
current problems that impact negatively on motor carrier safety
together with recommendations to address those issues.
If I can answer any questions, or be of further assistance, please
feel free to contact me at 366-1959 or my Deputy, Raymond J. DeCarli at
366-6767.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Mead,
Inspector General.
Senator Shelby. I understand that there is currently a
moratorium on the January 1, 2000 open access provision under
NAFTA that would allow Mexican trucks to freely drive
throughout the U.S. What is the likelihood of this moratorium
being lifted before next January, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Basso. All indications are, Mr. Chairman, as Secretary
Pena did in 1995, until we can assure that that moratorium
being lifted would ensure safe truck operations, it will not be
lifted. It is going to last.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, do you have a comment?
Mr. Mead. Well, I think we need to come to grips with this.
We have a national treaty here, and our estimate is you need
about 125 Federal inspectors down there at the border.
California is providing its own inspectors. There is, as you
say, a very strong correlation, just an amazing correlation,
between conditions of trucks and the level of inspection. The
truckers coming across, sir, do not like it when they are
tagged for inspection, they are found to be unqualified from a
safety standpoint, and they have to go home. It costs them
money.
Senator Shelby. Roughly what percentage of truck traffic at
the U.S.-Mexico border is being inspected by Federal Motor
Carrier inspectors?
Mr. Mead. It is infinitesimal. Let me give you one concrete
figure. At the El Paso crossing, 1,300 trucks come across a
day. There is one Federal inspector. He can inspect a total of
14 a day. California, in contrast, at their Otay Mesa crossing,
is staffed by numerous people and they, over a 3-month period,
will inspect every truck that comes through there. The out-of-
service rate earlier--that is when a truck is not qualified
from a safety standpoint, or its driver is not. At Otay Mesa in
California, where they are fully staffed, and have a good
inspection program, the out-of-service rate for Mexican trucks
is 28 percent. At El Paso it is 50 percent for Mexican trucks.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, your office also prepared a
report on motor carrier safety at the U.S.-Mexico border in
December. Did you find that some of the Mexican carriers were
driving beyond the commercial zones?
Mr. Mead. No, sir.
Additional committee questions
Senator Shelby. I have a number of questions that we will
probably submit for the record for you people.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Inspector General's Office
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
highway-rail crossing safety
Question. Almost 1,000 people died in 1997 in railroad-highway
crossing and railroad trespassing accidents in 1997; another 2,000 were
injured. This subcommittee has traditionally been very supportive of
the Department of Transportation and Operation Lifesaver's railroad
crossing safety efforts, and under my Chairmanship, that support has
been increased. The Office of Inspector General is currently auditing
the Department's railroad-highway crossing safety action plan. When
will the audit be complete?
Answer. We expect to complete it by the end of May 1999.
Question. Can you generally describe what the federal role is in
preventing rail crossing accidents, versus the role of state
transportation departments?
Answer. The Department of Transportation--through the Federal
Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration--provides national leadership, coordination, and funding
of states' efforts to prevent rail-crossing accidents. State
transportation departments work directly with railroads, local
governments, police, and the public to improve rail-crossing safety.
Question. The Department's efforts in improving rail crossing
safety are only part of a larger picture. Outside groups, such as the
Association of American Railroads and Operation Lifesaver, as well as
highway safety groups, are also actively involved in similar programs.
Are these efforts well-coordinated? Should the federal government take
the lead in these programs, or are other organizations better suited?
Answer. These efforts are generally well-coordinated under Federal
leadership. Through its Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan, the
Department of Transportation has been involved in specific actions that
require coordination with such groups as Operation Lifesaver, the
American Trucking Association, the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, and metropolitan planning organizations. The
federal government needs to continue to play a lead role in safety
programs because of its nationwide perspective, transportation and
safety responsibilities, and available resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
should suspended licenses be permanently disqualifying?
Question. In the case of bus drivers and truck drivers, should we
treat a license suspension as a reason to permanently disqualify that
driver from ever again driving a truck or a bus?
Answer. It is important to keep in mind that if a driver's
commercial license is suspended, and the driver is precluded from
driving, his or her ability to earn an income is directly impacted.
Accordingly, in our opinion first-time offenders should not necessarily
have their license permanently disqualified, but we need to send first-
time and repeat offenders a very clear message. Adjudication--either
suspension or revocation of commercial driver's license--must mean that
a driver cannot obtain a permit to drive a commercial vehicle during
the time his or her commercial license is either revoked or suspended.
For example, in the case of the recent AMTRAK train and truck crash in
Illinois--even though the cause of the crash has not yet been
officially determined or attributed to the driver of the truck--the
truck driver was using a permit issued to him when his commercial
license was suspended because he received three speeding tickets within
in an unacceptable time period. Under these circumstances, the
suspension had not had meaningful effect.
Question. Would this solution only result in increased plea-
bargaining in the local courts to ensure that drivers do not get their
license suspended?
Answer. Not if there was a requirement related to commercial
driver's license that precluded plea-bargaining. The States' variances
in penalizing DUI and DWI violations are significant. Consistency among
the States would better ensure that only safe drivers retain the
privilege of driving. For example, New York State does not pull a
person's past licensing history when he or she applies for a commercial
driver's license. If a driver is convicted of DUI while operating a
commercial motor vehicle, that driver's license is revoked. If the
driver is DUI in a personal vehicle, he or she loses personal driving
privileges and maintains commercial driving privileges. In contrast, in
Pennsylvania a driver may get a commercial driver's license with a past
conviction if the applicant's current license is in good standing. If
convicted of DWI while driving a personal vehicle, the entire driver's
license is suspended. If convicted of DWI while driving a commercial
vehicle, the commercial license is revoked for one year. For more than
one DWI offense, the license is permanently revoked.
Question. Mr. Mead, what solutions would you recommend to ensure
that drivers with suspended licenses do not take the risk of continuing
to drive.
Answer. During our recently completed motor carrier safety audit,
we did not focus on commercial driver's license requirements,
procedures or program effectiveness. We intend to do so in a project
later this year. We will keep you informed of our audit results.
office of motor carriers
why have compliance reviews and fines declined while budget resources
have increased?
Question. If these inspectors are not conducting compliance
reviews, what are they doing with their time?
Answer.In response to our December 1998 survey, OMC investigators
stated that 55 percent of their time was spent conducting compliance
reviews, enforcements, roadside inspections and crash investigations.
They stated the remaining 45 percent was spent on duties such as
administration, outreach to communities, attending meetings or
seminars, and speaking to associations. Respondents to our survey
stated that during a typical month they spend their time on the
following activities:
Percent
Compliance reviews (CRs).......................................... 37
Enforcement (writing reports and other enforcement activities).... 13
Roadside inspections.............................................. 4
Crash investigations.............................................. 1
______
Total CRs and enforcement-related activities................ 55
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Administrative duties............................................. 14
Seminars/outreach/speaking to associations/trucking companies..... 12
Monitoring programs............................................... 6
Supervision....................................................... 4
Training (attending/conducting)................................... 4
Other............................................................. 5
______
Total other than CRs and enforcement related activities..... 45
Respondents who supplied more detail about ``other'' activities
most often listed:
--Interaction with carriers, the public, and other government agency
personnel
--Travel
--Computer maintenance/problems
should we use market forces to prompt safe truck and bus operations?
Question. How dramatic a change do you think needs to be made in
order for the OMC to take steps to truly change the behavior in the
motor carrier industry, especially in the bus area?
Answer. OMC needs to take strong enforcement action against
carriers violating critical regulations with the greatest effect on
safety. By that we mean fines approaching the statutory maximum, the
issuance of compliance orders, and--if necessary--placement out-of-
service. OMC should also develop a monitoring program to verify that
carriers rated less-than-satisfactory, or those with previous
enforcement histories, continue to comply with motor-carrier safety
regulations. Finally, OMC should limit, and finally remove, interstate
operating authority from motor carriers that fail to pay civil
penalties within 90 days after a final order is issued or a settlement
agreement is completed.
OMC's history of low fine-assessments and collection amounts has
not changed the behavior of motor carriers that continually violate
safety regulations. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1998, 846
carriers drew multiple enforcement actions. Of those, 127 carriers had
3 or more enforcement actions and 117 carriers had repeated violations
of the same safety regulations. Only 17 carriers were issued out-of-
service orders. The actual civil penalty amounts settled averaged about
$2500. In addition, OMC allowed motor carriers with multiple
enforcement actions to continue to operate without paying fines.
Repeat violators warranted, but did not receive, stiffer
enforcement actions. The total fines assessed the 117 carriers with
multiple violations of the same safety regulation increased, on the
average, by only $451 per year. From 1995 to 1998 the average penalty
originally assessed per enforcement case declined from $5,575 to
$3,517. These fine assessments reflect OMC's continued emphasis on a
carrier's ability to pay fines and continue operating after repeat
violations are discovered and prosecuted. OMC settled enforcement cases
for amounts significantly less than originally assessed. From fiscal
year 1995 to fiscal year 1998, settlements declined from 67 cents on
the dollar to 46 cents. Carriers consider these nominal fines a cost of
doing business.
morale problems in office of motor carriers
Question. What impact has the situation had on the morale of the
enforcement community within the Office of Motor Carriers?
Answer. The high response rate to our survey of OMC field personnel
(73 percent) indicates that they welcomed the opportunity to share
their thoughts and suggestions. They addressed morale in their
responses, and offered a variety of reasons for low morale among OMC
field personnel. One message that came through was that OMC field
personnel felt OMC management did not support strong enforcement by
allowing safety investigators to conduct more compliance reviews,
assess appropriate fines for violations, and collect those fines.
Of the respondents to our survey, 47 percent rated the OMC
enforcement program poor-to-fair. When asked to suggest changes to the
OMC operation, 95 percent said unsafe carriers should be put out-of-
service, 90 percent said OMC should impose larger fines for repeat
offenders, and 87 percent said OMC should use more enforcement actions
against carriers who do not follow the rules.
Question. What tools does OMC have at its disposal that it is not
using when it comes to ensuring that bus operators do so in a
consistently safe manner?
Answer. OMC's policies and procedures for ensuring the safety of
commercial vehicles apply to both trucks and motor coaches (over the
road carriers of more than 15 passengers). OMC conducts compliance
reviews of the motor carriers to ensure their compliance with safety
regulations. Enforcement actions include assessing fines, issuing
compliance orders, and placing carriers out-of-service.
We found OMC did not include all violations of acute and critical
regulations in civil-penalty cases and did not assess civil penalties
at the statutory maximum amount. Acute and critical regulations are
those with the most direct impact on safety. We analyzed OMC's
compliance review and enforcement databases to determine the percentage
of enforcement actions processed in relation to the number of
violations found in compliance reviews during FYs 1995-1998. We
analyzed the 29 most frequently violated regulations cited during
compliance reviews. In 1995, OMC processed enforcement actions on only
12 percent (2,957 of 24,636) of all violations found during motor-
carrier compliance reviews. In fiscal year 1998, that proportion
decreased to 11 percent (2,481 of 22,022) of the violations found.
OMC uses the Uniform Fine Assessment (UFA) software to assess civil
penalties for serious violations. The objective of the UFA software is
to increase the uniformity of civil penalties assessed against motor
carriers for violations of safety regulations. UFA considers nine
statutorily mandated factors in determining the amount of a civil
penalty. While UFA considers these nine factors when assessing civil
penalties, OMC established minimum fines, which were well below the
maximum amount established by statute. This minimum fine represents the
initial amount assessed against a motor carrier for a safety violation.
The amount of the fine increases depending on the seriousness of the
violation but rarely to the maximum allowed by statute.
truck and bus companies falsifying ``hours-of-service'' logs
Question. What observations can you make regarding the overall
level of compliance with the hours-of-service rules on the part of
motor carriers generally and bus operators specifically?
Answer. The OIG Office of Investigations currently has 35 active
cases involving alleged ``hours-of-service'' violations. Indictments
for violations of Federal safety regulations during the past 24 months
total 44, with 35 convictions and $2.6 million in fines, restitution
and recoveries. Based on the cases we have conducted to date, we feel
there is a significant problem with hours-of-service violations. We
have received no criminal allegations against bus operators as such,
and none of these investigations involved bus companies.
The following tables represent the ratings assigned to motor
carriers and, specifically, to buses:
MOTOR CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
No. of ---------------------------------------------------
reviews Not
Satisfactory Conditional Unsatisfactory rated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................... 6,473 41 28 5 16
1997............................................... 6,894 28 13 15 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUS COMPLIANCE REVIEWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
No. of ---------------------------------------------------
reviews Not
Satisfactory Conditional Unsatisfactory rated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................... 437 61 19 8 12
1997............................................... 450 49 15 6 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOURS-OF-SERVICE VIOLATIONS BY MOTOR CARRIER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998
Driver Log Violation Motor 1997 Motor 1998
Carrier Bus Carrier Bus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Logs...................... 3,741 153 3,817 124
Greater than 60 hours in 7 days. 2,767 53 2,747 41
Failure to record duty status... 2,322 129 2,267 108
Driving over 10 hours........... 2,634 130 2,609 114
Failure to keep driver log 6 798 55 885 60
months.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours-of-service violations by bus companies
Fiscal year:
1997.................................. 100 bus companies had 187
drivers placed out-of-
service during roadside
inspections.
1998.................................. 266 bus companies had 467
drivers placed out-of-
service during roadside
inspections.
is amtrak ``on track'' to close the gap?
Question. Have you reviewed Amtrak's recent financial progress?
Answer. Our review of Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan
showed that Amtrak would sustain an additional $823 million in
operating losses between 1999 and 2003, and that it would have an
unfunded cash loss of $304 million in 2003, which is $167 million more
than it forecast. Amtrak management is aware of our concerns and has
indicated that it has taken actions to increase revenues and cut costs.
Amtrak has been responsive to the recommendations we made in the
Independent Assessment.
To reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003, first and
foremost, Amtrak must provide good timely service to its customers. It
must also implement a robust high-speed rail service in the Northeast
Corridor and greatly expand mail and express service, an area that
offers considerable opportunity for non-passenger revenue. Amtrak must
also improve ridership and revenue on Intercity and Amtrak West trains,
and enhance partnerships with State, regional, and local governments.
Amtrak's 1999 Strategic Business Plan contains new plans to reduce
costs, the financial impact of which will be important to the success
of the 1999 Strategic Business Plan. Amtrak management and the Reform
Board must pursue forcefully the actions contained in the 1999 plan and
must monitor carefully their implementation. In this year's assessment,
we will also be monitoring these proposed expense reductions and will
consider the likelihood of their achievement.
Question. Are you at all encouraged by what you've seen regarding
their ability to tap new revenue sources and minimize costs?
Answer. When we complete the ongoing assessment we will be able to
tell whether Amtrak meets or exceeds the revenue-projection and cost-
reduction goals established in the revised Strategic Business Plan. Our
overall assessment, however, is that with strong leadership, intense
management, and favorable economic conditions, it will be possible--
albeit difficult--for Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient by
2003. Nevertheless, even if Amtrak reaches operating self-sufficiency,
it will require substantial and continuing capital funding to support
the system as it currently exists.
are there unique problems with omc oversight of bus companies? in new
jersey?
Question. Can any of you identify particular problems that are
unique to the bus industry and OMC's efforts to promote bus safety?
Answer. Unlike trucks, motor buses require specialized equipment
(ramps) to complete a full mechanical inspection of the braking system,
brakes out of adjustment is one of the top safety violations that
places commercial vehicles out of service. States are reluctant to
perform bus inspections at roadside like trucks because there are no
facilities for the passengers when the bus is placed out-of-service and
needs to be repaired prior to returning to the road. Consequently,
buses are inspected at the carrier's terminal or at the buses'
destinations. New Jersey has three sets of ramps to complete the full
mechanical inspection of motor coaches.
OMC established a National Motor Coach Technical Advisory Group to
help promote bus safety. Also, OMC policy requires that passenger
carriers receive a higher priority for compliance reviews than general
freight motor carriers.
Question. Could this figure indicate that New Jersey State Police
are actually more aggressive than their neighbors in ordering unsafe
buses off the road?
Answer. Yes. New Jersey bus inspectors may be more effective in
spotting unsafe buses--because of experience and equipment--than their
colleagues in neighboring states. New Jersey has an aggressive bus
safety program with a total of 25 full-time bus inspectors. In fiscal
year 1997, the State led the nation in bus inspections performing 6,218
inspections. New Jersey State inspectors also train bus inspectors from
other states. New Jersey has also located inspection sites in close
proximity to major tourist sites--such as Atlantic City--to allow for
most bus inspections to be done after the passengers have left the
vehicle.
Question. What observations can you make regarding how the motor
carrier laws are enforced in each state? Is it your view that these
laws are enforced uniformly, or is there a wide variation among states?
Answer. During our audit on the Motor Carrier Safety Program for
Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders we observed some differences.
Enforcement of U.S. safety regulations on all carriers, domestic and
foreign, operating within the United States is the responsibility of
the United States. The enforcement programs performed by Federal and
State inspectors in southern border States have widely disparate
approaches as evidenced by the number of inspectors, frequency of
inspections, level of inspections and inspection facilities. Major
differences also exist in enforcement practices and procedures.
In California, for cost efficiency, law-enforcement officers and
civilian State inspectors staff the inspection facilities. The
remaining border States employ only law-enforcement officers.
California is also the only southern border State that enforces the
Federal operating authority regulation (registration). Another example
of inconsistency is the fines assessed by OMC personnel as a result of
enforcement against Mexican carriers operating in the commercial zones.
The two regional offices with jurisdiction over the southern border
assessed significantly different fines for the same violations.
how do we ensure that bus operators continue to comply with the law?
Question. What solutions would any of you propose in order to
ensure that, once a carrier takes the necessary safety measures, there
is adequate oversight to ensure that they continue to operate safely?
Answer. Follow-up reviews must be performed to ensure that carriers
have safety measures in place. These reviews should, at least, cover
those serious safety violations found during compliance reviews. The
follow-up reviews should be performed in progressive intervals, and
should include verifying that carriers' road performance indicates
continued compliance with safety regulations. This type of monitoring
program could be a condition for reducing assessments for first-time
offenders. Repeat violators must continue to be targeted for reviews
and placed out of service when warranted.
why have compliance reviews and fines declined while budget resources
have increased?
Question. What can you tell us as to why compliance reviews have
declined by half at the OMC?
Answer. OMC safety investigators have been assigned to do work
other than conduct compliance reviews and fewer OMC safety
investigators are conducting these reviews. In response to our December
1998 survey, OMC field staff responded that 55 percent of their time
was spent conducting compliance reviews, enforcements, roadside
inspections and crash investigations, and 45 percent of their time on
such duties as administration, outreach to communities, attending
meetings or seminars, and speaking to associations. Further, the number
of OMC staff conducting compliance reviews has declined 24 percent,
from 348 in 1991 to 263 in 1998.
Question. If that is the case, why hasn't there been an increase in
the amount of violations and fines levied as part of these compliance
reviews?
Answer. There has not been an increase in the number of violations
and fines levied because OMC's policy is to use enforcement as a last
resort. In fact, when enforcement action is taken, OMC does not use the
many sanctions available to it such as maximum fines for repeat
violators, revocation of authority for lack of payment, and shut-down
orders for unsafe carriers. The survey responses that we received from
the OMC field personnel showed that over 95 percent said that attention
needs to be placed on putting unsafe carriers out of service, 90
percent favored assessing larger fines for repeat offenders, and 87
percent indicated more enforcement actions were needed to make
enforcement more effective.
Furthermore, when enforcement actions are taken, OMC personnel
negotiate the settlement amounts significantly less than originally
assessed. In fiscal year 1998, OMC settled for 46 cents on a dollar
assessed.
The software package used by OMC to compute fines limits the amount
assessed. In April 1996 OMC implemented the use of Uniform Fine
Assessment (UFA) software to assess civil penalties for serious
violations. UFA's objective is to increase the uniformity of civil
penalties assessed against carriers for violations of the safety
regulations. UFA limits the number of instances when fines can be
assessed. For example, in one case, the safety investigator recorded
145 violations of 4 safety regulations during a compliance review. The
UFA software further restricted the case to 7 of the 145 instances when
the regulations were violated. Therefore, the carrier was only fined
for the 7 instances. Further, enforcement officials stated they did not
always enforce every violation found. According to OMC policy, any
critical violation discovered have to indicate a pattern of
noncompliance of at least 10 percent of the number of records checked
in order to be enforceable.
______
Questions Submitted to the Department of Transportation
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
dot management of discretionary programs
Question. On January 13, the Department released a list of
``finalists'' for funding under the new TEA-21 program ``Transportation
and Community and System Preservation'' (TCSP) program, which was
authorized for $20 million in fiscal year 1999. What are the criteria
for this program? Is it a competitive selection process?
Answer. Yes, the selection process for the TCSP program is highly
competitive. FHWA received more than 520 Letters of Intent (LOIs)
totaling almost $400 million for TCSP funding in fiscal year 1999.
These LOIs were reviewed by FHWA, FTA, and EPA field staff for specific
criteria. The field review was provided to a 20-person technical expert
panel which included representatives from FHWA, FTA, FRA, OST-Policy,
RSPA/Volpe, and EPA. The panel identified 49 LOIs that were selected as
semifinalists and asked to prepare full grant requests for the final
round of competition. These grant requests were due on March 15, 1999,
and we will award grants in the very near future.
All of the selection criteria for TCSP are taken from Section 1221
of TEA-21. Proposals must meet the purposes of this section. They must
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts
of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future
public infrastructure investment; ensure efficient access to jobs,
service and centers of trade; and encourage private sector development
patterns which achieve these goals.
In addition, priority is given to proposals that demonstrate a
commitment of non-Federal resources to the project; include an
evaluation component; ensure an equitable distribution of funds to a
diversity of populations and geographic regions; and demonstrate public
and private involvement including participation of non-traditional
partners on the project team.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes to increase
the TCSP program to $50 million--twice the amount under the TEA-21
firewall. What was the total amount represented by applications
received for the $20 million in fiscal year 1999 grants?
Answer. There was tremendous interest in the TCSP program in fiscal
year 1999. FHWA received more than 520 requests totaling almost $400
million. Requests were received from States, local governments and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 49 States and the District of
Columbia.
coast guard drug interdiction
Question. Last fall, we appropriated a significant amount of
emergency funding--$344 million--for the Coast Guard to play an
expanded role in drug interdiction activities. How much of these
appropriated funds have been obligated?
Answer. Almost 50 percent of the $344 million has been obligated to
date and the Coast Guard expects almost 80 percent of the funds will be
obligated by the end of the year.
Question. How are the operational decisions for the assets procured
with the emergency funding for drug interdiction activities to be made?
Answer. The Coast Guard is complying with the direction of Congress
in the appropriations act and the accompanying conference report. The
Coast Guard is applying the assets systematically to its multi-year
strategy to address the flow of illegal drugs entering this country.
Question. Are the assets to be purchased with the emergency drug
interdiction funding to be single mission assets or will they fit the
Coast Guard's multi-mission asset profile?
Answer. The vast majority of assets being purchased with the
supplemental funding while being acquired to enhance drug interdiction
operations, will be capable of responding to the multi-missions of the
Coast Guard.
Question. Are the decisions regarding the procurement of assets
with the emergency drug interdiction funding being coordinated with
other agencies or offices in the Administration? If so, which ones, and
what changes have been made to the procurement mix of that
coordination?
Answer. The procurement decisions are being coordinated with the
Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Interdiction
Coordinator.
highway safety--mexican trucks entering u.s.
Question. I understand that there is currently a moratorium on the
January 1, 2000 open access provision under NAFTA that would allow
Mexican trucks to freely drive throughout the U.S. What is the
likelihood of this moratorium being lifted before next January?
Answer. The Moratorium on the issuance of new grants of U.S.
operating authority to Mexican motor carriers was first imposed by
Congress in 1982. Since 1984, Mexican trucking operations have been
confined to the border commercial zones established by the former
Interstate Commerce Commission. The NAFTA sets forth a timetable for
removing the restrictions on Mexican motor carriers on a gradual basis.
In December 1995, when Mexico and the United States were to have lifted
restrictions on the delivery and backhaul of cargo to each other's
border states, the Department announced a delay on the implementation
of the NAFTA provisions for safety reasons. The Moratorium will
continue unmodified until the Department of Transportation is satisfied
that the necessary safeguards have been put in place by Mexico and the
United States to ensure safe cross-border operations. Since bilateral
consultations regarding access to the border states are still ongoing,
the Department cannot anticipate whether the second NAFTA trucking
phase--access for Mexican companies to operate throughout the United
States--will occur according to the NAFTA schedule. The Department
expects that the truck access restrictions will begin to be phased-out
within a reasonable time after safety consultations with Mexico have
been concluded.
Question. Roughly, what percentage of truck traffic at the U.S./
Mexico border is being inspected by Federal motor carrier inspectors?
Answer. Less than 1 percent of the truck traffic is being inspected
by Federal inspectors.
Question. How does the Federal Highway Administration determine how
many Federal safety inspectors to deploy at crossings?
Answer. The FHWA is working with the enforcement agencies of the
border States to establish a permanent and consistent enforcement
presence along the border that will subject Mexican and Canadian
vehicles and drivers to roadside inspections. The intent in increasing
the Federal enforcement presence along the Southern border is to
complement rather than replace State enforcement efforts. Therefore,
FHWA is deploying Federal inspectors in locations where the States at
this time do not have enough resources to provide coverage.
The Department continues to believe that the most effective means
to ensure safe cross-border operations is through continued
strengthening of the long-standing Federal-State relations created by
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). While FHWA is
prepared to increase the number of Federal inspectors at the border
crossings, States must augment their own enforcement presence in border
areas and other locations throughout the State as Mexican vehicles
begin to operate farther into the interior of the State and the rest of
the country. Toward this end, FHWA is encouraging States to augment the
funding they are already receiving under MCSAP by applying for a share
of the discretionary program funds available under TEA-21 to fund
activities that will lead to a more permanent and consistent
enforcement presence along the border, including inspection facilities,
equipment, additional personnel, and new technologies.
Question. Has an effort been made by the Federal Highway
Administration to isolate which companies have safety compliance
problems, or to direct Federal and State inspection efforts to the
areas where these rogue companies operate?
Answer. Safety compliance information on motor carriers whose
vehicles have been inspected by Federal or State personnel is included
in FHWA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). Roadside
inspectors access this information through the Inspection Selection
System (ISS) to focus inspection activities on rogue carriers.
The ISS helps roadside inspectors focus on high risk carriers by
providing instant safety performance status and past safety problem
statistics on the selected carrier. The system also presents an
``INSPECT, OPTIONAL, or PASS'' recommendation on whether the vehicle
should be inspected or not.
Also, as part of the inspection process, vehicles that pass an
inspection are issued a decal which is valid for 90 days. Vehicles with
a valid decal are normally allowed to continue and are not inspected
unless the inspector notices obvious defects. The decals allow the
inspectors to focus their efforts on vehicles that have not been
inspected recently and are more likely to have safety defects.
The FHWA also initiates enforcement actions against carriers with
safety compliance problems as identified through roadside inspections.
For example, in 1998, approximately 280 enforcement cases were brought
against Mexican carriers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
office of motor carriers
Question. Should suspended licenses be permanently disqualifying?
The OMC recently concluded its own ``effectiveness study'' on the
Commercial Driver's License program. That study included the remarkable
observation that a surprisingly high percentage of trucks and bus
operators appear willing to continue to operate their vehicles even
after their commercial driver's license has been revoked. What is FHWA
planning to do about this problem?
Answer. FHWA is planning to address this problem in two ways.
First, FHWA will continue to work to strengthen enforcement of the
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) penalties against disqualified
drivers by conducting more frequent CDL driver licensing checks at the
roadside and during compliance reviews. FHWA currently requires its
safety investigators to conduct driver licensing checks during the
performance of a compliance review and are working to increase the
number of driver licensing checks being conducted by State inspectors
as part of the roadside vehicle inspection program.
Second, FHWA plans to begin work this fall on a study to obtain a
better estimate of how much CDL enforcement is actually being
performed, identify barriers to achieve greater CDL enforcement, and to
develop ways to overcome those barriers.
Question. Should we use market forces to prompt safe truck and bus
operations?
In the Coast Guard, we now target substandard ships and shipping
companies for more frequent and more thorough inspections. Importantly,
we also make the names of these ships and shipowners immediately
available on the Internet so shippers know that if they do business
with these shipping companies, they can expect to have their shipments
delayed for lengthy Coast Guard detentions.
Since the OMC already has a website that includes data on each
motor carrier, why doesn't the OMC follow the Coast Guard's lead and
provide a simple list of every truck and bus operator with significant
problems so that the public can make informed market decisions?
Answer. Providing the marketplace with Internet access to motor
carrier safety information has the potential to elevate safety as the
primary criterion for evaluating the suitability of and hiring
individual motor carriers, thus substantially advancing the cause of
highway safety in the United States. Accordingly, the Office of Motor
Carrier and Highway Safety, working with RSPA's Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, has developed the Analysis & Information
(A&I) Online Intranet site to provide quick and efficient access to
information and analysis about commercial motor carrier safety. Among
its components are the SafeStat Online module, which provides online
access to individual motor carrier's SafeStat score. SafeStat is an
indicator used by FHWA to rank carriers and identify those carriers
with the highest safety risk based on their crash rate, driver and
vehicle compliance and safety management systems. The Crash Profiles
Online module contains descriptive statistics--on a State-by-State and
National level--about fatal crashes and non-fatal (injury and property-
damage-only) crashes during 1996 and 1997 involving large trucks.
Included in this module is a report that lists the 100 carriers having
the most crashes within each State, with a direct link to each
carrier's SafeStat detail information.
The A&I Online system has been operational for over a year in
support of OMCHS field and headquarters employees. Currently, patrons
must be connected to the DOT network to access the A&I Online site.
However, in January of 1999, OMCHS management approved a phased
approach to expand access of A&I Online to the Internet with access
available to the general public. Certain access controls will be
established to limit access to proprietary and privacy sensitive data.
The A&I Online site on the Internet will better support the current
user base as well as expand access to other government agencies, other
motor carrier safety stakeholders (e.g., State safety agency officials
and other Federal Government agencies that regulate or contract with
private commercial motor carriers; shippers; motor carriers and their
associations; and insurance companies) and the general public.
y2k issues
Question. Why are Y2K costs skyrocketing?
Between August 1998 and November 1998, your estimated Y2K costs
went from $213 million to $321.5 million. Just this month, you reported
that the costs have increased again, to $375.5 million. This is a 76
percent increase in just the past six months. How confident are you in
the accuracy of your latest estimate? Should we continue to expect
these estimates to grow throughout the coming year?
Answer. The estimated cost of $375.5 million reported in the
Department's February 12, 1999, Quarterly Y2K Progress Report to OMB
reflects the latest DOT-wide cost estimates for Y2K. The cost estimate
has increased primarily as a result of requirements that were not
anticipated at the time initial cost estimates were prepared. It
includes costs to remediate DOT systems for Y2K compliance, as well as
estimated costs for independent verification and validation efforts,
business continuity and contingency planning, and domestic and
international industry outreach and assessment.
Globally, Y2K problem resolution has been a project without
precedent. The Department of Transportation has been continually
learning, redefining efforts, and adding additional requirements in
response to requests from external organizations, such as OMB and the
President's Y2K Conversion Council. While the latest cost estimates
were accurate at the time they were reported, it is likely that
additional costs will be identified as Y2K remediation and contingency
planning efforts continue.
A major portion of the increase between August 1998 and November
1998 was attributable to:
The USCG increasing its total Y2K cost estimate by $15 million due
primarily to accelerated project schedules to comply with OMB
milestones; increased IV&V costs; increased contingency plan
development costs; unanticipated costs associated with outreach
initiatives; and, increased costs to replace non-Y2K compliant hardware
and software.
The FAA increasing its total Y2K cost estimate by $81.3 million due
primarily to the inclusion in the estimate of fiscal year 1999 costs
for the Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement Program (HOCSR).
HOCSR costs had not been previously included since the program was
initiated independent of the Y2K problem. However, the HOCSR schedule
was accelerated to mitigate potential Y2K risks associated with relying
solely on a strategy of renovating the existing system.
The Office of the Secretary (OST) increasing its total Y2K cost
estimate by $9.3 million to cover increasing costs for renovation and
validation of departmental mission-critical systems, as well as CIO Y2K
program management functions such as DOT-wide oversight, domestic and
international industry outreach, industry assessment, and establishment
of a Transportation Sector Y2K information website.
A major portion of the $54 million increase in the Department's
total estimated Y2K costs from the November 1998 submission to the
February 12, 1999 submission is attributable to increased costs for FAA
($47 million) and USCG ($6.6 million) in the following areas:
acceleration of remediation efforts to ensure timely compliance;
increased validation costs; business continuity and contingency
planning; expanded domestic and international outreach to the
transportation sector; and assessment of Y2K status in the
transportation industry.
status of faa y2k testing program
Question. Will Y2K problems disrupt aviation operations?
The FAA is facing, perhaps, the most serious challenge in
addressing Y2K issues. The GAO, in August 1998, and again today
testified that it is unlikely that the FAA will be able to complete all
critical tests of its computer systems in time and that other
unresolved risks will threaten to disrupt aviation operations at the
end of the year. What is the current status of the testing of critical
systems at FAA? What types of systems are yet to be tested, and how
confident are you that FAA will complete testing on time?
Answer. The FAA is currently in the validation phase of its Y2K
remediation efforts. The validation phase includes testing all
applications and interactions between scores of converted or replaced
computer platforms, operating systems, utilities, applications,
databases, and interfaces. The FAA monitors validation schedules daily.
The agency is on target and very confident that it will complete all
validation phase activities by March 31, 1999.
All systems, including National Airspace Systems (NAS) and business
systems, are currently being tested. In addition to testing all systems
that required Y2K repairs, FAA is validating systems that were assessed
as not requiring Y2K repairs. Critical testing of FAA's systems is
nearing completion: unit tests are already completed; system level
system tests will conclude on March 31, 1999; and end-to-end testing of
the National Airspace System (NAS) will be completed in April 1999 as
part of the implementation phase.
Question. What contingency plans are in place in the event critical
testing is not completed and system failures occur?
Answer. In the unlikely event a problem is missed during critical
testing, the FAA has a wide range of existing contingency plans to deal
with a multitude of circumstances that may occur in the air traffic
control (ATC) system. Specifically, per FAA orders, each air traffic
facility has a current contingency plan that addresses restoration
processes with the NAS. Each individual ATC mission critical system has
a contingency plan in place should a system outage occur for any
reason.
At the enterprise level, the FAA completed a draft Y2K Business
Continuity and Contingency Plan (BCCP) on December 31, 1998, which is
currently under internal review. The BCCP specifically addresses Y2K
problems from a national perspective, including airport and
international issues, as well as encompassing FAA business systems. The
BCCP is being developed in partnership with unions, subject matter
experts, and FAA management. In the unlikely event an FAA system is not
fully Y2K compliant by the turn of the millennium, the operational
functions of that particular system would be temporarily shifted to the
BCCP identified alternative until Y2K repairs are completed.
coast guard y2k vessel traffic system
Question. In less than a month, on March 24, we will mark the ten-
year anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It appears that the
Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System in Prince William Sound will not be
Y2K compliant by the March deadline set by OMB. In fact, upgrades to
the system are not scheduled to be completed until October 1999. What
assurances can you provide that this critical VTS will, in fact, be
upgraded, tested and fully Y2K compliant by your rescheduled completion
target of October 1999? When will the Coast Guard contingency plan be
completed, and how will it be tested to ensure it will be effective in
the event that Y2K compliance cannot be attained in time?
Answer. The current project plan calls for the existing Prince
William Sound (Valdez) VTS to be fully Y2K compliant by the rescheduled
October 1999 target date.
The primary strategy is to replace the existing non-Y2K compliant
Raytheon VTS components with an off-the-shelf Y2K compliant system
being produced by Lockheed-Martin. The installation of the new
Lockheed-Martin developed VTS in New Orleans is underway, and the
Valdez installation has been moved up in the queue to occur next.
Lockheed-Martin has performed a site survey and assessment of the
Valdez location and has developed a project plan for the installation.
Contracts with Lockheed-Martin for the new VTS are in place and task
orders have been issued.
A secondary strategy involves determining if the existing Raytheon
VTS components in Valdez can be made Y2K compliant with a patch or
upgrade. To date, Raytheon has not been able to provide the Coast Guard
with a solution, but a similar fix is being examined for a similar
Raytheon system in use by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Raytheon has informed the Coast Guard that it should know by June 1999
if the existing VTS can be repaired. If the Raytheon VTS components can
be repaired and made Y2K compliant, the Coast Guard will pursue that
option as a contingency should the current Lockheed-Martin effort
experience delays.
A third strategy involves the `manual' tracking of vessels in
Prince William Sound using transponder signals emitted by tankers, and
VHF voice radio communications to track vessel location and movement on
plot boards. This contingency strategy currently exists for events such
as a power failure which might render the VTS inoperable.
The weather conditions in the region may be the final determining
factor as to which of the above strategies can be utilized. Ironically,
the situation may also be helped by the season. During the months of
the year surrounding the century change, vessel traffic in the Prince
William Sound is minimal. The Coast Guard believes that adequate levels
of safety can be assured for the limited numbers of vessels that will
be moving in the area.
office of motor carriers and bus safety
Question. Are there unique problems with OMC oversight of bus
companies? In New Jersey?
Each of the agencies represented at the witness table testified
before the House Transportation Subcommittee this past Tuesday
regarding problems with the Federal Office of Motor Carriers (OMC). Can
you identify particular problems that are unique to the bus industry
and the OMC's efforts to promote bus safety?
Answer. The bus industry is unique in that bus drivers are not able
to take rest breaks whenever the need arises and have to accommodate
the needs of 40 passengers, luggage handling and ticketing.
Given recent bus fatalities, it is clear that more emphasis needs
to be devoted to bus safety. The FHWA has several efforts underway that
will address these needs including a review of the hours of service
regulations, a study on bus driver stress and fatigue factors,
production of a video to educate bus drivers on fatigue issues, and
additional emphasis on poor performing bus carriers during selection
for compliance review.
Question. I have reviewed the data for each state regarding the
percentage of buses and trucks that are ordered off the road for
flagrant safety violations. When you look at the data for New Jersey,
you find that commercial vehicles were ordered off the road at a rate
that is below the national average in almost every category. However,
in one category--the mechanical condition of buses--17 percent of all
inspected buses were ordered off the road while the national average is
10 percent.
Could this figure indicate that the New Jersey State Police are
actually more aggressive than their neighbors in ordering unsafe buses
off the road?
Answer. New Jersey has a very aggressive bus inspection program
requiring inspections of New Jersey based carriers twice a year. In
addition, New Jersey has the resources to conduct many inspections and
by doing those inspections, they become very experienced in targeting
carriers and vehicles that have a history of poor performance, so
naturally the out of service rate would be higher as opposed to random
inspections. Also, due to the volume of bus travel in the State,
inspectors are more aggressive in their inspection procedures.
Question. What observations can you make regarding how the Motor
Carrier laws are enforced in each State? Is it your view that these
laws are enforced uniformly, or is there a wide variation among states?
Answer. It is not uncommon for bus inspections and enforcement of
motor carrier safety laws to be delivered in varying ways within the
States, depending upon the number of buses entering each jurisdiction.
Some have a much higher level of motorcoach and bus traffic than do
other States, and some States are more deligent in their enforcement
efforts. To encourage the uniform application of federal regulations,
the FHWA has begun the process of promoting uniformity among the States
by delivering the Motorcoach Inspector Training course through the
National Training Center. To date, FHWA has trained over 500 State and
federal inspectors in inspection procedures and applicable regulations.
Question. How do we ensure that bus operators continue to comply
with the law?
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Bruins Transportation
Company had a compliance review in 1996, and was found to be unsafe.
They cleaned up their act long enough to be allowed to stay in
operation. Two years later, after the accident that killed eight
passengers, many of the same problems found in 1996 were still found to
be existing at the carrier. These problems included a sloppy hours-of-
service logs, no evidence of drug and alcohol testing, and troubled
vehicles. What solutions would you propose in order to ensure that,
once a carrier takes the necessary safety measures, there is adequate
oversight to ensure that they continue to operate safely?
Answer. Bus companies need to be clearly identified and prioritized
within FHWA's risk assessment model and FHWA is currently evaluating
the best way to do this.
Question. Why have compliance reviews and fines declined while
budget resources have increased?
When you look at the OMC's efforts in the last six years, you see
that the number of compliance reviews conducted by the federal
inspectors has been allowed to decline by over 50 percent. Yet, during
the same time period, funding for the office has grown substantially.
What can you tell us as to why compliance reviews have declined by half
at the OMC?
Answer. During the past several years, the OMCHS migrated from
being a compliance and enforcement agency to that of a comprehensive
safety agency. Resources have been used to address complex safety
issues through the use of a larger group of activities including
compliance reviews.
In addition, FHWA now focuses first on conducting reviews of
carriers with poor safety performance histories. Reviews conducted on
these carriers are frequently more complex and time-consuming. Since
FHWA is conducting fewer, but more focused compliance reviews,
enforcement actions are better targeted.
Question. OMCHS has defended this decline in oversight by
explaining that they now target their compliance reviews on carriers
that have shown specific indicators that they are likely to be unsafe.
If that is the case, why hasn't there been an increase in the amount of
violations and fines levied as part of these compliance reviews?
Answer. Violations discovered during compliance reviews have not
declined, although the number of compliance reviews conducted have. The
OMCHS assesses fines for serious noncompliance based on the statutory
criteria. The OMCHS is currently reviewing the fine structure and the
Uniform Fine Assessment criteria for effectiveness.
In addition, TEA-21 streamlined FHWA's penalty provisions, giving
the agency the ability to impose higher fines in some cases and to levy
fines without demonstrating gross negligence on a pattern of
violations. FHWA will use this authority to aggressively impose fines
on carriers that fail to comply with the safety regulations.
______
Questions Submitted to the General Accounting Office
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
amtrak
Question. What promise is there for non-passenger related revenue?
In the past few months, Amtrak has announced numerous new
initiatives, including the contracting out of their food preparation
operation, new and expanded contracts with the Postal Service, as well
as new contracts with the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad and the
United Parcel Service to boost non-passenger revenue.
Mr. Anderson, would you care to comment on Amtrak's non-passenger
revenues and their promise for growth in future years?
Answer. To reduce losses and to help reach the goal of operating
self-sufficiency set by the Congress, Amtrak has aggressively pursued
revenues from non-passenger sources, such as mail and express,
telecommunications, and real estate. Initiatives that have the
potential to contribute revenues year after year, such as mail, should
help improve Amtrak's financial condition. Other initiatives that
result in one-time increase in revenues (i.e., sales of real estate),
while helpful, cannot be counted on to improve Amtrak's financial
condition over the long-term, because they are non-recurring.
Question. Mr. Anderson, your statement points out that Amtrak loses
$2 for every dollar it earns in revenues from train operations. Why do
you find that figure significant when fully one quarter of Amtrak's
total revenues are not from train operations, when you exclude the
Federal appropriation?
Answer. Amtrak continues to look for opportunities for non-
passenger service revenues (such as real estate development and
telecommunications) as a means to help turn its financial condition
around. Yet most of its revenues and expenses are related to its
passenger-related activities. Amtrak needs to look long and hard at its
route structure and its train operations. This includes looking at
opportunities to increase train-related revenues and reducing train-
and route-related costs.
office of motor carriers and bus safety
Question. Are there unique problems with OMC oversight of bus
companies? In NJ?
Each of the agencies represented at the witness table testified
before the House Transportation Subcommittee this past Tuesday
regarding problems with our Federal Office of Motor Carriers (OMC).
Can any of you identify particular problems that are unique to the
bus industry and OMC's efforts to promote bus safety?
Answer. The most obvious difference between the bus industry and
the truck industry is that a crash involving a bus has the potential
for more injuries and fatalities. Even so, in 1997 crashes involving
commercial buses resulted in 335 deaths and 27,275 injuries while
crashes involving large trucks resulted in 5,335 deaths and 132,513
injuries. In its Motor Carrier Safety Program, the Office of Motor
Carriers leaves it to the states to decide where the greatest safety
problems lie and target their efforts accordingly.
While we have not done any work regarding bus safety throughout the
nation, in our reviews of states efforts' to ensure that large
commercial trucks and commercial busses entering the United States from
Mexico comply with U.S. safety regulations, we found that state
enforcement officials devoted much more time to inspecting trucks than
buses. This occurred because there were 20 times as many truck
crossings as there were bus crossings (an average of 12,000 truck
crossings versus an average of 598 bus crossings each day).
Question. I have reviewed the data for each state regarding the
percentage of buses and trucks that are ordered off the road for
flagrant safety violations. When you look at the data for New Jersey,
you find that commercial vehicles were ordered off the road at a rate
that is below the national average in almost every category. However,
in one category--the mechanical condition of buses--17 percent of all
inspected buses were ordered off the road while the national average is
10 percent. Could this figure indicate that the New Jersey State Police
are actually more aggressive than their neighbors in ordering unsafe
buses off the road?
Answer. The statistic could represent several conditions. These
might include that New Jersey enforcement officials were more effective
in selecting buses with severe mechanical conditions than their
counterparts, even if the physical condition of buses in neighboring
jurisdictions did not significantly differ from those in New Jersey.
(Enforcement officials typically select vehicles for inspection that
they suspect have safety problems, rather than selecting vehicles
randomly.) It also might mean that buses operating in New Jersey had
more severe mechanical problems, everything else being equal.
Question. What observations can you make regarding how the motor
carrier laws are enforced in each state? Is your view that these laws
are enforced uniformly, or is there a wide variation among states?
Answer. Enforcement strategies vary by state. For example,
California has chosen to build facilities to inspect a greater
proportion of commercial trucks that enter the United States from
Mexico. Texas had not done this as of the time of our work in 1997.
Also, California had chosen to devote more enforcement officials to
border crossings than had Texas. But, the consequence for California is
that those same resources invested at the border are not available for
enforcement activities elsewhere in the state. Also, as mentioned
earlier, enforcement officials in the four border states had elected to
devote much more effort to inspecting commercial trucks than to
inspecting commercial buses entering the United States from Mexico,
again representing their priorities. OMCHS recognizes the need for
uniformity of laws and fines but has no current initiatives to further
this goal.
Question. How do we ensure that bus operators continue to comply
with the law?
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Bruins transportation
Company had a compliance review in 1996, and was found to be unsafe.
They cleaned up their act long enough to be allowed to stay in
operation. Two years later, after the accident that killed eight
passengers, many of the same problems found in 1996 were still found to
be existing at the carrier. These problems included sloppy hours-of-
service logs, no evidence of drug and alcohol testing, and troubled
vehicles.
What solutions would any of you propose in order to ensure that,
once a carrier takes the necessary safety measures, there is adequate
oversight to ensure that they continue to operate safely?
Answer. One response would be for additional compliance reviews to
be conducted until enforcement officials are satisfied that safety
improvements will not be abandoned once the federal or state presence
is reduced. However, this creates a thorny problem. Because the number
of compliance reviews that can be conducted in any one year is small
(6,000-8,000) relative to the number of carriers in existence (over
400,000 interstate carriers alone), OMCHS' SafeStat criteria target
carriers with actual safety problems (e.g., a carrier had an accident
that involved a death or an injury). Performing a series of compliance
reviews on a problem carrier whose performance has improved and
remained consistent over a period of time would likely result in
another carrier with a demonstrated and uncorrected safety problem
might not be subject to a compliance review.
office of motor carriers
Question. Why have compliance reviews and fines declined while
budget resources have increased?
When you look at the OMC's efforts in the past six years, you see
that the number of compliance reviews conducted by the federal
inspectors has been allowed to decline by over 50 percent. Yet, during
the same time period, funding for the office has grown substantially.
What can you tell as to why compliance reviews have declined by
half at the OMC?
Answer. OMC has defended this decline in oversight by explaining
that they now target compliance reviews on carriers that have shown
specific indicators that they are likely to be unsafe and that
overseeing these high-risk carriers is more time-consuming, resulting
in fewer total reviews.
Question. If that is the case, why hasn't there been an increase in
the amount of violations and fines levied as part of these compliance
reviews?
Answer. We have not done any work looking at fines resulting from
violations. The Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector
General has performed this work.
subcommittee recess
Senator Shelby. The hearing will now be recessed. The
subcommittee will reconvene next Thursday, March 4, at 10:00
a.m., in Dirksen 124, to hold an overview hearing on the
Department of Transportation's 2000 budget request. The witness
will be the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, and his
staff.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. The subcommittee is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., Tuesday, February 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Gorton, Bennett, Campbell,
Stevens, Lautenberg, Byrd, Kohl, and Murray.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET OVERVIEW
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us
this morning. I am expecting that we will have a very well
attended hearing because you seem to be, nowadays, a very
popular witness and we appreciate your presence.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. Either you are doing a good job, Mr.
Secretary, and several of my colleagues want to congratulate
you, you can tell, or they have suggestions as to how you could
do your job better. We will have to wait and see.
Clearly, Mr. Secretary, the members of this subcommittee on
transportation appropriations are concerned and are very
interested in your proposed budget and the activities of the
Department and I have a few questions at the proper time of my
own.
First, I want to make a couple of points about the
President's budget request for the Department of
Transportation. I will be very brief as I know your time is
limited. My colleagues have a number of questions I am sure
that they would want to ask. I want to give everyone here a
chance to engage in a dialogue with you.
president's budget proposal
At first blush, Mr. Secretary, the President's budget looks
fairly generous toward transportation. But I think the numbers
in your budget were, in large part, determined last year when
the President signed the TEA-21 legislation.
If we pull out the dollars associated with new user fee
proposals and the increase in the highway and transit accounts
due to the increased levels of gas tax receipts, we are left
with a request for budget resources that is actually almost a
billion dollars less than Congress appropriated last year. I am
hopeful that this will be sufficient. But at this point under
the current discretionary budget caps, I do not think even the
President's allocation for the function 400 account can be
achieved without some very substantial cuts in other programs.
Well, we will have to see.
I think the President's budget does underscore the
importance of transportation in continuing to support the
infrastructure investment that fuels our national economy and
promotes the quality of life that we all enjoy. Even though the
investment in transportation infrastructure, whether it be
roads, transit systems, airports, air space management systems
or Coast Guard aircraft ships and facilities, has increased
during the time you have been the Secretary of Transportation
and while I have been the Chairman of this Subcommittee. The
continuing constrained budget environment that we both must
live in necessitates that we review all the programs and
accounts under our stewardship and cull out with your help the
unnecessary spending so that we can focus again on the Federal
investment on those projects and programs that the American
public wants and needs.
airline deregulation and disclosure act of 1999
On another note, I also wanted to let you know, Mr.
Secretary, that I am going to introduce a bill soon that
provides greater transparency and clarity for the airline
traveling public. I will call it the Airline Deregulation and
Disclosure Act of 1999. And at the proper time I will have a
statement on the floor of the Senate and I will have copies of
the bill delivered to you and to the members of the
subcommittee as well as the press and the public.
prepared statement
Mr. Secretary, as always, I look forward to working with
you in the coming year and we are pleased that you are going to
be here with us today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being with us this morning. I expect
that we will have a very well-attended hearing this morning--you seem
to be a popular witness. Either my colleagues want to congratulate you
on the job you are doing, or they have a few suggestions as to how you
might run the Department better.
Clearly, the members of this Subcommittee are concerned and
interested in your proposed budget and the activities of the Department
and I have a few questions of my own. But first, I wanted to make a
couple of points about the President's budget request for the
Department of Transportation. I will be very brief, as I know your time
is limited, my colleagues have a number of questions they want to ask,
and I want to give everyone a chance to engage in a dialogue with you.
At first blush, the President's budget looks fairly generous
towards transportation, but I think the numbers in your budget were in
large part determined last year when the President signed the TEA-21
legislation. If we pull out the dollars associated with new user fee
proposals and the increase in the highway and transit accounts due to
the increased levels of gas tax receipts, we are left with a request
for budget resources that is actually almost a billion dollars less
than Congress appropriated last year. I'm hopeful that this will be
sufficient, but at this point under the current discretionary budget
caps, I don't think that even the President's allocation for the
Function 400 account can be achieved without some very substantial cuts
in other programs.
But I think the President's budget does underscore the importance
of transportation in continuing to support the infrastructure
investment that fuels our national economy, and promotes the quality of
life we all enjoy.
Even though the investment in transportation infrastructure--
whether it be roads, transit systems, airports, airspace management
systems, or Coast Guard aircraft, ships and facilities--has increased
during the time you have been the Secretary of Transportation, Mr.
Slater, and while I have been the Chairman of this Subcommittee, the
constrained budget environment that we both must live in necessitates
that we review all the programs and accounts under our stewardship and
cull out the unnecessary spending, so that we can focus federal
investment on those projects and programs that the American public
wants and needs.
On another note, I wanted to let you know, Mr. Secretary, that I
intend to introduce a bill soon that provides greater transparency,
more freedom and choice, and clarity for the airline traveling public.
Every one of us here has an airline horror story to share, and my bill
will encourage the airlines to be more competitive and responsive to
their passengers. As soon as I introduce this legislation, I will have
copies of the bill delivered to you and the members of the
Subcommittee.
As always, I look forward to working with you in the coming year.
Senator Lautenberg?
alaska volcano observatory
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I am here to thank
the Secretary. Secretary Slater came to my state last year and
really spent a great deal of time. He is not like some of the
summer visitors who spend more time fishing than they do
looking at what the subjects are, but I like both kinds.
prepared statement
I do hope that you will come back up again this year as I
have indicated to you. I am only here for one thing and I would
ask my full statement go in.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Good morning Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your taking the time to
review the budget request with us today.
I believe you and I last discussed your department's budget in the
Anchorage International Airport. Alaskans tell me they greatly enjoyed
your visit last summer, and I hope we can get you up there again soon.
You still haven't seen our ferry system, and we could use your
expertise with many of the unique issues we face in rural Alaska.
One issue in your budget is notable for its absence. While I am
told that you requested funds for the Alaska Volcano Observatory, the
final budget we received did not mention this small but important
program.
The observatory is not as important to Alaskans as it is to the
millions of people who fly across the Pacific each year. As you know,
the major transpacific air routes cross right over the Aleutian
Islands, which is one of the most active volcanic regions on earth.
In 1989, 230 people almost lost their lives over Alaska when a 747
flew into the ash plume of Mt. Redoubt. The plane fell 13,000 feet
before recovering, and all four engines had to be replaced at a cost of
$80 million. Globally, there are five close calls every year involving
airplanes and volcanoes.
In 1997, the Alaska Volcano Observatory received a Golden Hammer
Award from the Vice President for efficiently providing its important
safety service.
I hope in the future that you, myself, the Vice President, the
scientists and the aviation community who support this program can
convince the budget writers that aviation safety is not a political
issue.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
I know that you asked for funds for the Alaska Volcano
Observatory, but those were not included in the President's
budget. And I think that is very regrettable, and I want to
call attention to everybody what this means.
That observatory has brought about the world's attention to
the problem of high-flying aircraft in the vicinity of volcano
eruptions. Every year, millions of people fly across the
Pacific, and the transpacific routes come over the Aleutian
Islands. That is the most active volcanic region on Earth. It
is not just our planes. It is the planes of the world. We are
the air crossroads of the world.
In 1989 there were 230 people on board a 747 when it flew
into the ash plume arising from the eruption of Mt. Redoubt.
That plane fell 13,000 feet. All four engines went off.
Luckily--I cannot remember how many came back on, but they did
come back on. All four engines, however, when examined had to
be totally replaced to the cost of $80 million. There are five
close calls every year on airplanes and collisions from
airplanes in volcanic ash.
In 1997 that observatory received from the Vice President
the Golden Hammer Award for efficiently providing this
important safety service, but now it has been left out of the
budget.
I congratulate you for asking, but I do want the committee
to be on notice. That is one of the items I want to see put
back into this budget. As a matter of fact, I had to change my
destination and go to Fairbanks the night of that incident. And
I drove down to Anchorage and I became very aware of what had
happened and called the FAA and others together, and we started
the concept that night of what finally lead to the observatory.
If you will, put in the record these statistics, Mr.
Chairman. The AVO--that is what we call the Alaska Volcano
Observatory--has given notice on several occasions that has
resulted in saving lives.
In 1996 there were 3,000 earthquakes along the Aleutian
chain in 2 days. That opened up a 10-mile long crack on Unimak
Island. But the sensors that had been placed on that island by
the observatory permitted our public officials to avoid a
costly evacuation of the island to move the people to a safer
part of the island. And I just cannot overestimate in our part
of the world how much that observatory means to our safety.
Thank you very much. I hope you will put this in the
record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Byrd, you want to yield to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. That is very kind. Thank you. I look
forward to hearing from Senator Byrd.
Mr. Chairman, we are doing the right thing at this moment.
We are going to hear from our distinguished Secretary who has
done a really good job, and I hear it from both sides of the
isle, Mr. Secretary. And that is a pretty good sign things are
okay.
We do not need any more turmoil than we have got around
here. And I am glad to know that others agree that you are
doing the job you are assigned to do. We appreciate it and
respect it.
economic expansion
Last week we learned yet again that this Nation's economic
expansion is continuing at a rate that is surpassing almost all
expectation. The economy in the last quarter grew at a rapid
6.1 percent annual rate as measured by the gross domestic
product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. This
quarterly growth was one of the strongest ever in recent
memory. It now looks as if our Nation's longest peacetime
economic expansion is going to last for at least 8 years and,
hopefully, a lot longer than that.
What does this good economic news mean for our national
transportation enterprise? It means that we can expect stress
on an already stressed transportation system. There is a good
side and a bad side, obviously. But the best side is that we
see growth.
Greater shipments by manufacturers will mean that our
already congested freight rail main lines will be further
congested. It means that our already congested highways will
get even more congested.
And any member of this subcommittee who flies regularly can
tell you that the runways at our airports are jammed and flight
delays are on the rise. This past June we reached the highest
level for airline delays for any month within the last 4 years,
almost 40,000 flight delays of 15 minutes or more in a single
month.
I do not need to review the data to speak to this problem.
I and many of my constituents regularly fly through Newark
International Airport. It is a beautiful airport with good and
new facilities. However, the air congestion in the New York/New
Jersey region in combination with growth in traffic has caused
Newark to be ranked once again as the most delayed airport in
the United States.
So as our economy expands and traffic increases, our U.S.
Department of Transportation finds itself in a rapid game of
catch up. We are years, if not decades, behind in making the
necessary investments in transportation infrastructure. In
recent years we have made some progress, especially since TEA-
21 was enacted. But we will need to continue to make rapid
progress if we are ever going to come close to reversing the
trends we see in congestion.
In that regard, there is a lot to like in the budget that
Secretary Slater will be presenting us this morning. For the
first time the proposed annual DOT budget will top $50 billion.
But I quickly point out that just on our highways it is
estimated that the annual cost of congestion to our economy is
close to $74 billion.
The budget before us fully honors the guaranteed spending
levels called for under TEA-21. Under those funding levels we
will see highway spending grow by 22 percent in the 2 years
from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000. Transit spending
will grow by 25 percent over the same period and a lot of this
credit for this fine budget belongs to the Secretary.
management challenges
Last week this subcommittee took some very sobering
testimony from GAO and the DOT Inspector General regarding the
management challenges at DOT. It was clear to this Senate that
much more needs to be done toward ensuring highway safety,
especially as it involves motor carriers including trucks and
buses.
While the FAA is working hard to address the Y2K bugs in
our air traffic control infrastructure, much more needs to be
done in a very short period of time. Our hearing last week
reminded all of us that this issue is not only how much we
spend, but how we spend it.
I know that the Secretary agrees with that observation. I
look forward to hearing his testimony this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Byrd, for
your courtesy.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd now.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
tEa-21
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century or TEA-
21 as it has come to be known was perhaps the greatest
legislative accomplishment of the 105th Congress. It reversed a
longstanding trend of Federal disinvestment in our Nation's
infrastructure. The bill called for $216 billion in
transportation investments over the 6 years, 1998 through 2003.
Of that amount, $173 billion was provided in contract authority
for our national highway system.
The authorized level for highway spending rose a full 40
percent above the level authorized for the previous 6-year
period under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act or ISTEA. Importantly, this added highway spending allowed
the unique needs of differing regions of the country to be
accommodated.
As far as I am concerned, an important cornerstone of the
bill was a provision of $2.25 billion in contract authority for
the Appalachian development highway system. For other Senators
it was funding for Federal lands, highways, or new roads to
improve trade across our international borders.
Most importantly, TEA-21 put into law a mechanism to ensure
that the funds deposited in our highway trust fund will be
spent on the purpose for which they are collected; namely, the
construction and restoration of our Nation's highways. This
mechanism, now referred to as the highway funding guarantee, is
extremely important as it embodies the Federal Government's
commitment to keep faith with the taxpayers of the Nation who
pay into that highway trust fund every time they go to the gas
pump.
The highway funds that are guaranteed under TEA-21 are
required to be appropriated each and every year through 2003.
As such, the Congress' commitment to these guarantees could be
tested through the appropriations process, especially when
available funding for other domestic needs is scarce.
For the coming fiscal year the funding guarantees call for
highway spending to grow by another $2.2 billion or 9 percent
above the current year's level. But the overall spending cap
that will govern our discretionary spending for the coming year
is extremely tight.
For the most part, and I emphasize for the most part, the
administration's budget honors the highway funding guarantee
called for in TEA-21.
discretionary spending caps
But for this discretionary spending overall, the
administration's budget seeks a program level well in excess of
the spending cap and the existing budget agreement. In fact,
the President's budget states clearly right on table S-4 of the
budget that he is seeking $17.8 billion more than the cap for
fiscal year 2000 will allow.
The Congressional Budget Office testified that the overage
under their scoring is closer to $30 billion. The
administration's budget proposes to close this gap by
recommending several controversial offsets such as new user
fees that have been rejected by previous Congresses and will be
very difficult to enact this year.
user fees
A microcosm of this situation can be seen right within the
budget for the Department of Transportation. While the overall
budget for transportation proposes an increase of 4.5 percent
or $2.2 billion, the budget simultaneously requests new user
fees within the Department of Transportation totaling $1.657
billion. Almost $1.5 billion of those new user fees would be
within the Federal Aviation Administration.
Mr. Secretary, it will not surprise you that many Senators
will want to talk with you about how to spend your proposed
increase of $2.2 billion. Far fewer Members will be interested
in discussing your user fee proposal of $1.6 billion.
highway funding guarantee
We are in the early stages of a very long debate over the
final makeup of this year's budget. But I want to signal here
and now that as far as I am concerned, the highway funding
guarantee is not open to negotiation. That was fought for and
won in TEA-21. I will continue to defend the principles that
funds deposited in the highway trust fund should be spent on
our Nation's highways.
Now you will note that earlier I stated that the
administration's budget honors the highway guarantee included
TEA-21, ``for the most part.'' Well, I say for the most part
because I find one significant and disturbing policy change
included in this budget that serves to divert a portion of
these highway revenues to other purposes.
The TEA-21 law included an important provision called
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. That program is at the core
of our commitment to the gas taxpayers of America. It says that
when gas tax receipts to the highway account of the highway
trust fund exceeds the level that was anticipated under TEA-21,
then highway spending will increase automatically by the amount
of those increased tax receipts.
The TEA-21 law calls for this additional funding to be
spent on highways and highways only. After all, we are talking
about receipts to the highway account of the highway trust
fund. I am disappointed, therefore, to see the administration's
budget skim off almost a third of these funds, more than $450
million, for other non-highway purposes.
Funds are diverted to research programs, to transit
programs, to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and to the Federal Railroad Administration. I
am not against funding those agencies, but I cannot support
diverting these highway funds which are expressly authorized
for the purpose of highway construction to non-highway uses.
I am glad that Secretary Slater is here this morning, and I
look forward to discussing these and other issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Byrd have
eloquently outlined some of the troubling aspects of this
appropriations bill. As a consequence, I am going to focus on
only one of them, though I share the concerns that my
colleagues have stated with respect to others.
user fees
In connection now with aviation, what this budget calls for
is a huge increase in effective taxes on the aviation industry,
the authorization of substantial increases in local passenger
facility charges, a huge user fee initiative without any
definition of what it would be and before the Federal Aviation
Administration has developed any kind of cost accounting system
on which a valid user fee scheme could be based.
And in return for those increased taxes, the Federal
Government under this budget will substantially cut the amount
of contributions that it is going to make. An Airport
Improvement Fund reduction, large reduction from the amount
that, with your leadership, we appropriated for this last year
is even less than was requested last year.
Mr. Chairman, with the Secretary here, I know that you join
with me in the opinion that he has been one of the most
responsive secretaries I can remember in Republican or
Democratic administrations. I have never called him without
getting a prompt response, and I never asked for help without,
at the very least, having had his attempt to do whatever he
could.
So I cannot blame him for this budget. I think this budget
was done at a level higher than he finds himself. And I think
he is going to be a trouper and defend it. But I do not think
that we here on this Committee can defend a budget that is
based on user fees that he, the Administration, you and I,
Senator Byrd and everyone else knows we are not going to
impose. We simply are not going to do it.
So the real question is how do we treat these
transportation priorities fairly and generously without the
unrealistic accounting that the Administration has given us in
this budget. I hope that after he has done his duty to the
Administration and eloquently defended the budget that I think
he knows is unrealistic, as we do, that he will at least
privately help us. Come up with a way to solve all of these
problems in the direction that we are likely to go.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Secretary Slater.
We thank you for coming before us today to discuss the
Department of Transportation budget for fiscal year 2000. It is
encouraging that you have come here to discuss a budget that
prioritizes and strengthens infrastructure investment overall,
even if we differ on details.
highway apportionments
One area where we do have a major difference is on where
control of highway dollars should rest. Mr. Secretary, last
year you took the time to visit the area surrounding Green Bay,
Wisconsin, to talk transportation with state and local
officials. And everyone walked away from that meeting feeling
that the Administration respected the direction and decisions
of those closest to their own states' transportation
challenges.
Unfortunately, this year's budget reflects quite a
different philosophy. It seeks to amend TEA-21 by moving
resources away from the core highway programs and by reducing
the funds available to the states, which in the case of
Wisconsin will result in a $26 million reduction. The Beltway
is a long way from the back roads of Wisconsin, and
transportation decisions made inside the Beltway too often lead
to dollars flowing out of my state and other states.
great lakes
In Wisconsin we also take issue with your Coast Guard
budget. As you know, the Coast Guard plays a vital role in the
economy of the Great Lakes. One-hundred eighty million tons of
iron, ore, coal, grain, and timber are shipped through the
lakes each year.
We are also the home of Marinette Marine where you had a
chance to visit last year. Marinette is an important employer
from my state as well as an important past and future
contributor to the Coast Guard's safety mission. So the
Administration's proposal to collect user fees on Coast Guard
activities targets a critical piece of our economy.
We all want to keep the books in balance, and we have
rejected this idea in the past, and it is my hope that we will
do so again this year. The economic and safety implications are
simply too great to do otherwise.
airport improvement program
Mr. Secretary, let me also mention that while we in
Congress must pass the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, it is
my hope that we will then work together to secure a generous
appropriation for AIP, one that is more than the Administration
requested. Seventy percent of Wisconsin's airport improvements
are threatened by delays in AIP funding. Further reductions
would only add insult to injury and threaten critically needed
improvements.
Let me close by simply urging that, as in all funding
decisions, we pay for transportation in a balanced manner and
one that does not unreasonably favor highway or transit over
Amtrak, airports, or the Coast Guard. All the transportation
pieces are important. I hope we can work together to craft a
balanced, cost-effective, and responsible bill.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, your written statement will
be made part of the record in its entirety. And, if you would,
sum up your statement in time for us to ask you questions.
We appreciate you, again, being here. You may proceed as
you wish.
statement of secretary slater
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to members
of the Subcommittee.
I want to thank for the opportunity to testify before you
today, to hear of your concerns, and to begin the process of
working with you to provide a record level of funding for
transportation infrastructure. As many of you have noted
through your many, many examples, transportation is about more
than concrete, asphalt and steel, it is about people. It is
about this Nation's economy. It is about how we invest our
transportation dollars to rebuild communities. It is about
keeping America moving.
A record $50.5 billion budget we have proposed for fiscal
year 2000 will be vital to keeping America strong as we move
into a new century and a new millennium. As the President
stated in his State of the Union address, how we fare as a
Nation far into the 21st century depends on what we do as a
Nation today.
And I can think of no better discussion for focusing on the
Nation's future than our discussion about the importance of
transportation as we move into a new century, and a new
millennium, and as we seek to secure our place in the
international marketplace.
The fiscal year 2000 budget helps to set the course for
investment to ensure that we have a transportation system that
supports our needs in a new century, but that also enhances and
undergirds our dreams, hopes, and aspirations as a country for
the new millennium.
It is a budget not just about funding concrete, asphalt and
steel, but it is a budget that speaks to the interests, needs,
hopes, and aspirations of the American people. Those needs are
addressed by the Department through our strategic plan which
you, as Members of Congress, have recognized as the best in
government. There, you recall, we focus on safety as our top
transportation priority. Many of you have spoken about safety
concerns this morning, and we will come back to those as we
respond to your questions specifically.
But also the issue of mobility, economic growth,
environment and security. Our strategic plan focuses on this
collection of goals as well. What I would like to do in summary
fashion is to speak to all five, though rather briefly, so that
we can begin the process of questions and answers.
safety and security
Our efforts to improve transportation safety and security
are measured in terms dear to all of us, the lives we save. Our
fiscal year 2000 budget includes a record $3.4 billion for
transportation safety, an 8 percent increase above the levels
of our current budget. These resources will be used to increase
critical highway, rail, maritime and aviation safety programs.
Many of you have talked about our ability to move 615
million passengers throughout our skies, but also about the
growing gridlock. Many of you have talked about the importance
of road construction and its relationship to safety. All of
these factors will be addressed in our proposed budget of $3.4
billion for transportation safety.
I also took special note of the fact that many of you said
that we have done a good job--and note that I say we because I
am fortunate to have a great team with me at the Department of
Transportation. Just yesterday we concluded a very successful
national conference on transportation safety, working with
industry and also with many members of Congress who appeared
before us. All of us made a commitment to safety and noted that
it would be a promise that we would keep together.
Last year, as you know, nearly 42,000 Americans died on our
roadways. Highway crashes are the leading cause of death for
all individuals ages 6 through 27. Surgeon General Satcher came
by and was with us for the conclusion of our historic
commitment to work together better and underscored the
importance of our work in that regard.
Also, today seat belts save about 10,000 lives annually.
And we hope through these resources to increase that number.
Last Saturday many of you will recall that the President
announced a new requirement for universal child safety seats
making it easier for parents to secure in a more simplified
manner our most vulnerable and our most precious passengers,
our children. And so, again, these investments help us in that
regard.
The 2000 budget includes additional funding for programs to
increase seat belt use to 85 percent by the year 2000. That is
a goal that we share with the President and that we share with
all of you. Annually over 5,000 people died in crashes
involving heavy trucks, and I hope over the course of this
morning's session we can talk about new work that we hope to do
with you to address this question as well as bus safety.
And I know, Senator Lautenberg, you and I have talked about
this issue in particular. I have recently asked former U.S.
Representative Norm Mineta to help us working with others to
review our motor carrier safety programs and to submit the
findings to me by late spring so that, again, we can work with
all of you in this regard.
All of you know that we have our FAA safe skies initiative
and that last year we had zero crashes involving U.S.
commercial carriers. We have $1 billion in safety resources for
the FAA.
mobility
As relates to mobility, a record $36 billion is requested
for infrastructure investment. That includes significant
dollars for highways as well as transit, roughly $6.1 billion
for transit.
Also, I think it appropriate to note a phrase by former
Secretary of Transportation John Volpe, who mentioned that no
one mode of transportation can solve all of our Nation's
transportation problems. Many of you in your comments have
related the need to focus on all modes of transportation. We
look forward to working with you in that regard.
As relates to aviation, $8.4 billion in FAA operations and
modernization efforts. We hope to have more discussion with you
about that. Amtrak, $571 million. I think we are doing well
with Amtrak. Record level ridership, record level resources
last year, improved on-time performance, but we must do better.
y2k
Y2K. I know that the Senate had an important hearing on
that earlier this week. We will meet our obligations to you and
to the American people in this regard. John Koskinen is leading
a significant effort on the part of the entire Administration.
But we have been told by the President and the Vice President
that we in our departments have responsibility for working with
industry and working with you to ensure that we meet our
challenges here.
economic growth and trade
Economic growth and trade. Just a few more comments and I
am done. The importance of transportation to our economy is
becoming clearer with every increase in jobs, every increase in
the economic prowess of this Nation. You have mentioned the
longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the
country.
Well, about 30 percent of our economic growth has been
related directly to international trade, and our transportation
system is giving us the ability to reach markets around the
world. But we are not only concerned about untapped markets
around the world. Through our Access to Jobs program that you
have helped us with, we are investing $150 million to help
people make the transition from welfare to work. We want to
continue to work with you in that regard.
human and natural environment
The environment. Our budget includes $3.9 billion for this
purpose, a 13 percent increase. We believe that we can make our
communities more livable. That is at the core of our livability
agenda, and we look forward to working with you in that regard.
It includes about $1.8 billion for the CMAQ program. It also
increases our Transportation and Community and Systems
Preservation Pilot program.
national security
And I conclude on national security. Our national security
goals include the protection of our transportation system which
is the tie that binds us all together and binds us with the
world. In fact, last January the Coast Guard, which many of you
have mentioned, demonstrated their important role as it relates
to our national security with a major seizure of cocaine, one
of the five largest seizures in the history of the country, an
amount over 5 tons that could actually provide one dose for
every child in America. Because of their efforts, we prevented
the flow of those drugs into the main streets of America.
Again, I appreciate all that you say about the work that we
have done.
But as the President said in his State of Union address,
this is not a time to rest, but a time to build. Many of you in
your questions note the fact that we have done many things
together. But the future is bright and there are many, many
things we have yet to do.
prepared statement
I and the members of my team look forward to doing those
good things with you. So, again, thank you for the opportunity
to be before you this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Rodney E. Slater
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Budget for fiscal year 2000.
overview
The record $50.5 billion budget we have proposed for fiscal year
2000 supports the powerful intermodal transportation network that is
vital to keeping America economically strong. It builds new frameworks
as well as advances those we have put in place to support President
Clinton's and Vice President Gore's vision for the future of our
country.
Over the last two years, we at the Department of Transportation
have worked diligently to become a visionary and vigilant organization
that casts its vision not only for the next three years, but for the
next thirty. We must make decisions now to provide a policy
architecture that will lead to a transportation system that will meet
America's needs in the 21st Century.
The fiscal year 2000 budget continues our effort to set the course
for investment to assure that we have a transportation system that
supports our hopes and dreams for, and as important the needs of, the
country in the next century and the new millennium. It is a budget not
just about funding concrete, asphalt, and steel, but about meeting the
infrastructure and human needs of America. We value life, so we must
enhance and improve transportation safety and security. We as a nation
value mobility, so we must provide for it efficiently and
intelligently. Like those before us who saw the promise of rail and
aviation, we have the opportunity--and the responsibility--to assess
transportation needs for the future and to address them in our time.
As President Clinton said in his State of the Union address, ``how
we fare as a nation, far into the 21st century, depends on what we do
as a nation today.'' Today, we have a safer--a more efficient--and a
more environmentally-sound transportation system. But, as the President
said, this is not a time to rest, but a time to build. He described
some of the challenges we must be ready to meet in the 21st century:
--an aging population--with new mobility needs;
--a greater need for quality education--to support transportation
systems which increasingly rely on technology--and to build a
transportation work force for the 21st century;
--the need to strengthen families and communities--important when
lengthy commutes already fray family ties;
--a truly global economy--with growing demands for more efficient
worldwide transportation links; and
--new challenges to peace and security--as terrorism can strike
targets once thought secure.
As a truly visionary and vigilant Department of Transportation, we
stand ready to do our part in meeting these challenges by creating a
transportation system for the 21st century--one that is international
in reach--intermodal in form--intelligent in character--and inclusive
in service.
a 21st century transportation system
To ensure a national transportation system that meets 21st Century
demands, we must build upon the great network that we have today. Our
five strategic goals to improve the nation's safety, mobility, economic
growth and trade, environment and security form the basis for us to
achieve such a truly integrated transportation system.
America's transportation system is the circulatory system of our
economy. It touches every one of us every day. Interruptions in any
part of the system affect thousands of people instantly--Americans have
come to expect their transportation system to work for them, and justly
complain at the slightest interruptions. The economy grows and works
best when there are no impediments to goods and people getting where
they must--thus an economy that works for all Americans depends on a
transportation system that is safe and serves all areas of the nation
efficiently. I am convinced that better linkage of our transportation
system, probably in ways we haven't even dreamed of today, will be
critical to meeting our needs in this global economy. America's future
success as a global competitor depends on whether we can move goods
from U.S. factories to world markets efficiently, reliably and
securely.
Transportation becomes a part of every good and service produced in
the economy, and the mobility it provides is an essential ingredient of
daily life. These benefits, however, come at a cost measured not only
in dollars. Because of the enormous scale of transportation in the
United States, the toll in terms of transportation fatalities and
injuries, oil consumption and imports, and air and water pollution is
high. We must use the system's existing capacity more intelligently and
focus on eliminating its negative impacts. For example, the safety
activities we conduct in the highway, rail, maritime and aviation areas
focus on improving vehicles and addressing human behavior. For
pipelines, our focus is on preventing damage to underground facilities
through better excavation practices, and improving communication
systems and location capabilities.
Many transportation fatalities are preventable. They occur when
people do not buckle up or use life vests, or because they drink while
driving or boating. America's seat belt use rate, while on the upswing,
continues to lag behind that of other countries. Because of the lethal
consequences, and the opportunity for improvement, additional funding
is requested for programs to increase seat belt use to 85 percent in
2000, the President's goal.
Transportation accessibility has grown considerably in the past 30
years. Construction of the Interstate Highway System and airline
deregulation have made it possible for all Americans to travel
thousands of miles across this country easily. Implementation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act has broadened transportation
opportunities for disabled Americans, but work still remains to further
these efforts as we move toward the millennium. The Vice President
recently announced a program to encourage families to buy homes close
to mass transit. The transportation system needs to be further
broadened to support welfare reform by providing transportation from
poverty-stricken neighborhoods to areas of job growth--often suburban
locations. It is our responsibility to continue the expansion of
transportation opportunities to those who do not have adequate access
today.
Just as we were able to shape surface transportation for the 21st
Century with passage of TEA-21, we have the opportunity to shape
aviation's future with a comprehensive reauthorization of aviation
programs this year. Our aviation reauthorization proposal, submitted
last month, reflects our core objectives of improving safety and
efficiency, expanding system capacity, enhancing competition and
access, assuring stability in financing, and improving rural air
service.
transportation investment achieves results
We all should be proud of the great strides made in transportation
infrastructure investment. We've invested in our transportation
infrastructure to make our system safer and better able to handle the
traffic generated by our growing economy. As a result, the condition
and performance of our nation's key bridges and highways has improved.
And we have opened over 100 miles of new rail transit service since
1993. We are investing a record $36 billion in infrastructure
investment--an amount that is 72 percent above the average of the first
four years of this decade--in fiscal year 2000 to continue this
progress.
We at DOT have also worked to improve the management of the
Department, as I know you heard about last week at your hearing with
Assistant Secretary Basso and Inspector General Mead. The size of the
DOT workforce is almost 10 percent smaller today than it was in 1993,
with the reduction reflecting the priorities of the Department in a
changing transportation climate. In order to keep our air traffic
controller and maintenance technician workforce growing to handle
safely the ever increasing demand for air travel, more dramatic
downsizing occurred in the rest of the Department, primarily by
restructuring administrative and oversight activities as recommended by
the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR). We are
working smarter by eliminating bureaucratic impediments and focusing on
serving our customers. Through our ONE DOT initiative, the Department
is developing creative, common sense, intermodal solutions to every-day
transportation problems. These solutions can be as simple as
encouraging people to buckle-up when they leave the airport and enter
our highways.
looking at the new challenges we face
The Department has looked anew at the challenges our transportation
system faces in the 21st Century and taken stock of the adequacy of the
system to meet those challenges. The funding increases we request are
critical to address key safety, mobility, economic growth and trade,
environment and national security efforts. A major part of our funding
proposal is to dedicate the $1.5 billion increase in funding due to
higher than expected motor fuel tax receipts to our top priorities of
improving safety, air quality, transit services including access to
jobs, and research.
Also, the Department is actively addressing the year 2000 problem.
First, we continue to make progress in fixing our internal systems. In
February we reported to the Office of Management and Budget that 53
percent percent of our mission-critical systems were compliant.
Additionally, 98 percent of the remaining systems that required repair
have now been fixed. Of the systems we have fixed, testing is now
completed for 79 percent of them. Based on these numbers, I expect to
see a significant increase in compliant systems we report during the
coming months. I also expect that all of our contigency plans will be
completed and fully tested. Furthermore, the Department is actively
working with the transportation industry domestically and
internationally. We are assessing readiness, sharing best practices,
looking for ways to eliminate obstacles to bringing systems into
compliance and providing status information to the American people.
Domestically we are seeing progress but remain concerned about
international efforts. There is still a great deal of work to be done,
but many dedicated men and women in the Department are working long
hours, without complaint, to complete this critical work. We intend to
be ready for the new millennium.
safety
Safety is our top strategic goal--our North Star--and our
transportation system's performance reflects the strength of this
commitment. While our transportation system helps move America forward
economically, we must continue doing all we can to make sure America is
moving safely. This is true whether people are moving on our roads,
transit systems, railroads, waterways or in our skies. The most serious
unintended consequence of transportation is its impact on public health
and well being. DOT safety programs are designed to help reduce
transportation fatalities, injuries and property damage.
Travel has become safer in the past six years:
--highway injury and fatality rates are at all-time lows;
--the Coast Guard saves a life every two hours;
--we have seen double-digit decreases in rail fatalities over the
past two years; and
--last year, for the first time in history, no scheduled U.S. air
carrier suffered a fatal crash.
The President wants to enhance this progress even as our economy
expands and travel grows. We propose to increase DOT safety funding to
$3.4 billion, 8 percent over the fiscal year 1999 level.
Just yesterday, we concluded a successful national conference on
transportation safety which served to focus our attention and vision to
the development of a national safety action plan. As was recognized at
the conference, we have to do better and we created an action plan to
assure that we do better!
Since most transportation deaths occur on our roads, we must
continue making them safer. We are extremely troubled by the fact that
63 percent of the motor vehicle occupants who died in traffic crashes
last year were not buckled up, and almost 60 percent of the small
children who died in traffic crashes in 1997 were not in safety seats.
Unquestionably, the best way to save lives and prevent injuries on the
road is for each and every one of us to use a seat belt and to protect
our children by properly securing them in safety seats and keeping them
in the backseats. Traffic safety must be an area of even more emphasis
in the years to come since, with demographic and economic trends, the
problem will worsen unless the Federal government and our State and
local partners take aggressive action. That is why we propose to raise
NHTSA spending by 12 percent, to $404 million, and FHWA safety funding
to almost $900 million. This expenditure would support strategies that
work:
--tough laws against drunk driving;
--expanded use of seat belts and child safety seats;
--safer road designs; and
--new technologies.
Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Healthy economic growth
and logistical innovations like ``just in time'' delivery have spurred
significant increases in truck travel and have been a boon for the
trucking industry. But while the motor carrier fatality rate has
decreased significantly--from 3.7 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled in 1989 to 2.8 today--the number of large truck crash
fatalities has increased from 4,462 in 1992 to 5,355 in 1997, and the
fatality rate has not decreased significantly over the last few years.
This is unacceptable and we are making the changes necessary to reduce
deaths and injuries.
Federal motor carrier safety programs must be more focused and
strategic, and channel resources to strategies that give us the highest
payoff in reducing crashes. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a
total of $160 million, five percent above fiscal year 1999, for motor
carrier safety programs, with special emphasis on creating a
performance-based motor carrier program. The Inspector General
recommended that FHWA replace its system for prioritizing carriers with
a system that defines problem carriers based upon on-the-road
performance. In response, FHWA implemented what is known as SafeStat
risk assessment criteria, a more results-oriented, performance-based
algorithm for the identification of ``high risk'' motor carriers in
order to get best results from on-site compliance reviews. While the
system isn't perfect, it is much better. We still need to work to get
more complete and timely information.
FHWA is also making progress in nation-wide implementation of its
Performance and Registration Systems Management (PRISM) program, with
20 states expected to be PRISM participants by the end of fiscal year
2000. PRISM uses safety data to identify carriers that are prone to
accident involvement--thus allowing FHWA and the states to focus on
unsafe carriers. In addition, FHWA will be increasing its inspection of
trucks near ports of entry and stepping up the data exchange between
the U.S. and Mexico to increase the level of safety for trucks entering
the U.S. from Mexico.
However, recent events show that we must be ever more vigilant when
it comes to motor carrier safety. That is why the Department has
created a ONE DOT motor carrier safety team, including FHWA, NHTSA,
OST, and other DOT units, to identify ways to improve motor carrier
safety, in conjunction with an independent review of motor carrier
safety led by former House Public Works Committee Chairman Norman
Mineta. Whatever the rates or trends, 5,000 deaths per year is an
unacceptable number. We intend to take all steps necessary to break
through this plateau, and then continue to reduce the numbers as well
as the rate.
We also propose a billion dollars--a 7 percent increase--for
aviation safety programs. This includes the Safer Skies initiative that
Vice President Gore announced to reduce aviation fatalities by 80
percent within a decade. Under this initiative, special teams of
technical experts will zero in on the leading causes of crashes,
fatalities and injuries so we can prevent them before they happen.
Even though safety on our railroads has improved, the amount of
freight traffic handled by our nation's railroads has increased
(revenue ton-miles have risen by more than a third since 1990) and we
must remain vigilant regarding our safety responsibilities. $132
million, 38 percent above this year's level, is proposed to continue
and expand upon our rail safety research and programmatic efforts,
bringing together rail labor, management and DOT in a collaborative
effort to determine the root causes of systemic railroad safety
problems.
There are many dramatic examples of the Coast Guard's efforts to
save lives at sea and, in fact, one life is saved every two hours by
the Coast Guard. The fiscal year 2000 request includes $909 million, 6
percent above this year, for Coast Guard to continue and expand its
search and rescue capability, by acquiring equipment that can operate
in heavy weather, better detect those in distress, and better protect
crewmen.
mobility
In order to reach our strategic goals we must promote a
transportation system that is not defined solely by mode of
transportation (highway, rail, air, sea), but rather by our ability to
reach the places we need to go efficiently and economically. As former
Transportation Secretary John Volpe said, ``no one mode of
transportation will ever solve our transportation problems.''
The transportation solutions of the past--build more roads, bridges
and airports--can no longer be our first choice to give Americans the
mobility they need. It's too expensive and too damaging to our
communities and our environment. Instead, we must manage our
transportation system better, and make more efficient use of our
existing system. For example, automated strategic planning aids enable
our air traffic system to handle double the number of planes it could a
generation ago. As a nation, we should support those nascent efforts
that will lead us to the mobility solutions of the next 40 years.
Development and research of new technologies to serve the future of
rail and aviation, such as maglev and free flight, are critical to such
efforts and are proposed in this budget.
Support for our existing mobility programs, such as those
reauthorized in TEA-21 and the Amtrak bill, is also crucial. The record
levels of highway and transit infrastructure investment proposed in
this budget are critical to keep us on our path of rebuilding America's
infrastructure.
The Federal-aid Highway obligation limitation is proposed at $27.3
billion, almost 7 percent above the current level. This includes
funding for new innovative programs that leverage funding and expand
capacity, such as the $81 million proposed for Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which could leverage up to
$2.7 billion in project funding, and the $271 million proposed for the
Intelligent Transportation System Program, which will help expand
existing capacity with technology.
The $6.1 billion requested for transit programs in fiscal year 2000
reflects our commitment to transit programs across the nation and to
maintaining a balance of funding between highways and transit. We have
requested funding for 7 additional new full funding grant agreements.
The $571 million we request for Amtrak capital funding reflects a
continuing commitment to the financial plans and the long term success
of Amtrak and will enable Amtrak to invest strategically in capital
equipment and infrastructure. Such investment is key to improving on-
time service, increasing revenues, and reducing operating costs.
Last year Amtrak ridership increased substantially. This shows that
many Americans continue to want intercity passenger rail
transportation. The combination of cost savings, revenue generation,
and capital support proposed in the President's Budget is essential if
Amtrak is to achieve eventual operating self-sufficiency. As a member
of the Amtrak Board, DOT will work to ensure that Amtrak continuously
reviews, amends and implements programs and practices that improve its
revenue situation and reduce its operating costs. However, it must be
made clear that we see the need for continued capital appropriations to
Amtrak in the foreseeable future. The definition of capital is proposed
to be broadened, consistent with the definition used for transit.
The $1.6 billion requested for airport grants, when coupled with
our proposal to permit airports to raise additional funding through
airport passenger facility charges and combined with other revenue
sources available to airports, provides record level funding to meet
airport infrastructure investment needs. For modernization of our air
traffic control system, $2.3 billion is proposed, 11 percent more than
current levels. This funding will be used to further reduce the number
of outages and delays and to maximize the use of our airspace.
In order to continue its capital modernization efforts, we request
$350 million for Coast Guard assets. This includes $44 million to
continue the deepwater recapitalization analysis begun this year, so
that Coast Guard can modernize its deepwater assets in the most
efficient and least costly manner.
economic growth and trade
The economy is about jobs and a better standard of living for all
Americans. The economy grows and works best when there are no
impediments to goods and people getting where they must go. Thus, an
economy that works for all Americans depends on a transportation system
that is safe and serves all areas of the nation efficiently.
Our investment, and the nation's economic performance, are making a
difference in people's lives. We have the lowest welfare rolls in 30
years. But, in spite of this success, the President recognizes that
welfare recipients still face barriers: people can't go to work if they
can't get to work. Our budget requests $150 million, double this year's
amount, for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program to help people
make those crucial links through transit and alternatives such as
vanpools to get to where the jobs are. This is essential to support the
Administration's welfare-to-work goals and economic growth in our low-
income workforce.
Our budget request supports economic growth and trade, not only
through infrastructure improvements and a commitment to growing the
future workforce, but also through a record $1.3 billion, 40 percent
more than today, for research and technology. Our research and
technology priorities include the development of new technologies that
will keep America competitive, improve safety, and reduce
transportation's impacts on the environment.
In an effort to increase efficiency and global competitiveness, the
Department will continue to pursue its policy of Open Skies, seeking to
establish free markets for air commerce between the U.S. and other
nations of the world. In 1998, the U.S. more than doubled the number of
Open Skies agreements.
environment
Transportation makes our communities more livable, enhancing the
quality of our lives and our environment. However, transportation
generates undesired environmental consequences, such as pollution. The
fiscal year 2000 budget includes $3.9 billion for DOT environmental
programs, 13 percent above the current year, to support several
programs and initiatives aimed at reducing air and water pollution,
preserving wetlands and open space, and making transportation
facilities more compatible with the environment.
We recognize that there doesn't have to be a conflict between
mobility and prosperity on the one hand and a healthy environment and
livable communities on the other. In fact, since President Clinton took
office, air pollution contributed by cars and trucks has dropped by 11
percent, even with travel growth of 7 percent. And, while negative
impacts are unavoidable, we are replacing two-and-a-half acres of
wetlands for every acre lost to highway construction--better than
double the rate of a decade ago.
As the Vice President said in announcing the Clinton-Gore
Livability Agenda, ``we can build an America for our children that is
not just better off--but better.'' The transportation component of this
agenda includes programs that enhance our transportation alternatives
and improve transportation planning.
To aggressively implement this agenda, a record $6.1 billion, as
already mentioned, is proposed for transit programs and a record $1.8
billion is proposed for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program. The CMAQ Program was reauthorized in TEA-21
and changed so that air quality maintenance areas are eligible for CMAQ
funding. The funding proposed for CMAQ includes $341 million directed
from Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. This will help communities
continue the activities that helped them reach and maintain healthy air
standards.
Our budget also doubles the funding provided to the Transportation
and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, so communities can
develop smart-growth plans to combat congestion and sprawl.
Additional funding is also requested for the Advanced Vehicle
Program, DOT's contribution in the effort to develop clean, fuel-
efficient vehicles for the new century. Programs like these are crucial
to building a transportation system that meets the needs of future
generations.
national security
DOT plays a critical role in ensuring that the U.S. transportation
system is secure, that U.S. borders are safe from illegal intrusion,
and that the transportation system can meet national defense needs in
time of emergency. In addition, the Coast Guard continues to perform
four specific national security functions in support of the Department
of Defense (DOD); these include defense readiness, support of
commanders in chief operation plans, domestic support of critical ports
and waterways and the specific functions spelled out in an agreement
with DOD. A total of $1.5 billion is requested for DOT national
security programs.
National security is a key transportation mission, and we have
carried it out most effectively, producing measurable results. For
example:
--During the last two years we've seen record seizures of illegal
drugs by the Coast Guard. In January, I joined Coast Guard
officials in Houston after they had seized nearly five tons of
cocaine from a ship intercepted on the high seas. This was one
of the largest seizures on record, keeping drugs off our
streets and out of our schools.
--Even though it's not funded by this Subcommittee, the Maritime
Administration's sealift capacity for defense purposes grew by
30 percent last year alone, thereby enhancing our readiness
posture.
These efforts have helped increase the security of our nation. The
fiscal year 2000 budget continues these programs.
A total of $566 million is requested for Coast Guard drug
interdiction programs, enabling us to improve our performance over the
1999 level and accelerating progress towards the 2002 interdiction goal
in the National Drug Control Strategy.
As international travel continues to grow, we must remain vigilant
in our efforts to prevent terrorism, and to protect Americans and our
visitors as well. For fiscal year 2000, the budget requests $100
million for the FAA to continue to support and purchase explosive
detection equipment to be deployed at our nation's airports.
conclusion
I believe firmly that our goals for transportation in the next
century can only be achieved by making sure our transportation system
remains healthy and able to serve, and that it does not obstruct--
through want of resolve or resources--the safe and efficient movement
of people and goods throughout this land and abroad. We are at a point
in time where we can imagine a new and better world, and we must act to
make such a world a reality. Our successes should be the result of our
own talents and our own hard work, our ability to meet the challenges
we face, and to take advantage of the opportunities we find. DOT's
fiscal year 2000 budget request, is, I believe, critical to that end.
I look forward to working with this Subcommittee and the entire
Senate and House to pass a forward-looking transportation
appropriations bill that moves us into the 21st Century.
national speed limits
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I gather it is
the custom of the chairman of this subcommittee to engage in 8-
minute questioning rounds. And so I will follow his custom and
start, Senator Lautenberg, with you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, an excellent presentation I thought. Your
attention to all modes of transportation, I think, is critical.
We each have preferences at a given time, but principally this
country, as you said was said by Secretary Volpe, has to solve
its problems in as many different ways as we have available to
us with transportation.
Last May, New Jersey began an 18-month test of the 65-mile-
an-hour speed limit on certain limited access highways. Since
then, there has been a 41 percent increase in tickets issued
for driving faster than 80 miles an hour, and there have been
395 tickets issued for driving over 100 miles an hour.
Now, at 100 miles an hour, you get from one end of my state
to the other very quickly, I must say. You have to start
braking when you get to about Delaware. [Laughter.]
The crash at these speeds would be horrific. Do higher
speed limits encourage even higher speeds as our experience in
New Jersey suggests? Is that the general result? And the
relationship between higher speeds and motor vehicle deaths,
that higher speeds results in more highway deaths?
Secretary Slater. Senator, you make a very good point. As
you know, we removed the national speed limit in 1995 with the
passage of the bill authorizing the National Highway System. At
that time there was clearly some concern that raising the speed
limit would result in more injuries and more deaths on our
roadways. And at that time we were all already concerned about
the roughly 42,000 people that we lose on our roadways annually
anyway, notwithstanding any increase in the speed limit.
We have had now roughly 3 years or so to make an objective
assessment of whether there is an incidence of increased
injuries and fatalities as a result of the increased speed
limits, and we have found that there is, in fact, some
correlation. Now we continue to study the matter.
We also take advantage of a report that was done by the
Insurance Institute which suggests that the increase is
probably in the neighborhood of about 15 percent. Our figures
show an increase in fatalities at about 9 percent. So we are
trying to compare the two studies and get a more accurate
count. We are also working with state and local governments in
this regard. But it is clear that the increase in speed limit
has resulted in an increase in fatalities and injuries on our
roadway.
Now, there are a number of things we can do. Enforcement,
also educating drivers that really safety is a promise that we
do have to keep--make and keep together. There is the
responsibility that we all share with other individuals with
whom we share the roads. And so we are going to use our
increased resources and safety to increase education and to
also work with the law enforcement community to increase law
enforcement.
drunk driving laws
Senator Lautenberg. Last year, the Senate voted to save
lives with an amendment to the 6-year highway bill calling for
a national drunk driving standard of .08 blood alcohol content.
Unfortunately, the amendment was dropped during conference
negotiations for TEA-21.
In the absence of a national standard, can we achieve
another approach to the goal of .08 nationwide?
Secretary Slater. We did, I think, fight a good fight last
year in an effort to make the national standard for determining
drunk driving that of .08 which would be the same, frankly, of
most industrialized countries. Some, France in particular,
actually has a drug alcohol content level that is lower.
But it was an effort that was not successful in that we did
not put in the laws a permanent and clear national standard for
the blood alcohol content level at .08. We did, though, working
with the members and also working with the safety community,
provide significant incentive resources that will allow us to
work with states encouraging them to move to the .08 standard.
And the .08 standard was specifically mentioned in the
legislation and that was good. As I recall, I think the amount
was about 500 million dollars. I am not sure. But that is quite
significant. We have been working with a number of states in
that regard.
Let me also hasten to say that in 1997, for the first time,
we saw the number of alcohol-related crashes and fatalities
drop significantly. It actually dropped from roughly 41 percent
to about 38.6 percent, which is a significant decrease. And we
believe that that is the result of a lot of these efforts to
bring this issue to the forefront of the American people, added
enforcement and a growing understanding that there is one thing
to be engaged and to respect one's ability to engage in social
drinking, if you will. There is another thing when it comes to
drunk driving. And I think that the country is becoming more
and more aggressive in dealing with this issue, and
appropriately so.
crashes involving suv's
Senator Lautenberg. The SUV, sport utility vehicles, light
trucks included have become very popular. One third now of all
registered vehicles account for half of all highway fatalities.
In crashes between cars and SUV's or light trucks, the car
loses and it is no match for the larger, heavier vehicle.
In fact, the fatalities from crashes between SUV or light
trucks and cars have actually been increasing, and it is a
worrisome thing. What can DOT do to address the extreme
differences in size, weight, body structure of the SUV's and
light trucks and the automobile?
Secretary Slater. Well, once again, Senator Lautenberg,
your question deals with a matter of safety. I want to state
that we appreciate our relationship with all of the members,
you in particular, in dealing with matters of safety. That is
the No. 1 priority as stated by the President when it comes to
the business of transportation and the work of the
Transportation Department.
SUV's are, frankly, the station wagons of the nineties. As
you noted, there is great popularity as relates to these
vehicles. They are being sold in larger percentages than any
other vehicles on the national scene.
Because of questions regarding compatibility, which goes to
the core of your question about the impact and the greater
likelihood that someone in a passenger vehicle would be injured
more severely or killed as a result of a crash with a SUV, we
have been working with the industry on this.
And recently, especially with the discussion of the new
Ford Excursion, there has been the recognition that with that
vehicle, even though it is larger than most SUV's, there is
that lower bumper guard which makes it as low at that point as
the height of most passenger vehicles, thus making it more
compatible. You still have the issue of size and the rigidity
of the frame of the SUV's, those kinds of considerations.
But this is one way where we have worked with industry to
bring about greater compatibility. We continue to work on this
question. It is an issue that the industry is very concerned
about, and we hope to continue to find success. We are using
technology, crash avoidance technology, those sorts of things
to help us in this area as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. We urge you, Mr. Secretary,
to keep focused on that. We have other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps in the next round.
revenue aligned budget authority
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, as I said in my opening
statement, the TEA-21 law included an important program known
as Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. Under this program when
gas tax receipts rise above the anticipated level, the
guaranteed level of highway spending would increase the
following year by the amount of that increase. As such, this
program would provide an additional $1.5 billion in spending
last year.
Am I correct, Mr. Secretary, that the TEA-21 law does
require that this additional funding be spent on highways only?
Secretary Slater. Well, clearly, Senator, you were very
much involved in the crafting and construction of that
legislation and you have got a very good sense of what it
requires. And we respect that.
The way we have approached it, though, from the vantage
point of the Administration, is a lot of the resources will
actually go to highways. But we continue to try to strike the
balance, other equities that were a part of the TEA-21
legislation as well.
A few examples. The balance between highways and transit.
Our reconfiguration, if you will, or proposal as it relates to
the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority is to provide an increase
in transit that would be comparable to the balance and the
record level dollars that we were able to make in transit and
highways as a part of the broader TEA-21 legislation.
We also seek to focus some of the resources on research
where we desperately need more focus to improve the quality of
our roadways as well as transit and other forms of----
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you are taking up my time and
you are not answering my question. Am I correct that the TEA-21
law requires that this additional funding be spent on highways
only?
Secretary Slater. There is probably a disagreement here, I
think, Senator. And we believe that what we have proposed is in
keeping with the spirit of the legislation and would like to
work with you and the members of the committee----
Senator Byrd. Working with me is not going to be very easy.
I can tell you that right now.
Secretary Slater. I sense that, sir, and I respect that.
Senator Byrd. We like to go by the law that we write up
here and that the President signs.
Secretary Slater. That is correct. And he proudly signed
the TEA-21 legislation. And, again----
Senator Byrd. He did. And I was there and you were there.
He made a big speech.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. So I will go on to my next question for now.
use of gas taxes
Your budget requests that we include language in the
Appropriations Act and supersede the TEA-21 law and divert a
substantial amount of these extra gas tax funds to non-highway
activities including transit funding, special projects in the
Federal Railroad Administration, transit research and so forth.
There is even funding directed specifically to a $20 million
transit project in New York City.
I am not against these activities, but I must ask the
following: Are not the gas tax receipts that provide for this
extra spending deposited in the highway account of the highway
trust fund?
Secretary Slater. That is true. But the highway trust fund
includes also an account for transit. And again----
Senator Byrd. I understand that. Answer my question,
please.
Secretary Slater. I am answering it, sir.
Senator Byrd. When you said that is true, that answered it,
did it not?
Secretary Slater. Well----
Senator Byrd. Without the ``but.''
Secretary Slater. There is the ``but,'' though.
Senator Byrd. But there is not. The gas tax receipts
provides for this extra spending deposited in the highway
account of the highway trust fund. It is not the transit
account. It is the highway account. Since all of these non-
highway activities that you propose can be funded elsewhere in
your transportation budget, why did you propose to overrule the
TEA-21 law and fund these activities from the Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority program?
Secretary Slater. Because it was our belief that the way we
proposed adding additional resources to additional accounts is
actually consistent with the overall spirit of the TEA-21
legislation which brings about a balance, a recognized balance,
in funding for highways and transit and which also, itself, has
a significant focus on safety and transportation research. And
those were the areas of focus that we sought to provide
additional money to as a result of the additional resources
that come into the trust fund based on the Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority.
Senator Byrd. Now I will read you the only programs that
are authorized to get this highway--and I am quoting from
subsection C of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
century in section 1106: ``Of the funds to be apportioned to
each state under Subsection (B)(4) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall ensure that such funds are apportioned for the
Interstate Maintenance program, the National Highway System
program, the Bridge program, the Surface Transportation program
and a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement program in
the same ratio that each state is apportioned funds for such
program for such fiscal year but for this section.
Those are the only programs that are eligible. I suppose my
time is up.
Senator Gorton. You have got a green light. You can go.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir. Just continue, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. We are interested in your question,
Senator Byrd.
Senator Gorton. I am not going to unchain the Secretary
until you are finished. [Laughter.]
Secretary Slater. I see. The light is red from where I sit.
[Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. Thank you very much.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gorton. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
airline competition
Secretary Slater, as you know the Antitrust Subcommittee,
of which I am the ranking member, has had a long interest in
enhancing airline competition and stopping anticompetitive
business practices by the major airlines. To be sure, not all
behavior is bad or even illegal, but it seems to me that the
big airlines have figured out that the way to make money is by
not competing with each other.
Instead they sit back and dominate routes in and out of
their fortress hubs giving them a sort of a monopoly. This is
not good for consumers. Fares in many places, as you know, have
gotten out of control. I would like to ask you just a couple of
questions about how your competition guidelines will work when
they go into effect.
First, suppose a new entrant starts a route, say,
hypothetically, from Milwaukee to Detroit, and then the
incumbent carrier adds capacity and gives kickbacks to travel
agents and lowers prices in a way designed to boot a new
entrant from the market. What will you do, not can you do, but
under the guidelines what will you do to be sure that this kind
of predatory activity is terminated?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, let me say thanks for
adding your voice to the chorus of voices including members of
the Congress, the Senate and clearly this Administration and
the American people when it comes to dealing with this issue of
access to low cost and quality air services.
Our proposal is designed, first, to encourage some
discussion about the issue. It is a very difficult issue. As
you know, roughly 20 years ago the airline industry was
deregulated. Since that time we have seen a significant
increase in ridership. We have seen the industry over the last
5 years enjoy record profits and the like, but we have also
seen some pockets of pain, and you spoke to many of them.
With our proposal we are, again, seeking input. We have
gotten about 5,000 comments thus far. We are analyzing those.
At the end of the day we will, in fact, alter our proposal
based on the quality of those recommendations.
But at present what we propose is a fine. If an airline is
found to be engaged in anticompetitive practices, we outline
enforcement action that will be taken. But our objective here
is not to become a police of the airline industry. It is to
ensure, as you have expressed appropriately, the desire of the
American people to have quality access to good aviation
transportation at a reasonable cost. So it is our desire that,
working with industry even, we will be able to come up with a
proposal that clearly outlines those actions that will not be
tolerated and they, themselves, will police themselves. That is
our ultimate objective.
Senator Kohl. Do you think perhaps that we need to look at
revising our antitrust laws because the rules on predatory
pricing are too weak or that cases are too hard to prove?
Secretary Slater. We clearly have not made that
recommendation at this point because it is our hope that we can
address the issue appropriately with the guidelines. If, in
fact, we cannot, then we have had extensive discussions with
the Department of Justice about additional steps that might be
taken. And clearly these would be steps that could be
considered. But we have not, Senator, in all honesty, gotten to
that point. It is our hope that we will be able to address this
far short of that.
black box technology
Senator Kohl. Okay. Mr. Secretary, the State Troopers
Association has contacted me regarding electronic controlled
module or so-called black box technology in trucks. The
troopers claim that, just as in airplanes, access to the
information stored in these black boxes is critical to their
efforts to investigate crashes and prevent a future loss of
life on our Nation's roads. The troopers have suggested that a
standard protocol of information or reporting requirements may
be appropriate to address their concerns about access--
balanced, of course, with privacy considerations. It would seem
that the education and outreach about the benefits of this data
would also make a good deal of sense.
Mr. Secretary, what is the current status of the
Department's work on this area? Will you work with me to make
sure that the appropriate data is available to law enforcement
and that the public secures the safety benefits of this
technology?
Secretary Slater. Senator, we will work with you and with
others on this very important matter because it is our belief
that technology can bring about significant safety benefits to
the traveling public as well as greater efficiency when it
comes to the movement of commerce.
We are looking quite extensively at what we call on-board
technology which could include a black box but, frankly, it
could go far beyond that. We are actually looking at technology
that will not only record information that is provided with the
black boxes that are, say, used by the airline industry, but
the technology can also be enhanced to actually monitor the
alertness of the driver. And many in the private sector in the
motor carrier----
Senator Kohl. Just a minute. My understanding is that in
most cases these black boxes are now available and installed in
the trucks. The problem is in gaining access to these. These
black boxes are under the possession of the truck owners.
What we need to do is to get that access out to state
troopers to determine the causes of crashes. And we need your
help in getting access to what is contained in the already
installed black boxes. Can you help us with that?
Secretary Slater. I see the nature of your question a bit
better now. First of all, there are very few trucking companies
that actually use the black boxes as we speak when you consider
the family of motor carriers. Those that do argue that they're
using those for business purposes and that that is a privacy
matter. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you to
explore this question but----
Senator Kohl. In other words, is it true that if the black
box exists in the truck--and there are many, many more trucks
than apparently you may be aware that have these black boxes--
that unless access to that information is available to
troopers, the information is not of that much value. And we
need your help again with consideration of privacy matters to
secure that access.
Secretary Slater. I understand. Let us say that we would
welcome the opportunity to work with you. I can tell you it is
a very difficult issue when it comes to the privacy
consideration.
Senator Kohl. I am happy that you are willing to work with
us on that.
Secretary Slater. Yes, we will work with you.
loran radio navigation
Senator Kohl. One more question. Under the direction of
Congress, the Department commissioned an independent report on
the Loran radio navigation system. As you know, fishermen,
boaters, general aviation pilots and others currently rely on
Loran as a navigation tool.
Secretary Slater. That is correct.
Senator Kohl. It is my understanding that a draft report
commissioned by your Department at the direction of Congress
was submitted in April of last year under the direction of
Booz, Allen and Hamilton. That report confirmed that the user
community overwhelmingly--94 percent--supports continuing
Loran. It has also pointed out that keeping versus shutting
down Loran would save $291 million, and that keeping Loran
would provide a critical backup to other navigation aids;
providing backups was recommended by the 1997 Presidential
Commission on Infrastructure Protection.
Mr. Secretary, it concerns me that the Department's budget
does not include the necessary funding for Loran improvements.
Considering the draft report findings, how did you come to this
funding decision and when will the final report on this issue
be submitted to Congress?
Secretary Slater. Our objective is to get the final report,
I think, sometime this summer to the Congress because of the
significant interest that we have seen in the user community.
We are reconsidering the position that we took on the matter.
We do see a benefit.
Now, at some point we would like to graduate to the use of
the satellite communications systems. But at this point we see
some continued value and would like to work with you, Members
of the Senate and Congress, in continuing to provide this
service to the user community.
Senator Kohl. I thank you. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FAA management advisory council
Senator Gorton. Mr. Secretary, almost 3 years ago under the
1996 FAA bill, Congress mandated a management advisory council.
Why has the mandate been totally ignored to the extent that we
do not have a single nomination?
Secretary Slater. It has not been ignored. We have actually
finally provided the list to the Administration, and we are
working through the various checks that are necessary when you
are dealing with potential conflicts of interest and the like.
And we should have that council announced very, very soon.
Now, speaking to that question of the management of the
FAA, I would also hasten to say that I think that we have shown
significant improvement on that front when it comes to having
an administration now, an FAA, that is clearly results
oriented, that is moving aggressively on a number of fronts,
working closer with the industry, with the Congress, and with
the traveling public. But, as you have noted, this was a
legislative mandate, and we are now moving on that and will do
so very, very soon.
Senator Gorton. Well, as I listen to people in the
industry, the general statement about FAA management may be a
bit exaggerated. I think you are moving in the right direction,
but there seems to me to be a long, long way to go.
faa user fees
Now, another question relating to my opening statement. How
do you justify what amounts to a very large increase in Federal
charges to airlines and the authorization of a substantial
increase in local charges to airlines with a dramatic reduction
in the amount of aid and assistance that is going to be
provided to them, at least for construction purposes, in the
budget?
Secretary Slater. Well, as has been noted, we do propose a
significant number of user fees. We have been on this course
and have had some success with the Congress, though not a lot,
in identifying those areas where you have a unique user
community that benefits directly from a given service and using
user fees as a means of providing a predictable, sustained
means of resources for those services, so as to provide the
resources to help deal with issues pertaining to modernization,
improvements in the capital investment in our airports over the
long term.
Clearly there are ways that we have done this differently
in the past. But we just continue to suggest that there may be
a way of doing it better in the future, and that is why we have
offered forth these user fee proposals.
Senator Gorton. Senator Byrd, I got about as responsive
answer to my question as you did, but an eloquent one
nonetheless.
Senator Byrd. I compliment the Secretary. He is very
smooth.
Senator Gorton. I have a couple of more local questions
that I suspect I will get more direct answers to them from the
Secretary.
sound transit
Mr. Secretary, when can Sound Transit in my Puget Sound
area expect to enter into a full funding grant agreement with
the FTA?
This Subcommittee and its Chairman are extraordinarily
generous to me in spite of not having one. But the Committee is
going to need it pretty soon and Lord knows we do. Can you help
me out with that?
Secretary Slater. Yes. Let me just say, first of all, there
has been significant local support for this program. Actually,
there is significant state and local support for transportation
programs occurring across the country and also support for what
we call smart growth initiatives which I think is central to
this particular project. We look forward to working with you in
the near term on getting the funding and the continued support
from the Federal level to be coupled with what has already been
manifested at the state and local level to move that project
forward.
Senator Gorton. Can you be any more precise on the kind of
schedule you see for the formal entry of a full funding
agreement?
Secretary Slater. I did not want to overstate the case on
this. We are moving forward very well in the preliminary
engineering stage. It is our desire to have this pretty much
concluded by summer with work to begin, hopefully, by the end
of year.
Senator Gorton. I thank you for that. That is a precise
answer and that is a welcome answer. And we certainly want to
help you in any way possible in reaching that goal.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
border and corridor
Senator Gorton. The border and corridor sections of TEA-21
are separate, of course, but have a single funding source. What
is the breakdown of the funding of each section, 1118 and 1119?
How are you determining what that breakdown should be and when
is implementation due for the current fiscal year?
Secretary Slater. We are in the process of receiving the
applications on the program and, hopefully, we will be making
an announcement pretty soon.
We decided to actually combine them because they both speak
to, frankly, the same end, the importance of transportation to
economic growth, economic vitality whether that is at the
border or along the trade corridors, many of them actually
running north and south because of the implications of NAFTA,
and the fact that most of our interstates actually run east and
west with all too few connections running north and south.
Our total budget there, as I recall, is about 140 or so
million annually, if I am not mistaken. And we do not know just
yet what the total breakdown will be as it relates to corridors
as compared to border crossings because we just have not made
the final decisions. I will say that the total request is in
the neighborhood of $2 billion.
Senator Gorton. So you are going to merge the two and try
to evaluate these $2 billion worth of applications as if it was
a single application?
Secretary Slater. That is correct.
Senator Gorton. I thank you very much.
We have just finished our first round, Senator Campbell.
Would you like to make a statement or ask some questions?
Senator Campbell. With your permission, I apologize for
being late. I had to chair another committee, Mr. Chairman. As
a new member, I am delighted to be here and would ask
permission to submit my opening statement for the record.
sound transit
Secretary Slater, I had a number of questions concerning
the Denver RTD and the Department of Transportation. But, I
think, because I have come right in the middle of this and have
not heard your statement, I will submit those questions and ask
if you would send me the answers or responses back at your
earliest convenience, if you would, so I could pass those on to
our state.
Secretary Slater. Yes, Senator. We will do that and gladly
so.
Mr. Chairman, can I make one comment. I just got a note
more specifically on your project.
We are in the preliminary engineering stage, and that is
really the stage that has to be completed before we can move
forward with the work. We do acknowledge growing progress on
that, and so the timetables are pretty much the same. But I
wanted to be a little more specific in giving you an assessment
of exactly where we are, and what we would like to do is just
stay in touch with you as we go forward.
motor carrier safety
Senator Lautenberg. I just had one question before we hear
from Senator Byrd. This, Mr. Secretary, because we recently
discussed it with the IG and other people. The subcommittee had
some troubling testimony last week when we talked about the
Office of Motor Carriers and their failure to meaningfully
enforce the truck and bus safety laws. Among the things we were
told by the Inspector General, the number of compliance reviews
conducted by the Federal inspectors have been allowed to
decline by over 50 percent even while the office's budget has
grown.
The office has no safety data on more than 75 percent of
the interstate bus operators. Now, morale in the office is
awful, and the trucking industry does not take your enforcement
efforts at all seriously. How do you react to the IG's
observations and what is DOT doing, if anything, to dramatize
strength in the efforts of the OMC?
Secretary Slater. Well, first of all, clearly we received
the IG's report with sober reflection. We then started the
process of reviewing our own activities and, frankly, adding to
some of the initiatives that we currently have underway--
greater use of technology, also trying to prepare ourselves
with state governments in particular when it comes to
monitoring the movement of trucks along the border and the
like.
We have worked with a number of states that have the
highest incident of motor carrier truck crashes so as to better
focus our activities in that regard. We have also provided
additional funding to a number of states in an effort to get
better data where we have found a higher incidence of crashes.
So we continue those efforts.
But, as I noted in my opening statement, because of the
Inspector General's report and also because of issues that have
been raised by you and others in the Senate and also Chairman
Wolf in the House, we are doing a total comprehensive internal
review of our motor carrier operations that will include buses
as well because I know we have had some particular trouble in
the Pennsylvania/New Jersey area just last year where we lost,
as I recall, about 15 people, which was significantly higher
than was expected or the case historically.
That report is being led by former U.S. Congressman Norm
Mineta. He is supposed to report back to me within roughly 90
days. That period is clearly far shorter than that now because
the effort is underway.
We then will look at those recommendations, take into
account the recommendations of the IG, work with the Congress
to improve this program. I personally am committed to it. As
many of you know, all of you, before becoming Secretary I was
actually the head of the Federal Highway Administration where
this was my direct responsibility. And so in this instance I
feel some responsibility clearly working with Administrator
Wykle. We also have Administrator Martinez with NHTSA involved
as well as our overall DOT team. And this, Senator, is an area
where we, too, have concerns and look forward to working with
you and with others.
As I conclude my remarks on this point, I will note this,
however, and that is we have seen, frankly, a sort of leveling
off when it comes to the fatality rate as it relates to motor
carriers. But we have seen an up-tick in the numbers, and that
is really where you have to have your focus.
I do not think it is enough for us to come before you and
say that the rate of fatalities has not increased, that it has
been level the last 3 or 4 years. That is not enough. We have
to work with you, the industry and with others to continue to
take that number down. And that is where we have not had the
kind of progress that we have to have.
Also, I could say that this is a good performance where we
are when you consider that in the last 10 years we have had a
doubling on our roadways of motor carriers. I think it was
about 190,000 in 1988 up to 450 or so thousand today. They are
traveling more. They keep America moving. They are at the heart
of our economy. But we still have to be mindful of these safety
concerns. So we do not shrink from this responsibility and look
forward to working with you, the industry and others in
addressing the issue.
omc location
Senator Lautenberg. I will close with this and just ask
you, is there a question about where OMC is located within DOT?
Is that something that ought to be looked at because I
understand there are some concerns there?
Secretary Slater. That issue has been raised. And I can
tell you my position is this: that is clearly an issue that has
to be taken into account in the overall review. But I think
that we should also broaden the discussion to consider a number
of issues here regarding funding, management, location, better
ways of approaching this question with that being only one of
issues to be addressed and that is what we have asked the blue
ribbon sort of committee who is reviewing our internal
operations to consider for us.
But at the end of the day that, too, will be--and
justifiably so--one of the issues to be addressed.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will
submit some more questions.
nhtsa funding
Senator Campbell [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, before we hear
from Senator Byrd I would like you to take note that I just
arrived here 10 minutes ago, and I have already ascended to the
chairmanship. So take care of Colorado. [Laughter.]
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, as a strong advocate for
highway safety, I am very concerned that the funding for the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been
apparently treated in a very cavalier manner. Last year the
operating budget for this important safety agency was funded at
$160 million. This year your budget proposes that we cut the
regular appropriation for this agency by 55 percent down to $72
million.
You then ask us to take $120 million of the Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority that are supposed to be spent on highway
construction and divert them to reverse the cut that has been
proposed in the core expenses of the highway safety agency. Is
not the construction and rehabilitation of highways critical to
highway safety?
Secretary Slater. Definitely so.
Senator Byrd. Why then does your budget insist that we
choose between the two?
Secretary Slater. Well, clearly the point is well taken.
Before the interstate was well on the way, the fatality rate on
our roadways was about 5.5 for every 100 vehicle miles
traveled. Today it is roughly 1.6. So clearly the improvements
in our system, those improvements have had a significant impact
on the safety of the system itself.
But our proposal does provide for $125 million of the
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority to be placed into the NHTSA
account. That was one of the focuses that we took into account
once we realized that we were going to have about $1.5 billion
more. We also earlier in our NHTSA proposal had recommended an
increase as well to fund research and education programs and
the like, and about $7 million more for funding our grant
programs.
So we have tried to recognize our commitment to safety and
the importance of NHTSA through recommended increases in its
budget. It is, I think, appropriate to argue as to whether we
have done enough. And when it comes to safety, I am not sure
that you can ever do quite enough because one life lost is a
tragedy. But we join you in recognizing the importance of NHTSA
and the importance of investing in its budget.
Senator Byrd. We are both on the same wavelength in that
regard. What I am talking about here is you have cut the
regular appropriation for this agency by 55 percent, down to
$72 million. Then we will do a little sleight of hand by moving
$125 million of the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority funds that
are supposed to be spent on highway construction, and divert
them to reverse the cut that you propose in the core expenses.
In every other instance where you have asked us to divert
these funds, these RABA funds to a non-highway purpose, whether
for mass transit, rail activities or the Access to Jobs
program, you have already asked for an increase in those
programs in your regular budget. The diversion of the RABA
funds would just make that increase even larger. But when it
comes to highway safety, you are cutting the safety agency
severely and then asking us to put the pot right by using these
RABA funds.
How should we interpret this kind of budget gimmickry on
the part of the Administration in terms of your commitment to
highway safety?
Secretary Slater. Well, because we view the Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority recommendation as a part of our overall
budget, we would hope that you would view it as our
recommendation that we have a significant increase in the NHTSA
budget. We would hope that you would see a willingness, again,
to work with you and the members of the committee and the
Senate as a whole to ensure at the end of day that is, in fact,
the case.
Senator Byrd. That is all my questions at this point.
Senator Campbell. Senator Bennett, did you have some
questions?
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
salt lake city projects
Secretary Slater, I want to take the opportunity while you
are here to thank you specifically, individually for your
support of a number of projects that are vital in my home
state. Your continued support of the North-South light rail
transit project is very much appreciated. And I can report to
you and through you to any interested listeners, the project is
a year ahead of schedule and appears to be coming under budget,
two things that are not normally associated with Federal
projects.
With regard to the Airport to University extension of the
North-South project, I should tell you and through you
Administrator Linton, who came to my office and discussed this
issue that last evening, the Utah State Legislature and
Governor Leavett committed $5 million annually for the next 10
years to cover operating costs of the entire Airport to
University extension. That was one of the issues that
Administrator Linton raised with me saying he could not proceed
unless he was sure that the operating subsidy would be in
place, and the Legislature and Governor Leavett have stepped up
to that challenge.
So we would hope that would remove a major obstacle to a
full funding grant agreement for the Airport to University
extension which leads to my question. Can I work with you and
your Department to secure a full funding grant agreement to
include funding for the Airport to University extension so that
the project can be completed prior to the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games?
Secretary Slater. One thing I would like to do, Senator, is
have discussion with Administrator Linton about really what the
Governor and the Legislature have now done. That is a good
report.
Senator Bennett. Subject to my report being accurate is
what you are trying to diplomatically say.
Secretary Slater. Not necessarily that. I think that
clearly we work very closely here together, and I believe the
figures that you are giving me. I just need to know what other
demands we might have on the overall program, and I would like
to visit with Mr. Linton about that before committing to it.
Now I do know that to the extent that this is all a part of
the Downtown Loop area, a part of that whole effort, then
clearly it is within the commitment that has already been made.
But I just do not want to speak out of turn about going beyond
that without having a clear sense of whether we can fully keep
that commitment and would like to just get back with you on the
details of that.
Senator Bennett. All right.
authorization for salt lake city
I worked very hard last year to secure budget authority
both from guaranteed and nonguaranteed funds to support $480
million in appropriations that are needed to complete the
Airport to University project before the Winter Games.
I would ask, if you agree, that Section 3030(a) of TEA-21
authorizes appropriations sufficient to construct the Airport
to University project and that section 3030(c)(2)(b) of TEA-21
also authorizes the appropriation of $480 million for the
project as well as the $160 million for the other core projects
that are needed to stage the Winter Games.
Secretary Slater. Again, Senator, what I would like to do
is look into it. I know that we were looking at a number of
aspects of this overall project. The Downtown Loop is what we
committed to. I know that there was the desire for, as you
noted, the Airport to University extension.
Clearly we are pleased to hear about what the Governor and
the Legislature have done. As you noted, you were quite
successful in your efforts in getting some resources designated
for the project as well.
What we would like to do is just take the new information,
work with you, the Governor, the Legislature and see where we
are with the project, the other aspect of the project.
Senator Bennett. You may give the same answer to this
question, but I need to have it in the record as part of the
conversations. Do you agree that the authority provided in TEA-
21 is sufficient for you to enter into a $640 million full
funding grant agreement?
Secretary Slater. There are just other things that are
necessary----
Senator Bennett. I understand that. But you do agree that
we do have that authority in the law?
Secretary Slater. Well, we have got it authorized.
Senator Bennett. That is right.
Secretary Slater. Yes. And there is the real challenge of
actual appropriations and that is really what we want to work
with you and your colleagues on as well as the Governor and the
Legislature.
The fact that from that end there has been significant
movement, I think, answers one of the questions that Mr. Linton
discussed with you, and we just have to start from there to see
what the distance is yet to be overcome when it comes to
bringing this project to fruition.
Senator Bennett. Okay. In June UTA, Utah Transit Authority,
will be ready to enter a design/build contract that will
shorten the time needed for construction of the Airport to
University project. The contract calls for final design to
begin in June in order to complete the project before 2002. The
Utah Transit Authority will submit a final environment impact
statement and an application for the $640 million full funding
grant agreement before March 15. That is just around the
corner.
Will you work with UTA to expedite your acceptance of the
final environmental impact statement so that a record of
decision can be secured to expedite your decision on a full
funding grant agreement before the June deadline? Again with
all the caveats you have outlined, I want to put you on notice
as to where the timetable is here on trying to get this done.
Secretary Slater. Right. I have noticed, Senator, your
emphasis is on that, and clearly that is appreciated here
because we are trying to, if we can, do this and other projects
that we have definitely already committed to, getting those
done by the Olympics.
We have recently had a meeting with your local officials,
Mayor Corradini and her DOT team on this. We do look forward to
working them and with you as we address this issue.
Let me also, if I may, take this moment to actually commend
the Utah DOT and leaders there as we have had significant
success with the design/build effort underway relating to I-15.
And, hopefully, if we are able to move forward with the
resources and with everyone working together, we can see quite
possibly once again the use of this management approach which,
as you noted, takes off time and brings about the use of a
project much earlier at a much more reasonable cost. And we
commend Utah for taking this kind of approach.
Senator Bennett. I thank you for that. Again, I thank you
for your cooperation as we worked through these sometimes
difficult problems.
controversy over the olympics
I probably should make a statement about the Olympics
because they are in the news, and the newspaper writers always
go for the headline and talk about, quote, the scandal in Salt
Lake City. As our Governor said, I think, very appropriately,
the problems with the International Olympic Committee did not
begin in Salt Lake City. But they will end there.
We are determined to make sure that with the Salt Lake City
Olympics the atmosphere and culture that borders on extortion
that has existed in the International Olympic movement will
stop and that it will be the people of Salt Lake City that see
to it that that kind of thing does stop.
There is no question that the games will be held in Salt
Lake City, it would be absolutely a physical impossibility to
put them on any place else in the world. And if there are going
to be Winter Games in 2002, they will be in Salt Lake City. And
those of us who are determined to see that they are put on in
the finest possible fashion recognize that the No. 1 challenge
we have with respect to the Olympic games is transportation.
I was at the games in Nagano and recognized that the
Japanese spent something like $13 billion to put on those
games, and by far the biggest part of that was transportation
issues. Fortunately, the budget for the Salt Lake City games is
one and a half billion dollars, about a tenth of the amount
that the Japanese spent. We think for that budget we can put on
the most outstanding Winter Games in the history of the
Olympics.
The scandals of the past are being cleaned up and will be
behind us and I hope forgotten by the time we have the
celebration of the games. We recognize that the one thing that
absolutely has to work for the games to work is transportation.
I appreciate your comments about the way the Utah DOT and
UTA are working to solve this. I reciprocate them, again, as I
did in my opening statement. If we had not had the kind of
cooperation and support that we have had from you personally
and from this administration generally, we would be in much
more serious trouble than a few newspaper headlines about some
scholarships that went to the wrong place. So I strongly,
again, want to thank you and commend you for all the work you
are doing and for your willingness to help us work through
these problems in the future.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
Senator, it has been our pleasure and that of the
Administration to work with you and with the citizens of Utah
and we are going to have successful games.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Secretary, before I go to Senator
Byrd, I come from the fourth fastest growing state in the
union. So we have our problems, too, with Denver International
Airport, and I-25 and light rail. As I mentioned a while ago, I
am going to submit some questions to you and I would like the
responses in writing. They were going to be pretty easy
questions, but after hearing Senator Bennett I am going to
toughen up my questions.
olympics selection process
I would like to associate myself with his comments on the
Olympic games. Since Senator Bradley left, I am the only one
here that was on the Olympic team from the Senate and have been
working with Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch and just want to
reaffirm that the United States Olympic Committee nor the Utah
Olympic Committee had anything to do with that. That is an
International Olympic Committee problem.
And this is probably not the place to take it up. But the
way that is set up, they name--if you can imagine this--an
undemocratic process. The USOC does not name its delegates to
the International Olympic Committee. They name the delegates
within your country they want to be the delegates, which puts
the person who is being named in a rather subservient position
of owing something to someone at the international level.
The American Olympic Committee has never been able to get
that changed. I met with them the other day. I told them it
seems to me when you talk about Olympics, you think of gold.
Since the United States Olympic Committee provides about 60
percent of all the money that goes to the International Olympic
Committee, he who provides the gold ought to be writing some of
the rules and so there is a big movement now to get all that
changed.
But it should not reflect on the success of the Olympic
games in Salt Lake. I would hope that ever since the Munich
games we have recognized that when you have big international
events, there is a huge amount of media worldwide which has
created a forum for people that would like to get their
statement out. And the killing of the Jewish team at the Berlin
games was the beginning of kind of organized activities of
terrorism toward athletes at the Olympic games or toward
officials because they know they can get worldwide media.
Since that time, even though it was never intended that the
U.S. Government should get involved in the Olympic games, we
have got to be now. So we do provide security and we provide a
lot of other things, too, and certainly transportation to move
people rapidly is part of the equation, too. We are in the
Olympic games whether we want to be or not from that
standpoint.
With that, Senator Byrd, did you have any additional
questions?
Senator Byrd. Just a few and then I will be done.
corridors
Mr. Secretary, we have exchanged correspondence regarding
two very important initiatives in my state. The Tolsia Highway
and the Mon-Fayette Expressway. Both projects are seeking funds
under the national corridor planning and development program.
Earlier in the year the Federal Highway Administration signaled
that they expected to announce grants for this program by now.
However, we are told now that grants will not be announced
until the spring.
What can you tell me about how this competition is
proceeding and what explains the delay in getting these funds
released?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, we have, as you noted,
gotten some good applications from your state. We, frankly,
were surprised by the public support for the program. We have
actually gotten applications in the amount of at least $2
billion or more. And what we are trying to do is to work our
way through all of that. That is why we have extended the time
a bit.
But this is March. And when we say spring, that is the
commitment that we make and we hope to have an announcement
very soon. But we appreciate your support for the program and
also for communicating your interest in the two projects that
have come from West Virginia.
Senator Byrd. One of the projects, the Mon-Fayette
Expressway will link critically important traffic between West
Virginia and Pennsylvania. As a result, the State of
Pennsylvania has voiced strong support for West Virginia's
application.
Given the focus of this program on enhancing trade
corridors on an interstate basis, will special consideration be
given to these projects which have received statements of
support from neighboring states?
Secretary Slater. Clearly, because many of these corridors
connect states or run through neighboring states, that will be
one of the factors. And, frankly, getting words of support,
encouragement from members like yourselves who actually gave us
the ability to come forward with these kinds of programs, that
is very helpful and also hearing from other states involved. A
lot of times there are match requirements and clearly you have
to have a commitment on the part of the states involved to be a
partner with you in funding these kinds of important projects.
Senator Byrd. Another project for which the state has
sought funding, the Tolsia Highway project is critically
important to the economic development of southwestern West
Virginia. Will the program take into account the economic
development aspects of particular highways in evaluating who
receives funding from this program?
Secretary Slater. Well, as noted, Senator, during my
opening remarks, I mentioned that as we have reviewed our role
as a department in the development of our strategic plan, we
have clearly recognized that safety has to be our No. 1
priority and that the whole essence of transportation is
enhancing mobility. But there are also benefits to the economy,
to the environment and to national security.
Clearly taking into account the economic impact that this
kind of investment can have on a given region, I am thinking
now of Appalachia and the work of the Appalachian Regional
Commission. Your involvement in that effort over the years has
clearly demonstrated that transportation investment can
increase the economic prowess potential of a community because
it connects that community with a broader community of
activity, trade, commerce, individuals, that these are factors
that will be taken into account as we make these decisions.
Additional committee questions
Senator Byrd. I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
appearance before the committee. And I thank you for your
responses to the questions.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
revenue aligned budget authority and firewalls
Question. Transportation has been on an interesting budgetary
journey this past year. In July 1998, the President signed the TEA-21
law that created budgetary firewalls for highway and transit spending.
Last October--three months later--the Administration insisted on
increased funding for the Access to Jobs program in addition to the
funding included within the TEA-21 firewalls. Last month--seven months
after the President signed TEA-21 into law--the Administration
submitted a budget that would divert funding from the highway firewall
into the transit account, the rail account, and the NHTSA non-firewall
account. In addition, discrepancies in outlay scoring estimates between
OMB and CBO with regard to the firewall accounts cost the discretionary
caps over a billion dollars in outlays in fiscal year 2000.
In light of the Administration's actions since the creation of the
highway and transit firewalls less than a year ago, do you think that
off-budget or firewall treatment for the FAA accounts is advisable?
Answer. Both off-budget and firewall treatment for FAA is not
advisable and we have not proposed it in the budget. Our nation has
moved from a decade of enormous deficit into an era of strong economic
growth and budget surpluses, due in part to the fiscal discipline
required when making critical tradeoffs under a unified budget. The
Administration strongly opposes any provisions that would drain
anticipated budget surpluses prior to fulfilling our commitment to save
Social Security and Medicare first.
Question. Will you aggressively and actively oppose the creation of
a firewall for the Federal Aviation Administration or any part of that
organization?
Answer. Yes. The President's Budget provides Congress an
alternative proposal, which would fully fund the Federal Aviation
Administration with aviation user charges (and excise taxes) that do
not threaten the surplus or other federally funded programs.
Question. Please provide for the record any correspondence you have
received from congressional committee chairmen and ranking members
regarding the Administration's fiscal year 2000 RABA proposal.
Answer. A letter from Chairman Chafee is attached.
Letter From Senator John H. Chafee
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1999.
Hon. Rodney Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Slater: I am writing to give you my initial reaction
to the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 Department of
Transportation programs under the jurisdiction of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.
As you know, the President's budget proposal includes a $1.5
billion increase in transportation spending above the levels assumed in
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. You will recall
that pursuant to TEA-21, any fluctuation in federal gas tax revenue is
mirrored by a corresponding adjustment to Highway Trust Fund
expenditures. Any increase in revenue would be distributed equally
across all Federal-Aid highway programs. This funding mechanism was
included to ensure that transportation funding remains deficit neutral
and to ensure that Federal gas tax revenues are directed to
transportation programs.
The President's budget proposes to distribute this $1.5 billion
increase in a different manner than provided in TEA-21. Specifically,
the budget proposes that several programs, including transit and rail
programs and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ), receive the majority of the $1.5 billion increase.
As you know, I am a strong supporter of many of these programs
targeted for increased funding, and in fact, fought for them during the
TEA-21 deliberations. Amongst these programs I support are CMAQ,
transit, and highway safety. However, I have great reservations about
the President's proposal. I believe this proposal has the potential to
reopen the TEA-21 debate, particularly with regard to the state funding
formula issue. You will recall that the funding formulas proved to be
one of the most difficult issues to resolve during the TEA-21
negotiations. The President's budget proposal would upset the delicate
balance finally achieved in those negotiations. Transferring the
increased funds to transit programs and CMAQ skews the underlying
formula agree to in TEA-21. I must oppose reopening such a sensitive
issue, especially considering that TEA-21 was signed into law less than
one year ago.
Notwithstanding my concern with the proposed formula changes, the
President's budget also upsets the programmatic balance established in
TEA-21, that is, the relative emphasis current law places on, for
example, bridges, transit, and interstate maintenance spending. Again,
I do not see a compelling reason to reopen these carefully negotiated
issues.
Finally, it is regrettable to see that the Administration's budget
proposes to avoid the jurisdiction of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee. This is particularly troublesome given how closely we
worked with the Administration to craft a fair transportation bill.
If you would like to discuss these concerns, please call me or have
your staff call Mr. Dan Corbett of my Environmental and Public Works
Committee Staff at 224-7863.
Sincerely,
John H. Chafee.
user fees
Question. Each year since first assuming office in 1993, the
Clinton Administration has proposed a budget for the Department of
Transportation that is rife with new user fees and increases to current
fees. Each year for the past seven years, Congress has rejected the
Administration's proposal to raise taxes on transportation users. In
fact, this subcommittee added a provision to last year's act to
prohibit the submission of user fee proposal in the fiscal year 2000
budget request. Nevertheless, you are again requesting approximately
$1.6 billion in new and increased user fee that Congress has already
opposed. While the Administration continues to propose the tax
increases that are ``dead on arrival'' on Capitol Hill, I believe we
have reached the point where we can no longer afford these budget
gimmicks. Do you sincerely believe that the Department cannot
satisfactorily execute its duties without adopting a tax and spend
policy?
Answer. As in previous Administrations the Clinton Administration
policy is to introduce user fee funding where appropriate. Users
generally are more willing to pay fees when such fees are dedicated to
improving the quality of the programs that affect them directly.
Question. If Congress does not act on these tax proposals, and I
believe it is safe to assume that we won't, what areas of the
Department's budget would you, Mr. Secretary, cut to account for this
$1.6 billion shortfall? With highways and transit protected by the
firewall would you cut the FAA, Coast Guard, Federal Railroad
Administration, or the safety administrations or do you believe it more
appropriate to cut them across the board? What specific program
reductions would you make to make up this shortfall? If Congress does
not act on these tax proposals, are you willing to assure us that this
will be the last time that you submit a budget that proposes new or
increased user fees?
Answer. If user fees are not enacted, there will be an overall
budget gap to be filled. How such gap is to be made up would be one of
the subjects of the overall budget negotiations between the
Administration and the Congress. I cannot make any assurances about
user fees included in future budget submissions.
economic development highways
Question. The creation or improvement of transportation facilities
through underdeveloped areas can act as a stimulus for economic growth
and opportunity. It would seem to me that we should take a look at some
of the rural areas that have not experienced significant economic
growth over the past couple of decades and consider whether improving
their highway facilities to tie them more closely to areas that have
experienced greater economic growth or improving their regional
airports for either cargo or passenger service might be a way of
helping these depressed areas generate sustainable economic and
commercial growth. Please describe any currently authorized programs
that are directed toward these goals.
Answer. The Department provides funds for an important program that
is the key to the economic development of the Appalachian Region. The
economic condition of the region, comprising areas within 13 states,
has historically lagged far behind the Nation as a whole. Growth
depends on overcoming the region's isolation and providing this under
served area with adequate infrastructure. The Department addresses this
problem by providing $2.25 billion for fiscal years 1999 through 2003
for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) program.
Supporting economic development in the Appalachia Region by
strengthening the highway infrastructure will improve not only the
region, but will have a synergistic affect on the Nation as a whole.
In 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was established
to help develop the region, and it runs the ADHS program. The
Department makes funds available to the ARC for allocation by
administrative formula to the 13 states to complete the 3,025 mile
system authorized by Congress. FHWA administers the program and
individual projects in the States through FHWA Division offices.
Approximately 80 percent of the system is complete or under
construction.
A study completed by Wilbur Smith Associates in July of 1998
indicates that this program has been extremely successful. The study
focuses on the impact on economic development of 12 of the largely
completed corridor segments. It concludes that by the year 2015, the
ADHS will have created 42,000 Appalachia jobs and increased production
or value added by $2.9 billion over the same time period. In addition,
it will have created total travel efficiencies valued at $4.89 billion
over the 1965 to 2025 period. The ADHS has helped the Appalachian
Region better able to compete for economic opportunity. This
competitiveness is valued at $2.7 billion over the 1965 to 2025 period.
In addition to this program, TEA-21 authorizes a total of $700
million for the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and
the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. Under this new
discretionary program, the Secretary may provide funding to significant
regional or multistate highway corridors after taking into
consideration several factors including the extent to which such a
corridor may ``encourage or facilitate major multistate or regional
mobility and economic growth and development in areas under served by
existing highway infrastructure.''
The Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program
is not authorized to specifically direct funding for the purpose of
helping depressed areas generate sustainable economic and commercial
growth. However, the Administration's aviation authorization proposal
includes provisions that should help encourage more funding to upgrade
nonprimary airports to accommodate turbine-powered aircraft, such as
business aircraft. The Administration proposal also includes a new,
five-year, $35 million grant program to help rural communities attract
increased air service; an allowable use of those grant funds would be
to make available necessary airport facilities.
Question. Would you be willing to work with me and other interested
members of the Senate to find other ways of achieving these goals?
Answer. DOT is a strong believer in programs such as the
Appalachian Development Highway System program that support economic
growth in rural areas. It is the role of the Federal Government to spur
economic growth to unlock the potential in all areas of the U.S. The
Department certainly will work with you to achieve these goals.
access to jobs
Question. Last year the administration successfully pushed for an
increase above the guaranteed firewall level for the new TEA-21
``Access to Jobs'' transit program, from $50 million to $75 million.
And this year, you propose to use $75 million from the RABA funds to
double this program's funding above the guaranteed level. Doesn't the
budget request ``jump the gun'' by proposing to double this program
above the authorized level, before DOT has had any chance to evaluate
the program's success? How long will it take to evaluate the success of
this new program?
Answer. The budget requests doubling the funding for the Access to
Jobs program, a key element to the success of welfare reform. Gaps in
our nation's public transportation system too often create barriers to
employment for people who cannot afford to own a reliable car. The Job
Access and Reverse Commute program will help build the transit services
necessary to help welfare recipients and low-income workers reach
employment opportunities and move from welfare rolls to payrolls. It is
important to make an early investment in this program to achieve all of
the benefits of welfare reform, including improving the lives of
current welfare recipients, utilizing all of the nation's human
resources, and reducing welfare costs to all levels of governments.
The Department has already seen a significant interest in the
program, receiving 280 applications for fiscal year 1999. These
applications request a total of over $111 million, in comparison to the
$75 million appropriated. The program demands a very high level of
local coordination before an application is submitted. Considering the
short period of time between the enactment of TEA-21 and the
application deadline, the Department is pleased with the response it
has received. Localities will have more time to foster relationships,
coordinate among interested parties, and develop applications for
fiscal year 2000. As the program gains visibility among human service
agencies, and with more time for coordination, the Department expects
to see significantly more applications competing for Job Access and
Reverse Commute funds in the next fiscal year.
Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the program's performance will be
measured against the performance goal (increase the number of
employment sites that are made accessible by Job Access and Reverse
Commute transportation services) included in the Department's annual
Performance Plan. Furthermore, in accordance with TEA-21, FTA will
conduct a full program evaluation in fiscal year 2000.
Question. The Federal Transit Administration had planned to
announce the 1999 Access to Jobs grants by the end of February. Please
provide a listing of these grants for the record.
Answer. The FTA regional offices and headquarters have completed an
extensive review of all applications, and are now in the process of
making final recommendations for grant award in April. Once grantees
have been selected, the Department will provide the Chairman with a
final list.
access to jobs grant selection criteria
Question. What were the criteria for grant selection? Please also
provide a copy of the published criteria for the record.
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration is selecting grantees
based on the statutory criteria provided by TEA-21. These criteria were
published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1998, and they read as
follows (the number of points in parentheses indicates the maximum
level of points for a given factor):
1. Coordinated human/services/transportation planning process and
Regional Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation plan (25
points). Evaluated based on the extent to which the applicant:
A. Demonstrates a collaborative planning process, including: 1.
coordination with, and the financial commitment of, existing
transportation providers; 2. coordination with the state or local
agencies that administer the state program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
and Welfare to Work grant programs); 3. coordination with public
housing agencies (including Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities as defined by the Secretary of HUD) if any, which
intend to apply for Welfare to Work Housing Vouchers from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development; 4. consultation with the
community to be served; and 5. consultation with other area
stakeholders.
B. Presents a Regional Job Access and Reverse Commute
Transportation Plan addressing the transportation needs of welfare
recipients and low-income individuals.
2. Demonstrated Need for Additional Transportation Services (30
points). Evaluated based on the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates:
A. in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance a Job
Access project, the relative need for additional services in the area
to be served to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income
individuals to and from specified jobs, training and other employment
support services; and
B. in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance a
Reverse Commute project, the need for additional services to transport
individuals to suburban employment opportunities.
3. Extent to Which Proposed Services Will Meet the Need for
Services (35 points). Evaluated based on the extent to which:
A. The proposed service will meet the need.
B. The applicant demonstrates the maximum use of existing
transportation service providers and expands transit networks or hours
of service, or both.
4. Financial Commitments (10 points). Evaluated based on the extent
to which the applicant:
A. Identifies long-term financing strategies to support proposed
services.
B. Identifies financial commitments by human services providers.
C. Identifies financial commitments by existing transportation
providers.
FTA also will consider the extent to which the applicant addresses
the following variable factors: (10 bonus points total)
--1. Innovative approaches that are responsive to identified service
needs;
--2. Linkages to other employment-related support services; and
--3. Other strategies that are effective in meeting program goals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
border programs
Question. Secretary Slater, as part of our work on the TEA-21
legislation last year, Congress expanded authorized funding levels and
projects dealing with increased traffic at international border
crossings. New Mexico is one of the border states that is feeling
pressure from increased traffic; both positively due to trade, and
negatively due to drug trafficking and other safety concerns.
I helped to secure a few amendments which try to address some of
these national transportation concerns. One was to ensure that the new
Border and Trade program would utilize funds to detect and deter
narcotics smuggling. Another was funding under the Trade Corridor and
Border Crossing planning program should address projected increases in
commercial border traffic. How has the Department planned to focus
funding for the detection and deterrence of narcotics smuggling within
the Border and Trade Program?
Answer. The Department will diligently and fairly review any
application from an eligible recipient of Coordinated Border
Infrastructure (CBI) funds that contains work elements linked to
detection and deterrence of narcotics smuggling. By statute, eligible
recipients are States and MPOs.
Question. Has the Department evaluated the projected future
increases in commercial border traffic at border crossings?
Answer. The Department does not make an official DOT forecast of
projected future increases in commercial border traffic at border
crossings. The Department, does however, consider projections made by
other agencies (e.g., States) in the context of reviewing applications
for CBI funds.
Question. As to the new Border program funding, what criteria is
the Department using for establishing border impact? For example, is
direct proximity to the border imperative, or can arteries effected by
increased traffic, even at further distance from the border, be
considered?
Answer. The statute requires CBI projects to be in a border region.
The Department considers projects within 100 km (62 mi) of the US/
Canada or US/Mexico border to be in a border region. This consideration
is based on language in an international treaty, which in turn, was
based on an earlier agreement (Article I(d) of Annex II to the August
14, 1983, Agreement Between the United States of America and the United
Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area). The purpose of the earlier noted
planning effort is similar to the purpose of this portion of the
language in TEA-21.
nondestructive evaluation and testing
Question. Secretary Slater, the Administration continues to put an
emphasis on the use of technology in transportation. You know of my
interest in the work that is being done by the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC), which is supported by the
Federal Aviation Administration, and is now a partner in the Center of
Excellence for Airworthiness Assurance. This collaboration has been
very successful, but has had a bit of a set back this year with final
congressional approval of the President's lower 1999 budget request for
the research programs funding these activities.
Mr. Secretary, will you please provide the Subcommittee with the
Department's current funding profile for the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Evaluation Center in Albuquerque, and for the various
components of the Center of Excellence for Airworthiness Assurance
Program?
Answer. In 1998, the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Center (AANC)
received approximately $750,000 in operational support (infrastructure
support and short-term tasking), and another $2,250,000 in funding for
specific technology testing and validation through the Airworthiness
Assurance Center for Excellence (AACE).
Including the funding to AANC, the AACE received approximately
$8,850,000 in contract work in fiscal year 1998. AACE also received
approximately $300,000 in grants from the FAA. This funding level was
established in response to Congressional direction pertaining to AACE
and the Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC). (ETC was integrated into AACE
in 1998.) In fiscal year 1999, FAA anticipates funding AANC at $3.3
million, including $1.9 million through AACE. An additional $1.1
million in contract work and grants is also anticipated for AACE.
funding for aanc
Question. AANC in Albuquerque has been funded at $3 million per
year. I believe the FAA intends to continue this level of support,
however under the new Center $2 million of this amount will flow
through this new mechanism. Do you expect the 1999 level of support of
the AANC to remain at $3 million? When does the Department expect to
commit these funds?
Answer. Through an interagency agreement, the FAA has obligated
$1.2 million from its fiscal year 1999 Aging Aircraft budget to the
Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC) for operational
support and short-term tasking. Also, through this interagency
agreement, AANC will receive a supplemental $250,000 for the purchase
of a test-bed aircraft (a retired Boeing 747). In addition to this
direct funding, FAA anticipates obligating another $1.9 million to AANC
through the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE). This
figure includes $1.7 million for inspection-related research, $100,000
for composite repair doubler validation, and $75,000 for rotor craft
research, totaling approximately $3.3 million.
Question. What is the request for the AANC and the program elements
associated with the Center for Excellence in the fiscal year 2000
budget, and how does that compare to the proposed plan for fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC)
budget requests in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, submitted as
part of the Aging Aircraft budget line item, is approximately $3
million. The Airworthiness Assurance Center (AACE) does not have a
specific budget request line item in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year
2000. Rather, other Aircraft Safety budget line items request a minimum
of $1 million for AACE-related work in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000.
Question. Is the request sufficient to support ongoing work? What
are the program goals for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 under
the FAA's plan?
Answer. The Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center's
(AANC) efforts are predominantly in support of the Aging Aircraft
Research Program, whose budget for fiscal year 1999 is $14.7 million.
The goals of the program will be satisfied by the current budget
request. In particular, the funding request for AANC is sufficient to
maintain the existing facilities and support projected needs in
inspection research. In general, it is anticipated that AANC will play
a key role in transitioning to industry at least two significant
inspection techniques (technologies and procedures) per year.
AANC may be awarded additional tasks in the areas of rotor craft
safety, composite repair, and non-structural systems, as appropriate.
The funding for these tasks must come from the requests for these
individual areas.
aviation safety research
Question. How does the budget request square with the commitment of
the Administration to improve safety in the skies? The Vice President's
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security defined the need for safety
research and the FAA Administrator has established a Safer Skies
initiative. Did the FAA request additional funding for the
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence in its budget submission
to you, Mr. Secretary? Did the Department submit a request for
additional funding to OMB?
Answer. The agency's overall R,E&D budget request reflects an
increased focus on air traffic, cockpit, and maintenance human factors
issues. The Aircraft Safety program request places highest priorities
on survivability, weather, and uncontained engine failure projects. In
October 1998, in response to the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security recommendations, the FAA released its Aging
Transport Non-structural Systems Plan. This plan is the foundation for
the research program in support of the Commission. Immediately upon its
release, the FAA reprogrammed $700,000 for aging nonstructural systems
research.
aging nonstructural components
Question. The AANC and the Center of Excellence has focused its
research and technology development efforts largely on structural aging
in view of the current fleet of commercial aircraft. The FAA has
recognized the nonstructural aging issues as needing to be addressed,
for example, the wiring issue. I understand that the FAA plans to
commit a few hundred thousand dollars to this effort in fiscal year
1999. Can you please tell the Subcommittee what the current
nonstructural aging program expects to accomplish in 1999 and how much
the FAA intends to commit to this area of research?
Answer. The objective of the Aging Systems Research Program is to
work with industry (airframe manufacturers and aircraft operators), the
Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to accomplish six specific tasks outlined in the FAA
Aging Transports Non-Structural Systems Plan.
The research program was initiated in early fiscal year 1999,
immediately after the release of the plan. It is anticipated that
funding ($700,000 reprogrammed from the aging structures program) will
be spent in two ways:
Development of aircraft arc-fault circuit breakers: This project is
a joint effort with the Office of Naval Research. A Broad Agency
Announcement will be released this month and a technical effort
initiated by mid-May. The development of arc fault circuit interrupters
will reduce the incidence of arcing faults capable of causing
electrical fire or explosion. The TWA 800 accident may have been caused
by the spark-erosion of a metal conduit and subsequent vapor ignition.
This type of fault would be preventable by this technology.
Development of a validation infrastructure: This project is
progressing on two fronts: The acquisition of a wire test system, and
acquisition of a systems test bed aircraft. The acquisition of a wire
test system is a joint activity with the Product Reliability and
Maintainability Office (PRAM) of the Air Force. The wire test system is
applicable across aircraft platforms. FAA intends to apply it first to
the DC 9 aircraft located at the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Center
(AANC). The PRAM office and the contractor (GRC/Eclipse) have received
and addressed the FAA's technical requirements. FAA recently received
and provided feedback on a draft proposal from GRC/Eclipse.
On the acquisition of a systems test bed aircraft, FAA is working
with the Air Transport Association's (ATA) Aging Systems Task Force to
explore the possibility of working together to jointly satisfy ATA's
obligation to do tear-down evaluations of soon-to-be-retired aircraft,
and the FAA's commitment to establish and baseline a systems testbed.
In effect, the ATA members would assist FAA in providing a baseline for
the aircraft. In the process, they will help to satisfy their
obligation to do tear-down inspections. An added benefit of this
approach is that the ATA would be more inclined to accept and support
the resulting baseline. FAA expects to acquire an older Boeing 747 by
the summer of 1999.
Question. I understand that the fiscal year 2000 request for this
area of work is about $15 million overall. What does the Administration
assume will be accomplished in the nonstructural aging area under its
budget request? How much is budgeted for this work?
Answer. The entire Aging Aircraft budget request for fiscal year
2000 is approximately $16 million. In fiscal year 2000, The FAA expects
to accomplish the following in aging nonstructural systems research:
Complete wire assessments directed at determining the feasibility of
managing aircraft wire safety issues with life limits. Determine the
adequacy of visual inspection for assessment of wire condition. Develop
an advanced prototype arc-fault circuit interrupter suitable for flight
testing. Initiate research into advanced technologies and techniques
for wire inspection and testing. And initiate research into flight
critical mechanical systems.
Other efforts will be initiated in response to the recommendations
of the newly-formed Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory
Committee and the Air Transport Association's Aging Systems Task Force.
propulsion systems safety research
Question. In 1998, the FAA in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation announced the enhanced inspection
initiative for engines. The focus of the program is on improved
inspection practices for critical rotating components of jet engines, a
significant factor in reducing the number of propulsion-related
incidents. The Engine Titanium Consortium, which brings together a
leading research university with the major U.S. engine manufacturers
was established by the FAA to address inspection research, development
and implementation needs. What are the DOT plans to assure adequate
funding for this program in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC) was allocated $3.4
million in fiscal year 1998. This is sufficient to fully fund ETC
through fiscal year 1999. Within the fiscal year 2000 budget request,
ETC funding is anticipated to be $2.6 million.
short & long term research efforts
Question. The FAA has often been accused of ``tombstone
technology'' with advances only being considered and made in the wake
of some major incident. Industrial research efforts are being driven
more and more by economics. Both the FAA and industrial focus is on
short-term payback. What steps are in place to assure that your
research programs are addressing both short-term issues and long-term
needs?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, approximately 35 percent of the
research budget is for long range research. FAA provides guidance to
researchers that emphasizes the need to sustain a viable long-term
research program, FAA tracks requirements for both long-term and short-
term needs, and when FAA constructs a research portfolio, they ensure
that there is a balance between meeting long-term and short-term needs.
Additionally, FAA is working closely with NASA to ensure that their
aeronautics research program, which has a time horizon further out than
FAA's, is responsive to long-term user needs.
universities & national laboratories
Question. Are leading edge universities and national laboratories
being included in the research process similar to the Airworthiness
Assurance Center of Excellence program?
Answer. The use of leading edge universities and national
laboratories is an important part of FAA's research program. In the
addition to the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence, FAA has
Centers of Excellence (COE) for Aviation Operations Research and for
Airport Pavement Research. The University of California at Berkeley,
the University of Maryland, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology are the principle universities
associated with the COE for Aviation Operations Research. The
University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign and Northwestern University
are the principle universities associated with the COE for Airport
Pavement Research. Additionally, with NASA, the FAA sponsors the Joint
University Program. This program involves Princeton University, Ohio
University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
industry initiatives
Question. Are adequate plans in place to assure that the basic
research programs that complement the industry initiatives and other
short-terms programs are also in place?
Answer. The FAA engages in continuous dialogue with users and
industry to ensure that the research program fits in with industry
initiatives. This dialogue includes user initiatives for new
operational concepts. FAA does this routinely with the FAA's Research,
Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee, RTCA, the Air
Traffic Control Association, and a variety other groups representing
users and manufacturers. For example, the R,E&D Advisory Committee, a
group representing both users and manufacturers, meets three times a
year to provide the Administrator guidance on research investments.
They annually review the proposed research portfolio to ensure its
responsiveness to the needs of the aviation community and, when
necessary, provide recommendations for change to that program to
improve the value of that portfolio to the aviation community.
FAA also meets with industry, when necessary, to address specific
issues. These sessions are geared to address issues in a specific area
and are undertaken to ensure, as much as possible, that FAA's programs
and those of the manufacturers are directed towards meeting the
aviation system users' needs. For example, FAA is sponsoring an
Aviation Weather Research Forum on March 24, as part of a strategy to
coordinate Federal Government and private sector activity in the
availability and use of enhanced weather information.
aviation safety inspector training
Question. Aviation safety is a major focus of this Subcommittee's
work. This past year has been a real success with no fatalities in
commercial air travel. The key to this success is largely in the hands
of the aviation inspectors, and these same inspectors are the key to
getting new technology into the actual inspections. How would you
characterize the training budget for aviation safety inspectors? Are
the proposed resources sufficient to adequately train these inspectors
and keep them up to date on the latest aircraft and technology?
Answer. Within the overall constraints of the fiscal year 1999
budget, the FAA has allocated an appropriate level of resources to meet
training needs for aviation safety inspectors, including training for
the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS); Safety Performance
Analysis System (SPAS); Operations Specification; Certification,
Standardization, and Evaluation Team (CSET); and systems safety. As
technical training for recent new hires is provided, they will be
integrated into the inspector workforce to perform job functions such
as record checks and facility inspections.
aviation safety inspector travel
Question. Is the FAA providing sufficient travel funds for those
inspectors who must travel? I understand that in testimony before the
House authorizing subcommittee, the Albuquerque Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO) was advised that travel funds are limiting
overnight travel after this month so that the 12 inspectors can no
longer service flight operations in El Paso. The witness raised the
issue of both foregone inspections for some 2,000 flights, as well as a
staffing deficit of as many as 12 inspectors for this office.
Answer. Job performance travel is a critical element in aviation
safety inspectors' certification, surveillance and inspection work.
Safety-related travel continues to be funded, and the FAA will conduct
over 300,000 inspections, evaluations, and audits of air carriers,
manufacturers, and personnel in the aviation industry this fiscal year.
Given the fiscal year 1999 budget constraints, all non-operational and
non-training travel has been prohibited, thus conserving funds for
critical job performance activities.
Albuquerque FSDO is servicing flight operations in El Paso. Travel
to El Paso is closely monitored, but inspectors continue to be assigned
work in that area. The FSDO staffing had been at or near 17 inspectors
since October 1, 1997, until three inspectors left since October 1998.
aviation safety inspector staffing
Question. How do you characterize the FAA's safety inspection
program? How many inspectors are currently on board? Do they have
sufficient support staff? Do they have the necessary funding to do a
good job?
Answer. The safety inspection program is continuing to operate in
accordance with nationally developed priorities and requirements. Some
work activities will be delayed until the third and fourth quarters of
this fiscal year due to budget restrictions.
Based on the current FAA staffing standards applicable to Flight
Standards field offices, FAA is close to full staffing for both
aviation safety inspector (ASI) and safety support positions. As of
February 28, 1999, Flight Standards had 3,257 field inspectors and 720
field support on board.
Funding restrictions are in place to reduce or eliminate certain
types of travel and training. Priority in travel funding goes to the
performance of certification, surveillance and inspection work
activities. Restrictions are in place on such items as supplies,
equipment, back-filling positions vacated by attrition, and
administrative travel.
air transportation oversight system (atos)
Question. The FAA continually implements new safety programs as
problems are identified. The Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS)
was designed to manage the certification of new carriers entering
service. I understand that the training funding situation is impeding
the implementation of this new program, and that the FAA actually
redirected funding out of the Flight Standards budget which will
exacerbate this problem. What is the FAA's rationale for this
redirection of funding, and what are the plans for ATOS in the fiscal
year 2000 budget?
Answer. The FAA decided to move funds from Flight Standards and
other FAA organizations to address unbudgeted cost increases,
unspecified reductions during the appropriations process, and loss of
anticipated user fees. Flight Standards has therefore had to reduce
planned spending in several areas, including technical training. The
Flight Standards Service is funding all of the required ``baseline''
training that the ATOS policy requires before aviation safety
inspectors can work in the ATOS program. However, due to funding
limitations, the Service will be unable to fund the aircraft-specific
flight and systems training that is called for by the ATOS policy
document. Fiscal year 2000 planned ATOS training includes carryover
requirements from fiscal year 1999, as well as funds to develop and
revise the ATOS training to prepare for the ATOS Phase II program, and
begin training the inspectors who will be needed to work the Phase II
portion of the ATOS program.
Question. I understand that a new carrier came on line this past
October to serve the Pacific Northwest. Could you please describe for
the Subcommittee how ATOS is working in this case? Is ATOS being
implemented and what type of surveillance is the FAA undertaking to
appropriately certify this new carrier for service? If ATOS is not
being carried out, why not?
Answer. ATOS is based on using system safety and risk management
certification and surveillance concepts to proactively prevent
accidents. Although not completely developed, Phase I of ATOS was
implemented on October 1, 1998. This implementation included the ten
largest air carriers based on the number of passengers carried. Phase I
also includes any new air carriers certified under a systems safety-
based certification process that the FAA is currently finalizing. It is
anticipated that newly certificated air carriers, who have been
certified under the new process, will be coming into ATOS in fiscal
year 2000. The carrier described as serving the Pacific Northwest has
not been certificated under a systems safety-based process. Therefore,
it will be included in Phase II of ATOS, which will include all other
14 CFR part 121 air carriers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
safety hazards of sport utility vehicles (suv's) and light trucks
Question. What Is DOT doing to address the known safety hazards of
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks?
NHTSA recently announced that during routine side impact crash
tests many SUV's unexpectedly rolled over, likely due to their high
centers of gravity. In fact, fully 37 percent of fatal crashes in SUV's
involve rollover. This compares to only 15 percent for cars. Simple
safety changes, such as stricter roof crush standards, could help to
address this serious problem. What is DOT doing to address the serious
rollover problem? Are you planning to revise SUV and light truck
rollover standards?
Answer. Rollover is one of the Department's top priorities. While
recently two SUV's rolled over in the side impact New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) crash test and one in the side impact compliance test,
it should be emphasized that the vast majority of rollover crashes
involve a single vehicle. NHTSA has initiated a number of engineering
and consumer information initiatives to address the rollover issue.
NHTSA recently completed test track research on a number of
rollover-inducing maneuvers to determine which might be most useful for
identifying potential stability problems. The results are currently
being analyzed to determine the feasibility of a rulemaking action or
consumer information program that addresses vehicle rollover
propensity.
NHTSA is continuing actions that may lead to improvements in roof
strength and door retention. Research is near completion on the study
of procedures and potential benefits for upgrading Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 216, ``Roof Crush Resistance.'' Based on this
research, the NHTSA will make a determination of possible rulemaking in
the spring of 1999. Many of the fatalities and injuries in SUV
rollovers are due to full or partial ejection due to door opening.
NHTSA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking this year which
will propose upgrades to the strength requirements of FMVSS 206, ``Door
Locks and Retention Components,'' which will be applicable to all
passenger vehicles. Future rulemaking may also include the use of
advanced side glazing for vehicle windows, and research on integrated
seating systems that could help reduce injuries in rollover crashes.
Question. Have you issued warnings for current and potential SUV
and light truck owners about the rollover risks associated with these
vehicles?
Answer. On March 9, NHTSA issuing a final rule upgrading the 15-
year-old text-only vehicle rollover warning label. In addition to using
bright colors and graphics, the new label includes the heading,
``Warning: Higher Rollover Risk''. Under the heading are instructions
to avoid abrupt maneuvers and excessive speed, and to always buckle up.
The new label must be placed on either the sun visor or the driver side
window of new vehicles. NHTSA is also requiring additional information
on rollover in the owner's manual. These changes are expected to make
the information more understandable to consumers and increase the
chance that the labels can affect driver and passenger behavior to
reduce rollovers and their consequences.
Also, NHTSA is noting for the public in their NCAP consumer
information materials (brochure, Web Page, etc.) any vehicles that
rolled over in the side impact NCAP test. Currently, NHTSA does not
have a clear understanding of the mechanism that caused these SUV's to
roll over in the side impact tests, and cannot say that these specific
SUV models are more prone to rollover than other vehicles in the SUV
class of vehicles. Nonetheless, the tests do reinforce real world crash
experience with sport utility vehicles: SUVs--when struck in a side
impact collision--are more prone to rollover than passenger cars.
Accordingly, NHTSA is undertaking several actions to better understand
this phenomenon. Test films are being re-evaluated and future tests
will have additional high speed cameras for an engineering analysis of
the vehicle behavior. SUV manufacturers have been contacted for
information and their views. Real world crash and injury data are being
analyzed to compare with the lab test results.
environmental impacts of suv's and light trucks
Question. What are the environmental impacts of SUV's and light
trucks?
SUV and light truck sales are now more than half of the new vehicle
market. Yet their fuel economy and emissions standards are much less
strict than those for automobiles. This may have a profound
environmental impact. The average SUV or light truck emits 70 tons of
carbon dioxide over its lifetime. In contrast, the average car emits
only 38 tons over its life. We seem to be turning back the clock on the
environment. Does DOT plan to require SUV's and light trucks to meet
environmental standards similar to those required of automobiles?
Answer. The Department of Transportation does not have the
authority to require SUV's and light trucks to meet environmental
standards similar to those required of automobiles. That authority
resides with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is
currently working on a rulemaking proposal for ``Tier 2 Vehicle
Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control'' that would require
the same emission standards to be applied to passenger cars and light
duty trucks under 8,500 lbs GVWR with a phase-in for passenger cars and
light light duty trucks (LLDT) (those under 6,000 lbs GVWR) between
model years 2004 and 2007 and for heavy light duty trucks (HDLT) (those
between 6,000 and 8,500 lbs GVWR) between model years 2008 and 2009.
The Department of Transportation does have responsibility for
setting Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The statutory
criteria that NHTSA must consider in setting CAFE standards include
``the need of the United States to conserve energy,'' but not
specifically to reduce vehicle emissions. Congress set the passenger
car standard of 27.5 mpg for Model Year (MY) 1985 and thereafter. There
is no default standard for light trucks; NHTSA must set the standard
for each future model year. NHTSA has done this for MYs 1979-2000, and
in April will establish the standard for MY 2001 light trucks.
Provisions in the DOT Appropriations Act for fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999 have forbidden NHTSA from raising fuel economy standards
during these fiscal years. This results in the light truck CAFE
standard being frozen at 20.7 mpg for MYs 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes that the Congressional prohibition
not continue so that NHTSA can resume its historical approach to
setting and reviewing fuel economy standards, using the statutory
criteria to determine the maximum feasible level.
argentina
Question. What can be done to ensure competition in the air market
between the U.S. and Argentina?
American Airlines is the only carrier currently authorized to
operate non-stop service between the U.S. and Argentina. The current
agreement does not permit any others. American has also been given
Justice Department approval to invest in the Argentine national
airline, under the expectation that Argentina would open their skies to
other carriers. This has not happened. What has DOT done to encourage
Argentina to open the non-stop market with the U.S.? What is DOT's
position concerning allowing the American Airlines alliance with the
Argentine national airline to go forward before the market is opened?
Answer. Under the existing agreement with Argentina, two U.S.
carriers, American and United, serve the U.S.-Argentina market. Each
carrier is authorized to operate 14 round trip B-747 flights per week
or their equivalent in smaller aircraft.
The Department is making a sustained effort to conclude an open-
skies agreement with Argentina that will open the Argentine market to
additional U.S. carriers. The Department met with the Argentines in
March and December 1998 and will resume talks on March 23, 1999. Given
the intent of the Government of Argentina to give its newly reorganized
airline, Aerolineas Argentinas, a period of protection from new
competition, the DOT is negotiating a transitional agreement in which
new entry for U.S. carriers and new route rights that the Argentine
carrier could use for code sharing with American Airlines would be
phased in together.
With regard to an American Airlines/Aerolineas Argentinas alliance,
we have informed the Argentines that DOT could only give serious
consideration to such an application in the context of full open skies.
problems with motor carrier safety
Question. As you know, there is an ongoing debate over where the
Office of Motor carriers should be located within the DOT. Wouldn't you
agree that the most important issue is whether this office is actually
promoting safety?
Answer. The Department wholeheartedly agrees that the safety of the
motoring public is the most important consideration in the debate over
placement of motor carrier safety enforcement and oversight. The number
one priority is safety, and the Department is working very hard to
continually improve all aspects of transportation safety. To further
address the issue of motor carrier safety, the Department is supporting
an independent review conducted by former Representative Norman Mineta
of that program. The Mineta review will identify the key safety
strategies that will help reduce fatalities in crashes involving large
trucks and examine the organizational structure which is best suited to
execute these strategies.
Question. Do you believe the trucking industry currently takes your
efforts at all seriously? If so, why are so many trucks and buses being
ordered off the road?
Answer. There are many responsible, law-abiding motor carriers and
drivers that give compliance with Federal and State safety regulations
a high priority. However, as in other industries, there are carriers
and drivers that ignore safety laws and regulations. FHWA's enforcement
partners in the States examine data on the safety histories of carriers
and actively look for visible signs of safety problems in selecting
vehicles and drivers for roadside inspections. Targeting vehicles and
drivers for inspection in this way results in higher levels of
citations and out-of-service orders than if vehicles were randomly
selected for inspection. This makes the most efficient use of motor
carrier enforcement personnel and provides the greatest safety benefit
in reducing risks for other motorists.
TEA-21 added enforcement powers authorizing fines up to $10,000
against carriers that do not comply with the regulations as well as
granting the Department authority to put carriers out of business in a
shorter time frame for non- compliance. These added sanctions will most
certainly raise the consciousness of those carriers that do not
currently comply.
amtrak financial progress
Question. Is Amtrak ``on track'' to close the gap?
Mr. Secretary, DOT's Inspector General's office recently concluded
a major assessment of Amtrak's financial condition. The IG concluded
that Amtrak needed to close a budget gap of roughly $400 million if it
is to achieve the goal of operating self-sufficiency by 2003. Of that
amount, $93 million is the gap that needs to be closed for the current
fiscal year, of which $22.5 million would be attributable to the
quarter already completed. I understand from Amtrak that, based on
their new cost reduction and revenue enhancing initiatives, they have
more than closed the gap for the first quarter. Have you reviewed
Amtrak's financial progress?
Answer. Amtrak is making great strides to become a successful,
customer-oriented company. The Board, the management, and the rank and
file employees are committed to remaking Amtrak into a cost effective
provider of world class service.
Amtrak had a good year in fiscal year 1998. Passenger revenues
surpassed the $1 billion mark for the first time in Amtrak's 27-year
history. Ridership increased 4.5 percent over the previous year. This
is the biggest increase in a decade. On-time performance increased to
almost 79 percent, its highest level in 13 years. During the first
quarter of fiscal year 1999, on-time performance was over 80 percent,
an improvement of almost 5 percent over the previous year.
Question. Are you at all encouraged by what you've seen regarding
their ability to tap new revenue sources and minimize costs?
Answer. Amtrak's Board and management are committed to seek out new
sources of revenue and new opportunities to cut costs. Amtrak has been
developing partnerships with States to support corridor development and
regional services, with freight railroads and shippers to increase the
transportation of express shipments, with telecommunications firms and
developers for use of Amtrak's right-of-way and other real estate
holdings, and with Fortune 500 companies such as Disney and United
Airlines to jointly market their products. Amtrak has begun to contract
out certain services, such as its commissary, in which others would
perform the function at lower cost.
amtrak northeast corridor
Question. What are the costs to the government if Amtrak were
eliminated?
Earlier this week, the FAA, once again, printed the list of the
most delayed airports in the United States. But when you look at the
list of the top ten most delayed airports in the United States, five of
these airports are in the Northeast Corridor. They are Logan, Newark,
LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Philadelphia International. The principal
reasons that these are the most delayed airports is because they serve
the most congested airspace in the country. Would you care to comment
on what the impact would be on these already delayed airports if
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service were allowed to shut down?
Answer. Amtrak carries about 65 percent of the combined air-rail
market in the corridor, with over 40 percent between Washington and New
York City endpoints. During the peak travel periods when airport
congestion is at its greatest, Amtrak carries a significant number of
passengers in the Northeast Corridor. While some rail passengers might
opt to travel by automobile or mass transit, a significant number of
rail passengers will decide to fly, and adding these passengers into
the aviation system would create serious problems. For example, the
trips would become more circuitous and take much more time, such as
flying to Islip on Long Island and taking a taxi or the Long Island
Railroad back to Manhattan. Long term this would require expensive and
time-consuming investment to expand highway and airport capacity.
Question. What impact do you believe the initiation of high speed
service on the northeast corridor will have on congestion at these
airports?
Answer. Initiation of high speed service on the Northeast Corridor
will have its most profound effect on the Boston and New York City
airports. When the service is in full operation, Amtrak will offer the
same competitive trip times in this part of the Northeast Corridor as
it does between New York City and Washington. Amtrak expects that the
high speed rail service will divert a large number of existing air
passengers, as well as absorb a portion of the expected growth in
intercity travel, thus mitigating the demand for more costly capacity
expansion efforts at these airports.
amtrak's potential outside the northeast corridor
Question. Mr. Secretary, I do not think that anyone would question
Amtrak's importance to our transportation system in the northeast.
Without Amtrak service, our roads and airports would be vastly more
congested, resulting in greater delays, reduced quality of life, and
diminished productivity. Are there corridors in other parts of the
country where Amtrak could play a similar role in providing a high
speed alternative to short-to-medium length automobile and aviation
travel, thereby improving the overall functioning of other regional
transportation systems?
Answer. A significant part of the future of Amtrak is in its high-
speed rail service both within and outside the Northeast Corridor. The
investments in upgrade of Amtrak service to high-speed in intercity
corridors of up to 300 miles in length will pay significant dividends
for Amtrak. It will also have significant benefits for the States in
the form of better accessibility, less congestion on other modes, and a
wide range of environmental benefits. Several States as diverse as
California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Washington,
and Wisconsin have taken the initiative and partnered with Amtrak to
develop the plans and begin the implementation of high-speed service on
selected intercity corridors. Also, the States and Amtrak are
emphasizing intermodal terminals and connections to provide relatively
seamless transportation alternatives to air and highway trips. FRA is
coordinating the existing Federal programs, for example the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail program and the Section 1103(c) grade
crossing hazard program, with Amtrak and the States to help mature
plans and leverage significant commitments of funding from other
funding partners.
effect of traffic congestion on quality of life
Question. What can be done about the effect of traffic congestion
on quality of life?
One of the President's priorities in the fiscal year 2000 budget is
his Livability Agenda to promote Smart Growth and improve the quality
of life in metropolitan areas. One key component of this Agenda is the
desire to reduce traffic congestion--which, according to one study,
costs $74 billion a year in lost time and fuel. Congestion is an
increasingly large problem in New Jersey and in metropolitan areas
across the country and I believe that we must do a better job at
addressing this issue.
I have always fought for greater balance in spending between the
various modes of transportation. We must be smart--invest not only in
new roads, but in high speed rail, mass transit systems, and new
technology. How does the Administration's budget attempt to address
this problem and how do you think we can do a better job at reducing
the amount of time people now waste stuck in traffic?
Answer. The Administration has included a Livability Initiative in
its fiscal year 2000 budget. This initiative is a set of programs to
ease congestion and promote community livability. As part of this
initiative, the Department's budget proposes $6.1 billion for public
transit and $2.5 billion for highway programs that provide flexible
support to state and local efforts to improve transportation and land
use planning, strengthen existing transportation systems, and promote
broader use of alternative transportation. The following programs are
included in the livability initiative:
$6.1 billion for all Transit programs to maintain and expand the
nation's access to transit systems. Transit programs help provide basic
mobility to millions of Americans, ease congestion on our roadways, and
improve air quality.
$1.8 billion for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) to support state and local efforts to east
congestion and reduce air pollution in areas that do not meet federal
air quality standards, and in areas that are working to maintain
compliance with these standards.
$639 million for Transportation Enhancements to support projects
such as the renovation of historic rail stations, bicycle and
pedestrian paths, safety education, and scenic beautification.
$48 million for the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot (TCSP) to support state and local efforts to
coordinate transportation and land use planning, reducing environmental
impacts and ensuring efficient access to jobs, services and centers of
trade.
funding balance between highways and transit
Question. How do we maintain the funding balance between highways
and transit?
Mr. Secretary, as you know, I strongly support the Administration's
priorities within its reallocation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.
Balanced transportation spending between highways, transit, rail, and
research is essential to developing the most effective and efficient
transportation infrastructure possible. I commend you for recognizing
this. Unfortunately, there appears to be strong opposition to this
proposal by those who either disagree with your priorities or who do
not want to risk reopening TEA-21 debate. Is there a way to maintain a
funding balance between highways and transit, as well as address the
funding shortfall for research programs, outside of the firewalls
created in TEA-21?
Answer. The Department has explored a number of options to maintain
the balance between highways and transit, and to fund research at an
appropriate level. The transfer of revenue aligned budget authority
provides the best tool for addressing these issues and maintains the
spirit of TEA-21 but protects the overall budget surplus for Social
Security. Tax receipts have increased significantly more than what was
anticipated when TEA-21 was being forged. The President's budget
proposes that these unanticipated resources support important
priorities established by TEA-21, such as transit and research
programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
goals for alcohol-related traffic deaths
Question. How will the administration reach its goal of reducing
alcohol-related traffic deaths to 11,000 annually by 2005?
Mr. Secretary, in February 1995, the DOT set a goal of reducing
alcohol-related traffic deaths to 11,000 annually by the year 2005. At
the time you made this announcement there were 16,589 such deaths
annually. By 1997, that number had declined only by 400 to 16,189. This
is an average of one alcohol-related death every 32 minutes. It does
not look as if we are making any real progress toward your goal of
11,000 deaths per year. How do you view the likelihood that you will
reach your goal? Don't we need some dramatic new steps nationwide if
you are going to meet your goal?
Answer. The Department recognizes the national goal of reducing the
number of alcohol-related fatalities to 11,000 by 2005 is very
ambitious, and one that will not be reached through ``business as
usual.'' With this recognition, in the fall of 1997, the Department
brought together national partners to identify the action steps needed
to reach this national goal. The steps necessary to reach the goal were
determined and outlined in the group's report titled Partners in
Progress: Impaired Driving Guide for Action.
The required actions focus mainly on four areas: Public Education;
Legislation; Enforcement; and Partnerships. Following these
recommendations, NHTSA is making progress toward the goal. In 1995,
there were 17,274 alcohol-related fatalities. That number decreased to
16,189 in 1997, representing the lowest percent of alcohol-related
fatalities in history (38.6 percent of all traffic fatalities). But
much remains to be done.
NHTSA's plans focus specific technical assistance and support to
those states with the highest alcohol-related fatalities and rates.
This effort will begin with a five-state demonstration in fiscal year
1999, which will continue over a three-year period. The demonstrations
will strongly emphasize highly publicized enforcement and education. If
the results demonstrate a positive difference in those states with the
most significant problems, NHTSA will continue to expand this focus to
other high number states. States have the opportunity to also support
this specialized enforcement initiative with TEA-21 funding through the
Section 410 alcohol incentive grant program.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget, NHTSA is requesting an additional
$500,000 to undertake a new innovative grant program targeted at three
high risk groups: (1) 21-24 year olds; (2) repeat and high BAC
offenders; and (3) youth. This innovative grant program will allow
NHTSA to seek new ideas and technologies to ``move the numbers'' and to
reach some of these high risk targets that are over-represented in
alcohol-related fatalities. In particular, special attention must be
focused on the exploding youth population, including underage college
students.
NHTSA is building on the success of previous impaired driving-
related public education campaigns. As recommended in the Partners in
Progress action plan, NHTSA is developing a comprehensive multimedia
campaign aimed at raising national awareness about the dangers of
impaired driving and increasing public support for strict measures such
as zero tolerance of underage drinking and the safety benefits of
establishing .08 BAC laws. Resource kits will provide traffic safety
partners with the necessary resources needed for effectively raising
greater awareness about the deadly consequences of impaired driving.
The resources will contain information such as how to effectively
conduct public outreach, suggested partners, talking points, fact
sheets, and public service announcements. As with other successful
NHTSA safety campaigns, partners can add their names and logos to the
ready-to-use material and implement the campaign in their communities
at minimal cost and start-up effort.
NHTSA places considerable emphasis on the critical role that
national organizations will play in reaching high risk groups (youth
and 21-34 year olds) and in supporting the Partners in Progress
campaign. NHTSA will share media and public information materials
developed for the campaign with national organizations representing
employers, public health and medicine, youth and diversity populations.
This effort is intended to educate the national organization members
about the campaign and engage them in activities designed specifically
to reduce the impaired driving problem.
Finally, a high priority will be placed on engaging national
organizations in support of the two national mobilizations to enforce
the impaired driving laws planned for each July and December.
highway environmental review process
Question. Should highway environmental review process be sped up
for especially dangerous roads?
The environmental review process for some of the most important
road construction projects in my state has been painfully long. This
problem has plagued not only Appalachian Regional Corridor H, but also
the Route 9 project in the West Virginia Panhandle. The TEA-21 law
included $50 million for the restoration of the West Virginia Route 10.
This project received national press during the drafting of the TEA-21
law because it was identified as one of the most dangerous roads in the
country. Last month, two high school girls died when their car crashed
into a coal truck on Roue 10. A third passenger was injured. I am not
saying that these lives could have been saved if the environmental
review process had been conducted more rapidly. But I am concerned that
many more citizens will die across the country because of endless
environmental hurdles that serve to delay efforts to rebuild very
dangerous highways.
Mr. Secretary, your agency is currently drafting rules to
streamline the environmental review process for highway projects. Do
you believe this streamlining initiative should take the potential
danger of the road into account when determining which review should be
expedited?
Answer. The TEA-21 environmental streamlining initiative is
intended to establish a process to enable the Department and its
partners to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
environmental review of major highway (and transit) projects. The
initiative's goals are to coordinate Federal agency involvement in such
projects by identifying decision points and potential conflicts as
early as possible, encouraging full and early participation of all
relevant agencies, and establishing coordinated time schedule for
agencies to act on a project. The Department is presently engaged in a
rulemaking exercise to develop the regulations and guidance with which
we will implement the environmental streamlining initiative. The safety
of surface transportation facilities, and the people who use them, is
of high importance to the Department. The relative safety of a highway
may be one of a number of factors which agencies involved in the
environmental review of a project need to consider in the course of
selecting and approving a preferred alternative. TEA-21 did not
eliminate Federal requirements such as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) or the Clean Air Act, and finding the appropriate
balance between complying with Federal laws and streamlining project
delivery is the central challenge facing us in implementing the this as
well as other planning and environmental provisions of TEA-21.
Question. Are there currently adequate provisions in the law to
allow for an expedited review process for projects that are intended to
improve very dangerous roads?
Answer. Projects intended to improve the safety of a highway or
other surface transportation facility receive adequate provision in
terms of an expedited review process under laws which the Department
currently conducts its procedures.
aviation competition guidelines
Question. Will we ever see new aviation competition guidelines?
The State of West Virginia is in great need of improved access to
major aviation markets. Periodically, we have been approached by new
entrant airlines that want to provide new service to West Virginia.
However, as your Administration has observed, new entrant airlines
usually face very tough competitive pressures from the major carriers
to stay out of lucrative markets.
Last year you issued proposed guidelines to protect new entrant
airlines from these anti-competitive practices. The Omnibus
Appropriations Act requires you to conduct some studies before final
guidelines can be published. Do you still plan to come forward with new
competition guidelines?
Answer. The Department will issue its final guidelines following
completion of the National Academy of Science's study (expected to be
completed this spring) of airline competition and the Department's
report to Congress on unfair competition and predatory pricing.
Question. Is there any truth to the rumor that the major air
carriers have convinced you to abandon your efforts to put a stop to
anti-competitive practices?
Answer. There is no truth to the rumor that major airlines have
convinced us to abandon our efforts to stop anti-competitive practices.
The Department has a responsibility to prevent unfair competition and
the proposed policy is an important element in efforts to increase
competition in the domestic airline industry.
Question. What other efforts does the Administration have underway
to improve aviation service to cities likes Charleston, Parkersburg,
and Martinsburg, West Virginia?
Answer. The Department has taken a series of actions and, in
addition to competition guidelines which should help regional entrants,
made legislative proposals to help competition and service to smaller
communities. They include: (1) Exemptions from DOT rules administering
landing and takeoff slots at Chicago O'Hare Airport to obtain regional
jet service between Chicago and West Virginia, as well as other rural
areas. (2) Modified Computer Reservation System rules to aid smaller
airlines. (3) Proposed legislation that would give a blanket exemption
to regional jets from the Federal high density slot rule at O'Hare,
LaGuardia, and JFK airports effective September 30, 2000. (4) Proposed
complete elimination of the Federal high density slot rule at O'Hare,
LaGuardia, and JFK airports effective September 30, 2004, allowing five
years for carriers and communities these five years of lead time to
make any necessary preparations. (5) Proposed requiring joint fares and
interline agreements between major carriers and smaller carriers at
dominated hubs. (6) Proposed a 5-year, $35 million program to help
smaller communities willing to provide 25 percent matching funds to
obtain better air service.
highway emergency relief funds
Question. Why is there no request for highway emergency relief
funds?
This afternoon, the Appropriations Committee will markup the
Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the current fiscal year. I
understand from the Federal Highway Administration that the emergency
relief highway program is completely out of money. I further understand
that there are over $365 million in requests pending at the Federal
Highway Administration that cannot be funded. Obviously, there is also
no money available for any national disasters that might require
critical highway repairs for the remainder of this fiscal year. In
prior years, we would have received a request from your department for
emergency relief funds to replenish this program.
Why have we not received any request to date from the
Administration for this program? By delaying this request, won't the
affected states have to wait an inordinately long time to be reimbursed
for their disaster expenses? Do you expect that we will receive a
formal budget request from your department for emergency relief funds
any time in the next several weeks?
Answer. It is true that there are very few unallocated funds left
in the emergency relief program; however, the Department is able to
borrow unallocated discretionary funds for emergency relief purposes.
The Department is currently evaluating its options and will take the
necessary steps in the very near future to meet State's needs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
sound transit
Question. I agree with the Administration's view that increased
spending on transit will help improve the livability of our
communities. As you know, the central Puget Sound region is building an
ambitious, top-quality high-capacity transit system that is 80 percent
funded by taxes the resident voted to impose on themselves. I am very
grateful that your budget recommends $8 million for preliminary
engineering for Sound Transit's LINK light rail line and singles it out
as one of the ``strongest candidates in the New Starts pipeline''.
Sound Transit and FTA are engaged in intensive discussions about the
Full Funding Agreement for LINK and FTA is understandably concerned
about the size of this project. But can you assure me that your
department will continue to work constructively and creatively with
Sound Transit to develop a long-term federal funding strategy that
meets your department's imperatives without adding to the cost or time
of construction of the LINK light rail line?
Answer. The Department will continue to work with Sound Transit
throughout the project's development. The Department enters into full
funding grant agreements with high quality projects which are ready to
begin construction. The LINK light rail line is a very promising
project which has been rated ``highly recommended'' by the Federal
Transit Administration. LINK is one of only four projects in
preliminary engineering which have been recommended for funding in
fiscal year 2000 to further its development into final design.
airport improvement program
Question. The Administration has proposed cutting the Airport
Improvement Program from $1.9 billion to $1.6 billion and increasing
the cap on airport Passenger Facility Charges from $3 to $5. At many
Washington State airports, most of the passengers travel on low-fare
airlines like Alaska, Southwest, America West and Horizon. PFCs hit
low-fare passengers hardest because they are a flat fee unrelated to
ticket price. Why couldn't we amend the AIP program so it can better
address the needs of airports like the smaller airports in eastern
Washington and spend some of the surplus in the Aviation Trust Fund
rather than increasing PFCs?
Answer. The Administration has proposed a comprehensive legislative
package to meet the respective needs of large and small airports in the
national aviation system. First, the proposal includes a $2 increase to
the current $3 cap on PFCs. Ninety percent of PFC collections accrue to
the nation's 70 large and medium hub airports. However, smaller
airports would also benefit from a $2 PFC increase because of higher
PFC receipts and because large and medium hub airports, under
Administration's proposal, would forego all Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) entitlements as a condition for receiving the higher PFC. These
foregone funds (approximately $160 million per year) would be made
available to smaller airports under existing AIP formulae.
PFC revenues are better suited and more flexible than AIP revenues
and other means of airport financing for funding projects at large
airports, especially critical landside projects such as terminals and
ground access to airports. PFC revenues can be used for a wider variety
of projects than can AIP grants (especially terminal and financing
costs), are predictable and reliable from year to year, do not require
majority air carrier agreement, and facilitate the implementation of
competitive terminal lease agreements. AIP can be targeted by the FAA
toward critical development needs of smaller airports that do not have
the enplanement levels needed to raise large amounts of PFC revenues.
The effect of a PFC increase on ticket prices and air travel is
difficult to measure. Air carriers may absorb some of the increases by
lowering non-PFC ticket prices in order to maintain passenger demand
levels. The price effect of a PFC increase on airfares (as measured by
percentage increase) could be more pronounced for a low-fare ticket
than a high-fare business ticket. However, low-fare, new-entrant
airlines and their passengers will benefit most if, as we plan to
encourage, large hub airports use higher PFCs to expand constrained
terminal space at large hub airports.
harbor maintenance tax
Question. The Administration's budget assumes enactment of a new
Harbor Services User Fee to replace the harbor maintenance tax that has
been found unconstitutional as applied to exports. In the Pacific
Northwest, we are very concerned about this new user fee for two
reasons: first, our Puget Sound ports don't need any harbor
maintenance, so the fees collected there are spent elsewhere; and more
importantly, we are afraid that it may force shipping lines to leave
our ports and call instead at Vancouver, British Columbia, where they
don't have this fee. Has your department raised concerns about these
port competitiveness issues within the Administration? Since this
proposal hasn't yet been submitted to Congress, would you start/keep
pressing those in the Administration to address this issue before
finalizing this proposal?
Answer. The Department will work within the Administration to
ensure that your concerns are raised.
subcommittee recess
Senator Campbell. I think we are about finished up. So we
will next reconvene on next Wednesday, March 10, here at
Dirksen 124 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss Amtrak finance and
operational issues. We will hear from Ken Meade the Department
of Transportation Inspector General; from Mr. George
Warnington, Amtrak's President; and Wisconsin Governor Tommy
Thompson, the chairman of the new Amtrak board of directors.
With that, I thank you and this hearing of the Subcommittee
on Transportation is now recessed.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 10.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Specter, Campbell,
Lautenberg, Reid, and Kohl.
AMTRAK FINANCE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF GEORGE WARRINGTON, PRESIDENT
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. TOMMY THOMPSON, GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, CHAIRMAN,
AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The meeting will come to order. This
morning's hearing will center on the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation or, as we know it, Amtrak. We will
discuss issues relating both to Amtrak's short and long-term
financial health and to the operational decisions which
determine the railroad's present and future status.
I think at times, although maybe not by my friend from New
Jersey, I think I have been misunderstood on the subject of
Amtrak. Many of my congressional colleagues and members of the
press and public seem to believe that all I am interested in as
the chairman of this subcommittee is killing off the railroad.
I want to set the record straight. I am not out to kill Amtrak.
I am here, working with Senator Lautenberg, to try to make
Amtrak work for you, real work.
But what I see when I look at this railroad is a Federal
investment that up to now is not paying off the way it could,
or I believe it should. When Amtrak receives its second
Taxpayer Relief Act payment next month, we will have spent more
than $22.6 billion on this organization since it was formed in
1971, Governor, an average Federal cost of $800 million a year,
and what are we getting for our money? That is what we want to
ask.
Well, in some parts of the country, honestly, we are
getting a very important and efficient alternate mode of
transportation. There are certain corridors, usually linking
densely populated urban areas that are not more than 300 miles
apart, where Amtrak can give the passenger car and the airlines
a real run for their money in terms of cost, travel time,
frequency, and quality of service, and of course reliability,
but this is the exception rather than the rule.
In fact, many of the Amtrak routes operate only three or
four times a week and stop at inconvenient hours of the night
in stations that do not even have the basic amenities such as
restrooms or water fountains.
The financial performance of Amtrak routes varies widely,
but every route save one loses money, and 14 routes lose more
than $100 per passenger trip. System-wide in fiscal year 1997
Amtrak lost an average of $47 per passenger. There are parts of
this rail system that just do not make economic sense, and it
is clear that we have to push Amtrak to do something
differently if we expect to get different results.
Since assuming chairmanship of this subcommittee I have
actively looked for ways that Amtrak can save the American
taxpayer some of the money that it has spent in covering its
operating losses. I am convinced that the best way to improve
Amtrak's financial picture is for the railroad to be more
responsive to the demands of the market. Amtrak currently
carries 21 million inter-city passengers annually, or about as
many in a year as would fly over an average 13-day period. This
is not an impressive market share. Amtrak must concentrate its
efforts on business decisions I believe that are economically
justified.
For example, Governor Thompson understands business. If I
manufacture bicycles and kept producing banana seat bikes long
after consumer preference had switched to mountain bikes and
10-speeds, I would not be making an economically justified
business decision. I would lose money, and perhaps my business.
Now, there might be a small and vocal segment of the
bicycle-riding public who really liked banana seats and wanted
to continue riding them, but that does not mean that my company
could afford to commit the same amount of capital to making
banana seat bikes at the expense of investing in other product
lines that the bicycle public does want to buy.
Similarly, Amtrak cannot afford to continue doing business,
I believe, in a manner that is not responsive to its market,
the traveling public. In particular, the current route
structure and labor agreement stacked the deck against the
railroad ever being able to be operationally self-supporting.
Admittedly, Amtrak's long distance routes have become the
expensive exercise in nostalgia. The American taxpayers should
not have to subsidize lines of business that will never come
close to breaking even, especially if only a handful of riders
use the service provided.
The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
General has taken a hard look at Amtrak's current financial
status and strategic business plan, which sets out Amtrak's
operating and capital budgets for the fiscal year 1999 until
2002. One of the most telling results of this review is that
Amtrak's projected Federal funding will fall short of even
minimal capital investment needs.
Now, capital investments are needed to keep any railroad's
infrastructure in good operating condition and to generate new
business opportunities. Every dollar spent unnecessarily on
operating losses is a dollar taken from capital investment.
Amtrak's current infrastructure is too widespread and is
not targeted to service that are economically justified.
Amtrak's plans for the future become like a house of cards, and
unless the foundations are glued down to market-driven
decisions, the entire structure can come tumbling down all too
easily.
Since I seem to be focusing on sobering news today, I will
take this opportunity to sound the warning. Amtrak may be
privatized a lot quicker than we all thought. If Chairman
Schuster's aviation bill becomes law, Federal Aviation
Administration programs will be increased by $5 billion, and
fire-walled off from any appropriations adjustment. Think about
that.
So there will not be any room left other than discretionary
budget accounts in this transportation appropriations bill for
Amtrak or for any other--any other--Department of
Transportation programs assigned to FAA, highways, or transit,
for that matter.
I hope that everyone here who supports rail programs knows
that and heard that warning.
I would like to welcome our three witnesses this morning.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act restructured the
management of the railroad by setting up a new reform board,
whose chairman, Governor Tommy Thompson, joins us today. The
board must vote on all of Amtrak's financial decisions and
approve the strategic business plan that lays out the operating
and capital program for the railroad from 1999 through the year
2002, after which the railroad, Governor, must, under the ARAA,
achieve operating self-sufficiency.
For the fiscal year 2000, Amtrak is requesting $571 million
and wants Congress to authorize the railroad to use these funds
flexibly for any maintenance costs as well as for equipment,
land, and rights of way purchase and construction cost.
We will ask Governor Thompson to defend this budget
request. In addition, Amtrak's president, George Warrington,
will testify here today, and I hope that Mr. Warrington can
tell us how Amtrak is changing its operations in order to be
more economically sustainable and responsive to market forces.
prepared statement
Finally today, the Department of Transportation Inspector,
General Ken Mead, has joined us again after being before this
subcommittee only 2 weeks ago to testify on DOT management
issues. Today, Mr. Mead will summarize the findings of the
recent independent assessment of Amtrak's finances, and the
railroad's strategic business plan, and share the results of
that analysis.
I thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
The subcommittee will now come to order. This morning's hearing
will center on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak.
We will discuss issues relating both to Amtrak's short- and long-term
financial health, and to the operational decisions which determine the
railroad's present and future status.
I think I've been misunderstood on the subject of Amtrak. Many of
my Congressional colleagues and members of the press and public seem to
believe that all I'm interested in is killing off the railroad. I want
to set the record straight: I am not out to kill Amtrak. But what I see
when I look at this railroad is a federal investment that is not paying
off the way that it could or should.
When Amtrak receives its second Taxpayer Relief Act payment next
month, we will have spent more than $22.6 billion on this organization
since it was formed in 1971--an average federal cost of $800 million a
year. And what are we getting for our money? Well, in some parts of the
country, we are getting a very important and efficient alternate mode
of transportation. There are certain corridors, usually linking densely
populated urban areas that are not more than 300 miles apart, where
Amtrak can give the passenger car and the airlines a real run for their
money--in terms of cost, travel time, frequency and quality of service,
and reliability. But this is the exception rather than the rule. In
fact, many of Amtrak's routes operate only three or four times a week,
and stop at inconvenient hours of the night in stations that don't even
have the basic amenities, such as restrooms or water fountains. The
financial performance of Amtrak's routes varies widely, but every route
save one loses money--and 14 routes lose more than $100 per passenger
trip. System-wide, in fiscal year 1997, Amtrak lost an average of $47
per passenger. There are parts of this rail system that just don't make
economic sense, and it is clear that we have to push Amtrak to do
something differently, if we expect to get any different results.
Since assuming chairmanship of this subcommittee, I have actively
looked for ways that Amtrak can save the American taxpayers some of the
money that is spent covering its operating losses. I am convinced that
the best way to improve Amtrak's financial picture is for the railroad
to be more responsive to the demands of the market. Amtrak currently
carries 21 million intercity passengers annually, or about as many in a
year as would fly over an average 13-day period. This is not an
impressive market share. Amtrak must concentrate its efforts on
business decisions that are economically justified.
If I manufactured bicycles, and I kept producing ``banana seat''
bikes long after consumer preference had switched to mountain bikes and
10-speeds, I would not be making an economically justified business
decision. I would lose money, and perhaps my business. Now, there might
be a small and vocal segment of the bicycle-riding public who really
likes banana seats and wants to continue riding them. But that doesn't
mean that my company can afford to commit the same amount of capital to
making banana seat bikes, at the expense of investing in other product
lines that the bicycling public does want to buy.
Similarly, Amtrak cannot afford to continue doing business in a
manner that is not responsive to its market, the traveling public. In
particular, the current route structure and labor agreements stack the
deck against the railroad ever being able to be operationally self-
supporting. Many of Amtrak's long-distance routes have become an
expensive exercise in nostalgia. The American taxpayers should not have
to subsidize lines of business that will never come close to breaking
even, especially if only a handful of riders use the service provided.
The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General has
taken a hard look at Amtrak's current financial status and strategic
business plan, which sets out Amtrak's operating and capital budgets
for fiscal years 1999 through 2003. One of the most telling results of
this review is that Amtrak's projected federal funding will fall short
of even minimum capital investment needs. Now, capital investments are
needed to keep any railroad's infrastructure in good operating
condition and to generate new business opportunities. Every dollar
spent unnecessarily on operating losses is a dollar taken from capital
investment. Amtrak's current infrastructure is too widespread, and is
not targeted to services that are economically justified. Amtrak's
plans for the future become like a house of cards--and unless the
foundations are glued down to market-driven decisions, the entire
structure can come tumbling down all too easily.
Since I seem to be focusing on sobering news today, I'll take this
opportunity to sound the warning trumpet. Amtrak may be privatized a
lot quicker than we all thought. If Chairman Shuster's aviation bill
becomes law, Federal Aviation Administration programs will be increased
by $5 billion and firewalled off from any appropriations adjustment. So
there won't be any room left under the discretionary budget caps in
this transportation appropriations bill for Amtrak, or for any other
Department of Transportation program besides the FAA, highways, or
transit, for that matter.
I hope that everyone here who supports rail programs heard that
warning.
I'd like to welcome our three witnesses this morning. The Amtrak
Reform and Accountability Act restructured the management of the
railroad by setting up a new Reform Board, whose Chairman, Governor
Tommy Thompson, joins us today. The Board must vote on all of Amtrak's
financial decisions, and approves the strategic business plan that lays
out the operating and capital program for the railroad from 1999
through the end of 2002, after which the railroad must, under the ARAA,
achieve operating self-sufficiency.
For fiscal year 2000, Amtrak is requesting $571 million, and wants
Congress to authorize the railroad to use these funds flexibly for any
maintenance cost, as well as for equipment, land, and rights-of-way
purchase and construction costs. We will ask Governor Thompson to
defend this budget request. In addition, Amtrak's President George
Warrington will testify. I hope that Mr. Warrington can tell us how
Amtrak is changing its operations in order to be more economically
sustainable and responsive to market forces.
Finally, Department of Transportation Inspector General Ken Mead
has joined us again, after being before this subcommittee only two
weeks ago to testify on DOT management issues. Today, Mr. Mead will
summarize the findings of the recent independent assessment of Amtrak's
finances and the railroad's strategic business plan, and share the
results of that analysis. Thank you joining us today, gentlemen.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to say this about our chairman, who is my friend and with
whom I have served on this subcommittee for a number of years.
I liked it better when I was chairman, [Laughter.]
But I will say this. Senator Shelby has raised the alarm,
has cautioned us about expenditures and so forth, but he has I
must say, despite some misgivings, despite some of his
concerns, has enabled us to continue to support Amtrak and we
have had a good, honest debate about it, and I hope that we
will be able to continue in that vein, and as Senator Shelby,
both of us have had some business experience before here, and
the question of banana seats on the bikes is an interesting
one, but I would rather use the analogy perhaps of some
emergency facilities like a hospital or something like that.
We can shut it down if it does not carry its weight, but
the impact on the community is one that is so severe that it is
even, I think, dangerous to contemplate, that the railroad
could not function or these other facilities could not
function, because we face a congestion apocalypse in this
country, and I know from being a regular user of either
airports, up to the New York-New Jersey area, or the railroad,
and I want to tell you, Amtrak is there like a life raft on
many occasions.
It was not too long ago the airport had routine weather
problems, and I was out there with Senator Boxer. We were going
to New York to an engagement, and it was impossible. They were
canceling flight after flight after flight, and we got in a
taxi, we ran to the railroad, we were lucky we were able to get
seats--I used Senator Shelby's name--[Laughter.]
In July 1990, in the glorious days when I was serving as
chairman of this subcommittee, I was presented with a unique
and rare opportunity. In making the very hard choices that all
subcommittee chairmen are required to make when developing an
appropriations bill, I found at the end of a grueling process
that I had $200 million in budget authority unused. It was then
that I provided a fairly significant boost to the Northeast
Corridor improvement program so that we would finally begin the
process of electrifying the railroad all the way to Boston and
provide other enhancements to bring about truly high speed rail
in the Northeast.
After going to conference with the House, we successfully
brought funding for that program from $24 million to $179
million in a single year, and since that time the annual level
of investment has only grown, and I say that without shame.
The chairman reminded us that we spent some $20 billion
since the early seventies--was it early seventies?
Senator Shelby. 1971.
Senator Lautenberg. And I see in some of the statistics
that we have available that Germany is going to spend $70
billion in a decade, France will spend $25 billion in 5 years
based on GAO information, so that we are structured differently
geographically, but in order to have a balanced transportation
system--we are overloaded in the skies. Look at the delay times
in every airport in the country, and particularly in a crowded
airport like Newark Airport, but wherever you go, delays,
delays, delays, and often inability to even get where you want
to go.
Well, it is clear to me that Amtrak would not have had a
future without a truly first-class high speed service in the
most congested corridor in the Nation. Today, with the
initiation of high speed service just months away, we see even
more clearly that the entire future of the railroad depends on
the success of this initiative.
Much has happened to Amtrak since July 1990, not the least
of which was the enactment of the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997. That law promised dramatically
increased capital investment in Amtrak, roughly $5 billion over
5 years. In exchange for that meaningful investment, Amtrak
would be required to reduce its Federal operating subsidy to
zero by the year 2003.
That requirement now looms large in the minds of Amtrak
leadership, the administration, and the Congress. As such, it
now appears that the entire near-term financial survival of the
railroad is dependent on the new revenue expected from the high
speed rail initiative begun in 1991.
This morning, we are going to hear a debate between
Amtrak's management and the Inspector General over how much
revenue we can expect from this initiative in the fiscal year
2000. The IG will tell us that in his view Amtrak has
overestimated the revenue that it should expect this coming
year.
Importantly, however, the IG will also testify that between
now and 2006 Amtrak has underestimated the total revenues that
they might expect from high speed rail, so the debate is not
over whether Amtrak will get these new revenues. The only issue
is when.
According to Amtrak's projections, by 2002 the Northeast
Corridor will generate 180 million in annual profits from the
high speed rail service, but this new income stream by itself
will not get Amtrak out of the woods. The IG estimates that
Amtrak has substantial unmet capital needs totalling more than
$3 billion that are not currently reflected in the railroad's
investment plan, but we have to look back and see what happened
in 1991 when we began to make the kind of investments to
modernize a portion of the Amtrak system which now could
actually achieve a profit.
Now, as we enter the new millennium, we will see that that
investment finally is going to be paid off. The question that
we must now ask ourselves is, will we permit ourselves to
return to the judgment of the past, or will we make the
necessary investments to continue to modernize the railroads.
Having made the investment to modernize the Northeast
Corridor, will we now let it, and the entire national rail
network, deteriorate for the lack of adequate continued
investment?
Now, I feel compelled to remind my colleagues that the
Amtrak Reform Act anticipated continued sizable capital
appropriations well into the future. The act called for
operating self-sufficiency, not total self-sufficiency, which
is quite different when you are talking about the capital
costs, et cetera.
As we have gotten closer to the initiation of high speed
rail in the Northeast Corridor, we have heard increasing
interest from other regions. Even Birmingham, Alabama has an
interest in high speed service.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. These regions include the Pacific
Northwest, the South, and the Midwest, where our witness this
morning, Tommy Thompson, whom we welcome here, has been an
outspoken advocate for improved rail service, and as a fellow
advocate of Amtrak and high speed rail I welcome their
interest.
Amtrak's detractors have always liked to focus on the
considerable dollars that are lost per passenger on the long
distance trains that operate outside of the Northeast.
Unfortunately, so long as that service is slow and not really
comfortable, those dollar losses will persist. I believe that
higher speeds and reliable service could make a big difference
to those cars, but it must be recognized up front that the cost
of these improvements will be substantial.
In evaluating Amtrak's real fiscal needs in comparison to
its current strategic plan, the IG performed a very valuable
service in identifying the amount of Federal investment that
will be needed if Amtrak is to make real progress in these
outer corridors.
According to the IG, it would require an additional $450
million each year over and above the levels requested in the
budget for Amtrak to make the substantial investment needs in
development of these cars, so for those of my colleagues who
are interested in these new cars in the Midwest, the West, the
South, and the Northwest, I point out the cost of meaningful
development is not only the $571 million Amtrak has requested
for fiscal 2000. The cost is more like $1.12 billion per year,
$1 billion $120 million. If the funding for those cars is not
going to come from Amtrak's budget, it is going to have to come
from somewhere else.
Mr. Chairman, I for one am prepared to submit an
appropriation that serves the needs of really getting this
passenger rail service on its feet. That is the $1.2 billion
for Amtrak. I have never apologized for my support of
investment in improved rail service that relieves congestion.
We are dozens of years and billions of dollars behind our
industrial competitors in terms of investment in passenger rail
service, and if we cannot provide that level of funding for
Amtrak, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will at least listen to a
resolution recently adopted by our Nation's Governors and grant
the States the necessary flexibility to use their highway
formula dollars to make investments in high speed rail.
These are sound investments that Governors will not make if
they do not make sense, and I hope my colleagues from all over
the country, especially those who are interested in these new,
improved rail cars, will join me in these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday there was an announcement about
what might be happening when we get our new rail service
underway. That should be by the end of this year, and there is
enormous excitement about the possibilities that exist. They
call it new moon for Amtrak, not boom.
prepared statement
Senator Shelby. I want to ride on that train with Senator
Lautenberg, as long as he is not the engineer.
Governor Thompson. I have already promised Senator
Lautenberg that he can help drive it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lautenberg
amtrak finance and operational issues
In July of 1990, while serving as Chairman of this subcommittee, I
was presented with a unique and rare opportunity. In making the very
hard choices that all subcommittee chairmen are required to make when
developing an appropriations bill, I found, at the end of a grueling
process, that I had $200 million in budget authority left over. It was
then that I provided a dramatic boost to the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program so that we would finally begin the process of
electrifying the railroad all the way to Boston, and provide other
enhancements to bring about truly high speed rail in the Northeast.
After going to Conference with the House, we successfully brought
funding for that program from $24 million to $179 million in a single
year. Since that time, the annual level of investment has only grown.
It was clear to me then that Amtrak didn't have a future without truly
first class high-speed service in the most congested corridor in the
nation. Today, with the initiation of high speed service just months
away, we see even more clearly that the entire future of the railroad
depends on the success of this initiative.
Much has happened regarding Amtrak since July of 1990, not the
least of which was the enactment of the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997. That law promised dramatically increased
capital investment in Amtrak, roughly $5 billion over five years. In
exchange for that meaningful investment, Amtrak would be required to
reduce its federal operating subsidy to zero by the year 2003. That
requirement now looms large in the minds of Amtrak's leadership, the
Administration, and the Congress. As such, it now appears that the
entire near-term financial survival of the railroad is dependent on the
new revenue expected from the high-speed rail initiative begun in 1991.
This morning, we will hear a debate between Amtrak's management and
the Inspector General (IG) over how much revenue we can expect from
this initiative in fiscal year 2000. The IG will tell us that, in his
view, Amtrak has overestimated the revenue it should expect this coming
year. Importantly, however, the IG will also testify that, between now
and 2006, Amtrak has underestimated the total revenues they should
expect from high-speed rail. So the debate is not over if Amtrak will
get these new revenues. The only issue is when.
According to Amtrak's projections, by 2002, the Northeast Corridor
will generate $180 million in annual profits from the high-speed rail
service. But this new income stream, by itself, will not get Amtrak out
of the woods. The IG estimates that Amtrak has substantial unmet
capital needs totaling more than $3 billion that are not currently
reflected in the railroad's investment plans.
Starting in 1991, we began to make the kind of investments to
modernize a portion of the Amtrak system such that it could actually
achieve a profit. Now as we enter the new millennium, we will see that
investment finally pay off. The question that we must now ask ourselves
is will we return to the mistakes of the past or will we make the
necessary investments to continue to modernize the railroad? Having
made the investment to modernize the Northeast Corridor, will we now
let it and the entire national rail network deteriorate for lack of
adequate continued investment? I feel compelled to remind my colleagues
that the Amtrak Reform Act anticipated continued sizable capital
appropriations well into the future. The Act called for operating self-
sufficiency, not total self-sufficiency.
As we have gotten closer to the initiation of high-speed rail in
the Northeast Corridor, we have heard increasing interest from other
regions of the country in modernizing their rail service. These regions
include the Pacific Northwest, the South, and the Midwest, where our
witness this morning, Governor Thompson, has been an outspoken advocate
for improved rail service. As a fellow advocate of Amtrak and high-
speed rail, I welcome their interest. Amtrak's detractors have always
liked to harp on the considerable dollars that are lost per passenger
on the long distance trains that operate outside of the Northeast.
Unfortunately, so long as that service is slow and unpredictable, those
dollar losses will persist. I believe that higher speeds and reliable
service can make a big difference in those corridors. But it must be
recognized, up front, that the cost of those improvements will be
substantial!
In evaluating Amtrak's real fiscal needs in comparison to its
current strategic plan, the Inspector General performed a very valuable
service in identifying the kind of federal investment that will be
needed if Amtrak is to make real progress in these other corridors.
According to the IG, it would require an additional $450 million each
year, over and above the levels requested in the budget, for Amtrak to
make substantial investment in the development of these corridors. So,
for those of my colleagues who are interested in these new corridors in
the Midwest, the West, the South, and Northwest, I point out that the
cost of meaningful development is not just the $571 million Amtrak has
requested for fiscal year 2000. The cost is more like $1.12 billion per
year. If the funding for those corridors isn't going to come from
Amtrak's budget, it is going to have to come from somewhere else.
Mr. Chairman, I, for one, am prepared to support an appropriation
of $1.12 billion for Amtrak. I have never apologized for my support of
investment in improved rail service that relieves congestion and eases
pollution. We are dozens of years and billions of dollars behind our
industrial competitors in terms of investment in passenger rail
service. If we can't provide that level of funding for Amtrak, Mr.
Chairman, I hope we will at least listen to a resolution recently
adopted by our nation's governors and grant the states the necessary
flexibility to use their highway formula dollars to make investments in
high speed rail. These are sound investments that Governors will not
make if they don't make sense. I hope my Senate colleagues from all
over the country, especially those who are interested in new improved
rail corridors, will join with me in these efforts.
STATEMENT OF BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a
statement for the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
Senator Campbell. Let me make a couple of general comments.
It is nice to see my friend Governor Thompson here, who I know,
whose primary interest in transportation happens to be on two
wheels, like mine, rather than rail, but I am sure he did not
ride his bike in the snow days when I did.
I think I understand a little bit about Amtrak and the fact
it has been in the red for so many years now. There has been
some consternation on some of our colleagues' parts about
putting more money into it, and I very frankly believe that
making it self-sufficient by 2002 is a little unrealistic, but
having lived in Japan a number of years, I lived there 4 years,
I absolutely got addicted to the bullet train in Japan. I found
it the most convenient, fast, and relaxing, if you can relax at
150 miles an hour on rails, a form of transportation, and I
would ride that much more than having to go by car or airplane
when I was traveling around Japan those 4 years, so I am a big
believer.
You mention only one corridor is making money. I assume
that is the Northeast Corridor. So I am not sure it fits as
well all over the country, out where we live in the mountains I
know there are fewer riders and less big metropolitan areas and
so on, and I do not know what the reform board has in mind to
tackle those areas that does not have that ridership, but at
this point I am still inclined to support Amtrak. I think it
has a very needed place in our future transportation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HERB KOHL
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad today that
with our Governor here we have good, strong representation from
the State of Wisconsin.
Though many think of Amtrak as being an issue mostly of
concern to the Northeast, a successful Amtrak is just as vital
to those of us who live in the Midwest. In fact, there is no
place that will not benefit from a strong and balanced
transportation system, one that includes a revitalized rail
system. Just as Wisconsin sits at the center of the Nation, a
strong Amtrak sits at the center of a transportation system of
planes, trains, and automobiles.
Ridership on Amtrak is up in Wisconsin and up across the
country. Last year a half-million Wisconsinites rode on Amtrak.
With the help of this subcommittee we tried to meet this
increased demand. We supported a plan for more commuter rail in
the Kenosha/Racine/Milwaukee corridor, and dedicated funds to
the Midwest high speed rail initiative, an ambitious plan for
the nine Midwestern States and our regional rail system.
Indeed, we invested a great deal to keep Amtrak viable.
Investment so far has been worth it, but for the long term,
much is left to be done. For this reason, it is my hope that we
will leave here today with renewed confidence in Amtrak's
business plan, its efforts to improve customer service, and its
ability to increase both fare box and nonpassenger revenues.
It is my honor to introduce and warmly welcome our first
witness, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, chairman of the
Amtrak board of directors. We know that he brings a good dose
of Wisconsin know-how and common sense to his work for Amtrak.
Our presence together here today should stand as solid evidence
that passenger rail is alive and well in the Midwest. We thank
you, Governor Thompson, for joining us here today. We thank you
also, Mr. Warrington and Mr. Mead. We look forward to your
input, and with that, we pass the microphone to you.
statement of tommy thompson
Senator Shelby. Governor Thompson, your written statement,
all of your written statements will be made part of the record
in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish.
Governor Thompson. Thank you, sir, very much. First, let me
thank my friend Senator Kohl for introducing me, and thank him
so very much for being a strong supporter of passenger rail
service in Wisconsin.
Senator Lautenberg, it is always a pleasure to meet you
again and talk to you about our mutual love affair with
passenger rail service in America.
Senator Shelby. Governor, you are going to make him take a
test before letting him engineer the train, aren't you?
Governor Thompson. No, I trust him.
Senator Lautenberg. The wonderful thing about new trains
is, it does not spill a drink. It does not. It is very level.
[Laughter.]
Governor Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank
you to you, and I appreciate your statement, and I am here to
tell you that I have the same concerns, and I want to address
your concerns this morning, and I thank you so very much for
raising them.
Senator Campbell, I would like to, just for the record,
point out that in 1981 our favorite motorcycle company was in
terrible shape. In fact, it was bankrupt, and it was putting
out an inferior product, and then, because of new management,
new direction, it went from bankruptcy, with the help of the
Federal Government and the State of Wisconsin government, it--
Harley Davidson--turned around and is now the champion
motorcycle in the world. It is the only real motorcycle being
built in the United States, and both Senator Campbell and I
drive, or ride, Harley Davidsons.
Senator Shelby. And a waiting period to buy one.
Governor Thompson. It is not a good time to buy one. You
have to wait 14 months to buy one now.
Senator Shelby. Except for you and Senator Campbell.
Governor Thompson. Oh, Senator Campbell and I could
probably get one. If you want one, Senator Shelby, we will see
what we can do to help get you one.
And I also would like to point out that that is the same
thing we intend to do with Amtrak, and so I am appearing before
you today in my role as chair of the Amtrak Reform Board--an
entity that you people, the Senate and the Congress, brought
into existence 10 months ago. We have only been in operation 10
months--and I am here to represent the views of the entire
board.
When I was first approached by Speaker Gingrich, and the
White House, I thought long and hard about joining the Amtrak
Reform Board. I served on the Amtrak Board from 1990 to 1994,
and it was not a totally pleasant experience. I am familiar
with the difficulties Amtrak faces up here, and I certainly was
brought to that realization again by listening to my friend
Senator Shelby this morning. I know it is a tough situation
facing this Subcommittee, but to try and put the levels of
investment in perspective here, highways will see nearly $30
billion in Federal funding this year, aviation about $11
billion, mass transit about $5 billion, and maritime about $4
billion. Amtrak, we are only asking for $571 million--M, not
B--that is with an M.
Now, my State depends upon Amtrak, as all of your States
do, so when I was approached, I looked a little closer at the
company. The General Accounting Office and the DOT IG said,
``Amtrak is in precarious financial condition.'' I have heard
the same thing about the welfare system. It does not mean you
should avoid the responsibility and the opportunity to serve.
It means you should commit yourself to improving it, and that
is what I have done.
I accepted the responsibility of being on the Amtrak Board,
and I have the support of my colleagues on the Board, who
elected me as chairman. The rest of the board is absolutely
passionately committed to turning Amtrak around. Michael
Dukakis is the vice chairman, and as you know, Senator Shelby,
Michael Dukakis and I do not agree on very much at all, over
the years, but I want you to know that Michael Dukakis and
myself are 100 percent together on this, and we are dedicated
to turning around Amtrak for you, Senator Shelby, for the
Senate, for the Congress, and for the people of the United
States.
The reauthorization bill passed in 1997 demonstrated that
Congress and the country want a national passenger railroad
system, and it explicitly recognized rail as essential to a
balanced transportation system for mobility, accessibility,
congestion relief, and economic growth. The legislation said,
``operate the system like a business and make this business
grow,'' so I and my colleagues on the Board accepted this
challenge, and that is exactly, Senator Shelby, what we intend
to do.
Our strategy is not complicated. It has six components. We
know we need to maintain a national system, because a system
that serves only the Northeast Corridor is not going to get the
support of you, Mr. Chairman, or Speaker Hastert, or Senator
Kohl, or Governor Davis of California, or Senator Campbell, or
Senator Lott, nor many of the other Members of this
Subcommittee. We need to become operationally self-sufficient
because the law requires it, and I would like to say we are
going to do it by the year 2003, and we are committed to making
that happen.
First, we adopted a business plan in October. Now, the
Inspector General is going to give you information on the
business plan that was in existence last year. The operational
business plan that we adopted is brand new and different from
that. We adopted it in October of this past year. It will get
us to operating self-sufficiency by 2003. I will repeat, we are
going to reach that goal, and we are already ahead of our
operational business plan that we adopted in October. We have
only had this plan in place now for 5 months, and we are
already $11.2 million ahead of the business plan that will make
us operationally self-sufficient by the year 2003.
Second, we are going to build a market-based network just
like you asked us to, Mr. Chairman. For the first time, Amtrak
is going to work to define a national system in market terms.
We are going to look--we are reviewing, this year, every
service we are operating. We are going to gauge it as far as
the potential it has, what we are losing on it, and what we
need to do to turn it around. We are making an intensive study
of that particular aspect of our business.
Third is to develop corridor services. Amtrak is going to
take the expertise it has gained by planning, engineering, and
implementing the complex infrastructure upgrades in the
Northeast Corridor, and use it to develop new rail corridors
across the country.
I happen to be excited about what is happening on the
Northeast Corridor. We were in New York for the last 2 days,
where we kicked off our business plan and our new operational
plan for high speed rail, and right there we had more
individuals come out and more press than you can imagine. There
is a new love affair for passenger rail service in America.
There is a new renaissance, and we are going to put these high-
speed trains on the track, and we are going to be able to go
from New York, Mr. Chairman, to Washington, DC, in 2\1/2\
hours.
Now, commuter air is going to take 3 hours downtown to
downtown, so we are going to beat the pants off of that. I want
to point out that in Penn Station where I was yesterday, we are
handling 88 million people a year. Not all on Amtrak, but also
commuter rail, nonetheless 88 million people use rail service
in New York City in Penn Station alone, while the three
airports together last year only handled 80 million, so you can
see that rail is very, very important.
The fourth component is to leverage public and private
partnerships by expanding alliances with private businesses,
which you have asked us to do, Mr. Chairman, and investment
partnerships with State and local governments.
We are also reaching out to the freight railroads. You
know, Amtrak used to have this awful relationship, this
antagonistic relationship, with freight railroads. President
Warrington and myself are sitting down and having dinner with
the freight presidents and discussing how we can cooperate, how
we can make freight railroads more profitable, and at the same
time invest in their freight rail so that they can allow us to
be more on time with our passenger rails. And they are willing
to help us, and that is the first time in 20-some years that
freight rails have ever been in an agreeable, cooperative,
relationship with Amtrak.
Amtrak is putting the right people--George Warrington, who
the Board selected as president--is going to do an excellent
job for you and for me and for the board and for the people of
this country. We also got Sandy Brown, Arlene, some great
people who are really doing a great job for Amtrak, turning
this around, giving us new vitality, giving us new energy.
Last, by revitalizing the Amtrak brand ACELA, the company
is going to reposition its services. ACELA is a combination of
two words, acceleration and excellence. That is our new brand
name. ACELA is designed to clearly present a new promise for
travelers in the marketplace.
I know it sounds pretty ambitious, and I know you have to
be somewhat skeptical, because you have not always received
candid responses from the Amtrak Board and from Amtrak
management. I am here to tell you, I pledge to you one thing,
Senator Shelby, that you are going to get candid responses from
me and from this Board, and when we make a mistake we are going
to come over here and you are going to be the first one to know
about it.
It is ambitious, but in the 10 months that I have been on
this Board, and the 6 months since I have been chairman, we
have developed a good story to tell, and I want to tell that
story quickly this morning.
We ended fiscal year 1998 with a net loss of $353 million,
which is not good, but that was compared to $762 million, one-
half of the previous year's loss.
Second, the corporations' actual cash deficit was $50
million, one-half of what was forecasted, which was supposed to
be $100 million.
Passenger revenues last year topped the billion-dollar mark
for the first time in our corporation's history. Ridership grew
4\1/2\ percent last year, the largest increase in 10 years, and
we are on our schedule to increase it again this year. We are
already meeting those milestones.
And just as important as financial indicators, the company
became a safer place to work. Employee injuries were down 14
percent from the previous year, 14 percent.
Looking ahead, our goals still appear ambitious, but they
also appear achievable. First quarter results for fiscal year
1999 shows the same trends. We have met or exceeded our
financial targets, starting off the year, on October 1, $3
million ahead of our business plan forecast, and at the end of
February this year, we are $11.2 million ahead. I want to
reiterate that that business plan puts us operating self-
sufficient by 2003. We are $11.2, $11.3 million ahead of the
plan.
Amtrak is out there pounding the pavement to find new
business partners, and since the beginning of the year we have
signed five new business deals, five new business deals that
together are expected to generate more than $20 million in
annual revenue and $28 million in long-term savings. These
deals look very promising.
Let me tell you about these five deals. First, we are
increasing our mail and express business. The freight railroads
said, you know, you have service on a daily basis, so we are
going to give you an opportunity to increase your express. So,
last year we picked up $83 million in express revenues, we
think we will be earning over $100 million in mail and express
this year.
Second, we went out and began to get involved in the
refrigerated car business. The freight railroads want to get
out of this business. Now, can you imagine Amtrak pulling
``reefers, as these cars are called, from Oklahoma to
California. Because we go daily out there, we can do it more
reliably than the freight railroads. It is an $8 billion
business. We are going to do it, and we are going to start very
slowly, but we think, Mr. Chairman, that this is something that
Amtrak could really earn some money doing.
Third, we went out and did something that needed to be
done. We have been preparing all of our own meals, and they
haven't been that good on Amtrak, so we entered a contract with
Dobbs International, which serves all the airlines, and they
are going to prepare the food--they are going to buy it, they
are going to truck it, they are going to prepare it. We will
serve it with our own employees on the trains, but Dobbs is
going to prepare it, and we are going to improve the quality of
the food.
We are also going to have regional foods. Down south we
will have different kinds of foods than we have up in the
Northeast and Southwest, and in Wisconsin we will serve you
brats and beer, and a little cheese, so everybody should get
excited about that, and you know something, this contract is
going to be better quality food, but you know what else? We
will save $20 million in 5 years. $20 million.
Senator Shelby. Governor Thompson, you are talking our kind
of language here.
Governor Thompson. I know it. I knew that, Senator Shelby,
and that is why I wanted to tell you about that. $20 million is
not peanuts, and we are going to save it over 5 years on this
contract.
So we are out there building these new business
partnerships. We are also going to go to some of these--Senator
Lautenberg, we are going to go to some of these big truckers,
like Schneider National Trucking in Wisconsin, and we are going
to partner to put on some road-railers. We are not going to in
any way harm our passenger service, but we are going to be able
to put on a couple of extra cars to haul some express.
We are going to try and introduce that with some of the big
trucking companies in the United States, and haul some of their
road-railers, and be able to pick up some extra money. These
are the kinds of contracts we are looking at, refrigeration,
express, mail, food preparation, as well as working with the
freight railroads to create better opportunities for us to pick
up some more express business, and thus help us become
operationally self-sufficient.
We as a Board know we do not have all the answers. However,
there are plenty of good people willing to give us advice. We
have a good working relationship with the Amtrak Reform
Council, which you set up to monitor us. We also have the DOT
IG, Ken Mead, who we are working very closely with, but I want
to point out that his assessment is on last year's business
plan, not the new board's business plan, I want you to remember
that. As you know, his staff is going to conduct annual
assessments of our financial condition.
We are going to listen to Congress, our Nation's governors,
mayors, and other officials. I look at the Members of this
Subcommittee, and I see the importance of Amtrak reflected in
every one. The chairman's State has two Amtrak services which
carry more than 54,000 passengers into and out of Alabama--the
Crescent, and the Sunset Limited. Amtrak employs 29 Alabamians
who earn more than $1 million annually.
Amtrak is beginning to work on developing a corridor, which
we kicked off in New Orleans about 3 months ago, with Senator
Trent Lott and Mayor John Robert Smith from Mississippi, that
is going to go into Alabama. It is called the Gulf Coast high
speed rail corridor, and I am sure once the Northeast high-
speed rail starts, that the South will gain momentum in
developing a high speed rail corridor, and that is why we were
down there.
The Amtrak board is also going to other parts of the
country. Next month we are going to be down in Mississippi for
our monthly meeting. Yesterday, we were in New York. Last
month, we were in California.
In Missouri, Amtrak service is more than 635,000
passengers. In Colorado, Senator Campbell, Amtrak carries
nearly 240,000 and employs 86 residents, who earn more than
$4\1/2\ million from Amtrak annually.
Senator Specter is not here, but he certainly knows the
importance of Amtrak to his state. We carry nearly 870,000
passengers through Washington, for Senator Gorton and Senator
Murray, who are on this Subcommittee, and for my good friend
from New Mexico who just came in, we carry 100,000 passengers
into or out of the State of New Mexico every year, and Amtrak
employs 57 residents, who earn in excess of $3 million
annually. And I am sure Senator Lautenberg can describe
Amtrak's impact in New Jersey, where we are a lifeline for the
citizens of that State, operating nearly 100 trains daily,
carrying more than 3.3 million people a year. We employ more
than 1,700 residents in your State, Senator Lautenberg, earning
more than $86 million annually, and we purchased another $28
million in goods and services last year.
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, enjoys daily service, as you know.
You have been on the train, and it is a wonderful service,
carries one-half million passengers into and out of the State
of Wisconsin yearly. Amtrak employs 68 residents in my State,
and every single Member of this Subcommittee, to varying
degrees, benefits from Amtrak.
The Board's commitment, and my commitment to you, is not
based on romanticized notions of rail. We support Amtrak for
concrete fiscal and mobility reasons.
Yesterday we were at Penn Station. Eighty-eight million
people a year use Penn Station.
I came here today to tell you a little bit about how Amtrak
is doing, where we are heading, and how we plan on getting
there. I am also here to ask you, at a minimum, to fully fund
the Administration's request for $571 million in capital.
With $571 million in the flexible capital--which we need,
it is absolutely essential--Amtrak can adhere to the strategic
business plan that we set up in October, and stay on the path
to operating self-sufficiency. Not fully funding us, or not
providing us with the full Federal Transit Administration
definition, would be extremely short-sighted. It would
compromise the investment that you have already made, that was
already made in Amtrak through the provisions of the Taxpayer
Relief Act [TRA] funds. Adequate appropriation ensures that
Amtrak can preserve the TRA funds to use on high rate of return
capital investments, and anything less than $571 million would
force us to instead use the TRA funds for daily survival.
If that is the outcome, the financial performance of the
company will not be able to continue to improve. You will
sacrifice the investment already made, so I urge the Committee,
in the strongest possible terms, to fully fund the
corporation's request for $571 million.
I stand ready to answer any questions you may have, and I
thank you so very much, but I would like to just mention three
things quickly, and I know my time is up. Three things. High
speed trains are going to be kicked off by the end of this
year. Every Member of this Subcommittee should be on that first
inaugural run just to see how it operates. We are committed to
it, and we are going to be able to go from New York to
Washington, DC, in 2\1/2\ hours. We are going to be able to go
from New York to Boston in 3 hours.
Senator Campbell. With Senator Lautenberg driving?
Governor Thompson. Senator Lautenberg and Senator Shelby
are both going to be in the cab, and you and I are going to be
right behind them, Senator Campbell, watching them.
We are going to pick up an additional $180 million annually
from that service. Now, we know we have some disagreement with
Mr. Mead about when we realize those returns, and we can
explain our differences, but we feel very confident that we are
going to be able to bring that amount in.
Second, we were out in California last month for a board
meeting. California is going to have an additional 19 million
citizens by 2020, 19 million more citizens. Now, you know, all
of you have been in California, there is no way that they are
going to be able to build the highways or the airports to
handle that kind of population. The only salvation for that is
going to be passenger rail service. That is why development of
high-speed rail out there is so important.
Third, and the most important thing is, is that once the
high speed train is kicked off from New York to Boston and New
York to Washington, Senator Kohl, Senator Reid, Senator Shelby,
Senator Campbell, and Senator Domenici are going to be asking
for the same kind of high speed corridors in their States.
We have to develop them, and we in the Midwest are probably
advanced in regards to getting the next corridor. We have nine
States committed to do it, all the governors are committed to
do it, the transportation people are committed to do it, and on
top of this, I am confident that we can be as successful as the
Northeast Corridor is going to be.
prepared statement
So with that, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I
thank you for the opportunity to tell you the new story about
Amtrak, and you can see we are excited about it, and I can tell
you, we are going to deliver, we are going to be self-
sufficient by the year 2003 with your help and cooperation.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tommy Thompson
Mr. Chair: I'm appearing before you today in my role as the Chair
of the Amtrak Reform Board--an entity you brought into existence ten
months ago when you confirmed me, Vice-Chair Michael Dukakis, and Mayor
John Robert Smith of Meridian, Mississippi. The United States Secretary
of Transportation also serves as a member, as do Governor Linwood
Holton and Amy Rosen, both confirmed by the Senate last fall. I sit
here today representing the entire Board.
Fifteen months ago, the United States Senate passed the Amtrak
Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA) of 1997 by unanimous consent,
which authorized adequate funding for Amtrak for five years, mandated
an annual Independent Assessment of Amtrak's financial condition by the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Inspector General (DOT IG), and
created an additional oversight body called the Amtrak Reform Council
(ARC), whose basic mandate is to evaluate Amtrak's progress to
achieving the statutory goal of operating self-sufficiency by the end
of fiscal year 2002. If, at least two years after implementation by the
new Board of a plan to reach operating self-sufficiency, the ARC
believes Amtrak will not be able to achieve that goal, the ARC is
required to notify the President and the Congress of the situation and
submit a restructuring plan for the corporation within 90 days. Amtrak
is concurrently required to submit a liquidation plan.
I can assure you, viewing the Amtrak guillotine from the safety of
Madison, when I was first approached by the White House, I thought long
and hard about joining the Amtrak Reform Board. I believe in a national
passenger rail system and had no intention of presiding over the death
of it in this country. I had served on the Amtrak Board from 1990-1994,
and I was familiar with the difficulties Amtrak faces up here,
receiving less than three tenths of one percent of the federal
transportation budget. Less than one percent, and having to fight--
really fight--for every penny of it. I know its a tough situation for
this Subcommittee--particularly with the recently erected fire walls
for highways and transit, and now some promoting the same sort of
treatment for aviation. You have an incredibly difficult job. But the
fact remains that funding for highways, transit, aviation and maritime
have all seen significant increases--increases which I have no
objection to--for years. To try and put the levels of investment in
perspective here: highways will see nearly $30 billion in federal
funding this year, aviation about $11 billion, mass transit about $5
billion, and maritime nearly $4 billion. And, Amtrak is asking for $571
million dollars. With an Am. And I know we'll have to fight for every
penny of it.
So, I thought long and hard about accepting an appointment to the
Board--and I'm sure many of my fellow Board members did too. I like
challenges, but not tilting at windmills. So, I looked at Amtrak last
year, operating under an acting president, with interim management, and
with the majority of its employees working under contracts that had
expired several years earlier. Madison was still a little chilly in
late Spring, but looked relatively pretty comfortable. But my State
depends on Amtrak for jobs, for transportation, and for economic
development, so I looked a little closer, at this leaderless company
that the General Accounting Office and the DOT IG said was in
precarious financial condition. I've heard the same thing said about
the welfare system--it doesn't mean you should give up on it, or get
rid of it--it means you should commit yourself to improving it. I enjoy
challenges.
The Reauthorization bill had shown that the Congress and the
country wanted a national passenger rail system. It had recognized rail
as an essential component of a balanced transportation system, for
mobility, accessibility, congestion relief and economic growth. The
legislation said operate the system like a business, and make this
business grow. So, I and my colleagues on the Board, accepted this
challenge. We set to work developing a strategy and a plan: A plan
about customers, money, performance, consequences and success.
The strategy isn't complicated. We know we need to maintain a
national system, because a system that serves only the Northeast
Corridor isn't going to get my support, Speaker Hastert's, Governor
Davis', or Senator Lott's, nor many of the Members of this
Subcommittee. We know we need to become operationally self-sufficient,
because the law requires that. And, we decided to do it by putting in
place smart, commercially-oriented management, and directing them to
use proven business techniques to maximize Amtrak's potential in the
marketplace.
The plan is also pretty simple, with five core components:
Build a Market-Based Network.--An extensive market-based research
analysis is underway to define consumer demand and to identify
opportunities to grow rail service and increase Amtrak's share of the
travel market. For the first time, Amtrak will define a national system
in market terms.
Develop Corridor Services.--Amtrak will phase in the Northeast
Corridor's High-Speed Rail programs late this year in an exciting
culmination of years of effort, and this service will greatly enhance
the corporation's bottom line. Then we're going to take the expertise
Amtrak has developed in planning, engineering and implementing complex
infrastructure upgrades and use this to develop new rail corridors
across the country. More than a dozen corridors have been identified
which offer real potential for future growth.
Leverage Public and Private Partnerships.--Amtrak needs to expand
the development of business alliances and investment partnerships to
generate revenue which supports basic rail service. It means aggressive
commercial partnerships to leverage our assets, and innovative public
partnerships with State and Local governments.
Deliver Consistent Quality Service.--Amtrak needs to deliver a
predictable, consistent level of quality service on every train, every
day. Improving service standards by putting the right people in the
place with the proper support to deliver top-notch service. That means
better hiring and better training, and it means rewarding employees
when the company meets or exceeds its goals but not tolerating
employees who stand in the way. A company with successful customer
service is a company that has engaged its workforce in achieving that
success.
Revitalize the Amtrak Brand.--Amtrak is repositioning its services
and product lines with a new national brand, one that is designed to
more clearly present a new promise to the marketplace. It will
represent products responsive to customers, and the consistent delivery
of quality service. Like any business, this will inspire new and repeat
customers.
I know it sounds pretty ambitious. But I also know Amtrak is
capable of it. Not a static, lumbering Amtrak, but 24,000 dedicated
employees who care about the system, and the energetic new management
we've put in place. And so far, in the ten months since I've been on
this Board, we have a good story to tell. We ended fiscal year 1998
with a net loss of $353 million, nothing to be proud of, but good
compared with the fiscal year 1997 loss of $762 million. The
corporation's actual cash deficit was $50 million--one-half of what was
forecasted--passenger revenues topping the $1 billion mark for the
first time in the corporation's history, and ridership grew 4.5 percent
last year--the largest increase in ten years. On-time performance is
the highest it has been in nearly thirteen years, and mail and express
revenue increased 19 percent. And just as important as financial
performance indicators, the company became a safer place to work:
employee injuries were down 14 percent from the previous year. When I
look at the past year's results, our goals still appear ambitious. But
they appear achievable.
First quarter results for fiscal year 1999 show the same trend: We
met or exceeded our financial targets, starting off the year with a
bottom-line result $3 million ahead of the business plan forecast.
Ridership grew 3 percent in the first quarter, representing an unbroken
streak of eight quarterly ridership increases. Passenger revenues grew
by 7.4 percent over the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, on-time
performance was 80 percent systemwide, and employee injuries continued
to decrease.
Amtrak is out there pounding the pavement to find new business
partners. Since the beginning of the year, we have signed five new
business deals that together are expected to generate more than $20
million in annual revenue and $28 million in long-term savings. We
signed a deal with Dobbs International Services, the nation's leading
transportation caterer, to take over the operations of Amtrak's 11
commissaries in order to improve the quality and efficiency of on-board
food service. We signed a deal with Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad to provide transportation for Amtrak's growing express
business, which includes shipping packages for UPS. We have expanded
our business with the United States Postal Service to carry new mail
business from Springfield, MA and Philadelphia, PA to Los Angeles and
Oakland, CA. We finalized deals with ExpressTrak, Inc., to allow Amtrak
to enter the refrigerated carload business, and with Dynamex, to
inaugurate a new package express service between New York and
Washington, D.C.
These kinds of financial results and new business partnerships
allow me to sit here today, representing the Amtrak Board, reporting on
our ten months of existence, and feel good about. I know that this is
only the beginning of difficult decisions and countless challenges. But
these results allow me to look, optimistically, to the times to come.
We as a Board know we don't have all the answers, and we have also
learned that there are plenty of people willing to give us advice. Many
of these sources we recognize as experts whose dispensations we should
pay heed to. We have established a good working relationship with the
Amtrak Reform Council, chaired by former Federal Railroad Administrator
Gil Carmichael, supported by Vice-Chair Paul Weyrich. The Council is
made up of professionals with expertise in rail labor, rail management,
transportation and finance, representing a cross section of views,
ranging from outspoken critics of the national railroad system to those
who vociferously support it. They provide a good sounding board, and we
intend to listen and we learn. We also have the DOT IG, Ken Mead, whose
staff will conduct annual assessments of our financial condition. We
have, and we will continue to, carefully review his thorough and
thoughtful reports and comments. The infrastructure put in place to
support Amtrak's emergence as an operationally self-sufficient entity
is sound, and we will rely on it for support.
And we will listen to the Congress, our nation's governors, our
nation's mayor's, and other officials. I look at the Members of this
Subcommittee and I see the importance of Amtrak reflected in every one:
The Chairman's State has two Amtrak services--the daily Crescent
and the tri-weekly Sunset Limited, carrying more than 54,000 passengers
into or out of Alabama. Amtrak spent more $9 million in the State last
year on goods and services, and employs 29 Alabama residents who earn
more than $1 million annually. Alabama is also part of the recently
designated Gulf Coast High-Speed Rail Corridor, selected last December
by Secretary Slater as one of the nation's emerging rail right-of-ways.
Amtrak has attended two meetings in the last month hosted by the
Southern Rapid Rail Transit Commission to begin work on a strategic
plan to develop and invest in this Corridor.
Utah currently hosts only one daily service, the California Zephyr,
which carries more than 31,000 passengers into or out of the state. We
employee 49 Utah residents, who earn about $2.8 million annually. Salt
Lake City would like us to provide commuter service for the Olympics,
and we are working closely with the Deputy Mayor of the City, the host
railroad and others to see if we can provide such service.
In Missouri, we carry more than 635,000 passengers annually, on the
Southwest Chief, the Texas Eagle, the St. Louis, the Kansas City Mules,
the Ann Rutledge, and the State House. We employ nearly 100
Missourians, who earn nearly $4.8 million annually, and Amtrak spends
another $4.3 million on goods and services. In just a few weeks, I'll
be in Kansas City and St. Louis announcing some significant investments
Amtrak is making in the stations in those cities.
In Colorado, Amtrak carries nearly 240,000 residents with the daily
California Zephyr and the daily Southwest Chief. We employ 86
residents, who earn more than $4.5 million, and spend another $3.3
million on goods and services.
Senator Specter can certainly expound on the virtues of Amtrak to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania better than I, and I've heard him do
so. More than 103 Amtrak trains pass through Pennsylvania every day,
taking more than 4.5 million people off the roads, and serving as an
absolutely essential component in the transportation system. We are
also an essential component of the state economy. We employ more than
2900 residents, who earn more than $134 million, and Amtrak spends
another $87 million on goods and services in the Commonwealth.
The Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, and the Amtrak Cascades
carry nearly 870,000 passengers through Washington every year. We
employ 412 residents earning nearly $18 million annually, and we spent
another $2.6 million on goods and services in the State. The Cascades
service is one of many success stories, where we have seen ridership
quadruple over the past four years.
The Southwest Chief, the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle serve
New Mexico, carrying nearly 100,000 passengers into or out of the
State. Amtrak employs 57 residents earning in excess of $3 million
annually.
I'm sure Senator Lautenberg can describe Amtrak's impact in New
Jersey more passionately than I, and I have heard him do so. We are a
lifeline for the citizens of the State, operating nearly 100 trains
daily carrying more than 3.3 million people. We employ more than 1,700
residents, earning more than $86 million annually, and we purchased
another $28 million in goods and services last year.
Wisconsin enjoys daily Empire Builder and the Hiawatha services,
which carry nearly half a million passengers into, out of, or through
the State. Amtrak employs 68 residents who earn more than $3.3 million
annually, and the corporation spent another $12.6 million purchasing
goods and services in the State last year.
In West Virginia, the Cardinal and Capitol Limited carry more than
42,000 passengers annually. Amtrak employs 32 West Virginians who earn
nearly $1.5 million annually, and spent another $3.4 million purchasing
goods and services last year.
Seventy-five Amtrak trains serve Maryland every day, carrying more
than 1.5 million passengers and serving as an essential component of
the State's transportation network. Amtrak employs 2,300 Maryland
residents, who earn in excess of $108 million annually, and the company
spent another $34 million on goods and services in the state last year.
Every single Member of this Subcommittee benefits from Amtrak, of
course to varying degrees. Whether it is 34,000 passengers or several
million--whether it is 29 employees or 2,900--ask one of those
passengers how they would have reached their destination if Amtrak
didn't exist, or one of those employees where they would be working. So
you see, our commitment to Amtrak is not premised on romanticized
notions, the sounds of steam whistles blowing, or the historic role
trains have played in America's history. We are strong supporters of
Amtrak for very concrete fiscal and mobility reasons, and we are
committed to making it succeed.
I came here today to tell you a little bit about how Amtrak is
doing, where we are heading, and how we plan on getting there. I am
also here to ask you to, at a minimum, fully fund the Administration's
request for $571 million in capital. With $571 million and the flexible
capital definition--which is absolutely essential--Amtrak can adhere to
its Strategic Business Plan and stay on the path to operating self-
sufficiency. Not fully funding us, or not providing us with the full
Federal Transit Administration definition, would be extremely short-
sighted. It would compromise the investment the Congress has already
made in Amtrak through the provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA)
funds. Adequate appropriations ensure that Amtrak can preserve the TRA
funds for high rate of return capital investment. Anything less than
$571 million would force us to instead use the TRA funds for daily
survival. If that is the outcome, the financial performance of the
company will not continue to improve, you will sacrifice the investment
already made.
I urge the Committee, in the strongest possible terms, to fully
fund the Corporation's request for $571 million, and I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Shelby. Governor, the high speed rail that you are
going to build next between Atlanta and New Orleans will take
care of myself and Senator Lott.
Governor Thompson. Yes. Senator Lott was at the event, and
he is committed.
Senator Lautenberg. We never applaud at committee meetings,
but----
[Applause.]
Governor Thompson. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Warrington.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE WARRINGTON
Mr. Warrington. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the
opportunity to be here before you today.
Amtrak, as Governor Thompson has indicated, has really made
tremendous progress over the past year, but I will tell you
honestly that we have many challenges to continue to overcome.
I know well that Amtrak must present consistent, accurate,
and verifiable proof of our progress to transform this
corporation into a commercially oriented, customer-focused, and
financially sound business enterprise. I fully understand that
you have issued a challenge to this railroad to become
financially sound.
Personally, I take this challenge very seriously,
otherwise, I will tell you that I would not have accepted the
position of president and CEO of Amtrak. Just this past
December the Board appointed me to lead this corporation's
turn-around. Last year, as the interim president, my interest
level, quite frankly, was not nearly as high. At that time, I
looked forward to returning to Philadelphia and my position as
president of the Northeast Corridor business unit.
However, after a few months here in Washington, I realized
that the challenges and the promise of the Northeast Corridor
really were, and really are, a microcosm of the much bigger
whole--the National Railroad Passenger System.
I began to see how the lessons I learned leading the
Corridor, the Northeast Corridor, could be applied to other
parts of this country, and I saw the possibilities for bringing
the national passenger rail system forward to make it not only
operationally self-sufficient, but also one of the best service
providers in the marketplace. I know, and I truly believe, that
this corporation can become profitable operating a national
passenger railroad system across this country.
Over the past year, I have led Amtrak's management team,
with the advice and support of Governor Thompson and the board
of directors, in crafting a business plan to revitalize the
national rail passenger system by transforming Amtrak into a
businesslike, market-driven company that delivers services
customers genuinely want. Amtrak is putting in place a business
planning process and an internal discipline to stick to that
process that will incrementally move this corporation forward
and will prove, to you and the American public, that we are
accomplishing our shared goals.
I am proud to report, as Governor Thompson indicated, that
last year Amtrak achieved record passenger revenues topping $1
billion. This record was powered by the largest ridership rise
in a decade, 4\1/2\ percent across the system. On-time
performance, which is the single most critical attribute for
our customers, reached 78 percent, the highest that it has been
in 13 years.
I can tell you that for the first quarter of this fiscal
year we are sustaining that trend, with ridership up another 3
percent and revenues hitting the target set in our strategic
business plan, and we are accomplishing this despite competing
against extremely low, as you know, gasoline prices.
On-time performance now, this month, stands at 80 percent
system-wide. In fact, at the end of the first quarter of fiscal
year 1999 we are $25 million ahead of where the DOT Inspector
General's report projected we would be, and year to date, year
to date through February, we are $41 million ahead.
We have a commercially focused business plan that will
maintain this momentum. It contains valuable lessons we have
learned from successful businesses that we have incorporated to
fit our own unique culture, and our own unique environment. Our
core objective is to increase market share, squeezing every
single dollar of revenue we can by leveraging every single
asset that we have got and never, ever missing a business
opportunity.
It is all about making money. It is all about building and
delivering consistent quality service and quality operations
across this country, on every train everybody steps on every
day. We will achieve success by introducing, as Governor
Thompson indicated, high speed rail service in the Northeast,
by developing other high speed corridors around this country,
forging partnerships with State governments and governors all
across this country, private businesses, including the freight
railroad industry, and operating a market-based national route
structure and improving and guaranteeing, much like we do on
our Coast Starlight service in California today, consistency
and quality of service.
All of this will contribute to improving our image, which
will attract more travelers and ultimately improve our bottom
line. At the end of this year, Amtrak will phase in America's
first high speed service on the Northeast Corridor. We will
make America proud.
High speed rail in the Northeast is the cornerstone, one
cornerstone, that underpins our financial turn-around. We
conservatively estimate, as Governor Thompson indicated, it
will bring in $180 million in incremental revenue annually by
the end of 2002. This will be money that Amtrak will use to
support this entire system across this country.
I have no doubt in my own mind that high speed rail in the
Northeast will revitalize train travel throughout America. We
have gained unique expertise in planning, building, and
operating high speed service. We are ready to leverage that
experience to develop high speed corridors in other densely
populated regions, another key component of our business plan.
In early January, Governor Thompson and Secretary Slater,
Administrator Molitoris, and Board member Amy Rosen and I
traveled to Chicago to announce a $25 million investment in
high speed service in the Midwest, linking Chicago, Milwaukee,
Detroit, and St. Louis. Late last year I joined Governor
Thompson and other Federal, State, and local officials in New
Orleans for the designation of a high speed corridor along the
Gulf Coast. We are making tangible investments in the Pacific
Northwest, the Southeast, Upstate New York, Albany-Buffalo,
Southern California, San Diego--Los Angeles--San Francisco,
across this entire country.
Long-term capital funds will be critical over the long
haul. On a sustained basis, in making these high speed
corridors a reality, we will require capital support.
You will note that many of these are regional corridors
that criss-cross State lines. In other words, it genuinely is a
cooperative effort.
Building these partnerships is another key component of
Amtrak's blueprint to fiscal solvency. This corporation will
aggressively forge alliances with States, with local
governments, with freight railroads, and commercial leaders to
generate additional revenue and savings. I also understand, Mr.
Chairman, that there exists a tremendous opportunity to
increase revenue and market share by increasing and stimulating
demand in areas where Amtrak now provides service, or by
expanding service where it will positively impact the bottom
line.
To accomplish this, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak is undertaking for
the first time in its 27-year history a genuine market-based
analysis of our entire national system with an eye, though, on
growth opportunities. It is another key strategic component of
our business plan that will speed our path to profitability and
allows us to better tailor our service to meet the demands of
the transportation marketplace.
I want Amtrak to have an expanded national system, one that
actually increases our market share. We must become a relevant
part of the country's transportation infrastructure, which will
require long-term, sustained capital investment. We cannot do
that by continually cutting routes, services, or the
frequencies of our trains. We cannot cut ourselves to
prosperity.
However, Amtrak can only expand into those markets where
research, hard facts, and data, not hunches, not nostalgia, not
historical precedent, indicate a strong chance for commercial
success.
While the market-based analysis will give us the
demographics and the transportation data we need to increase
market share and revenue, we will never reach prosperity if we
do not deliver high and consistent quality service to our
customers.
Without a doubt, the single most significant challenge
before Amtrak today is to fundamentally change the way we
interact with our customers. We put together a top level team
to establish and implement company-wide service standards in
cooperation with our labor organizations. The team has
benchmarked the best in the business at customer service,
including Ritz-Carlton, Sears, Continental Airlines, and even
the U.S. Postal Service.
Our road map to excellent service relies on several
tactics. We will improve and expand employees' training. We
cannot expect even the most competent and professional
employees to deliver consistent service without fundamental and
intense training.
Second, we are thoroughly overhauling our hiring
procedures. It is vital we hire the right people for the right
jobs. We have not always done that in the past. We are doing it
now.
Third, we will offer our employees incentives for exemplary
job performance. This is crucial--to reward hard work and extra
effort.
Finally, since none of these initiatives is effected
without excellent management, we are instituting a 360-degree
evaluation program for every manager at Amtrak. Management
performance will be evaluated from above, from peers, and from
direct report troops and employees. This is the only way to
build effective leadership for this corporation.
Recognizing labor's role in this initiative, I would like
to commend the union leadership for its shared commitment with
Amtrak for a prosperous future. It is a cooperative effort, and
to that end today collective-bargaining agreements have been
ratified, or tentatively agreed upon, with more than 87 percent
of our unionized workforce. I expect we will reach agreements
with the two remaining unions very shortly.
Together, the leaders of Amtrak's unions and management are
working very, very hard to ensure financial stability for
23,000 employees covered by collective-bargaining agreements
and for the corporation as a whole, in terms of productivity
savings--real work rule and real productivity savings around
the day-to-day operation.
Without this cooperation to improve service standards, we
will not maintain nor grow our customer base, no matter what
our demographic studies tell us about population and
transportation demands. If we cannot deliver service, and
service delivery is the one thing we can always do better than
our competition, no number of studies or market assessments
will be worth either the time or the effort to implement them.
I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, that Amtrak is turning the corner to become a
commercially oriented, customer-focused, financially sound
business enterprise. We have put in place an aggressive and
commercially focused business plan, the first in this
corporation's history. I stand behind this plan, and I know
that Governor Thompson and the Amtrak Board of Directors do as
well. For us, this is all about making money and putting
customers first. It is about keeping our commitment to you to
achieve operational self-sufficiency by following through on
every one of our business initiatives.
To do this will require a commitment from the Congress as
well, as agreed to in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
of 1997, to provide adequate capital investment funds which
will enable our business plan to succeed.
Let me share with you an example, a brief example of wise
investment in technology using the TRA funds. Three years ago,
this corporation's telephone reservation call centers were,
frankly, the laughing stock of the travel industry. After about
$10 million of investments in that system, training our people,
good arrangements with labor, investments in the Internet, and
investments in automatic ticket machines, our call centers were
named, 2 months ago, as the best in the travel industry by Call
Center Magazine, and at the end of the day we will end up
saving, this year, as a result of those investments and those
improvements in technology, $17 million.
And that savings does not involve us having to touch one
single train out there. It is about managing business smart,
and having the right management people in the right places who
are able to develop the right kind of business systems around
managing this asset.
Our call centers now generate more revenue at less cost.
For our customers, it means they spend less time on hold and
receive more thorough, professional information, and we sell
more tickets, less expensively.
As you see, Amtrak's need for long-term capital support is
no different than all other modes of transportation--highways,
airways, transit, and maritime. As I stated, adequate capital
enables Amtrak to enter more substantial investment-sharing
partnerships with States and private businesses to boost our
revenues, increase savings, and grow ridership.
To this end, we are asking the Subcommittee to support the
administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for $571
million for Amtrak. This is $38 million less than Congress
approved for Amtrak in fiscal year 1999, and reflects our
genuine commitment to lessen our dependence on Federal
operating support. As with last year, this request is for a
capital-only grant.
The other key component of our grant request is Congress'
confirmation of our ability to invest these funds in the same
manner as every other transportation mode. Amtrak's request is
that you renew our ability to use these funds as other modes
do, for maintenance of equipment, as you did in last year's
bill, Mr. Chairman, and extend this flexibility to be used for
maintenance of way as well.
To prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are making real
progress, genuine progress to assure you that Amtrak is using
Federal funds prudently, I will see to it that Amtrak continues
to work very closely with you, and Ken Mead, the DOT Inspector
General, and the Amtrak Reform Council. Amtrak has worked very
hard to establish a good working relationship with the ARC and
its chairman, Gil Carmichael, and its vice chairman, Paul
Weyrich, and we look forward to their future guidance and
cooperation.
Let me close by telling you again how confident I am,
personally, that we will succeed in turning around Amtrak. Our
performance results for the past year, and for the first
quarter of this year, are evidence of that turnaround, but we
do have a long way to go. As you watch us for the rest of 1999,
you will see more pieces of our business plan, more commercial
opportunity, more business partnerships unfold. You will see
the launch of high-speed rail in the Northeast. You will see
continued investment in other corridor services, and you will
see improved customer service and ridership and revenue growth.
prepared statement
Amtrak, all 24,000 of our employees, have been entrusted
with a national asset. It is in good hands today, Mr. Chairman,
and will be in even stronger hands tomorrow.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of George D. Warrington
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today.
Amtrak has made tremendous progress over the past year, but still
has many challenges to overcome. I know well that Amtrak must present
consistent, accurate and verifiable proof of our progress to transform
this corporation into a commercially oriented, customer-focused and
financially sound business enterprise. I fully understand that you have
issued a challenge to this railroad to become financially sound. I take
this challenge very seriously, otherwise I would not have accepted the
position of president and chief executive officer in December.
fiscal year 1998: a year of tangible progress
Over the past year, Amtrak has undergone tremendous change. In
accordance with the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, the
corporation has a new Board of Directors led by Chairman Governor Tommy
Thompson. I wholeheartedly share this Board's goal to make Amtrak the
envy of transportation providers worldwide.
This past December, the Board appointed me to lead the
corporation's turnaround as its president and chief executive officer.
Last year, as the interim president, my interest level was not as high.
At that time, I looked forward to returning to my position as president
of the Northeast Corridor. However, after a few months here in
Washington, I realized that the challenges and the promise of the
Northeast Corridor were really a microcosm of the bigger whole: the
national system. I began to see how the lessons that I learned leading
the Corridor could be applied to other parts of the country. And, I saw
the possibilities for bringing the national passenger rail system
forward to make it not only operationally self-sufficient, but also one
of the best service providers in the marketplace. I know and truly
believe that this corporation can become profitable, operating a
national system.
Over the past year, I have led Amtrak's management team, with the
advice and support of the Board of Directors, in crafting a business
plan to revitalize the national passenger rail system by transforming
Amtrak into a business-like, market-driven company that delivers
services customers want. Amtrak is putting in place a business-planning
process and an internal discipline to stick to that process that will
incrementally move this corporation forward, and will prove to you and
the American public that we are making progress toward our shared
goals.
I am proud to report that last year Amtrak achieved record
passenger revenues, topping $1 billion. This record was powered by the
largest ridership increase in a decade, 4.5 percent. On-time
performance, which is the most critical attribute for our customers,
reached 78 percent, the highest it has been in 13 years. I can tell you
that for the first quarter of this fiscal year Amtrak is sustaining
that trend with ridership up another three percent and revenues hitting
the targets set in our strategic business plan. And, we're
accomplishing this despite competing against extremely low gas prices.
On-time performance now stands at 80 percent systemwide. In fact, at
the end of the first quarter for fiscal year 1999, we are $25 million
ahead of where the DOT Inspector General's Report projected we would
be.
fiscal year 1999: building for the future
We have a commercially focused business plan that will maintain
this momentum. It contains valuable lessons we have learned from
successful businesses that we have incorporated to fit Amtrak's unique
environment. Our core objective is to increase our market share in the
travel market, squeezing every dollar of revenue we can by leveraging
our assets and never ever missing a business opportunity. It's all
about making money and building and delivering a consistent, quality
operation.
We will achieve success by introducing high-speed rail in the
Northeast, developing other high-speed corridors nationwide, forging
partnerships with state governments and private businesses, operating a
market-based national route structure, and improving and guaranteeing
consistency and quality of service. All of this will contribute to
improving our image, which will attract more travelers and ultimately
improve our bottom line.
Launch High-Speed Rail
At the end of this year, Amtrak will phase in America's first high-
speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. We will make America proud. High-
speed rail in the Northeast is a cornerstone that underpins Amtrak's
financial turnaround. We conservatively estimate that it will bring in
$180 million in net incremental revenue annually by the end of 2002.
This will be money that Amtrak will use to support the entire system.
With 20 new trainsets in service, travel times will be reduced in
the Northeast to as little as three hours and between New York and
Washington to as little as two hours and 30 minutes. Exactly or even
better than we had planned.
The high-speed program is expected to meet its projected completion
date. The phase in of service will begin late this year. The trainset
will arrive in Pueblo, Colorado, for testing in March, with the first
revenue trainsets ready for operation before the end of the year.
Virtually all infrastructure work to reduce travel times, including
installation of 365,000 concrete ties, 129 miles of new continuously
welded rail, installation of the new signal system and the Advanced
Civil Speed Enforcement System, replacement of 42 bridges and curve
alignments has or will be completed by the end of the year.
Develop Corridor Services
I have no doubt in my mind that high-speed rail in the Northeast
will revitalize train travel throughout America. Already,
transportation planners in busy corridors are turning to rail to solve
transportation problems. Amtrak has gained a unique expertise in
planning, building and soon operating high-speed service. We are ready
to leverage that experience to develop high-speed rail corridors in
other densely populated regions, another key component of our strategic
business plan.
For instance, in January, I, along with Chairman Thompson,
Secretary Slater, Administrator Molitoris and Board member Amy Rosen,
traveled to Chicago to announce a $25 million investment in high-speed
service in the Midwest, linking cities such as Chicago and Milwaukee,
Detroit and St. Louis. Late last year, I joined other Amtrak Board
members, federal, state and local officials in New Orleans for the
designation of a high-speed corridor along the Gulf Coast. We're also
making tangible investments in the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast,
upstate New York and in Southern California along Amtrak's second
busiest corridor from Los Angeles to San Diego. Long-term capital funds
will be critical in making these high-speed rail corridors a reality.
Leverage Public and Private Partnerships
You'll note that these are regional corridors that crisscross state
lines. In other words, it is a cooperative effort, partnerships, which
will make improved rail service a reality in these regions. Building
these partnerships is another key component of Amtrak's blueprint to
fiscal solvency. This corporation will aggressively forge alliances
with states, local governments, freight railroads, and commercial
leaders to generate additional revenue and savings.
Here are a few examples of what I mean.
In 1993, Amtrak entered into a partnership with the states of
Washington and Oregon to provide their citizens with better
transportation options through rail service. I can tell you this
partnership has been an achievement that bears repeating. By the close
of 1998, ridership in the Pacific Northwest Corridor had risen 347
percent. Customers consistently gave the service the highest
satisfaction rates in the Amtrak system. I would be at fault if I did
not stress another crucial player in this partnership, the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which owns the track. Working as partners,
travel times will decrease further. We will gain more repeat customers
and we will further tap into this lucrative market. Continued progress
with this partnership and the many others Amtrak has entered into with
other states will hinge on long-term capital support from the federal
government.
We understand that the national passenger rail network is a
tremendous national asset. I can tell you we are taking this asset and
using it wisely in partnership agreements with private businesses. For
example, Amtrak's three-hour Metroliners provide timely and reliable
service between New York and Washington. In a partnership with Dynamex
Inc., we will inaugurate a pilot program to deliver commercial parcels
door-to-door on this busy route.
Now let me tell you about a business venture complete with
partnerships that has grown tremendously. I'm sure most of you are
aware of our growing mail and express enterprise. Since a favorable
Surface Transportation Board ruling last year in our mail and express
business set a record $83 million in revenues and is on target to
increase another 29 percent to $107 million this year. Simply put, the
reliability and frequent schedules of our long-distance trains are
attractive to shippers who have had no other alternative but use
trucks. In a bellwether partnership with the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad, Amtrak has begun transporting packages for UPS and four
other shippers. In partnership with the Norfolk Southern Railroad, we
will be able to further grow the express portion of the business. And,
we've recently expanded business with our biggest commercial partner,
the United States Postal Service. Recent decisions to purchase
additional equipment will increase our ability to handle mail
transportation on additional cross-country routes. And, we are
continuing to enhance and develop a network of periodicals distribution
to speed up delivery of magazines.
In addition to the partnerships we have entered, we are also
leveraging our assets through profitable commercial ventures. For
instance, our three heavy maintenance facilities are staffed by the
best workers in the industry. We are leveraging our expertise by
competing for contracts to refurbish rail equipment such as the $7
million contract awarded to Amtrak by the Fort Worth Transportation
Authority a few months ago. In the Northeast Corridor, we are also
leveraging the right-of-way and stations we own for telecommunications,
advertising, parking and more ventures. Together, all our commercial
ventures earned $93 million in profit in fiscal year 1998.
Now here's an example that I'm quite proud of on the other side of
the balance sheet, cost savings.
The railroad recently signed a partnership agreement with Dobbs
International Services, the leading caterer in the airline industry, to
take over our commissary operations. While our commissary employees
performed well, we are not food service experts. Quite frankly, we
should have gotten out of the catering business years ago. In terms of
the bottom line, the seven-year agreement with Dobbs will save at least
$28 million. And, it will improve the quality of food we offer to our
customers.
These are just a few examples of seizing business opportunities to
generate more revenue and reduce costs. You have my word that Amtrak
will continue to scrutinize its operations to identify every possible
opportunity to achieve profitability.
Build a Market-Based National Network
I also understand that that there is tremendous potential to
increase revenue and market share within the passenger rail market, by
increasing and stimulating demand either in areas Amtrak now serves or
by expanding service where it will positively impact the bottom line.
To accomplish this, Amtrak is undertaking a market-based analysis
of our national system with an eye on growth opportunities. It is
another key strategic component of our business plan that will speed
Amtrak's path to profitability and better tailor our service to the
needs of the transportation marketplace.
I want Amtrak to have an expanded national system, one that
actually increases our market share. We must become a relevant part of
the country's transportation infrastructure, which will require long-
term capital investment. We can't do that by continually cutting
routes, services or the frequencies of our trains. We cannot cut
ourselves to prosperity. However, Amtrak can only expand into those
markets where research--hard facts and data, not hunches, nostalgia or
historical precedent--indicates a strong chance for commercial success.
Deliver Consistent Quality Service
While the market-based analysis will give us the demographics and
the transportation trend data we need to increase market share and
revenue, we will never reach prosperity if we do not deliver a high and
consistent level of service to our customers. Without a doubt, the most
significant challenge before Amtrak today is to fundamentally change
the way we interact with our customer. Only by providing world-class
service will our current customers choose to use Amtrak more often, and
will potential customers even consider traveling with us.
We have put together a top-level management team to establish and
implement company-wide service standards, in cooperation with our labor
organizations. The Team has benchmarked the best in the business at
customer service, including the Ritz-Carlton, Sears, Continental
Airlines, and the U.S. Postal Service. Our roadmap to excellent service
relies on several tactics. First, we will improve and expand our
employee training. We can't expect even the most competent and
professional employees to deliver consistent service without a
fundamental and intense training standard. Second, we are thoroughly
overhauling our hiring procedures. It is vital that we hire the right
people for the right job. We haven't always done that in the past.
We're doing it now. Third, we will offer our employees incentives for
exemplary job performance. That is crucial, to reward hard work and
extra effort. Finally, since none of these initiatives is effective
without excellent management, we are instituting a 360-degree
evaluation program for managers. Management performance will be
evaluated from above, from peers and from direct-report employees. This
is a way to build effective leadership.
Recognizing labor's role in this initiative, I would like to
commend union leadership for its shared commitment with Amtrak for a
prosperous future. It is a cooperative effort, and to that end today,
collective-bargaining agreements have been ratified or have been
tentatively agreed upon with more than 87 percent of our unionized
workforce. I expect we will reach agreements with the two remaining
unions soon. Together, the leaders of Amtrak's unions and management
are working very hard to ensure financial stability for the 22,000
employees covered by collective-bargaining agreements and for the
corporation in terms of productivity savings.
Without this cooperation to improve service standards, we cannot
maintain and grow our customer base, no matter what our demographic
studies might tell us about population and transportation trends. If we
can't deliver enviable service--and service delivery is the one thing
we can always do better than our competition--no number of studies and
market assessments will be worth the time and effort to implement them.
Revitalize the Amtrak Brand
What does all this change mean for Amtrak? New corridors, new
partnerships, new service quality? What this means is that we're a
different company that needs to present a different face to its
customers and potential customers. I am not talking about a new name
for Amtrak. I'm talking about a new promise that Amtrak will make--and
keep--to its valued customers. Part of following through with our
business plan is our branding effort, which will give Amtrak a new
face. It will begin with the introduction of the all-new high-speed
rail service in the Northeast. It will give Amtrak a new look, a new
feel, a new promise. It will expand to other product lines as the
service standards initiatives are put in place. The new look will
position Amtrak as not just a new level of passenger service but as a
newly committed company that is determined to succeed in the
marketplace.
fiscal year 2000: the resources needed to ensure success
I want to assure you that Amtrak is turning the corner to become a
commercially oriented, customer-focused and financially sound business
enterprise. We have put in place the most aggressive and commercially
focused strategic business plan in this corporation's history. The sum
of its parts is greater than the whole, with each key strategy
complimenting another.
I stand behind this plan and so does Amtrak's Board of Directors.
For us, it is about making money and putting customers first. It is
about keeping our commitment to you to achieve operating self-
sufficiency by following through on our business initiatives. To do
this will require a commitment from Congress, as agreed to in the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, to provide adequate
capital investment funds, which will enable our business plan to
succeed.
Last year, Amtrak received the first installment of the $2.2
billion in capital investment funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA)
of 1997. Soon, Amtrak will receive the second installment. Amtrak has
moved quickly to invest these funds in critical, high rate-of-return
infrastructure projects that will deliver tangible bottom-line
improvements to the corporation and improvements to our trains that
will benefit our customers. To date, some $541 million in TRA funds
have been invested. This fiscal year Amtrak will invest $823 million
total in capital projects, which includes TRA funds. This investment in
the future financial stability of Amtrak will leverage $303 million in
outside funds. Just as importantly, this investment will improve
Amtrak's bottom line by $129 million.
Let me share with you an example of wise capital investment in
technology. Three years ago, our telephone reservations call centers
were the laughing stock of the industry. After more than $10 million in
capital investments, our call centers were named the best in the travel
industry by Call Center Magazine. Our call centers now generate more
revenue per call at less cost. For our customers, it means they spend
less time on hold and receive more thorough, professional information.
And we sell more tickets less expensively.
So you see, Amtrak's need for long-term federal capital support is
no different than all the other modes of transportation: highways,
airways, transit and maritime. As I have stated, adequate capital
enables Amtrak to enter more substantial investment-sharing
partnerships with states and private businesses to boost our revenues,
increase savings and grow ridership.
To this end, Amtrak is asking the Subcommittee to support the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for $571 million for
Amtrak. This amounts to $38 million less than Congress approved for
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 and reflects Amtrak's genuine commitment to
lessen our dependence on federal operating support. As with last year,
our request is for a capital-only grant.
The other key component of our grant request is Congress'
confirmation of Amtrak's ability to invest these capital funds in the
same manner as every other transportation mode. Amtrak's grant request
asks that you renew our ability to use these funds as other modes do
for maintenance of equipment, as you did in last year's bill, and
extend this flexibility to be used for maintenance of way investments
as well. Last year, the Congress provided Amtrak with partial
flexibility. This year the Administration included in its fiscal year
2000 Budget Request flexibility for both maintenance of equipment and
maintenance of way, as it did last year.
To prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are making real
progress and to ensure you that Amtrak is using federal funds
prudently, I will see to it that Amtrak continues to work closely with
you, the DOT Inspector General's office and the Amtrak Reform Council.
Amtrak has established an excellent working relationship with the
ARC and its Chairman, Gil Carmichael, and Vice Chairman, Paul Weyrich,
and we look forward to their future guidance.
Let me close by telling you again how confident I am that we will
succeed in turning around Amtrak. Our performance results for last year
and the first quarter of this year are evidence of the turnaround. As
you watch us for the rest of 1999, you will see more of the pieces of
our business plan unfold: business partnerships, the launch of high-
speed rail in the Northeast, investment in corridor service, improved
customer service and ridership and revenue growth.
Amtrak--all 24,000 employees--have been entrusted with a national
asset. It is in good hands today and will be in even stronger hands
tomorrow.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg,
Senator Reid.
As you know, we are required by law to perform an annual
financial assessment of Amtrak's business plan. As Governor
Thompson pointed out, we did, in fact, review the March 1998
strategic plan.
We are currently reviewing the new plan issued in October,
and of course we will have actual experience to see how that
plan is playing out. In fact, when we do our work, the
information will be shared with Amtrak and they will be able to
make adjustments proactively as we go along.
Now, our overall assessment to date is that with strong
leadership, intense management, and continued favorable
economic conditions, it will be possible, albeit difficult, for
Amtrak to meet its congressional mandate and become
operationally self-sufficient by 2003. Nevertheless, even if
Amtrak does reach operational self-sufficiency, it will
continue to require indefinitely substantial capital funding.
I would like to touch on five things in my oral statement
Mr. Chairman, they are Amtrak's 1998 operating results,
Amtrak's ability to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003,
cost and schedule for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's funding
needs for capital, and Amtrak's request for funding
flexibility.
First, Amtrak's operating results. They were better than
the $845 million operating loss that Amtrak projected for 1998,
but the loss still totalled $823 million. Now, I want to
explain the difference here between the $353 million Governor
Thompson used and our figure of $823 million.
The figure that Governor Thompson used includes as income
or revenue the Federal grants and subsidies. We backed those
out, because the idea here is to get Amtrak to operate subsidy
free. Also, the loss did not include a $107 million cost
adjustment related to Amtrak's labor settlements. Those costs
that Amtrak planned to record in 1999 raised the operating loss
in 1998 to $930 million.
Amtrak's ridership and passenger revenue increased in 1998,
but not quite as much as Amtrak had expected. Nonpassenger
revenues from activities like commuter operations, mail and
express service, and commercial development have become very
important to Amtrak.
I want to stress this last point about the nonpassenger
revenues because of its importance to Amtrak's survival. In
1998, nonpassenger revenue sources accounted for 37 percent of
all Amtrak revenue. That is $626 million out of about $1.7
billion in total revenue.
Expenses for the railroad also were less than projected.
Amtrak had projected a 7-percent increase. Expenses actually
increased about 4 percent.
Second, our review of Amtrak's March 1998 strategic
business plan indicated that Amtrak would sustain an additional
$823 million in operating losses between 1999 and 2003, and
that its unfunded cash loss in that year would be in the
neighborhood of $300 million. That figure is, in fact, $167
million more than Amtrak itself has forecast. Amtrak management
is aware of our concerns, and is now executing plans projected
to increase revenues and cut costs.
We made several recommendations in our assessment, and we
understand that Amtrak is in the process of addressing all of
them.
I do want to stress that to reach operating self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2003, the railroad must first and
foremost provide good, timely service to its customers. It must
also implement high-speed rail service in the Northeast
Corridor, and rigorously pursue new mail and express package
business.
As I think both Mr. Warrington and Mr. Thompson pointed
out, on-time performance, courteous and efficient personnel, I
would add to that clean lavatories, pleasant travel
environment, are essential building blocks for all those
results. But Amtrak will really have to pursue the mail and
express package business. That is going to be the key, along
with high-speed rail.
In addition, the West Coast and the Northeast Corridor
States have proven to be strong financial supporters for
Amtrak. Amtrak needs to pursue similar partnerships with other
States, regional, and local governments.
The cost of the high-speed rail program in the Northeast
Corridor has grown to about $2.5 billion. That is a $500
million increase. That has happened for two reasons. First,
Amtrak expanded the size of the project, adding more train sets
and electric locomotives, but second, the cost of the
electrification project north of New Haven experienced
significant cost overruns. There is no more room for cost
overruns without eating into capital that is directed toward
other projects in the system.
Now, as you know, the electrification project has
experienced repeated delays. It is on a very tight schedule for
implementation in October 1999. Though system testing was
originally scheduled for July 1999, now that will not occur.
The final testing will not occur until October 1999. That is
the same month electrified service is supposed to begin.
The first high-speed train set is scheduled for operation
in December, so between now and the end of the year, three
distinct things must all come together. First, electrification;
second, delivery of the train sets; and third, progress on the
Central Artery.
Finally, a word on Amtrak's needs for capital investment,
and this is not maintenance. This is traditional capital
investment. These needs range from a minimal level of about
$2.7 billion to a developmental level of $4.0 billion. Senator
Lautenberg alluded to this earlier. It is a very important
point that you understand that the $4 billion includes projects
outside the Northeast Corridor.
The $2.7 billion would keep the railroad infrastructure in
good operating condition through 2003. The $4 billion would
allow Amtrak to expand and develop new business opportunities.
If Congress provides funding consistent with the
Administration's request to 2003, Amtrak's funding will fall
short of the minimum capital needs by about $500 million. The
amount will be more if Amtrak's operating losses are higher
than Amtrak projects, and that is why Amtrak is stressing the
importance of cutting those operating losses.
Finally, Amtrak has requested congressional approval to
spend its capital appropriation for maintenance of way. Last
year, they received the approval for maintenance of equipment.
What Amtrak is basically asking for is to be able to spend
money in accordance with the transit definition of capital. If
Amtrak does not get this approval, Amtrak simply will not be
able to cover its losses in 2000. It could be forced to default
on current obligations.
There is a certain irony here, because this default could
occur even though Amtrak will have more than $1 billion in the
bank. And that is because Taxpayer Relief Act funds cannot be
used for maintenance of way. They can only be used for
maintenance of equipment and traditional capital investment. So
Amtrak has $1 billion in the bank, and yet they may be
defaulting on their obligations. So I think the implication of
my remark is, Senator, that you should seriously consider the
Amtrak proposal.
prepared statement
Last, I do want to point out that Amtrak has been
cooperative, responsive in all phases of our work. There have
been disagreements. Some of them have been sharp, but they have
been forthrightly and respectfully handled. I think you have a
good team running Amtrak, and we enjoy working with them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to testify on Amtrak's financial outlook. Our overall
assessment is that with strong leadership, intense management, and
favorable economic conditions, it will be possible, albeit difficult,
for Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient by 2003.
Nevertheless, even if Amtrak reaches operating self-sufficiency, it
will require substantial and continuing capital funding to support the
system as it currently exists. Today our testimony addresses 5 areas
related to Amtrak's financial outlook. They are:
--Amtrak's 1998 operating results,
--Amtrak's ability to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003,
--Cost and schedule for the Northeast Corridor High-Speed Rail
Project,
--Amtrak's funding needs for capital improvements, and
--Amtrak's request for funding flexibility.
First, Amtrak's operating results were better than the $845 million
operating loss (including depreciation) projected for 1998, but the
loss still totaled $823 million. This loss did not include a $107
million cost adjustment related to Amtrak's labor settlements. Amtrak
had expected to record these costs in 1999.
Amtrak's ridership and passenger revenue increased in 1998, but not
as much as Amtrak had projected. Non-passenger revenues from activities
such as commuter operations, mail and express service, and freight
access fees have become increasingly important to Amtrak. In 1998,
these sources accounted for 37 percent of all Amtrak revenue.
Second, our review of Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan
showed that Amtrak would sustain an additional $823 million in
operating losses between 1999 and 2003, and that it would have an
unfunded cash loss of $304 million in 2003, which is $167 million more
than it forecast. Amtrak management is aware of our concerns and has
indicated that it has taken actions to increase revenues and cut costs.
Amtrak has been responsive to the recommendations we made in the
Independent Assessment.
To reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003, first and
foremost, Amtrak must provide good timely service to its customers. It
must also implement a robust high-speed rail service in the Northeast
Corridor and greatly expand mail and express service, an area that
offers considerable opportunity for non-passenger revenue. Amtrak must
also improve ridership and revenue on Intercity and Amtrak West trains,
and enhance partnerships with State, regional, and local governments.
Third, the cost of the high-speed rail program in the Northeast
Corridor has grown as a result of increasing the number and scope of
the projects included in the high-speed rail budget and cost overruns
on the electrification project. All project reserves have been depleted
and any further cost increases will need to be funded by diverting
funds from other system-wide capital needs. The electrification project
has experienced repeated delays and is on a very tight schedule for
implementation in October 1999.
Fourth, Amtrak's capital funding needs range from a minimum of $2.7
billion to keep the railroad infrastructure in good operating condition
through 2003 to $4.0 billion for expansion and business opportunity
development. Amtrak's funding will fall short of even the minimum needs
by at least $500 million. The amount could be more if Amtrak's
operating losses are higher than Amtrak projects.
Finally, Amtrak received congressional approval to spend its 1999
Federal capital appropriation for maintenance of equipment. Amtrak has
now requested approval to spend its Federal funding for maintenance of
way as well. Without this authority, Amtrak will not be able to cover
its operating losses and could be forced to default on current
obligations. This could occur even though Amtrak is likely to have $1
billion in Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) funds in the bank.
a perspective on amtrak's financial goals
Since Amtrak was created in 1971 to provide national intercity
passenger service, it has been the goal of Congress for Amtrak to
become self-sufficient. For Amtrak, this means covering its operating
expenses with revenues generated from the services it provides. Despite
this long-standing goal, Amtrak has continued to sustain significant
operating losses, and has remained dependent on Congress to provide
assistance for both operating and capital needs.
In the 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA), however,
Congress mandated that Amtrak develop a plan to eliminate its need for
operating support after fiscal year 2002. Thereafter, Amtrak is
prohibited from using Federal funds for any operating expenses other
than for excess contributions under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act
(RRTA). Amtrak has never defined self-sufficiency as generating enough
revenues to cover capital needs, and anticipates needing Federal
capital support indefinitely. Amtrak does believe it can achieve the
Congressional mandate of operating self-sufficiency.
operating results
Amtrak's 1998 Operating Loss Was Less Than Projected.--Amtrak's
1998 operating loss was $823 million. This was $22 million better than
Amtrak's projection. Amtrak recorded an additional $107 million loss as
a post-audit adjustment for its labor settlements. The lump sum
adjustment for the settlements was for labor expenses for unions that
settled their contracts in 1998 or were expected to settle in 1999, and
included retroactive payments as far back as 1995. Amtrak had planned
to record the costs in 1999, so the additional loss in 1998 is
basically an offset between years. The following chart shows the
history of Amtrak's operating losses.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA01.001
Ridership and Passenger Revenue Have Increased But Not As Much As
Projected.--Amtrak's system-wide ridership and passenger revenues
increased in 1998 by 4 percent over 1997 but both fell short of
projected growth by about 3 percentage points. The charts on the
following page illustrate the overall growth trends in Amtrak's
ridership and passenger revenue.
PASSENGER REVENUES BY STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT
[1995 through 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast
corridor Intercity West
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................... $430 $376 $67
1996....................................... 459 367 74
1997....................................... 484 397 84
1998....................................... 503 407 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIDERSHIP BY STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT
[1994 through 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast
corridor Intercity West
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994....................................... 11.7 6.3 3.1
1995....................................... 11.6 6.1 3.0
1996....................................... 11.0 5.4 3.3
1997....................................... 11.1 5.4 3.7
1998....................................... 11.9 5.6 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Passenger Revenue Has Increased and Is Now A Critical Part of
Revenue.--Amtrak's non-passenger revenues, such as those it receives
from operating commuter rail services, carrying mail, providing express
package service, and allowing freight railroads to access Amtrak's
system have increased 60 percent in the past 10 years, from $391
million in 1989 to $626 million in 1998. Commuter operations alone have
tripled since 1989. Amtrak has significant opportunities for growth in
the non-passenger revenue market, especially in its mail and express
package business. The growth of Amtrak's non-passenger revenue is
expected to continue, and indeed, will be a critical factor in Amtrak's
ability to meet its financial goals. The chart on the following page
illustrates the growth of non-passenger revenues since 1989.
1998 Expenses Were Less Than Projected.--Amtrak projected a 7
percent increase in expenses between 1997 and 1998. Due to favorable
fuel prices and other savings, the actual increase excluding the post-
audit adjustment for the labor settlements was 4 percent. The following
chart depicts Amtrak's expenses since 1989.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA10.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA10.006
ability to reach self-sufficiency
Our review of Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan showed
that Amtrak expected to reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year
2003. We estimated, however, that if Amtrak were to follow its 1998
plan without any adjustments, Amtrak would sustain an additional $823
million in operating losses between 1999 and 2003, and that it would
have an unfunded cash loss of $304 million in 2003, $167 million more
than it forecast. (The cash loss does not include depreciation.) Amtrak
management is aware of our concerns and has indicated that it has taken
actions to increase revenue and cut costs.
A key determinant of Amtrak's future is its ability to increase
revenue and reduce costs throughout its system. Revenue improvements
will require robust implementation of high-speed rail in the Northeast
Corridor, greatly expanded mail and express service, and improved
ridership and revenue on Intercity and Amtrak West trains. Amtrak must
also develop enhanced partnerships with State, regional, and local
governments. Cost reductions will require close attention to actions
contained in the Strategic Business Plan and achievement of the
productivity increases that are part of the newly negotiated labor
agreements.
High-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor is vitally important to
Amtrak's future. Amtrak's projected passenger revenues of $3.72 billion
between 1999 and 2003 on the Northeast Corridor exceeded what we
believe could reasonably be expected, given Amtrak's projected fares,
frequencies, and trip times in the Corridor. Our projection of revenues
is $3.50 billion during this time period, a difference of $219 million.
Our extended projections, however, indicate that the revenues are
likely to exceed Amtrak's projections by 2006.
Expanded Mail and Express revenues are key to improving the
performance of Intercity routes. In our 1998 assessment, we reduced
Amtrak's projected net revenue from Express package service from $104
million to $67 million cumulative in 1999 and 2003. We restated
Amtrak's projections only minimally in the years 2001-2003, reflecting
our belief that Amtrak could become a competitive player in this market
despite the slow start-up in performance. Although Amtrak has recently
established several additional partnerships with shippers, Amtrak must
vigorously pursue its marketing plans and meet the operating
expectations of its shippers if it is realistically to capture more of
this traffic.
Business Plan Actions must be achieved to produce cost savings.
Amtrak's 1998 Strategic Business Plan contained 296 actions that
cumulatively accounted for $1.1 billion in net bottom line impact
between 1999 and 2003. We identified 94 actions that required impact
adjustments totaling $440 million. The restatements resulted in $153
million in reduced non-passenger revenue projections and a $287 million
reduction in expense savings. For 35 of the 94 actions, totaling $372
of the $440 million, Amtrak recognized the fact that the action would
not achieve the intended result. For example, a decision by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission foiled Amtrak's plans to purchase power
wholesale for its own use and to resell to other Northeast Corridor
users. Amtrak withdrew the action from its business plan, thereby
eliminating a projected $212 million in cost savings between 1999 and
2003.
Amtrak's 1999 Strategic Business Plan contains new plans to reduce
costs whose financial impact will be important to the success of the
1999 Strategic Business Plan. Amtrak management and the Reform Board
must pursue forcefully the actions contained in the 1999 plan and must
monitor carefully their implementation. In this year's assessment, we
will also be monitoring these proposed expense reductions and will
consider the likelihood of their achievement.
Labor productivity agreements reached as part of Amtrak's recently
settled labor agreements must be fulfilled to offset part of the
settlement costs. Amtrak's labor settlements included plans to offset
20 percent of the incremental cost of the agreements with $53 million
in productivity increases. We believe that these productivity targets
are achievable. The onus is squarely on management and labor to see
that the cost-saving targets are met. In this year's assessment, we are
reviewing the specific work-rule changes geared to achieving the cost
savings and will assess the likelihood that they will be implemented as
required.
northeast corridor improvements
Amtrak projects that, by 2002, over $180 million in net revenues
will result from high-speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor.
These revenues are a critical element of Amtrak's plans to become self-
sufficient.
High-speed rail is on schedule to begin at the end of 1999 but the
schedule is extremely tight there is no room for slippage. Testing of
the trainsets is progressing as planned and we have no reason to
believe that they will not be delivered on schedule. The
electrification project has experienced repeated delays, however, and
is on a very tight schedule for completion and full system testing. The
original schedule called for completion of all system testing by July
1999, the current schedule is for October 1999, the same month service
is set to begin. A further complicating factor, partially outside of
Amtrak's control, is the intersection of the Northeast Corridor with
the Central Artery project. Central Artery bridge and tunneling work
must be completed on schedule in order for Amtrak to implement high-
speed rail as planned. We are not aware of any problems that are likely
to adversely impact the scheduled completion of this work.
The high-speed rail program has had cost overruns. The current
high-speed rail budget is $2.47 billion, an increase of almost $500
million from project initiation. However, most of this increase stems
from an expansion of the project size and scope. For example, Amtrak's
addition of 15 high-horsepower locomotives to the high-speed rail
program added $120 million to the total project budget. But 40 percent
of the budget growth reflects a cost overrun in the electrification
project between New Haven and Boston. Because of Amtrak's projected
capital funding shortfall between now and 2003, any further cost
overruns will need to be funded by diverting funds from other system-
wide capital needs.
capital needs
Amtrak has significant capital investment needs, including
improvements to keep the railroad infrastructure in good operating
condition and investments to generate new business opportunities. We
identified needs ranging from $2.7 billion to $4.0 billion. The $2.7
billion is lower than Amtrak's estimate of minimum needs, but even at
the lower amount, Amtrak's projected Federal funding will fall short by
at least $500 million between 1999 and 2003. If operating losses are
higher than Amtrak projected, Amtrak will have to spend more of its
scarce capital funds to cover operating losses, and the gap between
available funding and capital investment needs will increase.
Amtrak will need $125 million more per year in capital
appropriations between 2000 and 2003 than the Administration's request
in order for it to attain its minimum needs level of capital
investment. The $2.7 billion minimum level of capital investment we
estimated would be enough to keep Amtrak operating in a steady state
through the end of 2003, but would make Amtrak vulnerable to equipment
problems after that date. We want to be very clear that this level of
funding would make Amtrak susceptible to equipment and schedule
reliability problems beyond 2003, thereby threatening its operational
self-sufficiency. We do not recommend this level if Amtrak is to remain
as currently structured.
Amtrak would require an additional $200 million each year through
2003 to sustain operations at its current level beyond 2003. With this
level of additional funding, projects in progress could be completed
and equipment overhauls continued, but no new investments could be
made, most notably in new corridor development, one of Amtrak's highest
long-term priorities.
Amtrak would require an additional $450 million each year in
Federal appropriations in order to invest in the types of new corridor
services and other business that it projects will result in improved
operating results and will be the key to Amtrak's long-term financial
stability.
spending flexibility
Funding Amtrak with an annual capital grant should not obscure the
fact that Amtrak still requires operating assistance through fiscal
year 2002. Amtrak's plans to achieve operating self-sufficiency depend
on continued operating assistance, and without this help, Amtrak cannot
survive until 2003.
Amtrak requests flexibility in spending its Federal funding. Amtrak
was given some flexibility to spend this year's appropriation on
maintenance of equipment (an operating expense). In 2000, Amtrak is
also requesting flexibility to use its Federal appropriation for
maintenance of way expenses. Amtrak's request is consistent with the
`transit' definition of capital applied by the Federal Transit
Administration. There are strong economic arguments for making all
maintenance expenses eligible for funding through Amtrak's capital
grant. Amtrak needs the ability to decide whether refurbishing its
existing capital assets makes better economic sense than investing in
new replacements. Such decisions should be based on the economic merits
of each expenditure and not on the relative availability of maintenance
and investment funds.
Expanding eligible expenses in next year's Federal appropriation is
financially imperative. If the same funding restrictions as in the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation are applied next year, Amtrak will not
be able to cover its operating losses and could be forced to default on
current obligations, in spite of the fact that Amtrak will likely have
about $1 billion in Taxpayer Relief Act funds in the bank.
Amtrak has strong incentives to economize on operating losses.
Amtrak's current strategic business plan, and thus its long-term
viability, is grounded on the revenues that are expected to flow from
critical capital projects. Every dollar spent unnecessarily on
operating losses is a dollar taken from these capital investments.
How Amtrak is funded will have no effect on determining whether it
can meet its congressional mandate. Amtrak abides by generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) and must adhere to the requirements of its
external auditors in determining whether an expense is classified as
operating or capital. Therefore, regardless of the type of Federal
grants Amtrak receives or how Amtrak is permitted to spend them, Amtrak
will have to cover all of its operating expenses (except for excess
payments for RRTA) in fiscal year 2003 from non-Federal sources. In
other words, maintenance of equipment and maintenance of way expenses
would, under current law, no longer be eligible for Federal funding in
2003. That is the mandate from ARAA, and it is the standard we are
using to gauge Amtrak's financial viability in our assessments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
independent assessment
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, your office has monitored this
independent assessment of Amtrak very closely, right?
Mr. Mead. Yes.
Senator Shelby. If Amtrak loses more than they projected in
the strategic business plan, as you have just mentioned, does
it not mean it is less likely that Amtrak can reach operating
self-sufficiency by 2002? That is what you are saying, is it
not?
Mr. Mead. Yes, it is. I am also saying, though, that the
essential design of our work is to provide Amtrak with warning
signs.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Mead. Alerts, so that Amtrak can adjust its plans.
high-speed rail service
Senator Shelby. High speed rail initiative. The
administration has taken a multifaceted approach to expanding
the high speed rail service in the U.S. beyond the high speed
corridor. Governor Thompson talked about that. Mr. Warrington
talked about it. The Federal Railroad Administration's budget
includes $12 million for high speed rail technology development
and another $35 million is proposed to be shifted from the
revenue aligned budget authority funds for a positive train
control system, differential global positioning systems,
railroad crossing improvements on high speed corridors.
One important piece that is missing from this high-speed
rail program is capital funding to improve the freight track
over which high-speed passenger rail service would operate.
This kind of capital investment, as you know, Governor
Thompson, is very expensive. The total price tag for just one
corridor program, the Midwest regional rail initiative--you are
very familiar with it--is over $3 billion, and that is just one
regional part of the program. It does not take into account
other planned or hoped-for high speed rail corridors around the
country.
I will ask you this, Governor, and also Mr. Warrington. The
Amtrak capital business plan includes only about $32 million
total this year for corridor development. I know at the moment
of no other Federal source for capital rail improvement. Who do
you expect to pay for capital improvements to support high-
speed rail corridors, because besides Amtrak, which has enough
trouble staying afloat financially, what are the other possible
funding sources?
Governor Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, first off, we cannot
do it without you. We cannot do the high-speed corridors
without the Federal Government. There is no way possible.
Senator Shelby. No way, is it?
Governor Thompson. No way, without the Federal Government
helping us, can we develop the high-speed corridors. We just
cannot complete them.
Second, you can expect that the States are going to have to
contribute a portion of that. They have got to be a partner
with the Federal Government in developing this. Amtrak cannot
do it, even though Amtrak gave $25 million this year to start
to develop the Midwest high-speed corridor.
We are also developing some new non-electric, diesel
locomotives. They are going to be able to pull non-electric
trains at about 115-125 miles per hour, without
electrification.
Senator Shelby. So you would have to electrify these other
corridors?
Governor Thompson. No. We are developing new diesel
locomotives that are going to be able to pull trains about 115
miles to 125 miles, and that would be what we would be putting
in the Midwest and down in the Southeast.
Senator Shelby. Who is doing that? Are we doing that in the
U.S.?
Governor Thompson. Yes, we are.
Senator Shelby. Is that GE, or General Motors?
Governor Thompson. The Federal Railroad Administration is
working on it with a consortium led by Bombardier. It will not
be electrified, and it will be high speed. All we will have to
do is close down some intersections, some grade crossings, and
improve the rail beds, but these services will not be
electrified, which will save a lot of dollars compared to the
Northeast Corridor. But without the Federal Government we will
not be able to proceed.
Senator Shelby. Governor Thompson, what incentive would
freight railroads, have to invest in these kinds of
infrastructure improvements themselves? Do they directly
benefit from high-speed passenger service, and if so, how?
Governor Thompson. Well, they will benefit. They will
benefit because by improving the rail lines, the rail beds, to
handle our high-speed service, that is going to help them with
their freight service, to be more efficient and deliver their
commodities more on time, which will help them become more
profitable. And if we get the Federal Government and State
Governments to invest, that will save them from having to make
the improvements all by themselves, so it really is a net gain
for the freight railroads in America.
amtrak route system
Senator Shelby. I have a question before my time is gone
for Mr. Warrington.
Mr. Warrington, since the General Accounting Office report
was published last May, have you restructured your route system
in any way to respond to the operating losses on 39 of your 40
routes? Have you done it thus far?
Mr. Warrington. The first thing that I did in the aftermath
of that report, number 1, and in the aftermath of me being
appointed to the position of president on an acting basis, was
launched what I referenced earlier, Mr. Chairman, for the first
time in the company's 27-year history, a genuine market-based
assessment of every route and every segment. Not with an eye
toward shutting the system down, but with an eye toward
understanding what the market potential is, and the demand, for
every route and every segment in the system, not just from a
passenger point of view, but from a commercial point of view as
well.
Senator Shelby. The whole system.
Mr. Warrington. The entire system, and I will tell you, Mr.
Chairman, that if you go back to the 1950's and the 1960's and
you look at the bottom line associated with every freight
carrier in this country, all of those private freight carriers
were hauling passengers in passenger divisions, and if you go
to their bottom line, and you look at where they secured their
revenue that made them profitable in those days, 45 to 48
percent of the revenue that was attributable to passenger
service that made them profitable came from the mail express
business.
Amtrak has lost that piece of business for 20 years. We are
pushing it hard these days.
Senator Shelby. Trying to get back on track.
Mr. Warrington. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. GAO cites, Mr. Warrington, that 17 of your
40 routes carry in total only about 2 million or 10 percent of
your total annual ridership. Wouldn't some of these routes be
logical places for cutting back the railroads cumulative
operation?
Mr. Warrington. I cannot answer that question off the top
of my head----
Senator Shelby. But you will be looking at that.
Mr. Warrington [continuing]. And without the benefit of,
for the first time, an unbiased, nonnostalgic, and not
politically based examination of the system, with a view toward
developing a system that is driven by business sense, and
understands the importance of growing market share. We will
have a much better sense of what this national system needs to
look like and what its opportunities are, Mr. Chairman, toward
the end of the year.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, last, you have already got a head
start of this question of the route system. You know it well.
Does this strike you as a possible way to see where operating
savings can or cannot be realized, and what are some of the
potential problems we would face if we went farther with this
proposal?
And what I am referring to, at the February 25 Department
of Transportation oversight hearing which you attended, I
proposed that we think about a pilot project that we give
Congress the Amtrak Reform Council and Amtrak's own management
comparable data about operating costs on a given route. You
understand where I am coming from.
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir, I do, and I did reflect on your
question at that hearing, and I have warmed to that idea
somewhat. This is the idea of contracting out a route, perhaps
two. There are two important caveats, though. One is, you would
not want to have something short-term if you expected the
contractor to make capital investments. That just would not
happen.
If you want to do something analogous to what Amtrak
already does when they contract out with commuter rail
operators, that could be shorter term in duration.
Another caveat, and Amtrak's legal department would have to
go over this one, is a labor issue. Now, I know FAA and the air
traffic controllers managed to get low-level activity control
towers and contract those out. I do not know how it would work
with rail labor.
I would put out a request for proposals and see what is
proposed. I do not think the idea should be dismissed out of
hand.
Senator Shelby. But if you save Amtrak, as Governor
Thompson is talking about, and Mr. Warrington, if you are able
to save Amtrak, make it viable, make it financially secure,
whatever that means, you are saving jobs, and labor has a stake
in this, and I think it is up to Amtrak and perhaps us to sell
that, to market that. We are in this together, that everybody
loses if the passenger, the people that are dependent on jobs,
if this goes down. Don't you agree with that? Do you, Governor
Thompson?
Governor Thompson. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. So, Governor Thompson, labor is going to
have to buy into making Amtrak viable, are they not?
Governor Thompson. Yes, they are.
Senator Shelby. And they will play a big role in whether or
not Amtrak survives one way or the other, will they not?
Governor Thompson. There is no question about that, Mr.
Chairman, and I have been impressed since I have been chairman
with the kind of cooperation we have received to date from
labor, and this is a lot different than it was the first time I
served on the Amtrak board from 1990 to 1994.
Senator Shelby. Not adversarial but cooperative, where we
are all in this together?
Governor Thompson. That is what we are trying to do, and
our new contracts reflect that very explicitly, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and my
compliments to all the witnesses for providing good, clear, and
focused testimony, and Governor, in case you decide to go out
of Government, I think that with me doing the marketing plan
and you doing the selling, we would be a hell of a combination.
[Laughter.]
Governor Thompson. Well, I would like to team up with you,
sir.
Senator Shelby. Can we buy stock?
Governor Thompson. Yes, you can.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. I think we would do something like
Internet Travel, because that will get us good stock prices and
we would not have to be in business long. [Laughter.]
Mr. Warrington, I am pleased that you have taken over the
way you have. We have high expectations, and we are encouraged
by Governor Thompson's endorsement of what is taking place.
northeast corridor high-speed rail introduction
So much of what we are anticipating depends on the success
of our high-speed rail introduction. Is there anything that
comes to mind that could stop us, or prevent us from meeting
the anticipated date of introduction?
Mr. Warrington. No. We are still concentrating and focusing
on late 1999. As a matter of fact, our high horsepower
locomotives are being tested at the test track. Our first train
set will be going out there in the next several days, and all
of the testing that we have done so far has indicated that we
have got a winner. But we will be continuing to test the
equipment and those train sets over the next couple of months.
The electrification project, as Ken indicated, has slipped
a bit. That is a design-build contract, and you may recall that
the origins of that project have a fairly ugly history, going
back to the early nineties, when Morrison Knudsen basically
defaulted and we had to move the design and engineering work
over to Mass Electric and Balfour-Beatty, and the engineering
had to be redone.
It has slipped a bit. I will tell you that I personally am
engaged with the president of Mass Electric and Balfour-Beatty
on a weekly basis. I spoke with them as recently as yesterday
and they assured me that that project will be completed before
the end of the calendar year, and assured me that we will be in
a position to operate trains before the end of the year. They
have committed to me, and committed to us, that they are
throwing every resource available at it, and Amtrak as a matter
of fact, our engineering organization and our maintenance of
way organization, are throwing everything that we can at that
project to support it, and to support the contractor in a whole
host of ways.
Senator Lautenberg. When we talk about high-speed service
on the corridor, are we talking about Boston to Washington,
because basically you just said if there was a delay in that
northern leg, that should not, would it, prevent us from
offering service Washington to New York?
Mr. Warrington. Absolutely not, Senator. As a matter of
fact, there really are two elements to this project, and one of
them is Washington to New York. You know, when we originally
conceived of the high-speed program between Washington and New
York, our original estimates were that we would bring travel
time down from 3 hours to 2 hours and 45 minutes, and when we
launch at the end of the year, we will actually be running
trains between New York and Washington in under 2 hours and 30
minutes, not every train, but we will have express trains with
one or two stops that will be under 2-30, and I will tell you,
that will knock the socks off the competition.
It will not just be a safety valve for air travel. It will
be the primary method of travel, and regardless of schedule and
electrification, the ability to tap into that market and launch
that service between New York and Washington will certainly be
there.
Senator Lautenberg. That would be excellent, because with
the reliability factor you can throw away 30, 45 minutes and
not worry about it if you know that you can get there, and I
commend you on the scheduling that is taking place, the on-time
scheduling that is taking place of recent vintage.
I must say, other than one glitch that we had when there
was a total power failure, I get on the train to work and I get
here on time, and I always used to fly, always, but now I take
advantage of even the improvement, the service that is being
provided, and I see that some of the cars, even currently,
Governor, have been rehabbed, I understand by Amtrak in its own
facility, a pretty good ride. Getting rid of those square
wheels makes a heck of a difference. [Laughter.]
Governor Thompson. On-time performance, too.
Mr. Warrington. Senator Shelby's point earlier, which
relates to your point about overhauling those cars--our entire
metroliner fleet over the past 2 years--was completely
overhauled in a program designed and done by our own employees,
and I would stack those employees up against any employees in
this industry around the country.
As a matter of fact, they are so good that just about 3
months ago Amtrak won the contract to overhaul cars and
locomotives for the Dallas-Fort Worth Transportation Authority.
Senator Shelby. That is good news.
Mr. Warrington. And we are getting very aggressive about
not necessarily contracting out operations, but where we are
good, and where we have a specialty, and we are efficient and
productive to contract business into the corporation.
Governor Thompson. It is another line of income that we are
looking for.
Senator Shelby. That is excellent.
Mr. Mead. May I throw a little water on this?
Senator Lautenberg. Sure. Warm or cold water?
infrastructure condition
Mr. Mead. Cold. No, luke warm. I do not want to
overemphasize, overstate the point, but the infrastructure
condition of the south end of the corridor really does need
work, the track, the bridges, the tunnels----
Senator Shelby. Are you speaking of the Washington area?
Mr. Mead. Washington to New York. These trip times that
Amtrak is projecting are very sensitive to the condition of the
infrastructure. Amtrak owes you a plan--an infrastructure plan
for the south end of the corridor--and I am hoping it gets here
soon.
Mr. Warrington. That is true, Mr. Chairman, and we and the
Federal Railroad Administration are wrapping up that plan, and
it is the long-term investment requirement, the phase 2 study
for the south end. The trip times that we will deliver on the
south end are based upon investments that have been made and
are being made before the end of the fiscal year to get us
where we need to get to.
I will tell you though, maintaining to those tolerances and
investing prospectively, is absolutely critical, not only to
improve those travel times, but to maintain those travel times
and not degrade.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think that we can improve with
the appropriate kind of investment the time necessary to travel
between here and New York?
Mr. Warrington. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we can do
better than 2-28, but everything costs money. I will tell you
that this year, every minute of travel time that we take off a
Metroliner trip between New York and Washington translates
roughly into $8 million a year in revenue. You cannot get pay-
back like that anywhere.
The difficulty is that the investments we have made to date
have been relatively inexpensive, but the cost of each
incremental minute becomes more expensive, because you have to
invest in the harder things in order to get those incremental
minutes.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. One thing I would say about the
Inspector General here, and that is that he is never
embarrassed or holding back on things that need to be said
Mr. Warrington. Nor he should.
Senator Lautenberg. And I agree 100 percent, so any time
that you think there is something to throw in here, please do
not be bashful, because we are all working to the same
objective.
Mr. Warrington, how big do you think are the nonpassenger
revenue opportunities?
Mr. Warrington. We have had a lot of successes on that
front just over the past year, and my testimony and Governor
Thompson's testimony highlighted some of those opportunities.
partnership opportunities
You know, we tend to be a traditional railroad with lots
of, as I say, operating guys. We are amongst the best
professional operating folks in the world, and I would stack
our guys up against--men and ladies--up against anybody. But we
are pushing very hard to inject a much more commercial and
business orientation into the corporation, to break out of the
box and recognize that partnerships are where our future is,
not only partners with State and local governments around
funding and around service plans, but partnerships with private
businesses around investing in our company, sharing the risk
and sharing the benefits.
We are beginning to do that aggressively with a whole host
of great carriers around the mail and express business. As
Governor Thompson indicated earlier, it was very significant
that Amtrak executed a deal with Dobbs just a couple of months
ago, to basically convey Amtrak's commissaries around this
country to the private sector, and we did it the right way. We
did it with our employees. We did it in partnership with
organized labor.
Our unions understood the importance of doing this. We
agreed over time we would absorb those employees, or enable a
buy-out of those employees. We are going to save $28 to $35
million over 5 years. We did it the right way with labor rather
than in any confrontational way, and we are going to get better
food, and we are going to save a lot of money.
There are lots of partnership opportunities like that
across the system, Senator, and we are going to seize every
single one of them.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have a
safety question.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
safety of northeast corridor
Senator Lautenberg. You know that ever since the Chase,
Maryland accident I have had a long safety concern regarding
freight traffic on the Northeast Corridor. Do you foresee a
situation where either CSX or Norfolk Southern will run freight
on the Northeast Corridor utilizing electric locomotives? Can
we get a compatibility there that helps both of us, both parts
of this to improve their service at the same time, not create
that problem?
Mr. Warrington. The first thing I want to do, Senator, is
genuinely thank you for your leadership around the safety
question. After the Chase incident, and largely thanks to you,
lots of improvements have been made, around regulatory and
engineering and design improvements on the Northeast Corridor,
relating to train control, positive stop, and signal systems.
Much of the required improvements are entirely attributable to
legislation you authorized, and we have a much, much safer
railroad out there today as a result.
I will tell you that many, many years ago there were many
more freight trains operating on the Northeast Corridor. I
would not in any way enable another freight train to operate on
that corridor unless I was comfortable, and all of our
operating folks were comfortable, that we were doing it safely,
because our primary core business is passenger safety. Safety
comes first in this operation.
We will execute a deal with Norfolk Southern very shortly
around road-railer service on the Northeast Corridor and on the
Harrisburg Line, which is one of our underutilized assets, and
we will have windows from 10 p.m. to 6 in the morning. We will
utilize those windows when we are not operating significant
levels of passenger service.
Our first priority is safety. Our second priority is not
disrupting our passenger operations, on Metroliners, Northeast
Direct, or our sizable commuter operations.
We not only have that opportunity on the south end, but we
are working with the P&W Railroad on the north end, which
serves the port of the Providence area, Quonsett Point. We are
working to complete the third track up there, to enable freight
traffic in and out, and in some part using the Northeast
Corridor.
I will tell you that we will not do this unless we are
comfortable and satisfied that we can do it right and do it
safely and, in addition, assure that the freight carriers are
fully compensating us for any excess wear and tear or a
diminution of useful life of any of those assets. I assure you,
that is the way we will run this operation, and we will also
make a few bucks out of it.
Governor Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, can I
just have 5 seconds? I just want to tell you, the new direction
of this Board and the management will be, if we have troubles
in regards to meeting our schedule on our operation, you
individuals will be the first to know. We will not try to hide
it, obfuscate it. We will come up and tell you exactly what our
problems are so that you will be the first to know, so that you
can respond.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Reid, thank you for your
indulgence.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
increase in railroad support
I have a little different philosophy than I have heard here
today. I believe that we need to support our railroads more,
and I am not at all embarrassed to vote for subsidizing rail
traffic in this country. I think if you look what we do for
airports, for airlines, for automobiles--I had some people come
to me from Nevada yesterday. We are going to give them about
3,000 acres of Federal land. Why? Because it is an airport. It
is part of the law.
I do not know what that land is worth, but lots of money,
but that is the law. We are going to help them create an
airport.
It seems as if rail travel gets the short end of
everything. It seems to me that we have lost track of the fact
that of all we do for highways, all we do for passenger car
travel, the trucks in this country, they devastate our highways
around the country. They pay a minimum amount.
Airports, we have all kinds of ingenious ways to charge
airlines and others that use our airports to subsidize air
travel in this country.
I am glad to hear you are working on some of those rail
cars. The fact is, we should be buying new ones. How old are
some of those cars that we are renovating?
Mr. Warrington. 20 to 25 years.
Senator Reid. Those are probably some of the newer ones. I
think that we could not stop patting ourselves on the back
enough last time we passed a highway bill. Out of this huge
bill, hundreds of billions of dollars, we have a small amount
in that bill, a tiny amount in that bill for doing something
with magnetic levitation.
We invented that in this country, but we were too cheap as
a Government to subsidize research and development for that
mode of travel, and now we have the Germans and the Japanese
developing magnetic levitation, and we are going to use it here
in this country. We will be importing that equipment to the
United States.
I think it is wonderful, the things that I have heard here
today, how you have improved upon the reservation system, and
Governor Thompson, you have a reputation for being a man who
looks at dollars and where they are spent. I think it is great
you have this assignment, and you have accepted it.
But I guess what I am saying is, let us be realistic about
this. We need help with our rail system in this country. In Las
Vegas, take Las Vegas, the destination, the resort capital of
the world. We have the largest hotels in the world. The 20
largest hotels in the world are in Las Vegas.
Our airport is jammed. We have spent hundreds of--no,
billions of dollars in that airport. Our highways are jammed.
You know, we cannot bring more people by car into Las Vegas.
Railroad, there is nothing happening. We have been
struggling to get a few people coming in there every year, and
that has been a 2- or 3-year battle to get rail service from
Southern California to Southern Nevada.
I just think that we have to recognize where we are in this
country. We need help with rail travel in this country, and I
would like to hear from you gentlemen if any of you agree with
me.
Governor Thompson. Senator Reid, I would like to respond
first, and I know George Warrington wants to as well. Just to
give you the perspective, $30 billion is going to be spent in
Federal funding this year for highways.
las vegas to los angeles service
We are the poor stepchild. But we think that we can do a
job with that money, Senator Reid, and make ourselves
operationally self-sufficient. We will never be able to do it
without some kind of capital support. And I appreciate your
willingness to support us in that regard.
In regards to Los Angeles to Las Vegas, we took the Board
out to California last month. We had a real good discussion
about it. And we think that we will operationally--we are
looking at February of next year--have a full round-trip train
going into Las Vegas, from Los Angeles, daily. And we are
completing an assessment with the Federal Railroad
Administration on a Talgo train set. We are talking to the
Mayor and the Governor about some subsidies for us. And we are
also talking to the tourist industry out there.
And I want to thank you for your letter. You and Senator
Bryan wrote a very supportive letter about the service. And we
think that we will be able to operate that new train set from
Los Angeles to Nevada. And we believe it will be going at 8
o'clock in the morning from Los Angeles, right George?
operating subsidy
Mr. Warrington. Yes. On the overall policy question,
Senator, we have been directed by public policymakers, by this
Congress and this administration, that we need to be operating
subsidy-free by the close of 2002. So, that is a challenge.
That is a charge. That is just the way it is when you sit in
this seat.
And we have examined the numbers. It is going to take a lot
of hard work and a lot of, as Ken said, good economic climate,
good business sense, lots of commercial partnerships,
successful high-speed rail. The elements are there to make this
work. But I am going to be perfectly straight, that that will
be a short-lived success story unless between now and then we
have a very frank conversation about the real capital cost
associated with sustaining and growing America's Railroad. And
we have not really had that discussion.
I have an obligation, we have an obligation, to come back
to you toward the end of this year, when we have got our
market-based assessment concluded. And we will tell you what
the real capital cost and operating benefits are, associated
with the existing system and other new services and new, higher
speed corridors. There will be a price tag that goes with that.
And our success will be short-lived if we do not figure out a
way, as a matter of public policy, to bite the bullet and have
a real frank discussion and solve the problem around what we
genuinely believe we are entitled to.
I will tell you, we have a credibility problem at Amtrak
around this operating subsidy question. I need to continue to
demonstrate to you that we are chipping away at that problem
and getting to the point where we can behave and operate
commercially subsidy-free. But the deal has to be, as we get
there, we also need to not have that be a fruitless exercise.
We need to figure out what the right long-term solution is, so
we are not living on the edge of our seat every year, not
knowing whether we are going to be able to invest in this
railroad.
And as a matter of public policy, we believe, if we are
credible and demonstrate to you that we can do that on the
operating side, we really are entitled to the same comparable
level of capital support that every other transportation mode
in this Nation receives. Much of it is indirect. It is direct
to Amtrak, and it is like a target on our backs.
But the aviation industry, the maritime industry--I used to
run the Port of Philadelphia--the maritime industry, everybody
is in line for those bucks, and we are simply not getting them.
And, worse than that, the States and the governors do not even
have today the flexibility to take their Federal dollars and
make locally based decisions around their willingness to
perhaps allocate their share of Federal transportation funds to
the intercity rail network. So, not only do we not get it
directly, we cannot even enable governors to make that kind of
a decision about investing in high-speed service or intercity
service.
Senator Reid. Did you have something, Mr. Mead?
Mr. Mead. I just wanted to make two quick observations. For
a number of years, this railroad has been groveling for crumbs
and has been the victim, you might say, of serious
disinvestment. The Taxpayer Relief Act was a substantial
infusion of capital. There is a lot of promise being placed on
that.
But there is no question, they have just been groveling for
crumbs. At the same time, there is the expectation for the
railroad--why do we not have a good, first-class railroad with
quality service? Well, one reason we do not is because there
has been this gradual disinvestment. And now Congress steps in
with the Taxpayer Relief Act.
The second is to return to the chairman's point--the one he
made in his opening remarks. If you want more money for Amtrak,
there are several very serious decisions facing Congress
regarding the funding of aviation this year. The general fund
is where some of this aviation money comes from. And if general
fund dollars get locked up for aviation, there will be
substantially less for Amtrak and Coast Guard; that is a
tradeoff only Congress can make.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg and members
of the panel, I would hope that someone of the stature of
Governor Thompson--and I am not meaning to pick on you, but
someone of your stature--we need national leaders talking about
the need to do something about rail travel in this country.
service outside the northeast corridor
It is easy to talk about this Northeast Corridor, because
it is a money maker. But there are other parts of the country
that are not, but could be. But it will not happen unless we
invest money in building the lines, so that there are
credible--spend some money on magnetic levitation and other
high-speed train travel, as they are doing in other places in
the world. Otherwise we are going to rue the day--I repeat--our
highways and our airports are crowded. I do not think we will
ever build in America another major airport.
Governor Thompson. Senator Reid, if I could respond
quickly.
I did not take this job just to build the Northeast
Corridor. The reason that I accepted the responsibility and the
challenge to try and turn Amtrak around is because I believe in
it. I passionately believe in rail passenger service in
America. We need to do it.
If France can do it, Germany can do it, Japan can do it,
why not the United States? We need rail passenger service. And
I said earlier, California is going to have 19 million more
people by the year 2020. The only salvation is to have a good
rail passenger service in California. They cannot build enough
airports. They cannot build enough highways to do that.
And I am out speaking about Amtrak all over this country.
As you probably know, I am not a shrinking violet. I love to
get out and tell people what I think. And I have been in your
State, and I have talked about it, 2 weeks ago, about the need
for Amtrak service from Los Angeles to Nevada. And I think
there is a new kind of renaissance in America, a new feeling
for passenger rail service, that people really are starting to
believe in.
And I think we have to show you that we can do it. And this
Board, this management team, together, along with the
cooperation of Ken Mead, are going to show you that we can make
it. And if we can make it to operating self-sufficiency, then
we are going to come back to you and say we want to develop the
high-speed corridors in California, in Nevada, in Alabama, in
Mississippi, and Wisconsin, and Chicago. And we are going to
have to have some capital in order to do that. But we have to
first show you that we can deliver a good product. And that is
what we have to do this year.
And it is difficult. We have got some real tough challenges
in front of us. But we are dedicated to making that happen.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I would
ask to be submitted for the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, that will be done.
contracting improprieties and general failures
If I could, we will have a second round.
Last month, the GAO's Office of Special Investigations
published a letter to me regarding an allegation that they had
received through GAO's Fraudnet, concerning a consulting
contract that had been improperly awarded. GAO found that the
contract, the arrangements of which, violated numerous Amtrak
procurement requirements, caused the unnecessary expenditure of
$1.3 million by Amtrak.
The same GAO letter stated that according to Amtrak's own
Inspector General, 95 percent of Amtrak's consulting contracts
reviewed by the IG did not have proper approval authority or
written justification, and 90 percent were not properly
approved.
Mr. Warrington, how has the railroad responded to these
findings of contracting improprieties and general failure to
follow Amtrak's procurement policies and rules?
Mr. Warrington. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I jumped on this one
well before I received that report.
Senator Shelby. Good.
Mr. Warrington. As a matter of fact, when I came down to
D.C. a year or so ago, frankly, I had some concerns about the
disparate nature of the way the procurement function was
organized. It was highly decentralized. And there was a fair
amount of looseness. And that was from my vantage point in
Philadelphia.
When I moved to D.C., I made a very firm set of decisions
about change. The first thing I did was contracted with Price-
Waterhouse-Coopers to do a review and assessment of what was
going on, because my gut was telling me that, you know, this
was not quite right. And I pride myself on strong and focused
management. My career is built around being focused and
decisive and being a leader around management. And that kind of
stuff bothers me.
I got a set of recommendations from Price-Waterhouse-
Coopers several months back. And I brought them to Governor
Thompson and the Amtrak Board of Directors, along with a whole
host of other organizational management changes related to the
strengthening and the centralization of the procurement
function across the board, including pulling all of those
contract functions out of the engineering organization.
Senator Shelby. Has it been done? Are you doing it? Are you
in the process of doing it?
Mr. Warrington. The organization design is in process. And
I am in the process of interviewing five very strong
candidates. As a matter of fact, Price-Waterhouse is doing the
recruiting for me. They are very, very good on this stuff. They
come out of the--a lot of them have military, private sector
and public sector backgrounds. And we will get one of the best
and the brightest, to make sure that we are in good shape
there, Senator.
capital spending plan
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Governor Thompson, the Amtrak Board approved a $1.4 billion
capital spending plan for fiscal year 1999. That includes the
following funding streams: The Taxpayer Relief Act and general
appropriated capital funds, State or leveraged funds, bank
loans, reprogrammed funds, and matching funds. In the fiscal
year 1999 Transportation Appropriations Act, Amtrak received
$609 million in capital grants, of which 40 percent, or $244
million, is available for obligation this year.
How will this capital appropriation be spent? And is it
true that very little, to none, of these capital funds will be
spent for traditional capital expenses, such as equipment,
track and track improvements, facilities and rights-of-way
purchases?
Mr. Warrington. You are talking about fiscal year 1999,
Senator, correct?
Senator Shelby. Yes, we are talking about this year.
Mr. Warrington. Yes, which is the current year.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Warrington. Yes. As a matter of fact, when we converted
from a capital and operating grant to a capital grant, the
basic deal was that we needed more flexibility to spend in a
way which had previously been defined as operating. And we have
been very straight about that.
And, frankly, that is not unlike what all the other modes
have done, as well. It defined capital maintenance in a broader
way. As a practical matter, in fiscal year 1999, we will end up
using about $484 million of that $609 million for capital
maintenance, which is not necessarily hard capital.
Senator Shelby. Would that include your idea, or what you
are doing, capital maintenance, spent on maintenance of
equipment and debt service?
Mr. Warrington. As a matter of fact, about $50 million of
that $609 is going to debt service. And the remaining is for
operating--like expenses.
Senator Shelby. We have been told that less than $3 million
will go for traditional capital purposes.
Mr. Warrington. I think it is a little bit more than that.
I will have to get you the precise number.
[The information follows:]
Amtrak received 40 percent, or $244 million, of the
appropriated $609 million in fiscal year 1999. Of that $244
million, $50 million was used for capital purposes--$44 million
of which was for debt service principal and $6 million for
other capital projects, including those suggested by the Senate
Appropriations Committee (such as the Southern Pines, NC, and
Erie, PA, station renovations). Debt service is considered a
traditional capital expense because it represents the principal
for capital purchases made in previous years. The remaining 60
percent of the $609 million will be spent in fiscal year 2000,
for which the capital budget is still being developed.
Mr. Warrington. But the lion's share of that money is being
used for--$484 million is for capital maintenance; about $50
million is for principal on the debt; and the balance is for
some combination of operating and capital. I believe it is
primarily capital.
Senator Shelby. That is an unusual use of that kind of
capital money.
Mr. Warrington. Mr. Chairman, we were very frank last year,
and I am being very frank with you this year.
Senator Shelby. I know you are.
Mr. Warrington. If we are getting a capital-only grant, for
all of this to work--we may not like all of the elements of
this--but for all of this to work, we need a certain level of
funding, and we need the flexibility to spend it in a way which
we incur costs around.
Senator Shelby. But if we give you money for capital
expenditures, and you desperately need capital expenditures, it
seems to me that ought to be--you are investing in the future
there.
Mr. Warrington. That is true.
Senator Shelby. And I know you are treading water at times
in other areas. But, in a sense, you are using capital funds
for non-capital--what traditionally would be known as non-
capital expenditures.
Mr. Warrington. Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, I agree
with you. But you have to deal with the hand that you are
dealt. And we did make a conscious decision to wall off the TRA
funds. And I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, we received a lot of
pressure, frankly, a year ago, to use the TRA Fund for these
kinds of purposes. And we and the Amtrak Board of Directors,
management and the Board, resisted a lot of pressure to use the
TRA as the easy way out, and to spend down TRA for capital
maintenance.
And we took a policy position that we promised the Congress
that we would reserve that TRA money exclusively for high-yield
capital investment. It is one of the reasons why we are ahead
of plan this year, because we have invested that money wisely
in things like the call center, where you get real payback.
So, we made a conscious decision, and we were very up-front
about it. We will reserve the TRA money for high-yield capital
investments, but we have got to have some flexibility if we are
going to make this plan work over the next couple of years, to
use the annual capital appropriation for capital maintenance,
like all other modes, all other federally funded modes do. But
the commitment is that by the time we get to 2002, the share of
that annual capital appropriation that is being devoted to
capital maintenance is significantly declining.
Senator Shelby. Will any of the capital funds be used for
what we call excess railroad retirement payments?
Mr. Warrington. The total excess railroad retirement
payment, by 2002, will be close to $200 million a year.
Senator Shelby. It is my understanding that Amtrak can only
use its own revenues for these retirement payments.
Mr. Warrington. That may be the case, Senator. But it all
comes together into a bottom line. And, in effect, what the
basic deal has been is that by the close of 2002----
Senator Shelby. Are you using the ``fungible'' maybe?
Mr. Warrington. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Your money is fungible.
Mr. Warrington. The basic deal, and what was written in the
law last year, Senator, was that, by the close of 2002, we are
operationally self-sufficient, except--except there was a
recognition that there is this excess railroad retirement
burden out there that we all need to figure out a way to deal
with effectively. And we project that number to be, by 2002,
somewhere between $185 million and $200 million.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Mead. There are two parts to this. One is the
nomenclature, ``capital grant''; we really need some sunshine
here. Because, in truth, ``maintenance of equipment'' and the
``maintenance of way'' are considered operating expenses. And
yet we have here something called a capital grant. Although you
have to readily concede that while ``maintenance of equipment''
and ``maintenance of way'' are essential to maintain capital,
they are in fact quite different from capital.
On the excess Railroad Retirement Payment point, I was not
sure that, in 2003, that was an item that Congress had agreed
to fund.
Mr. Warrington. Our understanding is it is an item that
Amtrak is not responsible for covering as an operating subsidy
expense. It is an item out there that does not fit into the
demand--that is not included within the demand for Amtrak
coverage from an operating----
Senator Shelby. Basically, Mr. Warrington and Governor
Thompson and Mr. Mead, should we not call it what it is? Should
we even call this appropriation designated ``capital grants''?
Perhaps we could call it preventive maintenance.
Governor Thompson. We should.
Senator Shelby. In other words, let us be candid with each
other about it.
Governor Thompson. We should. Mr. Chairman, we should.
Senator Shelby. And you all seem to be candid people. And I
think we all do better on the committee and we do better with
everybody when we put it on the table. Do we not, Governor
Thompson?
Governor Thompson. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think
we should. And that is why we wanted flexibility in the
language. But I think we would be much better just to tell
everybody what it is for.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely, where we are.
Governor Thompson. Where we are. We want to be candid with
you, and we would like to be able to have everybody understand
what we are spending the money on.
parallels between amtrak reform and welfare reform
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. Senator Gorton could not be
here. He is a very active member of this committee. And he
asked me to ask this question, Governor Thompson, of you. In
your testimony earlier, you compared the daunting task of
reforming Amtrak to welfare reform, which you have got an
exemplary record in as Governor. By using this analogy, are you
suggesting that we take the same approach with Amtrak, and
return power to operate this system to the States, and look at
new ways of doing things instead of trying to operate under the
same failed model? Would you comment on that a little, because
you have had the same experience?
Governor Thompson. I certainly would, Mr. Chairman. And I
thank you so very much for the question.
Senator Shelby. This is on behalf of Senator Gorton.
Governor Thompson. I understand that. But everybody
understands that railroad passenger service does not stop at
the State line. It goes all over. And it would be impossible
for States to do this. If you are going to have a national
passenger rail service, it has got to be a partnership with the
Federal Government, with Amtrak and with State governments,
along with the freight railroads. We are all in this together,
and we cannot do it individually. And we cannot survive without
your help and guidance.
And that is why we are here today, to tell you that there
is a new Amtrak Board, a new Amtrak direction out there, and we
are going to be brutally candid with you, and we expect the
same from you. And the States could not do it. This has to be a
Federal/Amtrak partnership.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, do you have any other
questions or comments?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple of things.
farley building
One is that as we develop an attraction for railroading, we
know what happened, for instance, when Union Station here was
rehabbed. It is a place that people want to come to and they
feel comfortable in. We are seeing the same thing in
Philadelphia.
Mr. Warrington. That is right.
Senator Lautenberg. The question of New York, the Farley
Building, has also got to be part of the attraction. Because,
very frankly, you have been to Penn Station, I have been to
Penn Station, it is not a pleasant place to be.
Mr. Warrington. It is not adequate.
Senator Lautenberg. It is hopelessly inadequate, because
you have got all the commuters coming in that place. It is
awful.
Anyway, Mr. Warrington, are you aware of any funding
shortfall that might obstruct the completion of the Farley
Building project?
Mr. Warrington. I will tell you that we are very
interested--you know, we spent the day yesterday in New York,
and it became clear to everyone there that, with the kind of
demand for the existing Penn Station, we are not going to be
able to make this all work over the next 10 or 15 years. And
this is really around the long-haul demand. And when you
project out the demands on that facility--even today it is
difficult, but down the road, it even begins to pose a safety
hazard around clearing platforms.
And I think, working together, with have been very
supportive of and want to participate seriously in a new
station in New York, which should be and needs to be the Farley
project. So, we are very interested in being supportive and
being helpful and figuring out the right way to make that
project work.
But, meanwhile, we have got high-speed trains coming in the
next year, and we also need to invest some money in the
existing facility in order to accommodate the demand that is
there today and the demand that will be there over the next
several years, until the Farley Building and the Farley project
can be successfully completed.
Governor Thompson. I would like to say something. On the
Board, we had a really heated discussion about this on Monday
evening of this week. And the Board's position is that we
cannot afford, right now, putting our capital into the Farley
Building. Our primary goal is to become operationally self-
sufficient by the year 2003. And any diversion of money is not
going to be acceptable to this Board.
need for trans-hudson tunnel
Senator Lautenberg. That is an interesting thing, Governor.
Just a couple of days ago, Representative Bob Franks, from New
Jersey, a senior member of our delegation, a Republican, did
propose looking at the possibility of a new tunnel, a rail
tunnel, between New York and New Jersey, between the north and
the south, which is essentially what we are talking about.
Because I am very familiar with that tunnel and its operation.
I was Commissioner of the Port Authority, and that is what
attracted me to transportation before I came to this Senate.
And the capacity there is really limiting.
So, as we examine what it is that we are going to need for
serious high-speed rail service--and I am encouraged by what I
have heard you say here today--and that is if we make the
investment, if we ever got that New York ride down to less than
2\1/2\ hours, it would relieve the air use, the aviation
throughout the country. Because if you can pull these things,
the shuttles, give them a little relief up there in terms of
scheduling them into the airports, it would work to the
advantage of every airport across this Nation. Because what
happens in New York happens all over. The same thing in
Chicago. The same thing in Denver. And we ought to be doing it.
We opened recently in New Jersey a line, with some trackage
work, called Midtown Direct, so people in the suburbs can get
from some of the suburbs directly into New York without having
to change trains. The response is overwhelming. It gets so
crowded that the conductor is having a tough time getting
through and collecting all of the tickets that he has to. Real
estate values, I am told, have gone up all along the corridor
because of the convenience of being able to get to the City. We
have a huge commuting people.
And so there are two things that come out of this
discussion we are having, Mr. Chairman. And that is when I hear
what the plans are, I may have to change my mind about
something I earlier said and stay here and nurse Amtrak through
its development and progress.
Senator Shelby. We would love for you to stay. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. The other thing is I wonder if we could
ever put slot machines in some of our longer-run trains.
[Laughter.]
That is another revenue source.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. [Laughter.]
Governor Thompson. Senator Lautenberg, you are absolutely
correct. There needs to be, long range, another tunnel. There
is no question about that. And anybody that is a visionary is
looking at that. And there needs to be an improvement on the
Penn Station and the Farley Building. But Amtrak cannot afford
those kind of thoughts at the present time.
Senator Shelby. Maybe out of some other funding mechanism.
Governor Thompson. There has to be, because all Amtrak can
do is, to survive right now----
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg is right, though, as far
as the redevelopment, like Union Station and so many others
that he has alluded to.
Governor Thompson. It is a beautiful asset.
Senator Shelby. It is a big capital expenditure, but I
think it is ancillary to what we are doing.
Governor Thompson. That is true.
Additional committee questions
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was a
good hearing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Amtrak
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
Question. Since the General Accounting Office's (GAO) report was
published in May 1998, has Amtrak restructured its route system in any
way to respond to the operating losses on 39 of 40 routes? Do you have
any route restructuring or closures planned?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2002 Strategic Business
Plan (SBP) lays out numerous initiatives that will improve the
financial performance of Amtrak's routes. Some of the highlights are
listed below:
--Frequency additions and new service launches on the West Coast:
--2nd frequency on the Cascades between Seattle and Vancouver, 5th
and 6th frequencies on the Capitol corridor
--5th frequency on the San Joaquins (Bakersfield-Sacramento)
--Auto Train service on the Coast Starlight;
--Planned new service in Oklahoma
--Launch of high speed rail in the Northeast
--Mail and express growth on many long-distance routes
--Additional auto carrier capacity on Auto Train
--New equipment procurement on select routes (Cascades, San Diegans,
Acela Express, and North Carolina service), providing a better
product to customers
--Labor productivity improvements
In addition, the market based network analysis (MBNA) that is
currently underway will consider significant route restructuring. The
results of the MBNA will be phased in, beginning with the fiscal year
2000 business plan.
Question. GAO cites that 17 of your 40 routes carry, in total, only
about 2 million, or 10 percent of your total annual ridership. Wouldn't
some of these routes be logical places to look for cutting back the
railroad's cumulative operating losses?
Answer. While GAO accurately points out that many of our routes
have relatively low ridership, they fail to point out the differences
between routes that make cutting back simply on the basis of low
ridership an unwise proposition.
Of the 18 routes that made up approximately 10 percent of our
ridership in fiscal year 1998, 10 were state supported services
operated in Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania
and Vermont. The remaining routes were long-distance trains that
represent more of Amtrak's total revenue than their percentage of
ridership may indicate.
In addition, many of these long-distance and state supported
services connect with other routes. Eliminating one or more of these
routes will therefore have an adverse impact on the financial results
of the routes that remain.
Despite the qualifications made above, Amtrak is considering
changes to its existing network as part of the Market Based Network
Analysis which is currently underway. The results of this initiative
will be incorporated into the fiscal year 2000 business plan.
Question. Please provide the most recent route-by-route performance
statistics for all short and long distance routes, similar to that
found on pages 221-222 of part 5 of the House Appropriations
Committee's fiscal year 1999 hearing record.
Answer. See attached table.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA10.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA10.003
Question. Please update the Committee on Amtrak's own market-based
route study. Is this an in-house or contracted out study? When will it
be completed? Do you anticipate that this study will assist the Board
in making route closure and rationalization decisions?
Answer. Amtrak's market-based network analysis (MBNA) is managed by
Amtrak staff, with individual projects being performed by both Amtrak
staff and consultants. The collaboration covers both the strategic
direction of individual tasks as well as the technical work itself.
The prime components of the study include market research, variable
cost model development, contribution analyses, train mix analyses,
corridor and long distance demand modeling, physical characteristics
studies, operational analyses and capital investment analyses.
The Corporation plans to complete the MBNA in late summer of 1999
such that implementation can begin in fiscal year 2000. The capital and
operating budgets developed for the fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2004
Strategic Business Plan, as well as the long-term forecasts shown in
that plan, will incorporate the results of the MBNA.
By analyzing demand for passenger rail service across the country,
and considering the requirements associated with potential route
options, Amtrak can reposition the Corporation as more relevant to its
customers, and in doing so, make it more commercially viable. In this
way the MBNA will guide management and Board decisions to redefine the
national network.
Question. The Amtrak board approved a $1.4 billion capital spending
plan for fiscal year 1999 that includes the following funding streams:
Taxpayer Relief Act and general appropriated capital funds, state or
leveraged funds, bank loans, reprogrammed funds and matching funds. In
the Fiscal Year 1999 Transportation Appropriations Act, Amtrak received
$609 million in capital grants, of which 40 percent, or $244 million is
available for obligation in fiscal year 1999. How will this capital
appropriation be spent? Is it true that very little to none of these
``capital'' funds will be spent on traditional capital expenses, such
as equipment, tracks and track improvements, facilities and rights-of-
way purchases?
Answer. Of the $244 million received during fiscal year 1999, $50
million will be used for traditional capital investments. The remaining
appropriated funds received are being used for maintenance of equipment
expenses. When the remaining funding for fiscal year 1999 is received
in fiscal year 2000, it will be used to repay TRA loans and
subsequently used for traditional capital purposes.
Question. Will any of these capital funds be used for excess
railroad retirement payments?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 capital appropriation will be used for
traditional capital projects and maintenance of equipment expenses. The
portion of railroad retirement costs associated with Amtrak labor costs
incurred in maintenance of equipment functions would be included in the
maintenance of equipment costs covered with federal support.
Question. Why are these funds even called ``capital grants?'' It
doesn't appear that much, if any, of the appropriated funds are being
used for capital purposes. Would it make more sense to simply
appropriate funds under the heading ``Grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation,'' and not attempt to delineate which funds are
for capital costs, which are for maintenance costs, and which are for
operating costs?
Answer. Amtrak will always require federal capital support, similar
to that received by all other modes of transportation. This suggestion
to have a general grant provided to Amtrak without any artificial
restrictions imposed on it makes absolute sense, and would allow Amtrak
to behave more like a business. That is what the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act calls for--a straight grant--so it would be
consistent with the authorizer's intent for Amtrak to receive grants
this way. Congress and the Amtrak Reform Council would still be able to
measure Amtrak's dependence on federal support for operating expenses,
through the annual audit process, so the integrity of the Congressional
directive to achieve operational self-sufficiency would remain intact.
Question. The Federal Railroad Administration has sent up a request
for $570,976,000 for fiscal year 2000, and the Amtrak legislative grant
request is for a total of $571,000,000. What accounts for the $24,000
difference?
Answer. Amtrak's strategic business plan is based on $571,000,000
for fiscal year 2000. Amtrak considers the difference of $24,000 as
immaterial, and would suggest the committee direct the question to the
Federal Railroad Administration.
Question. If the Federal Transit Administration's expanded capital
definition were applied to Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount
of the $571,000,000 in the fiscal year 2000 request that could be used
for: maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities, and
maintenance of way? (Please break out your response by category.)
Answer. Amtrak's current business plan forecasts that maintenance
expenses will total $481 million in fiscal year 2000--$308 million for
maintenance of equipment and $177 million for maintenance of way and
facilities.
The use of federal funds for this purpose, however, is limited by
the cash flow requirement of the corporation. In fiscal year 2000, $362
million will be required for maintenance purposes--$184 million of
which will be paid from the cash received for the fiscal year 1999
federal appropriation and $178 million for the fiscal year 2000 federal
appropriation.
Question. The Amtrak capital business plan includes only about $32
million total this year for corridor development. There is no other
federal source for capital rail improvement grants. Who do you expect
to pay for the capital improvements to support high-speed rail
corridors? Besides Amtrak, what are the other possible funding sources?
Answer. Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 capital program includes $144
million of corridor development investment and leverages another $243
million in state and private investment.
All the high-speed rail programs developed thus far assume a
combination of local, State, and Federal funding to progress upgrades
of these corridors. As reflected in the recent National Governors
Association rail policy, these states believe that they should have the
flexibility to apply federal surface transportation dollars to high-
speed rail development work. In addition, there is growing support for
a dedicated funding source that can be used to invest in high-speed
rail improvements, similar to the funding that can be used today to
build and support highways, airports, transit and maritime systems. In
California, voters will decide whether to increase the state sales or
fuel taxes to support a substantial portion of the proposed high-speed
rail system. However, some level of federal capital support still would
be required.
Question. What incentive would freight railroads have to invest in
these kinds of infrastructure improvements themselves? Do they directly
benefit from higher-speed passenger service?
Answer. High-speed rail can be a win-win opportunity. Upgrade of
trackage to permit high-speed operations requires updated signal
systems, improved trackage, increased track capacity, grade crossing
and other safety upgrades. Freight railroads can benefit significantly
from these improvements, which can enable them to move freight more
quickly, reliably and safely. The most important issue for freight
railroads will be to ensure that increased passenger service does not
adversely impact their ability to move freight. As a result, it is
essential that high-speed rail corridor initiatives adequately take
into account capacity issues by designing the railroad to permit long-
term freight and passenger traffic growth.
Question. I am concerned that spending any federal funds on high-
speed rail infrastructure improvements on rail that is owned by the
freights is tantamount to subsidizing private, for-profit companies. Is
this a valid concern?
Answer. The cost up upgrading existing, albeit privately owned,
rail lines in our most densely congested transportation corridors will
be a tiny fraction of the cost of highway and airport expansion. Many
of these rail lines connect downtown business centers, and are right-
of-ways that could never be reassembled today. Hence, investment in
these rail lines can save the federal government immense funding. If a
publicly owned alternative were pursued, adequate safeguards can be
included to protect the federal government's investment in high-speed
rail corridors.
Question. What mechanisms are in place to prevent gold plating, or
the unfair distribution of allocated capital improvement costs on
freight lines that would be upgraded for high-speed passenger service?
Answer. In order to develop high-speed corridors on tracks not
owned by Amtrak, there will have partnerships where all stake-holders
benefit. This means the improvements to infrastructure necessary for
higher speeds or increased capacity need to benefit the passenger
service as well as the host railroad if the service is going to be
successful. Amtrak is committed to approaching partnerships with
freights in this way, while also ensuring that state and federal money
is spent in a manner most optimal for all involved. Furthermore,
Amtrak, the states, and the Federal Railroad Administration will rely
on a detailed capacity analysis to ensure that the appropriate upgrades
are made. The fiscal realities ensure that these safeguards are
inherently in place.
Question. Please update the Committee on all proposed regional
high-speed rail corridors of which Amtrak is aware. Please provide
detailed information on each proposed corridor, including: (1) total
projected cost for each corridor, as well as anticipated timeframe; (2)
the amount of capital funding committed by Amtrak, the affected States,
the freight railroads and other interested parties; (3) the level of
current services and what service improvements the high-speed corridor
will bring about; (4) each project's primary proponent, as well as
other parties in the coalition of forces; and (5) current ridership
figures, and estimated ridership growth.
Answer. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report on
high-speed rail that included, as an appendix, an excellent summary of
other corridors under planning and development around the country,
which addresses all the issues raised in the question. Amtrak has
attached a copy of this report.
Question. Amtrak was directed by the appropriations conferees to
work closely with Northeast Corridor communities, state transit
officials, and owners of the track to identify danger spots and install
perimeter fencing along the corridor, wherever it is needed, and in
particular, focus on increased community coordination in communities
where problems or concerns have been expressed. Please update the
Committee on Amtrak's efforts to comply with this directive.
Answer. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Section
5.1-1, directs Amtrak to repair, replace or install fencing at 29
locations between New Haven and Boston. The Federal Railroad
Administration identified areas with ``worn, well-established paths, as
well as along school yards, playgrounds and other recreational areas.''
Section 5.1-1 also states that ``Amtrak will on a regular basis consult
with local authorities to identify any new areas where significant
levels of trespassing are occurring, and measures that might lessen
trespassing.'' (Note: the Record of Decision (ROD) subsequently revised
the list from the FEIS, increasing the fencing required at certain
locations and reducing it at others.)
In response, over the past three years, Amtrak has been meeting
with communities along the Northeast Corridor, public officials, and
police departments to identify areas where additional fencing would be
appropriate. With few exceptions, every request that has been made has
been investigated and approved for additional fencing.
The fencing mandated in the ROD is currently being installed. The
additional fencing will be installed once installation of the ROD
fencing is complete.
Question. Please provide historical data from fiscal years 1989
through 1998 on trespasser and crossing fatalities on the Northeast
Corridor.
Answer. The following table consists of Class E Trespasser
fatalities that occurred in the states of: DE, PA, MD, DC, RI, NY, ME,
VT, NH, CT, NJ and MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................... 17 11 8 13 13 12 9 18
Crossings....................................................... .... .... .... 2 1 .... .... ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These figures do not include Commuters. Total includes Grade Crossing Accidents.
Question. Please describe the efforts Amtrak is making to educate
the public concerning north end catenary electrification.
Answer. Amtrak has been an active participant in Operation
Lifesaver, a public-private effort to present safety information in
schools, to bus and trucking company representatives, and to community
groups on the dangers of trespassing on or near the railroad tracks.
During the past year, Amtrak's presentations have been updated to
stress the dangers associated with electrification of the catenary
system.
In addition, in early March, Amtrak held informational meetings
with public safety authorities between New Haven and Boston.
Information was provided on Amtrak's progress to date on installation
of the catenary system, as well as on the energization and testing that
will take place in the coming months.
Amtrak has also contracted with a private organization, Operation
Respond, that will provide intensive training in each of the
municipalities impacted by electrification. The training is currently
underway and will be made available to each town prior to the
implementation of high-speed rail service.
Question. Amtrak is the lead contractor for construction of the
``third track'' freight rail line paralleling the Northeast Corridor
between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. What
are the inherent challenges in building a new freight rail line mere
feet from an electrified high-speed line that is in regular use? What
is the construction schedule for the third track project? How does this
construction schedule interrelate with the schedule for completion of
high-speed rail electrification, other capital improvements on the
north end, and the schedule for testing the rail, electrification
system, other infrastructure, and trainsets?
Answer. The primary inherent challenges in building a new freight
rail line near the high-speed line are (1) ensuring everyone's safety
when working, and (2) ensuring that the work on this project has a
minimal impact on high-speed rail service, while also meeting the
project schedule.
The completion date for the third track, as determined by the Rhode
Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT), is the last quarter of
2001. This is an extremely aggressive timetable, which Amtrak is in the
process of reviewing. It will have no impact on the high-speed rail
schedule, but if any conflicts do arise, the third track work will be
secondary to completion of electrification.
The only other capital project with which the third track project
interrelates is the Warwick Train Station at T.F. Green Airport. Rhode
Island has indicated that both projects are a priority, and the
location of the Station will have an impact on the geometry of the
third track. RIDOT is currently exploring its options and the impacts
of these options on both projects.
Question. Please describe the need for Amtrak's requirement that
all trains operating on Northeast Corridor property be controlled by
the advanced civil speed enforcement system (ACSES)?
Answer. The ACSES requirement was promulgated by the Federal
Railroad Administration as a waiver condition for operating above 110
mph. In general, it provides for speed control around curves (civil
speed control) and positive stop as a more direct control over train
movements. The system includes wayside locomotive controls and is being
installed between New Haven and Boston, as well as in several sections
between New York and Wilmington. All locomotives operating between New
Haven and Boston will require the ACSES capability. Only Amtrak
equipment will be equipped south of New York, since interlockings
provide effective control over train interference.
Question. When will the requirement that all trains operating on
Northeast Corridor property be controlled by the ACSES go into effect?
How many Amtrak locomotives are affected by this requirement? How many
of these locomotives currently have ACSES installed?
Answer. Coinciding with the initiation of high-speed rail service,
anticipated in late 1999, ACSES will be required on every locomotive
operating on the north-end of the Northeast Corridor. Because of
flanking protection on the south-end of the corridor, locomotives
operating south of New Haven, CT are not required to have ACSES by the
same deadline.
Eventually, ACSES will affect every locomotive running where high-
speed rail operates, that is, on electrified track from Boston to
Washington. A total of 161 Amtrak locomotives will be affected by the
ACSES requirements. The specific classes of locomotives to be outfitted
with ACSES by the October 1, 1999 deadline are as follows:
--52 AEM7 electric locomotives
--24 F40 diesel locomotives
--30 road switchers
--15 high-horsepower electric locomotives (HHP)
--40 High Speed Rail locomotives
To date, two locomotives, one electric and one diesel have ACSES
hardware installed and are working prototypes.
Question. What other railroads are affected by the ACSES
requirement? What is the per unit cost of installing the hardware? Are
there any additional operating costs associated with ACSES?
Answer. The following commuter railroads will be affected by ACSES
requirements:
--Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA)
--Connecticut Department of Transportation's Shoreliner East
--NJ TRANSIT
The following commuter railroads operate on the south-end of the
corridor, and will not be immediately impacted by the ACSES
requirement, but will be affected in the future:
--Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
--Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC)
--Virginia Rail Express (VRE)
The following freight railroads will be affected:
--CSX
--Norfolk-Southern
--Providence and Worcester
The average per unit cost of installing the hardware is $50,000.
This figure includes labor and materials.
Daily inspection of the ACSES system is a recurring task that will
be incorporated into daily operational procedures. Costs can be
expressed in terms of man-hours. It is expected that system testing
will require 0.1 man-hours each day. Repairs to the ACSES system will
result in variable, non-recurring costs.
Question. What is the timetable for the delivery of Amtrak's 20 new
high-speed rail trainsets and 15 new electric locomotives? What is the
payment schedule for this major procurement?
Answer. Amtrak expects delivery of the first two trainsets in
December 1999 and the 20th trainset in August 2000. New ACELA Express
service will be phased in as the new trainsets arrive. With delivery of
the final trainset in August, Amtrak will convert its interim trainset
financing to long-term permanent financing.
Question. Please outline the construction schedule and related
costs for the three high-speed maintenance facilities. Please describe
the cost-sharing arrangements for the construction and operation of
these maintenance facilities with Bombardier.
Answer. The high-speed trainset facilities have progressed
extremely well and are ahead of schedule. The Ivy City (Washington)
maintenance and S&I (service & inspection) building, and the
Southampton Yard (Boston) S&I facility will be turned over to Amtrak in
May 1999. The Sunnyside Yard (New York) facility will be turned over to
Amtrak in September 1999. The three facilities cost as follows: Ivy
City B $51 million; Sunnyside B $34 million; Southampton B $28 million.
The facilities will be staffed by Amtrak workers managed by the
consortium for at least the first 10 years after acceptance of the 20th
trainset. Maintenance is projected to cost approximately $42 million,
per year. The consortium is subject to strict performance penalties
regarding daily performance and cleanliness of the trains.
Question. Please describe the contractual penalty clauses that
Bombardier is subject to regarding trainset delivery and maintenance.
Answer. Under the contract with the consortium, liquidated damages
are imposed for late delivery of the trains to Amtrak resulting from
delays caused by the contractor. These penalties are as follows:
Days Per day
0-30.......................................................... $1,000
30-60......................................................... 2,000
60-90......................................................... 4,500
90+........................................................... 6,000
The consortium is also responsible for managing the trainset
maintenance and is subject to strict performance penalties. These
include:
--$10,000 per trainset that is not timely provided to Amtrak for
service
--$5,000 per trainset that fails to achieve scheduled trip time due
to a mechanical failure
--$1,000 per failure of any system on board a train, e.g., toilet,
AC, intercom, etc.
Question. What will the new top speeds be when the American Flyer
trainsets go into service?
Answer. The trainsets will be able to operate at up to 150 mph in
revenue service. The top speed of the trainsets is 165 mph.
Question. Please describe the testing components of the Northeast
Corridor high-speed project. Include timetables and benchmarks for:
testing on trainsets at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo,
Colorado and on the Northeast Corridor, testing of the corridor's
electrification system; and testing of other corridor infrastructure.
Answer. The trainsets, electrification, and track must be tested
and approved for operation at the planned speeds (up to 150 mph).
Trainsets.--Trainset testing will take place at both Pueblo and the
Northeast Corridor. Pueblo testing is underway and will extend through
September 1999. The testing includes operation of all onboard systems,
diagnostics, contract specifications (acceleration, deceleration,
braking, etc.), and FRA safety and Tier II equipment tests and
qualifications. Basic safety testing is performed first. Once the
trainset has met these requirements, the second trainset can be tested
on the Northeast Corridor. These tests will include contract
compliance, safety and qualification testing, as well as specific
passenger amenities and systems. This testing is scheduled to be
completed by the end of October 1999.
Electrification.--The electrification system must be tested and
commissioned prior to acceptance by Amtrak. Testing of the electric
supply system (electrical facilities) is currently underway; system-
wide testing begins in July and will extend through the Fall. This
testing will ensure accurate positioning of electric wires, compliance
with the National Electrical Safety Code, power supply, and impact on
the electric utilities providing the power.
Infrastructure.--Amtrak will operate its equipment at up to 150
mph, the first Class 8 track speeds in this country. The track must be
maintained to this track Class and this will be reviewed by the FRA. In
addition, FRA has detailed specific testing required to use the new
ACSES system.
Amtrak and the FRA closely monitor the testing and approval
process and maintain a monthly CPM schedule of all FRA-Amtrak
interfaces. This helps ensure that testing is progressed in a timely
manner and nothing is missed along the way.
Question. How much in profit does Amtrak expect the northeast
corridor high-speed rail operations will reap? Is this an annual
profit? When does the railroad anticipate that this annual profit level
will be realized? What will the annual profits be leading up to this
point?
Answer. High-speed rail operations will be introduced and
transitioned into service in the Northeast Corridor in late calendar
year 1999 which marks the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2000.
This transition will continue through fiscal year 2000 with scheduled
delivery of full high-speed rail service to be completed by the end of
the fiscal year, which ends September 30, 2000. After this transition,
fiscal year 2001 will be the first full year inclusive of high-speed
rail service as part of the Corridor's total product offering. Budget
result improvement in fiscal year 2001 is projected to be $150 million.
During fiscal year 2002, the Corridor's budget result is projected to
improve by $180 million.
Question. The independent assessment of Amtrak's financial status
has found Amtrak's estimates of the Northeast Corridor's high-speed
rail profits to be overly optimistic. What is the actual discrepancy
between the independent assessment's conclusions and Amtrak's figures?
What do you think is the basis of this discrepancy?
Answer. The DOT-IG's risk analysis forecasted a 6 percent variance
in high-speed passenger related revenue. Amtrak disagrees with the
demand modeling methodology used in the assessment and questions some
of the key assumptions and conclusions such as the:
--Inclusion of 12 months of expenses and 3 months of revenue;
--Inclusion of only 18 of the 20 high-speed trainsets;
--Conclusion that no new high-speed passengers will be diverted from
auto for trips of less than 75 miles;
--Conclusion that ridership growth will be largely diverted to
conventional rail rather than high-speed rail due to the
reduced travel times for conventional rail; and
--Neglect to take into consideration available pricing and yield
management options.
Actual experience tells us otherwise:
--The highest priced fares, for Club service, often filled with
shorter-distance riders and sold out, suggest that increased
comfort and shorter trip times are in demand;
--The current trip time differential between Metroliner and
conventional service on the south-end is 30 minutes. The advent
of high-speed rail will increase the trip time differential to
40-45 minutes, increasing the demand for the faster high-speed
service rather than diverting the demand to conventional
service;
--Similarly on the north-end, the travel time differential between
high-speed and conventional service will be 40-60 minutes,
further creating an increased demand for high-speed service
(even if the travel time differential was reduced to the same
30 minute differential that currently exists on the south-end,
the strength of current Metroliner revenue performance and
ridership growth indicates that there would be significant
diversion to high-speed service);
--There will be more high-speed service options than conventional
rail options offered on the north-end, attracting more
ridership to high-speed trains due to service frequency
benefits; and
--In markets of 75 miles or less there is no air competition. Given
the population densities along the Northeast Corridor, there
are numerous city pairs that are less than 75 miles that
currently contribute to significant Metroliner revenue
(Trenton-NY, Metro Park-NY, BWI-DC, Wilmington-Baltimore,
etc.).
The assessment methodology also excludes the valuation of the
positive financial impact of marketing campaigns, class of service
offerings, new trainsets, service standards program, station
improvement programs and reservation and fare collection re-
engineering. Amtrak believes that the assessment has underestimated
high-speed revenues.
Question. Last month, the GAO's Office of Special Investigations
published a letter to me regarding an allegation that they had received
through GAO's FraudNET concerning a consulting contract that had been
improperly awarded. GAO found that the contract, the arrangements of
which violated numerous Amtrak procurement requirements, cause the
unnecessary expenditure of $1.3 million by Amtrak. The same GAO letter
stated that, according to Amtrak's own Inspector General, 95 percent of
Amtrak's consulting contracts reviewed by the IG did not have proper
approval authority or written justification, and 90 percent were not
properly approved. How has the railroad responded to these findings of
contracting improprieties, and general failure to follow Amtrak's
procurement policies and rules?
Answer. Last year, as the result of an independent review of
Amtrak's purchasing processes by Price Waterhouse, a new Vice President
level position on Amtrak's Management Committee for Procurement and
Administration was created. This senior level manager will oversee
centralizing all Amtrak procurements, manage Amtrak inventories, and
ensure a more independent and effective purchasing control environment.
In addition, a task team with representatives from Amtrak's Finance and
Law Departments has been working with Amtrak's Inspector General to
rewrite Amtrak's consultant hiring and approval policies to facilitate
compliance and accountability.
Until a new policy is put in place and the Vice President for
Procurement and Administration begins functioning, senior Amtrak
management has tightened its focus on ensuring that existing policies
are strictly enforced.
Question. How much will contracting out food services to Dobbs
International Services save the Corporation (announced week of January
18)? Please provide a detailed cost comparison. What happens to the 13
commissaries and 350 Amtrak food service employees?
Answer. The requested information follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Financial Terms Annual Savings
Food & Beverage Savings (Based on estimated 7.25 percent savings
of fiscal year 1998 purchases of $35 million)................. 2.5
Labor Savings (Based on estimated labor costs of $19.3 million for
fiscal year 1999)............................................. 5.2
______
Total Savings............................................... 7.7
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Management Fee.................................................... -2.5
______
NET SAVINGS................................................. 5.2
The projected savings over the seven-year contract period is
approximately $35 million. Severance agreement costs, including both
labor and management are anticipated to range from $6.845 million (50
percent acceptance) to $13.54 million (100 percent acceptance). The
project is estimated to result in a net savings ranging from $21.5
million to $28.1 million over the length of the contract.
The eleven commissaries where Amtrak previously operated (in
Albany, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Oakland, New
York, Sanford, Florida, Seattle and Washington, DC) will be turned over
to Dobbs by April 10, 1999.
It is anticipated that approximately 300 Amtrak positions
(management and agreement combined) will be eliminated. Amtrak has
developed a comprehensive severance package for both management and
agreement employees.
Management employees affected may apply for other management
positions within Amtrak, including 14 new management positions
associated with food and beverage business administration; they may
exercise seniority back into an agreement position if they were
previously employed as an agreement employee; or, they can accept a
severance package based on years of service.
Those who do not elect a severance package will be transferred to
other positions.
Question. Please provide a table showing the actual versus budgeted
revenues for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and anticipated for 1999,
including all revenue sources broken out by type.
Answer. The following schedules show the breakout of actual versus
budgeted revenue by line of business:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------------------------
Line of business 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------
Actual Budget Actual Budget Forecast \1\ Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core................................................. 1,226 1,230 1,294 1,331 1,417 1,438
Commuter............................................. 242 244 260 267 254 255
Reimbursable......................................... 91 90 91 90 96 106
Commercial........................................... 115 52 63 69 61 51
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 1,674 1,615 1,708 1,757 1,827 1,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forecast as of 1st quarter fiscal year 1999 actural.
Note: Revenues exclude Federal payments received related to grants and the Taxpayer Relief Act.
Question. Please provide a breakout of the fiscal year 1997, 1998,
and anticipated for 1999 commuter service revenues by route location.
Answer. The following schedule shows the breakout of commuter
service revenues by SBU by commuter agency:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------
1997 1998 1999
Actual Actual Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass. Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA).... 141 154 165
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation (CDOT)... 6 5 6
Maryland Dept. of Transportation (MARC)...... 17 18 20
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)............... 9 8 10
--------------------------
Total NEC Commuter..................... 174 186 200
Florida Fun Train............................ ....... 4 .......
--------------------------
Total NEC Commuter..................... ....... 4 .......
Metrolink Commuter Rail Svc.................. 27 27 15
Penninsula Commute Service................... 34 37 33
Coaster Commuter Service..................... 7 7 7
--------------------------
Total West Commuter Service............ 68 71 55
==========================
Total Commuter Revenue................. 242 260 255
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please list the Corporation's rent and retail locations,
amount of space, and associated income in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and
projected for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The requested information follows:
AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR--COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
Revenue category 1999 Forecast
1997 Actual 1998 Actual \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate..................................................... \2\ 2,845.4 \3\ 2,176.6 1,200.0
Retail.......................................................... \4\ 7,555.5 \4\ 7,763.1 \4\ 7,500.0
Telephones...................................................... 538.1 625.4 485.0
Pipe & Wire..................................................... 3,212.6 3,177.0 2,000.0
Parking......................................................... 3,553.5 4,077.7 3,700.0
Advertising..................................................... 2,646.1 3,153.2 3,100.0
Telecommunications.............................................. \5\ 59,137.5 \6\ 27,675.2 \7\ 17,400.0
Other........................................................... \8\ 22,663.0 702.2 \9\ 15,750.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 102,151.7 49,350.4 51,135.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actuals through February and forecast March through September.
\2\ Includes: $1,711.5 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales, audit findings).
\3\ Includes: $951.4 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales, audit findings) plus $80.0.
\4\ Includes: All Amtrak owned NEC Stations.
\5\ Includes: $3,000 Omnipoint and $45,000 Qwest.
\6\ Includes: $6,000 flagging protection and $5,187.6 one-time payments.
\7\ Includes: $1,800 flagging protection.
\8\ Includes: $10,324 NJT EEC, $11,086.3 Providence Land Sale and $1,100.0 Pepsi Spon.
\9\ Includes: $14,100.0 Providence Sale, $1,300.0 MA Condemnation, $350.0 32nd Street.
Question. Please list existing or incipient partnerships with other
carriers for express freight. That income was derived from express
freight services in fiscal year 1998? With the summer 1998 STB decision
authorizing Amtrak's express freight services, how will that income
level increase in fiscal year 1999? What income levels does Amtrak's
strategic business plan count on from express freight in fiscal years
2000, 2001, and 2002?
Answer. Amtrak has partnership agreements on express with
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Norfolk Southern, and is close to an
agreement with Illinois Central. In addition, Amtrak has agreements
with several short line railroads including Minnesota Commercial, Grand
Rapids Eastern, San Diego and Imperial Valley, Dallas Garland and
Northeastern, and is close to agreement with several others. Amtrak
also has agreements to move traffic for various trucking carriers
including UPS, Swift, and Roadway Express.
Total mail and express revenues for fiscal year 1998 were $83
million--an increase of 19 percent from $70 million in fiscal year
1997. Revenues from the mail business alone have been increasing
steadily at a rate of 10 percent a year. The Amtrak Periodical network
currently reaches 60 out of 96 US Postal Service Distribution Centers.
Amtrak projects that this aspect of mail revenue and profit along will
increase 60 percent by 2002. Amtrak has long recognized that the market
for ``goods handling'' in the U.S. is vast, representing an over $247
billion national industry. The bulk of the business is in ground
transportation via trucking. Only $32 billion is transported by rail
freight.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail................................ 78.3 91.8 116.2 119.8
Express............................. 26.5 53.7 73.3 94.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail is targeted for significant growth during the plan period,
based on improved market share in the handling of periodicals. Amtrak
plans to target its service offerings to include direct service from
major periodical mailing points to all postal distribution centers in
the lower 48 states. Where service is not available, the APN is planned
to provide connecting truck service with complete systems and continued
fleet expansion will enable the United States Postal Service to ship
more periodicals via Amtrak. Amtrak plans to continue to pursue
increased business opportunities with the Postal Service.
The carload express business, including RoadRailer express
business, is expected to continue on its current revenue growth track
through the forecast period. With express cars, market development is
focused on the long-haul east-west lanes such as Los Angeles-
Philadelphia and Albany-Oakland. These lanes yield the highest gross
revenues and net contribution. RoadRailer is effective primarily in the
medium-distance corridors such as St.Paul-Albany and Philadelphia-
Jacksonville. All long distance trains are expected to begin carrying
express at some time during the plan period and many short-haul trains,
such as Grand Rapids-Chicago, will act as feeders to the long-haul
network. As trains fill up, revenue growth will come from yield
management. Key to the continued growth of express net contribution is
continued fleet growth, particularly the effective development of
refrigerated cars and trailer, which offer the highest yields, and
continued expansion of terminal locations and capacities.
Question. Please describe the cost-sharing partnerships that Amtrak
has developed with states for both capital and operating support for
Amtrak service, including what states participate and at what level.
Answer. A detailed breakdown is provided in response to the
following question.
Question. For fiscal years 1997, 1998, and anticipated through
1999, please breakout the level of state support by State, with totals
for each year.
Answer. The requested information follows:
SUPPORT FOR OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
States -----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... .............. .............. $1,425,502
California...................................................... $41,349,600 $47,162,454 54,642,000
Illinois........................................................ 6,938,145 8,162,541 8,787,504
Michigan........................................................ 2,096,250 2,296,250 2,096,244
Missouri........................................................ 3,686,432 3,937,875 4,716,000
New York........................................................ 960,000 967,500 960,000
North Carolina.................................................. 4,996,363 5,756,005 6,145,830
Oregon.......................................................... 1,246,506 2,000,000 1,545,000
Pennsylvania.................................................... 1,994,758 2,146,664 2,600,000
Vermont......................................................... 630,948 631,200 629,000
Washington...................................................... 3,543,853 5,122,297 8,926,000
Wisconsin....................................................... 2,650,948 4,429,151 3,487,500
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 70,093,803 82,611,937 95,960,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anticipated 1999 State Contribution.
Capital improvements
[In millions of dollars]
1997 Projects:
Michigan Mercury Project--FRA High Speed Positive Train
Control Grant with MDOT Track Infrastructure Improvements... 7.448
Reconstruction of Fuel House--1600 Lumber Street, Chicago, IL. 1.5
NPCU Conversion of Five F-40 Locomotives...................... 0.450
Grade Crossing Improvement--DET-CHI Corridor.................. 0.441
Pen Station Redevelopment--NY Penn and Service Building.......17.0
Joint Benefits Projects....................................... 5.2
NJT Joint Benefits Projects...................................25.0
NJT Capital Projects.......................................... 3.0
Delaware Shops--Modernize Locomotive Overhaul Facilities...... 1.0
Siding Construction Project, Encinitas, CA.................... 2.6
Design of King Street Station, Seattle, WA....................16.1
King Street Coach Yard--Maintenance Facility, Seattle, WA.....50.0
1998 Projects:
HLI Chicago................................................... 0.443
NJT Joint Benefits Projects...................................25.0
VRE Joint Benefit Projects--Washington........................ 1.0
NJT Reimbursable Projects..................................... 3.0
MARC Joint Benefits Projects.................................. 3.0
DelDot Joint Benefits Projects--Station....................... 0.719
Oakland Maintenance Facility..................................30.0
Pacific Northwest Infrastructure Program...................... 6.6
King Street Station Intermodal Project........................16.25
Salem, OR Multimodal Facility................................. 3.7
Los Angeles Service and Inspection Facility................... 5.0
Centralia, WA Platform........................................ 3.73
King Street Coach Yard Maintenance Facility................... 9.145
1999 Projects:
DelDot Joint Benefit Projects................................. 0.719
MARC Joint Benefit Projects................................... 3.0
New York State Agreement......................................18.0
Michigan Crossties & Resurfacing.............................. 3.042
Southeast Corridor Equipment.................................. 5.5
West Detroit, MI & Porter, IN................................. 0.5
Battle Creek, MI Station Track................................ 0.5
Chicago Lake Street Interlocking..............................10.0
Harrisburg Line Improvements.................................. 1.0
Wilmington Station............................................ 1.90
Union Station, Washington, DC................................. 3.2
Pacific Northwest Infrastructure Program...................... 5.4
King Street Coach Yard Maintenance Facility...................12.255
King Street Station Intermodal Project........................16.25
DET-CHI Corridor High Speed Program........................... 0.247
High Speed Rail--North........................................ 8.0
Operational Reliability--New..................................28.0
Commercial Development, and Lanvale Park......................13.5
Amtrak & Metrolink TVM's...................................... 1.939
Marysville Bypass............................................. 5.295
San Joaquin Corridor Infrastructure...........................29.6
Lomas Santa Fe Double Track...................................15.883
Sacramento, CA Station Renovation.............................36.58
Salinas Station Improvement................................... 2.979
San Diego Station Improvement................................. 0.4
Albany, OR Multimodal Station.................................11.0
Eugene, OR Multimodal Station................................. 3.6
Everett, WA Intermodal Project................................40.43
Tukwila, WA Station...........................................24.2
Question. This Committee has supported giving state departments of
transportation the flexibility to use highway funds for Amtrak. To what
extent can this now be done (e.g., CMAQ funds)? What states, if any,
utilize the current flexibility? Are other states, to your knowledge,
planning to utilize the current level of flexibility?
Answer. Amtrak has been very grateful to this Committee for its
support on this issue but, unfortunately, there is no flexibility in
current law. States are prohibited from opting to spend any federal
transportation dollars on rail service. Many states, however, have
sought exemptions on this matter, though it requires a specific waiver
by the Secretary of Transportation. Oregon is the only state that has
ever been granted such a waiver. The State of Vermont secured a
``demo'' provision in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill
which allowed them the same type of flexibility. However, no other
state can use TEA-21 funds, other than enhancement funds, on intercity
passenger rail.
Question. If state DOTs had complete flexibility to use either
highway or transit funds to support Amtrak capitalization and
operations, which states would participate?
Answer. 34 states currently contribute to Amtrak services in their
states, even without the flexibility to spend their federal
transportation dollars on rail service. Amtrak could assume that the
same states might take advantage of the flexibility provision if
enacted. Governors have stated their support for complete flexibility,
as evidenced by the national Governor's Association (NGA) rail policy,
which was adopted unanimously in February. We are also aware that New
York State and North Carolina have CMAQ as the primary source of
funding for their rail programs, and thus are working very hard for
statutory approval of the desired flexibility.
Question. Amtrak has worked toward securing a dedicated funding
source in the past. Would Amtrak riders pay a ticket tax, similar to
the gasoline tax for highway users and the passenger ticket tax for
airline passengers, to create a dedicated funding source for Amtrak
capitalization or operations support?
Answer. Current rail fares are determined using a process known as
yield management: operational costs and customer demand along specific
routes are weighed to determine what price the market will bear. An
additional ticket tax would be inconsistent with Amtrak's strategic
business plan in two fundamental ways. First, it could effectively
price Amtrak tickets out of the market, causing a significant loss in
ridership and revenue--directly affecting the financial performance of
the train. Secondly, a ticket tax would adversely affect Amtrak's
efforts to reach operational self-sufficiency. Since current ticket
prices do not sufficiently cover all of the operational costs of a
particular route, any additional revenue gained through ticket price
increases would be applied towards operational costs--not
capitalization. However, it should be noted that Amtrak does pay the
gas tax and, unlike transit and aviation, does not benefit from the tax
in any way.
Question. Please describe all contracts between Amtrak and freights
wherein the Corporation makes payments on a contractual or incentive
basis. Prepare a table that breaks out the types of payments and the
amount paid, by freight railroad and total, for fiscal years 1996, 1997
and 1998.
Answer. Amtrak has contracts with all major freight carriers.
Amtrak pays the incremental (avoidable) costs to operate over their
rail lines plus incentives when train performance is between 80 percent
and 100 percent on time. Amtrak assesses penalties when train
performance is below 70 percent. No incentives are paid or penalties
assessed for performance between 70 percent and 80 percent on time.
Please see attached table.
AMTRAK'S PAYMENTS TO FREIGHT RAILROADS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 actual costs Fiscal year 1997 actual costs Fiscal year 1998 actual costs
Railroad ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Incentive Total Cost Incentive Total Cost Incentive Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF....................................... $12,383,384 $5,659,051 $18,042,435 $12,252,123 $9,520,213 $21,772,336 $13,791,356 $8,190,969 $21,982,325
Canadian National.......................... 1,331,138 25,184 1,356,322 937,869 ............... 937,869 961,097 ............... 961,097
Conrail.................................... 3,368,620 ............... 3,368,620 7,736,618 776,836 8,513,454 7,556,733 1,426,402 8,983,135
CP-SOO..................................... 1,430,144 1,061,679 2,491,823 1,378,036 646,955 2,024,991 1,375,751 332,453 1,708,204
CSX Transportation......................... 9,749,383 3,607,748 13,357,131 12,158,012 2,761,136 14,919,148 11,868,752 4,506,921 16,375,673
Delaware & Hudson.......................... 345,142 375,816 720,958 479,483 465,832 945,315 442,206 395,185 837,391
Grand Trunk Western........................ 346,519 ............... 346,519 305,141 ............... 305,141 319,244 ............... 319,244
Illinois Central........................... 1,770,593 458,158 2,228,751 2,014,095 647,031 2,661,126 1,860,722 891,730 2,752,452
Metra--Chicago............................. 163,225 87,827 251,052 747,122 ............... 747,122 119,500 120,185 239,685
Metro North................................ 5,977,697 186,481 6,164,178 6,245,326 626,284 6,871,610 6,407,190 738,690 7,145,880
NCTD (2)................................... 1,154,090 ............... 1,154,090 868,208 ............... 868,208 1,310,378 ............... 1,310,378
New England Central........................ 760,521 452,696 1,213,217 700,988 380,724 1,081,712 894,587 427,415 1,322,002
Norfolk Southern........................... 1,876,511 1,097,120 2,973,631 1,979,366 1,059,888 3,039,254 2,075,832 1,033,063 3,108,895
Other Railroads NEC........................ 5,851 ............... 5,851 451,331 22,260 473,591 441,408 23,705 465,113
Other InterCity............................ 160,684 ............... 160,684 85984.87 333,970 419,954.87 579,741 752,934 1,332,675
SCRRA...................................... 1,529,235 ............... 1,529,235 1,208,324 742,420 1,950,743 1,110,172 756,582 1,866,754
Union Pacific.............................. 3,113,740 1,011,255 4,124,995 2,847,631 1,737,099 4,584,730 1,520,514 (142,091) 1,378,423
SP......................................... 8,965,704 1,466,492 10,432,196 8,560,114 947,925 9,508,039 9,896,878 (991,246) 8,905,632
SPCSL Corp................................. 837,617 668,627 1,506,244 942,254.77 557,443 149,9697.77 839,093 632,969 1,472,062
DRGW....................................... 360,891 (64,127) 296,764 350,237 (17,674) 332,563 (57,065) (86,230) (143,295)
VIA--Vancouver Service..................... 271,718 ............... 271,718 346,299 ............... 346,299 315,377 ............... 315,377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................ 55,902,406 16,094,007 71,996,413 62,594,562 21,208,342 83,802,904 63,629,464 19,009,636 82,639,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe all contracts between Amtrak and freight
railroads wherein freights are given access to routes over Amtrak-owned
tracks.
Answer. Freight service is provided over the rail lines in the
Northeast and Michigan that Amtrak acquired in connection with
Conrail's formation in 1976, pursuant to trackage rights that were
granted to freight railroads at the same time. A certain number of
these rights have subsequently been transferred to other railroads.
The terms of these rights are set forth in various agreements
between Amtrak and the freight railroads. The compensation Amtrak
receives under these agreements is for the most part based upon the
number of car miles (one freight car travelling one mile) that the
railroads operate over Amtrak-owned lines.
The following is a summary of the rights covered by these
agreements:
--Conrail has rights between New Rochelle, NY and Washington, DC;
Philadelphia, PA and Harrisburg, PA; Kalamazoo, MI and Michigan
City, IN; and over certain trackage in Southern Connecticut.
--Delaware & Hudson Railway, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific
Railway, has rights, none of which it currently exercises,
between Perryville, MD and Washington, DC, and over short track
segments in New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, and Harrisburg, PA.
--Springfield Terminal Railway, a subsidiary of Guilford Rail System,
has rights between Berlin, CT and Springfield, MA, as well as
currently unexercised rights between New Haven, CT and Berlin,
CT.
--Providence & Worcester Railroad has rights over certain Amtrak-
owned lines in southern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and near New
Rochelle, NY.
--Connecticut Southern Railroad has rights between New Haven, CT and
Springfield, MA.
During fiscal year 1998, Amtrak received the following payments,
totaling $18,247,893, from freight railroads for their operations over
Amtrak-owned lines:
Conrail................................................. $16,698,200
Springfield Terminal.................................... 148,133
Providence & Worcester.................................. 137,805
Connecticut Southern.................................... 1,263,755
As a result of the recent acquisition of Conrail by the Norfolk
Southern Railway (NS) and CSX Transportation (CSX), Conrail's rights
will be divided between, and in certain cases shared by, NS and CSX,
with Conrail retaining rights between Northern New Jersey and
Philadelphia to conduct local operations on behalf of NS and CSX. Also,
Amtrak has recently entered into an agreement with Triple Crown
Corporation, which will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of NS following
the Conrail acquisition, with respect to its planned RoadRailer
operations over Amtrak-owned rail lines on which NS will acquire
operating rights from Conrail between Northern New Jersey and
Washington, DC, and Philadelphia and Harrisburg, PA. Question. Please
provide a breakdown of fiscal year 1998 Amtrak ridership by State, as
well as the number of residents employed directly by Amtrak in each
State.
Answer. The requested information follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
State Boardings Alightings Total residents
employed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... 27,485 27,108 54,593 29
Arkansas........................................ 8,895 8,871 17,766 27
Arizona......................................... 46,741 47,222 93,963 24
California...................................... 3,196,007 3,186,549 6,382,556 3,526
Colorado........................................ 120,748 118,797 239,545 86
Connecticut..................................... 446,371 464,960 911,331 727
District of Columbia............................ 1,526,288 1,527,689 3,053,977 348
Delaware........................................ 346,288 348,740 695,028 1,073
Florida......................................... 454,679 458,231 912,910 983
Georgia......................................... 73,628 73,856 147,484 68
Iowa............................................ 26,761 27,462 54,223 11
Idaho........................................... 2,157 2,305 4,462 1
Illinois........................................ 1,442,672 1,438,826 2,881,498 2,095
Indiana......................................... 54,689 58,795 113,484 1,239
Kansas.......................................... 19,735 19,970 39,705 27
Kentucky........................................ 4,874 4,551 9,425 3
Louisiana....................................... 99,225 100,571 199,796 320
Maine........................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 14
Massachusetts................................... 598,405 575,349 1,173,754 2,346
Maryland........................................ 769,393 769,623 1,539,016 2,379
Michigan........................................ 313,481 313,700 627,181 177
Minnesota....................................... 79,414 78,365 157,779 81
Missouri........................................ 237,316 237,617 474,933 95
Mississippi..................................... 45,229 45,300 90,529 55
Montana......................................... 62,934 63,398 126,332 56
North Carolina.................................. 253,394 253,492 506,886 136
North Dakota.................................... 39,466 39,746 79,212 15
Nebraska........................................ 18,613 18,771 37,384 16
New Hampshire................................... 911 811 1,722 161
New Jersey...................................... 1,727,229 1,731,626 3,458,855 1,740
New Mexico...................................... 49,575 50,439 100,014 57
Nevada.......................................... 39,722 46,537 86,259 31
New York........................................ 4,590,623 4,563,038 9,153,661 2,040
Ohio............................................ 76,214 76,318 152,532 58
Oklahoma........................................ ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 2
Oregon.......................................... 285,483 287,331 572,814 85
Pennsylvania.................................... 2,285,055 2,286,586 4,571,641 2,915
Rhode Island.................................... 184,583 194,105 378,688 395
South Carolina.................................. 91,429 90,228 181,657 60
Tennessee....................................... 23,595 23,992 47,587 16
Texas........................................... 75,139 74,119 149,258 158
Utah............................................ 15,688 16,136 31,824 49
Virginia........................................ 449,903 449,591 899,494 785
Vermont......................................... 49,576 51,437 101,013 13
Washington...................................... 442,835 441,758 884,593 412
Wisconsin....................................... 252,856 255,188 508,044 68
West Virginia................................... 22,666 24,236 46,902 32
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Total....................... 20,977,970 20,973,340 41,951,310 ..............
===============================================================
British Columbia................................ 41,504 45,009 86,514 ..............
Ontario......................................... 49,319 50,403 99,722 ..............
Quebec.......................................... 25,372 25,412 50,784 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada Total.............................. 116,195 120,825 237,020 ..............
===============================================================
Amtrak Total.............................. 21,094,165 21,094,165 42,188,330 ..............
===============================================================
Total Ridership \2\....................... 10,547,082 10,547,082 21,094,165 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service to be initiated.
\2\ The above figures represent total boardings and alightings in each state. Since each trip contains two
endpoints, total ridership is equal to half of total boardings and alightings.
Question. What is the status of Amtrak's pending proposal before
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the Corporation
securing wholesale status for the purchase and resale of electric
power? If this application is still pending, what is the likely time
frame for its approval? If the application has been denied, what were
the given reasons?
Answer. As background, Amtrak had executed a contract with Enron to
purchase electric power on a wholesale basis, conditioned upon Enron's
ability to obtain transmission rights from the regional power pools.
The terms of the contract would have reduced Amtrak's propulsion costs
by almost 50 percent. Enron's request to the Pennsylvania-Jersey-
Maryland (PJM) Pool was denied and Enron filed a complaint with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking to compel PJM to
provide transmission based upon the wholesale characteristics of its
sale to Amtrak. FERC ultimately dismissed Enron's complaint in
April,1998, but on a narrow technical basis that avoided a decision on
Amtrak's eligibility as a wholesale entity. Instead, FERC focused on
the private ownership of Amtrak's outstanding common stock as a
disqualifying condition under the Federal Power Act.
Question. What kinds of income-generating initiatives would
wholesale status permit? What are the costs and potential income of
these initiatives?
Answer. If Amtrak were authorized to engage in the wholesale sale
of electricity, the railroad would be able to receive revenues from
sales of electricity to retail and wholesale customers. As a wholesale
entity, Amtrak would be able to make bulk power purchases in the
service territory of one utility and transmit it across the Amtrak
transmission system to serve loads in different areas. Amtrak could
receive revenue from both the sale of electricity and the transmission
of electricity at both the wholesale and retail levels, although sales
to retail customers may be limited to those states that have allowed
retail competition. In addition, as a wholesale entity, Amtrak may be
able to avoid having to pay access and transition charges on purchases
of traction power once the electrification project in the north end of
the Corridor is complete. This could save between 1.5 and 3.0 cents per
kilowatt hour, depending on the charge of the local distribution
company.
Question. Please provide data on station renovation costs for
fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and planned for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The requested information follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1997 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Amtrak Funding other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Union Station, IL....................................... $900,000 .............. $900,000
Great American Station Foundation............................... 2,000,000 .............. 2,000,000
NY Penn Station Redevelopment................................... .............. $17,000,000 17,000,000
NEC Stations and Facilities..................................... 1,300,000 .............. 1,300,000
Met. Lounges Wash. and NY Penn.................................. 1,000,000 .............. 1,000,000
NY Penn Station Elevator........................................ 400,000 .............. ..............
Design of King Street Station................................... 2,300,000 .............. 2,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 1997 Station Renovations................ 7,900,000 17,000,000 24,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Amtrak Funding other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New AutoTrain Facil., Sanford................................... $250,000 .............. $250,000
Miami Transfer Satellite........................................ 126,000 .............. 126,000
CUS Mail Dock Upgrades.......................................... 943,000 .............. 943,000
Mail Service Terminal & Equipment............................... 4,600,000 .............. 4,600,000
N. Auto Train Terminal Replace. Phase II........................ 8,000,000 .............. 8,000,000
Chicago Union Station Redevelopment............................. 600,000 .............. 600,000
Lancaster Station............................................... 250,000 .............. 250,000
30th Street Station Development................................. 10,000,000 .............. 10,000,000
HSR--Station Improvement/Design................................. 2,000,000 .............. 2,000,000
PHL Structural Restoration...................................... 3,000,000 .............. 3,000,000
High Speed Rail Program \1\..................................... 14,200,000 .............. 14,200,000
VRE Joint Benefits Project...................................... .............. $1,000,000 1,000,000
Life Safety Washington to New York \1\.......................... 750,000 .............. 750,000
Philadelphia, PA--N. Parking Deck............................... 1,200,000 .............. 1,200,000
Penn Station Redevelopment...................................... 22,500,000 .............. 22,500,000
NEC Stations & Customer Service Improv.......................... 6,900,000 .............. 6,900,000
Retail Development--NYP & Others................................ 732,000 .............. 732,000
Assessment--NEC Stations Inv. & Improv.......................... 250,000 .............. 250,000
Leverage State/Local Funds (MARC & VRE)......................... 550,000 .............. 550,000
Centralia, WA................................................... 281,000 3,730,000 4,011,000
King Street Station Intermodal Project.......................... 5,000,000 16,200,000 21,200,000
Sacramento Station Rehabilitation............................... 500,000 .............. 500,000
Pacific Northwest Stations...................................... 600,000 .............. 600,000
Pacific Northwest Platforms..................................... 600,000 .............. 600,000
Las Vegas Infrastructure Program \1\............................ 2,000,000 .............. ..............
Salem, OR Intermodal Station.................................... 1,000,000 3,700,000 4,700,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 98 Station Renovations.................. 86,832,000 24,630,000 109,462,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is the portion of the project related to stations.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Amtrak Funding other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Street Station Intermodal Project.......................... $4,000,000 $16,250,000 $20,250,000
Minneapolis-St.Paul, MN......................................... 500,000 .............. 500,000
Raleigh, North Carolina Station Expansion....................... 444,000 .............. 444,000
Chicago Union Station........................................... 5,519,000 .............. 5,519,000
Southern Pines, NC Station Restoration.......................... 800,000 .............. 800,000
Erie, PA Station Renovation..................................... 1,400,000 .............. 1,400,000
NEC Stations & Customer Service Improv.......................... 4,850,000 .............. 4,850,000
Washington Union Station--Lower Level........................... .............. 3,200,000 3,200,000
MetroPark Station............................................... 600,000 .............. 600,000
Wilmington Station.............................................. 3,000,000 1,900,000 4,900,000
TuPwila, WA Station............................................. 500,000 24,200,000 24,700,000
Everett, WA Intermodal Project.................................. 1,000,000 40,430,000 41,430,000
Eugene, OR Multimodal Station................................... 500,000 3,600,000 4,100,000
Albany, OR Multimodal Station................................... 500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000
San Diego Station Improvement................................... 800,000 400,000 1,200,000
Salinas Station Improvement..................................... 300,000 2,979,000 3,279,000
Sacramento, CA Station Renovation............................... 1,500,000 36,580,000 38,080,000
Great American Station Foundation............................... 1,000,000 .............. 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 1999 Station Renovations................ 27,213,000 140,539,000 167,752,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2000 Capital Budget is currently under development
and therefore no specific information relating to station renovation
costs have been included.
Question. Amtrak's October 1998 strategic business plan capital
program budget includes $800,000 for the restoration of the historic
Southern Pines railroad station. It has come to the Committee's
attention that Amtrak has told local officials that it will not be
going forward with the project. This project was included as an earmark
in the Senate transportation appropriations bill, and was the subject
of a letter to Chairman Shelby and Senator Lauch Faircloth assuring the
Senators that the project would be funded and would go forward. What is
the agenda and timetable for the restoration of this station? Please
include dates for all needed process approvals, engineering and design
benchmarks, and construction.
Answer. Amtrak fully intends to participate in the restoration of
the historic Southern Pines railroad station. When the funding was
originally provided, Amtrak and the Committee understood that the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) was planning to purchase
the Southern Pines facility from CSX Corp. In January, 1999, Amtrak
received a letter from NCDOT notifying us that the state had decided
against purchasing the station. Amtrak subsequently began negotiating
with CSX for the property and did not begin restoration of the station
until the ownership issue was resolved. If all goes as planned, Amtrak
will begin performing work on the property in the summer of 1999.
Question. House report 105-825, accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, strongly encourages Amtrak to
consider funding rehabilitation and renovations at the Erie,
Pennsylvania station when selecting projects for the state and local
partnerships. What is the status of this station? Are renovation costs
assumed in Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 capital spending plan? Has a state
or local partnership been formed?
Answer. Repairs are desperately needed at the Amtrak station in
Erie, PA, and Amtrak has begun planning for a major rehabilitation
project. The City of Erie and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have
both committed to partner with Amtrak in the rehabilitation project.
Amtrak recently received proposals from three local architects and will
soon be selecting a final plan for the station. A groundbreaking
ceremony is tentatively planned for the summer of 1999.
Question. In Senate report 105-249, Amtrak was directed to report
to the Senate Committee on Appropriations by February 1, 1999 on
progress toward establishing a station at T.F. Green Airport in
Providence, Rhode Island. To date, the Committee has not received this
report. Please provide this report for the record.
Answer. A draft of the final joint Amtrak/Federal Railroad
Administration report has been completed and is currently in the
Administration's review process. As soon as the review is complete, we
will provide the Committee with the final report.
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 appropriations conference report
(House report 105-825), Amtrak was directed to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 1999 its findings on
the necessary improvements and related costs for track upgrades between
Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia that would enable higher-speed
service. To date, the Committees have not received this report. Please
provide this report for the record.
Answer. This joint Amtrak/Federal Railroad Administration report is
currently being finalized by Amtrak and FRA staff. It is then subject
to internal review processes. As soon as the internal reviews are
complete, we will provide the Committee with the final report.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
signaling upgrades between Brattleboro and White River Junction,
Vermont. Has Amtrak included this project in its fiscal year 1999
capital spending plan? What cost-sharing arrangements have been made
with the State of Vermont and the New England Central Railroad?
Answer. This work, defined in the project agreement as ``White
River Junction'' down to ``Windsor/East Northfield,'' is nearly
complete. Amtrak will cover its share of costs from the fiscal year
1999 capital budget. The cost-sharing arrangement, however, is still
under discussion.
Question. Please provide a breakout of the active passenger car and
locomotive fleets owned and leased by Amtrak as of February 1999.
Answer. The requested information follows:
YTD Avg. as
Equipment Type (active) of Mar. 1999
Diesel Locomotives................................................ 286
Electric Locomotives.............................................. 65
Switcher Locomotives.............................................. 60
Superliner Cars................................................... 456
Amfleet I Cars.................................................... 465
Amfleet II Cars................................................... 138
Heritage Cars..................................................... 80
Material Handling Cars............................................ 136
Horizon Cars...................................................... 100
Viewliners........................................................ 52
Auto Carriers..................................................... 64
Baggage Cars/Misc................................................. 131
Turboliner Cars................................................... 3
Cab Cars.......................................................... 18
Roadrailers....................................................... 283
Express Cars...................................................... 250
______
Total Owned and Leased Units................................ 2,587
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of fiscal year 1999
rolling stock purchases and leases, listing the type of equipment and
number of vehicles that will be procured with fiscal year 1999 funds.
Please provide the same breakdown for estimated number of vehicles that
you plan to procure in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. There were no federally funded capital dollars allocated
for the acquisition of equipment in fiscal year 1999. The following
equipment was approved to be procured through financing:
--70 Auto Train auto carrier units;
--27 switcher locomotives;
--44 mailvans, 139 trailers, 134 intermediate bogies, and 132
couplermate bogies;
--40 trainsets for the San Diegan service (funding for this service
is spread through capital funding allocated from fiscal year
1998 to fiscal year 2001);
--358 refrigerator cars; and
--locomotives and trainsets for the Southeast Corridor.
Amtrak is currently in the process of developing its capital plan
for fiscal year 2000. The equipment recommended to be procured next
year will be presented to the Board of Directors in September 1999.
Question. What is the status and outlook for the Federal Railroad
Administration's passenger car safety regulation that may potentially
affect the use of Talgo equipment in the United States?
Answer. On September 23, 1997, the Federal Railroad
Administration's NPRM regarding railroad passenger car safety equipment
appeared in the Federal Register. No final rule has been issued to
date, and because it is not involved in promulgating the final rule,
Amtrak is unable to comment on the outlook for the regulation.
Question. What is the level of investment has Amtrak made or is
Amtrak planning to make in the Talgo leases for the Northwest Seattle
to Vancouver corridor and for the Los Angeles to Las Vegas service?
Answer. None of the three Talgo trainsets currently operating in
the Pacific Northwest as the Amtrak Cascades are leased. Two are owned
by the state of Washington, and Amtrak owns the third. Amtrak also owns
the fourth Talgo train set, scheduled to operate as the second round-
trip between Vancouver, BC, and Seattle, WA, later this year. Amtrak's
investment in the Talgo train set for the Los Angeles-Las Vegas service
is a $3.6 million lease over three years.
Question. When will the Los Angeles to Las Vegas Talgo service
begin? Will this be a higher-speed operation? What is the current
travel time versus the expected travel time on the Talgo service?
Answer. Los Angeles-Las Vegas service could start as early as the
first quarter of 2000, pending the completion of the Federal Railroad
Administration's evaluation of the recent risk assessment of the Talgo
equipment, and the availability of Union Pacific track gangs for
completion of the necessary track work. There is currently no passenger
rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Amtrak's Desert Wind,
discontinued in May of 1997, did serve the Los Angeles-Las Vegas
market, with a travel time of seven hours. The proposed service would
operate at speeds up to 79 mph, with an expected travel time between
the two cities of five hours, 30 minutes.
Question. Please describe any cost-sharing arrangements which have
been agreed to for the operation of the Los Angeles to Las Vegas Talgo
service.
Answer. The service is made possible by unique partnership
arrangements. RIO Hotel and Suites has agreed to purchase 10,000 seats
per year for the service, and other potential partners are showing
serious interest. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority will
be providing cooperative advertising programs. Amtrak is also selling
interior and exterior advertising on Southern California services.
Question. Please describe the capitalization issues that must be
resolved to make this service possible. What level of cooperation and
investment is being made by the freight railroad that owns the route
trackage? What level of capital support has Amtrak committed?
Answer. A preliminary agreement has been reached with the Union
Pacific Railroad over the magnitude and scope of the infrastructure
improvements that will allow implementation of the service on the
proposed operating schedule. A second track will be installed on the
Union Pacific mainline between Cima and Kelso, a distance of just over
20 miles, at an estimated cost of $28 million. Engineering on these
improvements is currently underway by the Union Pacific Railroad.
Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 Capital Budget provided $9 million in funding
to initiate Los Angeles-Las Vegas service. An additional $5 million in
capital funding was included in the fiscal year 1999 Capital program.
If after three years Amtrak chooses to continue operations between Los
Angeles and Las Vegas, Amtrak would be obligated to pay the remaining
$14 million to the union Pacific Railroad.
Question. At the Senate subcommittee's March 10, 1999 hearing,
Governor Thompson stated unequivocally that the Amtrak Board will not
support further Amtrak investment in the Farley Building in New York
City. How much has Amtrak spent on this project thus far? What is the
cost-sharing arrangement for this project? Is the federal component of
funding for this project complete? What is the current timetable for
completion of this project?
Answer. In 1996, the Penn Station and Farley projects were
bifurcated, with Amtrak assuming responsibility for Penn Station and
the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC) assuming full
responsibility for Farley. Prior to the bifurcation of the projects,
Amtrak contributed $9 million to the planning and design of the
station, and $53.3 million to life-safety improvements within Penn
Station that were part of the Farley scope of work.
PSRC is responsible for managing public investment in Farley. They
are relying on a combination of federal, city and state funds, with the
relative funding shares now being renegotiated.
Question. What are the benefits to Amtrak services and passengers
of developing the Farley Building as part of capital improvements to
Pennsylvania Station?
Answer. A new train station in the Farley Building will address
severe overcrowding in the existing Penn Station facility. Current
conditions are expected to worsen materially over the next 10 years as
all three railroads (Long Island Rail Road, NJ TRANSIT, and Amtrak)
increase service frequencies and, ultimately, ridership. The most
pressing issue is vertical circulation (moving passengers to and from
platforms). The limitations in the existing Penn Station configuration
mean that modern fire safety requirements can only be met by increasing
vertical egress. Because Penn Station was built between bedrock, the
platforms cannot be widened nor can new tracks be built in a northerly
or southerly direction. However, Amtrak's platforms extend westward
under the Farley Building, providing the opportunity to create
additional circulation from the platforms into a new Farley concourse.
Question. On an annual basis, approximately what level of capital
funding from federal sources will Amtrak require beyond the end of
fiscal year 2002?
Answer. Amtrak is currently in the process of developing a capital
plan as part of its fiscal year 2000 strategic planning process. The
plan will incorporate the results of the market based network analysis
and service standards efforts.
Question. How will the federal appropriations role differ after
``operating self-sufficiency'' is reached?
Answer. After operational self-sufficiency is achieved at the end
of fiscal year 2002, Amtrak will still require ongoing capital funds to
support the national network. Amtrak intends to seek a dedicated source
of capital funding, similar to what is currently enjoyed by other modes
of transportation.
Question. What were the total additional costs associated with the
BMWE labor agreement? Were the retroactive, non-recurring costs
assessed against fiscal year 1998 or 1999? What is the outyear
component of these additional costs?
Answer. Amtrak predicts an incremental wage cost associated with
the BMWE labor agreement of $33.95 million. Offsetting this cost are
work rule and other productivity improvements valued at $6.9 million,
and reimbursable payments of $2.6 million. The additional net cost
associated with the BMWE labor agreement is estimated at $24.45
million. The signing bonus and lump sum payments were assessed against
fiscal year 1998 and the retroactive wage payments were assessed
against fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 incremental wage cost
associated with the BMWE labor agreement is $10.33 million. Offsetting
this cost are work rule and other productivity improvements valued at
$3.3 million, and reimbursable payments of $1.2 million. The net
additional cost associated with the BMWE labor agreement in fiscal year
2000 is estimated at $5.83 million.
Question. Have Amtrak's other unions used the BMWE agreement as a
blueprint? Which unions have reached agreement? What are the costs
associated with these other agreements?
Answer. The BMWE labor agreement sets a conceptual framework that
has been followed in our subsequent labor agreements. That framework
has two components: wage packages less than those reached nationally by
the freight railroads, and offsetting work rule savings of about 20
percent of the incremental wage cost. All agreements reached to date
have met this framework. Amtrak has reached agreement with the majority
of its unions, covering about 87 percent of our employees (see attached
table). The additional net cost associated with these subsequent labor
agreements is estimated at $143.11 million. Only the United
Transportation Union (UTU) (Conductors, Yardmasters, Stewards) and
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE-ATDD) (Train Dispatchers) have
not reached new agreements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA10.004
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
Question. How can Amtrak expect to compete effectively with trans-
continental air travel when times are approximately ten times greater
for rail?
Answer. Over 80 percent of Amtrak's long-distance customer base are
leisure travelers. Amtrak's competitive strategy in this market segment
is not to compete on travel time, but rather, to improve its delivery
of a travel experience that is enriching, relaxing, convenient,
comfortable, productive, and on-time. These are the traditional
benefits and advantages of long-distance rail travel, and the very same
benefits and advantages that Amtrak will leverage though its service
standards program and its market-based network analysis to improve its
competitive position in the market.
Question. Are the long-distance routes primarily utilized by
leisure travelers?
Answer. Yes. As previously noted, leisure travelers are over 80
percent of Amtrak's long-distance customer base.
Question. On the long-distance routes, even if every seat on the
trains were filled, would the route operate at a profit?
Answer. There are some long distance routes that would be
profitable if every seat on the train were filled. Amtrak's market
based network analysis (MBNA), will determine the market potential of
every Amtrak route. The results of the MBNA, which will include
recommendations to restructure the network to better meet this market
potential, will be incorporated into the fiscal year 2000 business
plan.
Question. What is the status of the fourth Talgo trainset in the
Pacific Northwest corridor? What is the time frame for incorporating
this trainset into service?
Answer. The fourth Talgo trainset is slated to go into service as
the second round-trip between Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, BC.
Originally scheduled for July 1, that start date is currently being
modified. The assembly of the fourth Talgo trainset is near completion.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
Question. Mr. Warrington, you assert that without the expanded
transit definition for the use of capital appropriations, Amtrak will
face insolvency in the coming fiscal year. According to you, at the
level requested in the budget, Amtrak will face an operating shortfall
of $47 million without the expanded definition. Last year, Amtrak ended
the year with a cash shortfall of $50 million, which Amtrak
accommodated through short-term borrowing. Please explain why this $47
million shortfall at the end of this year will endanger Amtrak's
solvency, when the $50 million shortfall at the end of last year did
not.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, Amtrak required $50 million in bank
borrowings to cover its cash deficit. The cash deficit is projected to
be $100 million for fiscal year 2000, which Amtrak will cover with bank
borrowings (assuming that the expanded transit definition is provided).
Without the expanded definition, there is no planned funding source
available for the additional $47 million cash shortfall. Amtrak's
short-term line of credit will have been exhausted. The irony is that
even though Amtrak would have $1 billion in the bank, it would be
unable to use these funds to satisfy our obligations.
Question. Amtrak is currently doing a great job of closing the
revenue gap that the Inspector General has identified for the current
fiscal year. Mr. Warrington, what are the potential show stoppers that
might endanger your continued progress in closing your operating
shortfall for the current fiscal year?
Answer. Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 year-to-date results through
February have been $9.3 million better than plan. Revenue and ridership
are up over fiscal year 1998, and passenger revenue is right on plan.
Amtrak is well on its way to meeting it fiscal year 1999 target.
Unforeseen problems could potentially hinder Amtrak's financial
results during the year. Most significant would be a substantial
downturn in the economy and costs generated as a result of the City of
New Orleans accident. However, Amtrak continually looks for and acts on
new opportunities for revenue generation and cost savings, and intends
to meet or exceed planned operating results for fiscal year 1999.
Question. What about your operating shortfall by 2003? What are the
largest risk factors you see in terms of your ability to reach
operating self-sufficiency by 2003?
Answer. The largest risk factor that Amtrak faces regarding its
ability to reach operating self-sufficiency by 2003 is the receipt of
adequate capital funding to invest in equipment and infrastructure
improvements, technological support, partnership opportunities and
corridor development.
Question. Amtrak's recently-signed labor contracts include both a
wage increase and some significant work rule changes to improve the
railroad's productivity. The IG has told us that these productivity
improvements are critical to Amtrak's ability to become self-
sufficient. Mr. Warrington, what can you report to us to date on your
progress in achieving the productivity improvements?
Answer. By the end of fiscal year 1998, Amtrak had signed
agreements with about 46 percent of its employees. By the end of the
first quarter of fiscal year 1999, that percentage had grown to about
70 percent, and has now reached about 87 percent. Amtrak saw
productivity improvements and other agreement offsets of about $1.6
million in fiscal year 1998 grow to $3.5 million in the first quarter
of fiscal year 1999. We expect continued growth in productivity
improvements as the labor agreements implemented since December 1998
bear fruit. Additionally, some of the productivity improvements (such
as the elimination of Amtrak's commissaries, the on-duty injury
management program and a change in some wage rate progressions) have
later implementation periods, and for the most part, were not planned
to produce savings until fiscal year 2000.
Question. Mr. Warrington, you state in your testimony that the
establishment of new partnerships with the states will be critical to
the future solvency of the railroad. What costs are currently on
Amtrak's books that you expect to be covered by the states in future
years?
Answer. Amtrak currently receives approximately $95 million
annually from states supporting operations and in fiscal year 1999 was
successful in leveraging over $300 million of capital investment from
state and local governments. Amtrak anticipates that this level of
support will continue and will grow over the business plan period. The
specific financial participation from any state will depend upon that
state's transportation plan and service needs, the results of the
market based network analysis and the amount of capital that Amtrak has
to invest in state partnership projects.
Question. Mr. Warrington, as you can imagine, I am very
enthusiastic about the advent of truly high-speed rail in the Northeast
Corridor. At this point, what would you identify as the potential
``show stoppers'' that will keep us from getting high-speed rail by
October of this year?
Answer. Amtrak is not aware of any ``show stoppers'' at this point
that would prevent the implementation of high-speed rail by the end of
the year. It is important to note, however, that while both the
trainsets and the electrification system rely heavily on ``proven''
technology, both are new systems and require extensive testing. Thus
far, testing has not revealed any major concerns requiring design
changes. This bodes well for timely completion of testing and
implementation of high-speed service.
Question. What major infrastructure improvements will not be
completed by that time?
Answer. Several infrastructure projects will extend beyond the
start-up of high-speed rail service but will not appreciably impact
trip time. All trip time improvements are planned for completion by
Fall 2000.
New Haven Interlocking.--Amtrak's two high-speed tracks will be
completed in 1999. The entire project, which includes significant Metro
North rationalization, will not be completed until 2002.
Stamford.--The center island platform project will not be completed
until 2003. Amtrak will be able to begin serving Stamford from the
center island platform in 2001.
Shell.--The new at-grade junction at Shell interlocking will not be
fully completed until 2002. Amtrak expects a 30-mph speed through the
junction by Fall 2000 and a 45 mph speed by the end of 2001.
Thames River Bridge.--Replacement of the draw span at Thames will
not take place until 2002.
Question. How much does the fiscal solvency of the railroad in
fiscal year 2000 depend upon your revenue estimate from the high-speed
rail initiative for the coming year?
Answer. High-speed rail will generate $202 million in revenue in
fiscal year 2000 and have a positive budget impact of $87 million.
Question. When can we expect two-and-one-half hour service between
New York and Washington? What further improvements need to be made to
make that a reality?
Answer. High-speed rail is on schedule to be unveiled late this
year and will offer a trip time between New York and Washington of
2:45. Amtrak is currently developing a shorter stopping pattern and, in
the spring of 2000, will initiate a train that offers a New York to
Washington trip time of 2:30.
Question. When does your budget anticipate that those improvements
will be made?
Answer. Amtrak's business plan assumes the launch of high-speed
this year offering trip times between New York and Washington of 2:45.
Any improvement on this will have a positive impact on Amtrak's budget
and put the corporation ahead of plan.
Question. As I said in my opening statement, Amtrak and the
Inspector General have differing estimates for the revenue stream that
can be expected from high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. I
understand that one of the driving factors that lies behind this
differing estimates regarding how many passengers the new high-speed
rail service will take off the highway. Some highway user groups have
claimed that we could eliminate each and every Amtrak route and not
increase highway congestion at all. Mr. Warrington, what evidence can
you provide regarding the likelihood of high-speed rail services
serving to relieve congestion on our highways?
Answer. Ridership increases in the Northeast Corridor due to high-
speed rail will exceed 2,000,000 additional rail trips each year,
beginning in fiscal year 2001. In end point markets--for example, New
York/Boston and New York/Washington--55 percent of the incremental
ridership will be diverted from cars and 45 percent from planes. In
intermediate markets--for example, New York/Philadelphia, Philadelphia/
Washington, New York/New Haven, New Haven/Boston--90 percent of the
incremental ridership will be diverted from cars. As a result, the
high-speed rail program is expected to relieve some of the congestion
on highways in the Northeast region.
Question. Mr. Warrington, your statement points out that you have
been able to have record increases in passengers over the last year,
even during the period of extremely low gas prices. Are you optimistic
that, when gas prices rebound, we will see even greater passenger
growth?
Answer. Amtrak is very encouraged that ridership has remained so
strong, given the historically low gasoline prices. This reflects that
congestion has become so severe in many corridors that travelers will
look to reliable, safe, and fast train service regardless of the price
of gasoline or airfares. We believe that the competitive trip times and
terrific amenities offered by ACELA Express will result in extremely
strong ridership on the Northeast Corridor. These same factors would
similarly enhance ridership in other high-speed rail corridors around
the country.
Question. Mr. Warrington, you have pointed out that your mail and
express business is growing because shippers are finding you schedules
to be more attractive, and your performance more predictable then the
trucking industry. Doesn't that indicate, on its face, that Amtrak
service is taking trucks off the highway?
Answer. Yes, in fact we are doing so with the cooperation of a
number of trucking companies, including UPS and Swift Transportation.
UPS moves trailers of packages on two Amtrak services and Swift, the
nation's third largest truckload carrier, provides express service via
Amtrak between Chicago, Philadelphia and Florida. Other trucking
companies are considering converting from highway to Amtrak, and we
have operated test loads for Consolidated Freightways and Roadway
Express. Amtrak is clearly helping to mitigate highway congestion by
taking trucks off the roads and, what surprise many people, is doing it
cooperatively with the truckers.
Question. Mr. Warrington, the Inspector General's testimony states
that Amtrak would require $125 million more per year than they are
requesting simply to make the minimum level of capital investment
necessary to operate at your current level of service. What will be the
consequences of not providing this additional $125 million?
Answer. Amtrak will require additional capital funding after fiscal
year 2000 and is currently identifying its capital needs as part of the
strategic business planning process. The fiscal year 2000 Strategic
Business Plan will integrate results from the market-based network
analysis and service standards efforts. If Amtrak does not receive
sufficient capital funding in the future, it will be unable to achieve
or maintain operating self-sufficiency.
Question. Mr. Warrington, do you agree with the Inspector General
that the funding levels anticipated in your strategic business plan do
not make adequate capital investment to maintain the current level of
Amtrak service?
Answer. Amtrak has consistently stated that a secure and stable
capital funding source is needed in order to make the capital
investments necessary to reach and maintain operating self-sufficiency.
Amtrak agrees that additional capital funding will be required after
fiscal year 2000.
Question. Mr. Warrington, you mentioned in your statement that the
key to achieving success outside of the Northeast Corridor is to
develop a ``market-based'' national route structure. Toward that end,
you are undertaking a market-based analysis of your existing system.
When will this analysis be completed?
Answer. The Corporation plans to complete the MBNA in the late
summer of 1999, so that implementation can begin in fiscal year 2000.
The capital and operating budgets developed for the fiscal year 2000-
fiscal year 2004 Strategic Business Plan, as well as the long term
forecasts shown in that plan, will incorporate the results of the MBNA.
Question. Is it likely that you will be proposing route changes or
reductions as a result of this analysis?
Answer. By analyzing demand for passenger rail service across the
country, and considering the requirements associated with potential
route options, Amtrak can reposition the Corporation as more relevant
to its customers, and in doing so, make it more commercially viable. In
this way the market-based network analysis will guide management
decisions to redefine the national network.
Question. Governor Thompson, the growth in Amtrak's non-passenger-
related revenue has been, and will be, essential to the railroad's
fiscal solvency. The Inspector General has pointed out that this area
of revenue has grown by 60 percent over the last ten years. When the
Amtrak Board meets to approve plans for non-passenger revenue items,
have you ever debated the question as to whether you are straying too
far from the railroad's mission to providing intercity passenger
service?
Answer. The first and foremost goal of the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation is to provide safe and efficient intercity
passenger rail. All other activities, while critical to the financial
performance of the corporation, are secondary. Amtrak passenger rail
service provides a critical element of a well-balanced, intermodal
transportation network. It is advantageous for the corporation to seek
further non-passenger revenue opportunities if it financially supports
passenger rail.
Question. Do you ever face a genuine choice between providing
adequate or improved passenger service versus leveraging an additional
dollar for non-passenger-related revenue?
Answer. No. Amtrak's primary mission is to provide quality
intercity passenger rail service. The corporation is willing to explore
any non-passenger revenue options that support that goal.
______
Questions Submitted to the Department of Transportation Inspector
General
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
amtrak's route system
Question.At the February 25th Department of Transportation
oversight hearing, I proposed that we think about a pilot project that
would give Congress, the Amtrak Reform Council, and Amtrak's own
management comparable data about operating costs on a given route. I
proposed that we select just one Amtrak route and contract out that
route's operation to another vendor for a limited amount of time, and
then compare performance to similar routes on Amtrak's current system,
and to that specific route's own performance over the past few years.
Would such a pilot project help us see where operating savings can, or
can't, be realized? And what are some of the potential problems we
would face if we went forward with this proposal?
Answer. This proposal has merit, but there are two important
caveats. First, It could not be a short-term arrangement if one
expected the third-party operator to make capital investments. A short-
term arrangement would make it particularly difficult for an operator
of a single route to establish its own independent maintenance
facilities for the equipment on that single route.
Second, there may be legal issues surrounding Amtrak's current
labor contracts that would have to be resolved. The primary costs
likely to be directly within a new operator's control are direct labor
cost of train operations. Most of the other current costs of operation
may not be reducible. Foe example, trackage-rights agreements with the
freight railroads would continue at their current costs. Station
operations and maintenance costs are often shared among routes, and it
may not be possible for a new operator to reduce them for its share of
operations. Finally, corporate overhead functions such as marketing,
purchasing, and accounting would still need to be performed by the new
operator, likely at a higher cost than Amtrak's because Amtrak can
spread the cost over more routes. If direct labor costs were the main
source of third-party cost savings, the contracting-out arrangement
could be viewed as an attempt to bypass Amtrak's legal labor
obligations. While this would have to be addressed, I do not think the
idea of contracting out a route for comparison purposes should be
dismissed out of hand.
Question. If this idea seems unworkable, is there a way to break
out the different functions that Amtrak performs, such as equipment and
track maintenance, marketing, reservations and ticketing, purchasing,
etc. and compare Amtrak's costs and productivity in performing these
functions to other companies that provide similar services? Does the
Inspector General's office have the necessary depth of knowledge of the
detailed working of Amtrak's operations to ``pull out'' these different
functions, and make meaningful comparisons with other private sector
companies that perform similar functions? Please provide a list of
functions that could be broken out in this manner, and of benchmark
private sector companies that currently provide these functions.
Answer. I believe this alternate approach-examining each function
that Amtrak performs, such as marketing, purchasing, and equipment
maintenance, and comparing Amtrak's cost and productivity in performing
those functions to other benchmark companies-also has merit. While
there are no other passenger railroads in this country to which Amtrak
as a whole can be compared, the individual functions Amtrak performs
are readily comparable to those of other firms.
For example, the costs and labor productivity for equipment
maintenance, track maintenance, and train dispatching and control can
be compared to those of the freight railroads or commuter operators.
Passenger-related functions such as marketing, reservations, ticketing,
and catering can be benchmarked to efficient airline companies.
Finally, overhead functions, such as accounting, financial management,
and purchasing can be compared to any number of efficient companies
with lean management structures. This type of benchmarking would likely
indicate where Amtrak has opportunities for cost reduction and
efficiency improvements.
The Office of Inspector General has the capability of providing
such an analysis, though such an extensive analysis would likely have
to be performed in phases over a number of years. However, it is our
view that this type of study would be the natural province of the
Amtrak Reform Council--bringing the collective business and
transportation expertise of its members to bear in combination with the
work of its staff. It seems to us that this type of analysis and its
potential recommendations are what the Congress had in mind in creating
the ARC. However, if ARC does not have the resources available to it to
perform these analyses, we would work with the Congress to develop and
perform this benchmark analysis.
As noted, the functions that might be benchmarked include equipment
maintenance, equipment servicing, maintenance of way (track,
structures, and signaling), train dispatching and control, marketing,
reservations and ticketing, catering, purchasing, accounting, financial
management, and executive management. We would be pleased to work with
the Congress and the ARC to identify the appropriate benchmark
companies for such a study.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
route structure
Question. If Amtrak were to move to privatization, do you believe
that private entities would see Amtrak's current route structure as
potentially profitable?
Answer. If Amtrak were to move toward privatization, we do not
believe that private entities would see Amtrak's current route
structure as potentially profitable. Even if Amtrak were to reach its
goal of operating self-sufficiency, there would still be significant
and continuing capital needs for the foreseeable future.
Question. If not, do you think there would be interest in
purchasing the rights to operate certain corridors if these private
entities were allowed to take advantage of non-passenger revenue? If
so, which corridors would be attractive? Would the Pacific Northwest
corridor be included in this group?
Answer. Amtrak is currently conducting a market-based network
analysis, the results of which will enable it to identify the passenger
and non-passenger revenue potential for each of its routes and
corridors. This is scheduled to be completed in the summer of this
year, and will be included in Amtrak's fiscal year 2000 Strategic
Business Plan. We will thoroughly analyze these results as part of our
assessment of Amtrak's fiscal year 2000 Strategic Business Plan. Until
the market-based network analysis is completed, however, we are not in
a position to identify which corridors would or would not be attractive
to private entities.
Amtrak receives significant operating and capital funds from the
states of Washington and Oregon to support Pacific Northwest corridor
services. If a private entity were to purchase the rights to operate in
these areas, it would likely need similar assistance and would need to
negotiate its own agreements with the states. Whether the service would
be profitable without such subsidies may be better assessed after the
market-based analysis is completed.
Question. Doesn't a corridor-based system seem like a more logical
approach to rail travel in this country?
Answer. Amtrak's current mandate is to provide a national network
of rail passenger service. Once the results of the market-based network
analysis are known, we would be better able to assess whether it would
be more logical to switch to a corridor-based system. It is possible
that certain corridors could prove to be profitable, while certain
cross-country routes would not. If the non-profitable routes were
abandoned, this would allow capital spending to be redistributed to the
more profitable corridors. This would, of course, be at the expense of
the national network. Were Amtrak to abandon the less-profitable
routes, it is highly unlikely that a private entity would decide to
operate passenger rail in these areas unless state or Federal subsidies
could be negotiated. If these were not forthcoming, portions of the
country would not be served by passenger rail transportation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
challenges to solvency in 2000/challenges to solvency in 2003
Question. Mr. Mead, I understand that you concur in Amtrak's
observation that, without the expanded transit definition for the use
of capital appropriations, Amtrak will face insolvency in the coming
fiscal year. According to Amtrak, at the level requested in the budget,
they will face an operating shortfall of $47 million without the
expanded definition. Last year, Amtrak ended the year with a cash
shortfall of $50 million, which Amtrak accommodated through short-term
borrowing. Please explain why this $47 million shortfall at the end of
this year will endanger Amtrak's solvency when the $50 million
shortfall at the end of last year did not.
Answer. Amtrak has a credit arrangement that permits $121 million
in short-term borrowing this calendar year. Its financial plans require
short-term borrowing of $100 million this year and commit the balance
to fund requirements of equipment financing agreements. The forecast
operating shortfall is based on the assumption that the short-term
borrowing is essentially rolled over when it becomes due and,
therefore, there would not be any additional short-term financing
capacity available to cover the shortfall.
The cash loss that must be covered by Federal appropriations
predicted for fiscal year 2000 is $355 million of which expenses for
maintenance of equipment comprise $308 million. Because federal
appropriated funds can be used to cover maintenance of equipment, there
remains a shortfall of $47 million.
does high-speed rail pull cars off the highway?
Question. As I said in my opening statement, Amtrak and the
Inspector General have differing estimates for the revenue stream that
can be expected from high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. I
understand that one of the driving factors that lies behind this
difference is the differing estimates regarding how many passengers the
new high-speed rail service will take off the highway. Some highway
user groups have claimed that we could eliminate each and every Amtrak
route and not increase highway congestion at all. Mr. Mead, what
evidence can you provide regarding the likelihood of high-speed rail
service serving to relieve congestion on our highways?
Answer. During the 1998 independent assessment, we projected that
by 2001, high-speed rail service in the New York-Boston market would
attract about 148,000 travelers who otherwise use autos for their
trips. This amounts to 3 percent of the auto traffic in that market in
2001. For the entire North-end market, high-speed rail service would
attract about 450,000 auto travelers, or 1 percent of the forecast auto
trips in 2001.
what caused electrification cost overruns?
Question. Mr. Mead, your testimony points out that 40 percent of
the budget growth in the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project is
attributable to cost overruns on the electrification work. What caused
electrification cost overruns? What can you tell me about what caused
these cost overruns?
Answer. Since the electrification project began in December 1995,
the costs have increased $228 million--from $353 million to $582
million. The chart on the following page identifies the basic cost
elements of this growth.
Question.What danger is there that the electrification work will
not be done in time to do adequate testing before the initiation of
high-speed service in October?
Answer. The electrification project is scheduled for completion and
full testing by October 1, 1999, in time for fully electrified service
to begin sometime that month. This completion date represents a
schedule slip of approximately 3 months. While Amtrak believes this
schedule is feasible, management agrees that there is no more pad in
the schedule to absorb further delays.
We are not aware of any current condition that will delay the
completion of the electrification work. However, any additional delays
in the electrification project will result in delays in the startup of
service. Amtrak has committed to beginning this service in October and
has indicated its willingness to provide any support or resources to
the contractor necessary to fulfill this commitment. Such actions might
include additional track outages and service disruptions while the
contractor works simultaneously in multiple blocks of track.
ESTIMATED INCREASES ON ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. Aug. Major Causes of
Categories 1995 1998 Overruns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contractor................... $335 $438 $95.5 million for
change orders and
allowance items on
the electrification
contract.
4.4 million for
additional
foundation
subcontractor to
make up for schedule
delays.
3 million to close
out original prime
contract that Amtrak
terminated in 1995.
Technical and Legal Support.. .4 17.1 cost of private legal
counsel to manage
and negotiate change
orders.
Amtrak Protection (Flagging). 11 62.7 42 million increase
in flagging
protection costs.
Electrification
contract requires
Amtrak to provide
flagging protection
during construction.
To make up for
schedule delays, the
contractor is
working in nine
sections of rail
track, rather than
two, requiring more
flagmen than
anticipated.
4 million identifying
cable conflicts.
2.4 million flagmen
training.
1.5 million for
relocation of fiber
optic cables.
Land Acquisition............. 2 4.6 cost for additional
real estate required
for electrical
facilities and along
the right-of-way for
catenary pole
foundations.
Project Management........... 5 23.4 increased costs of
design/inspection
construction
management.
additional 1.5
positions for
environmental
contract.
Barriers..................... ........ 25.6 20 million related to
change in project
scope to use solid
barriers to cover
catenary under
bridges.
5.6 million in safety
features to restrict
public access to
catenary wires.
Other Issues................. ........ 10.3 6.8 million in costs
related to hooking
up commercial
electrical
utilities.
mitigation at
Roxbury, MA power
substation,
including relocating
a substation to
address local
concerns.
additional insurance
issues.
--------------------
Total.................. 353.4 581.7 228 million increase
(Rounded).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
is amtrak adequately funding its capital needs to maintain current
service?
Question. Mr. Mead, you state in your testimony that Amtrak would
require $125 million more per year than they are requesting simply to
make the minimum level of capital investment necessary to operate at
the current level of service. Is Amtrak adequately funding its capital
needs to maintain current service? What will be the consequences of not
providing this additional $125 million?
Answer. Our projected funding shortfall in meeting Amtrak's minimum
capital needs is not expected to occur until 2001, largely because of
the availability of TRA funds through 2000. Amtrak will have enough
capital to complete the high-speed rail project, but other
infrastructure, rolling stock, and technology needs will go unmet if
additional funding is not forthcoming.
Even if Amtrak does not receive the additional funds necessary to
support a minimum-needs spending scenario, Amtrak will have to fund
certain projects such as those related to environmental cleanup and ADA
compliance, and will have to cover its debt principal obligations.
Other needs may be deferred, such as life safety projects in the New
York North and East River tunnels, operational reliability needs
including replacement of life-expired assets (rail, ties, cables, and
electric traction hardware), and repair needs for buildings and other
structures.
Outside the Northeast Corridor, infrastructure needs include
repairs required to keep Amtrak-owned facilities in serviceable
condition, such as rolling-stock maintenance yards and shops and
stations owned or used by Amtrak. Such deferrals would not only
compound the deterioration and increase the future costs of repair, but
the deteriorated facilities are likely to undermine Amtrak's plans for
sustaining and increasing revenues.
Another of Amtrak's key minimum needs is an estimated $85 million
for progressive overhauls. A minimum budget would allow for
continuation of the progressive-overhaul program, but would cause
deferrals of most heavy-overhaul work on rolling stock. If Amtrak does
not receive enough capital to fully fund a `minimum needs' scenario, it
is possible that all overhaul work--heavy and progressive--will be
delayed or suspended, causing long-term implications for both costs and
revenues.
ticket or fee-based revenue
Question. In the aviation industry, the federal government charges
taxes to each ticket to help pay for a portion of the FAA and
infrastructure improvement. Local airports are also allowed to charge a
Passenger Facility Charge for every traveler who boards a commercial
flight. This provides a revenue stream derived from the primary users
of the system. Would a similar fee system be workable for Amtrak? Would
this alleviate any of Amtrak's problems?
Answer. A fee system similar to the one that exists in the aviation
industry would probably not prove workable for Amtrak. In the case of
Amtrak, the tax on tickets would be indistinguishable to its customers
from a fare increase. Were such a fare increase currently possible and
sustainable, Amtrak would no doubt initiate it on its own as part of
its ongoing efforts at revenue maximization.
Question.Would such a dedicated funding stream make Amtrak more
attractive to private investors?
Answer. If a dedicated funding stream were available, it would
undoubtedly be attractive to private investors, as it would to Amtrak.
However, a ticket tax would not provide a new funding stream.
subcommittee recess
Senator Shelby. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Transportation is now recessed. The subcommittee will reconvene
on Tuesday, March 23, at 2 p.m., here in this hearing room, to
discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request. The principal witness will be Miss Jane Garvey,
the FAA Administrator.
Governor, thank you.
Mr. Warrington, thank you.
Mr. Mead, you are a regular here. Thank you.
Governor Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Lautenberg. You were wonderful to be in front of.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Warrington. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Tuesday,
March 23.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Bennett, Campbell, Lautenberg,
and Kohl.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Good afternoon. The hearing will come to
order. Today we have the FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey, who
will be here to discuss the Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request for the Federal Aviation Administration and
other aviation issues.
I want to dig into the budget request, reauthorization
proposals, and the status of some of the FAA's programs in
today's hearing. So I will keep my remarks brief in order that
we might get to a dialogue with the Administrator on these
topics and other issues that my colleagues wish to discuss.
Before getting to that, however, I wanted to conduct a
brief review of the FAA budget over the past several years in
order to place the current budget request and the discussion
over reauthorization in perspective, and to touch upon a few of
the broad budget issues to be contemplated in this year's
authorization process.
There has been a great deal of discussion during the first
3 months of the year of aviation, about the looming crisis at
the FAA and pending gridlock in the skies, due to insufficient
FAA funding. This panic cry is not new. It has been a common
refrain over the past 15 years.
It seems to increase in volume every time the
Administration proposes a new capital plan or a reauthorization
proposal, or every time Congress undertakes the reauthorization
of the Federal Aviation Administration's programs. But the
crisis always seems to recede the closer we look at it or the
closer we get to the projected gridlock deadline.
Does that mean that the vast number of studies,
conferences, and think tanks that have weighed in on this topic
are off base? No. Clearly, air traffic has increased and
capacity management challenges have also increased, but the
airlines, the airports, and the FAA's ability to grow capacity
and more efficiently manage traffic loads has also increased.
The system works and will continue to evolve, I believe, as
the nature of the traffic demands grow and change. Congress
once again needs to make sure that we do not respond to the
projections of dynamic growth in the aviation industry with
solutions based on static capacity growth models.
I have directed my staff for the past 2 years that I have
been chairman of this subcommittee to focus our aviation
investment in three areas: on increasing the investment in
airport infrastructure, on investing in technology that will
allow our airports and airlines to be more efficient, and on
increasing the efficiency of the air traffic control system and
personnel. I think we are making good progress on the first two
fronts, and I am hopeful that the Administrator will be able to
tell us how the new controller's agreement will make the air
traffic control system more efficient.
Although it is often said in the halls of the FAA or in
outside study groups that the FAA is in a crisis because the
Agency lacks a reliable revenue stream, the facts simply do not
bear that out. For 99.8 percent of the FAA's budget over the
past 5 years has been appropriated and approved by Congress.
Over the past 3 years FAA's appropriation has grown by 17.6
percent. By comparison, over the same time frame, FDA's funding
grew 12.1 percent, NASA's budget went down 1.6 percent, and the
budget for defense declined by 1.7 percent. Clearly, FAA has
fared better than most in the budget process.
It is also important to note that FAA's budget growth has
come in an environment where their workload has only been
growing between 1 and 3 percent per year. Keep in mind, the FAA
moves airplanes, not passengers. While the budget has grown at
a faster rate than the FAA's workload, productivity gains and
cost-saving measures have been largely non-existent at the FAA.
We need to do better. I hope we will.
The budget request for the FAA proposes almost a 6-percent
growth over last year's appropriation. On top of the last three
year's growth, FAA's budget will have grown by over 25 percent
over 4 years. Keep in mind that history shows that the FAA gets
virtually all of its budget requests. In short, this request is
not lean, particularly, when compared to other agencies in the
Federal Government or even within the Department of
Transportation, or compared to the Agency's workload growth, or
the virtual absence of any meaningful cost savings. In fact,
this budget request, I think, is generous. So the question
should not be whether we are spending enough on the FAA, the
question should be whether it will be spent wisely. I hope it
will be.
I would submit that some of the refocusing that the
Administrator has done with the Facilities and Equipment
budget, emphasizing the Free Flight Phase One initiative, for
example, gives me greater confidence that things are being done
better. However, some of the problems with the Agency's two
largest procurements, STARS and WAAS, lead me to believe that
the Agency has not turned the corner yet. Clearly, there is a
critical need for continued and perhaps increased oversight
from within the FAA and from organizations like the Department
of Transportation Inspector General, the General Accounting
Office, and the Congress.
Finally, I am concerned about the growing popularity of
firewalling parts of the budget in order to insulate portions
of the budget from having to compete with other Federal
spending. The argument that aviation should follow the example
of highways and transit should concern all of us. There are
hundreds of trust funds and even more special funds which can
make a similar case for a special budgetary treatment.
Assuming we adhere to the budget caps, if the recently
introduced House FAA reauthorization bill were to be enacted,
the FAA's budget would grow by 50 percent and be firewalled
like highways and transit, and there would not be any room left
in the transportation appropriations bill for the Coast Guard,
Amtrak, OST, NTSB, or the non-firewalled portion of NHTSA.
The FAA has thrived in the regular budget and appropriation
process. FAA expenditures continue to exceed the taxes paid
into the aviation trust fund. Our focus this year should be how
to do things better, not how to insulate the FAA from oversight
or from having to compete with other budget priorities.
Senator Lautenberg is on his way here, but I will proceed.
statement of jane f. garvey
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, your written statement will be
made part of the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you
wish.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will keep
my oral remarks very brief.
First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity today
to testify in support of the FAA's budget request for fiscal
year 2000. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you. I
am doing this not only on behalf of myself, but of the
employees of the FAA, and to members of this committee for the
strong support of the FAA in its critical mission.
I think a year ago when I appeared before this committee
for my first budget hearing I said there were three important
agenda items, safety, security, and system efficiency. I said,
that at the end of the day, that is what the American people
will judge us by, and that is what they should judge us by. I
think because of the strong support of this committee we have
been able to make some progress in each one of those areas.
What I would like to do is to touch very briefly on each of
those areas and how the budget supports those initiatives.
aviation safety
First of all, the area of safety. Last year, Mr. Chairman,
as you may remember, we announced in concert with the Secretary
of Transportation and the aviation community the Safer Skies
agenda. This is a data-driven, prioritized approach designed to
help us meet our goal. It is a very ambitious goal of reducing
the commercial aviation accident rate by 80 percent by the year
2007. We think we are making very significant progress with
Safer Skies.
We have an agenda that includes initiatives for controlled
flight into terrain, uncontrolled engine failure, and runway
incursions. Runway incursion is something we hear a great deal
about from airport operators as well as pilots. It is something
that really cuts across general aviation and commercial
aviation.
I think our Safer Skies agenda, that is data driven, has
been very important in advancing that important goal that we
have in safety. We worked on this agenda in concert with the
industry, with the NTSB, and with the Inspector General.
Aviation Security
In the area of security, Mr. Chairman, the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security rightly recognized
civil aviation security as a national security issue. The
budget that we have submitted includes more than $300 million
for aviation security, which includes $100 million to continue
deployment of advanced security equipment. We met yesterday
with NASA on some of the work that we are doing with them. I
thought one of the NASA engineers put it very correctly. He
said, this is often expensive equipment, but it is one of the
best insurance policies that we can have in protection in the
area of aviation security.
system efficiency
Turning to system efficiency, as you have suggested, Mr.
Chairman, modernizing the NAS is, and should be, one of our
greatest opportunities to improve our nation's aviation system.
In many ways it is also one of our greatest challenges.
We have developed a very comprehensive modernization plan
in concert with industry. The plan includes three elements;
each very critical, each very important. The first element is
sustaining our systems or renewing the infrastructure. That is
the thousands of pieces of equipment that we see going into the
system day in and day out, not equipment that is always very
fancy, but it is also critical and very, very important. Also,
Host and DSR are the platforms, and that is part of sustaining
that system as well. The second element is additional safety
features that primarily address providing more precise, more
accurate, and more timely weather information. Sustaining the
system is the first element, adding additional safety features
is the second element, and the third element is enhancements.
Those are the enhancements that increase the capability and the
efficiency of the system.
In fiscal year 2000, $2.3 billion is proposed for the FAA's
capital modernization program. Free-Flight Phase One is, we
believe, a real success story for the agency and for the
industry. A year ago we brought together the industry and our
unions to really focus on those early elements of modernization
where we can get some benefits and some results in a relatively
short period of time. The result is Free Flight Phase One. That
is a series of automation tools that are used by the
controllers, but eventually, the ultimate results are benefits
for the industry and the traveling public.
We have a contract with industry on Free Flight Phase One.
It is very simple and very straightforward. It is that we will
deploy the tools, but industry will help us measure the
results. Are we really getting from these tools what we really
want? I have to say, while the results are still early, we are
very encouraged by the kind of benefits that industry is
speaking about, and again, very pleased to say that this is a
program that is on schedule.
year 2000
Turning just for a moment to the issue of Y2K, which is an
issue that is on everybody's mind. We have renovated, as we had
a chance to testify last week in front of Congress, 100 percent
of the mission-critical computer systems. We did that by
September 30. We are now validating and testing the upgrades
and will finish and be compliant by March 31, 1999.
I will note that this is a couple of months behind the OMB
deadline, but we are working very closely with OMB. We really
feel, because of the complexity of our systems, June 30 is a
more appropriate date. OMB, we know, agrees with us. Again, all
of our mission-critical systems will be Y2K compliant, will be
operational by June 30, 1999, so we will be ready for the new
millennium.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have just one note, and that is
that 1998 was an extraordinary year in aviation. As you may
know, not a single fatality occurred aboard U.S. carriers, and
I think that is a record to be proud of. One columnist
described it as a triumph of brain power over gravity, but as
wonderful as that record is, we know that there is a great deal
that we still need to do. There is a great deal that we must do
in order to maintain that extraordinary record.
prepared statement
We also know that this committee has many challenges, and
the FAA is only one piece of it. We look forward over these
next few months and this next year to working with you to be
sure that we have the resources that we need to do the job that
we simply must do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of the FAA's budget request for
fiscal year 2000.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
and the Members of this Committee for your strong support of the FAA
and its important mission. Your support of the FAA's role in assuring
and enhancing the safety, security, and efficiency of our nation's
aviation system produced extremely beneficial personnel and procurement
reform for our agency in 1995.
safety
I am pleased to report that for the first time in history, there
were no passenger fatalities aboard U.S. air carriers and commuter
airlines in 1998. One editorial writer characterized this achievement
as a ``triumph of brainpower over gravity''. We want to continue that
application of brainpower to reach our goal of reducing the fatal
accident rate on U.S. airlines. I echo the Secretary's statement that
safety is our top goal--our North Star--and our performance reflects
the strength of this commitment. The fiscal year 2000 budget calls for
$1 billion for aviation safety.
Last year, the FAA in concert with the aviation community developed
Safer Skies, a focused safety agenda. This is a data-driven approach to
identify the leading causes of accidents and the interventions that can
make the biggest difference in preventing them. We are working
collaboratively with industry to develop and implement interventions
for the operation and maintenance of commercial and general aviation,
and for improved cabin safety.
Let me mention a few examples. Historical data tells us that
uncontained engine failure and controlled flight into terrain are a
serious causal issue in commercial accidents. Since we announced the
Safer Skies agenda, we have issued nine airworthiness directives on
contained engine failures. We expect to have these as final rules in
March 1999. We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Terrain
Awareness and Warning Systems. Many major airlines have already begun
installing these systems and Boeing is putting the Enhanced Ground
Proximity Warning System in its production lines. I'm pleased to
announce the general aviation team is coming together and working
through the challenges presented by such a large and diverse sector of
aviation. In addition, we have seen significant progress in our cabin
safety initiatives with the Partners in Cabin Safety. This group is
focusing on carry on baggage, the Turbulence Happens public education
campaign, and child restraints systems.
Another one of my Safer Skies goals is preventing runway incursions
and related surface incidents. This is accomplished through a Runway
Safety Program with initiatives such as Certification Alert to Airport
Operators, reducing runway crossings by vehicles and refresher training
for controllers. Several awareness initiatives have been instituted
including a monthly Runway Safety Program newsletter and mandated
awareness training at all airports. Also being implemented are
procedural initiatives; and improvements of airport signs, lighting and
surface marking standards. In addition, we are using more sophisticated
trend analysis to better identify and correct causal factors
contributing to runway incursion incidents, and we are implementing new
technologies. The Runway Safety Program is working closely with other
government organizations, industry, and stakeholders in aggressively
pursuing means to prevent or mitigate runway incursions and related
surface incidents.
Runway Incursion Action Teams, consisting of FAA and industry
experts, are being convened at 20 airports with the highest number of
runway incursion events. These 20 teams are directly attributable to
the success at Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport, which had led
the nation in runway incursions. Within 6 months, Cleveland's incursion
rate had dropped to an all-time low.
I'm very pleased that as we go forward with Safer Skies we will be
demonstrating exactly what we had in mind when we proposed this focused
and prioritized approach. This is that as we complete an item, we check
it off, and then move on to the next priority item.
security
Following the report of the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security, Civil Aviation Security is now considered a
national security issue. Recent specific threats by Middle Eastern
terrorist organizations increase the priority accorded to this area.
The budget request includes more than $300 million for aviation
security. The FAA has taken and continues to take an aggressive
approach to improve airport and air carrier security nationwide. This
will be accomplished through new, focused rulemaking and security
program changes, improving access control, reducing vulnerabilities to
existing or new threats by deploying advanced explosive detection
technologies, conducting joint FAA/FBI vulnerability assessments,
performing realistic operational testing and special emphasis
assessments, and deploying explosives detection canine teams.
Recognizing that effectively combating terrorism is a vital
national security goal, the federal government has funded the purchase
and deployment of the world's best equipment to safeguard civil
aviation, while our partners in this effort, the airlines, are
responsible for the equipment's operation and maintenance. Congress
provided $157 million for advance security equipment for fiscal years
1997 and 1998, and an additional $100 million for fiscal year 1999 to
continue deployment. We have requested a third installment of $100
million in fiscal year 2000.
We have been very effective in getting these systems up and
running. Security equipment for checked baggage has been installed at
over 30 airports while the trace explosive detectors for carry on bags
are being used at more than 50 airports. The agency is working with
airports and airlines to continue installations, and plans to buy and
deploy even more equipment over the next few years. We will also be
working with airlines and airports in a variety of ways to put in place
an effective screener workforce.
In 1999, 21 FAA/FBI threat and vulnerability assessments of
airports are scheduled. The explosive detection canine team program
grew from 87 teams at 26 airports in 1996 to 154 teams at 39 airports
in 1998.
In addition, the FAA continues to encourage security consortia that
are formed in partnership with members of the local airport community.
Over 110 airports have voluntarily formed consortia.
We continue to expand the use of realistic operational testing of
the aviation security system. We project 10,000 screening evaluations
will be completed in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000. In
addition, approximately 4,200 dangerous goods assessments will be
completed in fiscal year 1999 and 5,000 in fiscal year 2000.
system efficiency
Modernizing the National Airspace System is one of our greatest
opportunities to improve our nation's aviation system. It is also one
of our greatest challenges. There are three elements of ATC
modernization. The first element is sustaining our systems or renewing
the infrastructure. The second element is additional safety features
that address providing more precise, accurate, and timely weather
information, which is so critical to safety of flight. The third
element is enhancements that increase the capacity and efficiency of
the system.
For infrastructure renewal, a total of $2.3 billion is proposed for
FAA's capital modernization programs in fiscal year 2000. We are making
significant progress. Several major programs will be fully or nearly
completed in fiscal year 2000. The Display System Replacement will be
operational at all locations in 2000. The Host computer system will be
replaced by October 1999. In fiscal year 1999 there were major system
upgrades and improvements to the NAS. We completed final deployment of
the Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) for Phase 1
hardware and initiated Phase 2 software development in support of air
traffic control operational requirements. Airport Surface Detection
Radars will be installed at 34 airports and automated warnings software
will be added in 2000. Also in fiscal year 2000, FAA will be purchasing
24 out of 112 new terminal radars for conversion to digital output and
50 out of 127 new beacon systems for air traffic control.
We will begin implementation of several other major projects to
increase safety in 2000. These include the Integrated Terminal Weather
System and Weather and Radar Processor, which provides terminal area
and en route weather information. Terminal Doppler Weather Radar began
in 1994 and is in the final stages of implementation. In 1999, we have
continued to support weather related programs, such as Next Generation
Weather Radar, Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, ASR Weather System
Processor and the Automated Surface Observing System. These systems
will provide weather information to meet the needs of controllers,
pilots and operators.
With much of the older air traffic control equipment already
replaced or planned for replacement, future programs will concentrate
on new technologies and capabilities that address the third element of
focus--increasing the capacity and efficiency of the ATC system. The
Free Flight Phase 1 request for fiscal year 2000 begins to add new
software automation tools to assist controllers in maximizing use of
available capacity, improve efficiencies and collaborative decision
making tools for reflecting user preferences in air traffic decisions.
The success we have had with developing Free Flight Phase 1
technologies will show that we can do what we say we will do. We have
met the first Free Flight Phase 1 deadline--Surface Movement Advisor
was delivered to Detroit and Philadelphia ahead of schedule. Initial
reports from Northwest Airlines at Detroit are very positive. For
example, Northwest Airlines was able to prevent five diversions due to
low fuel as a result of the improved situational awareness provided by
SMA.
During fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 on-going upgrades to
the air route traffic control centers and replacement of terminal air
traffic control facilities are necessary to provide acceptable levels
of air traffic control service to meet future operational requirements.
These comprehensive modernization efforts will replace facilities that
are 20-40 years old, as well as accommodate the installation of new
equipment and provide environmental and security improvements.
Before concluding my remarks on the NAS modernization, I would like
to tell you where we are on our Y2K efforts. I have given this effort
my highest priority. We completed renovations of all mission critical
computer systems on September 30, 1998. We are validating and testing
the upgrades and will have testing completed by March 31, 1999. Thanks
to the dedication and hard work of employees in the field and in
headquarters, all mission-critical systems will be year 2000 compliant
and operational by June 30, 1999. We believe we will be ready for the
new millennium.
fiscal year 2000 budget
I have continued with vigilance to focus the agency on safety,
security, and system efficiency and have structured the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2000 accordingly. FAA's fiscal year 2000
budget is $10.1 billion, a 4 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
level.
For Operations, the Administration is seeking $6.0 billion. The
funding will support 100 new field maintenance technicians, 20
certification and rulemaking personnel, 10 medical staff, and 62 new
security-related staff. In addition, the increase recognizes the need
to bring on-line and make fully operational new safety and capacity air
traffic equipment being delivered, and make critical infrastructure
investments necessary to fully implement such initiatives as
acquisition and personnel reform and a cost accounting system.
The request for Facilities and Equipment is $2.3 billion. This
request supports the FAA's comprehensive Capital Investment Plan to
improve the NAS to accommodate increasing demands for aviation
services, maximize operational efficiency, constrain costs, and replace
or modernize aging facilities.
For Research, Engineering and Development, the budget requests $173
million. This request includes $16 million for the Safe Flight program.
This program is a joint demonstration program designed to facilitate
implementation of the Capstone Initiative in Alaska and the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) evaluation work in the Ohio
Valley.
For Grants-in-Aid for Airports the fiscal year 2000 budget requests
$1.6 billion, an 18 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. Current law limits PFC's to $3. An estimated $1.4 billion in PFC
revenues were collected in fiscal year 1998 at the existing $3 PFC cap.
The FAA reauthorization bill proposes raising the cap to $5 and would
collect over $900 million additional funds. PFC collections are
projected between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion in CY 1999 and 2000.
In fiscal year 2000, the Administration proposes to fund the entire
agency with a combination of current excise taxes and new user fees,
and proposes the establishment of a Performance Based Organization
(PBO) for air traffic services. This PBO is designed to make the FAA's
air traffic control system both highly responsive to user needs and
more accountable for good performance. It will be funded in part by
$1.5 billion in new, cost-based user fees, which will be collected from
commercial aviation flights that utilize the FAA's air traffic control
services.
The National Civil Aviation Review Commission recommended, and we
agree, that ensuring a stable and adequate source of funding for FAA's
important activities is critical to enable FAA to meet the challenges
of the 21st century. Establishing user charges for air traffic services
is a first step in that direction.
As noted by the NCARC Commissioners, changing to a cost-based
system is essential to the development of a more businesslike and more
efficient air traffic system. Using such a system, in and of itself,
will bring about a very significant management improvement. The
questions that could be answered in a cost-based environment cannot be
answered today. A cost-based system will better enable the safety,
efficiency, and cost reduction performance of the organization to be
measured and ultimately improved.
The new user fees which we are proposing will be based upon the
cost of providing air traffic services as determined by the agency's
new cost accounting system, generally accepted accounting standards and
international economic principles. We are making significant progress
toward implementing the cost accounting system and will have the first
cost information available this summer to support the previously
authorized overflight fees. Furthermore, the information developed by
the agency's cost accounting system will allow us to make better
management decisions regarding the use of our financial resources. Cost
accounting information will allow us to better control our costs and to
help determine what services are needed, as well as where and how
resources should be allocated.
The implementation of a cost accounting system is but one step in
increasing the FAA's financial integrity and credibility. Of equal, or
perhaps greater, importance is the need for FAA to obtain a clean audit
opinion on the agency's fiscal year 1999 Financial Statement so that we
can be assured that our financial records accurately reflect our true
financial status. To ensure success we established teams co-chaired by
financial, program and the Office of the Inspector General staff along
with regional airway facilities, logistics and accounting
representatives. These teams are focusing in particular on properly
capitalizing and documenting FAA's physical assets. The teams have
instituted monthly reporting against assigned goals for all regions and
have been meeting deadlines throughout this fiscal year. While a great
deal of work remains to be done, we are confident of success.
In conclusion, FAA is making serious attempts to address safety,
security, capacity and efficiency challenges, and we believe our fiscal
year 2000 budget request and our reauthorization proposals will further
our progress on these fronts. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank you and the Members of this Subcommittee for the support you have
provided to the FAA. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you
have at this time.
aviation safety
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, I want to congratulate you and
the people at FAA for what you are doing for safety.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. You are absolutely right, when we board an
airplane, that is the first thing and the last thing I think
of, when I get on and we take off, and the next thing is, we
land safely, right?
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
year 2000
Senator Shelby. I am glad to hear of your progress as far
as the Y2K problem, because if you do not fix it before the
date ends, we are in real trouble, are we not?
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
budgetary firewalls
Senator Shelby. Transportation has been an interesting
budgetary journey this past year. In June 1998, the President
signed the TEA-21 law that created budgetary firewalls for
highway and transit spending. Last October, 4 months later, the
Administration insisted on increased funding for the Access to
Jobs program in addition to the funding included within the
TEA-21 firewalls.
Last month, 8 months after the President signed TEA-21 into
law, the Administration submitted a budget that would divert
funding from the highway firewall into the transit account, the
rail account, and the NHTSA non-firewall account. Just last
Thursday, the Secretary testified that he was going to send a
budget amendment increasing the funding levels for motor
carrier safety inspections. In addition, discrepancies in
outlay scoring estimates between OMB and CBO with regard to the
firewall accounts cost the discretionary caps over a billion
dollars in outlays in fiscal year 2000.
In light of the Administration's actions since the creation
of the highway and transit firewall less than a year ago, Ms.
Garvey, do you think that off-budget or firewall treatment for
the FAA accounts is advisable?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, we have not proposed a firewall
in the Administration's proposal for the FAA reauthorization.
We do agree that it does cause some difficulties and have not
proposed that.
Senator Shelby. Will you aggressively and actively oppose
the creation of a firewall for the Federal Aviation
Administration?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I know the Secretary, Mr. Chairman, says
that we will continue to work with Congress, but our proposal,
we think, is one that is at least worth considering and does
not include the firewall.
Senator Shelby. But you are not going to go quite that
far--that last step. Will you aggressively and actively oppose
the creation of the firewall?
Ms. Garvey. We are opposed to it now, and I always defer,
in the final analysis, to working with the Secretary and
Congress.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Garvey. We certainly do oppose it.
cost accounting system
Senator Shelby. The cost accounting system. Your budget
request envisions a user fee increase of $1.5 billion. During
the week of March 7, DOT Inspector General, Ken Mead, testified
before this committee that a reliable cost accounting system
will not be fully implemented until 2001 or perhaps later.
In addition, you recently testified that if FAA is to
achieve the Administration's objective of funding the entire
agency with a combination of current excise taxes and new user
fees, including the establishment of a PBO for air traffic
services, it needs a reliable cost accounting system.
Now, given that a cost accounting system clearly will not
be in place for fiscal year 2000, is it not premature to
propose either new user fees or a PBO for air traffic services?
Or is the user fee proposal simply a budget gimmick to present
a higher FAA budget than the FAA budget priorities would allow?
Would you explain that?
Ms. Garvey. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have had many
conversations with the Inspector General on this issue. I will
tell you what we are doing. We have triaged, in a sense, the
air traffic control services, and isolated those pieces that we
think are achievable this year. We do think it is possible to
have the data in place that would allow us to have a cost
accounting system for both overflights and oceanic. The
Inspector General is right, a fully developed cost accounting
system is further into the future, but we think we will have
part of it done during this year.
We know it is a very aggressive schedule. Again, we are
willing to work with you on this issue. It was the proposal
that the Administration put forward. We are working very hard
to at least have the overflight and oceanic piece in place for
implementation this year, but it is, you are right, a very
aggressive schedule.
impact of no user fees
Senator Shelby. Would you present for the record what you
would propose to cut from the FAA budget request, if Congress
fails to approve the new user fees, or equally as likely, the
FAA is unable to implement the new user fees in the time frame
envisioned in the budget in question? Would you do that for the
record?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would have to tell
you that might be the most difficult question I have been
asked, because I really feel we have gone to the bone on this.
I am asking people, to look at the base of our budget and
to examine every possible area of the budget, even areas that
we have not questioned in the past. I have to say, that
absorbing $1.5 billion would be extraordinary. I am not quite
sure. We would really have to go back to the drawing board and
work on that very closely with you.
Senator Shelby. But if you had to, you would have to.
Ms. Garvey. If we have to, we would have to. I think I may
have to start with my salary.
[The information follows:]
The FAA believes that user fees are the best means to meet its
needs for the long-term financial stability while providing incentives
for efficiency. Therefore, the FAA strongly urges Congress to enact the
user fees proposed.
user fees
Senator Shelby. No, not yours. Maybe mine. If Congress does
not act on these tax proposals, are you willing to assure us
that this will be the last time that you submit a budget that
proposes new or increased user fees?
Ms. Garvey. Well, we certainly understand your concerns
with that, and the Congress's concerns with it. I have to say
that, of course, it will not just be the FAA's decision. It
would be based on discussions with OMB and with the Secretary's
office and the Administration, but I do understand your
concerns.
performance based organization
Senator Shelby. I understand that. For the past three years
the Administration has proposed to transform the $12 million
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation into a performance-
based organization, but even that modest proposition proved to
be too ambitious to achieve. I am skeptical of the proposal to
turn the air traffic control system into a performance-based
organization, and seriously question the FAA's ability to
manage such an organization, or to formulate and implement a
structure of charges that are equitable and that can pass the
inevitable legal challenges that will be brought.
Given the difficulty the Administration has had with the
St. Lawrence Seaway PBO proposal, would it not be more prudent
to propose the organizational change in one fiscal year and
financing structure in a subsequent year, rather than the
unrealistic assumption that the user fees would be implemented
in the same year as the organizational change? You follow me,
do you not?
Ms. Garvey. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I do think that that is
an approach that is worth looking at. In fact, I will say that
we are putting some of the organizational elements in place
now. We are establishing performance measures. We are working,
obviously, on the Cost Accounting System. We are working with
industry to establish some metrics to measure, some of our
successes. So I think you are absolutely right. Some of the
organizational changes we can do, even separate from the
financing, and, in fact, we are doing, and we will continue to
do that.
legislation for airline passengers
Senator Shelby. Americans are flying more and more, and at
the same time that more and more Americans are flying, air
fares have dropped and air traffic has become safer, as you
just mentioned. The average price of an airline ticket has
decreased approximately 33 percent in real terms since market
forces replaced the whims of Federal bureaucrats in setting
fares.
The number of passengers flying domestic flights has more
than doubled to approximately, as you know, $600 million
annually. While deregulation of the airline industry overall
has yielded the benefits that free markets promise, there are
growing pains. As the number of passengers increases, so has
the number of consumer complaints against air carriers. I
believe we should reinvigorate competition in the air passenger
market, even if the air carriers do not welcome it. I believe
that we can also increase competition in the airline industry
by providing the traveling public with more useful information,
and by giving consumers ownership of the commodity they have
purchased, their seat on an airplane.
I recently introduced legislation that provides passengers
with greater information about air fares and flights and with
greater flexibility over unused or partially used fares.
Further, if an air carrier offers a discounted fare, my bill
permits all passengers to make a confirmed reservation at the
same price for a 24-hour period. Whenever an airline passenger
is unable to make a flight for which he or she has a confirmed
seat, the passenger will have the opportunity to board a
similar flight on a standby basis.
Administrator Garvey, do you think steps like these are
necessary to make sure the traveling public gets the
information necessary to make informed traveling decisions and
so that airlines have clear guidelines as to what constitutes
their duty to inform passengers, and stand behind their
transportation services?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to look
at your bill in detail, but from what you have described and
from the little bit I have read it sounds as though it does
strike many of the same themes that the bill of the
Administration has proposed as well.
I know Secretary Slater has talked to us at some length
about that. It sounds like disclosure and some of those scenes
are very similar, so that is something the Administration has
put forward. We, of course, at the FAA are under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and we
certainly would support the Secretary's bill, obviously.
wide area augmentation system
Senator Shelby. The Johns Hopkins University, Applied
Physics Laboratory, GPS risk assessment study reported that it
is technically feasible for a WAAS/LAAS to be sole means and
sole service if the following provisions are implemented: (1)
an appropriate backup, (2) a redesign, and (3) an overall GPS
plan. The report defines sole means to mean the only system
installed in the aircraft, and their term sole service to mean
the only navigation service provided by the FAA. Then the
report concluded the need for a backup composed of a
combination of avionics and air traffic control.
This conclusion would seem to contradict the finding of
sole means and sole service, but I guess this distinction is
similar to parsing what the meaning of the word `is' is, as we
know today. Clearly, it cannot be the position of the
Administration that we should rely on WAAS as the only system
without backup. Yet, dependence on a stand-alone system without
a backup is not only imprudent, it is fundamentally unsafe. I
note that a recent press article in the United Kingdom reported
that a Russian scientist recently E-mailed Baghdad instructions
on how to make a $200 GPS jammer.
As soon as the FAA recognizes publicly that some backup
will be required, then I believe you can take the next logical
step to determine what the most effective and cost-effective
overall system will look like. I urge you to stop looking at
this issue as a program matter and to start looking at it as a
question of how we best provide the necessary navigational
capability and the reliability for our users in the most cost-
effective manner. Without question, the navigation system of
the future is satellite-based, I am told, but I am not
convinced that it should be solely satellite-based or that it
should even be the goal.
I also note that in the Hopkins' study, they were not asked
to consider whether the implementation of a sole means system
was cost-effective.
Administrator Garvey, FAA recently announced another
significant delay in the WAAS program. Could you tell us where
the WAAS program is right now? Please describe the current
status of the program, the alternate approaches that are
actively under consideration, and the strategy and time table
for restructuring the program.
Ms. Garvey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I will try.
Senator Shelby. That was a long question, and Senator
Lautenberg is going to get the answer, because I am going to go
vote. You voted, did you not?
Senator Lautenberg. No. It has not started.
Senator Shelby. It has not started. Great news.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, why do you not go ahead? Go
ahead, Mr. Chairman. I will take care of this.
wide area augmentation system
Senator Shelby. No. I just asked her a question.
Ms. Garvey. I will answer it. I will address the WAAS
question. As you indicated in your question, the schedule has
slipped. Let me back up a bit, though, if I could. When we
first talked about the WAAS several years ago, there was a much
longer schedule. We took a calculated risk a few years ago and
compressed the schedule; that is, the Agency, I was not there
at the time, knew it was a risk. In fact, I know the
Modernization Task Force last year, with good staff work from
Mitre, had identified WAAS as one of those risk programs. We
have had a schedule slip, due in large part, to software
development, and again, not unusual in these very technical
programs.
We have restructured the program with a new date. The full
commissioning is in September 2000, which I think we briefed
the staff on. We have three very critical milestones as part of
the restructuring. One is in April, where we get the first
software deliverable. That will be followed by two other
deliverables over the next several months. That is going to be
very critical for us to understand how we are doing and what
the software issues are. So we have restructured the program
with a new time line.
What is important with WAAS, from my perspective, is that
both the industry and the FAA believe that this is the right
thing to do. Pausing at the end of phase I, in the June and
September time frame of 2000, gives us an opportunity to take a
look at it, see where we are, make some risk assessments, and
see where we go from here. So the general aviation community,
the commercial aviation community, as well as some of our
colleagues at Mitre and other places feel this is the right
approach and the right thing to do.
year 2000
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, would you reiterate, Senator
Lautenberg was not here earlier, in front of a broader
audience, the Y2K problem, and where you are at the moment,
because a lot of people, not only in America, but everywhere,
want to know where the FAA is and is going to be.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I questioned Ms. Garvey
about that, because it is a matter of grave concern.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. As a matter of fact, I am going to
Europe, and I am talking to the French Transport Ministry,
because they are one place that we usually think about as being
quite up to date in terms of computer technology, but they
are--but I would like to hear what Ms. Garvey said. It bears
repeating, I would think.
Senator Shelby. I think repeating everywhere, and also
meeting the deadline.
Ms. Garvey. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. Just very
quickly, from the FAA's perspective, I think we have made very
good progress after a late start. We met the deadline of
September 30 for all of our systems to be renovated. Those
systems will be tested and validated by March 31. Our deadline
for full compliance of all of our systems, mission critical, as
well as all of the other systems in the FAA, is June 30, 1999.
That is a few months behind the OMB deadline, but we have
worked very closely with OMB and with the IG, by the way, who
joins us at our meetings every other week, and OMB is in
agreement with the June 30 deadline. I will tell you, we are
focusing a good deal of our energies these days on the
international front, and also with our colleagues in the
airports.
year 2000--international efforts
Senator Shelby. Would you explain that just a little bit?
It is a great cause for all of us. We might be up to date----
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby (continuing). But if they are not up to
date, we still have trouble, do we not?
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely. On the international front we have
an international office with a gentleman assigned to just the
international efforts. He is in Montreal working very closely
with ICAO and IAOTA, the two international organizations that
deal with aviation issues.
We know the top six countries that Americans travel to, and
we are working closely in setting up work plans with them so
that we know exactly how well they are doing. As a matter of
fact, both the Secretary and I----
Senator Shelby. Who are these top six countries?
Ms. Garvey. I think I can do it. I am going to really try.
I think I will get four of them.
Senator Shelby. I am betting on you.
Ms. Garvey. Do you want to do that?
Senator Shelby. No. I am betting on you.
Ms. Garvey. No. Do not do that, please. It is too much
pressure. The United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Mexico, the
Dominican Republic, and the Bahamas. Is that not interesting?
It is an interesting collection of countries. We have work
plans with each one of those countries. Either the Secretary,
Deputy Secretary or I have met with the heads of those
countries, as well as others. The Secretary is in Europe this
week, and that is one of his top agenda items. So we are
working very closely with the international community.
We also had great success in September. We went to Montreal
and introduced two resolutions at an international forum, and
one was that criteria would be established for Y2K compliance
in January. That was through ICAO, by the way. The second
resolution, even more critical, is that by June 30 all the
countries would have to reveal what their status is on Y2K.
Then at that point, during the summer months we will be working
very closely with State to see if it is appropriate to issue
information to Americans, and whether we want to issue any
advisories to travelers at that point on specific countries.
Senator Shelby. Who is doing their remedial work or
corrective work, looking toward the year 2000? Different people
all over the world?
Ms. Garvey. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It really varies. Many
countries are doing the same thing that we are, which is using
our own technicians for the fixes, because those are really the
men and women who have grown up with the system. They know it
well and know it best.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Mr. Chairman, since the vote has
gone off, what I would like to do is just raise a concern here,
and I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are talking about
coming back, or shall we submit the remaining questions for the
record.
Senator Shelby. Whatever you want to do.
statement of senator lautenberg
Senator Lautenberg. I would like to just make mention of
the budget resolution, which is due to be debated very soon,
and the consequences of the plan, as laid down, for Function
400, the Department of Transportation. It is $2.2 billion in
outlays below the President's request.
Now, if we focus on that number, $2.2 billion, that is the
amount in outlays that this subcommittee will be expected to
cut if this budget resolution survives. What will be our
options when faced with the requirements to cut $2.2 billion in
outlays? The President's budget and the majority of its budget
resolutions claims to fully fund the highway and transit
obligations dealings in TEA-21, authorized in TEA-21. Those,
effectively, were guaranteed through the fire walls established
in TEA-21, fully paid for with offsets from the highway bill.
So to change them now would be a massive political effort.
What with the highway and transit funding effectively off
limits, where else can we go to get $2.2 billion in outlay
cuts, Mr. Chairman? There are only three major areas of funding
left in the transportation appropriations bill that have
sizeable outlays to cut, FAA, Coast Guard, and Amtrak.
Now, if we start with FAA, you could eliminate the entire
Facilities and Equipment account within FAA. You can bring to a
halt the entire effort to modernize our air traffic control
system. You can cancel billions of dollars in existing
contracts and say that we think it is acceptable for the FAA to
monitor thousands of aircraft each hour using 30-year-old
computers, held together with masking tape. If we eliminate
every penny that the President has requested for the Facilities
and Equipment, and the FAA, have we solved the $2.2 billion?
Not close. We save only $700 million in outlays, less than a
third of what we need. So if we keep going, if we eliminate the
FAA's entire research budget, stop improving our understanding
of aging aircraft, flammable materials, and airport security,
we can save roughly another $100 million in outlays. That gets
us $800 million in outlays.
Now, we eliminate the entire airport grants program, and I
am not talking about accepting the President's 18 percent cut
in the program, I am talking about killing the entire program,
nullifying all existing letters of intent and sending out not
one additional dime for runway or terminal improvements, that
would get us another $300 million in outlays. So we have
eliminated every Federal investment dollar in aviation, and we
have saved $1.1 billion in outlays, only half of what the
budget resolution would require.
Well, the Chairman and I both know that if we eliminate
every investment in FAA, we should do the same for the Coast
Guard. How much does that get us? Well, eliminating the Coast
Guard's entire acquisitions budget, we save a good deal less
than $100 million in outlays. That lets us service fifty-year-
old ships, chugging along for another 10 years, lets the drug
runners thumb their noses at us, and lets distress calls go
unanswered, all for less than $100 million.
So if you want to save the full $100 million in outlays, we
can fire all 8,500 members of the Coast Guard Reserve, send
them a thank you letter, tell them how much their services
meant to us, but no longer needed. When we have the next major
oil spill, or the next Desert Storm, we will just dial 911 and
see what kind of response we will get.
So with all of the measures I have outlined thus far we
have saved a total of $1.2 billion in outlays, and if we turn
to Amtrak, members will remember that last year we faced a
proposal to zero out Amtrak. That proposal was not very popular
with a great many members on both sides of the aisle. Two weeks
ago we had Governor Thompson in here, of Wisconsin, Amtrak's
board chairman, and he told our subcommittee that Amtrak needs
every penny of the President's $571 million request in order to
remain solvent. So when we do that we save another $200
million.
Well, I point out this grim scenario, Mr. Chairman, I ask
permission that the full statement, with unanimous consent, be
included in the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it will be in the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lautenberg
Mr. Chairman, I will only be able to spend a very brief period at
this afternoon's hearing since I'm required to be on the floor to
manage the budget resolution on behalf of the Minority. This past
Thursday, the Senate Budget Committee reported a budget resolution by a
party line vote. At that time, I said that the resolution proposes
extreme and unrealistic cuts in domestic programs across the entire
government that would devastate public services if enacted. That
observation is made painfully clear when you look at the budget
resolution's assumptions just for this subcommittee. Indeed, the
resolution assumes cuts to the Transportation Department's budget that
would devastate our efforts to improve safety and accommodate increased
traffic in all transportation modes, especially aviation. This is not
just a reckless claim on my part.
Let's look at the arithmetic. The budget resolution that we will
debate on the floor this afternoon stipulates a level of funding for
function 400--the transportation function--that is a full $2.2 billion
in outlays below the President's request. Remember that number--$2.2
billion. That is the amount in outlays that this subcommittee will be
expected to cut if this budget resolution survives.
What will be our options when faced with the requirement to cut
$2.2 billion in outlays? Both the President's budget and the majority's
budget resolution claims to fully fund the Highway and Transit
obligation ceilings authorized in TEA-21. Those increased funding
levels were effectively guaranteed through the firewalls established in
TEA-21. They were fully paid for with offsets in the highway bill. To
change them now would not only require a massive political reversal by
the Congress, it would require the enactment of a new highway bill.
With highway and transit funding effectively off limits, where else can
we go to get $2.2 billion in outlay cuts? There are only three major
areas of funding left in the Transportation Appropriations bill that
have sizeable outlays to cut. They are the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Coast Guard, and Amtrak.
Starting with the FAA, you can eliminate the entire Facilities and
Equipment account within the FAA. You can bring to a halt the entire
effort to modernize our air traffic control system. You can cancel
billions of dollars in existing contracts and say that we think it is
acceptable for the FAA to monitor thousands of aircraft each hour using
30-year-old computers held together with masking tape. If we eliminate
every penny the president has requested for Facilities and Equipment in
the FAA, have we solved our $2.2 billion problem? Not even close! We
save only $700 million in outlays, less than a third of what we need.
So let's keep going. If we eliminate the FAA's entire research budget--
stop improving our understanding of aging aircraft, flammable
materials, and airport security--we can save roughly another $100
million in outlays. That gets us $800 million. Now let's eliminate the
entire Airport Grants Program. I'm not talking about accepting the
President's 18 percent cut in the program, I am talking about killing
the entire program, nullifying all existing letters of intent and
sending out not one additional dime for runway or terminal
improvements. That gets you another $300 million in outlays. So now we
have eliminated every federal investment dollar in aviation and we have
saved $1.1 billion in outlays--only half of what the budget resolution
would require.
So let's keep going. In the interest of fairness, I suppose, if we
eliminate every investment dollar in the FAA, we should do the same for
the Coast Guard. How much does that get us? Well, if you eliminate the
Coast Guard's entire acquisitions budget, you save a good bit less than
$100 million in outlays. Cancel every shipbuilding contract, let the
service's fifty-year-old ships chug along for another 10 years, let the
drug runners thumb their nose at us, and let distress calls go
unanswered--all for less than $100 million in outlays. If you want to
save the full $100 million in outlays, you can fire all 8,500 members
of the Coast Guard Reserve. Just send them a thank you letter and say
their services are no longer needed. When we have the next major oil
spill or the next Desert Storm, we will just dial 9-1-1 and see who's
around to lend a hand. So with all the measures I have outlined thus
far, we have saved a total of $1.2 billion in outlays.
Now let's turn to Amtrak. Members will remember that, last year, we
faced a proposal to zero out Amtrak. That proposal was not very popular
with a great many members on both sides of the aisle. Two weeks ago,
Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Amtrak's Board Chairman, told our
subcommittee that Amtrak will need every penny of the President's $571
million request in order to remain solvent next year. Let's say that
this year, things are different, and the votes are there to eliminate
Amtrak. When we do that, we only save an additional $200 million in
outlays. What happens when we eliminate Amtrak? We basically paralyze
intercity transportation throughout the entire Northeastern United
States. We put an unmanageable burden on our already congested airspace
throughout the Northeast. The increased air traffic delays in the
Northeast will trigger additional delays throughout the nation.
But with Amtrak in bankruptcy, we can now bring our total outlay
savings to $1.4 billion--less than two thirds of the way toward our
goal of $2.2 billion in outlay cuts as required by the budget
resolution. Where are we supposed to find the remaining $800 million in
outlay cuts? There are only two sources left--the FAA and Coast Guard
operating budgets. Those two budgets, combined, equal only about $7.5
billion in outlays. So, in order to meet the outlay target included in
the budget resolution, we would have to cut FAA and Coast Guard
operating budgets by at least 11 percent. That means firing a slew of
air traffic controllers and aircraft inspectors. It means closing
search and rescue stations and tying up Coast Guard ships. It means
abandoning our efforts at drug interdiction and focusing our Coast
Guard assets only on search and rescue and the most immediate domestic
needs. That is our last and final option to get outlay cuts totaling
$2.2 billion. And if you don't want to take any of those steps that I
mentioned earlier--eliminating Amtrak, the Coast Guard Reserve, the
Airport Grants Program--every procurement dollar in the FAA and Coast
Guard, well then the cut to the FAA and Coast Guard operating budgets
must grow well beyond 11 percent, perhaps as high as 20 percent or 25
percent.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said last week that the cuts contained in the
budget resolution are draconian and extreme. They are not realistic,
and when it comes time to cutting specific programs, Congress just
isn't going to do it. The votes will not be there. I have served on
this subcommittee a long time, both as the Chairman and Ranking Member,
and I know that no Member of this subcommittee wants to even slow down,
much less eliminate, our efforts to modernize our air traffic control
system. Just three weeks ago, this subcommittee held a hearing with
Secretary Slater on the President's transportation budget. When we
turned our attention to the President's proposals for aviation, members
from both sides of the aisle complained about the Administration's
proposal to impose new user fees and reduce funding for the Airport
Improvement Program.
What I find to be absolutely incredible is that some of these same
members who complained openly about the President's proposal to reduce
AIP funding next year actually voted for the majority's budget
resolution last Thursday. And still more members, I fear, might vote
for it on the floor.
Who are we kidding here with this budget resolution? When it comes
to the unrealistic cuts assumed for the entire federal budget, this
budget resolution is a recipe for governmental gridlock. And when it
comes to our national Transportation budget, this budget resolution is
a recipe for ``winglock'' on our runways. The votes don't exist on this
subcommittee to cut the transportation budget $2.2 billion in outlays.
I invite all members of the subcommittee to do the arithmetic
themselves. Some members may not want to face these fiscal realities
today, but they will have to face them in the very near future. It is
my hope, and I believe it should be the hope of all members of this
subcommittee, that this budget resolution never really sees the light
of day. I know the members of this subcommittee well enough to know
that they all want to pass a responsible transportation budget that
moves our national transportation enterprise forward, not backward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How Can You Cut $2.2 Billion in Outlays from President Clinton's
Transportation Budget?
Here's the Simple Arithmetic:
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
---------------------
Budget/
contract Outlays
authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully Fund Highway and Transit Guarantees in TEA- ......... .........
21 as promised in Budget Resolution..............
Eliminate FAA Facilities & Equipment.............. -2.3 -0.7
Eliminate FAA Research............................ -0.1 -0.1
Eliminate FAA Airport Grants (AIP)................ -1.6 -0.3
Eliminate All Coast Guard Acquisitions & the Coast -0.4 -0.1
Guard Reserve....................................
Eliminate AMTRAK.................................. -0.6 -0.2
Reduce Coast Guard & FAA Operations by 11 percent. -0.9 -0.8
---------------------
Total....................................... -5.9 -2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures assume CBO Scorekeeping as required by Budget Act
transportation budget
Senator Lautenberg. We have our work to do, and we have to
work hard to protect not FAA, but the traveling public in this
country. We have to work hard to make sure that we are
functioning when it comes to this year-end and the beginning of
the new millennium.
We have to really work hard to make sure that we can say to
everybody who gets on an airplane, your children, my children,
grandchildren, all our children, that you are going to be safe,
that we have done the utmost we can to protect you from
terrorist assaults on aircraft, which is not going to happen,
Mr. Chairman, and I know how deeply you feel about the
transportation program, because we share that.
When I was chairman, when you were with me, we always
worked very hard on trying to make sure that the transportation
would get as much as it could, because we believe in the
program that we see.
So Mr. Chairman, I will submit my questions for the record,
but I wanted to make sure the record reflects my concern about
the transportation budget, and some other budgets within some
other program budgets within our government's functioning. We
are going to have a very tough debate, but I hope we will be
able to figure out a way to keep us all going.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Campbell, you voted, I understand.
Senator Campbell. Yes, I sure did, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. We haven't voted yet.
Senator Campbell. Do you want me to cover for you?
Senator Shelby. Yes, we would, and you will do a great job.
Senator Campbell. I will be glad to, and if there is no
objection----
Senator Shelby. We will come back, because I have some
other questions for you.
Senator Campbell [presiding]. I will submit my statement
for the record, too, Mr. Chairman.
It looks like you will just be talking to me for a few
minutes, Ms. Garvey----
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Campbell [continuing]. So why do you not go ahead?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I actually finished my opening statement,
but I would be happy to give it again.
Senator Campbell. You finished it already.
Ms. Garvey. Yes. I am sorry.
airport improvement program
Senator Campbell. Well, frankly, I have been in three or
four other things and have not been here to hear what the
Chairman said. Let me maybe ask a few questions on his behalf
while he is gone. These are his, and I will just sort of act
like a trained parrot here and ask them to you.
The House recently passed a 6-month extension of the
Airport Improvement Program. The Senate recently passed a 2-
month extension, and the Senate version of the emergency
supplemental also contains a 2-month extension. So one way or
the other it appears the Airport Improvement Program is good
for at least 2 more months. What are the difficulties and
problems with failing to provide a longer-term reauthorization
with this program.
Ms. Garvey. Well, Senator, I think you have really hit at
the heart of something that we have spent a lot of time talking
about lately. That is, how can we keep the construction program
going for the airports? I met yesterday with many of the
airport directors who are in town, and they are deeply
concerned about it. The 2-month extension, I think they are
relieved to have it continue for at least a limited period of
time, but I know they are very concerned long term,
particularly, for those airports where the construction season
is so critical and so important.
Sometimes it is a very short construction season, you know,
like Alaska and some of the northeast states as well. We have
very short construction seasons, and I think they are deeply
concerned about it. They appreciate Congress' efforts on this
behalf, but it is something we are concerned about.
Senator Campbell. Well, we have a longer construction
season in Colorado than they have in Alaska, but I know when
DIA was being developed that was one of the problems not
knowing that they were on solid ground when you signed your
contracts.
Ms. Garvey. Always an issue.
age 60 rule
Senator Campbell. The age 60 rule was instituted in 1959
without the benefit of medical or scientific studies or without
any public comment. The EOC has essentially eliminated age
discrimination rules in all facets of commercial aviation with
the exception of Part 21 and Part 135 carriers.
Other countries, Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia,
and a number of others, have modified their age 60
restrictions. Japan began a study on the age 60 issue and
discontinued it after finding no safety or operational reasons
to maintain age 60 as a mandatory retirement age.
The most recent pilot aging study was the Hilton System's
technical report number 8025, known generally as the Hilton
Study, undertaken by Lehigh University and the Hilton systems,
to conduct statistical analysis on historical data to
investigate the relationship between pilot age and accident
rates, and that report concluded that they saw no hint of an
increase in accident rates for pilots of scheduled air carriers
as they neared their 60th birthday.
But in spite of the study, the Age 60 rule not only remains
in effect, it was expanded in 1995 to include Part 135 pilots,
in spite of no record of any age-related accidents or incidents
in the affected pilot group.
Can you provide any medical or scientific reason why the
United States should not follow the findings of the Hilton, and
perhaps increase the age to 63 or more?
Ms. Garvey. We have followed the ICAO standards, the
international standards. One of the dilemmas we have had, but
certainly we will go back and look at it again, is the whole
issue of a medical protocol. While the data may not be there,
understanding the effects that aging has on individuals beyond
30, it has been difficult to get. We will go back and look at
it, and perhaps talk with staff a little bit more about the
medical protocol issue.
Senator Campbell. Can you give us something in writing----
Ms. Garvey. We will, certainly, yes.
Senator Campbell [continuing]. Something for the record? I
might tell you that I personally got involved with that
question some years ago. I used to fly, and some pilots came to
me to seek support on increasing the age, and I wrote a letter
on their behalf that I thought sounded okay to me, and
immediately got cross waves with a bunch of younger pilots. It
seemed to me at the time, this whole question was not driven by
physical health as much it was driven by the guys on the right
seat want to get to the left seat. Obviously, when you have a
limited number of captain's seats open, the way to get over
there is to have some of the other ones retire early. I would
hate to see that that is still the driving force. So if you
could give us something in writing I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
FAA promulgated the age 60 rule in 1959 because of concerns that a
hazard to safety was presented by utilizing aging pilots in air carrier
operations. At that time, the agency found that there was a progressive
deterioration of certain important physiological and psychological
functions with age, that significant medical defects attributable to
this degenerative process occur at an increasing rate as age increases,
and that sudden incapacity due to such medical defects becomes more
frequent in any group reaching age 60.
The FAA noted that other factors, even less susceptible to precise
measurement as to their effect, but which must be considered in
connection with safety in flight, result simply from aging alone and
are, with some variations, applicable to all individuals. These relate
to loss of ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; to resist
fatigue; to maintain physical stamina; to perform effectively in a
complex and stressful environment; to apply experience, judgment and
reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and to
learn new techniques, skills, and procedures.
Clearly, there is progressive anatomic, physiological, and
cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity
and onset among individuals. Physicians, psychologists, physiologists,
and scientists of other disciplines have identified many age-associated
variables, some easily measurable, some not that may be important to
human function. There is, however, no acceptable medical protocol to
measure the effects of aging on a particular individual.
Because it is unacceptable for these pilots to work until failure
or until there is obvious impairment, the age of 60 has served well as
a regulatory limit since 1959. While science does not dictate the age
of 60, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in
disease mortality and morbidity occur.
In late 1990, FAA initiated its most recent study of the issue,
aimed at consolidating available accident data and correlating it with
the amount of flying by pilots as a function of their age. This
resulted in the march 1993 Hilton study report, ``age 60 project,
consolidated database experiments, final report'', which found ``no
hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air
carriers as they neared their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were
no data available on scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age 60.
The FAA rule is consistent with the international standard
established by ICAO, which prohibits anyone over the age of 60 from
acting as pilot-in-command.
standard terminal automation replacement system
Senator Campbell. In addition to the difficulties that the
FAA has encountered with the WAAS program, the Agency also has
struggled with the STARS procurement. Would you comment on how
closely you are on resolving all of the human factors and
related issues on the STARS procurement?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I think we have made tremendous
progress in the last several weeks. We have, and I said this
recently in the House side for our budget hearings, I do not
think I could ask more either from the controllers or from the
program managers. They are working really hard on this issue. I
actually think we have captured the human factors issues. We
know what they are.
It is really a question now of resolving some of the
software issues associated with it. So I think we are very
close to a resolution, and both the controllers and the program
managers deserve a lot of credit for working literally 24 hours
a day on it. I certainly hope that we are going to be able to
talk about a very specific strategy to you within the next
week.
Senator Campbell. Okay. Thank you. Let me continue on for
Senator Shelby with a couple more questions here. Second, does
the FAA have a firm plan and schedule for the implementation?
You told me that it would be a few weeks.
Ms. Garvey. Probably within a week we will have a good
sense of the strategy that we are going to follow and whether
or not we will have a firm schedule at that point. We may need
a little more time, but we need to understand quite clearly
what our strategy will be.
Senator Campbell. Could you comment on the early display
capability? Is the implementation of it timely to solve the
operational problems at Reagan National, and New York?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, we had a schedule to get the early
display into Washington in March. We are not going to make
that. We have talked with the controllers and also with some
members of Congress, who are particularly interested. On a
positive note, however, when the issue came up about a year
ago, we identified some problems with radar and communication.
Those have been fixed. We put about $60 million into National,
and we have reduced the outages by about 30 percent. We think
that has been a big improvement, and I know the members of
Congress have appreciated that, and frankly, the controllers
and traveling public have appreciated that as well.
In terms of the immediate issue, I think we have been able
to deal with National pretty successfully.
commuter air service
Senator Campbell. Let me turn to some issues that are in
the Western states a little more. Some of us, including me, for
a number of years, ever since I have been here, I have had to
fly commuters to get to Denver to be able to come back here. We
have had our share of commuter problems, small-commuter service
problems. Much of our air service was provided by one carrier
for a long time. There was almost nobody else who could fly.
Boy, I want to tell you, I have been on those planes when
the pilot that got on the plane said he did not know how to fly
the plane. If you could imagine that. That actually happened to
me one time. I have been on them when the wheels would not come
down. I have been on them when they forgot to fuel them up, and
they had to land again, because somebody forgot to fuel it.
Unbelievable. I mean things you would not expect to happen in
this century in airlines.
That somewhat has been cleared up, because that particular
carrier, they lost their contract as a commuter with United,
and now there are other carriers, and they are doing much
better. But the rural areas, as you might guess, are always
worried that they have no service--because there is very little
competition.
One carrier comes in, and they are often not very
sensitive. As an example, when that happens, when there is only
one carrier, you find that the costs go up very quickly.
My son flew from the little town of Durango to London, and
it cost him more to go from Durango to Denver and back than it
did Denver to London and back to Denver a couple of years ago
when there was only one carrier. I would like to know, what is
the FAA doing to help those small rural areas.
I know there are some things you cannot do--if you really
believe in the free enterprise system, you are kind of--it is a
tough question, but would you comment on that?
Ms. Garvey. I will speak for the Administration. From the
FAA's perspective, we have focused, obviously, on safety. The
competition pieces, the economic pieces really come out of the
Secretary's office; however, as you may know, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administration, has proposed a competition
policy to try to deal with some of those very issues that you
have talked about. It has been controversial.
There have been lots of opinions expressed on the
competition policy, as I understand it. The Administration or
the Secretary's office is in the process now of reviewing all
of those comments and should be issuing something. Let me get
you the time frame, but I think it is in the next few months.
From the FAA's perspective, what we have tried to do, and I
think it is reflected pretty well in our proposal, is capture
some of the AIP dollars for some of the smaller and more rural
airports. They are really the ones who need those Federal
dollars so desperately. So part of our proposal is to allow
some of the larger airports to raise PFCs, but their
entitlement money would then be targeted back to the smaller
and mid-size airports. So we know that is a real issue, and are
working very hard through our reauthorization proposal to try
to do what we can to really improve the access for some of
those small and mid-size airports. I know your point is well
taken, and something the Secretary feels strongly about.
[The information follows:]
Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to study the
issue of domestic airline competition. That study should be completed
this spring. The Department will issue final competition guidelines
following the release of that report and the Department's report to
Congress on unfair competition and predatory pricing.
commuter air service
Senator Campbell. Obviously, also, it is not in your
purview, but coming from a Western state, like many of us do,
our industries rely a great deal on tourism, particularly,
skiing in the winter, and more and more we are hearing of
people who do not want to go to the big airports and then have
to take a commuter bus, or a train, or something, but they want
to fly directly into the small airports, and that always brings
up the problem of how we finance the ILS and the things that
are required to be able to get them down.
denver international airport
Let me just speak about the Denver International Airport
noise study. Are you aware of that and understand it some?
Ms. Garvey. I am familiar with it.
Senator Campbell. In recent years we have attached language
to the Transportation Approps bill prohibiting the FAA from
funding the DIA sixth runway. A large reason was Congressman
Hefley, who is a friend of mine on the House side. He was
opposed to it based on noise problems, and we have kind of a
divided community out there in Denver, with one county, Adams
County, that is just really angry and opposed to a sixth
runway, because they have not reached any kind of an agreement
on noise study.
Anyway, last year we did not particularly want the language
in the bill, so it was not included, but Representative Hefley
did include the language in the House bill, and asked the FAA
to work with the local groups to identify measures that would
reduce the noise problems, and that conference report did not
strike the language, so the language stayed in effect, that
language I put in.
So last year's Transportation appropriation's conference
report language in the House bill regarding noise mitigation
over Denver International Airport, it instructed the FAA to
work with the local groups, and I would just like you to
comment on what steps you have taken to work with those groups.
Ms. Garvey. I know that the regional office and some of the
individuals in our airports' office have been very involved in
that. I know there have been a series of meetings that have
taken place. Let me get back to you with a little bit more
specifics, but I must say, the noise issue you are experiencing
in Colorado is something we see in many places. It is a very
difficult issue, and you try so hard to work with the
neighbors, because we have to be good neighbors as well, but it
is often very difficult. But let me get back to you, if I
could, with some of the specifics, most recent steps that have
been taken.
Senator Campbell. Do you need me to submit that in writing,
or can you remember that one?
Ms. Garvey. I can remember that one.
Senator Campbell. Okay.
Ms. Garvey. I will be sure to remember that, Senator.
[The information follows:]
On December 8, 1998, representatives from the FAA met with the
Mayor's Office, an attorney from the City and County of Denver, and
representatives of Denver Airport to discuss airspace redesign in the
Denver area, based on the construction of a new runway at Denver
International Airport. The FAA agreed with the Denver representatives
to work closely with them as progress on the construction of the runway
occurs and as noise mitigation strategies are developed. FAA also
agreed to work closely with them in order to ensure that air traffic
procedures are designed to take advantage of additional airport
capacity resulting from the new runway. There was an agreement that
Denver will contact the FAA as their work progresses. No other meetings
have been scheduled.
centennial airport
Senator Campbell. Okay. A couple of months ago the
Associate Administrator for Airports ruled that Centennial
Airport, which is south of Denver, cannot apply for Federal
funds, because the airport board recently voted to prohibit
scheduled commercial service.
The airport will lose, according to them, about $1.5
million every year in Federal assistance. How many general
aviation airports across the country have been denied scheduled
commuter service?
Ms. Garvey. I would have to get back to you, Senator, for
the record, with that number.
Senator Campbell. How about the funds, how many have been
denied funds for----
Ms. Garvey. I do not know of any, but let me get back and
double-check. I want to make sure I am accurate for the record,
Senator.
[The information follows:]
The only GA airport where we have recently withheld new
discretionary grants is Centennial Airport, Colorado. The airport was
the subject of a Part 16 complaint challenging the Arapahoe County
Airport Authority's ban on scheduled commuter service. Although we have
identified no other GA airports to have discretionary funds formally
withheld besides Centennial, the situation is the result of the airport
sponsor's decision not to come into compliance, not the result of any
unusual action on the part of the FAA.
On the basis of a recent Part 16 determination on Centennial
Airport, the sponsor is not eligible for new airport improvement
program grants. While the FAA could have withheld payments on existing
grants, the determination specifically allowed a grant issued September
23, 1997 to support the Part 150-noise study to continue. The study is
just getting started, with technical meetings held in February, 1999.
There have been a number of compliance issues at other GA airports,
for example Boca Raton FL, and Groton CT, but the issues were resolved
before the process reached the stage of formally withholding
discretionary grants or the airport operator elected not to apply for
future grants.
There can be informal withholding or suspension of new
discretionary grants during the period of informal resolution or
investigation under Part 16. Often, this practice provides sufficient
inducement for GA airport sponsors to come into compliance without
formal process. Accordingly, there have been instances where
discretionary grants to GA airports were delayed while compliance
issues were being resolved, but we have no record of these occurrences
as the process was concluded prior to the need to do a formal denial of
the grant. Again, Centennial Airport was different because the airport
operator refused to come into compliance and the new Part 16 procedures
resulted in a relatively quick formal agency decision.
noise study at centennial airport
Senator Campbell. Are you also working on a noise study at
Centennial?
Ms. Garvey. I believe we are working on a noise study at
Centennial.
Senator Campbell. Is it ongoing, too?
Ms. Garvey. Let me get, Senator, the actual schedule for
you.
[The information follows:]
A grant was issued on September 23, 1997 to support the Part 150-
noise study to continue. The study is just getting started, with
technical meetings held in February 1999.
mitchell airport
Senator Campbell. Okay. Let me skip around here a little
bit. Maybe, I will tell you, I do not want to dominate all the
time here when I am sort of just filling in for the Chairman.
But, Senator Kohl, did you have some questions that you
would like to ask?
Senator Kohl. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey. Good afternoon, Senator.
mitchell airport, wisconsin
Senator Kohl. Good afternoon, Administrator Garvey. I have
two questions. First, as you know, we have been in contact with
your office regarding the approach lighting system at Mitchell
Airport in Milwaukee.
It has been in line for replacement now for a number of
years, but the FAA has delayed replacement a number of times,
and has used a piecemeal repair approach on the existing
equipment. The system failures have become more frequent,
including three blackouts in 6 weeks.
Now, I know we agree that this situation is serious, with
major safety implications for the traveling public, and
yesterday, happily we were informed that testing on a new
system would be completed by June of this year, and that the
new system would be in place at Mitchell Airport by the fall.
Your staff has been very helpful in recent weeks, but for
me it is still important to be clear for the record with you
that Milwaukee will, indeed, have a new and a fully operational
ALS system by this fall. Can you hopefully respond
categorically?
Ms. Garvey. Categorically, yes. I know how important this
issue has been. I am delighted that it is fixed for the time
being, but I agree with you, the long-term fix and the
permanent fix is what we must focus on, and we are. We were
delighted to put that schedule together and to get that
information to you.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate that.
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. But absolutely yes.
Senator Kohl. The folks in Milwaukee would be very pleased.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I spent part of my childhood in
Milwaukee, and I am familiar with that area, so I know it well.
outagamie county airport air traffic control tower
Senator Kohl. Okay. The second question: Administrator
Garvey, let me begin by saying that there is a lot of support
for the air traffic contract control tower operation in
Wisconsin, but there has also been some concerns that I believe
demand some immediate attention.
As you know, since 1995, at the contract control tower at
Outagamie County Airport in Appleton, Wisconsin, those
operations have been contracted out to a private company, but
overseen by the FAA, and the airport management and county
government have been greatly concerned, the controller staff
has been reduced from eight to five, there has been staff
turnover, and there have been some communication problems.
There have also been incidents where planes have been cleared
for landing, while snow removal equipment was still on the
runway.
So I would like to know what steps you and your office are
taking to make sure that the Outagamie County control tower is
run as it should be, that the concerns of the airport
management and the county are addressed, and what oversight
procedures are in place at this airport and at other airports
so we do not have the same situations.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, let me say that I appreciate you
bringing these issues to our attention. On behalf of the
airport director we appreciate hearing that. We are going to
take an intensive review of both the staffing, the
communication issues that you mentioned, and make some
assessments.
I think this program is important. I think it can be very
helpful, but you are absolutely right, the FAA has the
oversight, the ultimate oversight. We must make sure that in
the contract program that it is being run well, and that it is
providing the same level of safety. We will provide that review
to you and your office, and also to the airport director. We
will be very happy to work with you on that review as well.
Senator Kohl. That is great. She will be very pleased to
hear that----
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. I am very pleased to hear you
say that.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I thank you.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Campbell. Are you finished, Senator Kohl?
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Campbell. I am going to ask maybe a final question.
Did you have a statement, Senator Bennett, or any comments?
Senator Bennett. I do not, but I will have some questions.
Why do you not ask yours.
colorado airspace initiative
Senator Campbell. Okay. Well, I just had one more, and you
may also have to get back to me on this one, too. The Colorado
Air Space Initiative is an issue of great interest. The
Colorado National Guard first announced plans to redesign its
military air space in 1990, and as you probably know, the
Colorado Air Space Initiative would provide for the expanded
use of military training routes and military operations in
Southern Colorado, and there has been extensive public review,
and the final environmental impact statement of the Colorado
Air Space Initiative was referred to the FAA in 1998 for
independent review. Do you have an update on that, or if you do
not, when can we expect the final determination of its
adequacy?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, if we could back to you, we will do
that within the next day, with the schedule----
Senator Campbell. All right.
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. And where we are with the
assessment of it.
Senator Campbell. And you will also remember that for me?
Ms. Garvey. I will. I will, Senator.
Senator Campbell. You have a very good memory.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Campbell. Go ahead.
[The information follows:]
Colorado Airspace Initiative
Question. What is the status of the Colorado Airspace Initiative
that proposes to expand the airspace in south Colorado that is used by
the military for training?
Answer. The U.S. Air Force/Colorado Air National Guard (COANG)
proposed configuration of airspace was received by the FAA's Northwest
Mountain Region Air Traffic Division on September 9, 1997. The FAA's
Northwest Mountain Region and personnel from the Washington
headquarter's Airspace and Rules Division have completed the
aeronautical review and a final decision is pending completion of the
FAA's environmental review. The COANG has completed the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) associated with this initiative. The FAA's
Office of the Chief Counsel began its review of the EIS in August 1998.
A determination has not yet been made.
salt lake city international airport asr
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will test your
memory a little more.
Ms. Garvey. How are you, Senator? It is nice to see you.
Senator Bennett. I am well.
Ms. Garvey. Good.
Senator Bennett. I am well. We are glad you are here and
appreciate all you do.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Last year I asked you about the
installation of a second airport surveillance radar for Salt
Lake City International Airport. It appears in conversations at
least at the staff level that the FAA is reluctant to go ahead
with an additional ASR in Salt Lake, and we are informed that
the FAA proposal is to install a temporary system for the
Olympic Games period, based on internal cost benefit analysis.
I have many aviation professionals in Utah that believe
that the capacity of the Salt Lake City Airport system is
severely constrained by the single ASR-9 surveillance radar
that is there, and they want to talk about permanent
improvement here and not just for the Olympics.
Also, we appropriated $3 million for the procurement of a
transponder landing system at six airports, including two in my
state, Logan and Heber City, and the FAA has so far not
proceeded with the procuring of these systems. So can you get
back to me on these two issues, where we are?
Ms. Garvey. I can give you a partial answer. Perhaps we can
talk even further.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
Ms. Garvey. You are right on the temporary system, Senator.
It has not, at least as we have looked at it, met the criteria.
You have a wonderful airport director, and great airport people
out there, and perhaps if I sat down with them, maybe there is
some information that we are just missing. I would be happy to
sit with them, perhaps with people from your office. I believe
they are in town this week.
Senator Bennett. Yes, they are. That may be why I brought
it up.
Ms. Garvey If I do not run into them, I will make sure that
we set something up with your office.
On the second issue, on the transponder landing system, we
have made progress and the contractor is coming in to meet with
us. We will have the contractor on board no later than June. We
are going to lay out a schedule with him, and do some testing
up in our Technical Center. We have been a little bit slower
than I would like, but we are heading in the right direction
now. We will get back to you with a more detailed schedule.
[The information follows:]
A Transponder Landing System (TLS) is a system that is reported to
be capable of providing Category I linear and non-linear precision
approach landings to a single plane using its currently installed ILS
avionic equipment. Congress provided $3 million in this year's omnibus
funding bill to establish a TLS test program at the following six
recommended sites:
--Boeing Field/King County Airport, WA
--Pullman/Moscow Airport, ID
--Friedman Memorial Airport, ID
--Logan/Cache County Airport, UT
--Heber Airport, UT
--Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI
A TLS project team was formed within the Navigation and Landing
Product Team. The Team established a single-source acquisition strategy
with Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation (ANPC), Hood
River, OR through a Commerce Business Daily announcement that closed on
February 12.
We are currently preparing plans and documentation to support the
release of a Screening Information Request (SIR) during 3rd Quarter
Fiscal Year 1999.
PROJECTED SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/99............................................................................ Commerce Business Daily
Released.
5/99............................................................................ SIR Release.
6/99............................................................................ Contract Award.
8/99............................................................................ Delivery to FAATC.
TBD............................................................................. Testing.
TBD............................................................................. Installation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
year 2000
Senator Bennett. Very good.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I could not let you go without asking or
commenting about the Y2K problem. I understand that you now
expect to be fully compliant by the end of June.
Ms. Garvey. That is correct, Senator, June 30, yes.
Senator Bennett. So the bad news is that that is one
quarter later than the President's deadline, and the good news
is that it still gives you 6 months pushing for testing and
checking out contingency plans, and so on. If you see any
indication that the June date will slip, as the March date did,
can you let me know?
Ms. Garvey. We certainly will, Senator. We have had some
very good conversations with OMB. They agree, because of the
complexity of our systems and the need to do adequate end-to-
end testing, the June 30 date is important. We are doing an
end-to-end testing on April 10 in Colorado, very similar to
what Wall Street did a couple of weeks ago. I am looking
forward to that end-to-end test. The testing we have done at
the Technical Center to date has not revealed any unusual
problems. We have been very pleased with the results, but the
real key will be the end-to-end testing in April. We will keep
you and your staff very much informed, Senator.
Senator Bennett. The one thing that concerns me out of the
hearing that we held in the Y2K committee, and I apologize for
intruding that into this, but as long as we have----
Senator Shelby [presiding]. I think it is an appropriate
time, from what we were talking about earlier.
Senator Bennett. It looked as if the FAA were getting on
top of its problems, and the area of greatest concern was
individual airports, that there might be disruptions in the air
traffic system if there is an airport somewhere they are not
going to be Y2K compliant, they cannot handle traffic, and you
have to start re-routing planes around that.
In any of your studies, have you got any kind of a feel for
that, or are you focused so much on your own problem that we
should be the ones primarily to focus? I just want you to share
with us anything you know.
Ms. Garvey. Sure. Well, clearly, Senator, we are very much
focused on our systems, but having said that, we also have a
very active working group made up of ATA and the airports'
councils, AAAE and ACI. They have been very good and very
forthcoming. As a matter of fact, I met with the board from ACI
and AAAE yesterday when one of the big topics was Y2K. So we
are getting, I think, as we get closer to June, a much clearer
sense of how the airports are doing. GAO had a pretty critical
report----
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. It was put out in the fall, but
there was a general sense yesterday in talking with the
airports that a lot has occurred since then. That was probably
a very good wakeup call to a lot of people. So I think they
have made very good progress. They are focusing on those
elements that are related to safety, and I think that is
important.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Ms. Garvey. One of the challenges that I found out
yesterday, and you are probably already aware of, but for a
number of these airports who are controlled by city governments
that also have checks to get out, and health issues, and so
forth. It makes the job even more challenging for those
airports to sort of get into the queue to make sure that they
are being paid as much attention to.
But I think they have made significant progress, and I
think as we move forward, because of the work the associations
are doing and we are doing with them, we will have a much
clearer sense in June exactly where we are. I will mention it,
we put together a technical team, about ten FAA people, who are
very experienced in airports. They are available and will be
available working very hard through the summer months to assist
some of the airports that need that help.
Senator Bennett. That is good to know, and I hope that they
will be in touch with the staff of the Y2K committee----
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. So that they can exchange
information. The thing we have learned, Mr. Chairman, in this
whole situation is that as a general rule the only people that
will talk to you about Y2K are the people who are going to be
all right, so you get a false sense----
Ms. Garvey. That is interesting.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Of security when you say,
``Well, gee, we have heard from 60 percent of the universe, and
everybody in that 60 percent is going to be all right one way
or the other, so we are moving right along,'' and the reason
you have not heard from the 40 percent is that they are not
going to be all right and they do not want to tell you. That is
one of the more challenging problems we have had.
So I tell people when they say, are you willing to fly on
New Year's Day, I say, well, if the airline is willing to take
off, I am willing to fly, because they have as much at stake as
I do.
Ms. Garvey. That is true.
Senator Bennett. Their pilot is just as subject to being
killed as I am in the same airplane, and if the pilot is
willing to get on the airplane, and the airline is willing to
risk that, why, I guess I am willing to go with them. Now, I do
not say I am willing to do that to all parts of the world, but
in the areas where you have jurisdiction, I am willing to do
that, but I say there is always the possibility that the
airport you are flying to will not let you land, and you may be
diverted someplace else.
The FAA could be in good shape, but the airport might not
be. So it is very important that you follow through, and I am
delighted at your report about this special team, and we will
do our best to work closely with you.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
natca contract
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, I have several questions. I
will try to move along as fast as I can.
The air traffic controllers contract, last year the
Administration signed a new agreement with the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association, which was initially described
as being within the President's budget request for 1999.
Subsequent reports estimate that the additional cost of the new
agreement is substantially more than the FAA operation
resources envisioned in the President's request for the fiscal
year 1999 budget.
Can you shed light on what the ultimate costs of the new
agreement are for the current fiscal year and for the fiscal
year 2000?
Ms. Garvey. I can, Mr. Chairman, and I will actually even
read the numbers----
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. Just to be sure I am giving them
to you accurately. The incremental pay raises for the
controllers would be $80 million in 1999, $65 million in 2000,
and $55 million in 2001. But if I could, just for a moment,
speak about the controller contract, because I think it is a
good contract. Sometimes I think in discussions about the pay
increases, some of the other elements of the contract may be
lost. We went in with a couple of goals. One is that we wanted
to get the contract completed quickly. I think some of the
challenges we have, whether it is STARS or modernization, is
having a work force that is together with you as the
controllers are with us now on STARS is really critical and
important.
We also went in with the idea that there were things from a
management perspective that we needed. We needed some
efficiencies. We needed the controllers to take on additional
responsibilities. We needed things like moving away from
alternate work schedules, which are very expensive for the
agency. We thought that those might be appropriate things to
bring to the table, and the controllers did. We have frozen the
controller number at 15,000. I think that is very significant
from our perspective, because there have been numbers that have
been much higher than that, that controllers and others have
talked about. So we think there are a number of efficiencies
that we have been able to gain. We think there are a number of
very significant and important elements that management wanted
as we went into it. So we think it is a good contract on both
sides and positions us well to move forward to get out of a
contentious contract debate atmosphere, if you will, and into a
position where we are really focused on getting the job done.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, does the recent controller pay
agreement and the decision to reduce the number of controller
supervisors change the dynamic between management and the
controller work force for future contract negotiations?
Ms. Garvey. I am not sure. I do not think it would change
the dynamics. I think another point that is worth noting is
that the reduction of supervisors, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
is something that is being done government wide, and the
private sector is as well. We still have a pretty conservative
number. If you look at what has come out of NPR, we see numbers
like 12-to-1 or 15-to-1. We are still at a 10-to-1 ratio, which
is more conservative, and reducing the number of supervisors
that is something that was part of the FAA's long-term
discussions, even before the contract began. Having said that,
I want to say this very directly, that we are going to do this
thoughtfully and carefully. We would not do it with any
compromise to safety. There is no time line, so we are allowing
ourselves to do this in the most thoughtful and deliberative
way. We are doing it with both management and with the
controllers as well.
hiring of air traffic controllers
Senator Shelby. Will the FAA hire more new air traffic
controllers in 2000, even though it has met the 15,000 level of
controllers specified in the recent agreement?
Ms. Garvey. 15,000 is the number that we have to be at. We
are slightly above that now and we need to get that number
down.
nas modernization
Senator Shelby. Both the Inspector General and the GAO have
noted the difficulty that the FAA and the Department have had
in managing the FAA's multi-billion dollar air traffic control
modernization effort. Unfortunately, cost overruns, schedule
slippages, performance shortfalls, and program cancellations
are not uncommon in the modernization effort, and some would
say are more the rule than the exception.
Ms. Garvey, my sense of the root problem is that the FAA's
traditional approach to modernization is to revolutionize the
systems we have in place rather than to incrementally improve
our air traffic control modernization system through the
orderly replacement of computers, monitors, radars, et cetera.
However, I do draw some hope from your efforts on the Free
Flight Phase One program. These programs represent an effort to
incrementally, as I understand it, improve the efficiency and
the safety of the National Airspace System.
I think that what you have done in this area is working,
because you solicited industry involvement and support, and
have dragged the FAA to modify the initial concept of this
program to reflect something that the users of the system
believe will enhance the safety, the capacity, and the
efficiency of the system. You should be, I believe, commended
for your efforts on Free Flight Phase One----
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. And I wanted to do that.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NAS modernization
Senator Shelby. Unfortunately, the FAA is not good at
managing large, complex procurements. The advanced automation
program, the microwave landing system program, and more
recently, the STARS and WAAS programs are notable examples.
Do you think the FAA has learned anything from the
difficulties they have encountered in managing these programs,
or are we doomed to watch them repeat the past failures with
each new generation of ATC modernization? Have you learned? I
am not just speaking of you, I am speaking about----
Ms. Garvey. Right. Mr. Chairman, I really do think the
Agency has learned a lot. I think one of the great challenges
is if you are faced with what can be a failure, what can you
learn from it. We have learned a great deal. Your point about
incremental approach to modernization is right on target, and
that is the approach that we are taking and will continue to
take. Even something like STARS, which is such a complex
project, and when you are talking about the terminal
environment, it is the most complex area, it is not unusual to
run into difficulty, software difficulties, and other issues.
Having said that, we have learned early involvement of the
industry, and the unions, and then staying the course, is part
of the message to industry, that we need to be speaking with
one voice. We also need to measure the results together so that
we really can convince ourselves, as well as Congress, that
these are investments that are worth making, but a one-step-at-
a-time building block approach.
contract tower cost sharing program
Senator Shelby. The committee also commends you for your
efforts to implement the contract tower cost sharing provision
that was included in this year's appropriation bill. Would you
please provide the committee an update on this program? Can you
do that now?
Ms. Garvey. I think I can, Mr. Chairman, at least very
briefly, and we can get back to you with the specific areas.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Ms. Garvey We have five areas where we are entering into
the cost sharing agreement. There is, as you have suggested,
shared cost between the Federal Government and the individual
airport. We have about 11 other letters of invitation. We think
this is a good approach, and we have gotten very positive
responses from those airports that are involved. I think this
is a good way to provide a service that really has some shared
responsibilities. We are very pleased with it, and thank
Congress for their great help in this area.
[The information follows:]
Congress appropriated $6 million for fiscal year 1999 for cost
sharing. The FAA will use this funding to allow those airports in the
FCT Program that fall below the 1.0 benefit cost (B/C) ratio to remain
in the FCT Program in fiscal year 1999. In addition, this initiative
will be offered to new applicants that are below the 1.0 B/C ratio that
have permanent control towers, as well as those airports where funding
has been withdrawn. Cost sharing was first offered to those airports in
the FCT Program that received notification in 1997 of funding
withdrawal in 1999 if they remained below the 1.0 B/C ratio.
On February 22, 1999, the FAA notified the Esler Regional Airport,
Louisiana; Central Nebraska Regional Airport, Nebraska; Grand Strand
Airport, South Carolina; Salinas Municipal Airport, California; and
Olympia Airport, Washington, that they do not meet the 1.0 B/C criteria
but that they are eligible to participate in the cost sharing program.
The required local match is 71 percent for Esler Regional Airport, 34
percent for Central Nebraska Regional Airport, 29 percent for Grand
Strand Airport, 5 percent for Salinas Municipal Airport, and 3 percent
for Olympia Airport.
The FAA has prepared letters of invitation for 11 sites proposed
for the cost-sharing program. The letters include the percentage of the
cost that each site is expected to contribute and benefit/cost data.
The FAA met with three area contractors on March 25, 1999. The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss cost sharing provisions and methodologies
of payments. The FAA has prepared a budgetary plan for the disbursement
of the cost sharing funds among the first participants.
explosive detection equipment
Senator Shelby. Explosive detection equipment, which we are
all interested in, given the increased worldwide terrorist
threat that aviation is usually a high-priority target for
terrorists, does the Administration have any plans to
accelerate funding for explosive detection equipment, and if
so, how? If you do not want to get into it now, you can get
back.
Is the Administration generally satisfied, Ms. Garvey, with
the rate of installation of EDS equipment in our nation's
airports, and if not, what problems have been incurred getting
certified EDS equipment installed? I think that is very
important for the safety of our passengers.
Additional committee questions
Ms. Garvey. I think it is, too, Mr. Chairman. As I
mentioned yesterday in speaking with the NASA engineers, they
described it as a kind of insurance policy, if you will, and I
thought that was an apt description. We have about 75 to 80
airports that have equipment in place. I think there is always
a sense of frustration that you would like to go faster, but
because it is new technology there are also issues about
incorporating it into the airport, getting the right kind of
training, and solving some of the technical issues, which our
Technical Center works very hard at. So I think that we are
pleased with the progress, always aware that we would like to
see things move a little bit faster. We are very committed to
working with both the airlines and the airports in getting the
equipment out. Our budget does contain funding to allow the
program to continue. I do think it is important.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
control of appropriations
Question. What actions have been taken to address the deficiencies
in the FAA's budget execution function to ensure that the FAA comply
with Congressionally established reprogramming guidance as implemented
through Departmental and FAA reprogramming guidelines and the other
shortcomings as identified in the DOT Inspector General Audit Report
FE-1998-167? Please report to Congress the establishment of any reserve
of Operations, F&E, AIP, or RE&D appropriations that have not been
approved by Congress.
Answer. In January the Chief Financial Officer sent a reminder to
all FAA managers on the congressional reprogramming guidance. The
agency requires that notification of all proposed transfers in excess
of the reprogramming thresholds set forth in report language be
forwarded to the appropriate congressional committees. In addition, we
are in compliance with the FAA funding criteria guidelines.
Consistent with a July 6, 1998, Inspector General recommendation on
establishing reserves, the FAA began formally reporting to Congress on
its operations reserve in fiscal year 1999. For this purpose, we chose
to use the quarterly Program, Project and Activity Reports to Congress.
For fiscal year 1999, the operating reserve was established at $15
million. The agency believes that the establishment of a reserve is a
critical necessity if the Administrator is to have the flexibility to
meet unfunded and unanticipated requirements that occur during the
budget year and to meet unforeseen requirements in the rapidly changing
aviation environment. The reserve represents less than \1/2\ of 1
percent of the total operations account.
cost accounting system
Question. Your budget request envisions a user fee increase of $1.5
billion. During the week of March 7th, the DOT Inspector General Ken
Mead testified that a reliable cost accounting system will not be fully
implemented until 2001 or later. In addition, you testified that if FAA
is to achieve the administration objective of funding the entire agency
with a combination of current excise taxes and new user fees, including
the establishment of a PBO for air traffic services, it needs a
reliable cost accounting system. Given that a cost accounting system
clearly won't be in place for the fiscal year 2000, isn't it premature
to propose either new user fees or a PBO for air traffic services--or
was the user fee proposal simply a budget gimmick to present a higher
FAA budget than the Administration's budget priorities would allow?
Answer. By the summer of 1999, the FAA's cost accounting system
will provide the cost information necessary for the implementation of
the previously authorized Overflight fees (for flights which transit
United States' airspace but that neither take-off nor land in the
United States). The cost accounting data available at that time will
solely be for the FAA's En-Route and Oceanic services.
The rest of FAA's services will be implemented in phases according
to schedule over the next two years. By the end of fiscal year 1999,
the cost accounting system will be sufficiently developed to support
the air traffic PBO, and by the end of fiscal year 2001, all of the
FAA's services will be covered by the cost accounting system.
user fees
Question. Would you present for the record what you would propose
to cut from the FAA budget request if Congress fails to approve the new
user fees--or, equally as likely, the FAA is unable to implement the
new user fees in the time frame envisioned in the budget request?
Answer. The loss of $1.5 billion in revenue against a program level
of $6.039 billion would be extremely problematic for the FAA. If the
cut were taken against the Operations Appropriation, which is 75
percent payroll, staffing levels would have to be cut at the beginning
of the fiscal year. The agency would have to slow down the system and
restrict the number of flights to ensure the air traffic system and
restrict the number of flights to ensure the system is operating safely
with much lower staffing levels.
air traffic control
Question. Does the recent controller pay agreement and the decision
to reduce the number of controller supervisors change the dynamic
between management and the controller workforce for future contract
negotiations?
Answer. No, the approach to future labor negotiations will not
change based on the results of the controller pay agreement. However,
we have established work groups with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to manage specific provisions of the contract.
Question. Please provide a FTE and FTP table on a month by month
basis for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 (to date) of the air traffic
controller workforce and the average cost per FTE and FTP for each
timeframe. Did attrition and retirement rates change in the aftermath
of the new Controller pay agreement?
Answer. The controller work force (CWF) full-time permanent (FTP)
table on a month-by-month basis for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999
to date follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 CWF Fiscal year 1998 CWF Fiscal year 1999 CWF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated
FTP FTE \1\ FTE Cost FTP FTE \1\ FTE Cost FTP FTE \1\ FTE Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October.......................................................... 17,078 1,513 90,350 17,380 1,540 93,856 17,736 1,502 103,478
November......................................................... 17,052 1,380 90,425 17,377 1,339 93,871 17,710 1,433 103,493
December......................................................... 17,030 1,444 90,525 17,417 1,541 93,886 17,687 1,568 103,508
January.......................................................... 16,964 1,506 93,241 17,347 1,473 96,139 17,616 1,428 106,717
February......................................................... 16,969 1,307 93,316 17,360 1,337 96,154 17,621 1,358 106,732
March............................................................ 16,946 1,372 93,391 17,470 1,476 96,169 ....... ....... .........
April............................................................ 16,975 1,437 93,466 17,573 1,484 96,184 ....... ....... .........
May.............................................................. 17,034 1,441 93,541 17,593 1,422 96,199 ....... ....... .........
June............................................................. 17,061 1,379 93,616 17,578 1,490 96,214 ....... ....... .........
July............................................................. 17,120 1,514 93,691 17,543 1,555 96,229 ....... ....... .........
August........................................................... 17,212 1,388 93,766 17,541 1,419 96,244 ....... ....... .........
September........................................................ 17,388 1,466 93,841 17,728 1,494 96,259 ....... ....... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes FTE for 90 part-time CWF.
The FAA does not have a tracking system which calculates or
maintains a separate CWF FTE history. In order to approximate the level
of FTE usage, we have developed a model. The accompanying full-time
equivalent (FTE) figures are calculated on the FTP CWF monthly actual
on-board and an estimated 90 part-time CWF.
The existing accounting system provides obligations only by fiscal
program, i.e., center, tower, stations, etc. The payroll costs in these
fiscal programs include other than controller work force and management
personnel and does not provide separate obligations for bargaining unit
employees. Thus, we do not have accurate monthly obligations for the
CWF. The average FTE cost above was calculated using the estimated FTE
for centers and towers and dividing it into the corresponding estimated
PC&B for that particular year. Since the FAA does not have a tracking
system to separate CWF from the OTCWF, these estimates include some
OTCWF in the average cost per CWF FTE. Additionally, there are a myriad
of events, such as employee changes in benefit selections and reaching
Federal Insurance Contribution Act pay limits, that create fluctuations
in the average cost per FTE. The timing and magnitude of these
influences vary. While their cumulative effect is included, no attempt
has been made to display these individual influences on a month to
month basis.
Since October 1998, the attrition rate has decreased by 40 percent
compared to the first 6 months of fiscal year 1998. Retirements have
also experienced a reduction of 28 percent when comparing the first 6
months of fiscal year 1999 to the same time period in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Will the FAA hire air traffic controllers in fiscal year
2000 even though it has met the 15,000 level of controllers specified
in the recent agreement with NATCA?
Answer. Yes. In order to replace anticipated attrition, the FAA
estimates it will need to hire approximately 350 controllers in fiscal
year 2000 to maintain the 15,000 air traffic controller staffing level
established by the agreement.
controller productivity
Question. Does the FAA have any measures in place to gauge air
traffic controller productivity? If so, please provide a description of
such measures and a retrospective assessment of air traffic controller
productivity annually for the past 10 years.
Answer. The FAA has used air traffic activity per controller work
force (CWF) as a measure of productivity. In this measure, air traffic
activity consists of the total of instrument flight rule aircraft
handled by en route centers and aircraft operations and instrument
operations handled by terminal facilities. The total activity is
divided by the total CWF. What appears as reductions in productivity
from fiscal years 1995 to 1999 reflect the increasing share of terminal
airport operations conducted by FAA contract towers as FAA completes
its program to convert FAA Level I visual flight rule towers to
contract operation. In the budget submission, nine years of information
is presented on page 35. Fiscal year 1999 and 2000 are based on
estimates. On the following chart, 10 years of air traffic controller
productivity is provided.
The services provided by air traffic to the flying public, and
consequently the productivity, are not effectively represented through
this metric. The FAA is in the process of developing better
productivity measures that more accurately define real productivity as
measured by the services provided to the flying public.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA23.001
air traffic control
Question. What steps have been taken in addition to retraining to
ensure that the near disaster over La Guardia Airport last year in
which an Air Canada Airbus A320 took off directly over a US Airways DC-
9 as it broke off a landing attempt. The near-disastrous situation
underscores the need to reexamine rules regarding control of aircraft
in the immediate airport area and on the ground. In addition, what
steps have been taken to mandate appropriate and timely reporting of
such occurrences.
Answer. In addition to the retraining, the FAA has conducted a
review of the procedures applicable to aircraft movement in the
immediate airport area and on the ground. Based on our review, several
changes have been developed and are in the final clearance process
prior to implementation. These changes include:
--Modifying same runway separation
--Modifying anticipated separation
--Elimination of multiple landing clearances
--Modifying takeoff position and hold procedures
We believe these changes will enhance the procedures already in
place and prevent a reoccurrence of the situation. To ensure
appropriate and timely reporting of events, guidance was issued to all
regional offices re-emphasizing the existing requirements concerning
appropriate reporting of incidents occurring in the National Airspace
System, and the penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, in an
effort to identify and correct air traffic controller performance
deficiencies, the FAA has developed a new quality assurance review to
prevent operational error deviations or near mid-air collisions.
automated flight service stations
Question. Has the FAA Flight Service Station Architecture Report
that outlines the plan for closing or reducing hours of operation at
selected Automated Flight Service Stations nationwide been released in
its entirety (including all appendices)? If not, why not? Please
provide a copy of the complete report--including all appendices--for
the use of the subcommittee.
Answer. No. The Flight Service Architecture Core Group Staff Report
has not been released. The report is still considered staff level and
is currently under review within the FAA.
liaison and familiarization training
Question. Please provide a status report of which of the DOT
Inspector General recommendations from Report Number AV-1998-170 have
been adopted, the status of those that have not (including a schedule
for implementation) and a rationale for any recommendations that the
FAA Administrator does not anticipate implementing.
Answer. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA). The MOU represents the agreement
reached between the FAA and NATCA on Article 23, Liaison and
Familiarization Training, of the collective bargaining agreement. The
new Article 23, requires the supervisory assignment of training
objectives for each trip prior to approval, that all familiarization
training be conducted on duty time, reduces the maximum allowable
number of trips per year to 6, and restricts same destination
assignments to 2 per year. As a party to the development of the
Article, the DOT Inspector General (OIG) concurred with its
specifications prior to its signing.
contract tower program--cost sharing
Question. The Committee commends FAA Administrator Garvey for her
efforts to implement the contract tower cost-sharing provision that was
included in this year's appropriations bill. Can you please provide the
committee an update on this program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999 Congress added $6 million for the FCT
Cost Sharing Program. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
contract tower program has prepared and issued letters of invitation
for cost sharing to 11 sites in anticipation of a June 1 start date.
Letters of agreement, establishing the terms of eligibility, and
funding provisions for the program, have been drafted between the FAA,
the contractors providing air traffic control services, and the
participating airport authorities.
The Administration strongly supports the existing FCT program at
locations that meet criteria. Funds to continue the cost sharing
program included in the agency's original budget submission were not
included in the fiscal year 2000 Congressional Budget Submission since
the Administration does not support subsidizing the operation of
contract towers where the costs exceed the benefits.
contract tower program
Question. The committee supports the FAA contract tower program as
a cost-effective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller airports.
We were pleased with the DOT Inspector General's report from last year
that validated these cost savings and safety enhancements. Can you
please provide the committee an update on the plans to expand this
program to other appropriate facilities as requested in the 1999
appropriations bill?
Answer. As requested in the 1999 appropriations bill, the FAA is
conducting a study to examine extending the FCT program to existing
airport traffic control towers without radar capability. The FAA is
completing the study and will be forwarding the results to the
Committee as requested.
age 60 rule
Question. The Age 60 Rule was instituted in 1959 without the
benefit of medical or scientific studies and without public comment.
The EEOC has essentially eliminated age discrimination rules in all
facets of commercial aviation with the exception of FAR Part 121 and
Part 135 carriers. Other countries--Great Britain, Germany, France,
Australia, etc.--have modified their age 60 restrictions. Japan began a
study on the age 60 issues and discontinued it after finding no safety
or operational reasons to maintain age 60 as a mandatory retirement
age. The most recent pilot aging study was the Hilton Systems Technical
Report 8025 (known generally as the Hilton Study) undertaken by Lehigh
University and Hilton systems, Inc. to ``conduct statistical analysis
on historical data to investigate the relationship between pilot age
and accident rates.'' The report concluded: ``we saw no hint of an
increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they
neared their 60th birthday. In spite of this study, the Age 60 Rule not
only remains in effect, it was expanded in 1995 to include Part 135
pilots in spite of no record of any age-related accidents or incidents
in the affected pilot group. Clearly, the United States seems to be
moving against the international aviation community and contrary to our
own national trends on age discrimination rules. Can you provide any
medical or scientific reason why the United States should not follow
the findings of the Hilton Study and ``cautiously increase the
retirement age to age 63?''
Answer. FAA promulgated the Age 60 Rule in 1959 because of concerns
that a hazard to safety was presented by utilization of aging pilots in
air carrier operations. At that time, the agency found that there was a
progressive deterioration of certain important physiological and
psychological functions with age, that significant medical defects
attributable to this degenerative process occur at an increasing rate
as age increases, and that sudden incapacity due to such medical
defects becomes more frequent in any group reaching age 60.
The FAA noted other factors, even less susceptible to precise
measurement as to their effect but which must be considered in
connection with safety in flight that result simply from aging alone
and are, with some variations, applicable to all individuals. These
relate to loss of ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; to
resist fatigue; to maintain physical stamina; to perform effectively in
a complex and stressful environment; to apply experience, judgment, and
reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and to
learn new techniques, skills, and procedures.
Clearly, there is progressive anatomic, physiological, and
cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity
and onset among individuals. Physicians, psychologists, physiologists,
and scientists of other disciplines have identified many age-associated
variables, some easily measurable, some not that may be important to
human function. There is, however, no acceptable medical protocol to
measure the effects of aging on a particular individual.
Because it is unacceptable for these pilots to work until failure
or until there is obvious impairment, the age of 60 has served well as
a regulatory limit since 1959. While science does not dictate the age
of 60, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in
disease mortality and morbidity occur.
In late 1990, FAA initiated its most recent study of the issue,
aimed at consolidating available accident data and correlating it with
the amount of flying by pilots as a function of their age. This
resulted in the March 1993 Hilton study report, ``Age 60 Project,
Consolidated Database Experiments, Final Report'', which found ``no
hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air
carriers as they neared their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were
no data available on scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age 60.
The FAA rule is consistent with the international standard
established by ICAO, which prohibits anyone over the age of 60 from
acting as pilot-in-command.
essential air service
Question. The FAA has developed a ``blueprint for modernizing the
NAS and enhancing NAS services and capabilities'' with the overall
intent of providing increased benefits to users while enhancing safety.
Attaining modernization, we assume is predicated on funding levels in
line with prior and current budget requests. If capital investment is
not increased, or maintained, the FAA has indicated that they will have
to make tradeoffs between providing improved services and
functionalities or sustaining current operations. If that is in fact
the case, how can the Department justify proposing a reprogramming of
F&E funding to cover the costs of the Essential Air Service program
which in recent years has been funded out of operations funding.
Doesn't such a reprogramming request bleed off necessary funds from
modernization?
Answer. Budget execution is frequently a matter of making difficult
choices between less than desirable alternatives. For fiscal year 1999,
we were faced with a funding shortfall in Operations. In addition to a
congressional cut to the President's request, one chief cause of the
shortfall was our inability to collect the $93 million in overflight
fees assumed in the President's budget request, $50 million of which
would have been used to subsidize the Essential Air Service (EAS)
program. In absence of these overflight fees, the statute requires us
to use other funds available to us to make the mandated subsidy payment
to EAS. Whereas we used Operations funds in fiscal year 1998 (the first
year that the FAA was required to subsidize the EAS program with
overflight fee revenue or other funding source \1\), we elected to use
F&E resources in fiscal year 1999. We made this choice because, in our
opinion, the effect on safety, security, and efficiency was less if the
subsidy was funded by F&E than by Operations. I would like to point out
that no funds are budgeted in the FAA in fiscal year 2000 to fund EAS
should the expected overflight fees collections not materialize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to fiscal year 19998, the annual EAS subsidy was provided
by a drawdown from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explosives detection equipment
Question. Please provide a list of corrective actions and the
implementation dates for the following observations from the DOT
Inspector General's review (AV-1999-001) of the Explosive Detection
System program:
(a) The FAA has not finalized property transfer and use agreements
with the U.S. and foreign air carriers receiving explosive detection
equipment.
(b) Air carriers are significantly underutilizing the equipment
already deployed.
(c) The equipment, while effective in detecting explosives, is
experiencing high false alarm and slow baggage throughput rates,
potentially impacting industry and passenger acceptance of checked
baggage screening.
Answer. Agreements between the FAA and the air carriers on the
conditions of use for explosive detection equipment have not been
finalized yet-primarily due to air carrier concerns about taxation
issues. However, the FAA continues to work diligently with the Air
Transport Association and the individual air carriers receiving
equipment to resolve their perceived issues.
Machine utilization increased significantly since the first
equipment was installed. Machine usage in bags screened per week per
system increased by 50 percent last year. While the FAA agrees with the
Inspector General's office that the screening rate needs further
improvement, the appropriate security policy is to screen all bags from
Computer Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS)-selected passengers. Thus,
we have properly sized the number of machines to the peak bag flow
under this criterion. The utilization per week will not be a simple
multiple of hours of use by the peak flow as computed by the Inspector
General's office. The FAA is also urging carriers to share the use of
EDS, which will increase throughput.
Reduced nuisance alarm rates would, indeed, result in greater
industry and passenger acceptance of screening equipment. The FAA
continues to vigorously pursue this goal for increased system
efficiency. However, after nearly all air carriers have fully
implemented CAPS, the demand levels produced by CAPS are being screened
at existing nuisance alarm rates without any major delays. The alarm
rates are not excessive, given the great variance in bag contents and
the small mass of explosives which must be detected.
Question. Given the increased world wide terrorist threat and that
aviation is usually a high priority target for terrorists, does the
administration have any plans to accelerate funding for explosives
detection equipment (EDS)? If so, how?
Answer. The enacted budget for Civil Aviation System Security
Technology Research and Development was $44 million in fiscal year 1998
and $52 million for fiscal year 1999. A significant amount of this
funding is being applied to develop technologies to detect explosives
carried in checked luggage, in carry-on luggage, and concealed on
passengers. In addition, F&E funding of $100 million was provided in
fiscal year 1999 for EDS deployment. The F&E budget request of $100
million in fiscal year 2000 continues to support the deployment of EDS
at the appropriate rate.
Question. Is the administration generally satisfied with the rate
of installation of EDS equipment in our nation's airports? If not, what
problems have been incurred getting certified EDS equipment installed?
Answer. The FAA is generally satisfied with the current (April
1999) rate of installation of EDS equipment. The Security Equipment
Integrated Product Team (SEIPT) was created to provide a partnership
between public and private entities involved in deployment of security
equipment in airports. Every EDS installation is physically unique and
requires extensive coordination with local authorities. Some problems
have been encountered in placement, integration, and use of the
equipment. In many cases, ongoing construction at airports has hindered
installation efforts. As the SEIPT gains experience, the problems
encountered in installation of the equipment have been easier to
resolve.
Question. Is the original mandate of the Vice-President's
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security still viable? That is, does
the administration believe that $100 million a year is enough to do the
job?
Answer. The original mandates of the White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security i.e., to provide $100 million per year for
5 years, are viable. The fiscal year 2000 request of $100 million is
adequate to support deployment of equipment at the appropriate pace.
Question. The administration has been trying to foster competition
in the EDS equipment area, that is, having several manufacturers from
which to purchase. Are you satisfied with the level of competition? Do
you believe that $100 million a year is sufficient enough to foster
competition? What do you base your answer on?
Answer. The FAA has fostered competition among vendors of EDS by
means of research and development grants. There are now two vendors of
EDS, and a third may soon succeed in having its EDS certified. InVision
has produced several certified systems that are operating in the field.
L-3 has developed a certified system, which is currently undergoing
FAA-funded revisions to advance the system from a certified system to
one that is field-ready. The FAA has funded another vendor, Vivid, to
produce a certified system. Vivid is currently working to produce a
certified system. The budget of $100 million a year has been sufficient
to foster competition in the EDS area. No market existed previous to
the Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT).
certification of companies
Question. Are you helping any other companies get certified in this
area? How? Did you assist the first two qualified companies get
certified? How?
Answer. Yes, the FAA continues to provide opportunities for other
companies to develop products with a goal of certification. Currently,
there are two projects the FAA is sponsoring with R,E&D funds. The FAA
provided $4 million over three fiscal years to Vivid Technologies in a
cost-share grant to assist their development of a Multi-View Tomography
(MVT) EDS. The FAA is also funding EG&G Astrophysics at a lower level
(50/50, government/industry) to explore an adjunct sensor for their Z-
Scan-10 X-ray inspection system that may satisfy certification
criteria. The FAA also provides access and use of FAA test facilities,
equipment, explosives, and simulants at no cost to support iterative,
developmental testing.
For both the InVision CTX 5000SP and the L-3 Communications
eXaminer 3DX6000, the FAA underwrote a significant portion of their
development costs with R,E&D funds and provided priority access and use
of FAA test facilities, equipment, explosives, and simulants at no cost
to support iterative, developmental testing.
The FAA funded $8.2 million toward the development of the InVision
CTX 5000SP over approximately seven fiscal years. The FAA provided
$14.5 million in a cost share grant with L-3 Communications toward the
accelerated development of the eXaminer 3DX6000 high-throughput EDS
over three fiscal years. The FAA also provided $6.2 million in a cost-
share grant with InVision to develop a high throughput EDS called the
CTX 9000 which has recently completed certification testing.
Question. The FAA, in order to foster competition, has been holding
back orders while it waits for more companies to get certified in the
EDS area. Given the threat of terrorist attack and the usual delays in
getting equipment installed in the field, isn't this a dangerous
strategy?
Answer. The FAA has not been holding back orders of certified
explosives detection equipment. The FAA has been pacing its new
equipment orders to maintain a steady deployment program. This has
allowed newly certified EDS to compete for remaining orders.
explosive detection equipment
Question. How many of the nation's category X airports have EDS
equipment installed? What is the goal for installation of EDS equipment
in category X airports and other airports?
Answer. FAA-certified EDS are installed at 29 airports. All
category-X airports currently have EDS equipment installed. The goal is
for sufficient EDS to be installed to screen all Computer Assisted
Passenger Screening selectees' bags at their originating airports,
other than at the smallest airports where less efficient, but no less
effective measures will be used to inspect selectees' bags.
Question. Have the airlines been cooperative with the FAA in
getting this equipment installed and most importantly utilized? If not,
why not?
Answer. Representatives of seven major U.S. air carriers, regional
airlines, and airports are core team members of the FAA Security
Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT). The SEIPT, which is composed
of FAA and industry acquisition and security experts, was established
to manage the advanced security equipment airport deployment program.
As partners with the FAA on the SEIPT, airline and airport industry
representatives have been cooperative participants in our joint efforts
to get this equipment installed and effectively utilized.
Question. It has been stated that $100 million a year is not enough
money to really foster competition in the EDS area. This amount pales
in comparison to the amount that FAA spends in purchasing navigation
and communications equipment. What else can the FAA do to foster
competition?
Answer. The FAA created the Security Equipment Integrated Product
Team (SEIPT) in response to the White House recommendations on Aviation
Security. Those recommendations suggested the purchase of EDS
equipment, in part to foster competition, and those recommendations are
being implemented by the SEIPT. Due to this created market, plus FAA-
funded development of EDS systems, competition has been encouraged.
In addition, the FAA has funded several R,E&D initiatives to
produce new systems.
Question. Would the FAA support a higher level of funding for EDS?
What would be the proper level of funding in this area to both keep the
domestic manufacturers interested and for meeting the terrorist threat?
Answer. The present level of funding requested for fiscal year 2000
would support the appropriate level of EDS production and deployment.
Question. If the level of funding for this area is constrained by
budget considerations, what else is FAA doing to get airports and the
airlines to pick up the slack?
Answer. The level of funding for EDS deployment is sufficient. If
funding levels are reduced or earmarked for other purposes, there are
few practical solutions that would be immediately available to transfer
the burden to airports and air carriers.
The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on April 19,
1999, requiring Positive Passenger Bag Match (PPBM) that should be
fully in effect by October 2001. However, the aviation industry, as
well as the FAA, is concerned that PPBM of connecting and interline
baggage will have a severe adverse effect on the national aviation
system. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
recognized this potential on aviation safety and security when it
recommended PPBM to be implemented, `` * * * until such time as [EDS]
machines are widely available * * *.'' The effect of PPBM on the
domestic aviation system is further detailed in The Study and Report to
Congress on the Domestic Positive Passenger Baggage Match Pilot Program
that the FAA will submit to Congress in May.
AIP funds are currently eligible for the purchase of this
equipment, but are unlikely to be used for this purpose; airports are
the regulated entity that must request AIP funds, and air carriers are
responsible to fund and operate passenger and baggage screening.
Therefore, it is unlikely that airports will request limited AIP funds
to be used by air carriers instead of much needed airport improvements.
Vice President Gore stated in a September 15, 1998 letter to the Senate
leaders that, ``The Senate approach [to fund EDS out of AIP] would
jeopardize the progress we have made in providing an overall increased
level of security at U.S. airports.''
explosives detection equipment
Question. Approximately one year ago FAA had its only certified EDS
manufacturer ramp up production of EDS units to approximately ten a
month. This required the manufacturer to move production into a new and
larger facility. At a funding level of only $100 million a year, this
funding level will not even keep that one manufacturer at full
capacity. Does the FAA jeopardize losing that critical manufacturing
base? What can be done to maintain that existing resource?
Answer. When FAA awarded the initial EDS equipment purchase
contract to its only supplier, it required the vendor to accelerate
production of EDS units to deliver a total of 54 units during the first
year of the contract. Although production difficulties experienced
during that first year resulted in extending this delivery schedule,
the vendor made extraordinary efforts to increase its production
capabilities to meet the delivery requirements of the Government. While
the FAA supported the vendor in its efforts to increase production to
meet its contract commitments to the Government, decisions made by the
vendor regarding its production facilities and capital investments were
solely the business decisions of the company.
Question. In the defense area, if a manufacturer is determined to
be producing something that is critical and in the nation's interest,
the Department of Defense provides funding to maintain critical
manufacturing capability so that it is available in time of national
need. Has the FAA thought of doing anything like that in the EDS area?
Answer. The FAA efforts to foster market competition by developing
multiple sources for security equipment have been successful. On
November 23, 1998, the FAA certified the second EDS, the eXaminer 3DX
6000, produced by L-3 Communications. At the present time, both
InVision and L-3 Communications have certified EDS's. Two other vendors
are working to get their candidate EDS certified. There are even more
vendors of checkpoint x-ray equipment and explosive trace detection
devices.
funding for screening equipment
Question. There are various technologies competing for these
limited funds. Last year, Congress directed that a certain amount of
funds be set-aside for operator assisted screening equipment. Does the
FAA have plans to increase the amount of funding in this area to
accommodate the various and varied technologies? Please elaborate.
Answer. The FAA has conducted two evaluations of screener assist x-
rays (SAX) for automatic explosives detection for screening carry-on
baggage/items. The first evaluation focused upon the detection and
false alarm rates and was carried out in a laboratory environment. The
second effort was carried out in Knoxville's McGhee Tyson Airport with
the primary objective of documenting sources of false alarms and false
alarm rates. At this time, the FAA is unable to recommend the
deployment and full utilization of SAX in an operating environment.
Additional evaluations will be carried out by the FAA to obtain
information needed by SAX vendors to improve their systems.
The FAA believes that priority in funding should be given to
deploying EDS for checked baggage screening, rather than to update the
equipment used to screen carry-on items.
Question. It is our understanding that the Integrated Product Team
(IPT) at DOT has determined that, due to the age of most airport x-ray
systems, only a small percentage are capable of being upgraded to
include approved Threat Image Projection or TIP as it is commonly
known. We understand that, as a result of this, the IPT has recommended
that, with the exception of the upgrade capable units, x-ray systems be
replaced with approved TIP capable systems. This process would be
initiated with the $24.6 million in supplemental funding earmarked for
TIP. Does the FAA intend to follow this recommendation?
Answer. Yes, the FAA Security Equipment IPT is acquiring 420 TIP
ready and screener assist capable x-rays, in conformance with the
fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act.
Question. If the FAA does intend to follow this recommendation, can
you assure the Committee that only FAA certified TIP capable equipment
would be used to replace the older units?
Answer. The Security Equipment IPT responsible for the procurement
and deployment of security technologies have made it a requirement that
all acquisitions of checkpoint carry-on baggage screening x-rays will
be TIP-capable. Checkpoint equipment (for screening carry-on items),
unlike EDS, is not currently certified; it will be procured on the
basis of announced specifications and objective performance data.
Equipment certification specifications are being developed for the
entire range of passenger screening equipment.
backscatter x-ray
Question. Do you intend to include an evaluation of backscatter x-
ray body scanning devices with your evaluation of trace portal
technology?
Answer. There will be no airport evaluation of backscatter x-ray
body scanning equipment. Preliminary laboratory evaluations of such
technologies may be carried out by FAA to augment our knowledge base on
available technologies. There are several issues to resolve before
airport testing can be contemplated. These include public acceptance of
the (small) radiation exposure, privacy concerns, effectiveness, and
alarm resolution. Trace portal technologies are far less intrusive,
have already been tested at airports, and will be tested again in the
near future.
user request evaluation tool (uret)
Question. URET has been in the Indianapolis and Memphis Centers for
a long time. Is URET operationally acceptable to the controllers? When
will it be installed in the other facilities?
Answer. The URET prototype is not yet operationally acceptable to
controllers. But over the past four months, URET usage at the
Indianapolis and Memphis centers has increased dramatically.
Indianapolis Center usage has increased from about 4,100 sector hours
to almost 8,000 sector hours. Memphis Center usage has increased from
1,400 to 6,000 sector hours.
The FAA is confident that this increase suggests growing acceptance
of the tool. To ensure that this trend continues, the FAA and the
controllers union have formed a team to resolve issues of joint
concern, such as system requirements and acceptance.
This tool will be deployed to high-altitude centers in Atlanta,
Chicago, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C., beginning in November 2001.
Question. How will controller productivity improve with use of
URET?
Answer. URET assists the controllers in alleviating potential
problems at an earlier point. It facilitates the strategic planning
functions of the controller sector team, and serves as an additional
tool to help the controller's plan for and coordinate aircraft movement
through sector airspace.
URET will replace the paper strips that are today's source of
flight data for controllers, and will allow them to utilize less-
cumbersome electronic flight data.
A full operational impact evaluation will be accomplished in
collaboration with system users and operators after the system is
fielded, as required by the consensus reached by the FAA and the users
of the system.
Question. What daily use experience is there that proves URET's
algorithms to be operationally acceptable?
Answer. Recent user request evaluation tool (URET) usage at
Indianapolis Center has risen from about 4100 sector hours to almost
8000 sector hours. During the same period, usage at Memphis Center grew
from 1410 sector hours to 6000 sector hours.
The algorithms of the URET prototype have not yet been proven to be
operationally acceptable. However, the increased use of the prototype
tool and a similar increase in the use of the trial planning function
of URET indicates that we are on the proper path toward the algorithms
becoming operationally acceptable. Also, the joint FAA/NATCA URET team
is working together to develop system requirements and to resolve the
issues that could bar operational acceptance (including algorithm
performance).
Additionally, the program office conducts simulations to
continually verify the algorithms.
Question. Will URET impact DSR deployment? What is the transition
plan for URET to co-exist with DSR in Indianapolis and Memphis? What is
the Free Flight Phase 1 URET/DSR situation? How much of the FFP1
request relates to the URET program?
Answer. URET will have no impact on the DSR deployment. The URET
prototypes will transition from the present M-1 control room to the new
DSR control room as part of the overall Memphis and Indianapolis
Centers DSR transition. The URET Core Capability Limited Deployment
(CCLD) version, which starts initial daily use in November 2001 under
FFP1, will be integrated with the DSR D-side console. Prior to that,
however, the controllers and the FAA have agreed to continue URET
prototype usage at the two facilities until November 2001. This
required a work-around agreement with NATCA, which allows the FAA to
mount the URET prototype display on an accentuated arm for controller
use and to avoid a possible ``blackout'' at both facilities. The FFP1
fiscal year 2000 budget request has a total of $83.2 million for URET.
This includes $79.6 million for URET CCLD and $3.6 million for the URET
prototype.
warehoused equipment
Question. A recent report to the Committee on the FAA plans to
install certain warehoused equipment noted that future installation and
commissioning of the MALSR, ASOS, DVOR, REIL, and CFE systems, as well
as other stored equipment, is contingent upon the availability of
resources. Please provide a breakout from the budget request of the
additional resources to install current inventory of warehoused
equipment.
Answer. Currently there are various systems and equipment being
stored at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Depot awaiting
installation and commissioning at a future date. Specifically, these
systems and their cost of installation are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
PAPI (67 sites @ $85K average installation cost).................. 5.695
REIL (39 sites @ $50K average installation cost).................. 1.950
MALSR (23 sites @ $500K average installation cost)................11.500
DVOR Kits (8 sites @ 350K average installation cost).............. 2.800
LPDA (16 sites @ $50K average installation cost).................. 0.800
CFE (98 sites @ $257K average installation cost)..................25.186
______
Total.......................................................47.931
It is estimated that it would take the FAA a three to four year
period to complete this installation effort. Presently the FAA is not
warehousing any Automated Surface Observation Systems (ASOS) equipment.
instrument landing systems (ils)
Question. We understand that the FAA requirements office has
completed a review of airport locations that meet the FAA's
establishment criteria for Instrument Landing Systems (ILS). Please
provide the committee with a list of the airports and runways that
qualify for the establishment of an ILS system, including the
identification of Category I, Category II, and Category III sites.
Answer. In 1998, the Federal Aviation Administration performed a
cursory review of all airports using criteria identified in Airway
Planning Standard Number One (APS-1) and Establishment and
Discontinuance Criteria for Precision Landing Systems (FAA-APO-83-10).
The criteria used established a listing of requirements for 120 airport
locations that may qualify for runway precision approach capability.
The locations are listed below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport Region RWY Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX................................. Houston (KHOU)....... ASW.................. 22 CAT I
LA................................. Baton Rouge (KBTR)... ASW.................. 31 CAT I
OK................................. Oklahoma City ASW.................. 35L CAT I
(KOKC)ASW35LCAT I
TXLubbock (KLBB).
AR................................. Fort Smith (KFSM).... ASW.................. 7 CAT I
TX................................. Midland (KMAF)....... ASW.................. 34L CAT I
TX................................. Abilene (KABI)....... ASW.................. 17R CAT I
TX................................. Corpus Christi (KCRP) ASW.................. 31 CAT I
TX................................. El Paso (KELP)....... ASW.................. 26L CAT I
LA................................. Lafayette (KLFT)..... ASW.................. 4R CAT I
TX................................. Tyler (KTYP)......... ASW.................. 4 CAT I
AK................................. Anchorage (ANC)...... AAL.................. 6L CAT I
AK................................. Homer (HOM).......... AAL.................. 3 CAT I
NY................................. New York (JFK)....... AEA.................. 22R CAT II/III
NY................................. New York (JFK)....... AEA.................. 13R CAT I
NY................................. New York (LGA)....... AEA.................. 22 CAT II/III
NY................................. New York (LGA)....... AEA.................. 13 CAT II/III
NY................................. Buffalo (BUF)........ AEA.................. 14 CAT I
VA................................. Norfolk (ORF)........ AEA.................. 5 CAT II/III
NJ................................. Newark (EWR)......... AEA.................. 22L CAT II/III
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 27R CAT II/III
NJ................................. Atlantic City (ACY).. AEA.................. 31 CAT I
PA................................. Allentown (ABE)...... AEA.................. 24 CAT I
VA................................. Chantilly (IAD)...... AEA.................. 19R CAT II/III
MD................................. Baltimore (BWI)...... AEA.................. 15R CAT II/III
DC................................. National (DCA)....... AEA.................. 33 CAT I
DE................................. Wilmington (ILG)..... AEA.................. 19 CAT I
NJ................................. Wildwood (WWD)....... AEA.................. 19 CAT I
NY................................. Syracuse (SYR)....... AEA.................. 32 CAT I
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 25 CAT I
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 35 CAT I
MA................................. Martha's Vineyard ANE.................. 6 CAT I
(MVY).
MA................................. Boston (BOS)......... ANE.................. 32 CAT I
CT................................. Windsor Locks (BDL).. ANE.................. 15 CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16L CAT III
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16W CAT III
MT................................. Butte (BTM).......... ANM.................. 15 CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 34W CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16R CAT I
UT................................. Salt Lake City (SLC). ANM.................. 34L CAT III
CO................................. Colorado Spring (COS) ANM.................. 35R CAT I
CA................................. Sacramento Int'l AWP.................. 34R CAT I
(SMF).
CA \1\............................. Fresno (FAT)......... AWP.................. 29R CAT II/III
NV \1\............................. Las Vegas--Mccarran AWP.................. 01R CAT I
Int. (LAS).
NV................................. Elko Muni--J.C. AWP.................. 23 CAT I
Harris Field (EKO).
CA................................. Palm Springs Regional AWP.................. 31L CAT I
(PSP).
CA................................. Metropolitan Oakland AWP.................. 27L CAT I
Int'l (OAK).
CA................................. Buchanan Field (CCR). AWP.................. 19R CAT I
CA................................. Palmdale (PMD)....... AWP.................. 4 CAT I
NV \1\............................. North Las Vegas (VGT) AWP.................. 12 CAT I
HI................................. Honolulu Int'l (HNL). AWP.................. 08R CAT I
AZ................................. Mesa--Falcon Field AWP.................. 04R CAT I
(FFZ).
HI................................. Kahului (OGG)........ AWP.................. 20 CAT I
AZ................................. Laughlin--Bullhead AWP.................. 34 CAT I
Int'l (IFP).
CA................................. Hayward Air Terminal AWP.................. 28L CAT I
(HWD).
CA................................. Napa County (APC).... AWP.................. 36L CAT I
CA................................. Long Beach--Daugherty AWP.................. 25R CAT I
Field (LGB).
MO................................. Springfield-Branson ACE.................. 2 CAT II
Regional (SGF).
KS \1\............................. Hays Muni (HYS)...... ACE.................. 34 CAT I
IA................................. Cedar Rapids/The ACE.................. 9 CAT II
Eastern Iowa (CID).
IA................................. Dubuque Regional ACE.................. 36 CAT I
(DBQ).
IA................................. Des Monies Int'l ACE.................. 5 CAT I
(DSM).
IA................................. Sioux City/Sioux ACE.................. 31 CAT II
Gateway (SUX).
NE................................. Lincoln Muni (LNK)... ACE.................. 35L CAT II
FL................................. Jacksonville Int'l ASO.................. 31 CAT I
(JAX).
NC................................. Charlotte Douglas ASO.................. 18W CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
NC................................. Charlotte Douglas ASO.................. 36W CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
FL................................. Orlando-Sanford (SFB) ASO.................. 27R CAT I
NC................................. Charlotte-Douglas ASO.................. 18R CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 18R CAT III
FL................................. Daytona Beach Reg. ASO.................. 25R CAT I
(DAB).
FL................................. Orlando-Executive ASO.................. 25 CAT I
(ORL).
GA................................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO.................. 28 CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
GA................................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO.................. 10 CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
FL................................. Panama City-Bay Co. ASO.................. 32 CAT I
(PFN).
FL................................. Kendall-Tamiami Exec. ASO.................. 27L CAT I
(TMB).
FL................................. Kissimmee Mun. (ISM). ASO.................. 33 CAT I
KY................................. CVG./North KY Int'l. ASO.................. 27 CAT II/III
(CVG).
GA................................. Savannah Int'l (SAV). ASO.................. 27 CAT I
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 36R CAT I
TN................................. Knoxville (TYS)...... ASO.................. 23L CAT I
TN................................. McGhee Tyson (TYS)... ASO.................. 05R CAT I
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 18L CAT I
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 35R CAT1
KY................................. Bowman Field (LOU)... ASO.................. 24 CAT I
NC................................. Raleigh-Durham Int'l ASO.................. 23L CAT II/III
(RDU).
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 18L CAT III
TN................................. Nashville, JOHN C. ASO.................. 19 CAT1
TUNE (JWN).
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 17 CAT I
AL................................. Birmingham Mun. (BHM) ASO.................. 5 CAT I
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 35 CAT III
GA................................. Valdosta Reg. (VLD).. ASO.................. 17 CAT I
NC................................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO.................. 5N CAT II/III
Int'l (GSO).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 06R CAT I
(RSW).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 24L CAT I
(RSW).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 24 CAT I
(RSW).
FL................................. TAMPA, Vandenberg ASO.................. 22 CAT I
(X16).
FL................................. Tallahassee (TLH).... ASO.................. 18 CAT I
FL................................. Tallahassee Reg. ASO.................. 9 CAT I
(TLH).
FL................................. Pensacola Regional ASO.................. 35 CAT I
(PNS).
MS \1\............................. Olive Branch (OLV)... ASO.................. 18 CAT I
NC................................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO.................. 23N CAT I
Int'l (GSO).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale- ASO.................. 27L CAT I
Hollywood (FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale Int'l ASO.................. 09R CAT I
(FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale- ASO.................. 31 CAT I
Hollywood (FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale Int'l ASO.................. 13 CAT I
(FLL).
MS................................. Jackson Int'l. (JAN). ASO.................. 34R CAT I
MS................................. Jackson Int'l. (JAN). ASO.................. 16R CAT I
FL................................. ST. PETERSBURG INTL ( ASO.................. 17L CAT II
PIE).
KY................................. Blue Grass (LEX)..... ASO.................. 22L CAT I
KY................................. Blue Grass (LEX)..... ASO.................. 04R CAT I
WI................................. Milwaukee (MKE)...... AGL.................. 25R CAT I
MN................................. Duluth (DLH)......... AGL.................. 9 CAT II
MI................................. Traverse City (TVC).. AGL.................. 36 CAT I
MI................................. Flint (FNT).......... AGL.................. 36 CAT I
MI................................. Grand Radips (GRR)... AGL.................. 23R CAT I
OH................................. Columbus (CMH)....... AGL.................. 10S CAT I
MN................................. Minneapolis (MSP).... AGL.................. 17 CAT I
MI................................. Detroit (DTW)........ AGL.................. 4 CAT III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites were funded in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
instrument landing systems (ils)
Question. How does the FAA's fiscal year 2000 budget propose to
deal with these ILS and associated Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
requirements? Which of these ILS sites will be included in AIP grant
agreements, and which sites will the FAA propose to include in an F&E
budget request?
Answer. The FAA did not request funding in fiscal year 2000 for the
establishment of new Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) and ancillary
equipment.
Most of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) projects related to
an ILS are in the site preparation for other airport development, for
instance runway safety areas.
There has been a nominal amount of AIP funding in any given fiscal
year for acquisition of ILS's and ancillary equipment. When the AIP
funds an ILS, approach lighting, or Runway Visual Range equipment, the
airport has the option of transferring responsibility for maintenance
of the equipment to the FAA when the equipment meets FAA performance
specifications. The FAA's funding of the ILS program has traditionally
been funded in F&E.
Question. The committee was pleased to see in January 1999, as a
step toward meeting the Instrument Landing System (ILS) needs covered
in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, that the FAA
conducted a market survey to determine the qualifications of
manufacturers of commercial-off-the-shelf ILS systems. What are the
agency's milestones for completing its ILS acquisition plan, for
release of a solicitation for proposals, and for award of a contract
for COTS ILS systems?
Answer. The ILS Acquisition Plan is currently in the review cycle
and should be approved by May 31, 1999. It is expected that the
Screening Information Request will be released during the last quarter
in fiscal year 1999 and a contract award made by the first quarter of
fiscal year 2000.
Question. The committee understands that turnkey installation of
ILS systems may be faster and less expensive than if the FAA takes
delivery of the hardware for later installation by the FAA. What are
the comparative costs and timetables of these two approaches? Will
turnkey installation be considered as an option in the COTS ILS
contract?
Answer. At this time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
does not have comparative costs and timetables for FAA installation
versus turnkey installation. The turnkey installation times and costs
will not be available until a competitive commercial off-the-shelf ILS
contract is awarded in the first quarter of fiscal year 2000 for
systems to meet the fiscal year 1999 congressionally mandated
requirements. The contract will include provisions for turnkey
installation, but will be competed against a national installation
program headed by the FAA's National Implementation Office. The lowest
cost/best value for installation from these approaches will be
selected.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act contains
funds for 13 new ILS installations. Please provide a status report on
each of the ILS sites listed in the fiscal year 1999 conference report,
including the timetable for site surveys and an estimated date (year
and quarter) when the ILS is expected to be commissioned.
Answer. The following is the status of each of the 13 new ILS
installations listed in the fiscal year 1999 conference report:
Stanley County, NC.--The non-fed ILS has already been installed and
was commissioned in 1998. The site survey was completed in January
1999, and the money allocated is intended on improving and maintaining
the obstruction and safe areas. The airport manager is providing the
FAA with a detailed list of projects and their schedule.
March Airbase.--The site survey was completed in January 1999. The
FAA intends to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the March Joint
Powers Authority (MJPA) for the transfer of funds and has coordinated a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the areas of
responsibility. The MJPA has agreed to have the ILS commissioned within
18 months.
Fresno, CA.--A MK-20 was purchased and delivered. The site survey
was completed in January 1999. The region is in the process of
initiating installation. Commissioning is expected first quarter of
fiscal year 2000.
McCarran International, NV.--A MK-20 was purchased. A site survey
was completed in January 1999. Commissioning is expected in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2000.
The following sites will have existing MK-1F Localizer equipment
upgraded to Cat I ILS capability by the addition of compatible glide
slope and ancillary equipment. All site surveys have been completed.
Hays Municipal, KS.--The region has initiated the upgrade in
conjunction with the local authority. Funds have been provided to
accomplish the work. Commissioning is expected in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 1999.
Bessemer, AL.--A special survey determined the feasibility of using
a short endfire glide slope antenna. A short endfire antenna has been
identified and will be shipped to Bessemer when requested by the
region. Funds have been transferred to the region to complete the
upgrade. Commissioning is expected in the fourth quarter fiscal year
1999.
Olive Branch, MS.--The region has established upgrade plans. Funds
have been transferred to the region to complete the upgrade.
Commissioning is expected in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Clovis, NM.--The region has established upgrade plans. Funds have
been transferred to the region to complete the upgrade. Commissioning
is expected in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Zanesville, OH.--A special evaluation of upgrade equipment was
conducted by Ohio University. The region has established upgrade plans,
which will be modified based on the Ohio University results.
Commissioning is expected in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999.
The following sites, which have all been surveyed, will have Cat I
ILS equipment provided by a competitive COTS contract. Contract award
is expected in the first quarter of fiscal year 2000 with the first
delivery expected in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000. A market
survey has identified three possible vendors. While one vendor has
obtained FAR-171 approval, another is close to receiving approval and
the third has not initiated the FAR-171 process. FAR-171 approval is a
pre-qualification requirement for the contract.
Burlington Alamance, NC
Everett-Stewart, TN
Stennis International, MS
North Las Vegas, NV
wide area augmentation system (waas)
Question. Where is the WAAS program right now--please provide a
summary describing the current status of the program, the alternative
approaches that are actively under consideration, and what the
administration's strategy and timetable is for restructuring and
rebaselining the program?
Answer. WAAS Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is scheduled to
occur in September 2000. This 14-month schedule extension is due to the
following factors: technical difficulties experienced with one of four
software modules (the Corrections and Verification software module is a
major software element that focuses on corrections, integrity,
verification, and monitoring); additional time for both commissioning
and assumption of operations and maintenance duties by Airways
Facilities; accommodation of last year's congressional funding
reductions; and time to reduce overall program risk.
An Investment Analysis and program re-baseline is in process. The
Investment Analysis is considering four main alternatives as outlined
in the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRS \1\ WMS \1\ GUS \1\
GEOS (WAAS (WAAS (Ground
Future Navigation Alternatives (Geostationery Reference Master Uplink
Satellite) Station) Station) Station)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.............................................................. .............. ......... ......... .........
II............................................................. 3 13 3 6
III............................................................ 3 36 3 6
IV............................................................. 4 58 3 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional units to be added to the current WAAS network.
The Investment Analysis, scheduled for completion this summer, will
result in a formal rebaselining of the WAAS and LAAS programs by the
FAA. The FAA was encouraged by the recent Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory report released in January 1999 that stated
GPS, with appropriate WAAS/LAAS configurations, can satisfy the
required navigation performance as the only navigation system installed
in the aircraft and the only navigation service provided by the FAA.
Question. FAA recently announced another significant delay in the
WAAS program. What is the FAA's plan for meeting the list of near term
precision approach requirements that have been identified?
Answer. In July 1996 the FAA issued its Plan for Transition to
Global Positioning System (GPS)-Based Navigation and Landing Guidance.
This document outlines current FAA policy on meeting the requirements
for precision approach. The FAA has made a concerted effort to develop
GPS/Wide Area Augmentation Systems (WAAS) as a means to stem the
spiraling costs of precision approaches at thousands of locations
around the U.S. A conscious decision was made to sustain the current
Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) infrastructure until Satellite
Navigation becomes a reality. Although the schedule for the
commissioning of WAAS has been delayed, the policy for decommissioning/
sustainment is still valid, albeit with slight modifications to
coincide with the schedule delay.
The FAA is relying upon WAAS/Local Area Augmentation Systems (LAAS)
to satisfy all unmet (current and future) precision approach
requirements. Any new requests for precision approaches are being
delayed pending the deployment of satellite navigation. Requests for
sustainment/replacement are being handled on a case-by-case basis.
gps risk assessment study
Question. What will the cost and schedule impact be on WAAS and
LAAS if the FAA implements all of the recommendations in the Johns
Hopkins GPS Risk Assessment Study?
Answer. At this time, the FAA does not have the cost and schedule
impact. The FAA is developing an action plan to respond to the
recommendations. Additionally, the agency is reconfirming its plans for
transition as requested by Congress. This is being accomplished through
an updated investment analysis. The results of the investment analysis
will be briefed to the FAA management this summer with an expected
decision at that time.
Question. What criteria does FAA contemplate for determining which
of these identified ILS locations should be implemented first? Congress
believes that priority should be given to airports with new runways or
runway extension projects, airports that are experiencing air carrier
delays and/or safety problems due to lack of precision approach, and
airports that are experiencing significant growth which cannot be
accommodated without a precision approach. In addition, should
airports, which have been waiting for several years (since MLS) for a
precision approach, receive consideration?
Answer. The initial criteria to qualify for an instrument landing
system are contained in the Airport Planning Standard Number One (APS-
1), Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control
Services. However, based on the plans to transition to WAAS, we have
fielded only Category I systems necessary to enhance safety and meet
congressional direction.
gps jamming
Question. We have seen reports about recent GPS jamming tests that
disrupted the GPS signals along the East Coast recently. Tell us what
you know about those tests. How often has the GPS signal been
unavailable or unreliable for aviation and other users in the past
year? Are you aware of additional tests or periods of GPS unreliability
that can be expected this year?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) conducted a large scale
Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) exercise on the East Coast during the
last week of February 1999. This electronic jamming exercise
deliberately interfered with many systems (both government and non-
government) including GPS. The DOD conducts this type of testing to
ensure their readiness in a national emergency and to determine the
necessary equipment fixes to resist that jamming environment.
This late February 1999 exercise is one of many planned and
controlled ECM exercises scheduled for 1999. All ECM missions are fully
coordinated with FAA and other radio spectrum users.
There were 30 GPS interference tests/exercises coordinated in 1997
and 31 in 1998. Each test/exercise was accomplished over multiple
dates. GPS service was interrupted in select and controlled areas for
approximately 950 hours during 1998. Every one of the events was fully
coordinated. Additionally, the FAA notified all aviators and provided
alternate landing and/or navigation aids to support DOD's need to test.
Testing this year is progressing at the same rate as the last two
years, and the FAA expects to coordinate approximately 30 tests in
1999.
Question. There are complex questions and uncertainties about the
effects of jamming, unintentional interference or ionospheric
disturbances on GPS. What will happen if these problems do disrupt GPS
navigation and we have to become totally dependent on satellite
navigation? What is the estimated price tag for the Federal Government
or for users in providing the necessary safety margin against these
problems?
Answer. Ionospheric disturbances and radio-frequency interference
(RFI) caused by jamming or unintentional interference can impact GPS
and augmented GPS services in one of two ways: (1) RFI results in a
loss of satellite navigation service in the geographic area where the
RFI is present by denying users a sufficient number or quality of GPS
signals to provide positioning service and (2) severe ionospheric
disturbances can degrade signals (numbers or quality) from satellites
in a particular part of the sky to the extent that service availability
is reduced (possibly curtailing high-accuracy GPS procedures such as
precision approach). Potential solutions to RFI include the
implementation of avionics with appropriate levels of immunity and/or
the retention of part of the existing ground NAVAID infrastructure. A
set of navigation architecture candidates (different combinations of
avionics and ground NAVAID investments) that address the RFI issue have
been defined by the FAA's GPS Investment Analysis Team. A preferred
solution is expected to be recommended in July 1999. Ionospheric
disturbances of the GPS signal can be addressed through a combination
of forecasts, early detection/warning, and appropriate operational
procedures.
Cost estimates for the FAA to provide a secondary or redundant
navigation system to be used when the satellite based navigation system
is not operational are not available at this time. The FAA is updating
its GPS Investment Analysis (IA). This updated GPS IA will include
costs necessary to sustain ground-based navigation aids for backup
purposes for a minimum of 15 years. The updated GPS IA is expected to
be completed in July 1999.
multimodal radionavigation systems
Question. We hear from constituents, the General Accounting Office,
and the Department of Transportation Inspector General that backup
navigation systems are going to be necessary for the foreseeable future
because of a full range of complex questions about satellite
navigation. Tell us what existing radionavigation systems offer
multimodal benefits to various transportation users and beneficiaries,
not just aviation users, and which navaids might be most compatible
with satellite navigation for backup purposes?
Answer. The global positioning system (GPS) and LORAN-C provide
multimodal radionavigation service. Both systems support aviation,
marine, and trucking operations, and GPS is beginning to support rail
operations. Both systems also provide precise time dissemination to the
telecommunications and scientific communities.
Two basic requirements must be met to provide an aviation backup to
satellite navigation and landing operations: 1) the pilot must be able
to navigate to and hold and circle in the airspace at a specified
position, and 2) the pilot must be able to fly at least a nonprecision
instrument approach. Holding is the safety valve for regulating demand
to assure separation when systems fail. Air traffic controllers can
then safely manage aircraft approach and landing operations. The
ability to fly a nonprecision approach, either at the intended
destination airport or at an alternate airport, is necessary to recover
aircraft during instrument meteorological conditions.
The very-high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR), nondirectional
beacons (NDB), inertial navigation systems on the aircraft (currently
updated from distance measuring equipment), and tactical air navigation
systems (TACAN) meet these requirements today. Current LORAN-C avionics
can meet only the holding requirement; there are no LORAN-C avionics
available today that are approved for instrument approach operations.
instrument landing system (ils)
Question. The DOT Inspector General has indicated that backup
navigation capability should be provided for the next 15 years because
it is likely the transition to satellite navigation will not be in
place until 2015. We know there is a backlog of unmet requirements for
Instrument Landing System (ILS) equipment and in recent years the
Committee has provided additional resources to accommodate many of
these needs. Because of concerns about the backlog of requirements, the
FAA was asked to do a survey and analysis of existing and future needs
for ILS equipment. Will you provide us the results of that analysis and
a list of all the locations for which the FAA has identified current or
future ILS requirements?
Answer. In 1998, the FAA performed a cursory review of all airports
using criteria identified in the Airway Planning Standard Number One
(APS-1) and Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Precision
Landing Systems (FAA-APO-83-10). The criteria used established a
listing of 120 airport locations that may qualify for runway precision
approach capability. The locations are listed in the table that
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport Region RWY Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX................................. Houston (KHOU)....... ASW.................. 22 CAT I
LA................................. Baton Rouge (KBTR)... ASW.................. 31 CAT I
OK................................. Oklahoma City (KOKC). ASW.................. 35L CAT I
TX................................. Lubbock (KLBB)....... ASW.................. 35L CAT I
AR................................. Fort Smith (KFSM).... ASW.................. 7 CAT I
TX................................. Midland (KMAF)....... ASW.................. 34L CAT I
TX................................. Abilene (KABI)....... ASW.................. 17R CAT I
TX................................. Corpus Christi (KCRP) ASW.................. 31 CAT I
TX................................. El Paso (KELP)....... ASW.................. 26L CAT I
LA................................. Lafayette (KLFT)..... ASW.................. 4R CAT I
TX................................. Tyler (KTYP)......... ASW.................. 4 CAT I
AK................................. Anchorage (ANC)...... AAL.................. 6L CAT I
AK................................. Homer (HOM).......... AAL.................. 3 CAT I
NY................................. New York (JFK)....... AEA.................. 22R CAT II/III
NY................................. New York (JFK)....... AEA.................. 13R CAT I
NY................................. New York (LGA)....... AEA.................. 22 CAT II/III
NY................................. New York (LGA)....... AEA.................. 13 CAT II/III
NY................................. Buffalo (BUF)........ AEA.................. 14 CAT I
VA................................. Norfolk (ORF)........ AEA.................. 5 CAT II/III
NJ................................. Newark (EWR)......... AEA.................. 22L CAT II/III
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 27R CAT II/III
NJ................................. Atlantic City (ACY).. AEA.................. 31 CAT I
PA................................. Allentown (ABE)...... AEA.................. 24 CAT I
VA................................. Chantilly (IAD)...... AEA.................. 19R CAT II/III
MD................................. Baltimore (BWI)...... AEA.................. 15R CAT II/III
DC................................. National (DCA)....... AEA.................. 33 CAT I
DE................................. Wilmington (ILG)..... AEA.................. 19 CAT I
NJ................................. Wildwood (WWD)....... AEA.................. 19 CAT I
NY................................. Syracuse (SYR)....... AEA.................. 32 CAT I
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 25 CAT I
PA................................. Philadelphia (PHL)... AEA.................. 35 CAT I
MA................................. Martha's Vineyard ANE.................. 6 CAT I
(MVY).
MA................................. Boston (BOS)......... ANE.................. 32 CAT I
CT................................. Windsor Locks (BDL).. ANE.................. 15 CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16L CAT III
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16W CAT III
MT................................. Butte (BTM).......... ANM.................. 15 CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 34W CAT I
WA................................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA) ANM.................. 16R CAT I
UT................................. Salt Lake City (SLC). ANM.................. 34L CAT III
CO................................. Colorado Spring (COS) ANM.................. 35R CAT I
CA................................. Sacramento Int'l AWP.................. 34R CAT I
(SMF).
CA \1\............................. Fresno (FAT)......... AWP.................. 29R CAT II/III
NV \1\............................. Las Vegas--Mccarran AWP.................. 01R CAT I
Int. (LAS).
NV................................. Elko Muni--J.C. AWP.................. 23 CAT I
Harris Field (EKO).
CA................................. Palm Springs Regional AWP.................. 31L CAT I
(PSP).
CA................................. Metropolitan Oakland AWP.................. 27L CAT I
Int'l (OAK).
CA................................. Buchanan Field (CCR). AWP.................. 19R CAT I
CA................................. Palmdale (PMD)....... AWP.................. 4 CAT I
NV \1\............................. North Las Vegas (VGT) AWP.................. 12 CAT I
HI................................. Honolulu Int'l (HNL). AWP.................. 08R CAT I
AZ................................. Mesa--Falcon Field AWP.................. 04R CAT I
(FFZ).
HI................................. Kahului (OGG)........ AWP.................. 20 CAT I
AZ................................. Laughlin--Bullhead AWP.................. 34 CAT I
Int'l (IFP).
CA................................. Hayward Air Terminal AWP.................. 28L CAT I
(HWD).
CA................................. Napa County (APC).... AWP.................. 36L CAT I
CA................................. Long Beach--Daugherty AWP.................. 25R CAT I
Field (LGB).
MO................................. Springfield-Branson ACE.................. 2 CAT II
Regional (SGF).
KS \1\............................. Hays Muni (HYS)...... ACE.................. 34 CAT I
IA................................. Cedar Rapids/The ACE.................. 9 CAT II
Eastern Iowa (CID).
IA................................. Dubuque Regional ACE.................. 36 CAT I
(DBQ).
IA................................. Des Monies Int'l ACE.................. 5 CAT I
(DSM).
IA................................. Sioux City/Sioux ACE.................. 31 CAT II
Gateway (SUX).
NE................................. Lincoln Muni (LNK)... ACE.................. 35L CAT II
FL................................. Jacksonville Int'l ASO.................. 31 CAT I
(JAX).
NC................................. Charlotte Douglas ASO.................. 18W CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
NC................................. Charlotte Douglas ASO.................. 36W CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
FL................................. Orlando-Sanford (SFB) ASO.................. 27R CAT I
NC................................. Charlotte-Douglas ASO.................. 18R CAT III
Int'l (CLT).
FL................................. Daytona Beach Reg. ASO.................. 25R CAT I
(DAB).
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 18R CAT III
FL................................. Orlando-Executive ASO.................. 25 CAT I
(ORL).
GA................................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO.................. 28 CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
GA................................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO.................. 10 CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
FL................................. Miami Int'l (MIA).... ASO.................. 9R CAT III
FL................................. Panama City-Bay Co. ASO.................. 32 CAT I
(PFN).
FL................................. Kendall-Tamiami Exec. ASO.................. 27L CAT I
(TMB).
FL................................. Kissimmee Mun. (ISM). ASO.................. 33 CAT I
KY................................. CVG./North KY Int'l. ASO.................. 27 CAT II/III
(CVG).
GA................................. Savannah Int'l (SAV). ASO.................. 27 CAT I
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 36R CAT I
TN................................. Knoxville (TYS)...... ASO.................. 23L CAT I
TN................................. McGhee Tyson (TYS)... ASO.................. 05R CAT I
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 18L CAT I
FL................................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).. ASO.................. 35R CAT1
KY................................. Bowman Field (LOU)... ASO.................. 24 CAT I
NC................................. Raleigh-Durham Int'l ASO.................. 23L CAT II/III
(RDU).
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 18L CAT III
TN................................. Nashville, JOHN C. ASO.................. 19 CAT1
TUNE (JWN).
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 17 CAT I
AL................................. Birmingham Mun. (BHM) ASO.................. 5 CAT I
FL................................. Tampa Int'l (TPA).... ASO.................. 35 CAT III
GA................................. Valdosta Reg. (VLD).. ASO.................. 17 CAT I
NC................................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO.................. 5N CAT II/III
Int'l (GSO).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 06R CATI
(RSW).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 24L CAT I
(RSW).
FL................................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO.................. 24 CAT I
(RSW).
FL................................. TAMPA, Vandenberg ASO.................. 22 CAT I
(X16).
FL................................. Tallahassee (TLH).... ASO.................. 18 CAT I
FL................................. Tallahassee Reg. ASO.................. 9 CAT I
(TLH).
FL................................. Pensacola Regional ASO.................. 35 CAT I
(PNS).
MS \1\............................. Olive Branch (OLV)... ASO.................. 18 CAT I
NC................................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO.................. 23N CAT I
Int'l (GSO).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale- ASO.................. 27L CAT I
Hollywood (FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale Int'l ASO.................. 09R CAT I
(FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale- ASO.................. 31 CAT I
Hollywood (FLL).
FL................................. Ft. Lauderdale Int'l ASO.................. 13 CAT I
(FLL).
MS................................. Jackson Int'l. (JAN). ASO.................. 34R CAT I
MS................................. Jackson Int'l. (JAN). ASO.................. 16R CAT I
FL................................. ST. PETERSBURG INTL ( ASO.................. 17L CAT II
PIE).
KY................................. Blue Grass (LEX)..... ASO.................. 22L CAT I
KY................................. Blue Grass (LEX)..... ASO.................. 04R CAT I
WI................................. Milwaukee (MKE)...... AGL.................. 25R CAT I
MN................................. Duluth (DLH)......... AGL.................. 9 CAT II
MI................................. Traverse City (TVC).. AGL.................. 36 CAT I
MI................................. Flint (FNT).......... AGL.................. 36 CAT I
MI................................. Detroit (DTW)........ AGL.................. 4 CAT III
MI................................. Grand Radips (GRR)... AGL.................. 23R CAT I
OH................................. Columbus (CMH)....... AGL.................. 10S CAT I
MN................................. Minneapolis (MSP).... AGL.................. 17 CAT I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites were funded in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations.
loran-c
Question. We are aware of a draft report that Booz-Allen & Hamilton
(BAH) did in examining the costs and benefits of LORAN. According to
that report, users and user organizations expressed virtually unanimous
support for continuing LORAN, citing both economic and safety
justifications. We also understand the BAH work concluded that LORAN is
very cost-effective, accurate, and provides benefits for millions of
users, including aviation as well as marine and other users. Doesn't it
make sense to continue supporting a proven, multimodal radionavigation
system such as LORAN well into the next century, particularly when it
is among the least expensive and perhaps one of the best technical
complements to GPS?
Answer. The Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
the Federal Aviation Administration are deliberating on the merits of
continuing to provide LORAN-C service beyond the currently planned
termination date of December 31, 2000. We have not yet reached a
decision as to whether or not to extend the life of the system.
Question. When the Secretary testified, he indicated that because
of the significant interest by the user community in continuing LORAN
and because the value and benefits of providing this technology was
apparent, he wanted to work with Congress in continuing to provide
LORAN service. Tell us what specific actions the FAA is taking to
assure that the LORAN infrastructure is revitalized and LORAN continues
to be available well into the next century?
Answer. The Department of Transportation is still considering the
merits of extending the service life of LORAN-C. Decisions on specific
actions will be considered within the context of any future decision.
wide area augmentation system (waas)
Question. If there are further delays with the WAAS program, does
the FAA have a plan in place to deal with the increasing O & M costs of
aging ground based navigational systems in the NAS? What is the average
age of ILS systems in the NAS, and at what point will these systems
become a safety problem if not upgraded or replaced?
Answer. The FAA has a process in place to sustain equipment and
systems should further delays with the WAAS program result. NAS
infrastructure sustainment meetings were held in February and March of
this year to address this particular situation. The ILS system in
particular was identified as needing further sustainment. The FAA has a
Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) ongoing to upgrade older model
ILS's to state-of-the-art technology using solid state components. The
SLEP will increase reliability and availability of the equipment.
The average age of ILS systems is between 10 and 15 years old.
Current systems are expected to have a useful life of another 5 to 10
years due to modifications under the SLEP.
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
Question. Have all the human factors and related issues on STARS
been resolved?
Answer. No, not all of the human factors and related issues have
been resolved. We have resolved a significant number of human factors
issues through a collaborative effort with NATCA and PASS.
Agreement has been reached on the resolution and disposition of all
STARS Early Display Configuration (EDC) human factors issues.
Development of solutions to the remaining EDC human factors issues is
currently on-going.
We have also proceeded with development of solutions to STARS full
service system human factors issues that we know from our experience
with EDC human factors issues. In addition, an assessment of other
STARS full service system human factors issues is currently ongoing.
The assessment and related follow-on activities will be completed this
summer. The cost and schedule impacts for implementing human factors
solutions to the full service system will be available in the fall of
1999.
Question. Does the FAA have a firm plan and schedule for the
implementation of STARS?
Answer. The FAA recently developed an alternate program
implementation approach that addresses near-term equipment requirements
while STARS software development continues. Under the revised plan,
major components and initial deployment schedules are as follows:
STARS:
--Incremental development at two lower level FAA key sites.
--First key site initial operations: first quarter fiscal year 2000.
--Continue deployment of first FAA full service system to Eglin and
other DOD sites.
--Eglin full operations: third quarter fiscal year 2000.
--Merge DOD and FAA baselines after FAA full service system (with
computer-human interface changes) acceptance Existing Systems.
--Procure ARTS color displays (ACDs) for selected large TRACONs to
meet near-term critical needs.
--First site (New York TRACON) initial operations: August 2000.
An assessment of STARS full service system human factors issues is
currently ongoing. The assessment and related follow-on activities will
be completed this summer. The cost and schedule impacts for
implementing human factors solutions to the full service system will be
available in the fall of 1999.
Question. Is the implementation of the Early Display Configuration
(EDC) timely to solve the operational problems with the displays at
Washington Reagan National Airport and the New York and Dallas-Ft.
Worth TRACONs?
Answer. Under the FAA's revised program implementation approach,
the EDC will not be deployed at the sites identified above. Our revised
plan includes deploying ARTS color displays (ACDs) to these three sites
beginning in the summer of 2000. The ACDs are being procured because
they are readily available, fulfill an urgent need to replace displays,
and can be deployed at these sites before the STARS is ready for
operations. The EDC will be deployed at two lower level facilities
(Syracuse and El Paso) with lower traffic volumes and less complex
operations.
Question. Is the ``Ollie'' system configured to meet all of the air
traffic controller ``CHI'' issues that the STARS system has been (or is
anticipated to be) modified to address? If not, then when will those
``CHI'' elements not currently integrated in ``Ollie'' be eliminated
from the STARS procurement? Conversely, provide a schedule estimate for
modifying ``Ollie'' to meet all the ``CHI'' concerns addressed in the
STARS procurement and provide a cost estimate of doing the software and
hardware modifications to ``Ollie''.
Answer. No, the ARTS color display (ACD) (known as ``Ollie'') is
not configured to meet all of the computer-human interface (CHI)
requirements identified for the STARS system. The ACDs are being
procured because they are readily available (prior to STARS
availability) and fulfill an urgent need for displays at several large
TRACONs. The ACDs are functionally equivalent to the existing displays,
and controllers are familiar with their operation. Both the controllers
and the system specialists (who will maintain the displays) have agreed
to accept the displays ``as is.'' Once the ACDs are installed, the FAA
does not plan to upgrade them, since STARS will replace them (along
with the current automation system). The FAA is not planning to
eliminate the CHI modifications from STARS, since the unions have
determined that these changes are required to make the system
operationally suitable and acceptable to the FAA work force.
safe flight 21
Question. The Committee is concerned that the Alaskan Capstone
program is not currently considered to be part of the Safe Flight 21
program from the budget justification presentation and communications
from the FAA. Is this accurate? If it is considered to be part of the
program, how much of the Safe Flight budget request is slated for
Capstone activities?
Answer. The Alaskan Capstone Program is considered part of Safe
Flight 21 and is included in the Safe Flight 21 budget justification.
Funding for Alaska Capstone and Ohio Valley was earmarked by Congress
in fiscal year 1999. Specifically, Congress provided $11.0 million for
the Alaska ``Capstone'' initiative and $5.0 million for ADS-B prototype
testing in the Ohio Valley. However, since both programs have similar
goals, their efforts are being merged to leverage the benefits received
from each respective budget. The future budget requests satisfy both
Alaska Capstone and Ohio Valley initiatives.
In fiscal year 2000, $7.0 million of the $16.0 million budget
request for Safe Flight 21 is for Alaska Capstone.
research, engineering and development (r,e&d)
Question. Please provide an aggregate R, E&D appropriated budget
level for the past 20 fiscal years.
Answer.
Research, Engineering and Development Appropriation Aggregate R,E&D
Appropriated Budget Levels
[In thousands of dollars]
Enacted
Appropriation
Fiscal year Levels
1999.........................................................\1\ 150,147
1998.......................................................... 199,183
1997.......................................................... 208,412
1996.......................................................... 185,698
1995.......................................................... 259,192
1994.......................................................... 254,000
1993.......................................................... 230,000
1992.......................................................... 218,135
1991.......................................................... 205,000
1990.......................................................... 170,163
1989.......................................................... 160,000
1988.......................................................... 153,425
1987.......................................................... 141,700
1986.......................................................... 237,050
1985.......................................................... 265,000
1984.......................................................... 263,452
1983.......................................................... 177,755
1982.......................................................... 79,805
1981.......................................................... 105,625
1980.......................................................... 92,508
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 3,756,250
\1\ Includes $147 thousand supplemental for Year 2000 compliance.
threat image projection
Question. In the December 2, 1998, issue of Aviation Daily, it was
reported that Vivid Technologies ``unveiled a system that enables
security supervisors to evaluate the performance of airport screeners
using its explosives detection devices. The Threat Image Projection
(TIP) system transmits stored bag images to test an operator between
``live' bags generated by a Vivid system screening real passenger
baggage.'' Does the FAA currently undertake any research into systems
designed to evaluate or train airport screeners or to evaluate systems
developed by industry to do the same? What is the FAA's current
thinking on the role such systems have to play in improving the
professionalism and integrity of the integrated aviation security
system?
Answer. In fiscal year 1992, when the FAA Aviation Security Human
Factors R&D program was first established, a Commerce Business Daily
(CBD) announcement was published with functional requirements to
industry for the development of TIP for x-rays. In fiscal year 1993,
with initial funding for aviation security human factors, the scope of
technologies to enhance the screeners' capability to detect improvised
explosives devices was expanded by development of Computer Based
Training (CBT) for screeners. A second CBD announcement was issued in
fiscal year 1994, requiring enhanced TIP and CBT. In fiscal year 1996,
the FAA aviation security human factors program provided grants to air
carriers to upgrade 283 x-rays with TIP. Some x-ray vendors were
successful on new x-rays but were unable to upgrade older x-rays. The
FAA has been working with E,G&G Astrophysics, Heimann, Rapiscan, and
Vivid Technologies for the development and deployment of TIP on x-ray
equipment.
The FAA believes TIP will improve the professionalism and integrity
of the integrated aviation security system by providing: on-the-job
training capability to have screeners see improvised explosive devices
on a more frequent basis and to increase their vigilance; ability to
determine individual screener weaknesses and identify remedial training
requirements; on-line performance capability for screening company
supervisors, air carriers, and FAA to monitor checkpoint performance;
and the ability to determine a reasonable expected level of performance
for all screeners, nationwide.
explosives detection systems
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Bill included $24.6 million for acquisition of Threat
Image Projection-ready (TIP) airport X-ray equipment to screen carry-on
baggage. I understand that the FAA considers TIP technology as an
important new system component for maintaining the effectiveness of X-
ray system operators. The committee is concerned that despite recent
communication from FAA staff showing that these funds will be expended
this fiscal year for new TIP equipment, the procurement is moving very
slowly and may actually be delayed. Please provide a detailed summary
of all activity to date regarding the procurement of TIP-ready systems
utilizing the $24.6 million in allocated funds. In addition, please
explain the status of the procurement and any changes in process or
specifications that may affect the acquisition and the timetable.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998 the x-ray vendors' TIP systems were
still under development, and the following tests were performed:
--Initial FAA aviation security laboratory test.
--Operational assessment by air carriers.
Vendors were not ready for acquisition by the SEIPT until April
1999. The SEIPT has the following procurement schedule:
--Screener Information Request (an acquisition tool) issued and
initial vendors information meeting held April 5.
--FAA laboratory test of TIP systems, the week of April 19.
--Lease 10 units from each successful vendor in May for airport
testing.
--FAA Screener Assist Technology laboratory test, the week of June
14.
--Award contract(s) by June 30.
--Deploy x-rays July-September at all Category-X airports.
aircraft insulation
Question. Please summarize the nature and funding level of research
into the flammability of aircraft insulation over the past 10 fiscal
years. In addition, please provide the budget request level for these
activities for fiscal years 1996-2000.
Answer. Research into the flammability of aircraft insulation has
been related to improvements in postcrash fuel fire burnthrough
resistance and improvements in resistance to in-flight fire ignition
and flame spread. A summary of activities follows:
Full-scale test re-creation of the Air Tours 737 accident in
Manchester, England.--Corroborated early burnthrough time (1 minute)
determined by accident investigators and mapped out fire hazard spread
with time and distance in the cabin. Final report published. 1990.
Evaluation of improved insulation materials to delay postcrash fuel
fire burnthrough.--A full-scale test rig married to a 707-fuselage
section was designed and built for the evaluation of improved
insulation blankets under full-scale fuel fire conditions. Twenty-eight
tests were conducted. It was shown that either improvements in current
insulation blankets or insulation blanket replacement materials could
extend the burnthrough time for 5 or more minutes as compared to
current materials, which allow burnthrough in approximately 1.5
minutes. Final report published. 1994-1997.
Standardization of industry fire test method.--A round robin study
involving eight laboratories compared insulation film bagging materials
with the current FAA test requirement and a test method employed by
Boeing (small flame ignition resistance). It was shown that metallized
Mylar usually passed the FAA standard but always failed the industry
test, which was subsequently standardized. Final report published.
1996-1997.
Small-scale fire test method and criteria for insulation blanket
burnthrough resistance.--A test method and criteria was developed into
a standard and various materials were evaluated. 1998-1999.
Burnthrough resistance benefits during a postcrash fire.--World-
wide aircraft accidents over the past 20 years were analyzed to
determine the benefit of insulation blanket burnthrough barriers. On
the average it was determined that approximately six lives could be
saved per year. Final report drafted. 1998-1999.
Small-scale fire test method and criteria for insulation blanket
in-flight fire resistance.--Small, intermediate and full-scale tests
are being conducted to develop test criteria for insulation blankets
against in-flight fire. 1999.
Funding levels.--
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Budget request
1990.............................................................. 425
1991....................................................................
1992....................................................................
1993....................................................................
1994.............................................................. 375
1995.............................................................. 350
1996.............................................................. 425
1997.............................................................. 175
1998.............................................................. 175
1999...........................................................\1\ 1,000
2000....................................................................
\1\ In order to respond timely to issues resulting from the Swiss Air
accident, $450,000 was redirected from other aircraft safety budget line
items. This work is expected to conclude in fiscal year 1999.
coordinated faa/nasa research efforts
Question. Please provide a description of the nature of the
coordinated research efforts between the FAA and the NASA and the
rationale for what type of research activities are more appropriately
funded in the NASA budget, the FAA budget, or both.
Answer. FAA and NASA coordinated research is focused in the areas
of aviation safety, aviation efficiency and aviation environmental
compatibility. Major emphasis areas of the joint aviation safety
research are accident precursor identification, safety risk management,
accident prevention, and mitigation of consequences. Significant
collaborative research efforts in the area of aviation efficiency are
the definition and evolution of the National Airspace System (NAS)
architecture, development of prototype systems as first steps in
implementing new technology into the nation's aviation system, and
determining how to improve the effectiveness of the critical human
centered components of the future global aviation system. In the area
of environmental compatibility research, FAA and NASA research efforts
are combining to better assess and develop safe and affordable
technology options for reducing aircraft noise and emissions while
allowing a sustained growth of aviation.
NASA research efforts deal with the development of new breakthrough
technologies and the exploration of revolutionary new aviation system
operational concepts. FAA research is more linked with the near term
application of technology and science for immediate use in its
modernization and regulatory programs. Both FAA and NASA budgets must
support their parts of the joint research. NASA, to be effective in its
far term efforts, must be familiar with the present day operation of
the NAS. In the area of NAS efficiency, the new technology and concepts
developed by NASA have to be matured and validated sufficiently to
allow easy handoff to the FAA for implementation within the NAS.
Similarly, FAA must be adequately funded to allow its participation in
the evaluation of the NASA conceptual research products and to reap the
benefits of its own near term applied research programs in airspace
redesign; operational concept evolution; airport capacity studies; and
communications, navigation, surveillance, and automation system design.
NASA's enabling legislation directs that agency to maintain U.S.
leadership in aeronautical science and technology. In most
environmental compatibility considerations, that results in NASA being
provided the major resources for research and development activities.
However, because the FAA, as an operational agency, is generally more
sensitive to environmental needs, we are often able to provide
practical advice in establishing related goals and programs.
Therefore, FAA environmental research activities have recently
emphasized assessment capability (e.g., computer simulation of
technology application in fleet operation) and improving techniques for
certification of engines and aircraft to noise and emissions regulatory
standards.
waas program summary
Question. Since the Johns Hopkins Report on GPS interference was
issued, a number of respected people in industry and the scientific
community feel strongly that the report glossed over the issues related
to solar interference. With solar maximum set to occur within the next
couple of years, there is concern about how little is actually known
about predicting the severity and timing of solar events. Given the
FAA's desire to move toward the use of GPS as a sole source of
navigation information, what R&D is FAA conducting to be able to assure
the public that it has a clear understanding of how to forecast solar
events affecting satellite communications that could compromise the
safety of aircraft using GPS?
Answer. The FAA has an R&D Ionospheric Working Group (IWG)
consisting of experienced personnel from the FAA, Stanford University,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Raytheon, Zeta, ISI, and MITRE's Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development. Through analysis of extensive
data gathered worldwide over the last decade, the group believes it has
a solid understanding of the ionospheric signal delay phenomenon, as
well as spatial and temporal delay gradients observed at the peak of a
solar cycle, and the potential impacts on GPS and Wide Area
Augmentation System service. The IWG feels comfortable that operations
in the continental United States should be minimally impacted by the
behavior of the ionosphere. Operations in Alaska and Hawaii (polar and
equatorial regions, respectively) could be impacted to a larger extent,
but the resultant service will still be safe and represent a
significant performance improvement over current service.
weather research
Question. United Airlines has advocated improved satellite-based
now casting of oceanic routes since their fatal turbulence encounter on
the route from Japan to Hawaii. At recent meetings of oceanic working
groups, other major airlines flying between the U.S. and the South
Pacific also stated concerns about turbulence, particularly when
crossing the inter-tropical convergence zone. Given the airlines' level
of concern about turbulence encounters in oceanic areas (often related
to convection), is the FAA adequately funding research efforts
specifically targeted at improving forecasting of oceanic hazards to
air carriers?
Answer. The FAA's Aviation Weather Research Program (AWRP) is
primarily focused on applications such as inflight icing, improved
forecast models, ground deicing, convective weather, and turbulence
over the continental U.S. Much of the turbulence research being
conducted, while not specific to the forecasting of oceanic hazards,
does have application to this area. However, the AWRP's Turbulence
Product Development Team recently participated in the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric (NOAA) Winter Storms Reconnaissance Program. During
this field program, AWRP dropsondes (instrumentation dropped out of an
aircraft used to relay information) were released over the Pacific
Ocean to measure very detailed profiles of temperature and wind, with
fine-scale structures suggestive of turbulence. This information will
be a step in pinpointing locations of turbulence in systems of jet/
upper fronts and in convection ahead of the front.
Question. Ever since the United 737 accident in Colorado Springs,
experts have been divided over the extent to which terrain-induced
turbulence may have been involved. The NTSB recommended that the FAA
study this problem. FAA conducted a small data-gathering program in
Colorado Springs. Once the data was gathered, little effort was made to
analyze the data. In Juneau, after several near crashes of large
transport aircraft, the FAA nearly shut down air transport into and out
of Juneau for a large number of winter days. Local and state political
leaders from Alaska prevailed on Congress to have FAA consider other
less draconian solutions and to embark on a program to develop a safety
system to keep the airport open and provide alerts when unsafe terrain-
induced turbulence conditions exist. However, terrain-induced
turbulence is reportedly also an on-going problem at a number of other
airports including Colorado Springs, Anchorage, Reno, Dutch Harbor,
Ontario, Orange County, El Paso, Albuquerque, not to mention airports
overseas situated near mountains. Enroute and approach flying near
mountains is twice as dangerous as flatland flying, in large part
because of terrain-induced turbulence. Yet the FAA has no national
program to understand the problem of terrain-induced turbulence in the
terminal and enroute airspace. What do the FAA, NTSB, and NASA safety
databases suggest about the frequency of or suspicion of terrain-
induced accidents in the U.S. and worldwide? What are the pros and cons
of using the knowledge and experience from the Juneau program to launch
a concerted national safety research and alerting program to mitigate
the risk of accidents caused by terrain-induced turbulence in terminal
and enroute airspace?
Answer. The FAA, NTSB, and NASA safety databases indicate on
average about eight accidents per year, in the U.S., since 1978, due to
possible terrain-induced turbulence, with the only fatalities resulting
from the United 737 accident in Colorado Springs and an unscheduled
Part 135 in Albuquerque with one fatality.
We continue to analyze the feasibility of developing and deploying
an operational terrain-induced turbulence warning system based on the
results of the Juneau program. We will use the knowledge and experience
gained to launch a national terrain-induced research and alerting
program. From a broad perspective, the research and development process
(installation of research sensors, research field program with
aircraft, analysis of data, and development of warning algorithms)
undertaken in Juneau may have applicability to other airports. However,
each airport has its own specific terrain-induced turbulence anomalies
due to its individual topography. The possible solution at each airport
will result in site specific hardware and software implementations;
i.e., the solution at one airport will not be identical to the solution
at another airport.
Question. Ceiling and Visibility. This hazard continues to be the
second largest cause of weather-related accidents. Research funded to
date in ceiling and visibility has been a very targeted effort to solve
the problem of forecasting of marine stratus in San Francisco. Although
useful in terms of improving capacity at San Francisco, this effort
will do little to improve the national safety statistics. The primary
safety gains are to be made in the General Aviation community through
improved ceiling and visibility forecasting at smaller airports and in
the enroute airspace. Given the FAA's stated goal of reducing the fatal
accident rate by 80 percent, please describe what would be involved to
fund and establish a program to address improvement in forecasting
ceiling and visibility? How would forecasts be communicated to pilots?
How could changes to forecasts be communicated to pilots?
Answer. The lessons learned, processes, and techniques from the San
Francisco research effort would be utilized in establishing a
``national'' ceiling and visibility program. The ceiling and visibility
problem is complex as there are actually three major classes of ceiling
and visibility (C&V): C&V associated with marine stratus on the west
coast; C&V with winter storms impacting the east, upper midwest, and
northwest; and C&V associated with radiation fog which is primarily a
general aviation safety hazard.
A national ceiling and visibility program would apply technologies
developed during the San Francisco effort to improve the accuracy of
these three classes of forecasts which could be operationally generated
at the Aviation Weather Center. The forecasts and changes to the
forecasts will then be available/communicated to the pilots via the
internet, flight service stations, and datalink
Question. Please provide a table that presents the detailed
composition of the aviation weather R&D budgets for fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 on a comparable basis. The
detail should show Socrates, national laboratory funding, program
emphasis areas, program support, cost-benefit analysis support, in-
house Civil Service costs, and similar levels of detail.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
2000
1998 Enacted 1999 Enacted President's
budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation/Request........................................... $18,000,000 $18,684,000 $15,765,000
In-House........................................................ 800,000 848,000 665,000
Juneau Project.................................................. 3,500,000 \1\ 3,600,000 3,100,000
Center for Wind, Ice & Fog...................................... 500,000 336,550 250,000
Project SOCRATES................................................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 ..............
National Laboratory Funding..................................... 8,838,510 9,621,923 10,300,000
Infrastructure:
Program Office Support...................................... 772,990 716,072 900,000
Tech Center Support......................................... 400,000 325,000 325,000
Cost Benefit Analysis....................................... 188,500 236,455 225,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Facilities & Equipment appropriation.
weather research
Question. By program subcomponent, what was the Weather Research
program office's original request for aviation weather R&D at the
outset of the fiscal year 2000 budget formulation process? Which
program areas have suffered as a result of reductions during the budget
process?
Answer.
Aviation Weather Research--Program Office's Original Fiscal Year 2000
Request
Original Program Office Request......................... $22,900,000
In-House................................................ 665,000
Juneau Project.......................................... 3,100,000
Center for Wind, Ice & Fog.............................. 250,000
Project SOCRATES........................................................
National Laboratory Funding (Core Program).............. 11,460,000
Infrastructure:
Program Office Support.............................. 900,000
Tech Center Support................................. 375,000
Cost Benefit Analysis............................... 450,000
Currently Unfunded Research Areas................... 5,700,000
Question. What additional accomplishments could be achieved in
fiscal year 2000 if the program were funded at the program office's
original request?
Answer. The final budget level sufficiently funds the appropriate
mix of programs to support fiscal year 2000 objectives.
Question. A number of the products of the Aviation Weather Research
Program are used by the NEXRAD, ITWS, and WARP to integrate new
concepts into fielded systems used by air traffic controllers and
meteorologists. Have there been any funding-related delays associated
with the hardening and deployment of weather product software in these
NAS programs? Provide a list of the weather software applications
handed off from the Aviation Weather Research program to NEXRAD, ITWS
and WARP, along with a timetable and status of their implementation.
Answer. Funding constraints in the National Weather Service budget
have contributed to delays in implementing NEXRAD weather product
software applications. Specifically, implementation of the digital
velocity product (which is needed for ITWS) has been delayed until
2002. In addition, reductions to the National Weather Service budget
will result in delays to the next upgrade to NEXRAD. This will affect
the digital velocity product as well as several other new FAA
capabilities, which would be ready for implementation.
Neither the ITWS nor the WARP program has completed its initial
deployment (other than an interim ``phase zero'' WARP system).
Therefore, there has not been an opportunity to integrate new
technology from the Aviation Weather Research Program. Software
applications are not handed off to NEXRAD, ITWS, and WARP until those
systems are ready to receive them, thus there are no handed-off
applications to list.
helena regional airport
Question. What is the status of the Helena Regional Airport request
for taxiway construction improvements and planning and design funding
to correct the line-of-sight problems at the Helena Regional Airport?
Answer. The airport's request to construct taxiways is included as
part of a total project development to rehabilitate the runway and
correct the line-of-sight problem. The airport is directing the
majority of their resources towards this effort. The FAA allocated over
$1 million in AIP funding in fiscal year 1999 to construct taxiways
necessary for aircraft access to the main runway. It is anticipated
that this work will be accomplished within the next six months. The
additional work to correct the line-of-sight problem is contingent upon
AIP reauthorization being extended through fiscal year 1999.
In order for the line-of-sight problem to be corrected, the main
runway will have to be closed for approximately two months. The closure
schedule has been coordinated with the air carriers currently serving
the airport to identify the optimum time to begin the work while
reducing any operational impacts. The agreed upon optimum start date
between the airport and air carriers is May 2000. The airport is
requesting approximately $4.5 million in AIP funding to complete this
project.
concord regional airport
Question. Concord Regional Airport serves the Concord, North
Carolina area and was constructed as a reliever facility for Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport. It was designated in the fiscal year
1999 appropriations bill for priority consideration. In addition,
Concord Regional Airport base customers rose from 140 to 185 in the
past year, the City of Concord has spent almost $17 million in the past
5 years on improving the airport facilities (including a new terminal
and air traffic control tower), flight operations have increased from
25,000 in 1996 to an anticipated 60,000 this year, the new operations
are more complex because they included a higher percentage of jets and
turboprops, and an increasing number of the airport's customers are an
indication that the airport runway may be unsafe for their larger
aircraft in damp conditions. The airport has identified several
projects that qualify for AIP funding: completion of the runway
protection zone; a 1,500 foot extension of the 5,500 foot runway and
taxi lanes; safety improvements to an access road; and land acquisition
to the east and west of the runway. What is the status of fiscal year
1999 discretionary funding for these safety projects at the Concord
Regional Airport?
Answer. The State of North Carolina under the Block Grant Program
administers the AIP for this location. The FAA's AIP Airports Capital
Improvement Plan (ACIP) for North Carolina general aviation airports is
developed primarily from information generated and provided by the
state aviation officials. State aviation officials have indicated that
the airport has expressed much interest in extending the runway, which
includes both the runway protection zone and east west land
acquisition. The total project development is estimated to cost
approximately $20 million. At this stage, the airport is in the early
steps of preparing environmental documentation. State aviation
officials are working closely with the airport in this process. If a
successful environmental determination is provided, the project will be
considered by the FAA in fiscal year 2000 for AIP discretionary funds.
max westheimer airport
Question. Please provide a summary of the legal issues regarding
the use of the ancillary property of the Max Westheimer Airport in
Norman, Oklahoma, and please contact the subcommittee staff to provide
a briefing on what encumbrances lie against the non-operational
property attendant to the airport (i.e., the Swearingen Research Park
and Employment Center). The Committee's understanding is that this
general aviation airport and the property adjacent to the airport could
be put to better research and other activities that would benefit all
aviation users and activities if the land could be conveyed in
accordance with the University's development plan. Assuming the
proposed conveyances do not decrease the air traffic service to the
existing airport, is the Committee correct in the conclusion that the
FAA would facilitate the conveyances in accord with the University's
proposal?
Answer. The Max Westheimer Airport is owned and operated by the
University of Oklahoma at Norman, Oklahoma. Along the western boundary
of the airport property is an area of about 200 acres that the May 29,
1996 airport layout plan designates as a future employment center, part
of which is planned for aeronautical use, and part for nonaeronautical
use. On the southeast corner of the airport is a triangular area of
approximately 100 acres referred to as the ``Swearingen Research
Park'', although this designation does not appear on the 1986 airport
master plan or the 1996 airport layout plan. Apparently there are
pending development proposals relating to both areas. However, FAA has
received only preliminary conceptual information regarding these
proposals.
The United States Government conveyed airport property to the
University of Oklahoma in a series of six conveyances executed in the
period 1948 through 1958. These conveyances impose various conditions
on the use, sale, and lease of the property conveyed, depending
primarily on the applicable statutory requirements in effect at the
time of conveyance. To ascertain the specific legal issues applicable
to any proposed sale or lease airport property, it will be necessary to
review the particular conveyance applicable to the parcel involved.
Generally speaking, whether or not a proposed conveyance would decrease
air traffic service to the existing airport is not necessarily
determinative of whether FAA would approve the proposed conveyance.
The FAA Arkansas/Oklahoma Airport Development Office in Fort Worth,
Texas, is available to provide guidance to the University of Oklahoma
to ensure that the University's proposals comply with its obligations
to the Federal Government as a public airport owner and sponsor.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
newark arrival optimization--prm/lda
Question. In the last quarterly report on the Newark Delay
Reduction Initiatives, FAA advised that work had begun on the
procedures for the LDA and Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). Where will
the PRM for Newark come from ? Will it come from your existing
inventory ?
Answer. Work has begun on Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach
(SOIA)/Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) issues. Limited funding is
available to study the feasibility of SOIA/PRM for Newark.
The next step will be to simulate SOIA/PRM procedures to determine
optimal system effectiveness. Once this work is completed, the results
will drive the next phase, which could include extensive airspace
remodeling.
The PRM for Newark will not come from the existing inventory. A
determination to place a system at Newark, will necessitate a new
procurement.
Question. If not, when? In other words, in what budget does FAA
expect to be requesting funds for procurement and precisely when will
the equipment be available and commissioned?
Answer. Preliminary work has begun on modeling procedures.
Planning, simulation, and coordination efforts are expected to be
complete in summer 2000. Depending on the outcome of the analysis, the
FAA would determine the appropriate method for identifying a PRM system
for Newark.
Question. Does the FAA have ILS's available for installation as
LDA's?
Answer. There are currently no spare Instrument Landing Systems
(ILS) available for use as Localizer Directional Aids (LDA). All ILS
systems procured have been delivered and have specific site locations
assigned to them. There are contract options to procure additional
ILSs; however we have not requested funding for this project.
departure spacing program
Question. The Departure Spacing Program initiative has been
realigned under the Free Flight Phase 1 Program Office, and funded
through fiscal year 1999. Funding will be required in fiscal year 2000
to sustain the program, to develop enhancements such as true two-way
interface, and to install additional equipment at Teterboro, White
Plains, New York Center, and the Air Traffic Control System Command
Center. What portion of the Free Flight Phase 1 funding in the fiscal
year 2000 budget is allocated to DSP sustainment and expansion?
Answer. The Free Flight Phase 1 Program Office has allocated $2.5
million for DSP sustainment in fiscal year 2000. Development and
implementation of the two-way interface is nearing completion. No funds
are allocated for enhancements or expansion to other locations pending
future validated requirements.
Question. Is this amount adequate to bring about each of the
activities cited above? Precisely how much is budgeted for each
activity?
Answer. The Free Flight Phase 1 Program Office will provide $2.5
million for DSP sustainment requirements in fiscal year 2000. We have
not requested funding for enhancement or expansion activities.
Question. If there is no amount currently budgeted, how much would
be required to accomplish these tasks?
Answer. We estimate that $2.5 million is required in fiscal year
2000 for DSP sustainment. Further expansion costs will depend on future
validated requirements.
airspace redesign
Question. Preliminary program milestones have been established for
both the national and NY/NJ Metropolitan Airspace Redesign projects.
Precisely what level of funding is needed to achieve these milestones
in fiscal year 2000 and beyond? Are these funds included in their
entirety in your fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes an increase of
$6,622,000 over a base of $3,000,000 in the Operations appropriation.
Additionally, with the increased redesign analysis required to support
early Free Flight Phase I capability deployment, we have requested
$3,000,000 in the Facilities and Equipment appropriation to support
further National Airspace Lab development. The Lab provides all of the
data and the majority of the actual airspace analyses to support the
focus leadership teams conducting the National Airspace Redesign.
The airspace redesign for the entire country will be accomplished
over a 7 to 9 year period. We anticipate the New Jersey and New York
Metropolitan area to take approximately 5 years. Future year budgets
will be worked to ensure sufficient levels of funding.
Question. Precisely what level of funding is requested in each
relevant FAA account for the national redesign project and the NY/NJ
Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project? Please display by project and
account.
Answer. Airspace redesign activities center on the various air
route traffic control centers and high-traffic airports that make up
the traffic flows that affect the New Jersey and New York metropolitan
area. Facility and regional collaborative teams meet on a regular basis
to discuss airspace issues and redesign initiatives. Proposals will be
modeled for operational and environmental feasibility. A systematic
approach is vital to the success of the National Airspace Redesign.
Funding for the New Jersey and New York metropolitan area redesign
efforts support this systematic approach. Of the $9,622,000 request,
$6,622,000 is directly in support of the New Jersey and New York
airspace efforts. The general funding profile for the overall National
Airspace Redesign project is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Purpose
Travel and overtime for the Eastern Region Focus Leadership Team
meetings supporting the National Airspace Redesign with
specific focus on the New Jersey and New York metro area...... 1.5
Travel and overtime for New England, Southern and Great Lakes
region to support New Jersey and New York flows and National
Redesign...................................................... 1.8
Environmental scoping, public meetings, draft Environmental Impact
Statement for New Jersey and New York......................... 3.0
Contractor support, equipment, and training for the Eastern Region .3
Expansion of National Airspace Redesign activities to Western
Pacific, Northwest Mountain, Central, Southwest and Alaska
Regions....................................................... 3.0
______
Total fiscal year 2000 request.............................. 9.6
The FAA is also requesting $3.0 million in Facilities and Equipment
funding to support the National Airspace Lab. The Lab provides all the
data and the majority of the actual airspace analysis to support the
New Jersey and New York Airspace Redesign. The F&E request is for full-
scale development of the Airspace Management Laboratory only, no
airspace redesign labor. Full Time equivalent estimates include FAA
required Laboratory staff to provide data and perform analyses in
support of most nav/landing and automation IPT's. These will be air
traffic operations data and studies of the impact of alternative
deployments and configurations on air traffic driven by airspace design
and environmental parameters contributing to the definition and
acceptance of new system relocation, and replacement requirements
leading to the best performance, deployment, and quantities of systems
to be ultimately accepted under the NAS redesign program.
Question. What portion of this funding request is allocated
specifically for the NJ/NY Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project?
Answer. The initial National Airspace Redesign encompasses a
triangular area from New Jersey, New York and Boston, west to Chicago,
south to Miami, back to New Jersey, New York and Boston. The operations
funding request fiscal year 2000 is an increase of $6,622,000 over a
base of $3,000,000 for a total of $9,622,000. Analyses of trunk flows
from other areas of the country are vital to the success of the New
Jersey and New York airspace redesign efforts. Funding for the National
Airspace Redesign supports a systematic approach under which the New
Jersey and New York Metropolitan area is being redesigned. $6,622,000
of the $9,622,000 million request is directly in support of the New
Jersey and New York airspace efforts. The remaining funding covers
areas outside, yet affected by the character of the New York Traffic,
and is the next incremental step in this National redesign process. The
general funding profile is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Purpose
Travel and overtime for the Eastern Region Focus Leadership Team
meetings supporting the National Airspace Redesign with
specific focus on the New Jersey and New York metro area...... 1.5
Travel and overtime for New England, Southern and Great Lakes
region to support New Jersey and New York flows and National
Redesign...................................................... 1.8
Environmental scoping, public meetings, draft Environmental Impact
Statement for New Jersey and New York......................... 3.0
Contractor support, equipment, and training for the Eastern Region 0.3
Expansion of National Airspace Redesign activities to Western
Pacific, Northwest Mountain, Central, Southwest and Alaska
Regions....................................................... 3.0
______
Total fiscal year 2000 request.............................. 9.6
The FAA is also requesting $3.0 million in Facilities and Equipment
funding to support the National Airspace Lab. The Lab provides all the
data and the majority of the actual airspace analysis to support the
New Jersey and New York redesign.
global implementation of safety improvements
Question. Airline operations based outside North America and Europe
have two-thirds of the airline accidents but have only one-fourth of
the world's flights. They have the same type of airplanes in with a
much higher rate of accidents because the investment in operations and
infrastructure in these aviation systems is not balanced with safety
improvements incorporated into the airplane. Therefore, we need to
focus our international programs to address operations and
infrastructure.
As an example, the highest number of fatalities in commercial
aviation accidents is attributed to Controlled Flight into Terrain
(CFIT). Worldwide implementation of EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity
Warning Systems) into the in-service fleet of airplanes is expected to
significantly reduce CFIT accidents.
U.S. airlines have agreed to incorporate this advanced technology
into their entire fleets; the FAA is making this a requirement for all
U.S. operators. Boeing and Airbus are incorporating this advanced
technology into their on-going production aircraft. However, in the
last ten years all but one of the world's CFIT accidents involving
commercial jet transports has occurred outside the United States.
How can Congress help the FAA to ensure worldwide implementation of
this and other significant safety enhancements?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has long been a
proponent of global implementation of any significant safety
improvements, most often through the aegis of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). As a major recent example of such an
initiative, FAA has been a vigorous supporter of ICAO's Global Aviation
Safety Plan (GASP), an ICAO effort launched in 1997 following the large
number of aviation accidents which occurred in 1996. The aims of this
plan are threefold: (1) achieve a significant decrease in the world-
wide accident rate, (2) enhance the identification of shortcomings and
deficiencies in the air navigation field and assist States to achieve a
significant degree of improvement, and (3) increase and improve ICAO's
own capability to compile, assess, and disseminate safety-related
information. ICAO's multifaceted program to achieve these goals include
initiatives such as the ICAO CFIT prevention program (including the
introduction of predictive terrain hazard warning systems such as EGPWS
and minimum safe altitude warning systems), increased emphasis on
accident/incident analysis based on ICAO's Accident/Incident (ADREP)
System, airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS) equipage
requirements, and the new ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit
Program.
FAA also uses other international forums to promote safety
improvements. Last fall, for example, FAA launched its new Air
Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) with its initial application to
ten major U.S. carriers. At several recent regional meetings overseas,
FAA has made formal presentations on ATOS to explain the philosophy and
procedures for this new data-driven method of air carrier oversight.
faa leadership in aviation safety
Question. The demand for FAA aid from foreign countries is
exceeding the supply of qualified specialists. Thus, the FAA cannot
fully support important programs that help foreign authorities become
self-sufficient and will lead to improved safety of the world aviation
system. This increasing demand for FAA resources has come from the
recognition that many countries' aviation infrastructure does not meet
the minimum ICAO standards. How can Congress help the FAA maintain its
leadership role in aviation safety?
Answer. As mentioned before, ICAO has recently launched its new
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program, a program which can result in
the identification of safety oversight deficiencies in ICAO Contracting
States. In such scenarios, ICAO makes available the follow-on services
of its Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) to assist States in
developing and implementing action plans to address any identified
deficiencies. The TCB has many years of experience in planning and
executing technical assistance projects, both on bilateral and
multilateral bases and, through a register it maintains, has access to
many well-qualified technical experts and consulting firms. FAA
encourages other authorities to take advantage of such ICAO services,
along with those which can be provided by independent consultants and
consulting firms, to address any shortcomings.
FAA has found other ways to provide important assistance, usually
on a more efficient multilateral basis. For example, FAA is now nearing
completion of a model law and regulations which it will make available
to ICAO and other authorities. In conjunction with ICAO's TRAINAIR
program, FAA is now collaborating with ICAO on developing related
inspector training courses. FAA has also been an important participant,
both in providing its technical expertise and making financial
contributions, in regional ICAO TCB safety oversight improvement
projects in South America and Asia. Although not an assistance
initiative per se, but as a further example of its leadership role, FAA
has, on a long-standing basis, worked with other authorities
(particularly the European Joint Aviation Authorities) in the
continuing development and refinement of harmonized regulations in the
areas of personnel licensing, operations, aircraft maintenance, and
aircraft certification.
new policy proposals
Question. As countries share in the economic benefits associated
with aviation, their civil aviation authorities need to take greater
responsibility for providing oversight within their own country.
However, these civil authorities need assistance from the FAA in the
near term to develop their own aviation infrastructure. In addition to
the FAA's participation in international programs, what other U.S.
government policies are needed to ensure that other countries assume
their regulatory responsibilities?
Answer. FAA agrees that other authorities need to satisfy their
obligations which their governments' accepted when they became
signatories to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly
known as the Chicago Convention) and its annexes. In the context of the
FAA's own International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program,
present policy is adequate in that the FAA already takes action to
determine if other authorities are in compliance with their ICAO
obligations and, when non-compliance is determined, imposes
``penalties'' on the foreign carriers licensed by these non-compliant
authorities which serve, or seek to serve, the United States. As the
new ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program is expanded to other
areas in the coming years (e.g. accident investigation, air traffic
services, and airports), related U.S. policymaking may be necessary.
Question. Safety indicators such as accident rates are the same for
U.S. and Europe--both systems have equivalent safety, but different
safety regulations. However, manufacturers have had to meet both sets
of regulations and demonstrate regulatory compliance to both agencies
at considerable cost and no additional safety benefit.
In an effort to reduce cost and improve efficiency, the FAA, JAA
and industry established a regulatory harmonization program. This
harmonization project has taken much longer and proven more difficult
than originally envisioned. If safety is to be improved in the shortest
time frame, it is important for the FAA, JAA, and ICAO to collaborate
on a coordinated strategy to develop and implement international high-
level safety performance requirements. The safety indicators show that
the high leverage safety requirements are in airline operations and
infrastructure.
What agreements do you believe are needed between the U.S. and
Europe to recognize the equivalent level of safety amongst their
aviation systems? And as a follow on, what agreements are needed for
the U.S. and Europe to jointly promulgate these safety requirements
throughout the world?
Answer. In effort to recognize the equivalent level of safety
already inherent in our standards, the FAA and European Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA) jointly developed the Harmonization Work Program
(HWP) creating a structure and formal procedure for the harmonization
of safety regulations.
In the area of aircraft certification, the main goal of the
harmonization effort is to provide a process whereby applicants could
comply with one accepted standard, and avoid having to prove that each
product met different, but parallel standards in each country where the
product would be sold. This process is designed to promote
standardization and ensure that problems of multiple interpretation of
standards are minimized. Both the FAA and JAA are committed to this
harmonization effort.
Because most transport airplanes operated throughout the world are
built and certificated in the U.S. and Europe, our safety requirements
are inherently promulgated throughout the world with regard to design
requirements.
Products manufactured in Canada and Brazil meet both FAR and JAR
requirements, further demonstrating a single, worldwide type design
standard.
The FAA and JAA have efforts underway to harmonize operating
regulations as well as maintenance regulations. While these efforts are
not as mature as the effort on aircraft design and manufacturers, they
are intended to result in a safety standard that is acceptable in both
the U.S. and Europe.
subcommittee recess
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, we appreciate your appearing
here today. We appreciate your patience and, moreover, your
candor. The hearing is now recessed.
The Subcommittee on Transportation-Related Agencies will
reconvene on Thursday, March 25, at 10 a.m., here in Dirksen,
124. The hearing topic is the U.S. Coast Guard's fiscal year
2000 budget request and other operational issues. Admiral Loy,
the Coast Guard commandant, will testify at that hearing.
Thank you for coming. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
March 25.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. C. Richard Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, and Lautenberg.
COAST GUARD BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. Coast Guard
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES M. LOY, COMMANDANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF RICHARD SHELBY
Senator Shelby. We meet today to consider the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the United
States Coast Guard.
I would like to welcome Admiral James Loy, the Commandant
of the Coast Guard here again today. The Coast Guard has not
appeared before the subcommittee in a while, so I am especially
interested in discussing the budgetary and operational issues
facing the Coast Guard with you.
I have a statement to insert in the record, which will save
some time and I would like to begin with just a few brief
observations.
I believe it is illustrative to place the Coast Guard
budget in a broader perspective. If the AIR-21 bill follows in
the tradition of TEA-21 and establishes new budgetary firewalls
for aviation accounts, the FAA's budget would not only be
fenced, but also would consume much of the Department of
Transportation's general revenue funding.
Assuming we adhere to the budget caps, this also means
there would not be any room to fund the Coast Guard. I am
concerned about how the Coast Guard will continue to maintain
the quality and ready forces that you have today.
The ever escalating number of operations is beginning to
take its toll. With every new deployment or additional
functional assignment, we are burning out Coast Guard service
men and women and their families, just as much as we are
wearing out the ships, aircraft and equipment they operate.
The Coast Guard has many other challenges to face this year
such as affording the Deepwater Project procurement, recruiting
and retaining high-quality people in the thriving economy,
making up the shortfall in the likely event that the
navigational user fee is not enacted and balancing their
limited resources between the varied and disparate missions.
Again, Admiral I will look forward to your testimony and to
the discussion of these pertinent issues. And as I said my
complete statement will be made part of the record without
objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard C. Shelby
Good Morning. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet today to
consider the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
United States Coast Guard. I would like to welcome Admiral James Loy,
the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has not appeared
before this subcommittee in a while, so I am especially interested in
receiving your testimony and discussing the budgetary and operational
issues facing the Coast Guard.
Before we begin, I want to take this opportunity to once again
state my concern over the growing popularity to build a ``firewall''
around certain transportation programs, thereby insulating them from
the annual competition for scarce federal resources. While I do not
believe we should undo the highway and transit firewalls, we should not
rush to create the same bugetary treatment for aviation.
If the Air-21 bill follows in the tradition of TEA-21 and
establishes new budgetary firewalls for aviation accounts, the FAA's
budget would not only be protected by a budgetary firewall, but also
would be guaranteed massive increases in general revenue contributions.
Assuming we adhere to the budget caps, there would not be any funds
available for any Department of Transportation program other than
highways, transit, and aviation. The accounts that would have to be
dramatically cut or actually eliminated includes Amtrak, highway safety
programs, and pipeline and hazardous materials safety programs. I hope
all of you here today understand that this also means there would not
be any room to fund the Coast Guard.
Returning to the matter at hand, the Coast Guard is perhaps best
known for responding every day to people in distress and rescuing them
without regard for time, weather, or sea state. While they will always
answer the call for help, it is only one of a wide range of missions we
have come to expect the Coast Guard to meet. On any given day, Coast
Guard personnel are stemming the flow of illegal drugs and illegal
migrants at sea, preventing and responding to major maritime oil
spills, and aiding barges and carriers in our shipping lanes. The Coast
Guard is indeed a versatile multi-mission agency.
I am concerned, however, that the Coast Guard may be a victim of
its own success. As an agency that has accepted any responsibility
thrust upon it, the number of operations has jumped. There is no relief
in sight. And, to exacerbate the situation, I believe that the
independent Presidential Commission to evaluate the roles and mission
of the Coast Guard is more likely to recommend additional or enhanced
duties than to eliminate current statutory functions.
This increase in operations came on the heels of trimming its force
to the smallest size since the late 1960's. Because of this combination
of events, Coast Guard personnel are working harder than ever and
``doing more with less.'' With every new deployment or additional
functional assignment, we are burning out our ``Coasties'' and their
families just as much as we are wearing out the ships, aircraft, and
equipment they operate.
Complicating the Commandant's task of recruiting and retaining high
quality personnel, Coast Guard wages have not kept pace with the
civilian economy and the military benefits, especially health care,
have been slowly, yet steadily, eroded. Furthermore, as we make it less
and less attractive to serve, we will not be able to recruit high
quality people. The President's budget includes a 4.4 percent increase
in military and civilian pay, additional housing allowance, and other
quality of life initiatives.
The Coast Guard has many challenges to face this year--the
deepwater procurement, recruiting efforts, retention efforts,
sustaining the current level of operations, making up the shortfall in
the likely event that the navigational user fee is not enacted, and
balancing their limited resources between the varied and disparate
missions. Again, I look forward to your testimony and to the discussion
on these and other pertinent issues.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, do you have a
statement?
STATEMENT OF FRANK LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I apologize for my tardiness. And I particularly want to
apologize to Admiral Loy, whom we have been trying to have a
conversation with, and it just did not work out.
We have been a little stressed with the budget, which is
the source of our discussion this morning. And I assume that
Peter Rogoff, my capable assistant, was able to get you,
Admiral, and clear up some of the questions that existed. You
are looking at two Coast-Guard-loving senators.
Each of our states has a dependence on the Coast Guard and
I am sure I speak for Senator Shelby when I say we really
appreciate the job that is being done by all of your people,
Admiral, from yourself down. I know it is always reassuring to
me. I am an amateur sailor, and amateurs always need help.
I look out my window in New Jersey in the apartment I live
in, Mr. Chairman, which is right on the Hudson River, and I see
the Coast Guard boats patrolling up there.
Senator Shelby. Excuse me a minute, but up around Martha's
Vineyard, he is a pro at sailing. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. We are not talking about that.
Admiral Loy. That is what I have heard, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I will tell you, I once had to
put out an emergency call to the Coast Guard before I was in
the Senate. I resolved that once I was in the Senate, I would
never have the nerve to get on the radio and say, ``I need
help.'' [Laughter.]
But they were there--Johnny on the spot, as always.
Well, today is Commandant Loy's first appearance before
this subcommittee, and we welcome you and your staff this
morning.
Admiral Loy. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. More than four years ago, the then
Secretary of Transportation, Frederico Pena, directed all of
the modal administrators within DOT to take a serious look at
their budgets and determine ways in which they could streamline
and downsize their operation.
At that time, Admiral Kramek was the Commandant. And like
all good military officers, the Admiral moved out swiftly,
quickly and developed a comprehensive streamlining plan that
continues to be implemented to this day.
Now, Admiral Loy was the Coast Guard Chief of Staff during
the early years of the streamlining plan. And you have seen the
impact of the plan, first as Atlantic Area commander and now as
the Commandant of the Coast Guard. And I have reviewed your
testimony.
There is one sentence that looms larger than any other for
this Senator, Mr. Chairman.
In your formal statement, Admiral Loy says, ``After several
years of streamlining, the Coast Guard is at its smallest size
since 1967, while at the same time having its greatest number
of missions ever.''
And, boy, that could not be more obvious. So whenever there
is a new area that we need attention paid to, it is always the
Coast Guard that is called in when there is a marine and
sometimes a land-bound problem.
The situation, Admiral, is that you have developed experts
and expertise in a lot of areas. And we need you in those
situations. And how do you continue to be effective, do the job
that you and your people are committed to do, while we
constantly squeeze down on the budget? It is something short of
miraculous.
The same year, Mr. Chairman, that the total Department of
Transportation budget will top $50 billion for the first time,
we will have the smallest Coast Guard in over 30 years.
The fact does not sit well with me. Our expectations of the
Coast Guard are always high.
We expect them to constantly be able to change gears, to
rapidly enhance our war on drugs, respond to a sudden surge in
Haitian or Cuban migrants. We expect them to be able to respond
immediately to oil spills, all the while demonstrating nothing
short of consistent excellence in their core missions of marine
safety, search and rescue and national security.
Mr. Chairman, the motto of our Coast Guard is ``Semper
Paratus,'' ``Always ready.'' And I know that its leadership is
very reluctant to acknowledge when they could, maybe, not be
ready.
But I believe this subcommittee has a responsibility to
analyze carefully the fiscal realities and the practical
realities of what it means to have more missions than ever
before with the smallest Coast Guard in 30 years.
coast guard's primary responsibility
My biggest concern is that perhaps we are just asking too
much of the Coast Guard. When you look at how all other
transportation modes have responded to Secretary Pena's
instruction to downsize, we find that the Coast Guard has lost
a larger percentage of its force than any other. Indeed,
certain DOT modes have not lost any staff at all. Some have
grown slightly.
Over the last year, we have seen a couple of tragic
incidents indicating possible difficulties in one of the Coast
Guard's core missions, search and rescue.
Both in the case of the sailing vessel, Morning Dew, and
the fishing vessel, Adriatic, we have seen a tragic loss of
life as a result of distress calls that were not answered,
period.
Admiral Loy is to be commended for developing and deploying
both a short- and long-term plan to address these deficiencies
that were highlighted in these two cases.
And I can only hope that we have not allowed the Coast
Guard's readiness in dealing with search and rescue to be
diminished while we have directed new funding to other
missions.
Last year, the Omnibus appropriations bill provided nearly
$272 million in emergency funding to enhance the Coast Guard's
war on drugs.
Is drug interdiction important? Of course, it is. But we
must never lose sight of the fact that we always have got to
protect the funding needed for the Coast Guard's basic or core
domestic missions.
And none is more core, more central to the Coast Guard's
identity than search and rescue. We do not do search and rescue
utilizing joint task forces. The Coast Guard and the Coast
Guard alone is responsible for maritime search and rescue
mission.
So as we discussed the Coast Guard budget this morning, I
hope and expect that the Commandant will be candid with us, as
he always has been, regarding his agency's needs and the price
that we may be paying to operate so many missions with an
excessively lean Coast Guard.
And Commandant, I urge you to not hold back in what you see
are problems that can arise from insufficient resources. Thank
you for being here.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Admiral Loy, your entire statement will be made part of the
record in its entirety, so proceed as you wish.
statement of Admiral James M. Loy
Admiral Loy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Let me first of all suggest that if, in fact, you do get in
trouble again, sir, please do not hesitate to call. We will be
very interested in responding.
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to be looking at your budget
and say, ``They cannot afford to rescue me.'' [Laughter.]
Admiral Loy. And the thought process of expectations is
really what I have taken out of your opening comments, both of
you. And I appreciate that very, very sincerely.
At the other end of the day, I owe you, as you have cited,
a leadership evaluation as to the readiness of our organization
across the board, across the full foundation of current
capability, if you will, with respect to that chart. And I will
honor that commitment, sir.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA25.001
First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the other members
of the Subcommittee for the support and counsel that you
provided this new Commandant as he waded through the process of
the annual budget last year.
It turned out to be a very unique process for all of us as
we sort of saw at the end of the tunnel, the Omnibus bill that
we could ladle fixes into, and that seems not to be the case
this year. And it is of great concern to me as I look at the
same kind of dimensions that the Chairman mentioned in his
opening statement.
As I tried to follow the budget resolution dialogue and the
eventual marks that will initialize the process of our budget
this year, I too become very concerned that the combination of
very real caps and whatever becomes of reduced budget authority
flexibility for the Chairman will make your challenge very
difficult as it comes around to adequately funding the Coast
Guard this year.
But, again, I seek your support. I sense your verbal
support through the course of your opening comments, and I will
work very hard with you to seek the advocacy necessary to fund
the Coast Guard properly.
1999 accomplishments
Mr. Chairman, I remain very proud of what our organization
did for America last year. Our continuing service in 1999 is
based largely on the abilities granted by not only our base
budget last year, but what was, in fact, part of the Omnibus
bill.
We have sustained the counterdrug excellence that the
Congress focused on for us with respect to those plus-ups.
There have been very high profile cases. The fishing vessel
LA CONTE case, which found its way into the Washington Post a
couple of months ago, is an example of exactly the kind of
dedication to tasks that our young patriotic men in Coast Guard
uniforms and women in Coast Guard uniforms offer this nation on
a daily basis.
We became detectives for a period as we tracked down
through very sophisticated procedures the motor tanker COMMAND
that had, in fact, violated the waters of San Francisco Bay and
offshore, and were able to bring that particular case to
conclusion.
High-seas drift net cases in the middle of the Pacific
Ocean that involved multiple nations were brought to closure
because of the ability that the Coast Guard has to operate in
the deep waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone of this nation
and track down violators as necessary to bring them to justice
at the other end of the day.
These were solid examples of Coast Guard men and women at
work for the nation in a wide variety of areas.
One of the most interesting conferences that we had last
year, Mr. Chairman, had to do with the Secretary's Marine
Transportation System initiative, where he is trying to raise
the visibility of that dimension of our national transportation
system, to get it to be thought of in terms of concern equal to
the terrestrial and the aviation dimensions. That went very
well.
I remain proud of our good stewardship and our continuing
role as a leader in management excellence. We have been
recognized with a variety of awards in that regard as it
relates to GPRA and the National Performance Review.
We have been very aggressive with Y2K. And I will look
forward to any questions that you might have with respect to
that problem for us this year.
And we have forged productive partnerships with
stakeholders and customers and agency colleagues at the Federal
level to get good things done for America.
Fundamentally, sir, we remain a maritime, military,
multimission service, but we are now at our absolute limits
with respect to downsizing.
And as you suggested, Senator Lautenberg, we are, in fact,
about the same size we were in 1967, with an endless list of
new responsibilities that I would be glad to cite.
Yesterday, we observed the tenth anniversary of EXXON
VALDEZ, the tragedy in Prince William Sound. Reviewing that
decade of accomplishment reiterated the importance of the basic
mission profile of the Coast Guard.
It is not just about only counternarcotics in the nineties
and on into this next century. It is about that full foundation
of capability that we need to do what the nation has asked of
us.
OPA 90 was passed by the Congress, the 101st Congress, 535
to 0. And I do not know whether that has happened before or
since, but that was the vote on that particular day. It was the
most impacting piece of legislation that ever came in the
direction of the Coast Guard except, perhaps, after Hamilton
put us together back in 1790.
Yet 10 years later, we have very finite results to show for
the effort and for the challenge that you offered the service,
a 64 percent reduction in oil spilled, a 50 percent reduction
in spills over 10,000 gallons. Those are very real facts that
are traceable to the activities out of OPA 90.
fiscal year 2000 budget submission
Mr. Chairman, three phrases sort of dominate my 2000 budget
submission. It is about basic essential services for this
nation. It is about readiness. It is about accountability with
the counterdrug monies that you offered us last year.
Basic services speak for themselves. The request will
continue those essential services that the American people
expect from the Coast Guard.
It is, however, a bare-bones budget, one that is focused,
one in which every penny is necessary to mission performance.
About readiness, I remain very concerned. The dialogue of
the past eight months in town focused on national defense
readiness, and properly we watched as both the President's
budget and initial indications on the Hill suggest that the
four DOD services will be dealt with in the manner that that
dialogue suggested was appropriate.
I only offer for your concern and your observation that
this fifth Armed Service has exactly the same inventory of
challenges and problems that have been evidenced by my four
service chief colleagues.
On the people side, my most pressing problem this year,
sir, is to continue to close the work force gap so that this
array of work that we do for the nation is not borne on the
backs of Coast Guard sailors and airmen that are out there
doing their duty in harm's way on a daily basis 24 hours a day.
I implore you to consider that the thought process is
reflected in that about $50 million worth of material,
compensation issues in the President's budget are enormously
important for us to continue to close that work force gap.
On the modernization side, sir, the other piece, if you
will, of this national readiness dialogue that we have
encountered in town, I would offer that the $350 million AC&I
budget for this organization is as lean as it can possibly be.
Every penny of that budget is required so that we can make
good investments now, that will, in fact, yield significant
savings for the nation in the out years.
deepwater system
Our assets, as you know, sir, are very people intensive: 66
cents of every dollar that is spent by the Coast Guard goes in
one way or another to people. Where we can invest now to
produce savings in people in the out years seems to me to be a
very, very smart management thought process.
Our Integrated Deepwater System project is the centerpiece
of that recapitalization effort. And I invite your attention to
it and solicit your support for it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment just in passing on a
GAO audit that was dated in October of this past fall about the
IDS project, the Integrated Deepwater System project. GAO has
testified consistently over the last several months about three
serious problems that they feel exist in the project.
All three of those I feel we have addressed very, very
well. And I would just offer your attention not only to the
continuing nature of an audit dated in October of 1998 to the
realities of what is going on in the spring of 1999 as we
proceed along the path of this budget.
readiness issues
My last word on readiness, Mr. Chairman, is an uneasy
feeling I have developed from an array of red flags I see on
the readiness horizon of this organization.
I have spoken publicly on what I call the curse of ``Semper
Paratus,'' which is, as Senator Lautenberg reflected, an
inclination mentally on our organization's part from the
leadership right on down to say, ``Yes,'' when offered an
opportunity to do something or directed to do something for
America.
As I have mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we
are right at the limit as it relates to reducing the readiness
capability of this organization.
And, in fact, I see problems in training. I see problems in
equipment. I see problems as reflected by Mr. Lautenberg, the
two cases that you reflected on, the ADRIATIC and MOUNTAIN DEW
case off of Charleston.
Both the President and the Congress have caused attention
to be drawn to this issue of readiness for the five Armed
Services.
And, again, I would offer, it is no less important for this
fifth Armed Service that does a full array of work 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year for this nation. We deserve the same
consideration as the other four.
Mr. Chairman, the same foundation of capability that
supports our core missions also supports our ability to do more
in drugs, which the Congress directed us to do last year.
We continue to lose 20,000 or so Americans annually from
this particular problem. $110 billion is estimated as the
social cost the nation pays on an annual basis.
Our STEEL WEB strategy continues to prove itself a valuable
contributor to what the nation is doing about drugs. And we are
making very good use already of the counterdrug monies that
were appropriated by this Congress last year.
Our equipment and our intelligence has improved and the new
airborne use of force doctrine that I am considering will
potentially have a very dynamic impact on the fast boat threat,
which is the crucial vehicle of choice delivering drugs to this
nation. In short, we are being very responsive to the
congressional direction to do more on drugs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that your
Coast Guard is on watch and doing the jobs assigned.
My two job number ones for this year are to make certain
that we deal with Y2K appropriately and that we fill the work
force so that we can continue to work for this nation, and I
seek your support in both of those areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's
budget submission for the Coast Guard, sir. And I look forward
to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral James M. Loy
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request and its impact on the
services we provide the American public on a daily basis.
The Coast Guard can best be characterized by what I like to refer
to as the ``three M's'': multimission, maritime, and military. As a
multimission service, the Coast Guard is one of the best bargains in
the Federal government: every tax dollar invested in the Coast Guard is
returned many times over through the wide range of services we provide
that benefit every American, every hour of every day. We have long
enjoyed an international reputation as both the world's foremost
lifesaving agency and coast guard; no other U.S. government agency or
private organization has the expertise, assets, and 24-hour-a-day
readiness to conduct search and rescue missions in all areas of the
maritime region. As one of the five Armed Services, we have
consistently demonstrated our value as a unique instrument of national
security in a world of ever-changing threats.
We also take pride in being one of the best-run agencies in the
Federal government, having been recognized as a leader in the
implementation of both the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and the National Performance Review. We have been proactive in
addressing the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer bug and its effect on our
people and missions, and have spearheaded international outreach
efforts aimed at maritime safety.
As outlined in our performance plan accompanying the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request, our productivity is keyed to strategic
goals and outcomes. Our strategic goals of Safety, Protection of
Natural Resources, Mobility, Maritime Security, and National Defense
will always remain American priorities.
Mr. Chairman, there are three principal themes underpinning the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request; I hope to leave you with a
clear understanding of them as a result of today's hearing. First, the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request will permit continuation of
the basic services currently enjoyed by the American people. Second, it
addresses the Coast Guard's readiness needs. It provides funding for
the pay and personnel initiatives of the President needed to recruit
and retain a stronger work force. And third, it provides funding both
to operate the capital assets provided in the various fiscal year 1999
supplemental appropriations acts and expand our interdiction
activities, advancing our already successful interdiction efforts.
The significance of the first theme is self-evident: we need full
funding to maintain our outstanding mission performance. The other two
themes, however, require some discussion.
readiness
One of my major concerns right now as Commandant is readiness,
which has two components: people and modernization. Coast Guard
readiness includes not only our preparedness to fill our role as one of
the Armed Services, but also our ability to provide on a daily basis
the myriad of services the American public has come to expect from us.
People
After several years of streamlining, the Coast Guard is at its
smallest size since 1967, while at the same time having its greatest
number of missions ever. Our number one priority in the coming year is
to fill critical gaps in our work force. To do this, we must
aggressively recruit the high-quality young people we need while at the
same time not increasing the sacrifices inherent with military service
faced by our current personnel.
In support of our recruiting and retention efforts, the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget request provides over $4 million in direct
support of Coast Guard recruiting, as well as an additional $6 million
for work force readiness tools, which include incentives that our
recruiters can use to attract high-quality recruits. The President's
budget request also includes: a 4.4 percent pay raise, plus $5 million
for a targeted special pay increase; more than $5 million to begin the
transition to a more equitable Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH); over
$13.5 million to address escalating health care costs, including a
provision for the Department of Defense to provide $18 million in
health care services to the Coast Guard; and more than $4 million for
quality of life initiatives such as childcare subsidies and education
programs, both of which are Presidential priorities. We will monitor
the effects such reforms have on recruiting and retention to ensure
their adequacy.
Modernization
One of the most pervasive problems facing the Coast Guard today is
older technology, including sensors, ships, and aircraft; the mounting
operations and maintenance costs and intensive personnel requirements
of this technology threaten our ability to maintain current mission
performance. The Coast Guard's deepwater fleet of cutters and aircraft
(deepwater being defined as 50 or more miles off shore) is one of the
oldest in the world. Our strategy to overcome this obstacle is to
invest to save: smart capital investment is necessary to maintain
capability and is essential if we are to leverage technology to reduce
future operating costs. Such an invest to save strategy does not work
without adequate investment; full funding of the President's fiscal
year 2000 request for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(AC&I) is critical to our recapitalization effort.
The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) acquisition project is the
centerpiece of that recapitalization effort. It is not your standard
government acquisition project. Instead of a piece-meal, traditional
approach that considers one-for-one replacement of assets by asset
class, IDS encompasses an entire mission area. This analysis centers on
the combination of vessel, air, and Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Sensors, and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) assets
and their potential synergies that will operate in the deepwater
environment. Instead of making penny-wise and pound-foolish design
decisions based only on purchase price, IDS decisions will be based on
the total ownership costs: acquisition, maintenance, operating,
crewing, training, and eventual disposal.
Instead of making our decisions without regard to the United
States' existing maritime capabilities, we are pursuing IDS within the
parameters of the National Fleet concept which the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Johnson, and I are pursuing jointly. Under this
concept, both services will maintain their distinctive heritage,
capabilities, and identities; but we will make sure that our strengths
are complementary. The Navy will maintain its highly capable surface
combatants designed for the full spectrum of naval operations from
peacetime engagement to major theater war. The Coast Guard will provide
relatively smaller maritime security cutters, designed for peacetime
and crisis-response Coast Guard missions, but capable of meeting the
requirement for general-purpose, shallow-draft warships. We don't need
the Deepwater capability to try to become the second best navy in the
world; we need it to remain the single-best coast guard in the world.
A second major modernization initiative included in the President's
budget request will improve the ability of mariners in distress to
notify the Coast Guard, a critical factor in saving more lives. Without
an effective means to communicate with mariners in distress, we cannot
help them, despite our most noble intentions. We must be able to learn
of the nature and location of the distress, and then respond
accordingly. Our National Distress System, the coastal maritime
distress communications system, is in dire need of modernization. Much
of the equipment is obsolete. We respond to more than 50,000 search and
rescue cases every year, saving the lives of approximately 5,000
mariners in imminent danger, and providing some form of emergency
assistance to nearly 100,000 mariners. Communications technology is
readily available that would give us the capability to save additional
lives. We must make every effort to obtain and use these modern
capabilities.
The National Distress System Modernization Project will provide for
the system-wide modernization of communications and recording equipment
and the specific capability to locate vessels in distress by shore-
based radio direction finding. Full funding for this project will help
us enhance our search and rescue readiness to keep America's commercial
and recreational mariners safe, increasing our ability to save lives,
such as those that were tragically lost aboard the sailing vessel
MORNING DEW off South Carolina and the clammer ADRIATIC off New Jersey.
drug interdiction activities
In addition to everything else I have mentioned about readiness, it
is also the foundation upon which the President's fiscal year 2000
budget builds in allowing both operation of counterdrug assets funded
by fiscal year 1999 appropriations and new interdiction activities.
Every American is adversely affected by illegal drug use. Over
20,000 Americans die every year because of illegal drugs, and the
annual social cost is estimated at $110 billion. A balanced approach is
required to combat the threat of drugs: effective interdiction reduces
supply, in turn supporting demand reduction efforts. The Administration
believes that illegal drugs are a threat to national security and that
there is a need for increased counterdrug activities and readiness;
this budget provides expanded efforts in this important area.
The Coast Guard is a proven performer in the interdiction arena,
and STEEL WEB, our highly successful, comprehensive, multiyear
interdiction strategy is battle-tested. During fiscal year 1998, the
Coast Guard seized 75 vessels transporting 82,623 pounds of cocaine and
31,365 pounds of marijuana, and arrested 297 suspects. The President's
fiscal year 2000 budget includes funding to operate critical end game
assets such as deployable pursuit boats, additional coastal patrol
boats, and interdiction support vessels. In addition, the budget will
fund operation of reactivated maritime patrol aircraft and provide for
the operation of improved sensors on cutters and aircraft. These items
will help us to locate, track, and intercept suspected smugglers.
The recent seizure of a 580-foot bulk carrier by the Coast Guard on
the high seas is indicative of the value of coordinated and effective
maritime interdiction operations. The interdiction and seizure of the
Panamanian registered M/V CANNES by the Coast Guard in January resulted
in the seizure of an estimated 9,500 pounds of cocaine. The vessel was
first spotted by a Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft operating as
part of a Joint Interagency Task Force East coordinated counterdrug
effort. A Navy patrol boat with an embarked Coast Guard law enforcement
detachment (LEDET) intercepted and initially boarded the vessel
approximately 125 miles southwest of Jamaica. Coast Guard cutters
subsequently relieved the patrol boat and boarding teams located
contraband hidden beneath the vessel's bulk cargo. The drugs were
seized, the crew arrested, and the vessel seized on behalf of the
Panamanian government.
Full funding of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
will ensure the Coast Guard remains ready to prevent illegal drugs from
threatening our national security.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the other
members of this distinguished subcommittee for the opportunity to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Coast
Guard. I look forward to working with you over the course of the next
several months to ensure America's Coast Guard remains Semper Paratus.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
Commandant for his excellent testimony. And I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I am not going to be able to stay.
I would like to know if the record is going to be open
sufficiently for us to submit questions.
Senator Shelby. It will be.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank the Admiral, and I thank you
for the opportunity.
Senator Shelby. Well, we know you stay busy on the budget
committee.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. That is important.
Senator Lautenberg. Very.
Admiral Loy. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg. Good
to see you, sir.
air-21 funding constraints
Senator Shelby. Admiral Loy, as I indicated in my opening
statement, if Chairman Shuster's AIR-21 bill follows the path
of TEA-21, Federal Aviation Administration programs will not
only be increased by $5 billion, they will also be separated
from the annual appropriations process by a budgetary firewall.
And mark my words, this is what will have to happen. The
aviation, highway and transit firewalls will squeeze the
discretionary budget cap to the point that there will not be
any room left in the transportation appropriations bill to fund
any other Department of Transportation programs.
This includes Amtrak, rail safety, pipeline and hazardous
material safety and the general fund portion of NTSA, and, of
course, the agency of interest to everyone here today, the
Coast Guard.
Admiral Loy, do you have any concerns about the proposal to
establish an aviation firewall and in your view, how would the
establishment of an aviation firewall impact have on future
Coast Guard budgets? Would it be like I described?
Admiral Loy. Mr. Chairman, I do believe it would be
basically like you described. It is not my position to comment
on the Secretary's total array of interested agencies. I am
very, very concerned.
Senator Shelby. You can comment on your own, can you not?
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, I surely can.
If the eventuality played out as you just described, it
would bring this organization to its knees.
personnel requirements
As you know, as I indicated earlier, we are a very
Operating Expenses--dominated agency, and since as much as 66
cents of every dollar is a people dollar in our organization,
we would literally be decommissioning stations. We would be
tying up ships and not doing what the American public expects
of its Coast Guard on a routine basis.
So I have been very concerned as I heard estimates around
town in terms of even five and ten and fifteen percent kind of
reduction figures.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. Because if, in fact, the American public is to
get the services that it expects from our organization, it must
find a way to gain the President's budget to do that.
And it is an enormously growing concern on my part as I
watch the budget resolution dialogue as well as the speculation
from a lot of folks whose opinion I value very highly play out
over the town.
Senator Shelby. If the services continue to hemorrhage
qualified people at the current rates, there will be a
reckoning, the magnitude of which we are not prepared to
endure, I believe.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. How does your 2000 budget request ensure
that the Coast Guard can meet its recruiting requirements and
slow the exodus of qualified personnel from the Coast Guard? Is
that not a problem?
Admiral Loy. It is very much a problem, as I indicated
earlier, sir. We share the same problems, perhaps to a bit
lesser degree, but nonetheless the very same level of problems
as the other four services.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. Just as a point of reference, it takes an Army
recruiter today, sir, about 140 negotiations, if you will, with
qualified eligible young people on the other side of the table
for them to get one soldier to go to boot camp.
Senator Shelby. It used to be automatic, did it not?
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. There was a day when it was
absolutely automatic.
Senator Shelby. It was automatic.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. And the Coast Guard number in that
regard is about 100 to 105. So we have a bit lesser recruiting
challenge, but an enormous one nonetheless.
And it has everything to do with what I see as a widening
gulf between the propensity to join the military services and
the civilian sector of our nation, the social culture of our
nation, if you will.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. I fear for that.
There are a lot of folks who suggest it is just the robust
economy of the moment. But I think there are more deeply
ingrained issues there.
The President's budget offers us a chance to fund the
second year. That was the $50 million I was speaking about
earlier: the second year of a 2-year designed effort that I
have undertaken to refill our work force, sir.
And we think that will be sufficient, but we will watch
that very carefully.
Senator Shelby. Are you confident that your request will
provide adequate resources for recruiting and advertising?
Admiral Loy. It will meet the specifications that we think
we need to do to refill the work force. Yes, sir. It will.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Loy. I must say I enjoy March Madness on an annual
basis. And I envy the recruiting advertising that I have
watched for the Air Force and the Marine Corps and what have
you.
Those are enormous dollar values that we simply cannot
compete with.
deepwater replacement project
Senator Shelby. The Integrated Deepwater Replacement
project will potentially be the most expensive acquisition
program in the Coast Guard's history.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Although funding in the near term is
relatively small, the cost of the Deepwater project is
projected to grow substantially and reach as much as $500
million annually after the contract is awarded in the year
2002.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. This level of spending would consume nearly
all the funding that is projected for the acquisition,
construction, and improvements account.
Can the Coast Guard afford the Deepwater project without
relying on Congress to double AC&I funding or without foregoing
virtually all other capital projects? You have to have capital
money, do not you?
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Just two or three thoughts, sir. One, it is enormously
important for us to recognize that we are using the 37th oldest
of 41 like sized naval fleets in the world.
Senator Shelby. We know you are. We know.
Admiral Loy. And so the foundation for the re-
capitalization challenge is an absolute one. And that is very,
very real.
We have worked very, very hard to imagine what the maritime
environment will be like in 2020 or 2025 and what the nation
would most logically expect out of its Coast Guard, and then
worked backward to the capabilities, i.e., resources necessary
to do those jobs.
The project is underway. As you well know, there is a roles
and missions effort associated with it, sir, that will help
address that.
The dollar values, I think, we have to take with a grain of
salt until we reach the point in the project where these very
best industrial minds of the nation, in the consortia that are
competing for the project, offer us insights as to what the
dollar values really will be.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. The $500 million that you heard cited was
simply an estimate to cover perhaps a 15- to 20-year AC&I
requirement, keyed to a one-for-one replacement of assets that
we currently have.
We are not going to be in the one-for-one replacement
business. So, sir, I think we have to wait until we see better
numbers.
And then at that point, the Congress and the Administration
will, I would hope, as they have done in the past, recognize
the continuing need and find the way to fund those projects.
Senator Shelby. Let us get into this a little bit, the
procurement, taking a system of systems approach rather than
replacing whole classes of ships and aircraft one at a time.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. This is to some people the troubling
aspects of the Deepwater Acquisition Strategy.
Admiral Loy. Yes.
Senator Shelby. This acquisition effort means overcoming
the traditions and the culture of the various Coast Guard
operational communities in breaking up the contracting
establishment, does it not?
Admiral Loy. I am not sure what communities you are
speaking of, sir. Are we talking between ship drivers and
aviators?
The acquisition project, sir, is a very, very integrated
effort on the part of the senior leadership of the
organization.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. We have very carefully staffed the project and
deal with it on a matrix management sense that offers all of
those communities adequate input to the future package that
will be represented by the project at the other end of the day.
One of the ``problems'' that GAO and their audit offered
was that legacy assets are not adequately dealt with in the
design work that has gone into the project to this point.
We have worked diligently to provide all the consortia all
of the information that they have asked for or perceived the
need for about our existent legacy fleet.
So to the degree they imagine the extended life of some of
those legacy assets to be built into their proposals, they will
very much be able to do that.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Loy. I do not see a competition problem, sir,
between, for example, our aviators and our ship drivers. Not at
all.
partnership with the navy
Senator Shelby. It seems that there has been an
unprecedented level of cooperation between the Coast Guard and
the Navy. I think that is good.
To better coordinate, integrate these two maritime forces,
you and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jay Johnson,
have embraced the concept of a National Fleet.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. What is the National Fleet, and what role
does it play in terms of the Deepwater project? And how does
your AC&I budget request further the policy goals of the
National Fleet concept? Could you comment on that?
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, happily.
First of all, this was a concept that grew out of the
NavGuard board, a board that meets twice annually, chaired by
the Vice-Commandant and the Vice-Chief of Naval Operations, and
offers that constant twice annual opportunity for the Coast
Guard and the Navy to find those common areas of interest to
both and to solve problems that seem to be, if you will, almost
on the margin between their responsibilities and our own.
The National Fleet is a concept whereby we want to promise
to the American taxpayer and to the Congress that we have
thoughtfully considered each other's requirements when we bring
recapitalization projects to the Congress.
There are great savings, I think, to be made, simply by
acknowledging that we are both maritime services.
An example: we were in the midst of a procurement on
surface search radars. The Navy sort of caught wind of that
procurement, became very interested in it, came aboard with us,
and as a result at the other end of the day, because of the
volume of procurement they brought to the table, we drove down
the unit price of each one of the radars to be bought.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. The Navy is delighted with those radars on
their ships and we are delighted with those radars on our
ships.
Senator Shelby. Splendid.
Admiral Loy. So there are compatible systems throughout the
infrastructure of any kind of a ship procurement that we feel
we can save the American taxpayer a lot of money by being
thoughtful about how we do that.
Senator Shelby. That is good.
Admiral Loy. So we are merging our acquisition efforts and
we want to guarantee complementary asset procurement for the
nation such that the nation's maritime business is dealt with
by the nation's maritime fleet, made up of a Naval fleet and a
Coast Guard fleet.
Senator Shelby. That is good.
user fee proposal
The President's budget request includes a proposal to levy
a new user fee on American and foreign commercial cargo
carriers for navigation services provided by the Coast Guard.
This is not the first time that the Administration has
proposed this tax, and Congress has rejected it every time.
If Congress does not act on these tax proposals and I do
not believe we will, what would you have to cut from the Coast
Guard budget request to offset a $41 million shortfall?
Admiral Loy. The projection for 2000 is a fourth quarter
projection, as you know, sir.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. So it is $41 million in 2000 and becomes $165
million if, in fact, those fees would actually be accrued to
the account in future out years.
First of all, sir, we have complied with the Congress's
direction from last year. We are not in the midst of planning
or implementing or designing a user fee proposal at this time
because it was clear from language in last year's bill that we
should not be doing that.
This is an effort on the part of the Administration to
solicit congressional support for the thought process directed
to happen and get it out from under the thought process that we
could do it ``with existing statutes that we already have.''
It is about aids to navigation, icebreaking, and VTS
services that we offer navigational users in the nation. The
specific question you asked, sir, was ``What would give inside
my budget?''
Senator Shelby. Yes. That is right.
Admiral Loy. If, in fact, we did not realize it, I think
what I would like to leave on the record, sir, is that I and
the Secretary and the President have clearly stipulated the
need for the $350 million level of the capitalization
requirement for the Coast Guard for 2000. And we have offered
that as one thought process to gain some of those monies, this
user fee proposal.
We will watch very carefully and work very carefully with
you as you consider it.
readiness issues
Senator Shelby. Admiral Loy, as you well know, alarm over
eroding readiness has the focus primarily on the Department of
Defense.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Is the Coast Guard, the fifth military
service as some people call it, experiencing similar problems
in maintaining a high state of readiness either in fulfilling
your national security function or your other responsibilities
such as law enforcement and rescue?
Admiral Loy. Now, sir, the dialogue has, as I indicated
earlier, taken two tracks, a people track and an equipment or
modernization track.
And in both of those instances, sir, the Coast Guard has
exactly the same inventory of challenges and problems as does
DOD.
We are concerned for our people. We are concerned for a
downsized service with an overload in a number of missions. We
are concerned with 80-and 90-hour work weeks at our stations.
We are concerned with young sailors who are standing three days
on, three days off, on a 24-hours on-call basis for 72 hours
running.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. We are concerned with equipment in, for
example, the MORNING DEW case and the ADRIATIC case. Our
concern is registered simply from the reality that if it was
taping equipment and communications equipment shortfalls that
has resulted in that case of lives lost, that is a great
concern to me.
The only other chart that I wanted to bring to your
attention, sir, this morning was the upper left hand corner of
the readiness chart: it's all about a 44-footer case off of the
Pacific Northwest three years ago that resulted in the loss of
three of the four crewmen on that vessel.
These are Coast Guard sailors that I am concerned about
whether or not I am putting in harm's way with adequate
training, adequate equipment, adequate wherewithal to do that.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA25.002
Senator Shelby. It is a real concern though.
Admiral Loy. It is a serious concern that I have, sir.
Senator Shelby. As a multimission agency that is assigned a
wide range of duties, does any particular mission area or areas
strain readiness more than others, or is it across the board?
Admiral Loy. I think there is a lot of attention, sir, on
our counternarcotics mission at the moment. It certainly has
been that for the last decade.
It promises to be that for the next decade. But the true
value of what the United States gets out of its Coast Guard is
its multimission character and its multimission capability.
In the summer and fall of 1994, although our assets were to
be deployed on fisheries enforcement and counternarcotics
enforcement predominantly, the realities of Haitian and Cuban
refugees coming at the Florida peninsula certainly prompted us
to give all of our attention, if you will, to that mission in
that year.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. So what the country gets out of this
organization is this grand mix of services to the American
public. We are there to go in whatever direction America needs
us on a daily basis.
Further, I would again offer that that current capability
foundation for this organization about readiness is to do all
that we do for America, not just to focus in on being ready to
do more in drugs.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. I do not think this Congress, I do not think
the Administration, I do not think the American public wants us
to back away from readiness to do search and rescue, aids to
navigation, maritime safety or spill cleanup, et cetera, across
that foundation, just to focus on counternarcotics.
Our foundation needs to be able to do it all.
drug interdiction activities
Senator Shelby. Okay. Does your budget request include
sufficient resources to sustain a higher level of drug
interdiction activities through the year 2000?
Admiral Loy. It does, sir. There is an additional $46
million in the counterdrug piece that will enable the Coast
Guard to continue to make its contribution to the goals as have
been prescribed by General McCaffrey and his National Drug
Control Strategy.
That $46 million will enable us to fund and operate the
assets that you were kind enough to offer in the 1999
supplemental. And we will have those assets on target in terms
of complementing our counternarcotics activities.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens, we are glad you could join
us here today.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
exxon valdez anniversary
Admiral, it is nice to see you. I enjoyed talking to you
the other day. I understand you have already made remarks about
the EXXON VALDEZ disaster of ten years ago yesterday.
And I flew in there with one of your predecessors, Admiral
Yost, you know.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But we do appreciate what you are doing
and you are right. I think that the defenses against oil spill
pollution in Prince William Sound are the best in the world.
So I am grateful to the Coast Guard for their diligence in
pursuing that to just absolute perfection.
Admiral Loy. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. I am a little worried about what I am
hearing about the new transportation bill in the House.
Have you spoken about that yet?
Admiral Loy. We have, sir, with the Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Well, I intend to vigorously oppose any
further diminution of the kind of support that we can give to
agencies such as the Coast Guard.
You are a defense establishment. I would oppose,
completely, anything that would take any portion of the defense
establishment and put it behind a firewall that could not be
dealt with in terms of the regular appropriation process to
meet emergencies.
And I intend to inform the Chairman that I will oppose that
bill.
I think that the defense caucus over here will kill that
bill, if he persists in trying to tie down, in terms of an
entitlement, the ability to deal with emergencies in the Coast
Guard or any other defense entity.
And it is not just your defense side. I think you have
obvious readiness problems in your daily lives in terms of law
enforcement, search and rescue and other protection services of
the Coast Guard.
vessels in the adriatic
I do not have any specific questions for you this morning.
I am sure that we are all working together with the Chairman
here to make sure that you have the greatest flexibility
possible to deal with your problems.
Actually, I do have one question. I stayed up quite late
last night surfing through all the information I could get from
the media about the Kosovo issue. Have you got vessels in the
Adriatic now?
Admiral Loy. Not at this time, no, sir. We did, as you
know, during the Bosnia incident.
Senator Stevens. Yes, I remember.
Admiral Loy. We provided principally some law enforcement
detachment personnel that would enable some serious inspections
to take place on maritime interdiction operations in the
Adriatic, but we have nothing there at the moment, sir.
Senator Stevens. All right.
Admiral Loy. Senator Stevens, thank you very much for your
thoughts on EXXON VALDEZ as well.
Senator Shelby. We thank you for coming.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
curtis bay coast guard yard
Senator Shelby. Admiral Loy, I have several more questions.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. The General Accounting Office recently
issued a report that reviewed the Coast Guard's major
administration and supportive functions.
The GAO report found that the Coast Guard Yard located in
Curtis Bay, Maryland, performs only a small percentage of the
Coast Guard's industrial operations related to ships.
What is the current utilization rate of the Coast Guard
Yard?
Admiral Loy. The utilization rate, sir, is keyed to my
having labeled it, as have Commandants before me, as a core
logistics facility for the organization.
It represents about a $60 million a year work load and is
sort of what the average has been, I would guess, sir, over the
last ten years or so.
We usually attempt to distribute that workload toward about
a half of it being what I have come to call anchor projects
over there. Those kind of things that are multi-year in nature
that will solidify a foundation of work there.
And then the others have become a variety of different
things out of either our AC&I work or OE work, ship renovation
and repair, that kind of thing.
It has been an absolute godsend on numerous occasions
where, for example, if a yard working on a Coast Guard cutter
backs out of a contract and we need that cutter back in
operation, the Yard has on several occasions stepped in and
been able to finish the work, bailed out failed contracts, if
you will, to get work done.
They have also become the center of excellence, sir, in a
variety of different engineering functional issues. For
example, they have become probably the world's experts at
Paxman engine repair inasmuch as a number of our vessels are
propelled by Paxman engines. They have become the world's
experts in doing that.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Loy. They also do a lot of Mark 75 gun work,
including some foreign military sales kind of work. They do
Mark 75 guns for the Saudis.
And they have also become the experts in removing PCBs and
asbestos and such other offending agents from decommissioned
cutters so that we can then scrap them with full attention
having been given to the environmental realities of such
things.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Loy. So the Yard is fully employed, sir. And my
concern is to look to the future and make certain that that 50
percent of their work that we have attested to be their anchor
projects are going to continue to play out into the future.
health care program
Senator Shelby. Just to get into the Coast Guard's medical
program, are you aware of any other problems in your health
program such as retention or recruitment?
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. As I indicated earlier, the
compensation, housing, and health care package of issues
remains that people side with readiness that we are all very
concerned about.
We track carefully the reasons folks are, for example, not
re-upping.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. Especially after a second-term enlistment. And
to the degree, those four things are always there, retirement
issues, housing issues, health-care issues, and compensation
issues in there somewhere, is usually the reason for some
sailor or Coast Guard airman to go a different way.
Senator Shelby. You have some of the retention problems
that other services have.
Admiral Loy. Identical to them, sir.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. Identical to them, sir. Tricare, of course, is
the supposed solution for military health care. The challenge
for the Coast Guard is that probably a good 50 to 60 percent of
Coast Guard people are outside the so-called catchment areas
for Tricare facilities.
And so we find ourselves in the Cordovas and the Homers of
the world in Alaska. And in places where access to a major
military hospital that can be the core for Tricare health
delivery is not available to them.
And then we become at the whim of whatever providers are in
those areas.
We have recently expressed those concerns after I came back
from Alaska, and it became the cause celebre, if you will,
through the course of my trip up there.
And we have activated the Tricare managers in the
Department of Defense to work with us to provide better
availability of treatment for Coast Guard personnel and their
dependents.
And lastly, sir, the simple sobering reality of health care
costs across the nation are reflected inside of our budget as
well.
One of the things that we sort of got away with over the
course of a number of years was services provided by the
Department of Defense for which we did not end up paying.
They have gotten a lot better at their bookkeeping, so that
aspect of driving our health care costs in a spiraling upward
direction is real as well.
So we have the potential for a $32 million problem in the
2000 budget. We are asking for $13 million in our bill and have
arrangements that we are in the process of making with our DOD
counterparts to pick up the other $18 million.
But it is a serious issue, sir.
Senator Shelby. Are you concerned that the DOD contribution
will not materialize?
Admiral Loy. That still has to be knitted together.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. And I am concerned, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay. I have been told that the Coast Guard
is experiencing a shortfall in its maritime patrol aircraft
capability to support counterdrug operations.
This shortfall is estimated to reach 6,000 to 7,000 hours
per year.
Admiral Loy. Yes.
Senator Shelby. In either your role as the U.S.
Interdiction Coordinator or as Commandant, are you aware of
such a shortfall?
Admiral Loy. Oh, absolutely, sir. And, as you know, General
McCaffrey's strategy is a ten-year strategy, to get to where we
need to get to in 2007 on a 1996 baseline.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. In the out year, he has a five-year budget
that supports that ten-year strategy.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. And in the out years, we absolutely have to
fill that shortfall, if we are to meet the goals as have been
prescribed by the President in the 2002 and 2007 checkpoints.
Senator Shelby. Would additional C-130s assist in meeting
the shortfall?
Admiral Loy. Anything that we could get to help us meet the
shortfall would do so, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Admiral Loy. We have----
Senator Shelby. Would they help?
Admiral Loy. We focused in the last year, on recalling HU-
25s and putting them back to work, because of the support
provided by the Congress.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Loy. And as Interdiction Coordinator I have focused
on P-3s, but C-130s would certainly fill the bill. We are using
them today.
Additional committee questions
Senator Shelby. I appreciate your appearance here today. We
will leave the record open for Senator Lautenberg and any other
questions for the record. And this committee will now be
adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
fiscal year 1998 and 1999 reprogrammings and transfers
Question. Please provide the amount and description of all
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred within fiscal year
1998 or thus far in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. There have been no congressional reprogrammings in the
Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation in fiscal year 1998 and thus far
in 1999. The table below shows the transfers to the OE appropriation in
fiscal year 1998 and thus far in 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Amount Reason for transfer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
ONDCP......................... $45,393 Funding for a
counterdrug billet.
Department of State........... 63,000 International
Cooperative Admin.
Support Service
Program.
Fiscal year 1999:
Information Technology Systems 20,505,000 Y2K Supplemental.
and Related Expenses.
Information Technology Systems 7,210,000 Y2K Supplemental.
and Related Expenses.
Information Technology Systems 4,058,000 Y2K Supplemental.
and Related Expenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been no transfers of funds in the Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation in fiscal year 1998
or thus far in fiscal year 1999. The table below shows the amount and
description of reprogrammings that occurred within AC&I in fiscal year
1998 and thus far in 1999 for the appropriation.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS APPROPRIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT TITLE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REPROGRAMMINGS AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1999 REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) REPLACEMENT.......... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -3,000,000
DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS...... INSUFFICIENT FUNDS............................. 3,000,000
COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) REPLACEMENT.......... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -5,000,000
DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS...... PENDING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL................. 5,000,000
TRAINING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY.................. PROJECT TERMINATION............................ -2,200,000
GROUP NEW ORLEANS RELOCATION................... PENDING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL................. 2,200,000
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION............. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -1,500,000
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)................... PROCUREMENT MODULE............................. 1,500,000
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION............. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -800,000
MARINE INFORMATION FOR SAFETY AND LAW INSUFFICIENT FUNDS............................. 800,000
ENFORCEMENT (MISLE).
TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS).. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -1,000,000
ROLES AND MISSION STUDY........................ DIRECTED BY CONGRESS........................... 1,000,000
STATION BELLINGHAM RELOCATION.................. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -222,000
ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION................... CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 222,000
COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) REPLACEMENT.......... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -400,000
ATS-1 CONVERSION............................... COMPLETE PRE-COMMISSIONING OUTFITTING.......... 400,000
FISCAL YEAR 1998 REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
SAN PEDRO CONSTRUCT MEDICAL FACILITY........... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -165,000
STATION SABINE RECONSTRUCT/EXPAND WATERFRONT... OUTFITTING ELECTRONICS AND CHANGE ORDERS....... 165,000
210-FOOT MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER (WMEC) MMA.... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -41,000
SURVEY & DESIGN VESSELS........................ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS............................. 41,000
210-FOOT MEDIUM ENDURANCE CUTTER (WMEC) MMA.... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -1,400
SURVEY & DESIGN VESSELS........................ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS............................. 1,400
SANDY HOOK, NJ CONSTRUCT GROUP ENGINEERING PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -15,100
BUILDING.
STATION HONOLULU, HI REPLACEMENT............... CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 15,100
ATLANTIC STRIKE TEAM EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -265,000
MID-ATLANTIC AIR STATION CONSOLIDATION......... ANTECEDENT LIABILITY........................... 265,000
SUPRTCEN PORTSMOUTH PAINTING/SANDBLAST FACILITY PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -25,000
MID-ATLANTIC AIR STATION CONSOLIDATION......... PROJECT CONTINGENCIES.......................... 25,000
VHF-FM HIGH-LEVEL SITE UPGRADE................. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -615,000
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM REALLOCATION................ COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION 615,000
ACT OF 1993 MANDATE TO VACATE FREQUENCY
SPECTRUM.
VARIOUS SHORE PROJECTS......................... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -40,000
CG ACADEMY GALLEY RENOVATION/CHASE HALL........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS & CONTINGENCIES......... 40,000
BASE SOUTH PORTLAND, ME CONSTRUCT STATION OPS PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -1,000
BLDG.
CG ACADEMY ROLAND HALL RENOVATION.............. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS & CONTINGENCIES......... 1,000
SUPRTCEN PORTSMOUTH PAINTING/SANDBLAST FACILITY PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -15,000
MID-ATLANTIC AIR STATION CONSOLIDATION......... CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 15,000
VARIOUS SHORE PROJECTS......................... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -300,000
AIR STATION MIAMI HANGAR UPGRADE............... CONTRACTOR CLAIM............................... 300,000
TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS).. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -547,000
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS INSTALLATION (GPS).. RETROFIT OF OBSOLETE OMEGA/GPS NAVIGATION 547,000
SYSTEM.
BAYONNE, NJ PIER IMPROVEMENT................... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -12,500
ROSEBANK, NY PIER & STATION REHABILITATION..... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -7,500
CG ACADEMY GALLEY RENOVATION/CHASE HALL........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 20,000
BASE KETCHIKAN--REPLACEMENT BREAKWATER......... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -200,000
CG DISTRICT ONE--CONSTRUCT BAYONNE PIER........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS & CONTINGENCIES......... 200,000
SUPRTCEN SAN PEDRO CONSTRUCT MEDICAL FACILITY.. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -17,000
MID-ATLANTIC AIR STATION CONSOLIDATION......... CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 17,000
CG YARD LAND-BASED SHIP HANDLING FACILITY...... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -2,407
CG ACADEMY ROLAND HALL RENOVATION.............. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS......................... 2,407
MSO TAMPA ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.............. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -30,298
GROUP STATION FT MACON MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING... CONTRACTOR CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT...... 30,298
SELF-PROPELLED BARGE........................... PROJECT SAVINGS/TERMINATION.................... -200,000
DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS...... INSUFFICIENT FUNDS............................. 200,000
VARIOUS SHORE PROJECTS......................... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -38,857
STATION HONOLULU, HI REPLACEMENT............... CONTRACTOR CLAIM............................... 38,857
TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS).. PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -550,000
LONG-RANGE SEARCH AIRCRAFT CAPABILITY AVIATION CAPABILITY ANALYSIS FOR INTEGRATED 550,000
PRESERVATION. DEEPWATER SYSTEM.
VARIOUS OTHER EQUIPMENT PROJECTS............... PROJECT SAVINGS................................ -700,000
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)................... DEVELOP STANDARD PROCUREMENT MODULE INCREMENT 3 700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unobligated and carryover funds
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and
carryover funds from previous years.
Answer. The Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation was appropriated
$2,816,300,000 in fiscal year 1999, of which $1,465,450,086 was
unobligated as of March 31, 1999. $48,024 in OE funding was carried
forward from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1999. These funds are
available until expended for Hurricane Iniki and Andrew costs pursuant
to the Supplemental Appropriations Transfers and Rescissions Act,
Public Law 102-368.
The following table provides a list of unobligated funds carried
forward from previous fiscal years for the Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD--ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
APPROPRIATION--UNOBLIGATED BALANCES BY PROJECT
[AS OF 03/31/99]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR FUNDS BALANCE BY
APPROPRIATED PROJECT TITLE FISCAL YEAR PROJECT TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
199547-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT $171,000 ..............
(MLB) REPLACEMENT
199647-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT 2,000 ..............
(MLB) REPLACEMENT
199747-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT 141,000 ..............
(MLB) REPLACEMENT
199847-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT 1,599,000 ..............
(MLB) REPLACEMENT
199947-FOOT MOTOR LIFEBOAT 20,800,000 $22,713,000
(MLB) REPLACEMENT
1999ATS-1 CONVERSION 1,743,000 1,743,000
1995COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) 16,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1996COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) 24,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1997COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) 1,356,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1998COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) 15,450,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1999COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) 24,070,000 40,916,000
REPLACEMENT
1995COASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 41,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1996COASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 1,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1997COASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 284,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1998COASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 494,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1999COASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 29,891,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
NOCOASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 3,189,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
NOCOASTAL PATROL BOAT (CPB) 33,000,000 66,900,000
REPLACEMENT
1996CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 4,000 ..............
1997CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 106,000 ..............
1999CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 3,800,000 3,910,000
NOCUTTER SENSOR AND 13,000,000 ..............
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
NOCUTTER SENSOR AND 15,600,000 28,600,000
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
NODEPLOYABLE PURSUIT BOAT 2,017,000 2,017,000
ACQUISITION
1998GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER 21,000 ..............
CAPABILITY
1999GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER 4,385,000 4,406,000
CAPABILITY
1997MOTOR SURF BOAT (MSB) 19,000 19,000
REPLACEMENT
1997POLAR CLASS ICEBREAKER 134,000 ..............
RELIABILITY
1998POLAR CLASS ICEBREAKER 1,600,000 1,734,000
RELIABILITY
1995POLAR ICEBREAKER 13,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT (PIR)
1997POLAR ICEBREAKER 26,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT (PIR)
1998POLAR ICEBREAKER 346,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT (PIR)
1999POLAR ICEBREAKER 1,000,000 1,385,000
REPLACEMENT (PIR)
1995SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) 34,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1996SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) 108,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1997SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) 39,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1999SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) 26,221,000 26,402,000
REPLACEMENT
1995STERN LOADING BUOY BOAT 11,000 ..............
BUSL REPL
1997STERN LOADING BUOY BOAT 13,000 ..............
BUSL REPL
1998STERN LOADING BUOY BOAT 120,000 ..............
BUSL REPL
1999STERN LOADING BUOY BOAT 478,000 622,000
BUSL REPL
1997SURFACE SEARCH RADAR 2,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1998SURFACE SEARCH RADAR 425,000 ..............
REPLACEMENT
1999SURFACE SEARCH RADAR 5,631,000 6,058,000
REPLACEMENT
1995SURVEY & DESIGN--CUTTERS 25,000 ..............
AND BOATS
1998SURVEY & DESIGN--CUTTERS 200,000 ..............
AND BOATS
1999SURVEY & DESIGN--CUTTERS 500,000 725,000
AND BOATS
---------------------------------
TOTAL, VESSELS 208,150,000 208,150,000
=================================
NOAIRCRAFT SENSOR & C-130 38,318,000 38,318,000
ENGINE UPGRADE
1998GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 557,000 557,000
INSTALLATION
1998HC-130 AIRCRAFT SENSOR 630,000 ..............
UPGRADE
1999HC-130 AIRCRAFT SENSOR 10,000,000 10,630,000
UPGRADE
1999HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION 370,000 370,000
1999HC-130 SIDE LOOKING 2,400,000 2,400,000
AIRBORNE RADAR (SLAR)
1999HH-60J NAVIGATION UPGRADE 96,000 96,000
1999HH-65A ENGINE CONTROL 5,500,000 5,500,000
PROGRAM
1997HH-65A HELICOPTER KAPTON 25,000 ..............
REWIRING REPLACEMENT
1998HH-65A HELICOPTER KAPTON 1,500,000 ..............
REWIRING REPLACEMENT
1999HH-65A HELICOPTER KAPTON 4,500,000 6,025,000
REWIRING REPLACEMENT
1998HH-65A HELO MISSION UNIT 100,000 ..............
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT
1999HH-65A HELO MISSION UNIT 2,223,000 2,323,000
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT
1999HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS 3,500,000 3,500,000
IMPROVEMENT
1998LONG RANGE SEARCH AIRCRAFT 2,465,000 2,465,000
CAPABILITY PRESERVATION
NOMARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT 37,000,000 37,000,000
ACQUISITION
NOOPERATIONAL TEST, USE OF 779,000 779,000
FORCE FROM AIRCRAFT
NOREACTIVATE OF HU-25 JETS 542,000 542,000
1999ROLES AND MISSION STUDY 1,000,000 1,000,000
1998TRAFFIC AND COLLISION 1,200,000 ..............
AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS)
NOTRAFFIC AND COLLISION 468,000 1,668,000
AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS)
---------------------------------
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT 113,173,000 113,173,000
=================================
1997AVIATION LOGISTICS 958,000 ..............
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS)
1998AVIATION LOGISTICS 2,699,000 ..............
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS)
1999AVIATION LOGISTICS 1,000,000 4,657,000
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS)
1999COMMERCIAL SATELLITE COMM 3,935,000 3,935,000
UPGRADE
1998COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 195,000 ..............
(COMMSYS) 2000
1999COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 1,162,000 1,357,000
(COMMSYS) 2000
1997CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE 20,000 ..............
APPLICATION
1998CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE 1,620,000 1,640,000
APPLICATION
1998DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM 1,129,000 ..............
(DMS) IMPLEMENTATION
1999DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM 460,000 1,589,000
(DMS) IMPLEMENTATION
1998DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL 146,000 146,000
POSITIONING SYSTEM (DGPS)
1997FINANCE CENTER INFORMATION 8,000 8,000
SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
1998FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM 111,000 ..............
(FLS)
1999FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM 1,939,000 2,050,000
(FLS)
1998FREQUENCY SPECTRUM 750,000 750,000
REALLOCATION
1997GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS 529,000 529,000
AND SAFETY SYSTEM
1998LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS 550,000 ..............
(LNM) AUTOMATION
1999LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS 1,000,000 1,550,000
(LNM) AUTOMATION
1999MARINE INFORMATION FOR 1,540,000 1,540,000
SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
(MISLE)
1999MARITIME DIFFERENTIAL 6,000,000 6,000,000
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
(DGPS)
1998NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM 1,800,000 ..............
MODERNIZATION
1999NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM 3,000,000 4,800,000
MODERNIZATION
1997PERSONNEL MANAGEMEMT 646,000 ..............
INFORMATION SYSTEM/MIL PAY
SYSTEM
1998PERSONNEL MANAGEMEMT 38,000 ..............
INFORMATION SYSTEM/MIL PAY
SYSTEM
1999PERSONNEL MANAGEMEMT 1,146,000 1,830,000
INFORMATION SYSTEM/MIL PAY
SYSTEM
1997PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY 254,000 ..............
SYSTEMS (PAWSS)
1998PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY 322,000 ..............
SYSTEMS (PAWSS)
1999PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY 5,901,000 6,477,000
SYSTEMS (PAWSS)
1997VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICE 254,000 254,000
REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION
1997VHF-FM HIGH LEVEL SITE 93,000 ..............
UPGRADE
1998VHF-FM HIGH LEVEL SITE 2,500,000 2,593,000
UPGRADE
---------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER 41,705,000 41,705,000
EQUIPMENT
=================================
NOACQUISITION OF 2 C3 17,000,000 17,000,000
PLATFORMS
1999AIR STATION CAPE COD-- 1,500,000 1,500,000
REPLACEMENT ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION SYS
1999AIRSTATION MIAMI--RENOVATE 3,600,000 3,600,000
FIXED WING HANGAR
1997BALTIMORE, MD--COST GUARD 19,000 19,000
YARD LAND BASED SHIP
HANDLING FAC.
1997BASE SAN JUAN 293,000 293,000
RECONSTRUCTION PHASE I
1998BAYONNE, NJ CONTRUCT PIER 200,000 200,000
1999CAPITALIZATION PROJECT 8,000,000 8,000,000
NOCOMSTA MIAMI RESTORATION 226,000 226,000
1997CUTTERS CHIPPEWA AND OBION 38,000 38,000
RELOCATE OWENSBORO MOORING
1998GROUND WAVE EMERGENCY 294,000 294,000
NETWORK (GWEN/DGPS)
1998GROUP WOODS HOLE-- 120,000 120,000
WATERFRONT RENOVATION
1998GROUP STATION NEW ORLEANS-- 8,400,000 8,400,000
RELOCATION PHI
1999GROUP STATION NEW ORLEANS 4,000,000 4,000,000
1999INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND 2,100,000 2,100,000
(ISC) BOSTON WATERFRONT
REHAB
1998INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND 246,000 246,000
(ISC) KETCHIKAN REPLACE
BREAKWATER
1998INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND 54,000 54,000
(ISC) KODIAK HANGAR
RENOVATION
1998INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND 745,000 745,000
(ISC) PORTSMOUTH, VA
NOHURRICANE GEORGES 6,620,000 6,620,000
SUPPLEMENTAL
1998LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 470,000 470,000
CENTER PH IV
NOMIDWEST FLOOD SUPPLEMENTAL 399,000 399,000
1997MINOR AC&I SHORE 25,000 ..............
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
1998MINOR AC&I SHORE 525,000 ..............
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
1999MINOR AC&I SHORE 5,910,000 6,460,000
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
1999OPTIMIZE COAST GUARD 2,200,000 2,200,000
TRAINNG INFRASTRUCTURE
1997PUBLIC FAMILY QUARTERS 12,000 ..............
1998PUBLIC FAMILY QUARTERS 1,623,000 ..............
1999PUBLIC FAMILY QUARTERS 9,000,000 10,635,000
1999STA CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 47' 1,700,000 1,700,000
MLB IMPROVEMENTS
1999STATION DAUPHIN ISLAND 3,200,000 3,200,000
1997STATION JUNEAU RENOVATE/ 71,000 71,000
EXPAND STATION FACILITY
1999STATION NEAH BAY-- 3,000,000 3,000,000
WATERFRONT RENOVATION
1999STATION OSWEGO 47' MLB 1,450,000 1,450,000
IMPROVEMENTS
1997STATION SABINE CONSTRUCT/ 90,000 90,000
EXPAND WATERFRONT FACILITY
1998STATION BELLINGHAM 633,000 633,000
RELOCATION
1997SUPRTCEN PORTSMOUTH UPGRADE 24,000 24,000
PAINTING AND SANDBLAST
FACILITY
1997SUPRTCEN SAN PEDRO 87,000 87,000
CONSTRUCT MEDICAL FACILITY
1997SURVEY & DESIGN--SHORE 56,000 ..............
PROJECTS
1998SURVEY & DESIGN--SHORE 2,000 ..............
PROJECTS
1999SURVEY & DESIGN--SHORE 2,800,000 2,858,000
PROJECTS
1999WATERWAYS AIDS-TO- 4,073,000 4,073,000
NAVIGATION PROJECTS
---------------------------------
TOTAL, SHORE PROGRAM 90,805,000 90,805,000
=================================
TOTAL, ALL CATEGORIES 453,833,000 453,833,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
comparison of ac&i fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 requests
Question. Please provide a table comparing your fiscal year 2000
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) request with your
fiscal year 1999 request and House, Senate, and Conference actions.
Answer. The information follows.
COAST GUARD FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND
IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET SUMMARY
Fiscal year [In thousands of dollars]
1998 Enacted.............................................. 407,300
1999 Requested............................................ 443,000
1999 Senate............................................... 426,200
1999 House................................................ 389,000
1999 Conference........................................... 395,400
2000 Requested............................................ 350,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal
Project ------------------------------------------------ year 2000
Req Senate House Conf Req
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSELS
Survey & Design..................................... 500 500 500 500 500
Buoy Tender (WLB)................................... 105,000 45,000 81,790 72,600 77,000
Buoy Tender (WLM)................................... 31,000 31,000 27,000 27,000 ..........
Buoy Boat (BUSL).................................... 11,773 11,773 7,055 11,773 5,000
47' (MLB)........................................... 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 24,360
Healy............................................... 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,900
Surf Search Radar................................... 12,900 12,900 8,450 8,450 4,000
Coastals (CPB)...................................... 37,600 37,600 47,600 37,600 1,000
Deepwater........................................... 28,000 28,000 20,000 20,000 44,200
GLIB................................................ .......... 4,000 6,000 5,300 ..........
Repair/improve vessels:
Polar (RIP)..................................... 6,100 4,000 .......... .......... 4,100
Config Mgmtt.................................... 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,700
Edenton......................................... 10,000 14,000 2,000 10,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal vessels.............................. 269,573 215,473 227,095 219,923 165,760
Reprogramming Prior Year Funds...................... .......... .......... -9,100 .......... ..........
New budget authority................................ .......... .......... 227,913 .......... ..........
===========================================================
AIRCRAFT
HH-65A Kapton Wiring................................ 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 3,360
HH-65A Mission Computer Unit Replacement............ 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,650
HC-130 Eng Upgrade * C.............................. 9,941 9,941 4,100 4,100 ..........
L R Search--HC-130.................................. 1,590 1,590 .......... .......... 5,900
HC-130 Sensor-drugs................................. 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 ..........
HU-25 Aircraft Avionics............................. 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,900
HH-60J Upgraded Navigation.......................... 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 3,800
Low Signature Aircraft.............................. .......... .......... 2,000 .......... ..........
HU-25 Engine Overhaul............................... .......... .......... 9,000 .......... ..........
HH-65 Engine Control FADEC.......................... .......... 9,000 .......... 6,000 ..........
HH-130 Side Looking Airborne Radar Upgrade.......... 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal aircraft............................. 37,131 46,131 40,700 35,700 22,110
Reprogramming Prior Year Funds...................... .......... .......... -1,400 .......... ..........
New budget authority................................ .......... .......... 39,400 .......... ..........
===========================================================
OTHER EQUIPMENT
Fleet Logistics System (FLS)........................ 4,669 4,669 4,669 4,669 6,000
Ports and Waterways (PAWSS)......................... 6,600 5,500 6,600 6,600 4,500
Marine Info for Safety & LE (MISLE)................. 6,100 4,000 4,100 4,100 10,500
Communications System (COMMSYS) 2000................ 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 ..........
Aviation Logistics Info System (ALMIS)............. 1,000 1,000 .......... 1,000 2,700
National Distress System (NDS)...................... 3,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 16,000
DGPS Phase III...................................... 2,600 9,520 .......... 7,500 ..........
Defense Message Service Implementation.............. 800 800 800 800 3,477
PMIS/JUMPS II, PH II................................ 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 4,400
Commercial Comms Sat-drugs.......................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,049
Local Notice to mariners............................ 1,300 1,000 1,300 1,000 ..........
Drug Sensors--Deploy Dectect ID..................... .......... .......... 9,000 .......... ..........
Human Res Info Sys.................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,100
LORAN C Recap....................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal other equipment...................... 33,969 35,389 37,369 36,569 53,726
Reprogramming Prior Year Funds...................... .......... .......... -7,055 .......... ..........
New budget authority................................ .......... .......... 30,314 .......... ..........
===========================================================
SHORE FACILITIES/ATON
Survey & Design..................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000
Minor AC&I.......................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Air stations:
AIRSTA Cape Cod--Electrical..................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 ..........
AIRSTA Miami--HU25 Hangar....................... 7,100 7,100 3,600 3,600 3,500
AIRSTA Kodiak--Hangar........................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 8,300
AIRSTA Elizabeth City--Ramp Expansion........... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,800
Supply/support/training ctrs:
ISC Alameda--Replace Cause- way................ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ISC Boston--Waterfront Rehab.................... 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 ..........
CGA--Renovate Satterlee Hall.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 5,000
Coast guard housing................................. 18,600 5,000 2,300 9,000 7,800
Bases/stations/groups/MSO's:
STA Oswego--47 MLB Improvements................. 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 ..........
STA Neah Bay--Waterfront Improvements........... 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ..........
GROUP Cape Disappointment--47 MLB Improv........ 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 ..........
Eliminate Excess Training Infrastructure........ 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 ..........
Group/Station NOLA.............................. .......... .......... 4,000 4,000 ..........
Station Dauphin Island.......................... .......... 3,200 .......... 3,200 ..........
Construct WPB Maint Facility.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,100
Modernize CG Station Shinne- cock.............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,500
Relocate MSO/Station Cleveland Hbr.............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
87' Shore Improvements.......................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,800
Waterways/ATON Projects......................... 5,000 5,000 4,073 4,073 5,000
Capitalizable projects (transfer from OE)....... .......... .......... 8,000 8,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal shore.............................. 53,650 43,250 44,923 54,823 55,800
PERSONNEL
Direct Personnel Costs.............................. 47,700 47,700 47,700 47,700 51,180
Core Acquisition Costs.............................. 750 750 750 750 1,750
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal personnel............................ 48,450 48,450 48,450 48,450 52,930
===========================================================
Reduction for Asset Sales........................... .......... .......... -2,000 .......... ..........
Dewine Amendment--drugs............................. .......... 37,480 .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total request................................. 442,773 426,173 389,000 395,465 350,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In addition to the fiscal year 1999 AC&I funds appropriated for multimission capital assets, the Coast
Guard received $217.4M in AC&I emergency supplemental funds for ``the expansion of drug interdiction
activities.'' These funds were earmarked for specific vessels, aircraft, and sensors dedicated to drug
interdiction efforts.
five-year budget process
Question. The Committee has been informed that the Coast Guard is
developing a five-year budget process to improve long-range planning.
What is the status of this proposal?
Answer. The Coast Guard is considering the value of producing a 5-
year budget similar to what is currently developed to support the
President's National Drug Control Strategy. Although the Coast Guard
believes that a 5-year budget would be a useful planning and
programming tool, the Coast Guard is weighing the benefits against
considerable additional demands on limited staff resources.
chief financial officers act compliance
Question. The Coast Guard has not received an unqualified opinion
on its Chief Financial Officers Act audit of its financial statements.
What actions has the Coast Guard taken to gain compliance and when does
the Coast Guard expect to achieve compliance?
Answer. The Coast Guard is on track to achieve an ``unqualified
opinion'' on the audit of fiscal year 1999 financial statements.
The Coast Guard is nearly complete with establishing an accurate
baseline value for its land, buildings, and structures. In partnership
with the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOTIG), the
Coast Guard is resolving several categories of data discrepancies. We
expect to have an accurate baseline for real property by the end of May
1999.
The Coast Guard has established an accurate baseline for its
cutters and aircraft. By the end of fiscal year 1999, we will have an
accurate baseline established for all other categories of property and
equipment.
One of our initiatives for facilitating the long-term systemic
accounting for property is the implementation of an integrated property
accounting system. This commercial-off-the-shelf-software will
eliminate the need for multiple, often redundant, property tracking
systems and will provide for accurate asset accounting, from
acquisition to disposal. This system is in the beta test stage of
development and will be deployed beginning in the 4th quarter of this
fiscal year. Full deployment should be achieved by the end of fiscal
year 2000.
In partnership with the DOTIG, the Coast Guard is reviewing its
internal accounting policies and procedures to ensure expenses and
year-end obligations are properly recorded. We expect to have
deficiencies resolved by the end of this fiscal year.
chief financial officers act budgetary impact
Question. What effect, if any, has noncompliance had on the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act has had no impact on
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The Coast Guard has
placed, and will continue to place, high priority on achieving an
unqualified opinion in the fiscal year 1999 CFO Act audit.
challenges in drug interdiction performance measures
Question. What difficulties has the Coast Guard identified in
developing outcomes, performance goals, and performance measures for
its counterdrug activities?
Answer. The National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS), and the
associated Performance Measures of Effectiveness (PME), establish the
national policy requirements for drug interdiction and quantifiable
performance targets. The Coast Guard's drug interdiction performance
goal and performance targets are designed to achieve the mandates of
the NDCS. The Coast Guard's goal is to reduce the flow of illegal drugs
into the United States by denying maritime smuggling routes. The Coast
Guard uses two measures to assess progress toward this goal:
--The proportion of cocaine removed via noncommercial maritime routes
in transit to the United States, as measured against
interagency flow estimates; and
--The smuggler success rate.
The first measure is directly linked with the PME requirements and
impact targets for Goal 4 of the NDCS. The second was developed by the
Coast Guard to account for not only drug removals enroute to the U.S.,
but also the deterrent effect created by the Coast Guard's interdiction
presence in the Transit Zone. Two primary challenges, the accuracy of
cocaine flow estimates and the quantification of the deterrent effect,
are related to performance data.
Since smuggling is an illegal activity, cocaine flow is difficult
to ascertain accurately. As part of the NDCS PME system, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is working within the interagency
framework to improve flow estimates. The Interagency Assessment of
Cocaine Movement (IACM) Model is operational and continues to be
refined.
A study of deterrence is being pursued by ONDCP, the Coast Guard,
and the Customs Service to further establish the relationship between
law enforcement presence and deterrence. This effort will help better
define performance measurement in this area.
five-year drug budget initiatives
Question. How much funding is needed over the next 5 years to
achieve the Coast Guard's drug interdiction goals?
Answer. The Coast Guard's current drug law enforcement plan
requires increased drug interdiction capability in three key areas:
--Increased surface end-game capability--This is the ability to
intercept and stop suspect vessels allowing for arrests to be
made and contraband to be seized.
--Increased airborne capability--This is the ability to carry out
surveillance in high-threat areas, detect and track suspects,
and support surface end game interdiction efforts.
--Enhanced effectiveness of current assets/forces--This is the
ability to increase the capability of current forces with
technology, intelligence, and logistics support.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $46 million for the
initial operation and maintenance of the drug interdiction capital
assets provided for in the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental
appropriations. This funding will be used to increase capability in the
three key areas identified above.
Resource requirements beyond fiscal year 2000 will be detailed in
future year budget requests. Actual outyear resource requirements will
depend upon the many variables that affect maritime interdiction
operations. These variables include: the evolving threats (smuggling
routes, smuggling modes, smuggling technologies); the level of
Department of Defense and interagency participation in counterdrug
activities; the effects of increased international cooperation; the
value of ongoing engagement efforts with transit and source nations;
potential efficiencies gained from new technology; and the long-term
success of the strategy as currently developed.
funding required for fiscal year 1999 emergency appropriations
initiatives
Question. How much funding is required to sustain new drug
interdiction operations and assets the Coast Guard is deploying as a
result of the fiscal year 1999 emergency appropriations?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request includes
$46 million for the initial operation and maintenance of counterdrug
capital assets funded in the fiscal year 1999 emergency appropriations.
This amount will need to be annualized in fiscal year 2001.
hu-25 re-engine proof of concept project
Question. The committee understands that the Coast Guard is about
to initiate a program to re-engine its HU-25 Falcon fleet, including
aircraft currently in storage, using $15 million of the fiscal year
1999 emergency supplemental funds. Please provide for the record a
description of the program, schedule, and funding profile.
Answer. This project will determine if re-engining the HU-25 Falcon
with new commercially available engines reduces HU-25 operating costs
while increasing performance and availability. The project scope
entails engine replacement on a maximum of three HU-25s. The collected
data will determine if the best interests of the Coast Guard are served
by re-engining the entire HU-25 fleet.
The project will be evaluated using two metrics employed during
flight testing of the prototype aircraft. The first metric verifies
aircraft performance, identifying any actual increases or decreases in
range and endurance. Secondly, measures of engine reliability and
aircraft availability will be gathered as modified aircraft return to
operational status.
This project is a key element of the Aviation Near-Term Support
Strategy, which identified the requirements needed to extend the
capability of the Coast Guard's current aircraft fleet for the
remainder of their usable service lives, or until a Deepwater
replacement system becomes operational.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND FUNDING PROFILE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key events Fiscal year Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Recurring Engineering and System 1999/2000 \1\ $15,000,00
Design................................. 0
Aircraft Engine Installation and Flight 2001/2002 TBD
Testing................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 Supplemental.
fiscal year 2000 budget request for hu-25 re-engine proof of concept
project
Question. What is the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the HU-25
re-engine program? Is this amount sufficient to prevent a break in the
program once it is initiated?
Answer. There is no fiscal year 2000 budget request for HU-25 re-
engining. The initial investment of $15 million from the fiscal year
1999 emergency supplemental appropriation will be sufficient to fund
the initial non-recurring engineering and system design for a re-
engining project through fiscal year 2000. Additional funding
requirements for such a project must still be determined.
intentions regarding ``power-by-the-hour'' program
Question. Is it the Coast Guard's intention to support these re-
engined aircraft with a ``power-by-the-hour'' program? If so, please
describe the program properties.
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to evaluate the costs and benefits
of a ``power-by-the-hour'' (PBTH) program. In a PBTH agreement, the
vendor assumes responsibility for future overhaul and repair (excluding
line maintenance and consumables) at a fixed rate based on engine hours
in service, hence ``power-by-the-hour.'' Under this arrangement, the
vendor must absorb any excess costs incurred over the fixed rate. Under
the PBTH agreement, the Coast Guard is assured of an accurate cost
projection and will avoid the costs associated with unscheduled
maintenance actions. This arrangement also provides significant
incentives for the vendor to reduce their costs by increasing engine
reliability. PBTH has proven to be enormously successful with the
Allied-Signal LTS101 (HH-65 engine).
research to reduce aids to navigation maintenance
Question. Has the Coast Guard conducted any research to reduce
maintenance on Federal aids to navigation?
Answer. Yes. Past Coast Guard research has resulted in reduced
maintenance requirements on Federal aids to navigation. For example,
improved coating systems have removed the requirement for the servicing
unit to paint the buoy on-station between the 6-year overhaul cycle,
and smaller foam and plastic buoys now used in protected waters do not
require maintenance of the buoy body itself over its service life. In
addition, improved color films have more than doubled the service life
of the previously used fluorescent film. Primary batteries have been
replaced with a solar-powered system eliminating potential
environmental hazards. The development of improved optics in
combination with solar power has also enabled the Coast Guard to remove
diesel powered generators from most remote lighthouses, reducing
scheduled servicing visits from quarterly to annual, in addition to
removing the possibility of environmental damage due to fuel spills or
tank leaks.
The Coast Guard continues to conduct research to determine the most
cost effective means to conduct the aids to navigation mission.
administrative and support functions
Question. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a
report after reviewing eight Coast Guard administrative and support
functions to identify potential cost savings. The GAO found that seven
of the eight functions might be able to achieve cost savings. What
actions has the Coast Guard taken in each of these areas to reduce
costs? What additional actions is the Coast Guard considering taking in
the future to reduce costs?
Answer. Coast Guard action on the seven areas identified by GAO for
potential cost savings are as follows:
1. Shipbuilding and repair.--The number of overhead workers at the
Coast Guard Yard has been reduced by 19.3 percent since 1994. In 1994,
the cost of one overhead worker was borne by three waterfront
producers; today, the cost of one overhead worker is spread over 3.5
producers. The Coast Guard Yard is narrowing the gap with private
sector yards and compares very well with other medium size shipyards
(Coast Guard Yard labor rate is $45.99 per hour; commercial yard rates
range from $35.67 to $47.30 per hour; the U.S. Navy rate at Pearl
Harbor is $110 per hour). The Coast Guard Yard is currently pursuing
work from other government agencies to maintain an optimum production
work force to overhead worker ratio.
2. Permanent change of station.--The Coast Guard has taken
aggressive action to reduce permanent change of station (PCS) costs. A
1995 Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOTIG) report
concluded, ``USCG efforts to extend the tours of duty have been
effective. Since our prior survey in 1990, the Coast Guard increased
the average standard officer tour length by 8 percent. Also, during
this same time period, tour completion rates for enlisted personnel
increased from 40 percent to over 80 percent.'' Since then, the Coast
Guard has also authorized 2-year tour length extensions, eliminated
some non-rated personnel transfers, and increased certain specialty
tour lengths. It is important to note that approximately 28 percent of
PCS funds are used for non-discretionary transfers (retirements,
separations, schools, and recruit graduates) required by law. Another
24 percent of PCS funds are used to replace these members. Also,
arduous duty, command, or liaison assignments and their replacements
drive 25 percent of assignments. Therefore, only about 23 percent of
PCS assignments are truly discretionary. The Coast Guard continues to
identify efficiencies in PCS expenditures.
3. Payment of bills and payroll.--Comparisons between Finance
Center processing of transactions and other processing centers have
shown the Finance Center to be efficient. The Coast Guard is currently
revamping its military personnel and payroll system, which is expected
to reduce the need for administrative personnel. In fiscal year 1999,
the Coast Guard saved 115 positions due to the implementation of
Personnel Management Information/Joint Uniform Military Pay System
(PMIS/JUMPS) II. These savings have been returned to the taxpayer as
savings shown in the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 budget, with total
system savings in excess of $6 million per year.
4. Cutter and aircraft spare parts inventories.--The Coast Guard's
aviation and cutter supply and engineering software ensures that the
correct parts are available when needed and, where possible, reduces
inventory levels of parts that are not needed. The existing Aviation
Logistics Management Information System and the Fleet Logistics System,
currently in development, will allow further reductions by integrating
parts availability information with maintenance tracking.
5. Training.--The $345 million for training identified by GAO
greatly exceeds the $65 million value for training and education in the
Program, Project, and Activities (PPA) section of the congressional
stage budget. The $345 million includes not only operating and
maintenance costs to manage the training centers, but also the salaries
and other benefits associated with training.
6. Collection of administrative civil penalties.--As discussed by
the GAO, the Coast Guard initiated a ticketing program in 1995 for
pollution violations. The Coast Guard is considering expanding this
program into a ``universal'' ticket for use in instances where there
are violations of other regulations or statutes that the Coast Guard
enforces. A regulatory project is underway. The Coast Guard completed a
study on its Hearing Officer program and found that due to the
decreased workload for the Hearing Offices and the Coast Guard's need
to reduce costs, the program consolidated its three offices into one
primary office and one satellite office. The primary office is located
in Ballston, Virginia, and the satellite office is in Alameda,
California. The New Orleans office will be closed in the summer of
1999, and the Boston office will close during the summer of 2000.
7. Health Care.--The Coast Guard is currently establishing a
Headquarters office that will more closely monitor clinics' health care
expenditures and identify opportunities to optimize the use of Coast
Guard health care resources.
relocation of air facility glenview, il to muskegon, mi
Question. Is the Coast Guard still satisfied with its decision to
relocate the air facility at Glenview, IL to Muskegon, MI?
Answer. Although the Coast Guard firmly believes that an air
facility on Southern Lake Michigan is operationally redundant, if
directed to continue operation of one air facility on the lake,
Muskegon continues to be the best location from both a budgetary and
operational perspective.
activities field organization streamlining effort
Question. What is the status of the effort to streamline field
organizations by developing and evaluating prototype field
organizations at Baltimore, Corpus Christi, San Diego, and New York?
What are the potential savings and impact on operations of these
prototype organizations?
Answer. Of the four prototyped field organizations, three remain
operational and there are currently no plans to change their
organizational structures. The fourth prototyped activities
organization at the Corpus Christi location was disestablished because
the geographical distance separating the Marine Safety Office and the
Group/Air Station commands minimized the benefit that activities
commands were designed to achieve.
The lessons learned from this particular command and other
prototyped integrated organizations were evaluated this past year. The
major findings were: (1) the activities prototypes and similar
integrated command structures evaluated are effective in carrying out
their Coast Guard missions, including cross-programmatic coordination;
and (2) effectiveness, multimission capability, unit/program
coordination, and one-stop shopping for customers were enhanced at
operating units where one or more of the following four core
characteristics were present, regardless of the command structure:
--Presence of an integrated command center within a specific area of
responsibility (AOR);
--Presence of a single resource broker of assets at the field unit
commander level with the authority and ability to task all
operational assets (boats, cutters, aircraft, and personnel)
within a specific AOR;
--Collocation of field unit command and control structures in a
specific AOR; and
--Presence of an integrated operations concept where group, port, and
air operations staff entities work side by side within a common
space or building.
Savings were not the primary reason behind the decision to create
activities commands. Improved coordination and effectiveness between
different operational commands within a specific area of operations and
the provision of ``one-stop shopping'' for Coast Guard customers in the
port were the key drivers behind testing the activities concept.
excess coast guard infrastructure
Question. Has the Coast Guard identified excess infrastructure?
What excess properties were sold and what was the amount raised?
Answer. Yes. Those properties which have been identified as excess
to the Coast Guard's needs have either been reported excess to the
General Services Administration (GSA) or a notice of intention to
relinquish has been sent to the Department of Interior.
The following is a list of excess properties that were sold and the
amount raised:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Description year State Amount raised
credit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITTLE WOODS HOUSING................. 1997 LA $1,132,600
SECOND DISTRICT FLAG QUARTERS........ 1997 MO 192,000
ELIZABETH CITY CLEAR ZONE............ 1997 NC 49,000
---------------
TOTAL.......................... ....... ........ 1,373,600
===============
COINJOCK HOUSING..................... 1998 NC 83,600
OWENSBORO MOORINGS................... 1998 KY 168,400
REDMOND HOUSING...................... 1998 WA 1,691,900
OLD GREENVILLE DET/LAND/BLDG......... 1998 MS 37,400
---------------
TOTAL.......................... ....... ........ 1,981,300
===============
LAMOURE HOUSING...................... 1999 ND 208,200
BAUDETTE HOUSING..................... 1999 MN 26,000
GWYNN ISLAND HOUSING................. 1999 VA 14,300
---------------
Total.......................... ....... ........ 248,500
===============
TOTAL AMOUNT RAISED............ ....... ........ 3,603,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Dollar amounts indicate actual proceeds received rounded to the
nearest hundredth dollar. Property credited to the Coast Guard in
funding year indicated.
The following is a list of excess properties that may result in a
public sale by the GSA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Description year State Estimated
credit proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LORSTA DANA HOUSING.................. 1999 IN $152,000
HYDE PARK HOUSING.................... 1999 MA 1,439,000
---------------
ESTIMATED TOTAL................ ....... ........ 1,591,000
===============
SO HAVEN LAND/DWELLING............... 2000 MI 105,300
ESMT MANASQUAN....................... 2000 NJ 160,000
ESMT PORTSMOUTH...................... 2000 NH 411,300
STA CLAIR FLATS/LAND & IMP........... 2000 MI 377,000
ANT HURON/LAND/DWELLING.............. 2000 OH 83,600
---------------
ESTIMATED TOTAL................ ....... ........ 1,137,200
===============
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROCEEDS....... ....... ........ 2,728,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Dollar amounts indicate estimated proceeds rounded to the nearest
hundredth dollar. Property sale may occur in the funding year
indicated.
legislation for coast guard base realignment and closure
Question. Is legislation similar to the Base Closure and
Realignment Commission necessary to reduce excessive infrastructure?
Answer. No. Legislation similar to the Base Closure and Realignment
Commission is not necessary to reduce excessive Coast Guard
infrastructure. Each year, the Coast Guard reports a number of
properties as excess infrastructure to the General Services
Administration for disposal, or as subject of no-cost conveyance
legislation. Since 1997, the proceeds from the sale of these properties
results in approximately $1 million annually as revenue.
Through the effective use of its planning and review process, the
Coast Guard is able to divest unused or underutilized properties. These
reviews, combined with existing processes for divestiture, provide
sufficient means to reduce excessive Coast Guard infrastructure.
excess capacity at training centers
Question. A study conducted in 1995 concluded that the Coast Guard
should close the training center at Petaluma, California, as part of
its streamlining effort. Does the Coast Guard still contend that it has
excess training space and need to close one of its facilities?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing its training space
needs and will issue a report in the near future.
savings from closing a training center
Question. How much would you save in fiscal year 2000 and during
the next five fiscal years (2000 -2005)?
Answer. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing its training space
needs and will issue a report in the near future.
alignment of training center petaluma programs
Question. If this Training Center were closed, how would the Coast
Guard align its training programs among the other training centers?
Answer. The training center at Cape May, NJ would remain the
Recruit Training Center. The training center at Elizabeth City, NC
would remain the Aviation Technical Training Center, and would receive
the Health Services and Food Services schools from Training Center
Petaluma. Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, VA, would receive the
remaining schools from Training Center Petaluma, including Electronics
Technician, Telephone Technician, Telecommunications Specialist,
Yeoman, and Storekeeper schools. This assumes the programmatic
environmental review now underway identifies no obstacles to expansion
at Yorktown or to the closure at Petaluma.
deepwater funding allocation
Question. The Coast Guard is requesting $44 million to continue the
Deepwater project. How will the funds be allocated?
Answer. The $44.2 million requested for fiscal year 2000 includes:
--$25.2 million for Deepwater industry teams. Specifically, $8.4
million will be provided to each of the three industry teams to
fund Functional Design requirements.
--$16 million for Deepwater Project technical support. Specifically,
continuing development and implementation of Modeling and
Simulation tools; integrating and analyzing industry's
proposals and the resulting impact on existing Coast Guard
capabilities and assets; examining proposed surface/air/C\4\ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance) assets for environmental
impacts, conformance with project requirements, and technical
feasibility; and planning and assessing impacts to the Coast
Guard logistics and facilities infrastructure.
--$3 million for project management and administration. Specifically,
project management and support contractors, travel, preparation
of the Phase 2 Request for Proposals (RFP), and administrative
expenses.
coast guard response to gao deepwater report
Question. What additional analysis and justification have been
prepared to respond to the shortcomings identified in the General
Accounting Office (GAO) report (GAO/RECD-99-6) of the Coast Guard's
original formal justification developed depicting the need for
replacement or modernization of the asset mix characterized as
deepwater ships and aircraft? Please provide all relevant documentation
for the record.
Answer. The Coast Guard has taken aggressive steps to address the
concerns cited in GAO's report. These actions include:
--Modification of the Project's contracting strategy to double the
duration for development of industry's Deepwater concepts.
While retaining the original final contract award date of
January 2002, the extended design process provides the Coast
Guard with more advanced technical concepts and more refined
cost estimates. In addition, extending design provides the time
and contractual framework to address GAO's concern about the
Project's ability to incorporate findings from the Interagency
Task Force on Coast Guard Roles and Missions.
--Substantial increase in the amount of information provided to
industry on the condition and cost of Deepwater legacy assets.
The Coast Guard developed and provided an exhaustive record of
the operating and support costs and planned upgrades for all
Deepwater legacy assets, an extensive report describing viable
strategies to extend the service life of all legacy aviation
assets, and a detailed engineering study on the condition and
estimated remaining service life for the 378 foot high
endurance class of cutters. In addition, similar engineering
studies on the condition and estimated service lives of the 270
foot and 210 foot medium endurance cutter fleets are underway
and will be provided to industry by the end of May and June
respectively.
--Tasked the Project's Independent Analysis Government Contractor
with performing a cost sensitivity analysis. In addition, the
Coast Guard intends to task the Deepwater industry teams with
performing a similar cost sensitivity analysis during
Functional Design. Among other factors, these cost sensitivity
analyses will consider the impact of procuring a Deepwater
system over a longer period of time, which as GAO noted in
their report, ``ultimately drives up costs because of such
factors as higher administrative costs and the loss of quantity
discounts.''
--Meeting with GAO May 18-19, 1999 to gather firsthand specific
criticisms, comments, and concerns with the Project's formal
justification documents--the Mission Analysis Report and
Mission Needs Statement (MAR/MNS). The Coast Guard's revision/
revalidation of the MAR/MNS will not commence until findings
from the Interagency Task Force on Coast Guard Roles and
Missions are known--currently expected in the fall of 1999.
Since GAO issued their report in October 1998, the Coast Guard has
maintained and will continue to maintain an ongoing partnership with
GAO. The Coast Guard kept GAO apprised of the actions being taken to
address the concerns in their report and has received very positive
responses. The Project also briefed and sought GAO's comment on the new
Deepwater contracting strategy before pursuing implementation.
user fees and funding shortfall
Question. If Congress does not agree to authorize the proposed user
fee on navigational services, what recommendations would the Coast
Guard propose to Congress to adjust its fiscal year 2000 budget request
to account for the funding shortfall?
Answer. The new budget authority reflected in the President's
budget request is equal to the funding requirements for the capital
asset account line items contained in the fiscal year 2000 request. As
we understand it, no reductions from the general fund will occur unless
Congress authorizes the proposed user fees.
user fees and funding reductions
Question. Specifically, what Coast Guard programs would you cut to
make up the shortfall?
Answer. A final appropriation that contains the level of new budget
authority contained in the President's fiscal year 2000 request will
enable the Coast Guard to fully execute the capital asset line items in
that request.
acquisition reform
Question. Acquisition reform is a government-wide initiative
intended to integrate greater efficiencies and cost saving measures
into government procurement practices. What steps is the Coast Guard
taking to incorporate the lessons learned from the U.S. Navy in
developing contracting methods that allow multiple ship and multiple
year best value procurements?
Answer. The Coast Guard has taken several steps in implementing
acquisition reform in order to integrate greater efficiencies and cost
saving measures. There has been a significant increase in the use of
performance-based specifications, focusing on the missions to be
performed and allowing contractors to propose how to perform those
missions. Concurrently, the Coast Guard has increased the use of market
research to identify what is commercially available and to increase
reliance on commercial specifications and standards, as opposed to
imposing government standards on the contractors. The Coast Guard has
streamlined its best value source selection by making greater use of
oral presentations, by reducing the number of evaluation factors, and
by placing considerably higher reliance upon evaluations of
contractors' past performance. The Coast Guard is also exploring the
possibilities/advantages of multiple year contracting.
polar class reliability improvement project use of the private sector
Question. The Coast Guard has instituted the Reliability
Improvement Project (RIP) as a long-term plan to upgrade its Polar
Class Icebreakers. How does the Coast Guard intend to utilize the
private sector in the RIP?
Answer. The Reliability Improvement Project (RIP) is a $60 million
project of which $55 million is presently planned to be spent in the
private sector for design, equipment purchase, and installation of the
upgrades to the two Polar Class Icebreakers.
ports and waterways safety systems (pawss) program status
Question. In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard initiated the Ports
and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) as a successor to the Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) 2000 program. Congress provided $6.6 million in
fiscal year 1999 for this program, and the Coast Guard is requesting
$4.5 million in its fiscal year 2000 budget. What is the current status
of the PAWSS program?
Answer. The Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) prototype installation at
Gretna Light near New Orleans, LA was completed in October 1998. The
system will be moved to the Vessel Traffic Center between July and
August 1999. Additional surveillance sites with radar and closed-
circuit television cameras will be installed by November 1999. Initial
operating capability (IOC) is scheduled for January 2000.
Through the use of Y2K supplemental funding, the Coast Guard is
pursuing the first phase of the Valdez, AK VTS replacement. Phase one
of the Valdez effort addresses Y2K compliance issues. In fiscal year
2000, the second phase will begin, at which time two aging radars and
the entire communications infrastructure will be replaced.
vts new orleans/ports being considered for pawss program
Question. When will the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) in New Orleans
become operational? In addition to New Orleans, what other ports is the
Coast Guard considering for the PAWSS program?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) in New
Orleans will be operational with coverage of the Mississippi River from
Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico using Automatic Identification System
(AIS) transponders in late 2000. However, three milestones must be
reached before the VTS can be declared fully operational. First,
facility construction must be completed and the system's hardware and
software must be installed, tested, and accepted by the Government.
This process is on schedule and should be complete in late 1999.
Second, the complete crew must be on board, trained, and qualified in
accordance with approved operating procedures. The fiscal year 2000
budget request identifies nine positions to staff the Vessel Traffic
Center. These new people will have to be recruited, hired, and trained.
Pending approval, this process can be complete by October 2000.
Operational procedures for the new VTS are being written and must be in
place prior to beginning training of new hires. Because this will be
the world's first VTS to rely on AIS for information exchange with
participating vessels, the Coast Guard must pay close attention to
detail in crafting operating procedures and regulations for
participation. The third milestone is the implementation of a mandatory
carriage requirement for AIS transponders. The Coast Guard has the
least control over the timing of this aspect. It is dependent on
international standards being complete, dedicated radio frequency
channels being identified, successful field testing for
interoperability of the standard, and manufacturers producing shipboard
systems in sufficient quantities to meet demand. Barring any unforeseen
delays or disruptions to this process, a carriage requirement could be
in place for VTS New Orleans in late 2000.
The number of additional ports that will receive new systems under
the Coast Guard Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) program is
not yet known. The Coast Guard is using a systematic risk assessment
process to evaluate navigation safety conditions in ports and waterways
to determine if additional risk mitigation measures, such as a PAWSS
VTS, are necessary. The process relies on input from local waterway
users to identify risk drivers and evaluate existing mitigation
measures (i.e., visual traffic schedules, channel depth, buoy layout,
etc.).
The Coast Guard will establish a VTS under the PAWSS project only
where a shoreside oversight/traffic-organizing component is identified
by the users as a necessary risk mitigation measure and then, ideally,
only where there is a compelling Federal interest in providing that
shoreside component. The Coast Guard will begin assessing ports in the
summer of 1999.
agency capital plan
Question. When did the Coast Guard last update its Agency Capital
Plan and what is the most current estimate of the Coast Guard's capital
needs in fiscal year 2001 and 2002?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Agency Capital Plan is not yet
complete. Capital needs for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 have not yet
been determined.
gaps between funding level and agency capital plan needs
Question. How does the Coast Guard intend to address any gap in
funding between its probable funding level and the needs identified in
the Agency Capital Plan?
Answer. The Coat Guard will prioritize Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I) needs. Should the final funding level still be
insufficient to address the needs recommended for funding in the
President's budget, lower-priority investments will have to be
deferred.
impacts of not increasing ac&i appropriation
Question. What actions would the Coast Guard propose taking to
continue operations if the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(AC&I) account is not increased through 2002?
Answer. If the AC&I appropriation is not adequate, the Coast
Guard's ability to continue to provide basic services is placed at
risk, as legacy systems become unserviceable. Capital funding below the
budget request also increases the annual cost of operating and
maintaining existing infrastructure. The increased costs would result
in reduced service levels, unless the Operating Expenses (OE)
appropriation was increased to compensate. Adequate AC&I funding is
critical to the Coast Guard's future readiness.
engine leases for aircraft
Question. Is it possible, feasible, and desirable to obtain
replacement engines on a pilot lease program? If so, is there any
statutory impediment to an operating lease program or a lease-to-
purchase program? If so, please provide suggested language that would
provide the requisite statutory relief.
Answer. The Coast Guard can acquire equipment through lease.
(Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 2.1) The decision to lease or
buy is made on a case-by-case basis. (FAR 7.401) The desirability of
leasing engines for Coast Guard aircraft depends on an analysis of the
benefits of various alternatives, which typically may be affected by
the period of the lease. If the Coast Guard desires to consider all
possible alternatives when it is planning to replace equipment, long-
term leases are problematic. Without special authority, multiyear
contracts cannot exceed 5 years. (10 U.S.C. 2306b.)
The following language might be used in a statute to authorize a
longer-term program for lease of aircraft engines (modeled after an
Army pilot program for leasing commercial utility cargo vehicles, see
section 807(c) of Pub. L. 104-106, note to 10 U.S.C. 2401a):
(1) The Coast Guard may lease aircraft engines in accordance with
this subsection.
(2) Under this program--
--(A) the Coast Guard may trade existing aircraft engines for credit
against the costs of leasing new replacement engines;
--(B) the quantities and trade-in value of aircraft engines to be
traded in shall be subject to negotiation between the Coast
Guard and the lessors of the new replacement engines;
--(C) the lease agreement for new engines may be executed with or
without an option to purchase at the end of the lease period;
and
--(D) the lease period for new engines may extend up to the end of
the projected useable service life of the airframe on which the
engines will be installed.
hh-65a report
Question. Last year, the Committee added funding to support the HH-
65 engine upgrade and requested a report on the need to and
recommendations for restoring HH-65 power margins while accommodating
for future growth. What is the status of this report? What are the
conclusions of this study and what recommendations have been proposed
for restoring power margins?
Answer. The report is currently under review in the Administration.
Until this review is complete, the Coast Guard cannot comment on the
various conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.
hh-65a fadec fiscal year 2000 funding
Question. What are the Coast Guard's plans for replacing the
current fuel control on the HH-65 and how much is required in fiscal
year 2000 to continue the program initiated last year? What is the
fiscal year 2000 budget request for the HH-65 Full Authority Digital
Electronic Control (FADEC)?
Answer. The current fuel control on the HH-65 will be one of the
engine components replaced during the installation of FADEC technology.
The Coast Guard received $6 million in fiscal year 1999, enough to
continue the project until fiscal year 2001. There is no request for
FADEC funding in fiscal year 2000 because no additional funding is
required in fiscal year 2000.
hh-65a engine upgrade
Question. Please provide for the record a description of any engine
upgrade recommended along with an estimated funding profile by year for
both non-recurring and recurring unit costs.
Answer. The HH-65 report is currently under review. Until this
review is complete, the Coast Guard is unable to comment on any
proposed recommendations.
hh-65a engine upgrade initiation during fiscal year 2000
Question. Is it possible to initiate the engine upgrade process by
integrating available off-the-shelf parts required to restore
operational power margins with the engines that are returned for depot
maintenance during fiscal year 2000? If so, how much funding would be
necessary?
Answer. The HH-65A report is currently under review in the
Administration. Until this review is complete, the Coast Guard cannot
comment on HH-65 engine upgrades. No funding is necessary in fiscal
year 2000.
marine transportation system--factors affecting capital needs of ports
Question. In the next few years, the Congress will face several
issues related to the marine transportation system. Some of the most
important issues are financing dredging and shipping channels,
reviewing whether ports receive adequate funding for intermodal
connections, and assessing alternatives for maintaining and operating
the system. The Coast Guard will play a significant role as we
determine the funding needs of the nation's ports. What are the key
factors that will likely affect the capital needs of ports over the
next five years?
Answer. The key factors that affect the infrastructure and service
capital needs of ports and their associated waterways are safety,
security, environment, and economic competitiveness. Economies of
scale, increases in requirements for trade, and developments in
technology have led to the use of larger container ships and faster
vessels. Capital improvements are then necessary at ports to
accommodate these vessels: they must have sufficient depth and
configuration of navigational channels and berths, appropriate cargo
handling gear, sufficient capacity, efficient intermodal connections,
and more capable systems for cargo and vessel traffic management.
Beyond these issues, the growth in the size, speed, and amount of
traffic are increasing the risks posed to safety and the environment.
Smuggling activities, cargo-related crimes, and terrorism also threaten
U.S. economic health and personal safety.
coast guard role in easing constraints on port development
Question. What is the role of the Coast Guard in easing the
constraints to port development?
Answer. The Coast Guard's broad marine safety, security, and
environmental protection responsibilities directly impact the flow of
marine transportation, which in turn influences port development. Some
examples where the Coast Guard is reducing potential constraints to
port development are by:
--Working at local levels with government and private sector
stakeholders to integrate safety, environmental protection, and
security issues in the early phases of development plans to
improve effectiveness and avoid unnecessary hindrance of
development.
--Implementing new technologies that will directly or indirectly
foster port development. Examples include the Automatic
Identification System and Differential Global Positioning
System.
--Procuring and operating infrastructure and systems to support
management of waterways operations, including aids to
navigation, vessel traffic services, and domestic icebreaking.
--Streamlining regulatory processes--the Coast Guard and other
agencies are working together to streamline review processes
and create one-stop shopping for customers.
barriers to meeting marine transportation system needs
Question. What are the barriers the Coast Guard faces in meeting
the marine transportation needs?
Answer. The following are the challenges that Marine Transportation
System (MTS) stakeholders (including the Coast Guard) face as
identified in MTS Regional Listening Sessions and the National
Conference on the U.S. Marine Transportation System:
--Competing use of waterways and increasing demand for landside
access is a growing challenge to effective management of the
MTS. Increased vessel traffic, use of larger and higher speed
vessels, and congestion of waterways impact safe and efficient
vessel operation.
--As U.S. waterways become more congested, the need for greater
management and operational control of vessels and facilities
increases. Operational awareness of all interrelated MTS
activities is key to ensuring safe movement of vessels and
facility cargo operations. To meet this challenge, we are
exploring integration of systems employing new technology such
as the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS),
Physical and Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), and
Automatic Identification System (AIS).
effects of mega-ships & high-speed vessels on port safety
Question. How will the development of mega-ships and high-speed
vessels affect the Coast Guard's responsibilities for ensuring safety
and environmental protection in and around ports?
Answer. The development of mega-ships and high-speed vessels will
not affect the Coast Guard's responsibilities in ensuring safety and
environmental protection in and around ports. However, the development
and employment of these high-capacity and high-speed vessels will
impact the means by which the Coast Guard ensures public safety because
they present significantly increased levels of risk. The primary
threats to safety and environmental protection for these vessels arise
from the increased risk of collision (or allision) and grounding
associated with limited maneuverability of the mega-ships or reduced
reaction time for the operators of high-speed craft and vessels
encountered by high-speed craft. Both great size and high speed lead to
the potential for increased levels of damage, which in turn can result
in an increased risk of loss of life and release of pollutants.
Further, high speed vessels are often ferries which, because of the
large number of passengers they carry, increases the potential for
significant loss of life.
With increased levels of trade and marine recreation, waterways are
becoming more congested and the risks directly associated with these
vessels will be compounded. The legal authorities granted to the Coast
Guard are sufficient to manage these risks. However, new methods and
tools must be developed to meet the challenges posed by high-speed
vessels and mega-ships. Regulatory and non-regulatory mitigations to
these challenges may be attained by:
--Use of risk assessment (using tools such as Ports and Waterways
Safety Assessment (PAWSA)) and risk management (risk-based
decision making);
--Increased partnerships (e.g., harbor safety committees and the
Passenger Vessel Association high-speed craft working group)
and interagency efforts to integrate safety management systems
to commercial vessel operations;
--Traffic management tools, such as Regulated Navigation Areas,
traffic separation schemes, and safety zones surrounding
operations; and
--Improved vessel detection, monitoring, and communications systems
which better enable safe navigation and harness new
technologies, such as the Automatic Identification System
(AIS).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
operational rationale for decommissioning eleven harbor tugs
Question. Admiral, your budget asks us to approve the
decommissioning of eleven harbor tugs. Four of these vessels are either
in, or adjacent to, the State of New Jersey. I am very reluctant to
allow the Coast Guard to give up important floating assets, especially
those that are currently being used on a regular basis. What is the
operational rationale for decommissioning these vessels?
Answer. The 11 harbor tugs proposed for decommissioning were found
to be redundant to the Coast Guard's mission performance needs. The
availability of other Coast Guard assets to complete most of the harbor
tugs' mission responsibilities presented an opportunity to capture
operational savings, while still meeting performance goals in higher
priority mission areas.
mission capability of 65-foot harbor tugs (wytls)
Question. These 65-foot harbor tugs are shallow draft vessels for
their size, as compared to the other vessels in your inventory. Indeed,
at some units there are no vessels approaching this size that can enter
shallow waters. What degradation in mission capability will you
experience by decommissioning these vessels?
Answer. Decommissioning the harbor tugs eliminates the Coast
Guard's capability to break ice in the shallowest water and narrowest
channels, currently served by the 65-foot harbor tugs (WYTLs), in the
rare case when ice thickness exceeds 4 inches. Below 4 inches, the 49-
foot stern-loading buoy boat (BUSL) is capable of breaking ice in these
constrained waterways. For less restricted channels, buoy tenders and
the 140-foot icebreaker tugs are fully capable of meeting icebreaking
requirements. The Coast Guard believes that the harbor tugs'
operational niche is too narrow to justify their continued operation.
icebreaking capability with 65-foot harbor tugs (wytls) and other
vessels in inventory
Question. I understand that these vessels, especially in the
Northeast, are used for icebreaking in shallow waters and around piers
and other shoreline structures. Do you currently have the capability,
utilizing other vessels in your inventory, to do this kind of shallow
water icebreaking?
Answer. The Coast Guard has no replacement icebreaking capability
for the shallowest waters and narrowest channels, currently served by
the 65-foot harbor tugs (WYTLs), in the rare case when ice thickness
exceeds 4 inches. Buoy tenders, 140-foot icebreaker tugs, and 49-foot
buoy boats can break ice in all other situations within the harbor
tugs' operational capability range. Operational commanders have the
latitude to employ icebreaking assets against the highest priority
needs, including prevention of accumulation of ice thickness beyond the
49-foot buoy boats' capability.
decision to decommission 65-foot harbor tugs (wytls)
Question. I understand that the proposal to decommission these
eleven vessels was not in your draft budget and not in the Department
of Transportation's draft budget, and that it did not surface in your
budget until it was under review at OMB. Can you explain why the Office
of Management Budget felt that they should make operational decisions
regarding the type of vessels you need in your inventory?
Answer. The decision to decommission the 65-foot harbor tugs
(WYTLs) was made by the Coast Guard.
s/v morning dew and f/v adriatic sar response
Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there were two
recent marine casualties where Mayday calls were not appropriately
identified by Coast Guard personnel: the sinking of the sailing vessel
MORNING DEW, and the loss of the fishing vessel ADRIATIC. In each of
these casualties, the Coast Guard response was not as targeted or as
timely as it could have been. Each vessel lost its crew of four, for a
total of eight fatalities. Admiral, what can you tell us about the
problems with the Coast Guard response in each of these incidents, and
what, if anything, distinguishes one from the other?
Answer. In both of these unfortunate cases, the Coast Guard
received a garbled, indecipherable radio call and did not respond until
it was too late to save the crews.
In the MORNING DEW case, the initial reception was so poor that the
radio operator did not perceive it as a distress call. Despite Coast
Guard efforts to contact the transmitter of the garbled message,
communications were never established. Several hours later when, in
heavy fog conditions, an inbound ship's lookout reported hearing voices
in the water, the Coast Guard requested assistance from the nearby
pilot boat to investigate the report of voices. The pilot boat reported
negative results from its search. The principles of aggressive
prosecution and the full use of all available investigative tools were
not utilized, as a Coast Guard boat or aircraft should have been
dispatched to investigate. Upon enhancement of the radio call, well
after the case was closed, MAYDAY could be heard, but the vessel
position or identification was not given.
In the ADRIATIC case, the initial reception was so poor that the
radio operator did not perceive it as a distress call. Despite Coast
Guard efforts to contact the transmitter of the garbled message,
communications were never established. Several hours later, a dock
worker reported that the ADRIATIC was overdue and the voice recorder
enhancement revealed that the name ADRIATIC had been transmitted. An
expansive Coast Guard search and rescue mission was immediately
mobilized; however, no survivors were found.
Despite the differences in vessel type, the MORNING DEW, a
recreational vessel and ADRIATIC, a commercial fishing vessel, the
cases are similar in that they highlight the need for a more modern,
technologically current communications system. Our existing
communication system does not have the capability to establish a
reasonable search area from uncorrelated VHF-FM transmissions. The
proposed National Distress and Response System acquisition project
envisions utilizing new technology that would improve coverage, improve
the quality of reception, provide voice recorder replay, and add
direction-finding capability which will improve our ability to locate
mariners in distress quickly.
lessons learned from s/v morning dew and f/v adriatic incidents
Question. Please describe the lessons the Coast Guard has learned
from these two incidents.
Answer. These two unfortunate casualties highlight three critical
lessons learned; the need for investment in our National Distress and
Response System, the need for vigilant aggressiveness in conducting
Search and Rescue, and the need for proper staffing and training.
The Coast Guard is working with a distress communications system
that is equivalent to what local police and fire departments were using
in the 1950s. The current equipment does not provide information on a
caller's position or identification. In addition, it does not have the
capability to enhance and replay audio signals, though efforts are
underway to procure new voice recorders. Nor does the Coast Guard have
useful direction finding equipment. The current system requires
significant reliance on personal judgment and experience to process
uncorrelated distress broadcasts. The National Distress and Response
System project would utilize new technology that would improve
coverage, improve the quality of reception, provide voice recorder
replay, and add direction-finding capability which will improve our
ability to locate mariners in distress quickly.
Coast Guard difficulties in recruiting have caused operational
experience levels to decline, resulting in personnel with minimal
experience placed into critical positions. Learning search and rescue
policy and procedures, geographical characteristics of the area of
operations, unique mission requirements, and other local agency
resource capabilities requires significant time invested in training.
The Coast Guard is experiencing a reduction in the average tour length
at Groups and Stations, which degrades the ability to train
watchstanders properly. The search and rescue program strives for
vigilant aggressiveness in prosecuting distress broadcasts. However,
achieving vigilant aggressiveness requires an adequately trained work
force which is achieved through formalized training, on-the-job
training, and experience. Our average tour lengths at Coast Guard
Stations have declined from an average of 33 months in 1995 to just 23
months in 1998. The average experience of our qualified station boat
crew is only 11.9 months. To continue progress in this area, the Coast
Guard needs the Committee's full support of the President's budget.
immediate changes implemented from s/v morning dew and f/v adriatic
incidents
Question. Please describe the immediate changes you have
implemented as a result of the lessons learned to address future
incidents such as these.
Answer. The immediate changes the Coast Guard has made include:
--The addition of two billets to Group Charleston, scene of the S/V
MORNING DEW incident.
--Began development of a workload and staffing model to define the
adequate staffing requirements for Coast Guard Groups and
Stations. The Center for Naval Analyses has been awarded a
contract to complete the analysis in fiscal year 2000.
--Continuing the replacement of antiquated voice recorders with new
voice recorders at Groups. The voice recording equipment
available to the watchstander during the S/V MORNING DEW
incident was inadequate.
--Increasing search and rescue watchstanding vigilance. All personnel
involved in receiving, evaluating, or directing the response to
distress broadcasts have reviewed existing policies and
procedures. The principles of aggressive prosecution and full
use of available investigative tools are to be used to the
maximum extent.
--Publishing the draft Request for Proposal soliciting industry
comments for the acquisition of the National Distress and
Response System.
importance of national distress and response system modernization
project (ndrsmp)
Question. Over the last several years, the Committee has
appropriated $11.3 million toward the replacement of the National
Distress System. You are asking for $16 million in this year's budget.
How critical is the replacement of the National Distress System to your
improved response to Mayday calls?
Answer. The National Distress and Response System Modernization
Project is critical to improving Coast Guard response to distress calls
received via maritime VHF-FM radio, other calls for assistance, and for
command and control of Coast Guard assets operating in the coastal
areas. Funding has allowed the finalization of comprehensive
operational requirements to better ensure improved distress alerting,
improved Coast Guard response operations, and improved interoperability
with other public safety and law enforcement agencies.
The new capabilities incorporated in this project will resolve
critical shortcomings of the current system, some of which were
highlighted by the December 1997 sinking of the sailing vessel MORNING
DEW near Charleston, South Carolina, and the sinking of the fishing
vessel ADRIATIC off the coast of New Jersey in 1998.
capabilities of national distress and response system modernization
project
Question. Would such a National Distress System have made any
difference in either of these two vessel casualties?
Answer. A modernized National Distress and Response System might
have made a difference in both cases, though the incident
investigations are not yet complete. In the case of MORNING DEW, Coast
Guard Group Charleston received a garbled and indecipherable radio
call. The quality of the call was so poor that the operator did not
perceive it as a distress call and, despite further efforts to contact
the vessel, communications could not be established. Only after audio
enhancement of the radio call was the Coast Guard able to hear the
words ``MAYDAY, Coast Guard, come in.'' Even if the MAYDAY was heard,
the Coast Guard search was impeded because no additional information
was available on the distressed vessel's location or identification.
In the case of ADRIATIC, a distress call was clearly received by
Group/Air Station Atlantic City, but with no position or vessel
information. Further communications could not be established with the
ADRIATIC.
As part of the design, the National Distress and Response System
Modernization Project (NDRSMP) will allow instant playback and/or sound
enhancement of radio calls, as well as directional information. This
project will enhance the Coast Guard's ability to mount successful
rescue operations in circumstances similar to those encountered in the
cases of the MORNING DEW and the ADRIATIC, where the poor audio quality
of the distress call, insufficient information, or inability to
establish communications precluded an effective response.
problems in responding to mayday calls in recent vessel sinkings
Question. How soon could we expect the National Distress System to
be fully implemented if all your funding needs are met?
Answer. The National Distress and Response System Modernization
Project (NDRSMP) is currently planned for completion in fiscal year
2005.
national fleet concept and potentially new navy missions
Question. Admiral, you have been in discussions with the Chief of
Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson, regarding the ``National Fleet''
concept. I am concerned by press accounts indicating that the expected
downsizing of the Navy fleet will result in the Coast Guard being asked
to play a larger role in filling missions at the lower end of the
threat scale that are now the exclusive responsibility of the Navy. Can
you please identify for us the missions that are currently being
conducted exclusively by the Navy that could, eventually, become Coast
Guard responsibilities?
Answer. The National Fleet concept does not envision the Coast
Guard taking on Navy missions. Rather, it involves the two services,
together comprising the national maritime defense capability of the
United States, becoming more interoperable, better prepared, and more
aptly suited to meet all the maritime threats to our national security.
The National Fleet concept recognizes that there is a full range of
maritime challenges to our national security: marine pollution; drug,
alien migrant, and weapons smuggling; mass migrations of aliens;
pillaging of our marine resources; piracy; natural disasters; collapsed
states; terrorism; non-state military threats; and war. Many of these
threats require the Coast Guard to work together with the Navy.
National Fleet emphasizes interoperability (systems, logistics,
tactics, doctrine, etc.) of Coast Guard and Navy forces so that they
can more effectively combine their complementary capabilities. Many of
the worlds most dynamic and pervasive maritime challenges, such as drug
trafficking and regional instability, require a combination of Navy and
Coast Guard capabilities. Successful joint operations include: the
counterdrug Joint Interagency Task Forces; Arabian Gulf Maritime
Intercept Operations; the Cuban and Haitian migrant operations of 1994
through 1995; UPHOLD DEMOCRACY (1994 Haiti incursion); and peacetime
engagement operations in the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas.
dod funding for the coast guard
Question. Would you agree that the amount of funding provided by
the Department of Defense (DOD) for the Coast Guard should grow if your
national security mission requirements also grow?
Answer. Yes. In fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the Coast
Guard received $300 million in each year (from Function 054) to fund
the Coast Guard's National Security missions (i.e. participation in DOD
exercises, domestic maintenance of aids to navigation on strategic
waterways, port security for strategic ports, support of Commanders-in-
Chief operations plans, and maritime border security). This same
funding was also used to fund the Coast Guard's specific National
Defense missions (i.e. maritime interception operations, military
environmental response operations, deployable port operations/security/
defense, and peacetime engagement). Per GAO report 98-110, titled
``U.S. Coast Guard, Use of Defense Funds for National Security,'' the
Coast Guard expended $726 million in fiscal year 1997 for all National
Security missions (including drug law enforcement and the subset of
National Defense missions).
hazardous materials safety
Question. The largest container port in the eastern United States
is in my state of New Jersey. When hazardous materials are
inappropriately shipped in containers, they pose a great risk to dock
workers, truckers, and, potentially, the driving public if there is a
highway accident resulting in a hazardous material spill. Given the
millions of containers that enter this country each year, do you
believe the Coast Guard has adequate resources to really influence
industry practices when it comes to the shipping of hazardous materials
by container?
Answer. The Coast Guard in currently studying this issue. As
reported in the Federal Register on March 9, 1999, Secretary Slater
commissioned a One DOT study group on hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
compliance programs. They have started to collect and analyze data as
to successes and failures in the program, regardless of the mode of
transportation. One of their areas of concentration will be an
examination of resource allocation: does each mode have the number of
inspectors needed considering the traffic for which it is responsible?
The One DOT study group expects to publish their results in early 2000.
Currently, the Coast Guard is relying on targeted sampling and
force multipliers to best employ our container inspection resources.
One of the best force multiplier methods the Coast Guard currently uses
to influence industry, to ensure high-quality inspections, and
consistent application of standards, is the Coast Guard Container
Training and Assist Team (CITAT). CITAT is tasked with teaching Coast
Guard inspectors their duties. They also run an aggressive outreach
program, where they teach U.S. Customs inspectors, Port Authority
officials, and other interested parties (including industry) whenever
possible. CITAT just recently completed training for the Panama Canal
Commission and have been approached by a Japanese concern in the hopes
of starting a similar compliance program on the home islands. CITAT is
a good example of improving HAZMAT compliance through a better
government/business partnership.
hazardous material container inspections
Question. Admiral Loy, last year the Inspector General pointed out
that the Coast Guard was doing a very poor job of targeting their
efforts at inspecting hazardous material containers. What steps have
you taken to address the Inspector General's findings?
Answer. The Coast Guard provided an action plan to address the
weaknesses identified in the Container Inspection Programs (CIP) in its
response to the Department of Transportation Inspection General's audit
report on November 21, 1998. All proposed corrective actions noted in
the action plan will be completed by the end of the third quarter of
fiscal year 1999. The plan includes the development of a process flow
chart for targeting procedures (to be distributed to the field by June
30, 1999), a risk assessment matrix to aid in the selection of the
highest risk containers for inspection, and revisions to the CIP
instruction and primary policy document, Commandant Instruction
(COMDTINST) 16616.11B. The last element, COMDTINST 16616.11B, will be
delivered to field units prior to June 1, 1999.
container inspection program targeting regime
Question. You recently submitted a report to the Committee on your
efforts to improve the container inspection program. That report stated
that you expect to develop a new targeting regime for containers for
the entire Coast Guard Marine Safety Program, and to have it completed
by June 30th 1999. Are you, indeed, on schedule with this effort? If
not, what problems are you encountering in developing a new targeting
regime?
Answer. Yes. The project to develop a viable targeting matrix to be
used by field units to select containers for inspection based upon risk
is proceeding on schedule. The directive containing the new targeting
matrix and field guidance is in final legal review; the Coast Guard
expects to distribute it to the field by the end of June 1999.
port state control initiative
Question. Admiral Loy, this July, we will celebrate the 5th
anniversary of the Port State Control initiative. The purpose of that
initiative was to target Coast Guard marine inspection resources on
substandard ships in order to keep them out of U.S. waters. At this
point, do you have any hard data showing whether this initiative has
been successful?
Answer. Yes. A number of indicators point to the success of the
Port State Control (PSC) Initiative, including a reduction in the
number of foreign flagged vessels detained because of their substandard
condition, and the incorporation of two major international
requirements into our boarding program: the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978, as amended in 1995 (STCW 95); and the International Safety
Management (ISM) Code. Of the 7,900 foreign flagged ships that arrived
in the U. S. in 1998, only 373 were detained because of their
substandard condition, which was a 30 percent decrease from the
previous year.
PSC exams had traditionally focused only on the physical condition
of ships and equipment. STCW 95 and the ISM Code requirements expanded
PSC boardings to include an examination of the ``human factors'' of
ship operations. There was considerable fear expressed by the
international maritime community that many ships would not be able to
comply with the ISM Code by the July 1, 1998 deadline. However, since
the deadline only four foreign-flagged vessels that have visited U.S.
ports have been found in substantial noncompliance with the ISM Code.
results of port state control initiative
Question. Do you have evidence that shippers are now avoiding
shipping their cargo on substandard ships as a result of this
initiative?
Answer. The Coast Guard does not have hard evidence that shippers
are consciously avoiding substandard ships as a result of the U.S. Port
State Control (PSC) initiative. However, there are some indications
that cargo shippers are interested in the physical condition and PSC
history of a vessel before initiating charters. The Coast Guard's PSC
Web Site averages nearly 1,000 ``hits'' each month. Charterers are
demanding that vessels comply with the International Safety Management
(ISM) Code, and Coast Guard field units routinely check for ISM
compliance during PSC examinations to ensure that non-compliant ships
are identified. As a result of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1998, U.S. government shippers are no longer allowed to charter
substandard vessels. Several international maritime periodicals now
devote several pages of their papers to vessel detention reports from
the Tokyo and Paris memoranda of understandings on PSC, and the U.S.
PSC program. Additionally, the U.S. is not the only country that is
increasing the scrutiny paid to these vessels, as most of Europe and
Asia also have very regimented PSC programs. As a result of this
worldwide effort, there are fewer places that a substandard vessel can
trade today.
impact of port state control program on classification societies and
flag states
Question. Have you seen real evidence that substandard
classification societies, or substandard flag states, are ``cleaning up
their act'' as a result of this initiative?
Answer. Yes. The percentage of substandard vessel detentions that
are attributable to poor classification society performance has been
steadily decreasing. With the publication of annual classification
society Port State Control (PSC) statistics, classification societies
have carefully tracked their detention rates and have initiated
substantive remedial measures to enhance their vessel survey
effectiveness. Overall, the number of vessel detentions has dropped 30
percent in the last year, which may be attributed to both U.S. Port
State Control and increased flag state oversight of their international
vessel fleets.
elimination of substandard ships from u.s. waters
Question. Are you now seeing the ``full fruits'' of the Port State
Control inspection regime? Have we eliminated substandard ships from
U.S. waters? If not, when do you expect such results?
Answer. Significant progress has been made toward the elimination
of substandard foreign-flagged ships from U.S. waters. The Coast
Guard's Port State Control (PSC) program ensures that all foreign-flag
tankships, freight ships, and passenger vessels are examined for
compliance with international conventions and domestic laws for
pollution prevention, manning, safety equipment and construction. Of
the 7,900 foreign-flagged ships that arrived in the U.S. in 1998, only
373 were detained because of their substandard condition, which was a
30 percent decrease from the previous year.
There may always be a potential for substandard ships attempting to
call at U.S. ports, but a concerted effort is made to detect and
correct all unsafe conditions via comprehensive examinations. All
foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. waters for the first time are
boarded and examined. Follow-on examinations are conducted thereafter,
dependent upon risk-based analysis of the vessel as it trades in U.S.
waters. A history of the vessel's performance is maintained, and
reports are submitted to the vessel's flag state and the International
Maritime Organization when a vessel is detained.
The PSC program is updated regularly to ensure that new U.S. and
international regulations are enforced, and to improve the foreign
vessel targeting system to ensure that substandard ships are
identified. By continuously improving the PSC program, the number of
deaths, injuries, economic loss, and environmental damage associated
with marine transportation will be reduced.
minimizing oil spills
Question. On March 24th we celebrated the 10-year anniversary of
the EXXON VALDEZ spill. The Congress followed up on that incident by
enacting the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It established a myriad of new
regulatory requirements and added hundreds of new billets to the Coast
Guard for the purposes of oil spill prevention and control. Meanwhile,
your data show that since 1992, the amount of oil spilled in U.S.
waters per million gallons shipped continued to rise from 1992 through
1996. In 1997, the rate finally did drop. Is there a solution to
minimizing oil spills that we did not address in the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990?
Answer. The ``data'' in this question is contained in the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan. There are two components to
the data: spill rate and number of spills.
Spill rates.--Although the data appears to show a rising trend in
the spill rate (defined as ``gallons spilled per million gallons
transported'') for the years 1993 through 1996, this data was skewed by
singular major oil spill cases. In 1994, for example, one spill alone
(the MORRIS J. BERMAN spill of 750,000 gallons) accounted for 44
percent of the total spillage for that year. Similarly, in 1996 the
NORTH CAPE spill (828,000 gallons) accounted for 45 percent of that
year's spillage. Such single, dominant spills distort the trendline. If
these single spills are taken out of consideration for their respective
years, the actual spill rate continues to decline as it has each year
since the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90); in fact,
over the long term there has been a 4-fold reduction in the spill rate
since the mid-1980s.
Annual number of spills.--A second potentially misleading statistic
in the Coast Guard data is the apparent increase in the annual number
of spills. However, the Coast Guard does not believe that the actual
number of spills has significantly increased, but rather that the
reporting levels have increased. OPA 90 has caused operators to report
even the smallest of spills that previously might have gone unreported.
The Coast Guard data reveals that an average of 5,400 vessel spills
have been reported each year since 1992. The median spill size is less
than 5 gallons; in some years it is only 1 gallon. By comparison, for
the years 1987-1989 an average of only 2,000 vessel spills were
reported each year, with a median spill size of 10 to 20 gallons. In
other words, prior to OPA 90, ``small'' spills were not typically
reported until they were much larger than the reporting threshold of
today. Thus, OPA 90 is now providing a more accurate level of spill
reporting.
Other solutions to minimizing oil spills.--With respect to the
question of what else might be done with OPA 90 to further minimize oil
spills, the Coast Guard is now studying spillage from other, non-tank
vessels (such as cargo ships).
Within this category of vessels, the ocean-going cargo ships may
represent the largest potential spillers, due to their on-board fuel
oil (bunker) capacity. This situation suggests that the extension of
other provisions of OPA 90 to non-tank vessels may be in order (such as
the vessel response plan requirements).
However, rather than expanding the scope of the OPA 90 as a
unilateral port state action, quests for solutions should first be
undertaken in the international arena. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has implemented an important supporting initiative
with its International Safety Management (ISM) Code. The ISM Code
addresses the importance of designated persons and various
responsibilities of the master and maritime company, and requires
consistent documentation and monitoring of management procedures,
actions, and practices implemented in accordance with governmental and
company requirements. Tank ships and passenger vessels have been
required to comply with the ISM Code since 1998. Cargo ships do not
have to comply until July 2002. When that provision is implemented, the
Coast Guard expects that the spillage risk from cargo ships will be
reduced.
need for additional legal authority to minimize oil spills
Question. Is there any tool or legal authority that you wish you
had for the purpose of minimizing oil spills that you currently do not
have?
Answer. No new authorities are necessary at this time for the Coast
Guard to continue its efforts to minimize oil spills and their impact
in the marine environment. The expansive changes required by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) are still being implemented. We have
seen a significant reduction in the number/quantity of spilled oil
(particularly by tankships). We need to continue enforcing the OPA 90
material, operational, planning, and drilling requirements to ensure
this downward trend continues.
lessons learned from new carissa spill
Question. What have been the lessons learned from the recent spill
associated with the NEW CARISSA off the coast of Oregon?
Answer. Lessons learned from the M/V NEW CARISSA incident are being
collected and documented by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and
his staff. They will be included in an On-Scene Commander's (OSC)
Report per the National Contingency Plan. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Coast Guard Co-Chairs to the Region X Regional
Response Team directed the FOSC to produce a report. The report is
still being developed. Copies of the final report will be made
available.
The Coast Guard Headquarters staff observed aspects of the response
that will be captured in the OSC Report. Some of them are:
--In-situ burning of fuel onboard vessels is a viable option for
rapidly removing oil in situations that are time-critical and
when favorable conditions exist, i.e., remoteness from
population centers, presence of offshore winds, and
conventional mechanical recovery methods are not feasible.
--The Special Monitoring of Advance Response Technologies, a draft
national protocol for monitoring in-situ burn operations, was
successfully implemented during the spill. The protocol enabled
government health organizations to address community concerns
over smoke inhalation. The monitoring determined that there
were no measurable human health impacts from the smoke.
--The NEW CARISSA Web pages developed by the Unified Command were
highly successful in addressing the high demand for information
both locally and nationally.
--Despite the expert salvage resources mobilized from the Navy, Coast
Guard, and industry, even the best-laid plans can succumb to
the uncertainties of the weather and a severely damaged vessel.
It is important to have backup plans and resources staged when
the original plan does not work. The Unified Command did an
excellent job of this.
--The Incident Command System proved to be both effective and
efficient as a spill management system. Plans for using
advanced response techniques were rapidly approved.
Mobilization of resources not common to oil spill response--a
Navy ordnance team, submarine, and destroyer--were rapidly
acquired, organized, and deployed. The rapid response also
ensured wildlife rescue organizations were quickly mobilized.
Although there were impacts, neither mammals nor endangered
species were lost, including the Snowy Plover. Shoreline impact
was minimal: local travel publications are reporting that
impacts to the shoreline are indiscernible.
deepwater industry team alternatives
Question. The Coast Guard is currently funding three different
industry teams to develop a plan for the Coast Guard's ship and
aircraft mix for the future. Your justification for the ``Deepwater''
replacement project emphasizes that the Coast Guard has not preordained
the types of ships and aircraft they will be purchasing in the future.
Indeed, you have said that it is possible that you may even be
extending the life of your current ships rather than replacing them.
However, recently, in Defense News magazine you stated, and I
quote, ``Many in the Navy's leadership are delighted by the thought
process that at the end of the day a Coast Guard security cutter is
going to be frigate-sized.'' You also said, ``I want to be able to
augment the Navy's capability with a low-end, frigate-sized kind of
platform.''
Are you, indeed, committed to purchasing a frigate-sized cutter, or
will the three industry teams be allowed to propose other alternatives
as part of your Deepwater project?
Answer. The Deepwater industry teams have the flexibility to
consider a range of alternatives, including renovation of the existing
378-foot cutter fleet or by introduction of a new class of cutters
based upon traditional mono-hull or advanced new multi-hull designs. In
general, the Coast Guard will consider any and all alternatives that
meet the Coast Guard's mission the performance requirements (which are
currently being reviewed by the Interagency Task Force on the Roles and
Missions of the Coast Guard) and achieve the Project's objective of
maximizing operational effectiveness while minimizing total ownership
costs.
deepwater surface ship replacement alternatives
Question. Have you emphasized to the industry teams that you are
truly looking for a wide variety of alternatives when it comes to
replacing your existing surface ships?
Answer. The Coast Guard will consider any and all alternatives that
meet the Service's performance requirements and achieve the Deepwater
Project's objectives of maximizing operational effectiveness while
minimizing total ownership costs. By focusing on mission capability
instead of asset capability, the Coast Guard has provided industry with
substantial flexibility to consider and propose a broad spectrum of
surface platform alternatives--from renovating existing Coast Guard
assets to replacement with traditional mono-hull designs to advanced
new multi-hull concepts.
coast guard participation in congressional hearings on recruiting and
retention
Question. Admiral, as you know, there has been a great deal of
discussion on the part of the Armed Services Committees and the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittees about the need to provide substantial
increases for recruitment and retention to the Armed Services--
increases well above those requested by the Administration. Has the
Coast Guard been included in these discussions?
Answer. The Coast Guard regularly consults with the other Armed
Services on these issues. The problems described by the Department of
Defense Services are mirrored in the Coast Guard. In every category,
the Coast Guard faces the same difficulties in recruiting the qualified
young Americans necessary to adequately meet mission requirements. The
Coast Guard has not, however, testified before the Armed Services
Committees concerning recruiting and retention. The Coast Guard
requests support for the recruiting and retention initiatives proposed
by the President in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
parity in armed forces recruiting programs
Question. Are you concerned about parity with the other Armed
Services when it comes to your having an adequate recruitment budget?
Answer. Yes. Although the Coast Guard has a unique niche among the
Armed Services, we do compete with the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the private sector for the steadily decreasing pool of qualified youth
with a propensity to enlist. All services are facing difficult
recruiting challenges. The 1997 Youth Attitude Tracking Surveys (YATS)
showed that the propensity to enlist in the Armed Services is at
historically low levels and the booming economy is offering many other
opportunities to potential recruits. For the Coast Guard, recruiting is
made even more challenging as our name recognition is much lower than
the other services (7 percent versus 30 percent). Additionally, DOD
spends significantly more on advertising than does the Coast Guard.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request pursues parity with
DOD in providing improved enlistment bonuses and a college fund
incentive.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Shelby. We thank you very much, Admiral.
Admiral Loy. Mr. Chairman, we thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. We will continue to work with you.
Admiral Loy. Thank you, sir.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Thursday, March 25, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS
[Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of
Transportation and independent related agencies did not appear
before the subcommittee this year. Chairman Shelby requested
these agencies to submit testimony in support of their fiscal
year 2000 budget request. Those statements and answers to
questions submitted by the chairman follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
council membership
Question. Please provide a membership list of the Amtrak Reform
Council etc.
Answer. The information follows:
Mr. Gil Carmichael, Vice Chairman of the Board, MotivePower
Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 2209 Highway 45N, Suite F, Meridian,
MS 39301, 601-483-9712--Office, 601-483-9711--Fax.
Mr. Bruce Chapman, President, Discovery Institute, 1420 Third
Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, 206-292-0401--Office, 206-
682-5320--Fax.
Mr. Wendell Cox, President, Wendell Cox Consultancy, P.O. Box 841,
1010 Thornbury Pl., O'Fallon, IL 62269, 618-632-8507--Office, 618-632-
8538--Fax.
Mr. Christopher Gleason, President, The Gleason Agency, Inc., 551
Maine Street, East Johnstown, PA 15901, 814-532-0211--Office, 814-536-
7266--Fax.
Mr. S. Lee Kling, Chairman, Kling Rechter & Co., 1401 S. Brentwood
Blvd, Suite 800, St. Louis, MO 63144, 314-963-2501--Office, 314-968-
1255--Fax.
Mr. Clarence V. Monin, President, Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers, 1370 Ontario Street, Cleveland, OH 44113, 216-241-4178--
Office, 216-241-6516--Fax.
Mr. John O. Norquist, Mayor of Milwaukee, City Hall, 200 East Wells
Street, Room 201, Milwaukee, WI 53203, 414-286-2200--Office, 414-286-
3191--Fax.
Mr. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, 400
7th Street, SW, Room 10200, Washington, DC 20590 (Representatives who
can represent in the Secretary's absence--Mortimer Downey, Deputy
Secretary and Jolene Molitoris, Federal Rail Administrator), 202-366-
1111--Office, 202-366-7202--Fax.
Mr. Donald R. Sweitzer, GTECH, 55 Technology Way, West Greenwich,
RI 02817, 401-392-7780--Office, 401-392-0279--Fax.
Mr. Joseph Vranich, 17595 Harvard, Suite C210, Irvine, CA 92614-
8546, 949-660-4924--Office, 949-660-1835--Fax.
Mr. Paul Weyrich, President, Free Congress Foundation, 717 Second
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, 202-546-3000--Office, 202-543-5606--
Fax.
biographies of amtrak reform council's councilmembers
Gilbert E. Carmichael (Chairman).--Is a leading international
authority on railroad and intermodal transportation policy. Appointed
to the National Transportation Policy Study Commission by President
Ford during the Energy Crisis, he chaired its subcommittee on advanced
technology and later served as Federal Railroad Administrator under
President Bush. Currently, he is the Chairman of the University of
Denver's Intermodal Transportation Institute. Majority Leader Trent
Lott appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, of which he is the
Chairman.
Paul M. Weyrich (Vice Chairman).--Has been a reporter, editor,
publisher, staff assistant for the Senate Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, and has served on various boards regarding rail issues
for many years. These include: the Dulles Corridor Transit Citizens
Advisory Committee and the Dulles International Airport Light Rail Task
Force, which he chaired. He also served as Member of Board of Directors
of Amtrak. Currently, he is President and Founder of Free Congress
Foundation, a public policy think tank. He was appointed to the Amtrak
Reform Council by Majority Leader Trent Lott and elected Vice Chairman
by the Council.
Bruce Chapman--Has had an extensive career in public policy
development and writing. He has served as a Seattle City Council
member, Washington State Secretary of State, Director of U.S. Census
Bureau, Deputy Assistant to President Reagan as Director of White House
Planning and Evaluation, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. organizations
in Vienna. In 1990, he founded the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a
public policy center on national and international affairs. He was
appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Wendell Cox.--Is a consultant on public transport issues both in
the U.S. and internationally. He served as member of the Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission for both highway and public transport.
Afterwards, he established the Wendell Cox Consultancy, a firm
specializing in international public policy and demographics. He has
advised governments in the United States, Canada, New Zealand,
Australia and Europe on the design of competitive public transport
service delivery. House Speaker Newt Gingrich appointed him to the
Amtrak Reform Council.
Christopher K. Gleason.--Is a financial analyst who is the
president of a family-owned financial services company and also an
expert on state and federal transportation issues. He has served on the
National Motor Carrier Advisory Committee and on the Commercial Space
Transportation Advisory Committee. He was appointed to the Amtrak
Advisory Group (the Blue Ribbon Panel) established by the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was appointed to the
Amtrak Reform Council by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
S. Lee Kling.--Has held an executive position as Chairman of a
commercial banking company and is a senior partner in a merchant
banking firm, and has extensive experience serving on government
commissions. He has served as Finance Chairman of the Democratic
National Committee and also served as National Treasurer of the Carter-
Mondale Re-election Committee. President Clinton appointed him as a
Commissioner on the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. He
chairs the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council.
Clarence V. Monin.--Is a locomotive engineer and labor union
representative who has had a long career working on issues affecting
the railroads. He began his career as a trainman, then as an Apprentice
Engineer and ultimately became a locomotive engineer. He joined the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) and served as a Local
Chairman in Louisville, Kentucky, then as General Chairman of Kentucky.
He was elected to the BLE's national organization as Vice President,
then served as First Vice President. He is currently the International
President of the BLE. President Bill Clinton appointed him as the labor
representative for the Amtrak Reform Council.
John O. Norquist.--Is serving his third term as the mayor of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, one of the country's fastest growing cities. He
is the author of The Wealth of Cities a book on urban design,
government efficiency and educational issues. He has been an Adjunct
Professor at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Architecture
and Urban Planning. He chaired the National League of Cities Task Force
on Federal Policy and Family Poverty. He was appointed by President
Bill Clinton to the Amtrak Reform Council.
Rodney Slater.--Is the Secretary of Transportation. He formerly
served as the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. In
Arkansas, he held several positions including membership on the
Arkansas State Highway Commission, Director of Governmental Relations
at Arkansas State University, Assistant Attorney General-Litigation
Division of the Arkansas State Attorney General's Office. He is an Ex
Officio member of the Amtrak Reform Council who represents the
interests of the Administration.
Donald Sweitzer.--Is a public policy consultant with more than
twenty years of government relations consulting services. He was
president of the Dorset Resource and Strategy Group, a public affairs
consulting firm, before joining GTECH as Senior Vice President of
Government Relations. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle appointed him
to the Amtrak Reform Council.
Joseph Vranich.--Has worked in the transportation sector for the
last three decades as both a public relations spokesman and association
executive. He served as the press spokesman for Amtrak, and as
Executive Director of National Association of Railroad Passengers. He
also worked for High Speed Rail Association, first as a consultant,
then as President/CEO. His writings include the books: ``Supertrains:
Solutions to America's Transportation Gridlock and Derailed: What Went
Wrong and What to Do About America's Passenger Trains''. He was
appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council by Majority Leader Trent Lott.
council staff
Question. Please provide a staff list of all permanent and part
time ARC employees, including position title, responsibilities and
salary. Are any positions vacant at this time?
Answer. The information follows:
Thomas A. Till, Executive Director (Senior Level; $125,900). Mr.
Till is responsible for executive management of the Council's office
and staff. He represents the Council in its relations with Federal and
state and local governmental entities, Amtrak, freight railroads, the
railway labor movement, and other groups and individuals with interests
in intercity rail passenger service. He manages the meeting schedule
and agenda of the Council and is responsible for preparation and
submission of the Council's reports and recommendations as required by
statute.
William E. Loftus, Assistant to the Executive Director (Part time,
temporary appointment; $314 per day WAE). Assists the Executive
Director in organizing the Council's staff and its work program.
Responsible for preparation of ARC's financial operating plan, fiscal
year 2000 budget request, position descriptions for key staff
personnel, and planning for Council's outreach meetings.
Kenneth P. Kolson, Senior Attorney-Advisor (GS-15; $91,400). Serves
as the principal legal advisor and expert to the Council on all legal
and legislative matters; prepares testimony and statements for
submission to Congress and other entities and advises the Council on
legal sufficiency and/or limitations of various recommendations or
findings that the Council may consider in accordance with its statutory
mandate.
Deirdre O'Sullivan, Administrative Specialist (GS-9; $33,650).
Serves as executive assistant to the director in overall management of
the office, arranges for Council meetings including presentations by
representatives of various interest groups; contacts with media
representatives; preparation of news releases; establishment of data
bases and production of various official notices, public statements,
reports and internal control documents.
Stacy Murphy, Administrative Assistant--Typing (GS-7; $31,176).
Staff assistant who performs a wide range of clerical, administrative
and secretarial duties both in direct support of the director and
senior staff and in contact with all those with whom the Council works.
Senior Transportation Economist/Financial Analyst (Sr. Level;
Vacant). Serves as expert economist/financial analyst to the Council in
its mission to assess Amtrak's financial performance and long term
self-sufficiency from Federal operating grants. Will provide expert
financial and corporate expertise in the development of recommendations
to Amtrak regarding revenue enhancement, cost containment and financial
management initiatives. Will lead and serve as principal financial
officer for the Council's program to monitor Amtrak's financial
performance. Will also advise Council members on the financial impact
of alternative scenarios they may consider in fulfilling their
statutory mandate.
Transportation Industry Analyst (GS14/15; Vacant). Responsible for
analysis of Amtrak's network operations, train operations budget, route
structure and services, allocation and use of workforce, and plans and
programs for the maintenance of both its locomotives and passenger cars
and its shop facilities, and of its track, signals and communications,
yards, and passenger stations. Monitors and evaluates Amtrak's
performance based on its annual budget, operating plan, and strategic
business plan.
senior level positions
Question. Do ARC senior level staff positions count toward the
Department of Transportation's Senior Executive Service staff ceiling?
Answer. ARC does not have direct hiring authority. Therefore, its
full time and part time employees are employees within the Federal
System. The Executive Director's position is a senior level position
within the DOT staff ceiling. Given the critical importance of the
Council's role in monitoring Amtrak's financial condition, and the
small full-time staff that the Council has approved (four professional
and two clerical), the Council has requested one other senior level
position for an expert financial analyst/economist. It is the Council's
understanding that the Department will seek from the Office of
Personnel Management a slot for this second senior level position that
is outside of the DOT ceiling.
consultant hiring restrictions
Question. Both ARC and the Administration have appealed Congress's
restriction on hiring of consultants. Please explain why you feel it is
necessary to remove this restriction.
Answer. The Council is an independent federal commission
responsible for: (1) overseeing Amtrak's business activities so that it
can recommend improvements in operations, productivity, and cost
containment in order that Amtrak might improve its financial
performance; (2) monitoring Amtrak's financial performance to determine
whether it will meet the operating self-sufficiency targets established
under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act; and (3) carrying out
certain other functions, which include (a) receiving from Amtrak and
analyzing quarterly reports on productivity improvement, (b) reviewing
Amtrak's expenditure of funds provided under the Taxpayer Relief Act,
and (c) filing an annual report with the Congress that includes both
(i) analyzing cost-savings resulting from work rules established under
new agreements between Amtrak and its labor unions, and (ii), under
instructions from the Appropriations Committees, use Amtrak's route
analysis system to identify routes and services as candidates for
closure or realignment.
Amtrak is a government-owned corporation with annual expenses of
more than $2.6 billion in 1998. As its principal lines of business,
Amtrak operates a nationwide network of intercity passenger, mail, and
express services, manages major shops that conduct repair, overhaul,
and remanufacturing of rail passenger cars and locomotives, maintains
and rehabilitates the track, electrification, and communications and
signaling systems of the Northeast Corridor, and operates, under
contract, commuter services for various metropolitan areas.
The Council has organized its work program around a small, but
expert, core staff that will focus its analyses and recommendations on
three critical areas--Amtrak's financial structure and performance, its
system-wide passenger operations, and the corporation's management
organization and supporting services, including the associated
management and labor workforce involved. To fully accomplish its
mission, the Council requires expert analysis of complex financial and
technical factors in order to support its recommended improvements to
Amtrak's management, and in support of the Council's determination of
whether Amtrak can indeed achieve a sustainable level of financial
performance that will permit the Corporation to operate permanently
without the need for Federal operating grants. In the event of either a
positive or negative finding, the Council will need to present to
Congress a comprehensive report based on thorough and objective
analysis. A small core staff cannot meet all the analytic requirements
that such a comprehensive finding requires, particularly in the time
frame envisioned in the Act. We strongly believe that the expert work
of the staff supported by specific studies and analyses of outside
technical, financial and legal experts will enable the Council to
present to the Congress well-reasoned and well-documented
recommendations in its reports and testimony.
Removal of this restriction reflects the legitimate needs of a
Council charged with a broad and complex program of work. We are
unaware of any other Governmental body with a similar mandate that
operates under a like restriction.
reports to congress
Question. Section 203(h) of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability
Act (Public Law 105-134) requires the ARC to provide an annual report
to Congress that includes an assessment of Amtrak's progress on the
resolution of productivity issues, or the status of those productivity
issues and makes recommendations for improvements and for any changes
in law it believes to be necessary or appropriate. Have you completed
the ARC's first annual report to Congress? If not, when will it be
complete? Please supply any correspondence from the ARC to
Congressional authorizing committees on this requirement.
Answer. On December 15, 1998, Mr. Paul Weyrich, acting chair of the
Council, sent a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House
authorizing committees concerning the annual reporting requirement that
the Act placed on the Council. A copy of Mr. Weyrich's letter is
provided for the record. Mr. Weyrich explained that due to the lengthy
and difficult startup process for establishing the Council and for
providing its funding; the resignation of its first chair; and the
lateness and incompleteness of various reports that the Council was
charged to review, it would not have been possible for the Council to
provide a report that would materially add to the dialogue on the
current and future condition of Amtrak. In addition, Amtrak's newly
appointed Board of Directors and its new president came into office in
1998. In October of 1998 the Board approved a revised Strategic
Business Plan for the corporation. Thus, 1998 was a year dominated by
organizational matters at both ARC and Amtrak.
The Council intends to provide to Congress by the time it returns
in January 2000, a 1999 Annual Report that will include a comprehensive
review of ARC's activities prior to December of 1999, including--as
required by the statute--both the Council's analyses and conclusions
regarding Amtrak's progress on productivity matters under its new labor
contracts, and its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route
analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned. The report will
also describe any recommendations that the Council made to Amtrak
during the year, along with pertinent aspects of the Council's other
activities during 1999.
amtrak route performance
Question. Please describe how you plan to comply with the
appropriations bill language directing the ARC to expand its statutory
duties to include the identification of Amtrak routes which are
candidates for closure or realignment, based on performance ranking
developed by Amtrak which incorporate information on each route's fully
allocated costs and ridership on core intercity passenger service, and
which assume, for purposes of closure or realignment candidate
identification, that federal subsidies for Amtrak will decline over the
four-year period from fiscal year 1999 through 2002.
Answer. Amtrak is in the process of developing its Market Based
Network Analysis (MBNA) system, which is designed to reflect more
accurately the market impact on costs and revenues between the various
types of services in Amtrak's system. The Route Profitability System
(RPS) that Amtrak has traditionally used for allocating costs and
revenues to specific services will continue to be used for route and
service analysis. The MBNA model will add to the analytical base that
the Appropriations Committee instructed the Council to use in assessing
Amtrak's network to identify routes or services that are candidates for
closure or realignment. The Council expects to receive from Amtrak
during 1999, a full MBNA report on each core route and its ranking in
terms of fully allocated costs vs. revenue and any other allocation
factors that are part of the MBNA model. The Council will include the
results of its assessment in its annual report to Congress.
council meetings
Question. How many Council meeting have been held? Where and when
were they held, and what discussion items were on the agenda? What
future meetings are planned? Where and when will they be held, and what
discussion items are on the agenda? Are the Council's meetings open to
the public?
Answer. Beginning with its organizational meeting in May 1998, the
Amtrak Reform Council has held nine meetings. The five meetings in 1998
were held in Washington, DC. In 1999, the Council met in Washington,
DC, on January 19th and March 15th. On April 26, the Council met in
Philadelphia for a short, early-morning business meeting, followed by
an all-day regional meeting with representatives of Northeast Corridor
states and railroad operating entities.
At its meetings, the Council has heard from Congressional staff,
GAO, DOT/OIG and from Amtrak on financial and operating matters
including the Strategic Business Plan, 1998 Financial Report and
Amtrak's comments regarding reports from the DOT Office of Inspector
General and Government Accounting Office on its financial condition and
prospects. The Council found the April 26th meeting with NEC states and
rail operators extremely useful. ARC gained a comprehensive view of the
variety of services operated on NEC, the large number of public agency
stakeholders, the Corridor's complex landlord-tenant relationships and
operating environment, its active and growing freight operations, and
the major infrastructure capacity and investment issues that impact on
intercity, commuter and freight operations.
The Council has not finalized its meeting schedule for 1999, but it
intends to conduct more outreach meetings with the states and other
rail operators in the southeast, midwest, southwest, New England, and
Pacific regions. ARC will sponsor a seminar in Washington, DC, on May
18 to focus on both the U.S. intercity rail passenger service
experience and the developments of the past few years in the rail
passenger systems of Europe, South America, Australia, and New Zealand.
At ARC's April 26th meeting, the Council voted to form committees,
including Financial, Network, Organization/Management, and Labor.
Additional meetings and seminars are also being planned on issues such
as financial analysis of Amtrak, labor productivity, the Market-Based
Network Analysis, and the Corporation's performance targets under its
strategic business plan.
All of the Council's business meetings, outreach sessions and
seminars are open to the public. The Council holds executive sessions
only when it is dealing with proprietary information from Amtrak or
confidential personnel issues.
budget request amount
Question. The ARC is requesting $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$550,000 more than the administration has forwarded in its request.
What would the effects be of an appropriation of $750,000, the level
requested by the Administration?
Answer. The $750,000 funding level requested by the Administration
would support the Council's limited staff (four professionals and two
clerical) and its schedule of meetings, regional and state outreach
sessions, informational seminars, and associated travel and other
costs. The $750,000 level would not permit the Council to obtain the
assistance of non-government experts in such critical areas as
financial analysis, network and service structure, labor productivity,
legal review of complex ownership rights, among other important
subjects of interest to the Council. Each of these areas is critical to
carrying out a specific mandate of the statute, and several are
necessary to provide recommendations to Amtrak in the near-term in
order to assist it in lowering its expenditures and becoming more
productive and efficient.
Without access to these experts, on an as needed basis, the Council
will have difficulty in meeting its primary goal, which is to provide
Congress with a comprehensive, fully documented, objective review of
the critical factors affecting Amtrak's long term ability to achieve
self sufficiency. At the same time, the Council feels strongly that its
recommendations and findings must be based on a clear understanding of
their impact on the national rail passenger network, Amtrak as a
government funded corporation and the transportation service demands of
the nation.
technical support justification
Question. The ARC's request includes $700,000 for technical support
and analysis. What are the underlying assumptions you used to develop
this number? How many hours of contractual expertise will be required,
at what hourly rate?
Answer. The funding requested for technical support and analysis is
based on an estimated average cost of $20,000 per consultant staff-
month. Thus, the planned funding level of $700.000, (including $125,000
in fiscal year 1999 carryover funds) would procure approximately 35
staff-months of professional effort. We are not able to estimate hourly
rates at this time due to the variance in the expertise sought. We
anticipate using the funds to support the Council's work in the such
areas as follows:
--Route and Service Analysis. Performing route and service analyses
using planning tools and data from the Market Based Network
Analysis including a review of MBNA's assumptions and
allocations, and developing a ranking of routes and services in
terms of market response, revenue/cost and contribution to the
national system.
--Financial Scenario Analysis: Computer-assisted modeling (using
current data and existing models) to examine varying scenarios
for structuring and financing Amtrak's assets and operations.
-- Productivity Analysis: An assessment of the effect of current and
projected labor agreements and non-contract work force levels
on operating efficiencies.
--Non-Federal Funding Review: The current pattern of state and local
funding for Amtrak is a patchwork quilt dealing with joint
facility use, cost-sharing, capital investment responsibility
etc. In some cases these arrangements are beneficial to the
Corporation, while others may not represent an equitable
sharing of Amtrak's costs.
--Asset Analysis: A legal assessment of Amtrak's transferable
property rights and complex landlord/tenant relationship with
freight and commuter railroads is an essential component of
evaluating potential recommendations for improving Amtrak's
cost structure and financial performance.
______
Letter From Paul M. Weyrich
Amtrak Reform Council,
Washington, DC, December 15, 1998.
Hon. Richard Gephardt,
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gephardt: The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
of 1997 (ARAA, Public Law 105-134), which created the Amtrak Reform
Council, also provides for certain periodic reports by the Council to
the Congress.\1\ The Council strongly believes that the underlying
purpose for requiring these reports is to obtain our independent views
on the specific issues identified by the Congress and their
implications for the long-term financial viability of Amtrak. Due to a
number of factors outside the control of the members of the Council,
meaningful independent commentary on these issues is not possible at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These reports are an assessment of (1) Amtrak's progress on the
resolution of productivity issues; or (2) the status of productivity
issues, and make recommendations for improvements and for any changes
in law it believes to be necessary or appropriate. (required by section
203(h) of the ARAA); the use of amounts received by Amtrak under
section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997) (required by section
209(b) of the ARAA); and, identification of Amtrak routes which are
candidates for closure or realignment * * * (required by Section 349 of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Congress is aware, appointments to the Council were not as
timely as anticipated in section 203 of the ARAA and we currently have
one vacancy. In addition, final action on the Council's requested
budget did not occur until October 21, 1998, and this appropriation
contained restrictions of the ability of the Council to use
appropriated funds to hire consultant support. This has necessitated
that we begin a process to hire the temporary staff necessary to assist
in processing the substantial information now becoming available.
Similarly, essential inputs to the Council's deliberations have
been provided later than anticipated by the ARAA. Specifically, the
first independent assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Inspector General of the financial requirements of Amtrak through
fiscal year 2002 was not received by the Council until November 24,
1998. Amtrak's first report to the Council on the expected productivity
issues involving agreements with organizations representing Amtrak's
employees was also presented to the Council on November 24. Finally,
Amtrak's submission of information regarding the use of funds provided
to it under section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA), is inadequate
in presenting justification for the capital commitments and hampers a
reasonable assessment of the merits of Amtrak's investments thus far.
The Council concluded at our November 24, 1998 meeting that, rather
than provide Congress with a report that did not materially add to the
dialogue on the current and future condition of Amtrak, I should inform
Congress that no report will be forwarded to it for 1998. The Council
wishes me to emphasize the importance in which each member views his or
her responsibilities as a member of the Council and their collective
commitment to providing the Congress with the independent commentary
the Council is charged with making. Now that the Council is organized,
moving to hire necessary support staff, and receiving necessary inputs
from the Inspector General, Amtrak and others, we anticipate to begin
reporting to the Congress with the quarterly report on Amtrak's use of
TRA funding for the second quarter of fiscal year 1999 and to provide
the first annual report at the close of calendar year 1999. We are
confident that these reports will provide the independent look at
Amtrak's progress intended by the ARAA and that they will be of value
to the Congress in its deliberations on issues related to Amtrak.
If the Council can be of any further assistance in the interim,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Weyrich,
Acting Chairman.
______
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
use of raba funds for rail projects
Question. Please delineate how the monies that are proposed to be
transferred from the highway trust fund would be allocated among the
various FRA programs. If those amounts are not transferred, what are
the implications?
Answer. The budget contains the following proposed transfers from
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) in the Highway Trust Fund:
--$15 million for Highway Rail Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-
Speed Rail Corridors under Section 1103(c) of TEA21 (Section
104(d)(2) of Title 23)
--$10 million for Positive Train Control within the Next Generation
High-Speed Rail Technology program under Section 7201 of TEA21
(Section 26102 of Title 49)
--$10.4 million for the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning
System (NDGPS)
If these projects are not funded from RABA, the following
consequences would ensue:
The grade crossing hazard elimination program for high-speed
corridors, which provides important safety benefits and addresses a
major cost factor in implementing high-speed rail based on incremental
improvements of existing railroads, would be cut to \1/4\ its proposed
size.
The progress made on the Michigan and Illinois train control
projects will be set back at least one year. In particular the Illinois
project, which also involves industry funding and which represents a
major effort to develop an interoperable train control system
applicable across the major railroads, so essential for preventing rail
collisions in the future, might have to be terminated because of
industry uncertainty regarding the Federal commitment.
The NDGPS program, which is a necessary ingredient for widespread
implementation of positive train control, and which has multiple uses
in other elements of intelligent transportation systems and other
economic sectors, would be delayed for at least a year.
use of additional ftes
Question. Please specify exactly how the additional 13 positions
and 6.5 FTEs that are requested would be allocated among the purposes
specified on pages 60-61. Why is each of those new positions judged by
FRA to be of critical importance at this time? Please prioritize the
requested new positions.
Answer. The railroad industry is undergoing an unprecedented period
of dramatic growth. The significant changes require increased
coordination and scrutiny by FRA to ensure safety and service are not
deteriorating. In the past, FRA has concentrated on increasing its
field staffing to meet the expanding needs of the inspection and safety
enforcement process. It must now strengthen its headquarters staffing
and expertise to meet its growing workload demands and to ensure policy
and program implementation are properly coordinated, monitored, and re-
evaluated.
New and/or additional staffing and expertise are needed to support
on-going Safety Assurance and Compliance Program and related audit and
rulemaking work; to support bridge safety--FRA currently has one bridge
engineer to oversee 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States; and
to manage signal and train control and motive, power and equipment
work, especially as positive train control and new equipment are
introduced into the railroad system. Staffing also will be used to
enhance training and other enforcement guidance, to allow greater
participation in agency or Department-wide initiatives related to
safety, R&D outreach, grade crossing, transportation security, and
intermodal projects. Finally, increases will provide the necessary
support needed to evaluate applications, drafting, negotiating and
implementing regulatory and legal documents, and other work needed to
actually implement FRA's new and expanding programs.
Given the need to address new issues and programs related to
railroad technology and safety, it is imperative that FRA have the
flexibility to hire new and different technical experts, and to
distribute its workload in a more manageable and effective manner.
Of the positions requested, eight support regulatory and
enforcement work and five support industry and technology work. Many of
the positions support all three purposes described in FRA's budget
justification. All positions are critical as evidenced by FRA's growing
workload and constant overtime worked by most headquarters' employees.
FRA needs some relief in its headquarters staffing and the fiscal year
2000 request provides the minimum number that FRA deems appropriate at
this time.
new positions--field or headquarters
Question. Will any of the requested new employees be utilized in
the field to conduct site-specific inspections?
Answer. None of the requested positions will be used to hire
additional field employees. All positions will be located in
headquarters. However, the new positions will have a direct impact on
safety as they support regulatory and enforcement work and safety-
related technology. The resulting policy and program changes from this
on-going work will enhance the safety of all railroads.
railroad bridge safety
Question. In FRA's justification for the additional requested
employees, you cite the need to support efforts to oversee railroad
bridge safety. Specifically, additional staff would train track
inspectors to recognize bridge structural defects and to participate in
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program audits involving railroad
bridges. Is it realistic to expect FRA inspectors to be able to
recognize rail bridge structural defects, given the degree of
engineering skill required to accurately evaluate bridge structural
integrity?
Answer. Identifying obvious bridge defects and accurately
evaluating bridge structural integrity require different technical
training demands. However, FRA's bridge inspection training program for
track inspectors is effective in identifying clear signs of structural
distress on typical railroad bridges. Where indicated, FRA will request
additional evaluations by a registered bridge structural engineer. FRA
is requesting one additional position in fiscal year 2000 to support
FRA's bridge safety program. Currently, FRA has only one bridge
engineer to oversee 100,000 railroad bridges in the United States.
oa unobligated balances
Question. Please identify any unobligated balances in the account
of the Office of the Administrator.
Answer. The Office of the Administrator account has approximately
$2 million held in reserve for commitments related to the Alaska
Railroad Liabilities program and Washington Union Station.
chief counsel safety division personnel
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the last three years
indicating the number of personnel in the Safety Division of the Office
of the Chief Counsel.
Answer. See table below.
FY 1997....................................................... 27
FY 1998....................................................... 26
FY 1999....................................................... 27
garrett a. morgan initiative
Question. What was the scope and nature of FRA's participation in
the Garrett A. Morgan program during fiscal year 1998? What is planned
for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000? Have any funds been used to
support that initiative? If so, please specify by year the amount
expended or budgeted.
Answer. In support of the Garrett A. Morgan program, FRA
established an education web site to reach K-12 students, educators and
teachers. FRA reached over forty thousand students and adults in fiscal
year 1998. The Garrett A. Morgan Program and Operation Lifesaver
presentations were incorporated into one and presented by Grade-
Crossing managers and other FRA personnel.
In fiscal year 1999, FRA plans to continue its support of the
Garrett A. Morgan program by exceeding last year's goal and reaching an
additional fifty thousand students. Additionally, FRA plans to add
railroad curriculum for pre-school through 12th grade to the Garrett A.
Morgan web site. This curriculum will be informative as well as
educational. In fiscal year 2000, FRA plans to update existing
mathematic and science information on the web site, continue to donate
surplus computer equipment to schools in need, and participate in those
activities that educate the public about the field of transportation
and related career opportunities.
fra's policy studies and accomplishments
Question. What are the most important policy studies and
accomplishments resulting from the work of the Associate Administrator
for Policy and Program Development in fiscal year 1998, thus far in
fiscal year 1999, and what is planned for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD) leads
the Federal Railroad Administration in several areas: rail structural
analysis (mergers), rail network geographic information systems (GIS),
rail needs for national defense, and railroad data development. In
addition, the Office of Policy and Program Development has taken a lead
role in developing tools to evaluate the cost/benefit of rail projects
utilizing innovative financing techniques.
The Office of Policy and Program Development has had the lead
responsibility for Department of Transportation (DOT) for analyzing
rail merger proposals for over 10 years. OPPD analyzed and developed
the Department's written position on the acquisition of Conrail by
Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX railroads. DOT's final official position
on the acquisition was filed with the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) in February, 1998. During fiscal year 1998 and thus far in fiscal
year 1999, FRA has been working with all major railroads to assure a
safe integration of the Conrail's operations into NS and CSX, and to
minimize disruptions to railroad service, similar to the ones following
the merger of the Union Pacific with the Southern Pacific. FRA's
oversight activities of post Conrail operations will continue in fiscal
year 2000.
In 1998, the Office of Policy and Program Development led DOT's
evaluation of the merger between the Canadian National and the Illinois
Central Railroad. The Office of Policy prepared the Department's
official position on the CN/IC merger which was filed with the Surface
Transportation Board (STB). Furthermore, the Office has begun an
assessment of the issues pertaining to competitive rail access
throughout the national railroad system.
Much of the data (traffic, financial, and general economic) that
will support this as well as other policy analyses is acquired,
compiled, and funded as explained below.
The Office of Policy and Program Development created a rail network
GIS, representing all 150,000 route miles of track in the United States
railroad system. The GIS is extremely detailed, containing ownership,
trackage rights, and traffic statistics for each line segment in the
country. It is updated annually and has been widely distributed to
other federal agencies, states, MPO's, local jurisdictions, and
railroads. It has been coupled with a highway GIS from DOT's Federal
Highway Administration and a waterway GIS from the United States Coast
Guard to create the initial stages of an intermodal network GIS. During
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, the FRA Rail Network GIS will be
updated, enhanced, and distributed to the public. Also, hazardous
materials movements (extracted from the Waybill Sample) will be
simulated over the Rail Network GIS to be used as an aid by the Office
of Safety in deploying its inspection fleet.
The Office of Policy and Program Development, in cooperation with
the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) of the Defense
Department, reevaluates, on an annual basis, the rail requirements for
the defense of the United States based on changing rail traffic density
and defense traffic pattern shifts.
The Office of Policy and Program Development jointly with the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) funds the creation of the Rail
Carload Waybill Sample data base on an annual basis. The Waybill Sample
data base is the only comprehensive source of rail traffic data that
includes details for both commodity and routing. As such it functions
as the official traffic data source for proceedings before the STB,
including mergers, acquisitions, and abandonments.
The Office of Policy and Program Development purchases and collects
rail economic and financial data to support policy analysis of the rail
industry. Economic data is purchased from Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) to
track economic trends in the rail industry. Rail financial data is
compiled into a financial data base to evaluate individual rail
companies and the industry as a whole. These data are used extensively
in rail structure analysis such as mergers.
The Office of Policy and Program Development has funded the
development of a computerized model (RailDec) to assess the cost/
benefit of innovatively financed rail projects. It has been made
available to and is widely used by states, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), and regional jurisdictions to analyze the worth
of such projects in their own areas. During fiscal year 1998, the model
was modified to enhance data on projects directly related to rail/
highway crossings.
reprogrammings
Question. Please show any reprogramming or allowable funding
transfers associated with the Office of Safety, Office of R&D, and the
Office of the Administrator from the appropriated amounts for fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. FRA did not reprogram or transfer any funds between these
accounts in fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998.
user fees
Question. Please delineate exactly which entities and expenses
would be covered by the user fees, and how the amount to be collected
was determined.
Answer. The railroad user fee proposal, included in the fiscal year
2000 budget request, covers FRA's cost of carrying out FRA's rail
safety program under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51 (hazardous materials
transportation laws), Subtitle V, Part A (which covers other rail
safety laws), and the safety-related functions of the Research and
Development program. Not all of these costs were covered in the
original railroad user fee program but all of them were included in the
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1999, since they are
all directly safety-related. In addition, the proposal eliminates the
annual reporting requirements of the original railroad user fee
program.
To implement these fees, FRA would build upon the existing railroad
user fee regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 245) that were adopted in 1991 to
govern the railroad user fee program authorized by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. Generally, the existing regulations provide
for allocating the user fee across the railroad industry on the basis
of train miles and road miles, with an adjustment made for light
density railroads. Under the previous program, FRA received an annual
report from each railroad listing its train miles and road miles which
FRA used to determine each railroad's fee. FRA billed each railroad and
collections were made by FRA's accounting department. Appropriate
changes/revisions to these regulations would be made to cover any
expansion of coverage or newly enacted program.
total cost and completion date of it system
Question. Your request includes $1.46 million hardware/software
costs and $82,000 in personnel-related costs (2 new positions, 1 FTE)
for new information technology systems. What will be the outyear costs
of this multi-year project? How many years will this project take to
fully implement? Will the 2 new positions still be required after the
new information technology system is in place? Will the new information
technology initiative give FRA the ability to manage its grants program
electronically?
Answer. FRA's IT vision is based on a review of FRA's current
systems and problems, and business practices and needs. This review
began in 1997 and will continue throughout the life of the project. The
recommended solutions are based on internal reviews, as well as reviews
conducted by contractors. The overall direction of FRA's IT project is
consistent with the Clinger-Cohen Act and is supported by the
Department's Chief Information Officer.
The projected timetable is as follows:
Fiscal year 2000
Stabilize the network infrastructure.
Upgrade bandwidth to accommodate increased traffic.
Upgrade WAN port speed and Committed Information Rate.
Enhance e-mail system.
Implement monitoring devices.
Fix failed servers and upgrade other hardware/software.
Set up web server, with firewall protection.
Migrate towards an intelligent network infrastructure which will
broadcast status back to a central monitoring system.
Develop security systems.
Develop a disaster recovery program.
Pilot intranet development.
Pilot data mart development.
Initial ATM backbone transition planning.
Upgrade mobile computer modems.
Fiscal year 2001
Intranet deployment.
Data warehouse implementation.
ATM backbone detailed transition planning.
Continue security upgrades.
Introduce wireless remote access services.
Fiscal year 2002
Full deployment of data warehouse.
Complete ATM backbone implementation.
Voice, data, video and multimedia integration implementation.
Fiscal year 2003
Complete voice, video, multimedia integration and tuning across the
ATM backbone.
Funding for outyears is to be determined. The two requested
positions will be needed even after the IT project is completed to
continue data base management and to support FRA's Intranet WEB
applications. The IT system will allow all offices the capability to
manage their work electronically.
fiscal year 1999-2000 staffing
Question. Under FRA's proposed new account structure, 20 additional
FTES are requested for fiscal year 2000, from 733.5 to 753.5. Please
break out the entire FTE request using the current office structure,
showing (and distinguishing between) the current onboard and the
additional FTE distribution.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
Office 1999 2000
Enacted Requested
FTEs FTEs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator................... 152 156
Office of Safety.............................. 558 \1\ 573
Office of Research and Development............ 18.5 \2\ 19
Admin for High-Speed Rail..................... 5 5.5
-------------------------
Total, FRA.............................. 733.5 753.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 12 annualized FTEs for the 24 inspectors authorized in
fiscal year 1999.
\2\ Includes .5 annualized FTE for one position authorized in fiscal
year 1999.
operation respond
Question. What are the costs, benefits, and current status of FRA's
involvement in the Operation Respond project? Please specify fiscal
year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 funding amounts, and
the fiscal year 2000 request. What is the total amount of the fiscal
year 2000 DOT request for Operation Respond, including requests from
other agencies?
Answer. In summary, the benefits of Operation Respond (OR) is the
potential to save life resulting from incidents/accidents involving
hazardous material or rail passenger operations. OR is designed to
improve information available to First Responders at the site of these
incidents/accidents through the use of its software system, Operation
Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS).
Funding will be used to continue and enhance the research and
development of the OREIS. Efforts will concentrate on adding Non-Class
I railroads into OREIS. Non-Class I carriers, with a significant amount
of hazardous materials traffic, will be identified and contacted first.
Operation Respond and the FRA will work cooperatively with these
carriers and their employees to introduce and install OREIS or their
respective systems. While Non-Class I carriers typically handle a wide
variety of hazardous materials, they often do not possess the kinds of
centralized computer capabilities, or direct interface with shipper
location message systems, that would enable the timely and/or accurate
notification of emergencies.
In addition to the further expansion of Operation Respond to Non-
Class I carriers, Operation Respond has a vital role in the
dissemination of emergency information regarding commuter railroads. As
part of its safety mandate, FRA will continue to develop and/or revise
rules and guidance regarding rail passenger equipment and standards.
One component element of the OREIS system comprises documentation
concerning passenger train schematics, including the identification of
emergency windows, on-board safety equipment, and electrical systems.
Operation Respond provides a mechanism to convey this critical and time
sensitive information to first responders, i.e., fire, police, and
medical personnel. The availability of this information to emergency
personnel can dramatically impact life-saving operations not only for
passengers but, also, for the citizens of nearby communities and for
environmental considerations.
Funding:
Fiscal Year 1997.--FRA $153,000. FHWA $1 million earmarked by
Congress.
Fiscal Year 1998.--FRA $103,000. FHWA $1 million earmarked by
Congress.
Fiscal Year 1999.--FRA $103,000.
Fiscal year 2000.--FRA $104,000.
safety-related travel
Question. On page 62 of the budget justification, you state that an
increase of $500,000 is requested for safety-related travel. How much
of the total $7,147,000 for travel is safety-related?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA's total travel is $6.528 million.
FRA is requesting a total of $7.147 million in fiscal year 2000, an
increase of $619 thousand.
The increase of $619 thousand includes $500 thousand for safety-
related travel, specifically travel supporting the Safety and Assurance
& Compliance Program and Railroad Safety Advisory Committee's work; $54
thousand related to the new 15 positions; and $65 thousand to cover
inflation costs. Of the total amount requested for travel, $6.673
million is directly related to the Office of Safety. Some of the funds
remaining are also in support of safety-related initiatives and include
travel by R&D and NGHSR staffs, Chief Counsel's safety division staff,
policy staff, and the Administrator, and Deputy Administrator.
increases in administrative activities
Question. Please justify the requested increases in each of the
following administrative activities: Rent; Communications; Advisory and
Assistance services; TASC; and Equipment (additionally, how much of the
request for equipment is related to the information technology
initiative?)
Answer. For presentation purposes, the fiscal year 1999 costs
reflected under the Safety and Operations account included only the
former Office of the Administrator account and the Office of Safety.
Administrative costs related to Research and Development and Next
Generation High-Speed Rail were not included. The following table
reflects the true comparable crosswalk between FRA's fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000 costs for the items listed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------
Item 1999 2000 Difference
Total Total
funding funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent.................................. $3,084 $3,302 \1\ $218
Communications........................ 725 848 \2\ 123
Advisory & Assistance Services........ 235 516 \3\ 281
TASC.................................. 2,357 2,613 \4\ 256
Equipment............................. 1,227 2,686 \5\ 1,459
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects an increase of $173 thousand due to inflation and
colocation/lease expirations and $45 thousand related to the housing
of the new 15 positions.
\2\ Reflects non-discretionary increases related to inflation and vendor
increases for information technology support ($121K) and to the new
FRA-wide IT initiative ($2K).
\3\ Increase includes inflation costs ($1K) and the new FRA-wide IT
initiative ($280K).
\4\ Reflects FRA's portion of the Department's total TASC costs. Most of
the increase is for telecommunications support (computer lines,
phones, FTS, internet, voice mail, etc.). This is a non-discretionary
increase as FRA has very little control over these costs.
\5\ Reflects an increase of $1.096 million for the new FRA-wide IT
initiative; $83 thousand in support of the 15 new positions; and $280
thousand for non-discretionary increases related to inflation, vendor
increases, and increased usage of computer technology.
grant funding
Question. Please detail the activities for which the funding for
grants, subsidies and contributions will be spent.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FRA is requesting $600,000 for a grant
to Operation Lifesaver.
fra's video conferencing and imaging system
Question. What is the status of FRA's video conferencing and
imaging system? Do these technologies affect the amount requested for
travel? How much is built into the base budget to operate those
communications systems?
Answer. The FRA has a fully implemented video-conferencing system.
The analysis for an agency-wide imaging system has been completed and
FRA is in the process of testing and validating its pilot program. Once
this is completed, the system will be implemented agency-wide.
Currently, there is $150,000 in FRA's IT base for these two systems.
FRA's imaging system has no impact on travel but rather on paper
images and storage. Without the video conferencing system, FRA's travel
needs would increase.
funding for the amtrak reform council
Question. Please provide the Committee a detailed justification for
the $750,000 request for the Amtrak Reform Council. What documentation
supports this request? Is this the requested funding level that FRA
forwarded to OST and OMB?
Answer. Funds will support the salaries and expenses of staff,
travel, supplies and contract support. The Department submitted, as a
place holder, a request of $500,000 to OMB for the Amtrak Reform
Council (ARC) because ARC was not yet organized to submit a budget.
The Department is aware of a subsequent request from ARC for
funding. Questions related to this request should be forwarded to the
ARC directly.
office of safety funding
Question. Please prepare a funding table for the Office of Safety
for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, broken out in the following manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel compensation
Program Activity Program Costs ($) benefits ($) Number of staff (FTEs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Enforcement Program.......... ....................... ....................... Headquarters v.
regional/field
offices.
Automatic Track Inspection Program... ....................... ....................... .......................
Safety Regulation and Program ....................... ....................... .......................
Administration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer.
[Dollars in Thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program cost PC&B FTEs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activities Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 1998 2000 1999 1998 2000 1999 1998 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Enforcement Program..................................... $8,476 $10,000 ( \1\ ) $32,503 $35,755 ( \1\ ) $456 $468 ( \1\ )
ATIP............................................................ 4,220 2,500 ( \1\ ) ........ ........ ( \1\ ) ....... ....... ( \1\ )
Safety Regulation and Program Administration.................... 4,434 5,180 ( \1\ ) 7,417 7,953 ( \1\ ) 90 90 ( \1\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safety............................................. 17,130 17,780 \2\ 16,91 39,920 43,708 46,940 546 558 \3\ 573
0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs will be tracked by function (safety) versus office or geographical location in fiscal year 2000.
\2\ Includes $3.1 million for the ATIP.
\3\ Includes approximately 480 FTEs for federal enforcement program and 93 FTEs for safety regulation and program administration.
status of hiring 24 safety inspectors
Question. In fiscal year 1999 the conferees approved the hiring of
24 additional inspectors. How will those positions be allocated? How
many have been hired thus far? Where have the new staff been deployed?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA received half year funding for 12
FTEs for 24 safety inspector positions. FRA plans to hire 8 principal
regional inspectors, 8 regional assistant crossing and trespasser
managers, and 8 additional inspectors. Recruit actions for all
positions have been processed. To date 5 applicants have been selected,
8 positions are at the interview stage, and 11 positions are still
under review and in panel (applicants are being reviewed and ranked to
determine HQ list for interviews.
The 5 positions will be assigned to Kansas City, Missouri, Atlanta,
Georgia (2), Hurst , Texas, and Seattle, Washington.
enforcement actions over last three years
Question. For each of the last three years, please prepare a table
describing the number of enforcement actions, the amount of civil
penalty assessments and those collected or settled, and the number and
types of violation reports submitted. What percentage of these actions
have come from federal inspectors and what percentage from state
inspectors?
Answer. The tables follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Amount Cases Amount
Fiscal year closed collected transmitted assessed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996................................................... 974 $3,589,815 827 $5,157,500
1997................................................... 972 3,792,380 1,014 7,537,250
1998................................................... 1,483 5,213,595 1,017 9,945,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type \1\ Federal State Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
AD....................................... 29 ....... 29
BW....................................... 40 1 41
EP....................................... 3 2 5
EQ....................................... 18 18
FCS...................................... 187 17 204
GC....................................... 3 ....... 3
GS....................................... 1 ....... 1
HMT...................................... 219 54 273
HS....................................... 146 2 148
HSR...................................... 76 ....... 76
LI....................................... 173 21 194
REM...................................... 9 ....... 9
ROP...................................... 30 2 32
RSP...................................... 9 ....... 9
SA....................................... 212 29 241
SI....................................... 69 4 73
TS....................................... 33 22 55
--------------------------
Total.................................. 1,259 154 1,413
Percentage............................. 89 11 .......
==========================
Fiscal year 1997:
AD....................................... 93 1 94
AR....................................... 126 2 128
BW....................................... 2 ....... 2
EP....................................... 5 ....... 5
EQ....................................... 27 2 29
FCS...................................... 183 41 224
GC....................................... 20 4 24
HMT...................................... 275 83 358
HS....................................... 191 22 213
HSR...................................... 356 14 370
LI....................................... 329 34 363
REM...................................... 15 1 16
ROP...................................... 22 3 25
ROR...................................... 3 1 4
RSP...................................... 13 ....... 13
RW....................................... 3 1 4
SA....................................... 293 65 358
SI....................................... 66 6 72
TS....................................... 50 16 66
--------------------------
Total.................................. 2,072 296 2,368
Total percent.......................... 87.5 12.5 .......
==========================
Fiscal year 1998:
AD....................................... 88 4 92
AR....................................... 143 2 145
BW....................................... 1 ....... 1
EQ....................................... 37 ....... 37
FCS...................................... 163 15 178
GC....................................... 44 ....... 44
HMT...................................... 345 61 406
HS....................................... 139 8 147
HSR...................................... 388 66 454
LI....................................... 327 84 411
REM...................................... 2 ....... 2
ROP...................................... 34 4 38
ROR...................................... 5 ....... 5
RSP...................................... 1 2 3
RW....................................... 35 2 37
SA....................................... 792 43 835
SI....................................... 45 ....... 46
TS....................................... 61 21 82
--------------------------
Total.................................. 2,650 313 2,963
Total percent.......................... 89 11 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RAILROAD SAFETY VIOLATION TYPES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation type code Violation type text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD........................... ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE.
AR........................... ACCIDENT REPORTS REGULATIONS.
BW........................... BRIDGE WORKER SAFETY STANDARDS.
EO........................... FRA EMERGENCY ORDER.
EP........................... RAILROAD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT.
EQ........................... ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS.
FCS.......................... FREIGHT CAR SAFETY STANDARDS.
GC........................... GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SAFETY.
GS........................... SAFETY GLAZING STANDARDS.
HMT.......................... HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATIONS.
HS........................... HOURS OF SERVICE LAWS.
HSR.......................... HOURS OF SERVICE RECORD KEEPING.
LI........................... LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS.
NE........................... RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION COMPLIANCE.
REM.......................... REAR END MARKING DEVICES.
ROP.......................... RAILROAD OPERATING PRACTICES.
ROR.......................... RAILROAD OPERATING RULES.
RSP.......................... RADIO STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
RW........................... ROADWAY WORKER PROTECTION.
SA........................... SAFETY APPLIANCE STATUTES.
SI........................... SIGNAL INSPECTION REGULATIONS.
TS........................... TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
enforcement case backlog
Question. What is the current status of FRA's enforcement case
backlog? What steps are you taking to more efficiently process that
backlog? How does the backlog compare with the backlog for each of the
last three years?
Answer. At any given time, FRA always has a number of open cases
awaiting settlement. The figures below show the number of such cases
pending now and the total initial penalty demand on those cases, with
similar figures as of March during each of the last three years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Time period open cases Penalty amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1996.................................. 2,552 $19,420,800
March 1997.................................. 1,796 12,543,950
March 1998.................................. 1,506 11,304,050
March 1999.................................. 1,256 11,894,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of open cases and amount of the outstanding penalty
demand have declined substantially since March 1996. FRA does not
consider these total amounts to be ``backlogs'' because only a portion
of them involves cases older than a year.
FRA looks at two basic measures in determining the timeliness of
its enforcement process, i.e., how quickly it is transmitting cases
after receipt of violation reports from field inspectors, and how
quickly it is closing cases after transmitting them to the railroad or
hazardous materials shipper. In 1998, FRA's Office of Chief Counsel
initiated enforcement cases, on average, within 70 days of having
received the violation report from the region. The promptness of the
current process ensures that the industry is effectively informed of
pending violations on a timely basis. With regard to major railroads,
the process has also become very efficient in bringing these cases to
resolution. FRA holds a settlement conference to close all pending
cases on at least an annual basis with the largest railroads. As a
result, FRA generally settles major railroad cases within a year of
their transmittal. These cases make up 70 to 80 percent of the
caseload.
However, with all of its other duties on the increase, the Office
of Chief Counsel is finding it very difficult to find time to settle
cases against small railroads and shippers. These settlements, which
are often handled through mail and phone calls rather than meetings,
lack the economies of scale present in the large railroad settlements.
FRA attorneys can pursue these settlements only as the press of other
priorities (e.g., large railroad settlements, regulatory projects,
engineer certification cases) permits. Therefore, even though the
number of open cases is declining, the proportion that are older cases
against small railroads and shippers is increasing.
allocation of safety resources
Question. Please discuss whether FRA's rail safety personnel
resources are allocated internally in accordance with the potential for
risk and casualty reduction.
Answer. Allocation of FRA's rail safety personnel resources result
primarily from information developed out of the Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program (SACP) which identifies systemic problems that may
pose the greatest risk potential. FRA continually monitors the results
of the SACP audits as well as other enforcement actions to ensure all
safety resources are allocated to high risk and therefore, high
priority activities.
number of personnel at each field office
Question. Please list, by region, the current safety inspection
field offices and number of personnel at each field office.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Region Office personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeastern........................ Cambridge............. 19
Bangor \1\............ 1
Buffalo \1\........... 3
Clifton Park.......... 8
Newark................ 14
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 45
===========
Eastern............................. Lester................ 28
Hanover............... 7
Columbus \1\.......... 4
Cleveland............. 5
Cincinnati \1\........ 4
Charleston \1\........ 5
Harrisburg \1\........ 2
Norfolk............... 4
Pittsburgh............ 9
Roanoke \1\........... 4
Toledo \1\............ 1
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 73
===========
Southern............................ Atlanta............... 28
Birmingham............ 5
Charlotte............. 8
Jacksonville.......... 9
Knoxville \1\......... 2
Louisville \1\........ 7
Memphis \1\........... 4
Mobile................ 4
Nashville............. 4
Tampa \1\............. ..........
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 71
===========
Central............................. Chicago............... 36
Detroit............... 6
Ft. Snelling.......... 8
Indianapolis.......... 9
Peoria \1\............ 2
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 61
===========
Southwestern........................ Hurst................. 31
Houston............... 11
El Paso............... 4
Little Rock........... 5
New Orleans........... 6
Oklahoma City......... 4
San Antonio \1\....... 4
Shreveport \1\........ 3
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 68
===========
Midwestern.......................... Kansas City........... 29
Lakewood.............. 9
Omaha................. 8
St. Louis............. 7
Wichita \1\........... 2
Des Moines............ 3
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 58
===========
Western............................. Sacramento............ 27
Salt Lake City........ 6
Riverside............. 10
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 43
===========
Northwestern........................ Vancouver............. 24
Seattle \1\........... 4
Pocatello............. 5
Billings.............. 8
Bismark............... 4
Spokane \1\........... 4
-----------
Total......................... ...................... 49
===========
Total, FRA.................... ...................... 468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office closed; all employees telecommute.
fra office closure and reduction in space
Question. Has FRA reduced the number of field offices during the
last year? Are any cost savings reflected in the budget? How many field
offices have been closed during the last three years. Please identify
the locations of any closed sites. Have any new offices been
established during this period? If so, where?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, FRA closed seven field offices and
reduced space in two other offices, resulting in an annual savings of
$79,558 in DOT's rent budget. Closed: Bangor, ME; Memphis, TN;
Knoxville, TN; Tampa, FL; Shreveport, LA; San Antonio, TX; Spokane, WA.
Reduced Space: Oklahoma City, OK; Salt Lake City, UT.
In fiscal year 1997, FRA closed five field offices and reduced
space in three other offices, resulting in an annual savings of $84,644
in DOT's rent budget. Closed: Peoria, IL; Wichita, KS; Roanoke, VA;
Seattle, WA; Louisville, KY. Reduced Space: Birmingham, AL; Nashville,
TN; Mobile, AL.
In fiscal year 1998, FRA closed six field offices and reduced space
in four other offices, resulting in an annual savings of $87,285 in
DOT's rent budget. Closed: Columbus, OH; Harrisburg, PA; Charleston,
WV; Buffalo, NY; Toledo, OH; Cincinnati, OH. Reduced Space: Houston,
TX; Jacksonville, FL; Charlotte, NC; Newark, NJ. There are no plans to
close offices or reduce space during FY-1999. No new offices have been
established.
fiscal year 1998 inspections
Question. How many miles of track, freight cars, locomotives, and
track miles with signals and train control systems were inspected last
year? Please compare this level of inspection activity with that
achieved during the two preceding years. How were these activities
focused on high-risk railroads and shippers?
Answer. The table below reflects a comparison of preliminary 1998
inspection data with that of the previous two years. FRA collects the
number of signal and train control devices inspected each year, but not
the number of track miles with signal and train control systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
change change
1998 \1\ from from
1997 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track Miles Inspected................. 253,230 +1.8 -02.8
Freight Cars Inspected................ 566,458 +2.8 -09.2
Locomotives Inspected................. 22,517 +1.6 -07.5
Signal Units Inspected................ 43,910 -4.3 -15.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
FRA will continue to leverage its inspector resources by
coordinating Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) and site-
specific inspection duties in the most effective way. FRA's safety
programs require a balanced approach of inspections coupled with
partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor and management
to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad industry before
they lead to defect violations or accidents. FRA believes that it has
achieved the proper balance between SACP and site-specific inspections.
number of sacp audits
Question. Under the SACP, how many Class I and Class II railroads
have been analyzed by FRA so far? How many railroads have had two SACP
reviews? How many additional railroads need to be reviewed for the
first time under SACP?
Answer. FRA has examined more than 55 railroads under SACP
including all ten Class I railroads, more than half of the approximate
27 Class II railroads, seven of the nine commuter rail authorities, and
many of the largest switching and terminal railroads (according to
Surface Transportation Board railroad revenue classifications, all
switching and terminal railroads are Class III, regardless of revenue
levels). Most SACP audits are now open-ended--once a SACP audit begins
at a railroad, it will be continuously monitored by FRA inspectors
through employee listening post sessions and formal FRA/Management/
Labor meetings. FRA cannot extend SACP audits to the more than 700 U.S.
railroads. However, the agency intends to include, in SACP reviews, the
largest freight, all passenger, and all other freight railroads having
significant amounts of hazardous material shipments, or interface with
passenger service.
effectiveness of the sacp process
Question. Please provide several new examples of how the SACP has
been effective, and outline how the compliance levels have improved
with this approach versus FRA's more traditional enforcement approach.
In addition, please provide several new examples of how this
cooperative approach did not work and the subsequent actions that FRA
took to achieve an acceptable level of regulatory compliance.
Answer. Under SACP, examination of railroad compliance with Agency
rules is more comprehensive than with site-specific inspections. SACP
is a multi-discipline safety audit, whereas site-specific inspections
usually involve only a single inspection discipline. In addition,
compliance agreements under SACP safety audits usually apply across the
entire railroad property. Compliance with a site-specific inspection
may only apply to a particular point on the railroad property.
Examples of systemic problems which have been corrected by SACP
include:
Amtrak.--A SACP safety audit gained compliance with (1) Blue Signal
protection regulations, (2) Short Looping procedures (rules for
applying jumper cables to 480 volt power distribution circuits on
passenger cars in a train), and (3) maintenance requirements for wood
crossties at interlockings in the Northeast Corridor (NEC).
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS).--The Manpower, Staffing and Crew
Utilization SACP Team gained incentives for participants in Accelerated
Conductor Training (ACT); developed a mentoring program and training
program for employees that participate in ACT; and took measures
affecting deadhead transportation that will significantly improve crew
utilization and reduce employee fatigue. The Train and Engine Safety
Analysis SACP Team developed rules and a training and compliance
program to reduce the number of employee accidents. FRA is monitoring
compliance with this SACP effort. The team is also looking at other
safety issues concerning crossing issues at a Ford Motor Company
facility. The Harassment and Intimidation SACP Team began resolving a
variety of issues that may lead to more accurate reporting of railroad
incidents.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP).--FRA initiated enhanced SACP
inspection activities on the UP as a result of several incidents and
fatalities which resulted in injury and loss of life. After
commencement on August 23, 1997, the UP's SACP activities have been
continuous. SACP teams have concentrated on fatigue management; crew
utilization/crew management systems; dispatcher workload; inspection
and testing requirements for signals, maintenance of way, locomotives
and cars; electronic record keeping; and alternatives to employee
discipline. Fiscal year 1998, SACP accomplishments include: developing
a family support program; implementing a Lodging Policy for employees;
implementing an Interim Crew Rest Policy; negotiating a ``minimum
rest'' agreement; implementing a pilot napping program; established
pilot program for the timely relief of crews in all of UP's regions;
implementing daily information television broadcast of train line-up
performance; establishing a Terminal Matrix for identifying those
responsible for making train line-up updates; proposing the placement
of Corridor Managers, Crew Balancing, and locomotive managers in close
proximity to each other to improve communication and effectiveness;
developing an analytical method to review dispatcher workload
consisting of data from the radio communications system, and Computer
Aided Dispatching System; adjusting and reassigning the workloads of 11
dispatching positions; adopting a qualification process for machine
operators; developing a simplified computer menu that guides employees
through the exercise and download of various models of event recorders
to insure proper testing and functioning of these components;
developing policies for inspections of locomotives; developing
standardized inspection procedures specific to roller bearings;
developing programs which offer alternatives to employee discipline
such as conferencing or training.
CSX Transportation Company (CSXT).--The CSXT SACP encouraged the
first major railroad to develop fatigue countermeasure training films
and to train all employees in fatigue countermeasures. SACP activities
also: developed procedures for correcting errors in electronic record-
keeping; identified and corrected system-wide deficiencies with
locomotive event recorder software; identified and corrected a system-
wide track vegetation overgrowth problem; identified and corrected a
system-wide signal system maintenance problem; implemented a new
discipline policy; implemented a grade crossing awareness program for
motor vehicle drivers; developed a new train riding policy and
procedure, allowing signal employees to evaluate and maintain the
alignment and preview of wayside signals; developed new procedures for
the 92-day locomotive inspection and maintenance requirement; developed
new tamper-resistant Blue Flag electric lock assemblies that provide
greater security and safety; developed new hazardous material policy,
which does not allow the entry of a hazardous materials container or
trailer into a terminal with our proper documentation; and developed
procedures to improve blocking and bracing techniques and securement of
all Trailer on Flat Car/Container on Flat Car loading. Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company (BNSF): In partnership with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the BNSF SACP
developed and implemented an on-going campaign to increase work vehicle
seat belt usage system-wide. BNSF has recently qualified for NHTSA's
silver award for employee usage of seatbelts. The BNSF SACP implemented
an on-going process of independent and joint TOFC/COFC Securement
Audits and a structured contractor training and audit program. A BNSF-
SACP Task Force approved a pilot project of using new technology
(Quantum Signal Comparitor) for ensuring signal awareness by train
crews.
To date, FRA has not encountered any instances in which railroads
have failed to comply with safety action plans. FRA recognizes the
importance of aggressive enforcement action in cases where SACP
commitments go unfulfilled or are not properly implemented.
impact of sacp--fiscal years 1996-1998
Question. Please prepare quantitative measures to indicate trends
in railroad safety, using a variety of measures of safety performance
for each of the last three years. What do you suggest is the role of
the SACP in the improvement process?
Answer.
CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Fatalities Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................... 1,039 12,558 13,597
1997............................... 1,063 11,767 12,830
1998 \1\........................... 989 11,179 12,168
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hwy-rail Total
Year Train Other xing accidents/
accidents incidents impacts incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................................................... 2,443 10,991 4,257 17,691
1997........................................................... 2,397 10,437 3,865 16,699
1998 \1\....................................................... 2,516 10,151 3,493 16,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
ACCIDENTS/PROPERTY DAMAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TRA Accidents/ Casualties/
Train accident million Total Total 200,000
Year accidents damage train- Deaths Injuries casualties Casualties empl. work-
($000) miles hours rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996................................................... 2,443 212,314 3.64 488 1,610 2,098 9,232 3.66
1997................................................... 2,397 210,729 3.54 461 1,540 2,001 8,332 3.31
1998 \1\............................................... 2,516 229,394 3.69 426 1,279 1,705 8,234 3.21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
HIGHWAY-RAIL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accidents/
Accidents/ million
Year incidents train
miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................................ 4,257 6.34
1997............................................ 3,865 5.71
1998 \1\........................................ 3,493 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
TOTAL TRESPASSER CASUALTIES
[EXCLUDING HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Deaths Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................... 471 474 945
1997............................... 533 516 1,049
1998 \1\........................... 520 508 1,028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
Safety statistics and a recent Office of Inspector General review
support the Agency's belief that the SACP process can identify and
correct safety problems and enhance partnerships between FRA and its
customers.
The SACP process has permitted inspector resources to be used more
effectively by identifying and addressing systematic problems that have
railroad-wide or railroad-industry-wide implications. For example,
during a routine inspection, an FRA inspector discovered an
intermittent problem at a wayside signal. Through outreach, conducted
under the auspicious of SACP, FRA traced the root cause of the problem
to a software error in the affected 400 additional signals on the
railroad. It would have taken years of site-specific inspections by
dozens of inspectors to identify problems on 400 signals using site-
specific inspections alone.
However, despite the success of FRA's safety enforcement programs,
additional resources are needed to maintain and increase work in SACP
and site-specific inspections, especially in critical areas such as
grade crossing, bridge integrity, passenger equipment safety, and
positive train control.
response to ig's recommendation on sacp
Question. Please describe in detail your response to each of the
IG's recommendations or comments on the SACP. Please specify the exact
steps that have been taken to respond to each recommendation, and then,
separately outline each of the proposed steps that remain to be taken.
Will any IG recommendations not be implemented? If so, please explain
why.
Answer. Concurrent with the OIG review, FRA initiated its own
internal review of the SACP, which was conducted by the SACP Quality
Improvement Team (SACP Team). FRA recognizes that all of FRA's SACP
efforts be conducted and documented in generally the same manner so
that the Agency can maintain effective management oversight of the
program and can ensure consistency and quality in individual SACP
projects. In adopting the SACP Team's recommendations, SACP will be
strengthened as follows:
(1) For consistent methodology and documentation, FRA is in the
process of amending its SACP General Instruction Manual to provide
guidance to all Agency personnel on the methodology and documentation
requirements for SACP projects. In its guidance, FRA will detail the
process to be used for conducting SACP projects, the ways in which
proper communication (both inside and outside the Agency) will be
ensured, and the proper methods of tracking SACP issues and documenting
results. FRA's new guidance will address the major issues in conducting
a SACP project including: project length (on-going partnerships for the
largest Class I railroads/audits of finite duration for other
railroads), issue identification and selection, planning requirements
(by SACP Project Manager), structure and responsibilities (of SACP
Project Manager and Team Leaders), internal coordination, resolution of
issues and monitoring remedial actions, tracking and documentation, and
measuring program effectiveness.
(2) FRA's SACP policies currently require SACP Project Managers to
develop a comprehensive railroad safety profile at the outset of a SACP
project and, with regard to ongoing projects, to analyze relevant
sources of information periodically to determine how that profile is
changing. These procedures also require that SACP Project Managers
provide for appropriate corrective actions on all issues, whether the
issue is resolved through a formal safety action plan, compliance
agreement, informal agreement, or enforcement action. The amended SACP
Instruction Manual will establish more uniform procedures to accomplish
these program elements. For example, having determined which issues are
to be addressed in the project, the SACP Project Manager will ensure
that each is tracked using the Partnership Issue Tracking and Status
Report, a tracking mechanism developed especially for the SACP process.
This tracking device will help the SACP Project Manager, in
consultation with FRA senior managers and Team Leaders, make sure that
corrective action occurs on each issue selected. In determining how to
resolve each issue, the SACP Project Manager chooses the method that
best fits: formal safety action plan, informal agreement, compliance
agreement, or enforcement action.
(3) FRA instructed SACP Project Managers for the 44 railroads cited
in the OIG Report (10 Class I and 34 smaller railroads) to prepare a
composite listing of systemic safety issues identified during these
railroad safety audits. FRA's regional administrators will look closely
at the 34 smaller railroads, after consulting with the SACP Project
Managers for those railroads. FRA's Headquarter's Project Coordinator
will track the closeouts/open status for the systemic issues identified
for the 10 largest railroad systems, after consulting with the SACP
Project Managers for those railroads. FRA plans to report the status of
all identified systemic safety issues from these early SACP safety
audits to the OIG.
(4) During its internal review of SACP, FRA recognized the need to
create more formalized communication procedures for SACP projects.
Experience with past projects demonstrated that if field personnel were
not fully informed on significant SACP issues, the overall
effectiveness of the project was adversely impacted. Specifically, good
communication is essential for the identification of systemic problems,
consistent enforcement by the Office of Safety and Office of Chief
Counsel, and the timely completion of a SACP project. FRA is attempting
to provide, all FRA and State inspectors, ready access to SACP
information via the Internet. FRA is taking steps that will: (1)
improve two-way communication capabilities; (2) establish a link
between FRA's web site and an accident/incident/inspection report web
page; (3) give high priority to expeditious incorporation of SACP
information, such as narrative reports, Monthly Issues Reports (MIR),
and Partnership Issue Tracking and Status (PITS) Reports, into FRA's
Internet web site; and (4) give high priority to the development and
implementation of a common Internet complaint data base to ensure
access to accurate and timely SACP complaint information. Development
of such a comprehensive computer linkage will take some time. In the
interim, however, FRA will take several steps to improve communication
within the Agency on SACP issues.
FRA's SACP Project Managers will produce a Monthly Issues Report
for Class I railroad safety audits or multi-regional projects. All
senior FRA officials and staff that are in need of such information
will receive this monthly report. Class I railroad SACP Project
Managers will attend regional administrators' meetings to facilitate
discussion of their respective SACP projects. Regional administrators
will communicate and share Monthly Issues Reports with regional staff
and appropriate state directors. Regions will provide systemic
complaint information to SACP Team Leaders and/or SACP Project
Managers. SACP Team Leaders on Class I railroad safety audits will
attend discipline-specific specialists meetings and participate in
discipline-specific conference calls to discuss SACP initiatives,
problems, and progress. They will also communicate through the timely
sharing of pertinent information with appropriate staff directors and
regional specialists. Regional specialists will keep appropriate FRA
and state inspectors fully apprized of SACP activities and provide
notice to the SACP Project Manager of significant enforcement actions.
As necessary, the SACP Project Manager or Team Leader will coordinate
with regional personnel on conducting follow-up inspections, and the
resulting information will be used to determine the need for further
action on the issue.
To date, FRA has not encountered any instances in which railroads
have failed to comply with safety action plans. FRA recognizes the
importance of aggressive enforcement action in cases where SACP
commitments are unfulfilled or are not properly implemented. That is
why the Agency developed its Focused Enforcement Policy in 1997 (the
policy is described in FRA's The Safety Assurance and Compliance
Program: Guidance on Inspection and Enforcement). The Focused
Enforcement Policy was discussed with field, headquarters and State
personnel during FRA's Multi-Regional Conferences in 1997.
However, in response to the IG's concerns, FRA is amending its
enforcement policy to ensure that aggressive enforcement action is
taken for failure to correct SACP-related safety violations, when
appropriate, at any stage of the SACP process. FRA will amend its SACP
General Instruction Manual to include up-dated guidelines on Focused
Enforcement. Included in these guidelines is the provision that
enforcement action will not be taken automatically for minor or
inconsequential violations in connection with implementation of a
safety action plan.
The IG recommends that FRA advise inspectors of the Agency's intent
to take aggressive enforcement action when problems identified in the
SACP process have not been corrected. FRA is requiring the SACP Project
Manager, regional administrators, and appropriate Headquarters staff to
determine to what extent enforcement action will be taken, based on
violations detected as a part of SACP team inspections. The SACP
Project Manager will inform the Office of Chief Counsel of violations
that surface during SACP team inspections or follow-up monitoring,
which deserve especially aggressive handling. At the same time, the
SACP Project Manager will offer a recommendation of how the violation
should be handled. Regional specialists will ensure that all violations
arising from a SACP review are marked ``SACP Violations'' on the
transmittal sheet to the Office of Chief Counsel. Information involving
compliance activities will be shared among SACP Project Managers,
regional personnel, and the Office of Chief Counsel. The Office of
Chief Counsel will include SACP Project Managers in the scheduling of
settlement conferences with major railroads. Once a year, the SACP
Project Manager and an Office of Chief Counsel attorney will analyze
how well the previous year's enforcement activity focused on truly
important safety issues with respect to the major railroad to which
they are assigned, and recommend how that focus might be improved.
number of site-specific inspections by region 1995-98
Question. The SACP has shifted some of FRA's resources away from
site-specific inspections. Please prepare a table showing the number of
inspections for the various safety disciplines conducted in 1995, 1996,
1997 and 1998, by region and in aggregate.
Answer. The number of inspection reports filed by Federal and state
inspectors by region during 1995-1998 follows:
SUMMARY OF INSPECTION REPORTS FILED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1995 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 5,739 5,989 5,467 5,509
2............................... 12,231 10,028 9,657 9,330
3............................... 9,774 9,552 9,296 9,730
4............................... 8,628 8,205 7,771 7,029
5............................... 7,443 6,943 6,405 8,433
6............................... 4,015 3,882 3,774 4,097
7............................... 5,508 6,174 6,064 6,866
8............................... 4,263 4,406 4,370 5,169
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 57,601 55,179 52,804 56,163
------------------------------------------------------------------------
level and effect of site-specific inspections
Question. Does FRA expect that its inspectors will continue to
conduct fewer site-specific inspections every year as a result of its
new approach? If so, what do you believe will be the long-term effect
on rail safety?
Answer. Site-specific inspections increased 5.6 percent in 1998,
compared to 1997. FRA will continue to leverage its inspector resources
by coordinating SACP and site-specific inspection duties in the most
effective way. FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of
inspections coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of
rail labor and management to identify and correct safety concerns in
the railroad industry before they lead to defect violations or
accidents. FRA believes that it has achieved the proper balance between
SACP and site-specific inspections.
Site-specific inspections alone are not always beneficial in
identifying systemic problems nor ensuring railroad cooperation and
participation in correcting safety violations. Safety Statistics and a
recent Office of Inspector General review support the Agency's belief
that the SACP process can identify and correct safety problems and
enhance partnerships between FRA and its customers.
However, despite the success of FRA's safety enforcement programs,
additional resources are needed to maintain and increase work in SACP
and site-specific inspections, especially in critical areas such as
grade crossing, bridge integrity, passenger equipment safety and
positive train control.
number and type of railroads inspected
Question. How often does FRA seek to inspect each railroad? Please
provide a table showing the number and types of railroads that
underwent no FRA inspections for calendar years 1993-1998.
Answer. FRA's goal is to visit annually each active railroad. As to
each new railroad, FRA's stated objective is to visit at initial start-
up.
ACTIVE RAILROADS NOT INSPECTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active
Active railroads
Year railroads not
inspected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.............................................. 668 88
1994.............................................. 688 92
1995.............................................. 679 115
1996.............................................. 704 124
1997.............................................. 679 144
1998.............................................. 670 97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA inspected all Class I railroads and all Group II railroads.
Class I railroads, as defined by the Surface Transportation Board, are
those with average annual operating revenues of $253.7 million or more.
Group II railroads, exclude Class I railroads, and have an annual
accumulation of over 400,000 employee hours worked. The active
railroads which have not been inspected include smaller railroads with
an annual accumulation of 400,000 and under employee hours.
sacp procedure guidelines
Question. Since last year, what was done to update the written
guidelines regarding the procedures for the SACP?
Answer. In response to a recent Inspector General review and FRA's
own internal review of the SACP, by the SACP Quality Improvement Team,
FRA is amending its SACP General Instruction Manual. The revised Manual
will be completed by the end of the fiscal year and will incorporate
most of the recommendations from the Team's September, 1998 draft
report. The SACP is a dynamic process. Given the evolving nature of
SACP, FRA will closely monitor the program and periodically re-examine
policies, procedures, and practices to maintain a high degree of
accountability, consistency and effectiveness.
sacp and smaller railroads
Question. What is FRA's experience with the SACP as applied to
smaller railroads?
Answer. SACP uses a rail labor/management/FRA partnership approach
to identifying and solving safety concerns within the railroad
industry. The difference between a SACP safety audit of a Class I
carrier versus that of a smaller carrier is one of magnitude--the size
of each entity's operations determines the amount of time and resources
to be used in the process. The procedures followed are identical--
safety profile/action plan/follow-up audit. FRA does not have the
resources to extend SACP audits to the more than 700 U.S. railroads,
most of which are considered small rail operations. The benefits
expected from SACP are greater for the larger railroad operations
primarily due to the many more levels of supervision required for the
larger railroad systems. The agency intends to place under SACP review,
the largest freight, all passenger, and all other freight railroads
having significant amounts of hazardous material shipments, or
interface with passenger service.
canadian national acquisition of illinois central
Question. What are FRA's concerns with regard to Canadian
National's acquisition of Illinois Central Railroad? Has FRA identified
any systemic safety problems during SACP reviews of IC or CN that could
become more pronounced should the STB approve the railroads' merger?
Answer. In early 1996, FRA conducted a SACP safety audit of the
Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC). The SACP assessment revealed
problems in IC's Internal Control Plan primarily affecting how
accidents, incidents, injuries or occupational illnesses are reported.
There were also issues relating to the carrier's employee harassment
and intimidation policy. As a result of FRA's recommendations, IC's
Internal Control Plan was revised in October 1997 to address FRA's
concerns. A subsequent SACP safety audit of the IC disclosed serious
deficiencies in record keeping requirements associated with IC's
periodic Efficiency Tests and monitoring inspections. As a result of
FRA's recommendations, IC's Guidelines for Conducting Efficiency Tests
and Inspections was revised, effective January 1, 1998. FRA also
conducted a comprehensive SACP review of IC's Drug and Alcohol Program.
FRA determined that IC's overall program for drug and alcohol testing
was very good by industry standards. Other areas of concern which have
been satisfactorily addressed by IC include: changes to record keeping
requirements for certification of locomotive engineers; crew management
system/dispatching; compliance with terminal air brake tests;
compliance with Freight Car Safety Standards; daily inspection of
locomotives; hazardous materials handling/training; compliance with
Roadway Worker Protection rules; and the high frequency of highway-rail
grade crossing collisions. IC has been very responsive to FRA's SACP
safety audits. The carrier has worked closely with FRA to correct all
areas of safety concerns.
The Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTW), a subsidiary of the
Canadian National Rail System (CN) which operates in the United States,
is presently undergoing a SACP safety audit. Though in its early
stages, the following are examples of issues that are being addressed
by GTW: corporate culture issues; applicability of Canadian versus U.S.
regulations; compliance with Hours of Service Act requirements;
problems with the carrier's Internal Control Plan; compliance with
Roadway Worker Protection requirements; and compliance with locomotive
daily inspection requirements.
railroad safety advisory committee
Question. Please break down all associated expenses, justifying the
requested increase to support the RSAC, including facilities, mailings,
equipment, contract support, and the ``other'' support costs. Please
further specify exactly how fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 monies were or will be used for RSAC.
Answer. FRA is requesting $200,000 for RSAC, the same level as in
fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 funding will be allocated as
follows:
Travel funds are required ($5,000) for invitational travel for
state organizational employees who serve as Committee, Working Group,
and Task Force members. Their participation in the RSAC process is
essential to ensuring representation of interests other than railroad
management and labor which are directly affected by FRA's safety
regulatory program.
Facilitation service funding ($10,000) is essential to the success
of the negotiated rulemaking process. The demands placed on the limited
number of in-house facilitators necessitates the use of professional
facilitators. Professional facilitators are crucial to avert delay in
the negotiated rulemaking process.
Support for contractual services for maintenance of the RSAC
Database, designed to track RSAC participants and tasks. Development
and maintenance of a website for RSAC to provide interactive
information for use by RSAC members and easy access by the public to
up-to-date information on RSAC activities. Specialized data collection
and analyses requirements in support of Committee, Working Group and
Task Force activities ($70,000). These services are a critical
requirement to supplement existing staff and address an escalating
workload through the use of technological assistance without increasing
staffing levels. Meetings of working groups and task forces must
accommodate the needs of members in order to elicit continued rail
labor and management support and participation in the process.
Specialized data collection and analyses will be required to support
the work of the task forces. Absent these services, the burden that
will be imposed upon existing safety resources will further strain
limited resources and continue to divert and dilute efforts being
directed to other critical functions.
Funding for training ($5,000) provides requisite interest-based
negotiation training for Committee, Working Group and Task Force
members to ensure effective participation in this consensual rulemaking
process.
Funding for meeting space and accompanying audio/visual
requirements for the full Committee, Working Groups and Task Forces
($65,000) to accommodate meeting space requirements based on the number
of participants required to be seated at the table, attendance by
members of the general public and additional space necessary for
essential caucus and task force activities. Federal agency space
available to accommodate these requirements is extremely limited and in
great demand in the Washington D.C. area. Further constraints for RSAC
meetings are restrictions on entrances to many federal buildings. The
majority of RSAC members and other attendees are not federal government
employees and the meetings are open to the general public. Meetings are
conducted at locations outside of the Washington area to facilitate
member participation and availability and to equitably distribute the
burden of travel time and costs for members. This funding will also
provide necessary audio-visual support for these meetings.
Funding for supplies, printing and mailing services ($44,000) are
essential to support the meetings and work of the full Committee, the
Working Groups and Task Forces. Adequate funding to support processing
and dissemination of information and data crucial to the ongoing
regulatory tasks and the extensive coordination involved, will ensure
the effectiveness of this extremely significant undertaking is not
compromised.
Funding for interpreter services ($1,000) is requested to address
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The $50,000 Congress authorized for RSAC in fiscal year 1997 funded
supplies, printing, mailing costs, meeting space, and accompanying
audio/visual requirements for three full Committee meetings and an
estimated 36 working group and task force meetings.
The $100,000 funding level for fiscal year 1998 continued to
support costs for supplies, printing, mailing and space for the
meetings of the full Committee, working groups, and task forces, and
covered the initial development of the RSAC database.
The $200,000 funding level for fiscal year 1999 also covers
supplies, printing, mailings, meeting space. In addition, funds support
interest-based negotiation training, contractual services for data
entry for the RSAC database, and development and maintenance of an RSAC
informational website.
The RSAC structure consists of voting representatives from 27
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives,
suppliers, other interested parties, and four non-voting associate
representatives from agencies with rail responsibilities in Canada and
Mexico, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal
Transit Administration. Initial funding levels did not anticipate the
overwhelming industry embracement of this process. Railroad labor and
management, as well as suppliers and other parties, are dedicating
significant resources to the success of this collaborative rulemaking
process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 800
full Committee, Working Group and Task Force members, and alternates
have participated in more than 150 meetings to address 15 tasks on
issues such as track safety standards and positive train control. The
magnitude of the resources dedicated is reflective of the participants'
commitment to the success of this process.
rsac and rulemakings
Question. How many rulemaking tasks have been referred to the RSAC?
How long had FRA been working on each rulemaking prior to referring it
to the RSAC? For the tasks referred to the RSAC, how many have missed
the Congressional mandate to issue final rules? Has the Administrator
withdrawn any of the tasks referred to the RSAC? If so, what were the
reasons for withdrawing tasks referred to the RSAC?
Answer. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, 15 tasks have
been referred to, and accepted by, the RSAC. See attached listings
detailing the tasks accepted by the RSAC and how long FRA had been
working on each of these rulemakings prior to referring them to RSAC.
FRA is making good progress in reducing a regulatory backlog that
arose against a background of successive statutory mandates and limited
resources. FRA did not meet statutory mandates on two tasks (track
standards and freight power brake revisions) that were referred to
RSAC, although the track rule has been issued in final. Of the tasks
given to RSAC, only one (freight power brakes) has been withdrawn, for
reasons discussed below.
The extended statutory deadline for revision of the track safety
standards was September 1, 1995. FRA published an ANPRM on November 6,
1992. The RSAC accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996.
FRA published an NPRM on July 3, 1997, and the final rule was published
on June 22, 1998. The effective date of the rule was September 21,
1998.
The statutory deadline for revision of the power brake rules was
December 31, 1993. An NPRM was published on September 16, 1994. Based
on differences between passenger and freight operations, passenger
equipment power brake standards were separated from freight and
included in the Passenger Equipment Standards NPRM published September
23, 1997. FRA has prepared a final rule, which is pending publication.
Two-way end-of-train rules were separated from the balance of freight
issues and a final rule was published January 2, 1997. Railroads agreed
to an expedited schedule and trains were equipped ahead of the
statutory deadline.
The general revision of the freight power brake rules was tasked to
the RSAC on April 1, 1996. After over a year of intense efforts, a
consensus between railroad labor and management could not be reached on
several contentious issues and FRA formally withdrew the task on June
24, 1997. FRA published an NPRM on September 9, 1998, reflective of
what FRA learned through the collaborative process. Public hearings
were conducted on October 26, 1998, in Kansas City, Missouri, and on
November 13, 1998, in Washington, DC. A technical conference was held
in Walnut Creek, California, on November 23-24, 1998. The final date
for submission of written comments was extended to March 1, 1999. FRA
is preparing the final rule.
tasks accepted by the rsac as of april 1999
Task 96-1 Revision of Freight Power Brake Regulations.--Formally
withdrawn 6/97. FRA issued an NPRM reflective of what FRA learned
through the collaborative process.
Task 96-2 Revision of Track Safety Standards.--To promote the safe
movement of trains.
Task 96-3 Railroad Communications.--To recommend revisions to the
Radio Standards and Procedures and consider communications capability
required to support emergency preparedness functions, including
emergency preparedness plans for rail passenger service.
Task 96-4 Tourist, Excursion, Scenic and Historic Service.--To
ensure appropriate applicability of FRA regulations to tourist,
excursion and historic railroads on and off the general rail system.
Task 96-5 Revision of Steam-Powered Locomotive Inspection
Standards.--To promote the safe operation of tourist and historic rail
operations.
Task 96-6 Revision of Qualification and Certification of Locomotive
Engineer Regulations.--To promote railroad safety by improving the
regulations based on additional knowledge and experience gained since
the original effective date.
Task 96-7 Safety Standards for Track Motor Vehicles and Self
Propelled Roadway Equipment.--To promote the safe operation of track
motor vehicles and self -propelled roadway equipment.
Task 96-8 Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions
Planning Task.--To evaluate the need for action responsive to
recommendations contained in the Report to Congress entitled Locomotive
Crashworthiness & Working Conditions.
Task 97-1 Locomotive Crashworthiness.--To promote the safe
operation of trains and the survivability of locomotive crews where
train incidents do occur.
Task 97-2 Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--To safeguard the
health of locomotive crews and promote the safe operation of trains.
Task 97-3 Revision of Event Recorder Requirements.--To enhance rail
safety through appropriate revision and/or addition to existing event
recorder requirements to improve accident investigation,
reconstruction, and analysis methodologies. To consider, and as
appropriate act upon, National Transportation Safety Board
recommendation for locomotive cab voice recorders.
Task 97-4 Positive Train Control Systems.--To facilitate
understanding of current Positive Train Control (PTC) technologies,
definitions, and capabilities.
Task 97-5.--To address issues regarding the feasibility of
implementing fully integrated PTC systems.
Task 97-6.--To facilitate implementation of software based signal
and operating systems through consideration of revisions to the Rules,
Standards and Instructions to address processor-based technology and
communication-based operating architectures.
Task 97-7 Definition of Reportable ``Train Accident''.--To evaluate
the current concept of a reportable ``train accident'' to determine
whether clarification of the means used by railroads to estimate
railroad property damage could improve the consistency of reporting.
history of rulemakings referred to rsac
Revision of Freight Power Brake Regulations.--The 1992 Rail Safety
Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to revise the power
brake regulations. FRA did complete the portion of the rule involving
two-way end-of train devices (EOTs) and it became effective on July 1,
1997. FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September
16, 1994, and conducted six days of public hearings. Additional options
were requested from passenger interests and freight interests.
Passenger power brake provisions were included in the Passenger
Equipment Standards NPRM published September 23, 1997, and a final rule
is in preparation. Revision of the freight power brake regulations was
tasked to RSAC on April 1, 1996. After a period of over a year of
intense efforts, a consensus between railroad labor and management
could not be reached on several contentious issues. FRA formally
withdrew the freight power brake task at the June 24, 1997, RSAC
meeting. FRA published an NPRM on September 9, 1998, reflective of what
FRA has learned through the collaborative process. Public hearings were
conducted on October 26, 1998, in Kansas City, Missouri, and on
November 13, 1998, in Washington, DC. A technical conference was held
in Walnut Creek, California, November 23-24, 1998. The final date for
the submission of written comments was extended to March 1, 1999. FRA
is preparing the final rule.
Revision of Track Safety Standards.--The 1992 safety authorization
act required FRA to issue revised track rules. FRA published an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on November 6, 1992, and
conducted workshops during the period January-March 1993. The RSAC
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996. In November
1996, the RSAC voted to recommend issuance of the NPRM and FRA
published an NPRM on July 3, 1997. A public hearing was held on
September 4, 1997, with comments due by December 22, 1997. The final
rule was published on June 22, 1998. The effective date of the rule is
September 21, 1998.
Although the subject of much discussion, the Track Working Group
could not reach consensus about how the revised Track Safety Standards
should address GRMS technology. The RSAC therefore recommended that a
small task group continue evaluating the possibility of developing GRMS
standards for broader application within the industry. The task group
drafted a GRMS standard providing for the use of this technology within
the industry which has been approved by the Track Working Group. FRA is
preparing an amendment to the final rule which will address the use of
GRMS technology.
Railroad Communications.--FRA, in submitting a report to Congress
on Railroad Communications and Train Control on July 13, 1994, noted
the need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications
in concert with railroads and employee representatives. The RSAC
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM, including consideration of
communication capabilities required in railroad operations, on April 1,
1996. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM. The NPRM was
published on June 11, 1997. A final rule was published on September 4,
1998, and became effective on January 2, 1999.
Tourist, Excursion, Scenic and Historic Service.--The Swift
Railroad Development Act of 1994 required FRA to submit a report to
Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize the unique factors
associated with these generally small passenger operations that often
utilize historic equipment. The report was submitted to the Congress on
June 10, 1996. The RSAC authorized formation of a working group on
Tourist and Historic Railroads on April 1, 1996, to promote the safe
operation of tourist and historic rail operations. The working group
has been monitoring completion of the steam locomotive regulations
task.
Revision of Steam-Powered Locomotive Inspection Standards.--A
committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and historic
railroads have sought a partnership with FRA to revise the steam
locomotive regulations. Revision of the regulations was tasked to the
RSAC on July 24, 1996. The working group on Tourist and Historic
Railroads created a task force to address this task. The task force's
proposed recommendations were accepted by the working group and
forwarded to the RSAC. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM.
The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 1998. A
public hearing was held in Corpus Christi, Texas, on February 4, 1999.
Written and oral comments have been reviewed and FRA is preparing the
final rule.
Revision of Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineer
Regulations.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved.
Experience under the rule has also raised additional issues. An interim
final rule amendment was published on October 12, 1995. The RSAC
accepted a task to revise the regulations on October 31, 1996. The full
Committee voted at the May 14, 1998, meeting to recommend issuance of
the NPRM forwarded by the Working Group. An NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on September 22, 1998. The Working Group has met to
resolve issues presented in the public comments. At the January 28,
1999, meeting, the RSAC recommended issuance of a final rule with the
Working Group modifications. FRA is preparing the final rule.
Safety Standards for Track Motor Vehicles and Self Propelled
Roadway Equipment.--During deliberations of the working group on Track
Safety Standards, the issue of proposing standards relating to the
safety of persons riding or operating maintenance-of-way equipment was
raised. On October 31, 1996, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting
proposed rules for safety of this equipment. A task force was formed to
address the issue and the task force reached a consensus agreement in
principle on what should be included in the proposed rule. At their
last meeting, the task force identified several remaining issues to be
resolved. In addition, the working group recognized the need to
coordinate with the Locomotive Cab Conditions Working Group to ensure
that standards for noise and air temperature (for enclosed cabs only)
for new category 1 and 2 equipment employ a rationale that is
reasonably consistent with the technical approach being employed for
locomotive cabs. (Note: actual standards are expected to differ in
important respects, recognizing the differences in the working
conditions and functions involved.) The task force has reached
agreement on the rule text for the proposed rule. FRA is researching
several OSHA related issues in order to avoid preemption difficulties.
A complete draft proposed rule package is being prepared for
presentation to the full Committee.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions Planning Task.--
The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to
conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive crashworthiness and working
conditions and issue regulations or submit a report. FRA conducted
research, outreach, and a survey of locomotive conditions and finalized
a report to the Congress entitled Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working
Conditions, transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report
conveyed data and information developed by FRA to date, closed out
those areas of investigation for which further action is not warranted,
and defined issues that should be pursued further in concert with
industry parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. The RSAC
accepted a planning task on October 31, 1996, to evaluate the need for
action responsive to recommendations contained in the report. A
planning group reviewed the report and grouped issues into categories.
FRA presented a task statement addressing locomotive crashworthiness
and a task statement addressing cab working conditions to the RSAC on
June 24, 1997.
Locomotive Crashworthiness.--On June 24, 1997, the RSAC voted to
accept a task addressing locomotive crashworthiness issues. The working
group on Locomotive Crashworthiness established a task force on
engineering issues that reviewed collision history and design options.
The working group reviewed the results of research that was
commissioned and is finalizing recommended draft standards for future
locomotives to present to the full Committee.
Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--On June 24, 1997, the RSAC
voted to accept a task addressing cab working conditions issues. The
working group on Locomotive Cab Working Conditions established task
forces on noise and temperature. The full working group met several
times to draft a standard for locomotive sanitary conditions and is
preparing a package for presentation to the RSAC. The Noise Task Force
is finalizing draft recommendations for hearing conservation program
requirements to be presented to the RSAC.
Revision of Event Recorder Requirements.--In issuing final rules
for event recorders which became effective May 5, 1995, FRA noted the
need to provide more refined technical standards. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) noted the loss of data from event
recorders in several accidents due to fire, water and mechanical
damage. NTSB proposed performance standards and agreed to serve as co-
chair for an industry/government working group that would define
technical standards for next-generation railroad event recorders. FRA
conducted a meeting of an informal working group comprised of railroad
labor and management and co-chaired by NTSB on December 7, 1995, to
consider development of technical standards. At the July 24-25, 1996,
RSAC meeting, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) agreed to
continue the inquiry and on November 1, 1996, reported the status of
work on proposed industry standards to the RSAC. On March 5, 1997, the
NTSB issued recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event
recorders as a result of finding in the investigation of an accident on
February 1, 1996, at Cajon Pass, California. On March 24, 1997, the
RSAC indicated its desire to receive a task to consider the NTSB
recommendations with respect to crash survivability, testing and
maintenance. A task was presented to, and accepted by, the RSAC on June
24, 1997. An Event Recorder working group was formed and a task force
established. The working group and task force have conducted meetings
and a draft proposed rule is being reviewed.
Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems.--The Swift Rail Development
Act of 1994 required FRA to submit a status report on the
implementation of positive train control as a follow-up to the July
1994 report entitled Railroad Communications and Train Control. FRA has
provided testimony to the committees of jurisdiction reporting the
status of efforts to promote implementation of positive train control.
FRA plans to utilize the results of the efforts described below to
provide an appropriate status report.
On September 30, 1997, the RSAC accepted two tasks involving
defining PTC functionalities, describing available technologies,
evaluating costs and benefit of potential systems, and considering
implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration
and deployment. A third task accepted by the RSAC requires revising
various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-
based signal and train control technologies, including communications-
based operating systems. A working group was convened to address the
tasks and two task forces were established, a Standards Task Force and
a Data and Implementation Task Force.
The Data and Implementation Task Force is working to finalize a
report on the future of PTC systems, which will be incorporated into
the required progress report to the Congress. The task force will
attempt to complete a draft at their April 1999 meeting. After
completion of this report, we anticipate that the Data and
Implementation Task Force will be involved in monitoring implementation
of PTC on the joint Illinois/AAR/UP/FRA project.
The PTC Working Group has also established two teams: an Operating
Rules Team, which will be working to ensure that appropriate railroad
operating rules are part of any PTC implementation process; and a Human
Factors Team which will evaluate human factor aspects of PTC systems.
Members of these teams serve on both the PTC Standards Task Force and
the Data and Implementation Task Force, and we anticipate that
additional team members will be drawn from the railroad community.
Definition of Reportable ``Train Accident''.--FRA identified the
need to comprehensively revise the regulations governing accident/
incident reporting, which had not been revised since 1974. FRA issued
an NPRM on August 19, 1994, and a final rule on May 30, 1996. Technical
amendments were published on November 22, 1996, and the FRA
Administrator signed final rule amendments on December 16, 1996. The
final rule became effective on January 1, 1997. On June 24, 1997, the
RSAC reviewed a request by an RSAC member to clarify the means used by
railroads to estimate railroad property damage and improve the
consistency of reporting. The RSAC accepted the task on September 30,
1997, limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident. A working group was formed, held its initial
meeting in February 1999, and has been conducting meetings to address
this task.
impact of rsac on regulatory process
Question. The RSAC was intended to help FRA complete rulemaking on
important safety issues. What rules has FRA issued that are directly
attributable to the involvement of the RSAC? To what extent has the
RSAC process expedited agency rulemaking?
Answer. The principal benefits that flow from use of collaborative
rulemaking processes are (i) the improved quality of the resulting rule
(better safety results and fewer burdens on the regulated entity) and
(ii) the extent to which the industry parties--having helped prepare
the rule--``buy in'' and therefore comply more readily and completely
with the rule's requirements. These are largely qualitative benefits
that do not lend themselves to data collection in the traditional
sense.
FRA began its emphasis on collaborative processes with a formal
negotiated rulemaking that led to the final rule on Roadway Worker
Safety (12/16/96). FRA also requested, and the Congress granted,
discretion to consult with affected parties in preparing rules for
passenger safety. This led to a consensus-based final rule on Passenger
Train Emergency Preparedness (5/4/98) and to productive discussions
that helped to form the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; final
rule was published May 12, 1999.
With establishment of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)
in March of 1996, FRA endeavored to institutionalize this collaborative
approach to rulemaking. Results to date include final rules for
revision of the Track Safety Standards and rules on Railroad
Communications. In addition, RSAC consensus proposals for Steam
Locomotive Inspection and Locomotive Engineer Certification promise to
provide the basic structure needed for final rules on those topics.
RSAC working groups are heavily engaged in other important topics,
including improvements to requirements for Locomotive Event Recorders,
standards for Locomotive Crashworthiness, improvement of Cab Working
Conditions, safety enhancements to on-track Roadway Equipment,
Performance Standards for Processor-Based Signal and Train Control
Systems, the future of Positive Train Control systems, and other
issues. The energy and dedication being brought to the table by
representatives of labor, freight and passenger railroads, suppliers,
States, and others is perhaps the best testimony supporting the use of
this partnership approach to enhancement of railroad safety.
rsac's review of training requirements for conductors
Question. Has FRA considered using the RSAC process to evaluate a
rulemaking requiring the same minimum training requirements for
conductors as are currently required for engineers? Has FRA been
approached by rail labor or Congressional offices on this issue? By
whom? Who would oppose such a requirement?
Answer. Over 25 members of Congress have written to FRA
recommending that the subject of certification of safety-critical
railroad employees be placed on the RSAC agenda. The issue has been
discussed with several rail labor organizations, but no labor
organization chief executive has written to FRA requesting that it
issue a rule on the subject of conductor certification. Recently,
however, representatives of the United Transportation Union have
indicated that conductor certification is one of their priorities and
that RSAC is the appropriate forum in which to address the issue. At
the April 15, 1999 RSAC meeting, FRA placed the issue of certification
of safety-critical employees on the agenda. FRA urged all RSAC
participants to study the relevant facts and provide FRA their views on
the need for regulatory action concerning safety-critical employees,
including conductors. Based on the facts and recommendations it
receives, FRA will determine whether to offer RSAC a rulemaking task on
certification at the next RSAC meeting in early September. It is not
clear who would oppose certification because the need for and costs of
certification are not clear. FRA, of course, would have to weigh the
impact of one or more additional certification programs on its
resources. The engineer certification program, which is supported by
specific statutory requirements enacted in 1988, requires the devotion
of many work years by FRA's program and legal staffs. This
``certification'' program entails private rights regarding freedom from
arbitrary adverse certificate actions and requires FRA oversight of due
process procedures, including administrative hearings and appeals in
certain contested cases. Similar programs requiring certification of
other types of employees would no doubt require similar resources,
which FRA presently does not have.
Other safety-critical employees that could request certification
status include dispatchers, employees responsible for inspection,
testing and maintenance of signal systems and highway rail grade
crossing warning devices, track inspectors, and motive power and
equipment inspection and maintenance personnel responsible for both
passenger and freight equipment. It should be noted that existing FRA
regulations require training in operating rules and practices for
conductors and other train and engine crews. FRA has sponsored
curriculum development efforts for train dispatcher training programs.
Current Track Safety Standards (recently revised through the RSAC)
provide basic qualification requirements for track inspectors.
FRA has worked with representatives of railroad signal employees to
develop technical training in the fundamentals of microprocessor-based
systems. Pending rulemaking proposals would set forth specific training
and qualification procedures for mechanical personnel responsible for
passenger cars and locomotives and for the safety of freight power
brake systems. Whatever decision is made regarding ``certification'' of
safety-sensitive railroad employees, FRA and the RSAC will continue to
be involved in promoting training and qualification programs to advance
railroad safety.
completed rulemakings in 1998
Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's and
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued since last year.
Answer. The information follows.
Final Rules issued in 1998:
--Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness (5/4/98)
--Track Safety Standards--revision (6/22/98)
--Railroad Communications (9/4/98)
--Northeast Corridor Signal System Order (7/22/98)
Proposed rules issued in 1998:
--Steam Locomotive Inspection--revision (9/25/98)
--Locomotive Engineer Certification--revision (9/22/98)
--Freight Power Brakes--revision (2d) (9/9/98)
--Safety Integration Plans--proposed jointly with STB (12/31/98)
FRA did not pursue any new major regulatory projects in 1998. In
addition to work related to the final and proposed rules listed above,
FRA continued to work on a number of other important rulemakings,
including:
--Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (final)
--Train Horns (Whistle Bans)
--PTC performance standards
--Cab working conditions (sanitation, noise, temperature)
--Event recorders--data survivability and other issues
--Locomotive crashworthiness
regulatory backlog
Question. What is the current regulatory backlog? What are the
nature and status of each of those projects? Please identify which of
those are statutorily mandated, and when those are due for final
issuance.
Answer. Enclosed is March 1999 summary of FRA's pending regulatory
workload, showing the nature and status of each of those projects. The
projects that are statutorily mandated are:
Passenger Equipment Standards.--FRA issued a final rule on
passenger equipment on May 12, 1999. The Federal Railroad Safety
Authorization Act of 1994 required FRA to issue initial standards in
three years and final standards in five years. FRA issued final rule on
one aspect of the mandate, emergency preparedness, in September 1997.
The final rule to be issued in May is the first phase of the equipment
standards. FRA will continue to work on additional passenger safety
issues in the rulemaking's second phase.
Freight Power Brake Rules.--The statutory deadline for revision of
the power brake rules was December 31, 1993. FRA will issue rules on
passenger train brakes as part of its passenger equipment standards, to
be issued in May 1999. One of the major mandates in the statute
concerned equipping trains with two-way end-of-train devices. FRA
issued a rule requiring those devices in January 1997, and railroads
actually equipped trains with them prior to the deadline for compliance
stated in the statute. Remaining freight power brake issues were dealt
with in a proposed rule issued in 1994. FRA withdrew that proposed rule
and tasked RSAC with developing rules in 1996. In June 1997, with RSAC
deadlocked on the rule, FRA withdrew the task from RSAC. FRA issued a
proposed rule on September 23, 1997, and, after public hearings and
comment, is preparing a final rule. FRA will hold an additional public
meeting on issues related to the agency's data on equipment inspections
in May or June 1999, and complete the final rule thereafter.
Grade Crossing Whistle Bans.--The Swift Rail Development Act of
1994 required FRA to issue regulations providing for the use of train
horns at highway-rail crossings. The final rule on the most hazardous
crossings was due on November 2, 1996, and a final rule on other
crossings was due on November 2, 1998. This rule would require the
sounding of the locomotive horn at a crossing unless alternative safety
measures are in place to compensate for its value as a warning to
motorists. FRA released a report on the national impacts of local
whistle bans on June 1, 1995, and has conducted an extensive program of
public outreach to make communities aware of the forthcoming rulemaking
and to seek information on supplementary safety measures that would
support allowance of quiet zones in communities sensitive to train horn
noise. Numerous congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue
outreach and data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the
deadline for an initial final rule would not be met as a result.
Immediately prior to adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA
reauthorization bill (Public Law 104-264; 10/9/96), which included
amendments to the original whistle ban legislation. In general, the
legislation affirms the latitude available to the Secretary to provide
for phase-in of regulations and focus on safety results. FRA is
completing the NPRM for review and clearance within the Executive
Branch. FRA is presently completing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed regulation. FRA's proposed rule will
strive to achieve the law's important safety objective in a way that
will provide communities maximum flexibility and ample opportunity to
maintain quiet.
In addition to the statutorily mandated rules, among the most
important pending rulemakings are:
--Positive train control.
--Locomotive cab working conditions.
--Locomotive crashworthiness.
--Event recorder revisions.
--Engineer certification revisions.
--Safety integration plans.
FRA expects to issue proposed or final rules on each of these
subjects in 1999. The enclosed overview contains specifics on each of
these projects.
Overview of the Railroad Safety Regulatory Program and Standards-
Related Partnership Efforts
summary of consensus rulemaking efforts
Roadway Worker Safety.--Consensus achieved in formal negotiated
rulemaking; final rule published 12/16/96; effective 1/15/97. Denial of
AAR and APTA petitions for reconsideration published 4/21/97.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.--NPRM based on working group
recommendations was published 9/23/97. Public hearing held 11/21/97.
Written comments were due 11/24/97. Working group met 12/15-12/16/97
(general issues) and 1/6/98 (intercity and high speed issues). Final
rule in clearance within Executive Branch.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--NPRM based on working
group recommendations was published 2/24/97 with significant additions,
and a notice of public hearings was published 3/6/97. Public hearings
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written
comments were due by 4/25/97. Working group met 8/28/97 and reached
agreement in principle on changes for incorporation into the final
rule. Final rule published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630).
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.--Last full Committee meeting 1/
28/99; Last RSAC Working Group Activity Update published in Federal
Register 12/29/98 (63 FR 71667).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task.
No. Subject Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96-1 Power Brake Regulations, Working group charter extended to
freight, general revision 1/15/97 to produce NPRM; impasse
reached at 12/4/96 meeting, and
subsequent efforts to renew
talks were not successful. FRA
withdrew task at 6/24/97
meeting. FRA published second
NPRM 9/9/98 (63 FR 48294)
reflective of what FRA has
learned through the
collaborative process. Public
hearings 10/26/98 and 11/13/98;
technical conference 11/23-24/
98. Submission of written
comments date due extended to 3/
1/99.
96-2 Track Safety Standards, Consensus achieved; in balloting
general revision that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC
voted to accept working group
report and recommend NPRM. NPRM
published 7/3/97; public hearing
held 9/4/97; comment period
closed 9/15/97. Final rule
published 6/22/98; effective 9/
21/98. FRA preparing final rule
amendment on Gage Restraint
Measurement System (GRMS)
standards.
96-3 Railroad Communications Final meeting of working group
(including revision of Radio was held 1/23/97. Working group
Standards and Procedures) provided consensus NPRM to RSAC
at 3/24/97 meeting. RSAC voted
to accept the NPRM and forward
to the Administrator in voting
concluded 4/14/97. NPRM
published 6/26/97; comment
period closed 8/25/97. Final
rule published 9/4/98 (63 FR
47182).
96-4 Tourist Railroads Open task to address needs of
tourist and historic railroads;
working group is monitoring
steam task.
96-5 Steam-Powered Locomotives, Tourist & Historic Working Group
revision of inspection met with task force
standards representatives 9/3/97. NPRM was
approved by full committee in
voting that concluded 2/17/98.
NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR
51404). Public hearing held 2/4/
99.
96-6 Locomotive Engineer Task accepted 10/31/96; first
Qualification and working group meeting held 1/7-9/
Certification, general 97. NPRM approved by full
revision committee 5/14/98. NPRM
published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625).
FRA preparing final rule based
in part on RSAC recommendations
for resolution of issues raised
in public comments.
96-7 Track Motor Vehicle and Task accepted 10/31/96. Task
Roadway Worker Equipment force of Track Safety Standards
Working Group is finalizing a
proposed rule.
96-8 Locomotive Crashworthiness Planning task accepted 10/31/96;
and Working Conditions planning group met 1/23/97; two
(planning task) task statements were accepted by
the full Committee at 6/24/97
meeting [see 97-1, 97-2].
Planning task is COMPLETED.
97-1 Locomotive Crashworthiness Task accepted 6/24/97; working
group held initial meeting 9/8-9/
9/97. Established task force to
review collision history and
design options. Working group
reviewed results of research and
is drafting standards for
freight, passenger and switching
locomotives.
97-2 Locomotive Cab Working Task accepted 6/24/97; working
Conditions group held initial meeting 9/10-
11/97. Noise and Temperature
task forces are active. Working
group is drafting NPRM on
sanitary facilities. Working
group and task force to meet 4/
99 to finalize recommendation
for revised FRA noise standard.
97-3 Event Recorders (data Task accepted 6/24/97; working
survivability, inspection, group met 9/12/97. Task force
etc.) established. Working group and
task force actively meeting;
draft proposed rule under
review.
97-4, Positive Train Control Tasks accepted 9/30/97 and
97-5, assigned to single working
97-6 group. Group for the first time
11/17-11/18/97. Standards Task
Force is working on proposed
NPRM for positive train control
performance standards. Data and
Implementation Task Force is
addressing issues such as
assessment of costs and
benefits, technical readiness;
began review of draft report;
remaining segments of report to
be ready 3/99.
97-7 Calculation of Damages for Task accepted with modification 9/
Reportable Train Accidents 30/97. Working group has been
formed. Initial meeting, held 2/
8/99.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety rules and reports--general
Accident/Incident Reporting
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 barred
FRA from adjusting the monetary threshold for reporting of train
accident until the methodology was revised. In addition, FRA identified
the need to comprehensively revise these regulations, which had not be
revised since 1974.
Deadline.--The report of the Committee of Conference on the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
1996, directed FRA to issue a final rule in this proceeding by 611196.
History.--An NPRM was issued 8/19/94, followed by public hearings
and written comment. A public regulatory conference was convened 1/30-
2/3/95 in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. A notice of decision
to issue a supplemental NPRM was published 7/3/95, but was withdrawn in
a notice published on 1/24/96.
Status.--Final rule was issued 5/30/96 and published 6/18/96 (61 FR
30940). Stay requests were denied, and technical amendments were
published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59368). A notice of availability of custom
software was also published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59485). On 12/16/96, the
Administrator signed final rule amendments, which were published 12/23/
96 (61 FR 67477). Final rule became effective 1/1/97. Industry training
partnerships have been executed.
Next steps.--FRA offered RSAC a task on 9/30/97 to review the
definition of events required to be reported as train accidents, as
requested by the Committee on 6/24/97. By request of the Committee, the
task was limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident. A working group has been formed and held its
initial meeting 2/8/99.
Blue Signal Protection
Summary.--On 8/16/93, FRA published a final rule permitting one or
more utility employees to associate themselves with a train crew for
the purpose of performing normal operating functions that require
employees to go on, under or between rolling stock, without use of blue
signal protection (which is ordinarily appropriate for mechanical
duties). During the proceeding it was noted that rules for locomotive
engineers working alone were not clearly defined. FRA published a final
rule amendment governing single engineers working alone on 3/1/95, but
granted a requested suspension of the amendment on 6/9/95 pending
development of additional facts. Since that time, additional blue
signal issues have continued to emerge, including application of the
requirements to contractors performing the subject functions on
railroad property.
Status.--Awaits consultation with objecting parties to develop
additional facts. On 10/31/96, the RSAC advised FRA that this project
should not be proposed for early tasking, given conflicting demands on
the resources of member organizations.
Bridge Displacement Detection Systems (Report)
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a report on systems to detect bridge displacement of the type
that caused the derailment of the Sunset Limited at Mobile, Alabama, 9/
23/94.
Statutory deadline.--6/2/96
Status.--A technical evaluation report was published 6/23/94 and
made available to the respective committees. The formal report to
Congress is in preparation.
Event Recorder Next-Generation Performance Standards
Summary.--The National Transportation Safety Board has noted the
loss of data from event recorders in several accidents due to fire,
water and mechanical damage. In issuing final rules for event recorders
which became effective 5/5/95, FRA noted the need to provide more
refined technical standards. NTSB proposed performance standard for
data survivability.
Background.--Conducted an initial meeting of an informal working
group comprised of AAR, RPI, and labor, and co-chaired by NTSB and FRA
experts, on 12/7/95 to consider development of technical standards. At
the RSAC meeting on 7/24-7/25/96, the AAR agreed to continue this
inquiry, and on 11/1/6, AAR reported to the RSAC the status of work on
proposed industry standards. On March 5, 1997, NTSB issued
recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event recorders as
a result of finding in the investigation of the BNSF accident of 2/1/96
at Cajon Pass, California. On 3/24/97, the RSAC indicated its desire to
receive a task to consider NTSB recommendations with respect to crash
survivability, testing and maintenance.
Status.--RSAC accepted task 6/24/97. Event Recorder working group
first met 9/12/97. A task force was established. Draft proposed rule
under review. (Task No. 97-3).
Florida Overland Express
Summary.--FRA has received a petition for a rule of particular
applicability for operations over a new high-speed railroad between
Miami and Tampa via Orlando. The State of Florida had established a
dedicated funding stream of $70 million per year towards creation of
this new private/public partnership.
Status.--Received petition for rule of particular applicability 2/
18/97. FRA issued NPRM 12/12/97 (62 FR 65478). Comment period closed.
FRA reviewed comments received and held a public hearing on 11/23/98 to
discuss a variety of issues. The State of Florida withdrew its support
and funding for this project 1/99, suspending all activity on
development. FRA is not currently working on the final rule.
Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Cars
Summary.--Cars not in compliance with the Freight Car Safety
Standards may be operated at track speed in revenue trains if they are
company-owned, stenciled cars. FRA published an NPRM 3/10/94 to close
this loophole. FRA requested the Association of American Railroads to
amplify its comments by letter of 12/20/94.
Status.--AAR response received 8/4/95 is under review. FRA offered
a task to the RSAC to resolve final rule issues on 9/30/97, but
objection from the AAR prevented the matter from coming to a vote. FRA
will prepare final rule.
Hours of Service Pilot Projects; Report to Congress
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Reauthorization Act of 1994
(enacted with the Swift Rail Development Act) authorized FRA to approve
one or more pilot projects to address fatigue and alertness issues
among employees subject to the Hours of Service laws. Projects were
required to have the support of the railroad and affected labor
organizations.
Statutory due date.--1/1/97
Status.--FRA has encouraged submission of pilot projects and has
worked with several railroads regarding innovative work and rest
practices; however, only one formal applications for pilot projects has
been submitted, and that petition did not involve fundamental reform of
work and rest requirements. FRA's report on the status of work and rest
issues in the industry, including the Fatigue Countermeasures
Initiative, is in clearance within the Executive Branch.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive
crashworthiness and working conditions and to issue regulations or
submit a report. Areas for consideration included structural means of
preventing harm to crew members in collisions (collision posts,
anticlimbers, etc.) and matters related to safety, health and
productivity (e.g., noise, sanitation).
Statutory deadline.--3/2/95
Background.--FRA conducted research, outreach, and a survey of
locomotive conditions and finalized a report to the Congress
transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report conveyed data
and information developed by FRA to date, closed out those areas of
investigation for which further action is not warranted, and defined
issues that should be pursued further in concert with the industry
parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. On 10/31/96, the
RSAC accepted a preliminary planning task. The Locomotive Crew Safety
Planning Group met 1/23/97, and subsequent consultations led to
preparation of task statements.
Status.--RSAC accepted two tasks 6124197. (RSAC Task 97-1,
locomotive crashworthiness; and Task 97-2, locomotive cab working
conditions).
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group met 9/8-9/97 and
established a task force on engineering issues that has been active in
reviewing collision history and design options. The Working Group has
reviewed results of research and is drafting standards for freight,
passenger and switching locomotives.
Locomotive Cab Working Conditions Working Group met for the first
time 9/10-11/97 and established task forces on noise and temperature,
which have been working actively. The group has agreed to basic
principles for a proposed rule on sanitary facilities and an NPRM is
under development. The Working Group will meet with the Noise Task
Force in April to finalize a revised noise standard to include a
hearing conservation program for locomotive cab occupants.
Locomotive Engineer Certification; Miscellaneous Revisions
Summary.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved.
Experience under the rule has raised additional issues. Examples of
issues under review include the status of operators of specialized
maintenance of way equipment and types of conduct for which
Recertification is appropriate.
Status.--An interim final rule amendment dealing with agency
practice and procedure concerning engineer certification appeals was
published 10/12/95. Issues related to procedures on the properties,
offenses warranting Recertification, periods of Recertification,
operation of specialized equipment, etc., are pending. The RSAC
accepted this task on 10/31/96. The Working Group's initial meeting was
held 1/7-1/9/97. Final meeting to review proposed rule language was
held 10/7-10/9/97, and task force on hearing and vision met 10/21/97 to
finalize language. The full committee voted 5/14/98 to recommend
issuance of the NPRM forwarded by the Working Group. The NPRM was
published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625) (RSAC Task 96-6.) The Working Group met
to resolve issues presented in public comments, and on 1/28/99 the RSAC
voted to transmit recommendations regarding issues for which the
Working Group had received comments. FRA is preparing final rule.
Northeast Corridor (NEC) Signal & Train Control
Summary.--Amtrak is planning operations to 150 mph on portions of
the NEC and is implementing improvements to the automatic train control
system that will provide positive stop and continuous speed control
capabilities. FRA's Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NCSC) met 9/
20/94 and approved a set of performance criteria for the new system.
Status.--On 1/30/97, Amtrak provided to FRA a draft system concept
for the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), including
conditions for operation on designated territories on the south and
north ends of the NEC. Final details were received by FRA on 7/9/97. A
notice of Proposed Order for the new signal and train control system
authorizing speeds to 150 miles per hour (135 mph on the South End with
only high-speed trains equipped under ``flanking protection'') was
published 11/20/97 (62 FR 62097), and written comments were due by 12/
22/97. As a result of requests from commenters, a public hearing was
set for 2/17/98 (63 FR 3389), and the comment closing date was extended
to 2/24/98. Final Order of Particular Applicability published 7/22/98
(63 FR 39343); effective 8/21/98.
NEC System Safety
Summary.--Mixed passenger and freight operations at speeds to 150
mph have not previously been attempted in this country. Through the
Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (or successor), FRA intends to
develop system safety criteria for this service territory, integrating
existing safety measures and identifying any areas of material risk not
previously addressed.
Status.--Timing of project initiation to be determined. Will focus
on enhancement and integration of individual railroad system safety
plans to address complex NEC operations.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
(enacted 11/2/94) required FRA to issue initial passenger safety
standards within 3 years and complete standards within 5 years. The
agency was authorized to consult with industry parties outside the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it possible to conduct an
informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final).
Status.--An initial meeting of the Passenger Equipment Safety
Working Group (passenger railroads, operating employee organizations,
mechanical employee organizations, and representatives of rail
passengers) was held on 6/7/95, and the group met regularly to develop
an NPRM. Manufacturer/supplier representatives served as associate
members. FRA prepared an ANPRM indicating the issues under review by
the working group, which was published 6/17/96 (61 FR 30672). The
working group held its final meeting on the NPRM 9/30-10/2/96, having
reached consensus on a portion of the issues presented. An NPRM was
published 9/23/97 (62 FR 49728). The public hearing was held 11/21/97
(see 62 FR 55204; 10/23/97). Comments were due 11/24/97. Final working
group meeting on the initial standards was held 12/15-12/16/97, and an
additional meeting on intercity and high speed issues was held 1/6/98.
The final rule is in clearance in the Executive Branch. Following
issuance of the ``initial'' final rule, work will begin on additional
passenger equipment safety standards.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
required FRA to issue emergency preparedness standards for passenger
service. Initial standards were required within 3 years and complete
standards within 5 years. The agency was authorized to consult with
industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it
possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final)
Background.--An initial meeting of the working group for passenger
train emergency, preparedness standards was held on 8/8/95. The group
met 2/6-7/96 to develop elements of an NPRM and met jointly with the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group on 3/26/96 to
consider related issues, including the implications of Emergency Order
No. 20 and recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The working group included representatives of passenger railroads,
operating employee and dispatcher organizations, and rail passenger
organizations, and an advisor from the National Transportation Safety
Board. The working group approved draft rule text, which was
incorporated in an NPRM forwarded for review and clearance. Changes
requested during review and clearance were provided to the working
group during the week of 12/16/96.
Status.--The NPRM was published 2/24/97 (62 FR 8330), and a notice
of public hearings was published 3/6/97 (62 FR 10248). Public hearings
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written
comments were due by 4/25/97. The working group met 8/28/97 and agreed
in principle to revisions for inclusion in the final rule. The final
rule was published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630), and a correction notice was
published 7/6/98 (63 FR 36376).
NOTE: The following order is closely associated with the two prior
entries:
Emergency Order No. 20
Summary.--This order deals with the safety of push/pull and
electric multiple unit service. The order was issued 2/20/96 (61 FR
6876; 2/22/96), and amended 2/29/96 (61 FR 8703; 3/5/96). Intercity and
commuter passenger railroads were required to adopt operating rules
providing for observance of reduced speed where delays are incurred in
blocks between distant signals and signals at interlocking or
controlled points. Marking of emergency exits and testing of emergency
windows was required. Interim system safety plans were required to be
filed.
Status.--The order has been fully implemented. On 3/26/96, the
Passenger Equipment Safety Working Group and the Emergency Preparedness
Working Group met jointly to consider implementation issues and
crossover issues with the two rulemaking proceedings and recent
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. The
American Public Transit Association and it members have undertaken a
number of actions in response to the emergency order, including
development of comprehensive system safety plans. Codification,
revision or termination of provisions will be considered during the
second phase of passenger safety standards rulemaking.
Positive Train Control
Evaluation of needs and feasibility (implementation):
Summary.--These tasks involve defining PTC functionalities,
describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefit of
potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and
challenges, including demonstration and deployment. (RSAC Tasks 97-4
and 97-5).
Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC
summary.
Performance standards for PTC systems:
Summary.--Existing signal and train control regulations are built
around relay-based controllers and traditional track circuits, but
technology is rapidly advancing. This task requires revising various
regulations, including 49 CFR Part 236, to address the safety
implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies,
including communication-based operating systems. The purpose of the
effort is to encourage deployment of innovative technology by providing
a predictable environment; (RSAC Task 97-6).
Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC
summary.
Progress Report to the Congress:
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a status report on the implementation of positive train control
as a follow-up to the 7/94 Report entitled Railroad Communications and
Train Control.
Statutory deadline.--12/31/95
Status.--FRA has provided testimony to the committees of
jurisdiction reporting the status of efforts to promote implementation
of positive train control. FRA plans to utilize the results of the RSAC
PTC working group and task forces efforts to provide an appropriate
status report.
Power Brakes
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the power brake regulations. The statute
required adoption of requirements for 2-way end-of-train telemetry
devices (EOTs) and ``standards for dynamic brakes.''
Statutory deadlines.--Final rule by 12/31/93; 2-way EOTs to be used
on trains operating greater than 30 miles per hour or in mountain grade
territory to be equipped by 12/31/97.
Status.--FRA published an NPRM 9/16/94 and conducted six days of
public hearings ending 12/94. Due to strong objections to the NPRM,
additional options were requested from passenger interests by 2/27/95
and from freight interests by 4/3/95. Further action is as follows:
(1) Passenger standards revision.--FRA requested the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to incorporate new proposals
for revisions of the power brake regulations in the NPRM for passenger
equipment safety. Working group proceedings on the elements of the NPRM
concluded 10/2/96 without full agreement on power brake elements. See
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for current status.
(2) Freight standards revision.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the
task of preparing a second NPRM. The working group initiated its
efforts in May, and on 10/31/96 the RSAC extended the deadline for a
final report until 1/15/97. At the working group meeting 12/4/96, an
impasse was declared, and subsequent efforts to revive discussions were
not successful. On May 29, FRA notified the working group by letter
that the task will be formally terminated. FRA withdrew task at 6/24/97
full Committee meeting. FRA prepared second NPRM reflective of what was
learned through the collaborative process. NPRM published 9/9/98 (63 FR
48294). (RSAC Task 96-1--terminated). Public hearings were conducted on
10/26/98 and 11/13/98 and a technical conference was held on 11/23-24/
98. Final date for submission of comments extended until 3/1/99.
(3) Two-way end-of-train devices.--FRA published notice on 2/21/96
that this issue would be separated from the balance of the freight
issues and expedited for completion of a final rule. A public
regulatory conference was convened 3/5/96 to explore remaining issues,
and written comments were due 4/15/96. (Railroads also agreed to an
expedited schedule that will ensure application of this technology by
12/15/96 on 2 percent or greater grades and by 7/1/97 for other
trains.) The final rule was published 1/2/97 (62 FR 278), and it became
effective 7/1/97.
FRA received two petitions for reconsideration (``local train''
definition and implementation date for smaller railroads). A notice
denying the request to delete the tonnage restriction for local trains
and granting extension of the compliance date for railroads with fewer
than two million work hours was published 6/4/97 (62 FR 30461). On 11/
4/97, held technical conference on petition of American Short Line
Railroad Association regarding operation of very light trains over
grade territory (see 62 FR 52370, 10/7/97); subsequently granted
limited relief and received petition for reconsideration of conditions,
which is now under review.
On 1/16/98, FRA published NPRM to clarify application of two-way
EOT requirements to intercity passenger trains with express equipment
at the rear (63 FR 195). Final rule was issued 5/1/98 (63 FR 24130).
NOTE: On 2/6/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 18,
requiring use by the BNSF of 2-way EOTs or equivalent protection for
heavy grade operations over the Cajon Pass (61 FR 505; 219196).
Railroad Communications (including Radio Standards and Procedures)
Summary.--In submitting the required report to the Congress on
Railroad Communications and Train Control on 7/13/94, FRA noted the
need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications in
concert with railroads and employee representatives.
Status.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the task of preparing an
NPRM, including consideration of communication capabilities required in
railroad operations. The working group presented a consensus NPRM to
the full Committee on 3/24/97, and the Committee voted to recommend
issuance of the NPRM to the Administrator in balloting that ended 4/14/
97. NPRM issued 6/11/97 and published 6/26/97 (62 FR 34544). Comment
period closed 8/25/97. Final rule published 9/4/98 (63 FR 47182). (RSAC
Task 96-3).
Regulatory Reinvention
Summary.--In response to the President's call for regulatory
review, elimination and reinvention, FRA took several actions to repeal
obsolete regulations and simplify agency processes that affect external
customers. Major elements of this effort are included in regulatory
revision efforts described under other headings.
Status.--Interim final rule amendments reducing frequency of
reporting regarding signal and train control systems (49 CFR Part 233),
simplifying review requirements for certain modifications of signal
systems (49 CFR Part 235), and making conforming changes regarding
inspection of ATC/ATS/ACS (49 CFR Part 236) published 7/1/96 (61 FR
33871). These changes should be finalized early in 1999. FRA is
considering inclusion of a legislative proposal to permit flexibility
for railroads to make accident/incident reports less frequently than
monthly and to eliminate outdated requirements for notarization of
reports in the Administration's proposed 1999 rail safety
reauthorization legislation.
Roadway Worker Safety
Summary.--In requiring the review of the Track Safety Standards,
the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to
evaluate the safety of maintenance of way employees. In addition, the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen petitioned FRA to issue ``on-track safety'' rules.
Background.--FRA published a notice 8/17/94 initiating a formal
negotiated rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking committee reported a
statement of principles 5/17/95 and completed an NPRM draft 8/95. NPRM
published 3/14/96 (61 FR 10528); initial written comments were due 5/
13/96. Public hearing held 7/11/96.
Status.--The final rule was published 12/16/96 (61 FR 65959);
effective 1/15/97. Petitions for reconsideration were denied in a
notice published 4/21/97. A consolidated hearing on waiver petitions
was held 5/22/97, and written comments were due by 619197. FRA is
issuing decisions on individual petitions as investigations and
analysis were completed.
Safety Integration Plans
Summary.--In response to the proposed acquisition of Conrail by
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, FRA has suggested, and the
Surface Transportation Board has required, that the petitioners file
with the Board of Safety Integration Plans (SIPs). In coordination with
the Board, FRA proposed regulations requiring preparation and FRA
review of SIPs in connection with future railroad mergers.
Status.--FRA and the STB jointly issued an NPRM 12/31/98 (63 FR
72225) to institutionalize the SIP process to ensure that proper safety
planning and safety investments are undertaken during a merger. The
proposed rule spells out the types of transactions that will require
SIPs and outlines the roles of FRA and the STB in overseeing the SIP
process.
Track Motor Vehicle and Roadway Equipment Safety
Summary.--A 1990 petition to FRA from the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees asked FRA, among other requests, to
propose standards for MOW equipment related to the safety of persons
riding or operating that equipment. FRA elected not to pursue that
issue at that time given other pending workload. However, this issue
was renewed during the deliberations of the RSAC Track Safety Standards
Working Group.
Status.--On 10/31/96, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting proposed
rules for the safety of this equipment. A task force of the Track
Safety Standards Working Group was formed to address this issue. The
task force has met several times. At the meeting on 10/28-10/29/97, the
task force reached a consensus agreement in principle on what should be
included in a proposed rule. The task force has identified several
remaining issues to be resolved. (RSAC Task 96-7).
Tourist Railroad Report /Review of Regulatory Applicability
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a report to the Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize
the unique factors associated with these generally small passenger
operations that often utilize historic equipment.
Statutory deadline.--9/30/95
Status.--Report submitted to the Congress 6/10/96. The RSAC
authorized formation of a Tourist and Historic Railroads Working Group
4/1/96. The working group held its initial meeting 6/17-6/18/96 and has
been monitoring completion of the steam task. (RSAC Task 96-4).
Track Safes Standards
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the Track Safety Standards, taking into
consideration, among other things, the ``excepted track'' provision.
Other prominent issues include updating the standards to take advantage
of research findings for internal rail flaw detection and gage
restraint measurement. FRA also proposes to adopt track standards for
high-speed service.
Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 9/1/95.
Background.--FRA published an ANPRM 11/6/92 and conducted workshops
in the period 1/93-3/93. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
accepted task of preparing an (NPRM) on 4/2/96. The Track Safety
Standards Working Group reported a draft NPRM to the full committee on
10/31/96. In balloting that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to accept
the working group report and recommend issuance of the NPRM.
Status.--NPRM signed 6/19/97 and published 7/3/97 (62 FR 36138).
Hearing held 9/4/97; comment period closed 9/15/97. Additional comment
was invited regarding certain high-speed track geometry issues by
notice of 12/12/97 (62 FR 65401) not later than 12/22/97. Final rule
published 6/22/98 (63 FR 33991); effective 9/21/98. Task group
continues to consider issues related to the Gage Restraint Measurement
System. (RSAC Task 96-2).
Steam Locomotives
Summary.--A committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and
historic railroads has sought a partnership with FRA to revise the
steam locomotive regulations. Proposed revisions would relieve
regulatory burdens while updating and strengthening the technical
requirements.
Status.--Revision of the Steam Locomotive Inspection regulations
was tasked to the RSAC on 7/24/96. A task force of the Tourist &
Historic Railroads Working Group is actively working toward
finalization of a final rule. NPRM rule text agreed upon within the
task force was approved by the Tourist and Historic Working Group on 9/
3/97 and provided to the RSAC on 9/30/97. The full RSAC approved the
consensus NPRM by mail ballot 2/17/98. NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR
51404). (RSAC Task 96-5). Public hearing held 2/4/99. The Task Force
will review comments received and may make recommendations for the
final rule.
Small Railroads; Interim Policy Statement
Summary.--The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act and required, among other
things, that each agency establish small business communication and
enforcement programs.
Statutory deadline.--3/29/97
Status.--Interim policy statement published 8/11/97 (62 FR 43024).
FRA is reviewing comments received and developing a final policy
statement.
highway-rail crossing safety
Audible Warnings (Whistle Bans)
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
issue regulations providing for the use of train horns at highway-rail
crossings.
Statutory deadline,--Final rule 11/2/96 (most hazardous crossings),
11/2/98 (other crossings).
Background.--This legislative mandate anticipated FRA follow up to
Emergency Order No. 15, which addressed local whistle bans on the
Florida East Coast Railroad between Jacksonville and Miami. FRA
released a report on the national impacts of local whistle bans on 6/1/
95 and has conducted an extensive program of public outreach to make
communities aware of the forthcoming rulemaking and to seek information
on supplementary safety measures that would support allowance of quiet
zones in communities sensitive to train horn noise. Contacts have been
made with 160+ jurisdictions known to have whistle bans in place. FRA
representatives have met with or addressed forums of state and local
officials and community groups. Met with AAR/BRS/AAHSTO/FHWA 12/13/95
to address technical specifications for 4-quadrant gates.
Numerous congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue outreach
and data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the deadline for an
initial final rule would not be met as a result. Immediately prior to
adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA reauthorization bill
(Public Law 104-264; 10/9/96), which included amendments to the
original whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation affirms
the latitude available to the Secretary to provide for phase-in of
regulations and focus on safety results.
Status.--Missing data on Chicago-area commuter lines has been added
to the national study. FRA completing NPRM for review and clearance
within the Executive Branch. FRA preparing Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed regulation.
Grade Crossing Signals (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)
Summary.--FRA issued a final rule for inspection, testing and
maintenance of automated warning devices 9/30/94, and the rule went
into effect 1/1/95 (49 CFR Part 234). During the initial year, FRA
worked with railroads and signal employees to disseminate information,
conduct training, and identify any areas of ambiguity or weakness in
the standards. At a technical resolution committee (TRC) meeting during
the week of 3/13/95 that included participation by railroads, the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and States, several issues were
identified that require clarification or refinement. An interim manual
dated 4/14/95 incorporated the findings of the TRC.
Status.--Interim final rule amendments published 6/20/96 (61 FR
31802). FRA is preparing a notice to make the changes final.
Locomotive Visibility /Auxiliary Alerting Lights
Summary.--In 1991, FRA initiated a new phase of research on
locomotive conspicuity in relation to safety at highway-rail crossings.
The Amtrak Authorization and development Act of 1992 mandated that the
research be completed and that a regulation be issued to apply alerting
lights to locomotives.
Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 6/30/95.
Background.--FRA published a ``grandfathering rule'' on 2/3/93 and
amendments on 5/13/94. After the research was substantially completed
in early summer of 1995, FRA briefed the industry parties on the
results, discussed options for regulatory action, and elicited
additional information concerning railroads' progress in equipping
their fleets. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on 8/25/95.
The AAR and the ASLRA requested a technical conference to perfect the
rule for final issuance, and that conference was held 11/28/95. Written
comments were due by 12/12/95.
Status.--Final rule was published 3/6/96 (61 FR 31802). Equipping
of locomotives used as lead units at speeds exceeding 20 mph was
required to be completed by 12/31/97, as provided by law.
Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
Summary.--The Secretary's Action Plan for Grade Crossing Safety (6/
94) commits FRA to conducting a special safety inquiry on private
crossings.
Status.--Conducted workshop on possible guidelines 7/93; timing of
further action to be determined.
Selection of Grade Crossing Automated Warning Devices
Summary.--FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3/2/95 (60
FR 11649) and received over 3,000 written comments through 6/14/95.
Status.--Termination notice published 8/8/97 (62 FR 42733).
hazardous materials
New Directions for Rail Hazardous Materials Safety
Summary.--FRA and RSPA have recently completed the two major
pending rulemakings addressing hazardous materials tank car safety
(crashworthiness and tank retests). With completion of these tasks, it
is now possible to turn attention to recommendations of the
Transportation Research Board regarding the tank car design and
construction process. In order to further this work, FRA is joining
with its public and private sector partners to define and prioritize
short and long-range research programs, identify needs for rulemaking,
and assist in development of improved industry standards.
Status.--A public workshop was conducted 2/13/96-2/14/96 in
Houston, with participation by labor, railroads, tank car owners, and
shippers. FRA is seeking means of advancing public/private partnerships
for North American tank car safety.
Tank Car Crashworthiness and Retest
Summary.--Research and Special Program Administration Dockets HM-
175A and HM-201 addressed further improvements in tank car
crashworthiness, and adoption of advanced non-destructive testing to
improve tank retest procedures, respectively.
Status.--Final rules published 9/21/95 (60 FR 49048).
Train Placement
Summary.--FRA is evaluating whether to recommend that the Research
and Special Programs Administration publish proposed amendments to the
in-train placement requirements for handling rail cars transporting
hazardous materials. FRA is reviewing accident/incident data to
determine whether the current non-hazardous materials buffer car
requirements are still necessary and whether (as recommended by the
National Transportation Safety Board) a buffer car should be required
at the rear of each train.
Status.--FRA is studying the feasibility of a proposed amendment.
other safety projects and partnership efforts
Bridge Structural Safety
Summary.--Following a survey of bridge conditions and railroad
inspection practices, FRA determined that regulatory action is not
necessary, but that FRA should continue to exercise an oversight role
regarding bridge structural safety programs. FRA issued an interim
statement of policy 4/27/95, with comments due 6/26/95.
Status.--Comments support continued FRA partnership role. Final
statement of policy is in review and clearance within the Executive
Branch.
Note: On 2/12/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 19,
which removed from service a bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad in
New York State pending necessary structural repairs (61 FR 628; 2/16/
96).
Discolored Wheels
FRA has granted a master waiver of the Freight Car Safety Standards
permitting continued use of discolored heat-treated, curved plate
wheels, which have superior resistance to thermal abuse. Data gathered
under the waiver, together with results of analysis already provided,
may support a permanent change in the regulation.
Hours of Service Electronic Recordkeeping
Current hours of service record keeping uses paper and ink, but a
major railroad has been given relief to keep electronic records. Other
railroads have expressed interest, and similar waivers will involve
similar issues. At FRA's invitation, the AAR submitted a petition
seeking a master waiver for use of electronic record keeping. However,
individual railroads have elected to proceed separately, and FRA is
processing each on its merits. Permanent amendments to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be proposed. FRA is
assisting railroads in developing electronic systems by providing
guidance materials.
Remote Control Locomotives
Current regulations contemplate operation of a locomotive
exclusively from within the cab, and provision for the safety of the
operation is made within that context. FRA has previously proposed a
test program to gather more data on various types of operations. FRA
has also held an informal safety inquiry regarding use of one-person
crews and remote control locomotives on the Wisconsin Central (see 61
FR 58736; 11/18/96). Further action expected.
TOFC/COFC Securement
Summary.--Following a serious accident at Smithfield, N.C., on 5/
16/94, FRA formed a partnership with major railroads and labor
organizations to evaluate and improve securement of intermodal loads. A
report to the Secretary dated 9/15/94 documented the initial results of
that effort.
Status.--FRA held a meeting on 2/22/95 that focused on an item-by-
item discussion of the status and progress made within the industry
with respect to the seven recommendations identified in the report to
the Secretary. The AAR has established an Intermodal Equipment Handling
Task Force that has developed a number of training aids. A follow-up
TOFC/COFC loading and securement safety survey was conducted during
1996. FRA conducted additional loading and securement field evaluations
during July-August 1997. Joint training activity brought together
railroads, TTX and FRA to maintain strong emphasis on compliance with
AAR loading requirements. FRA continues to monitor securement of
trailers and trucks in transportation and to work on this issue through
SACP's on individual railroads.
Train Dispatcher Training
FRA submitted a report to the Congress on 1/5/95 regarding the
functions of contemporary train dispatching offices. The report noted
that traditional pools of candidates for recruitment of train
dispatchers are no longer adequate to the need. In partnership with the
American Train Dispatchers Department/BLE (ATDD), FRA identified the
need for a model train dispatcher training program.
Experts from Amtrak, the ATDD, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
Railroad and FRA developed a list of elements for dispatcher training
programs. Required competencies and training program elements have been
abstracted front this effort for a model program. The RSAC was be
briefed on this effort on 3/24/97, with participants in the training
task force indicating reluctance to attempt a ``one size fits all''
regulatory approach. Development of curricula continues with FRA
support. Initial products of this effort were presented by an FRA
contractor.
Wisconsin Central R.R.; Informal Safety Inquiry
Summary.--FRA sought to gather information regarding plans by the
railroad to expand use of one-person crews and remote control
operations.
Status.--A notice of special safety inquiry was published 11/18/96
(61 FR 58736). A public hearing was held 12/4-12/5/96 in Appleton,
Wisconsin. Written submissions were requested by 12/2/96. FRA entered
into an agreement with the railroad providing for a moratorium on new
single person crew and remote control operations, together with other
undertakings related to compliance with FRA regulations. The railroad
has completed its responsibilities under the agreement.
hazmat accidents/incidents in 1998
Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-related accidents/
incidents during calendar year 1998, noting date, location, railroad,
type of hazmat, any fatalities, injuries, evacuations or other
complications, and the estimated cost of damage and loss for each.
Please also summarize the probable cause of each accident.
Answer. The following major hazmat-related accidents/incidents
occurred during calendar year 1998 (January 1-December 31, 1998):
Date: March 31, 1998
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Railroad: Norfolk Southern
Type of hazmat: Acetone
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: 100 residents
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $1,560,319
Probable cause: Failure of the yard crew members to properly secure
the cars being left in the North No. 2 yard with a sufficient number of
hand brakes being applied. A contributing factor was failure of the
brakeman to properly position the angle cock on the 18th car in a train
of 83 cars that would have allowed the air brakes to apply in emergency
when the train line was separated.
Date: April 19, 1998
Location: Barnhart OR
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Toluene
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $876,716
Probable cause: Wheel lift due to a load shift in an improperly
secured box car (no blocking and bracing).
Date: June 20, 1998
Location: Guyandotte, WV
Railroad: CSX Transportation
Type of hazmat: Formaldehyde
Fatalities/injuries: Two local residents treated and released
Evacuations: 100 families
Other complications: Derailment ruptured a natural gas line,
resulting in a leak
Estimated cost: $640,492
Probable cause: Undetermined
Date: June 26, 1998
Location: Niota, IL
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Various cartons of sodium hydroxide solution,
paint, nitric acid and toluene
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: 250 residents
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $1,555,080
Probable cause: Mishandling of the West dual control power switch
on number three crossover at East Fort Madison. Contributing factor,
loss of signal control at CP East Fort Madison.
Date: August 16, 1998
Location: Panhandle, TX
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Sodium Hydroxide
Fatalities/injuries: Five railroad employees--four were treated and
released, the fifth employee was hospitalized for serious burns on his
head and back.
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $158,400
Probable cause: Failure to control movement, could not stop short
of obstruction in restricted speed operations.
Date: September 2, 1998
Location: Crisfield, KS
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Mixed containers of nitric acid, flammable liquids
NOS, and Resorcinol
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: 50 residents
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $1,268,500
Probable cause: Car No. DTTX 72318, a five unit articulated car
(intermodal) buckled.
Date: October 5, 1998
Location: Ridgeway, PA
Railroad: Buffalo and Pittsburgh
Type of hazmat: Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: 100-150 residents
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $530,000
Probable cause: Undetermined--rail carrier reported as irregular
cross level at joints.
Date: November 5, 1998
Location: Henderson, WV
Railroad: CSX Transportation
Type of hazmat: Hydrochloric acid, anhydrous ammonia, residue
propylene oxide
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: 6-10 employees of KRT Barge Company. Local authorities
put a ``shelter-in-place'' order for a 2-mile radius, which means
residents had to remain in their homes until the order was lifted.
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $284,000
Probable cause: Broken rail
improvements to the hazmat compliance program
Question. What improvements have been made to the hazmat compliance
program since last year?
Answer. FRA has implemented many new policy and procedures to
enhance its hazmat compliance program. FRA implemented the Safety
Compliance Oversight Plan for Rail Transportation of High-Level
Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (SCOP). SCOP updates and enhances
FRA's pre-existing policy and effectively adds an additional safety
compliance oversight tier that compliments FRA's routine inspections. A
high degree of planning and coordination is undertaken by the shippers,
carriers, and Federal, State and local agencies on rail shipments of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to ensure that the
movements are conducted safely and securely and the SCOP contributes to
that planning and coordination process.
FRA trained all Federal and State (certified) hazardous materials
inspectors on the new Federal requirements for tank car facilities,
requiring each facility to have its quality assurance plan in place by
July 1, 1998.
FRA completed a SACP program, with Pollynet, on systemic safety
issues. The SACP was initiated by FRA, and joined by the Federal
Highway Administration and U.S. Coast Guard. This is the first ONE DOT
project that addresses systemic problems involving a shipper of
intermodal (highway, rail and water) hazardous materials.
FRA formed an inter-industry task force to draft and recommend an
alternate inspection program to facilitate the implementation of HM-
201, Tank Car Qualification procedures. This lead to the issuance of
two exemptions (DOT-E 11941 and 12095).
FRA initiated a multi-modal hazardous materials SACP on the
Burlington Northern Railroad, with major joint inspections in the
Chicago area (Willow Springs; Corwith and Cicero). The inspections
involved other DOT modal administrations (Research and Special Programs
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and
Office of the Inspector General) and State officials.
FRA issued an updated Hazardous Materials Enforcement Manual, along
with revised Technical Bulletins to Federal and State hazardous
materials inspectors. The manual along with technical bulletins will
also be added to FRA's web page.
FRA initiated a North American task force with Canada, Mexico, the
United States and industry to consolidate and codify government and
industry regulations pertaining to the design, construction,
maintenance, and use of tank cars for hazardous materials. All three
countries agreed to develop standard-related measures, based on the
United Nations Model Regulations on the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods.
inspector trainee program
Question. Please provide information that would be useful in
assessing the accomplishments and costs of the inspector trainee
program. Please indicate the retention rate for all individuals who
have entered this program since its inception. How many individuals who
entered the inspector trainee program now serve as FRA inspectors in
the field. How much is requested to support the program in the fiscal
year 2000 budget? Please compare that amount with previous comparable
expenses during each of the preceding three years.
Answer. Employees completing the trainee program have added much
needed diversity to the organization, both in minority status and in
specialized knowledge and skills. These skills include expertise in
engineering, psychology and education psychology, and computer
software. The trainees are often called upon to lead or assist in
special projects such as inspector task analysis, evaluation of
specialized software, collaboration with Canadian Government
authorities, and assessments of railroad safety issues. Several of the
trainees, who have completed the program, assisted FRA in changing the
training process for trainees, resulting in a more structured and
balanced program with higher levels of satisfaction for both trainees
and supervisors.
Fifty-six employees have entered the trainee program since its
inception. Twenty employees have left the agency, resulting in a 65
percent retention rate. Of the 36 trainees still on board, 24 are GS-12
inspectors, seven are below grade GS-12, and five have been promoted to
the GS-13 level.
The FRA requested $588,000 in fiscal year 2000 to support eight (8)
trainees anticipated to be in the program. Previous budget requests
included $1,206,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,191,000 for fiscal year
1998, and $1,845,000 for fiscal year 1997.
inspector training funding
Question. Please prepare a chart of your training budget for each
of the last four fiscal years (including the fiscal year 2000 request),
specifying separately the amounts spent on Federal and State
inspectors.
Answer.
INSPECTOR TRAINING FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
Actual Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Inspectors.............. 240 247 260 267
Federal Inspectors............ 1,484 1,372 1,520 1,575
-----------------------------------------
Total Budget............ 1,724 1,619 1,780 1,842
------------------------------------------------------------------------
funding of atip
Question. Please provide a detailed break out of the amount
requested for the ATIP for fiscal year 2000. Is FRA's effort to replace
the T-10 track geometry inspection vehicle now complete? If not, please
provide a detailed cost schedule for the completion of this project.
Answer. FRA has included $3.1 million in its fiscal year 2000
budget for ATIP. Funding supports operations ($2.8 million) and other
related expenses such as railroad support charge for transporting the
T-10 over the road, and maintenance ($300 thousand). The new ATIP
vehicle is in production and will be available by summer 2000.
Production was delayed due to the refinement of the design
specifications.
reductions in grade crossing accident/fatalities
Question. In 1994, DOT issued the Rail-Highway Crossing Safety
Action Plan, with an established 10-year goal to reduce the number of
rail-highway grade crossing accidents and fatalities by 50 percent.
Since the implementation of this multi-modal, coordinated plan, what
have been the actual and the percentage decreases of crossing accidents
and fatalities nationally? Please display these data in a state-by-
state breakout table.
Answer. Preliminary data for 1998 indicates that there were 1,399
fewer collisions and 200 fewer deaths at highway-rail crossings as
compared to 1993. These reflect a reduction of 29 and 32 percent
respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions Deaths
--------------------------------------------------
State Percent Percent
1993 1998 change 1993 1998 change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL........................................................... 182 146 -20 25 11 -56
AK........................................................... 11 4 -64 ...... ...... ........
AZ........................................................... 31 35 13 2 4 100
AR........................................................... 152 116 -24 22 24 9
CA........................................................... 191 187 -2 40 32 -20
CO........................................................... 64 32 -50 9 4 -56
CT........................................................... 12 10 -17 1 1 ........
DE........................................................... 11 5 -55 ...... ...... ........
DC........................................................... ...... 1 ....... ...... ...... ........
FL........................................................... 113 74 -35 21 5 -76
GA........................................................... 156 140 -10 19 13 -32
ID........................................................... 48 27 -44 6 4 -33
IL........................................................... 303 198 -35 55 30 -45
IN........................................................... 299 195 -35 36 25 -31
IA........................................................... 137 104 -24 15 3 -80
KS........................................................... 106 70 -34 5 9 80
KY........................................................... 82 73 -11 7 5 -29
LA........................................................... 224 214 -4 26 25 -4
ME........................................................... 9 8 -11 ...... ...... ........
MD........................................................... 14 15 7 ...... ...... ........
MA........................................................... 12 4 -67 ...... 1 ........
MI........................................................... 171 104 -39 16 11 -31
MN........................................................... 133 114 -14 17 13 -24
MS........................................................... 13 133 2 14 24 71
MO........................................................... 115 86 -25 13 13 ........
MT........................................................... 36 27 -25 9 4 -56
NE........................................................... 91 59 -35 11 11 ........
NV........................................................... 4 4 ....... 2 1 -50
NH........................................................... 3 2 -33 ...... ...... ........
NJ........................................................... 51 16 -69 4 5 25
NM........................................................... 25 17 -32 4 5 25
NY........................................................... 48 29 -40 10 2 -80
NC........................................................... 168 109 -35 16 15 -6
ND........................................................... 36 23 -36 7 6 -14
OH........................................................... 277 154 -44 45 15 -67
OK........................................................... 127 66 -48 13 12 -8
OR........................................................... 52 44 -15 7 5 -29
PA........................................................... 113 63 -44 11 1 -91
RI........................................................... ...... 1 ....... ...... ...... ........
SC........................................................... 86 78 -9 23 5 -78
SD........................................................... 32 15 -53 ...... ...... ........
TN........................................................... 108 103 -5 9 14 56
TX........................................................... 506 320 -37 75 45 -40
UT........................................................... 31 23 -26 7 5 -29
VT........................................................... 7 4 -43 1 ...... -100
VA........................................................... 94 51 -46 6 2 -67
WA........................................................... 75 59 -21 5 6 20
WV........................................................... 41 22 -46 2 2 ........
WI........................................................... 164 104 -37 9 7 -22
WY........................................................... 11 5 -55 1 1 ........
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 4,892 3,493 -29 626 426 -32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of 50 percent reduction in grade crossing
Question. Will the Department's efforts in implementing the action
plan be adequate to meet the goal of reducing grade crossing accidents
and fatalities by 50 percent by 2004? If not, what new strategies might
be implemented and how could the fiscal year 2000 budget assist in
those efforts?
Answer. The Department is on target, possibly somewhat ahead of the
curve, for meeting the goal of a 50 percent reduction by 2004. However,
the Department and FRA must continue and enhance its efforts in order
to ensure that the target is met. The fiscal year 2000 budget supports
this goal and includes a request for an additional position to support
FRA's grade crossing program, $15 million to address grade crossing in
the high-speed rail corridors, and continued funding grade crossing
projects in FRA's safety, R&D and Next Generation Programs. A total of
$23.1 million is included in FRA's fiscal year 2000 budget for grade
crossing. This does not include the $5.25 million in Section 104(d)(2)
funds allocated by FHWA or other grade crossing related funds in DOT's
budget.
status of grade crossing action plan
Question. Have any of the 52 crossing safety proposals in the Rail-
Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan not yet been implemented? If so,
please discuss the progress made and the remaining challenges.
Answer. Nineteen of the 55 original initiatives are still in
progress. Available staff time is a primary limitation/challenge in
implementing the Safety Action Plan. However, the additional position
requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget would significantly help the
grade crossing initiative. Projects still on-going include:
Increased Enforcement of Traffic Laws at Crossings:
Commercial Driver's License.--FHWA and American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) sought to elevate crossing
violations to ``serious'' for commercial drivers license (CDL) holders
as required by 1995 legislation. An NPRM was issued by FHWA in March
1998. The comment period for the proposed rule closed in May 1998.
Status: In progress.
Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Highway-Rail
Crossing.--The FRA updated the 1983 edition in August 1995. (A 1999
edition is being developed and once published, will be available on the
Internet.) Status: In progress.
Safety Inquiry.--The FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry about
standing rail equipment near grade crossings. Inspection, testing and
maintenance (ITM) regulations prescribed best practices where signals
exist. Status: In progress.
Rail Corridor Crossing Safety Improvement Reviews:
Responsibilities for Selection and Installation.--FRA and FHWA have
sought to clarify project responsibilities between highway and railroad
authorities. Regulatory action was terminated in August 1997. DOT
Committee is considering standardized national guidelines. Status: In
progress.
Crossing Consolidation and Closure Case Studies.--FRA set forth
guidelines and strategies based upon case studies in July 1994
publication, ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. A Guide to Consolidation
and Closure.'' American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) published a report in March 1995. Status: In
progress.
Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook.--FHWA is updating the 1986 version.
Preliminary draft material is under review. Target completion date by
December 1999. Status: In progress.
Vegetation Clearance.--FHWA encourages states to clear vegetation.
A joint FHWA-FRA Working Group is addressing the issue. Status: In
progress.
Safety at Private Crossings:
Define Categories.--FRA is defining categories and minimum
standards for private crossings. Statistics and comments from previous
safety inquiries are being reviewed. Status: In progress.
Safety Inquiry.--FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry about
standards for certain private crossings. Status: In progress.
Locked gate at Private Crossings.--FRA and FHWA will demonstrate
gates with controlled locks at private crossings. Demonstrations are
planned in New York and Oregon. NY has received a $275K grant. OR has
selected a demonstration site. Status: In progress.
Data and Research:
Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Signs and Signals.--FHWA is
researching new traffic control and warning devices. Draft report due.
Status: In progress.
Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Train Horns.--FRA published a
report in April 1995 on the impact of whistle bans nationwide. Analysis
of Wayside Horns published in June 1998. NPRM on whistle bans is
forthcoming. Status: In progress.
Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Light Rail Crossing Gates for
Left Turn Lanes.--FTA is investigating alternatives for left turn lanes
with parallel tracks. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) demonstration of 4-quadrant gates is progressing.
Status: In progress.
Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.--FRA and FTA sought to amend the MUTCD to address such
issues as high-speed rail, temporary closure, multi-track signs, and
work zones. Notice was published in the Federal Register in June 1995.
FHWA decision published in January 1997. Inclusion deferred. Status: In
progress.
Innovative Technology--Automated Video Image Analysis.--FRA is
investigating the potential for live video monitoring of crossings.
Tests will be conducted in NY and CA. Proposals are being solicited
through the Ideas Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program.
Status: In progress.
1-800 Computer Answering System.--FRA is working with railroads to
develop notification systems. Software is being developed for small and
medium-sized railroads to enable 1-800 notification. 1-800 signs are
now posted at most crossings with active warning systems. Status: In
progress.
Resource Allocation Procedure.--FRA proposed to recalculate the
accident prediction formulas and rebuild the accident prediction model.
During peer review of proposed new procedure, it was decided to retain
the original. The current formulas are being updated. Status: In
progress.
The Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.--FRA and FHWA have promoted
voluntary updating by states. FHWA issued a memo on the subject. The
Update Manual was published in December 1996. 1999 FHWA Strategic Plan
will emphasize importance of the Inventory. The FRA introduced new data
and Y2K format in 1998. Status: In progress. Safety inquiry about
display of crossing number will be held in the future.
Trespass Prevention:
Demographic Study.--FRA is reviewing its trespass fatality
statistics to focus on remedial efforts. Zip code maps are available.
1997 and 1998 bulletins include new data. Data workshop was held in
April 1998. Status: In progress.
impact of the grade crossing action plan
Question. Of the 52 crossing safety proposals in the action plan,
which have been the most effective in reducing accidents at railroad
crossings? To what extent is DOT closer to the action plan goal of
eliminating all grade crossings that intersect the National Highway
System?
Answer. Successes to-date can not be attributed to any one
initiative or organization, but rather to the synergistic impact of a
myriad of different approaches sponsored and promoted by a multitude of
individuals and organizations. The Congress has continued to fund
highway-rail crossing safety improvement programs and states and
railroads have taken advantage of the available funding to improve
crossing locations. More than 2,500 volunteers have been trained and
certified as Operation Lifesaver presenters and are carrying the
``Look, Listen and Live'' and the ``Always Expect A Train'' messages to
schools and drivers and to other locations where they can reach an
audience. The law enforcement community is beginning to develop an
awareness of their potential impact on this issue, and where such an
awareness has evolved, effective safety programs have resulted.
Over 33,000 crossings have been eliminated since FRA began placing
an emphasis on crossing consolidations. New regulations now require two
additional alerting lights on the front of trains and regular
inspection, testing, and maintenance of train-activated highway-rail
crossing warning devices. The emergence of innovative signing and
lights, the proliferation of 1-800 emergency call-in signs at
crossings, realization of the efficacy of STOP signs, improvements in
four-quadrant gate technology, the identification of high-profile
(hump) crossings, and advances made with photo-enforcement will have
significant impacts in the near future. Finally, FRA's eight Regional
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Program Managers,
assigned in 1994, have continued to foster and promote programs and
initiatives to railroads, states and communities. Their presence has
insured that crossing issues are not overlooked in the development of
state safety improvement programs, corporate strategic planning,
Metropolitan Planning Organization transportation planning and Safe
Community initiatives. The addition of the eight assistants in fiscal
year 1999 and one additional specialist in headquarters in fiscal year
2000, will ensure that FRA reaches its goal of 50 percent reduction in
grade crossing fatalities by 2004.
In the Action Plan, the ``goal of eliminating all grade crossings
that intersect the National Highway System'' (NHS) is actually stated
as, ``encourage that Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs and
Safety Management Systems fully address the upgrading or elimination of
at-grade crossings on the NHS, and give priority to the long-term goal
of eliminating NHS intersections with the PRLs'' (Principal Railroad
Lines). Both FRA and FHWA have continued to encourage State, local and
industry officials to consider crossing consolidation or elimination as
the preferable choice among crossing treatment options. Since 1993, the
National Inventory of Crossings reflects a reduction of 931, or 10.8
percent, in the number of crossings on the National Highway System.
status of grade crossing task force recommendations
Question. Please update the Committee on the implementation of each
of the recommendations of the interdepartmental grade crossing task
force study that was conducted after the Fox River Grove, Illinois
crash. Which of these action items have not yet been implemented?
Please discuss the progress made and the challenges associated with the
remaining action items.
Answer. The 1996 Grade Crossing Task Force report contained 24
short and long term recommendations in four topical areas:
interconnected signals and storage space, high-profile crossings,
light-rail crossing issues, and special vehicle operations and
information. All 24 recommendations have been addressed. A description
of each recommendation, and current status is included in the following
document.
status of the grade crossing safety task force recommendations
The Report of the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force was issued by
the Department of Transportation on March 1, 1996 as a result of the
Fox River Grove, IL incident. The Task Force Report recommends 24
specific follow-up actions addressing both physical and procedural
deficiencies identified in the Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action
Plan. The following is an update on each of the 24 specific items
detailed in the Task Force Report.
Interconnected Signals and Storage:
State Focal Points.--All states have designated a focal point for
communities and railroads to coordinate crossing issues. A list of
designated points of contact is available. FHWA and FRA will outline
roles and responsibilities. Status: Complete.
Engineering Studies.--States sought to determine the adequacy of
storage space and the need for signal interconnections. States
conducted investigations and established data bases. FRA letter to
Governors stressed the importance of undertaking engineering studies.
Status: Complete.
Planning and Design.--State newsletters and memoranda have stressed
that storage space needs must be considered early in design or redesign
phase when planning projects. Design manuals have been revised. Status:
Ongoing.
Regional Conferences.--FHWA and FRA initiated regional conferences
for railroads and states to discuss crossing safety issues. All FHWA
regions (except Region 1) held conferences. Several states have hosted
state meetings with railroads. Status: Ongoing.
Technical Working Group (TWG).--FHWA and FRA have reviewed existing
safety standards and guidelines. The TWG issued a report in June 1997
which included terminology, findings, bibliography, letters and
recommendations. Status: Complete.
High-Profile Crossings:
Standard Warning Sign.--FHWA amended the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) on January 9, 1997 to include an advance
warning sign. Status: Complete.
Define Information Sign.--FRA and FHWA developed language to inform
drivers of proper action when stalled on a crossing. Alternative word
message signs were proposed in the Implementation Report and will be
included in the new Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook. Status: Complete.
Identify Problem Crossings.--State highway agencies were requested
to identify problem crossings with accident histories, install signs,
alert users and update the Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. FRA and
FHWA are encouraging road authorities to identify and sign crossings.
Inventory changes are being made. Status: In progress.
Technical Working Group on High-Profile Crossings.--FRA and FHWA,
working with states and industry confirmed the feasibility of vehicle
and crossing classifications. Data collection and study of problem
crossings and vehicle interaction continues. Status: In progress.
Track and Highway Maintenance.--A Task Force comprised of FRA,
FHWA, ASLRRA, AREMA and AASHTO are developing post-maintenance
guidelines for vertical alignment. Status: In progress.
Light-Rail Crossing Issues:
MUTCD Chapter.--FHWA revised the MUTCD to include a chapter
entitled, ``Traffic Controls for Light-Rail Highway Grade Crossings.''
Planning Design and Operation.--FTA and FHWA issued a Planning
Emphasis Area (PEA) directive to planning agencies. Regional FTA staff
are monitoring progress and results and will coordinate on crossing
matters. Status: Ongoing.
Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA).--Consideration and evaluation
of signal interconnection is now required in all FFGAs during
preliminary engineering. Status: Complete.
Data Collection and Dissemination.--FTA and TCRP have developed a
process to collect, analyze and disseminate detailed light-rail
collision data. Starting in 1995, the FTA has published crossing data
from the Safety Management Information System (SAMIS). Future TCRP
project will consider additional need. Status: Ongoing.
MUTCD and Handbook.--FTA is reviewing the MUTCD to ensure that
standards and guidelines are consistent with light-rail crossing
issues. MUTCD is being revised by FHWA and FRA. Status: In progress.
Priority of Light-Rail Vehicles.--TCRP issued Report (# 17) in
January 1997 containing guidelines for priority of light-rail vehicles
operating on city streets.
Model Legislation.--FTA, NGA and NCSL have sought to enact and
enforce penalties for violations associated with light-rail crossings.
FTA is exploring options to promote enactment of model legislation.
Status: In progress.
Special Vehicle Operations and Information:
School Buses.--In order to increase awareness among school bus
operators, Operation Lifesaver has distributed an awareness and
training video and NHTSA is including crossing safety issues in one-day
in-service seminar. Status: In progress.
Operating Permits.--Several states are issuing permits for special
vehicles which includes emergency phone numbers for railroads. Status:
Ongoing.
``Super-Load'' Vehicles.--States are providing railroad telephone
numbers necessary to arrange flag protection for special vehicles. NTSB
is promoting protection through State special permit offices. Status:
Ongoing.
Commercial Driver License (CDL) Manual and Test.--FHWA Office of
Motor Carriers (OMC) is amplifying the safety message of both the
driving manual and tests. Status: Ongoing.
Escort Vehicles.--States are developing certification programs
which include crossing safety in training exercises. NTSB is working
with State special permit offices. Status: Ongoing.
``Real Time'' Communications.--States are working to ensure that
escort and special permit vehicles can maintain ``real time'' contact
with railroad dispatchers. NTSB is working with State special permit
offices. Status: Ongoing.
Classification Process.--States will work to implement
classification processes as developed through the TWG. Status: Ongoing.
Status Key
Ongoing: An initiative which has become a routine or continuing
effort.
In progress: An initiative which is still being developed and
implemented.
Complete: An initiative for which a specific action has been taken
or a product has been disseminated.
Not Considered/No Further Action: Insufficient authority or funding
to pursue an initiative.
use of earmarked grade crossing funds
Question. In fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriations act,
the conferees provided $275,000 to support new additional highway/rail
grade crossing safety initiatives. Please explain how the FRA utilized
that funding to: (a) evaluate interstate rail corridor and crossing
safety, (b) identify the most dangerous crossings, (c) mitigate
crossing hazards, (d) assess the effectiveness of the crossing signal
technologies, (e) develop safer commercial driving practices at
highway/rail crossings, and (f) work with communities seeking reduction
of train whistles. How does the fiscal year 2000 budget seek to address
each of those challenges?
Answer. FRA utilized the earmarked and other safety funds in
addressing each of these initiatives as follows:
(a) Evaluate interstate rail corridor and crossing safety: FRA's
Regional Managers have continued to work with state DOTs, railroads,
and Amtrak to promote crossing reviews along rail corridors and/or
community-wide reviews. This has been successful and has often resulted
in multiple crossing safety improvements as well as the closing of some
crossings. Two examples include the Amtrak line across northern Indiana
and all crossings on both railroads in Laredo, Texas. Several of the
Amtrak lines in the southeast have also been reviewed.
(b) Identify the most dangerous crossings: Updating processes for
the National Inventory were refined and augmented (made more user
friendly) and the collision prediction software was modernized. Both of
these are used for analyzing individual crossings and groups of
crossings. The PCAPS (Personal Computer Accident Prediction System) is
used by a wide variety of subscribers, including FRA's Regional
Managers, in evaluating crossing safety in rail corridors, in
identifying dangerous crossings, and while working with communities
seeking reductions in train whistles.
(c) Mitigate crossing hazards: An effort has been initiated to
develop best-practices guidelines for community project planners
regarding rails-with-trails projects. This is a new initiative within
the Office of Safety which targets both crossings (where trails cross
tracks) and trespass prevention initiatives. FRA also continued its
analysis of the problem, and the development of options, regarding
high-profile crossings vis-a-vis low clearance vehicles.
(d) Assess the effectiveness of the crossing signal technologies:
FRA continues to encourage and monitor projects that are assessing or
demonstrating the effectiveness of new technologies, both signalized
and passive. Such projects currently include a variety of four-quadrant
gate installations ranging from a complex Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) related installation which includes vehicle presence
detection with automatic train stop in Connecticut to simple gates in
south Florida. Other projects include barrier nets in Illinois,
articulated gates in North Carolina, true barrier gates (versus
conventional warning gates) in Wisconsin, median barriers in
Washington, way-side horns in Nebraska and Iowa, etc. FRA is open to
these types of projects and seeks to confirm additional ``supplementary
safety measures'' with the potential to fully compensate for the
absence of a train horn.
(e) Develop safer commercial driving practices at highway-rail
crossings: FRA has made numerous approaches and presentations to
trucking and bus firms and to shippers and school districts regarding
the hazards of highway-rail crossings. FRA has been exploring, with the
American Trucking Association (ATA) and the Independent Truckers
Association, ways and means of reaching vehicle operators with the
crossing safety message. Working with Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI)
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), FRA has
assisted in the development of a school bus driver training module
(``the responsibility is ours'') which includes a lesson plan and video
tape. This package has been widely distributed. FRA is considering a
similar project for truckers, especially owner/operators. FRA also is
working with the ATA, OLI and the other modal administrations to
develop and distribute a trucker-alert flyer. This is near completion.
(f) Work with communities seeking reduction of train whistles: An
environmental impact statement is being drafted to accompany the
Administration's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding train
whistles. A regulatory analysis has also been completed. FRA has
reviewed, analyzed, and commented on numerous proposals from
communities seeking to establish (or retain) bans on the use of train
horns.
The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $23.1 million for grade
crossing activities. Funding addresses research, safety, enhanced
corridor focus, increased staffing, and other critical initiatives as
noted above that progress FRA's work in grade crossing.
fiscal year 1998-2000 grade crossing funding
Question. Please display the requested expenditures related to
grade crossing safety throughout the various subaccounts of FRA and
compare those amounts to expenditures for each of the last two years.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------
Activity 1998 1999 2000
Funding Funding Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Development.............. 1,997 835 1,035
Next Generation High-Speed Rail..... 2,500 4,600 4,000
Safety & Operations................. 2,243 2,719 3,069
High-Speed Rail Initiatives (TF).... .......... .......... 15,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 6,740 8,154 23,104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1998-1999 grade crossing funding by project
Question. Please show on a project by project basis how the fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 monies on grade crossings were spent,
who the recipients of the funds were, and the expected results.
Answer. See table below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Appropriation/project -------------------------------- Recipient Expected results
1998 Funding 1999 Funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FRA............................ $6,740,100 $8,154,000
================================
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT................ 1,997,000 835,000
================================
Freight Car Reflectorization...... 10,000 .............. Volpe Ctr.................... Freight cars will be more visible to drivers,
helping them aavoid striking the train. Report
published.
Eval Wayside Horns and Optml 75,000 .............. Volpe Ctr.................... Locomotive horns will be optimized for sound
Acoustic Warning. quality and effectiveness while reducing noise
pollution in surrounding communities.
Driver Behavior Accident Causation 320,000 80,000 Volpe Ctr.................... To gain a better understanding of how drivers
Driver Education. react to grade crossings and why accidents
happen in order to educate drivers.
Operation Lifesaver............... 600,000 ( \1\ ) Operation Lifesaver, Inc..... Public education about the laws regarding grade
crossings, the dangers at grade crossings and
the importance to obey traffic laws.
Train Detection................... 250,000 50,000 Assoc. of American Railroads. Examine causes for loss of contact between rail
and wheels, resulting in intermittent operation
of grade crossing warning device (gate bobble).
Illumination Guidelines........... 35,000 15,000 Volpe Ctr.................... The use of street lights to illuminate trains at
night so drivers can see and avoid running into
the train.
Photo Enforcement................. 25,000 .............. Volpe Ctr.................... Assess the Ohio crossbuck and traffic signals at
crossings to improve warning to drivers.
HSR Crossing Tech................. .............. 40,000 Volpe Ctr/Battelle Labs...... To examine signaling and train control,
obstruction detection and warning devices and
barrier system technologies available for use in
high-speed corridors. Develop methodology to
evaluate improved safety provided by additional
devices.
Assess 1010 & 1036 Demos and NGHSR 70,000 175,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Evaluate the technology demonstration projects
BAA. funded under the Section 1010 & 1036 program in
ISTEA (4-quad gate with obstruction detection in
CT and Vehicle Arrestor Barrier in IL), and
assess BAA submittals.
Criteria & overall evaluation .............. 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Determine criteria for developing an evaluation
methodology. methodology usable for all grade crossing R&D
projects.
Standardized before/after .............. 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Develop standardized before/after evaluation
evaluations. techniques to measure safety effectiveness of
research projects.
Obstacle/Intrusion Detection...... .............. 150,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Building on the HSR Crossing Technology project,
examine the obstruction detection systems
suitable for use at grade crossings and expand
for use along the right-of-way.
Compendium of Volpe Research 200,000 40,000 Volpe Ctr.................... A project to assemble the research on grade
Findings. crossings done to date.
Overview & synthesis of existing 160,000 .............. Volpe Ctr.................... A new examination of available grade crossing
grade crossing statistics. statistics to develop a better understanding why
grade crossing accidents occur.
GIS support to HSR Corridors...... .............. 30,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Develop GIS system to support communication
between grade crossing signals and Positive
Train Control systems.
Volpe Center Support.............. 177,000 80,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Support for assessing hazard elimination
75,000 75,000 Volpe Ctr.................... projects.
Expand Corridor Risk Analysis for high-speed
corridors to additional corridors.
================================
NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL...... 2,500,000 4,600,000
NC Sealed Corridor................ 2,000,000 1,000,000 NCDOT........................ The North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative
will treat every crossing in the 174-mile
Charlotte to Raleigh segment of the high-speed
rail corridor with innovative crossing devices
like median barriers, long gate arms, and 4-quad
gates. Redundant crossings will be closed.
Mitigating Grade Crossing Hazards. .............. 1,370,000 MIDOT........................ Upgrade 57 public grade crossings and upgrade or
eliminate 21 private grade crossings as part of
the Michigan Incremental Train Control System
(ITCS) demonstration.
Low Cost HSR Crossing............. .............. 1,100,000 BAA Awardees................. Awards under the BAA program have not been
announced.
NY Locked Gate.................... .............. 25,000 NYSDOT....................... To design, fabricate, test and evaluate a low-
cost grade crossing gate system suitable for low
volume traffic crossings on high-speed
corridors.
TRB HSR IDEA Program.............. 500,000 500,000 TRB.......................... The TRB IDEA Program, supported by FRA, FHWA,
TRB ITS IDEA Program.............. .............. 500,000 TRB.......................... NHTSA, and FTA, competitively solicits concepts,
conducts peer review, and awards innovative
technology projects nationwide to support
development of High-Speed Rail and Intelligent
Transportation Systems. Examples of completed
projects include a very-wide field of view
camera suitable for automated monitoring of
grade crossings and a scanning radar antenna for
surveillance systems.
ITS Architecture & Support to ITS .............. 20,000 ITS JPO...................... The ITS Architecture is gaining a new User
PO. Service--User Service #30--which describes how
grade crossing will be incorporated into the
overall Intelligent Transportation System and
which will link train control systems with
advanced highway traffic control systems.
Volpe Center Support.............. .............. 85,000 Volpe Ctr.................... Support of assessing hazard elimination projects.
Corridor Risk Analysis for Empire Corridor.
================================
SAFETY & Operations................... 2,243,100 2,719,000
Operation Lifesaver............... ( \2\ ) 600,000 Operation Lifesaver, Inc..... Public education about the laws regarding grade
crossings and trespassing, the dangers at grade
crossings and on rail rights-of-way and the
importance to obey traffic and trespass laws.
Public Awareness and Out- reach.. 159,700 33,700 Various printing contractors, Promotional and audio-visual materials,
packing and shipping firms, conference registrations and display booth space
equipment rental firms, and supplies. Materials are used or distributed
conference organizers, OL when making presentations to schools, community
suppliers, etc. groups, workshops, conventions, etc.
Police Officer Detail............. 63,000 110,000 FY 1999 selections have not The police officer detail is an outreach program
yet been made. with the law enforcement community to raise
awareness of crossing safety and trespass
prevention. One officer is detailed full time to
Washington, and one each will be detailed part-
time to four FRA regions.
Outreach to Law Enforcement and 70,600 51,700 IACP, NSA, NFOP, etc. for Outreach to judges and prosecutors to enhance
Trespass Prevention. conference display booth their knowledge of crossing safety and trespass
space, registration fees, prevention issues, and materials to support
and GPO printing for FRA's regional manager promotions of highway-
pamphlets, brochures, and rail crossing safety and trespass prevention
for other promotional items. programs.
Analysis of High-Profile Crossings 15,300 14,600 Univ of West Virginia and Research and analysis of problems associated with
local survey firms. and alternatives for, high-profile crossings and
low-clearance vehicles.
Airborne survey of crossing .............. 109,000 US Army Corp of Engineers.... For demonstration of airborne measurement of
elevations. ground elevation and collection of data covering
174 miles of rail right-of-way and crossings.
Data to be used in analysis of high-profile
crossings.
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory & 171,000 50,000 AMB.......................... Simplify and refine the Highway-Rail Crossing
Data Bases. Inventory and collision data bases reporting and
report production and accident prediction
procedures.
Information Processing............ 285,000 285,000 AMB.......................... Supports Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and
crossing module of the Accident/Incident Report
Processing.
Regulatory Support................ .............. 25,000 Auburn University............ Conduct literature search of warrants, guidelines
and best-practices for determining appropriate
warning device(s) or grade separation for
highway-rail crossings.
Regulatory Support................ 288,200 38,000 DeLeuw Cather................ Assistance in preparation of EIS for train horn
NPRM.
Rail-with-Trails.................. 90,300 50,000 Reimbursable agreement with Best-practices for design and operation of rails-
FHWA to fund development of with-trails projects.
best-practices for rails-
with-trails, contractor not
yet selected.
PC&B (Approximate)................ 1,100,000 1,352,000 Supports staff dedicated to the crossing and
trespasser program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under Safety in fiscal year 1999.
\2\ Funded under R&D in fiscal year 1998.
top 10 states with most grade crossing accidents
Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest
number of highway/rail grade crossing accidents and fatalities, and
cite the number of accidents and fatalities in calendar years 1997,
1998 and thus far in 1999.
Answer. See the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colisions Deaths
State \1\ -----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas........................................................... 421 315 28 54 45 2
Louisiana....................................................... 203 210 20 30 25 1
Illinois........................................................ 213 197 28 27 30 5
Indiana......................................................... 227 196 26 23 25 ......
California...................................................... 159 178 16 22 32 4
Ohio............................................................ 178 150 11 26 14 1
Alabama......................................................... 135 145 9 19 11 ......
Georgia......................................................... 138 140 13 12 13 ......
Mississippi..................................................... 148 1 32 9 19 23 1
Arkansas........................................................ 118 115 4 10 24 ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ranking is based on fiscal year 1998 data.
trespass prevention
Question. What is your strategic plan for reducing the number of
fatalities involving trespassing? Please break out all funds requested
to deal with this challenge.
Answer. As a result of the 1997 figures, FRA was a primary force in
promoting Operation Lifesaver's (OL) increased focus on trespass
issues. FRA played an essential role in the development of the OL
Trespass Prevention Guide and the OL Trespass Presentation package.
Currently, there are three pilot projects, being monitored by FRA,
which use the new OL Trespass Presentation, in Salem, Oregon; Oshawa,
Ontario; and Whistler, British Columbia. In addition, FRA prepared and
disseminated Model Legislation for Railroad Trespass and Railroad
Vandalism for use by States. This Model Legislation has been
incorporated into Iowa's new law. Other States working on railroad
trespass legislation are Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and West
Virginia.
Future FRA plans include continued expansion of casualty data
available to the public on the FRA web page to assist in targeting
trespass prevention efforts. This casualty data is available by county.
In addition, the new occurrence and location codes provided to the
railroads for their reports will further define where these incidents
are occurring. Regarding the need for demographic information in order
to focus educational efforts for trespass prevention, a one-time
demographic information gathering is underway, using railroad special
agents' contact/ejection/arrest reports and demographic software.
The growing issue of Rails-with-Trails (RWTs) is actively being
pursued by FRA. At present, there is a Request for Proposals, for a 30-
month contract, to produce a ``best practices'' report on RWTs. This is
a result of a wide-ranging partnership effort by FRA involving the
railroads' management and labor, Federal and State government agencies,
bicycle and pedestrian groups, and trail proponents and planners.
In Texas, FRA and OL, with the support of Houston's mayor, have
joined the Houston Independent School District (HISD), parent-teacher
groups, school police, local law enforcement, neighborhood
organizations, community health clinics, and civic organizations to get
the message out that trespassing on rail property is dangerous and can
be deadly. HISD teachers and police will be trained as OL presenters
and the OL curriculum will be incorporated into the HISD curriculum. In
1997, Texas had 38 fatalities and 78 injuries due to railroad
trespassing. This project is one of the largest single OL States
Assistance Grant projects funded by FRA ($28,800 in FRA money plus
$9,600 from Texas railroads and Texas OL will support the $38,400
project).
Efforts continue to include rail safety issues in USDOT safety
initiatives such as Safe Communities and Moving Kids Safely. FRA will
continue to facilitate research to use new technology to deter
trespassing such as the video monitoring and video imaging project in
Pittsford, New York.
Also, FRA is increasing its work in outreach to law enforcement
agencies via the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
National Sheriffs' Association, and the Department of Justice's COPS
grants. FRA is in the process of initiating a Regional Police Liaison
Officer program. FRA regions will have an officer detailed by a
community police agency, in the region one week per month, to act as a
contact and intermediary for the regional law enforcement community and
FRA.
With the addition of eight Assistant Crossing and Trespasser
Regional Managers in fiscal year 1999 (one for each FRA region), the
very successful work of FRA's Regional Crossing Managers will continue
to expand. They will provide support and assistance in such areas
particularly important to trespass abatement as law enforcement,
outreach, and promotion of trespass prevention programs.
Funding for trespass prevention is included in the grade crossing
budget of $23.1 million in fiscal year 2000 and is reflected in many
line items such as Police Office Details, Outreach to Law Enforcement,
Rails-With-Trails, and Operation Lifesaver.
grade crossings in last three years
Question. How many crossings were closed in the last three years,
on a state-by-state basis?
Answer. Based on data reported by States and railroads to the
National Inventory of Crossings, using 1996 as the base year, a total
of 9,089 public and private highway-rail crossings have been
consolidated or eliminated. See the attached table for a state-by-state
breakdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1999 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................. 5,592 5,410 -182
Alaska.............................. 329 329 ..........
Arizona............................. 1,626 1,623 -3
Arkansas............................ 4,787 4,687 -100
California.......................... 12,827 12,695 -132
Colorado............................ 3,517 3,234 -283
Connecticut......................... 631 633 2
Delaware............................ 403 430 27
District of Columbia................ 31 31 ..........
Florida............................. 5,546 5,214 -332
Georgia............................. 8,938 8,503 -435
Hawaii.............................. 6 6 ..........
Idaho............................... 2,900 2,798 -102
Illinois............................ 15,903 15,576 -327
Indiana............................. 9,433 9,105 -328
Iowa................................ 9,462 9,442 -20
Kansas.............................. 12,097 11,081 -1,016
Kentucky............................ 5,387 4,956 -431
Louisiana........................... 6,87 8 6,677 -201
Maine............................... 1,816 1,672 -144
Maryland............................ 1,399 1,355 -44
Massachusetts....................... 1,729 1,730 1
Michigan............................ 8,478 8,295 -183
Minnesota........................... 8,307 8,193 -114
Mississippi......................... 5,070 4,862 -208
Missouri............................ 8,155 8,042 -113
Montana............................. 3,591 3,506 -85
Nebraska............................ 6,870 6,753 -117
Nevada.............................. 554 567 13
New Hampshire....................... 847 616 -231
New Jersey.......................... 2,459 2,459 ..........
New Mexico.......................... 1,399 1,399 ..........
New York............................ 6,452 6,430 -22
North Carolina...................... 8,439 7,910 -529
North Dakota........................ 6,804 6,792 -12
Ohio................................ 10,255 9,392 -863
Oklahoma............................ 6,296 6,032 -264
Oregon.............................. 5,118 5,126 8
Pennsylvania........................ 9,001 8,929 -72
Rhode Island........................ 199 199 ..........
South Carolina...................... 4,457 4,317 -140
South Dakota........................ 3,498 3,498 ..........
Tennessee........................... 5,286 4,990 -296
Texas............................... 18,853 18,380 -473
Utah................................ 1,798 1,799 1
Vermont............................. 1,146 1,146 ..........
Virginia............................ 5,061 4,830 -231
Washington.......................... 5,868 5,873 5
West Virginia....................... 4,113 3,461 -652
Wisconsin........................... 7,580 7,152 -428
Wyoming............................. 1,459 1,426 -33
Puerto Rico......................... 26 26 ..........
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 268,676 259,587 -9,089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal years 1998-2000 funding for operation lifesaver
Question. Please prepare a table displaying the amount of FRA
support for Operation Lifesaver for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and the
fiscal year 2000 request.
Answer. See the table below.
FRA SUPPORT FOR OPERATION LIFESAVER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Request Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.......................................... $400,000 $600,000
1999.......................................... 300,000 600,000
2000.......................................... 600,000 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
use of additional funding for grade crossing
Question. What would FRA do with an additional $500,000 of contract
funds to support grade crossing activities?
Answer. FRA has included approximately $23.1 million in its fiscal
year 2000 budget for grade crossing initiatives. This does not include
the $5.25 million available in Section 104(d)(2) funds allocated by
FHWA or other grade crossing related funds in DOT's budget.
While the grade crossing program is an important element in the
Department's overall safety program, it represents only one of many
critical components in railroad safety. Increasing funds in this area,
at the cost of other safety initiatives, may actually impede FRA's
ability to meet its fiscal year 2000 safety performance goals.
FRA's fiscal year 2000 budget is based on a Departmental strategic
plan that addresses safety and technology priorities and reflects a
balanced approach in addressing all funding requirements within FRA.
status of stop signs at grade crossing
Question. In 1993, a joint FHWA/FRA memorandum regarding the
installation of ``STOP'' signs which was sent to the regional offices
of each agency. What actions have been taken to promulgate and
implement the guidance in this memorandum? How effective have the
regional offices been in reaching state and local highway authorities
to provide technical assistance regarding, and to encourage
installation of ``STOP'' signs? How many ``STOP'' signs have been
installed at highway-rail crossings since 1993? Is the Department
planning any additional steps to encourage states to install more
``STOP'' signs in accordance with NTSB's recommendation to the states?
Answer. Upon receipt of the July 8, 1993 joint memorandum, the FHWA
regional offices forwarded it to FHWA Division offices in each State
for compliance. Staff at the Division offices followed up with contacts
and assistance to the traffic engineers in the State highway agencies.
Local highway authorities normally work through the State authority,
and FHWA technical assistance was provided as requested. Feedback from
State and local agencies have indicated that FHWA has been effective in
providing technical assistance and in encouraging appropriate use of
``STOP'' signs. FRA's Regional Managers for crossing programs continue
to use the memorandum as a tool to encourage both State and local
highway authorities to at least consider STOP signs as a viable option
for needed traffic control at crossings. According to the National
Inventory of Crossings, in 1993, 10,567 public highway-rail crossings
were equipped with STOP signs. Most recent count from the Inventory
indicates that 10,962 are now equipped with STOP signs.
Following receipt of the NTSB recommendation to States relative to
``STOP'' signs, the Secretary of Transportation directed that a
Technical Work Group (TWG) be convened to develop guidance to assist
State and local engineers in determining the appropriate traffic
control, options to include ``STOP'' signs and grade separation. This
TWG will be comprised of representatives of various agencies within
DOT, State and local highway agencies, NTSB, national organizations and
the rail industry. Work is already underway with a literature review of
existing guidance and/or warrants. A report will be completed by the
fall of 2000 for distribution to the State and local agencies.
1-800 emergency notification system
Question. Section 301 of the 1994 Railroad Safety Act requires the
Secretary to conduct a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency
notification system using a toll-free telephone number for the public
to report any malfunctions or other safety problems at highway-rail
grade crossings. Please provide a definite schedule for the emergency
notification project, from the project's inception to completion.
Include the following information:
--What has FRA done to implement this requirement, and what are the
results to date?
--How much money is currently available to continue the efforts in
this area?
--What are the plans to allocate these monies?
--What funds are requested for this effort in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The 1994 Swift Rail Development Act directs the Secretary
to demonstrate a toll-free emergency notification system to report
emergencies, malfunctions, and other safety problems, and to conduct a
pilot program in two states. However, the Congress did not appropriate
funds for this program. In 1995, a preliminary design concept and
implementation plan was completed and preliminary discussions were held
with the States of Illinois and Minnesota for a two-State pilot test
project. FRA's goal was to involve two States representative of both
urban and rural areas.
In 1996, $625,000 was appropriated by Congress for the development
of system hardware and software. No funds were appropriated for the
installation of signs at crossings, the public education and awareness
program, nor the final Report to Congress. FRA has reached an agreement
with FHWA to use Surface Transportation Program Funds from the safety
set-aside (Section 130) for the required signage part of this project.
Meanwhile in 1996, several major railroads, at their own expense,
started to install their own 1-800 Emergency Telephone Number signs at
crossings to report malfunctions and/or emergencies. Some railroads are
installing these at all of their public and private crossings, while
others are installing them at only the public crossings, and yet others
at only the active crossings (those with gates and/or flashing lights).
Preliminary discussions were held with Union Pacific (UPRR) and
Norfolk-Southern (NS) Railroads to evaluate methods for incorporating
the railroads' 1-800 Number Systems into the overall system planned for
the two pilot states.
In 1997, the FRA Administrator sent a letter to all States inviting
them to participate in the two-State pilot test program. FRA received
expressions of interest from only four states, California, Illinois,
New Mexico, and Minnesota.
In 1998, FRA awarded a 3-year contract to design, develop, and test
a 1-800 Toll-Free Emergency Notification System (ENS), capable of
reporting problems at highway-rail intersections to a centralized state
police emergency response communication center or railroad train
dispatch center. This 1-800 ENS will be designed for, and first tested
in, the State of Texas where emergency response communication center
personnel are familiar and knowledgeable with how such a system should
properly operate. This will also upgrade that State's currently
installed system. Subsequently, the 1-800 ENS Software Package will be
made available to two or more pilot States. The software package will
then be modified to operate from a railroad's perspective and offered
to and installed on a medium size (or larger) railroad. (Current
discussions are being held with the UPRR and Illinois Central (IC)
Railroads). The design and installation in Texas is expected to be
completed in December, 1999, with additional state and/or railroad
installations taking place within an additional 12 months, by December,
2000.
FRA has conducted a poll of the major railroads and found that,
after completion of the Conrail merger, more than 55 percent of all
public at-grade crossings will contain a posted 1-800 ENS Number, and
an additional 10 percent are on railroads where an emergency telephone
number has been provided to local emergency service organizations
(police, fire, medical, etc.). Of the 158,784 public at-grade crossings
nationwide, it appears that by the end of 1999 a 1-800 ENS Sign will be
installed at approximately 84,357 (53 percent) of the public at-grade
crossings on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), UPRR, NS, CSX
Transportation and IC Railroads. This represents 78 percent of all the
active crossings (those with flashing lights and/or gates) in the
nation.
Since Texas and Connecticut have state-wide systems which include
some of the above crossings, FRA estimates about 56 percent of all
public at-grade crossings in the nation will soon be equipped. Some
railroads, for example, UPRR, NS and BNSF, are voluntarily considering
an expansion of their programs to include additional crossings (1) not
currently equipped with automatic warning devices and (2) private
crossings.
An effective emergency notification system will have a centralized
manned center to receive calls. This requires a telephone system for
receiving calls and a computerized system (software and hardware) for
fast, efficient, and accurate identification of the crossing location
on a highway-railroad grid. The 1-800 ENS Software Package will have
the ability for logging calls and accessing Inventory Files based on
the U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Number and
Inventory. It will also have supplemental files, incorporate a display
on a map, and the capability to forward the incoming call and
information to the appropriate railroad or highway authorities.
FRA is evaluating the possibility of having the railroads assume
responsibility for incoming 1-800 ENS calls since they are already
moving in that direction. Using this approach, FRA believes that it may
be possible to implement a 1-800 ENS on a national scale rather than in
just two pilot states, thereby achieving more coverage with the
appropriated funds.
FRA has obligated $618,000 of the $625,000 funds appropriated in
fiscal year 1996. The balance of $7,000 will be used to develop the 1-
800 ENS software package.
state investment in 1-800 emergency notification system
Question. How will FRA promote State investment in this approach to
improving grade crossing safety?
Answer. FRA is evaluating different approaches to the 1-800
Emergency Notification System (ENS), specifically, a redirection of the
program from a state-based effort for only public crossings equipped
with automatic warning devices to a railroad-based approach which will
address emergencies at all crossings including private and passive
(those not equipped with automatic warning devices) crossings. Soon,
nearly half of all public crossings will be equipped with 1-800
Emergency Notification signs (containing a toll-free telephone number
and crossing identification number) for the public to use to report
problems.
Railroads are voluntarily establishing ENS numbers and procedures
and are installing signs. Some railroads are even extending this
coverage to all crossings, both public and private, with and without
automated systems. (The two existing State-based systems target only
public highway-rail crossings with automated warning systems.) Using
the redirected approach, FRA believes that it will be possible to
implement a ENS in more than just a few states, thereby achieving more
coverage with the appropriated funds.
To promote continued investment in these systems, FRA plans to: (1)
Encourage all railroads with 24-hour operations to post their own 1-800
signs and to handle such calls through their 24-hour operations center;
(2) Develop and make available 1-800 ENS software for operating a
railroad or state 1-800 ENS which will include crossing inventory data
geographically located and an automated logging technique to identify
the location of a crossing with a reported problem; (3) Encourage
updating of the National Crossing Inventory (a necessity for
identifying the exact location of a crossing with a posted crossing
number); and, (4) Evaluate the possibility of providing seed funding
for regional contract arrangements whereby smaller railroads would use
the services of a regional emergency notification and command center
for responding to calls and/or encouraging American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association participation in establishing such
regional emergency notification contract services.
When the 1-800 ENS system software is developed (in about one
year), it will be made available to States (tested by the State of
Texas first) and railroads at no cost. Additionally, the Federal
Highway Administration has approved State use of Surface Transportation
Program Funds from the safety set-aside portion of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Act (Section 130) for the required signage. Full
implementation will take approximately two years.
risk assessment approach to r&d
Question. The Transportation Research Board Committee for Review of
the FRA R&D Program has recommended that FRA use a risk assessment
approach to identifying the most serious hazards in the railroad system
in order to establish priorities for R&D. What is the FRA response to
that recommendation? Are any funds allocated for that purpose in the
fiscal year 2000 budget? How much would such research cost?
Answer. FRA agrees with the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Committee's recommendations. In fact, FRA's R&D has, for many years,
been informally using such an approach, with the involvement of the
Office of Safety, in establishing R&D priorities. The TRB recommends
that FRA perform an explicit risk assessment. No funds were allocated
for that purpose in the fiscal year 2000 budget because the TRB
Committee made its recommendation after the fiscal year 2000 budget had
been finalized. The level of funding needed would be determined by the
number and type of projects deemed appropriate.
fiscal year 2000 r&d program--impact on high risk areas
Question. How is the R&D program now related to risk? How is the
fiscal year 2000 budget request for R&D related to risk?
Answer. At the request of the TRB committee, FRA conducted an
analysis of all the projects in its R&D program. The analysis examined
how each project would address the following: employee injuries and
fatalities, passenger injuries and fatalities, injuries and fatalities
to the general public, derailments and collisions, and hazardous
material releases. The analysis also examined how each project would
assist in the development of the following: traditional FRA rulemakings
as well as rulemakings through the RSAC process, industry standards,
and industry best practices. Finally, each project was evaluated
regarding its likelihood of technical success, likelihood of being
completed on schedule, and likelihood of implementation. This analysis
reflected a documented process that has always been performed
informally by the FRA's R&D Office.
By having carried out this analysis, by participating actively in
the RSAC process, and by working closely with the Office of Safety, FRA
believes that its current R&D program and related fiscal year 2000
budget request clearly address high-risk issues in the nine technical
areas that comprise the program: human factors, rolling stock and
components, track and structures, track-train interaction, train
control, grade crossings, hazardous materials, train occupant
protection, and system safety.
r&d--performance based regulatory process
Question. The Committee for Review of the FRA R&D Program has
recommended that FRA support research on how to manage an evolution of
the regulatory process from a standards-based system to a performance-
based system. What is the FRA response to that recommendation? Are any
funds allocated for that purpose in the fiscal year 2000 budget? How
much would such research cost?
Answer. FRA agrees with the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Committee's recommendation. No funds are explicitly allocated for such
work in the fiscal year 2000 budget request because the TRB Committee
made its recommendation after the fiscal year 2000 budget had been
finalized. The level of funding needed would be determined by the
number and type of projects deemed appropriate.
r&d staffing
Question. Last year, FRA requested the authority to hire a
communications specialist. That position was not approved. Is that
position still needed? Is the communications specialist position
included within the new positions requested for fiscal year 2000? Have
you hired the additional track specialist that was approved? If not,
why?
Answer. The track specialist was hired and came on board April 12.
The communications specialist position is not included in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request. The position is not needed at this time.
new research projects and rulemaking
Question. Please address how each of the new proposed research
projects is tied into future rulemakings that FRA is likely to
undertake.
Answer. FRA is requesting a total of $2.082 million in new research
funding in fiscal year 2000. Of this amount, $1.582 million is for
equipment, operations and hazmat research. Funding supports five new
projects; Wayside Inspection; ECP Brake Systems; Ergonomics; Teaming of
Operating Personnel; and High-Speed Rail Simulator.
The ECP Brake Systems project may lead to performance-based
specifications for new electronic air brake systems. While the
remaining projects do not support any rulemakings directly, they do
support critical safety issues that may lead to future rulemakings in
worker safety and high-speed rail operations.
The remaining $500 thousand, which is requested under Track
Research will support the evaluation of new sensor technologies, for
the detection of train and vehicle presence in crossings, and the
development of a prototype system for the non-destructive ultrasonic
inspection of catenary wire. While both of these activities do not
directly relate to any immediate rulemaking activity, they provide a
potential for significant safety improvements.
trb participation in fra's r&d program
Question. What is the funding status and outlook for continued
support of the TRB review of the R&D program? Will you continue that
activity after designated funds are expended? Please address those same
issues with respect to the TRB review of the next generation program.
Are funds budgeted for continued support of the TRB review within the
fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. FRA agrees that it is desirable to use performance-based
regulations wherever possible. It is often the case that the state of
the art does not permit anyone to devise effective performance
standards for particular issues. For the foreseeable future, it will be
possible to devise performance standards for some, but not all, matters
covered in any particular rulemaking. Almost all FRA safety rulemakings
are now conducted through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC), through which any participant can propose a performance
standard. Railroads, for example, are eager to use performance
standards wherever possible and may be counted upon to recommend a
performance standard every time they perceive one to be possible, but
often no one knows how to frame a performance standard to address a
particular issue.
R&D can be most useful in trying to develop performance standards
on issues anticipated in rulemakings FRA plans to pursue within the
next few years. That is the fastest and most workable way to expand the
use of performance standards in railroad safety rules.
No additional funds are explicitly identified for such work in the
fiscal year 2000 budget request because the recommendation from the
Transportation Research Board committee was made after the fiscal year
2000 budget request was in final form. The level of funding needed
would be determined by the number and type of projects deemed
appropriate.
fra's five-year r&d plan
Question. Has the five-year research and development plan requested
by the [Senate Appropriations] Committee been released? If not, please
explain why. Does the plan need to be updated now? Has the plan been of
benefit to FRA?
Answer. FRA's five-year R&D plan has not been released. The first
draft, which was distributed informally for comment, was retracted due
to the time lapse in the review process. FRA's current five-year R&D
plan should be completed by late summer. Once the plan is released, it
will be updated every two years.
r&d contracts with volpe
Question. Please list all FRA research and development program
contracts with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center that
were signed in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, including a short summary of
each specific contracted project, and the associated amount.
Answer. The information follows for each Project Plan Agreement.
rr--19 track systems research
The Track Systems Research Program focuses on the risk of
derailment induced by track defects. Research results enable track
engineers to base inspection and maintenance resources on actual track
performance. Specific tasks are based on accident statistics, track
maintenance costs, and engineering expectations of potential problems.
The results of this research have been incorporated in the risk
management strategies of railroads throughout the United States, and
are being applied by the FRA in the development of revisions to current
track safety standards. Analysis tools and studies, conducted under
this program, have provided the FRA with data for use in evaluation of
waiver requests and monitoring performance under waivers issued.
Research activities under this program include:
--Rail Integrity
--Track Structural Mechanics
--Track Inspection Tools
--Vehicle Track Interaction
--Train Control Device Safety
--Risk Assessment and Management Strategies
--Special Projects related to Track Systems Safety
FUNDING: Fiscal year 1998--$1,917,000; Fiscal year 1999--
$1,300,000.
rr--28 rail equipment safety
The Rail Equipment Safety Program supports FRA's research in
railroad equipment, operating practices (including human factors), and
hazardous material transport. The research and engineering studies
provide the technology needed to reduce the likelihood of accidents
related to the design, operation, and maintenance practices of railroad
freight and passenger equipment. These results will be applied to
assess the risk of derailment induced by equipment and component
defects and operating practices, including human performance, to
minimize these risks.
Research activities under this program include:
--Structural Integrity of Tank Cars/Components
--Human Factors Influencing Operator and Crew Performance (Fiscal
Year 1998)
--Advanced Operation and Information Displays (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Train Make-Up, Handling, and Controls
--Rail Passenger Evacuation Safety
--Rail Equipment Collision Safety
--Rail Vehicle Dynamics
--Dedicated Train Study
--Advanced Risk Analysis
--Trailer/Container Securement
--Steam Locomotive Study
--Locomotive Fuel Tanks
FUNDING: Fiscal year 1998--$2,590,000; Fiscal year 1999--
$2,990,000.
rr--93 high-speed ground transportation safety
This project provides FRA with technical assessments of the safety
implications of implementing advanced high-speed ground transportation
systems proposed for construction in the United States.
Research activities under this HSGT program include:
--Advanced Train Control and Automation Safety
--Risk Assessments and System Safety Analyses
--Human Factors and Automation (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Right-of-Way Structures (Guideway Integrity; Platform Safety)
--Equipment Safety (Crashworthiness; Interior Safety; Glazing)
--Vehicle/Track Interaction (Track Safety Standards)
--Emergency Preparedness (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Fire Safety
--Noise Identification and Mitigation
--EMI/EMC and Electrical Safety
--Electromagnetic Fields and Maglev Environmental and Health Safety
Issues
FUNDING: Fiscal Year 1998--$2,650,000; Fiscal Year 1999--
$2,560,000.
rr--97 highway-rail grade crossing safety
The Volpe Center is supporting FRA's highway-rail grade crossing
safety research program. This research includes innovative warning
signs, more reliable active signal systems, techniques to increase the
conspicuity of trains, improved acoustic warning systems, and
technologies applicable to the needs of high-speed rail passenger
service. Other initiatives include enforcement and education activities
as well as a greater emphasis on the human response to grade crossing
warning device applications. Accident statistics, analysis, and
research reviews are also included. On-going demonstration projects are
being evaluated. Corridor risk assessments are included. Funding comes
from both the R&D program and the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
program.
Research activities under this program being conducted at the Volpe
Center include:
--Grade Crossing Statistics Analysis
--Causal Analysis of Crossing Accidents (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Grade Crossing Demonstration Projects
--High-Speed Corridor Risk Assessment
--Illumination Guidelines
--Locomotive Conspicuity
--Freight Car Reflectorization
--Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Wayside Horn Systems
--Driver Behavior (Fiscal Year 1998)
--Driver Education Programs
--Photo Enforcement
--Obstacle and Intrusion Detection
--Vehicle Proximity Alerting System
FUNDING: Fiscal year 1998--$1,475,000; Fiscal Year 1999--$770,000.
rr--03 next generation high-speed rail support
This work is funded under the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
budget rather than the Research and Development budget and provides
support to the FRA's Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The
purpose of this effort is to enhance the deployment of high-speed
passenger rail, particularly on existing infrastructure, by improving,
adapting and demonstrating innovative and cost-effective technologies
which have wide application in U.S. corridors.
The Volpe Center provides technical support to the FRA in assessing
candidate technologies and procedures to determine the likely impact on
rail operations, including safety, performance, reliability and
economic viability.
Research activities conducted under this program include:
--High-Speed Positive Train Control
--High Performance Non-Electric Locomotive Development
--Innovative Technologies for Track and Structural Improvements
--Railroad Test Track Upgrade
FUNDING: Fiscal year 1998--$502,000; Fiscal Year 1999--$400,000.
rr-04 human factors support to the fra
This effort includes investigating how human performance
contributes to operator health and safety in railroad operations,
identifying methods for reducing accidents, and improving working
conditions.
This is a new activity in fiscal year 1999 and includes activities
previously included under RR-28, RR-93, and RR-97.
Research activities under this program include:
--Automation, Information Management and Control
--Locomotive Cab Ergonomics
--Train Crew Fatigue and Napping
--Operating Rules
--Design and Evaluation of Acoustic Warning Devices
--Causal Analysis of Accidents
--Evaluation of Driver Behavior
FUNDING: Fiscal year 1999--$1,403,000.
r&d program & safety support
Question. The United Transportation Union has suggested a goal of
spending 20 percent of FRA's total R&D program funding for
comprehensive safety training, peer group education, and better
uniformity and understanding of railroad operating and safety rules and
federal regulations. Does your fiscal year 2000 budget request reach
this goal? What percentage is directed toward these activities?
Answer. FRA's fiscal year 2000 request for R&D supports all of
these goals. In fact, 98 percent of the R&D budget is safety-related.
Activities include studies, analyses, evaluations, simulations, tests,
and demonstrations which are directly related to high risk safety
issues. The R&D program already considers funds for safety training,
peer group education, and better uniformity and understanding of
railroad operating and safety rules and federal regulations to the
extent that such efforts would reduce safety risks within the railroad
industry.
rail passenger equipment testing
Question. In fiscal year 1999, the appropriations conferees
provided $2,000,000 for full-scale crash testing of rail passenger
equipment. Has a contract for this research project been negotiated?
What is the anticipated schedule for implementing this project? What
funding, if any, is requested in fiscal year 2000 for this project?
What follow-on costs will be required to complete the project?
Answer. A contract is being negotiated with the Transportation
Technology Center, Inc. of Pueblo, Colorado to conduct the full-scale
crash test. It should be awarded within a month. A separate contract is
being negotiated with Simula Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona to provide the
instrumented crash dummies for testing passenger seats. A single-car
test and a two-car impact test are currently scheduled to be conducted
between July and September of this year. Of the $1,800,000 requested in
fiscal year 2000 for continued research in occupant protection, most
will be used to conduct a follow-on train-to-train in-line impact test
of multiple passenger cars. Evaluation of oblique collisions of
conventional equipment will be followed in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
r&d human factors program
Question. Please provide an update of the progress that has been
made in the human factors program since last year. How much of the
fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 allocated funds have been spent, and
for which purposes?
Answer. Following is a summary of the progress on projects during
fiscal year 1998, project objectives, and funding for FYs 1997 and 1998
and 1999. New phases or extensions of on-going research are identified
where applicable.
Train Operations
1. A study design for Engineer Napping Strategies is expected to be
finalized in June 1999. In fiscal year 1998, a system safety check of
the Research And Locomotive Evaluator Simulator identified several
safety issues which delayed the pilot test. The pilot test will result
in refinements to the test and analysis approaches and the results will
be incorporated in the next test phase. The primary purpose of this
research is to determine to what extent and what types of on-duty
napping can improve locomotive engineer performance and safety.
Realistic guidelines can then be developed for the implementation of
strategic napping policies in the industry.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $370,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 400,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 150,000
2. A preliminary catalogue of Vigilance Monitoring devices,
suitable to non-obtrusively measure alertness in on-duty locomotive
engineers, was completed in January 1999. Suitable devices will be used
in simulated and revenue operations to gather data and test their
usefulness in the railroad operating environment. The purpose of these
tests is to provide information on the validity and reliability of such
devices, for the use of railroads which may wish to use this technology
to manage employee fatigue.
Fiscal year 1997........................................................
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. $300,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 300,000
3. Pilot tests of data collection and analysis methodologies for
Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue were completed during 1998, and
full-scale tests in freight and passenger operations were begun in
early 1999. Methods of measuring workload, stress and fatigue
(alertness) in a uniform manner and thresholds for safe performance are
to be established.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $225,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 225,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 200,000
4. New technology in the form of communications and computerization
is changing the way that railroads operate. Previously, the effects of
new technology, such as automation and information-mediated fatigue on
locomotive engineer vigilance (High-Speed Operator Stress and Fatigue),
was only considered in high-speed operations. Several studies specific
to high-speed operations have recently been completed at the Volpe
Center and final reports are in review. These studies evaluated
situational awareness and the monitoring of equipment failures under
three operational conditions: manual control, cruise control, and full
automation, and examined the role of preview displays in operator
workload and performance. The project focus has now been expanded to
include all railroad operations because of the rapid introduction of
technology throughout the industry, and the project has been renamed
Information Management and Control in Railroad Operations. The project
will determine the safety implications of increased information flow
and new technology for information management in normal and high-speed
operations for locomotive engineers and dispatchers.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $100,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 200,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 200,000
5. The final report on Dispatcher Training Evaluation was published
in 1998, and a workshop on the findings of the report was held in
Chicago in October, 1998. Workshop participants expressed a need for
information concerning the selection of personnel for dispatcher
training, and this issue will be addressed in subsequent work under
this project.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $100,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 57,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 200,000
6. The Advanced Display Interface project develops innovative
information displays to improve information management by locomotive
engineers, dispatchers and traffic managers. Virtual reality displays
and associated software were developed and completed in January 1998. A
video demonstration of the displays was completed in September 1998.
Future work will document the software and explore a test site in which
to demonstrate the applicability of the display to revenue service.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $200,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 200,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 78,000
7. A new initiative, Evaluation of Human Factors Safety Issues in
Digital Communications, was begun in fiscal year 1999. This multi-year
project will examine the human factors implications of using digital
communications between locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Currently,
such communications are by voice which has proven to be less efficient
and precise than digital communications. Transition from voice to
digital communications will change the task of the locomotive engineer,
therefore the human factors effects of this transition need to be
evaluated.
Fiscal year 1997........................................................
Fiscal year 1998........................................................
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. $100,000
8. A new initiative, Post-Accident Stress in Locomotive Engineers,
began in fiscal year 1999. In its first phase, this project will
determine the descriptive epidemiology (incidence and prevalence) of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in locomotive engineers resulting
from on-duty crashes. PTSD is debilitating and may compromise safety,
so the magnitude of the problem is important to determine future
resource allocation. The second phase will develop a model treatment
intervention for locomotive engineers immediately following crashes
that result in traumatic injuries or loss of life.
Fiscal year 1997........................................................
Fiscal year 1998........................................................
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. $100,000
9. Operating rules form the basis of safe operations in the
railroad industry. Previous work on the Operating Rules Evaluation
project has focused on the influence of railroad corporate culture on
compliance with operating rules. A final report on this study is
currently being prepared for publication. All safety procedures,
including operating rules continuously expand and increase in numbers
to avoid past accidents and incidents. These additions to the rule
books become increasingly restrictive over time and reduce the range of
permitted actions to far less then what is necessary to complete a job
under normal conditions. As a result, compliance with rules decreases,
and the rules no longer function to promote safety. A major railroad
has requested assistance to consolidate all their safety rule books
currently in use (8) into a single book. The consolidation should
enhance safety and provide a model for other railroads. This work was
begun in fiscal year 1999 and is expected to continue into fiscal year
2000.
Fiscal year 1997........................................................
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. $50,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 50,000
10. The Non-Accident Hazmat Releases: Training Issues project was
recently completed, and a final report on the project is under review.
The project examined training materials for employees who load (and
unload) hazardous materials onto rail cars to determine if the reading
level of the training materials was appropriate for the educational and
reading level of the employees.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. ( \1\ )
Fiscal year 1998........................................................
Fiscal year 1999........................................................
\1\ Funded in fiscal year 1996.
Yard and Terminal
A report on Phase 1 of the multi-phase Yard and Terminal Safety
study entitled ``Railroad Worker Safety in Yards and Terminals: An
Evaluation of Existing Data Resources and Proposed Methods for Further
Study'' was finished in the Spring of 1997. Based on that report, Phase
2 has been using the information sources and evaluation techniques
identified in Phase 1 to characterize the practices and conditions that
contribute to yard and terminal injuries. Phase 2 is expected to be
completed in fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $150,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 150,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 150,000
Grade Crossings
Several projects have been completed, and reports have been
published, under the overall heading of Grade Crossing Safety; in the
review or revision stage are--Recognition of Rail Car Marking Patterns;
recently published are--Evaluation of Wayside Horns and Railroad Horn
Systems Research; ongoing or recently initiated are--Optimal Acoustic
Warning Systems, Driver Behavior, Accident Causation Analysis, and a
review of Driver Education Programs.
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $385,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 435,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 435,000
fiscal year 2000 funding for human factors research
Question. What human factors initiatives are supported in the
fiscal year 2000 budget request? What new initiatives are supported by
the $1,200,000 requested increase? Which of these initiatives are
fatigue-related?
Answer. The Human Factors program includes continued work in stress
& fatigue (on-duty napping, dispatcher fatigue, yard and terminal
operator fatigue, high-speed operations), yard and terminal safety, and
digital communications.
There are several new Human Factors initiatives in the fiscal year
2000 budget request, including: evaluation of ergonomic injuries in
yards and terminals, evaluation of advanced displays (ergonomics),
evaluation of Maintenance of Way (MOW) safety issues (fatigue and
ergonomics), teaming of operating personnel, and evaluation of Amtrak's
high-speed rail simulator for possible use as a research simulator.
These initiatives were highlighted on pages 88 and 89 of FRA's budget
justification.
The only new fatigue-related initiative in the fiscal year 2000
budget is research on Maintenance of Way safety issues, which includes
fatigue as a focus. Evaluation of a high-speed simulator for research
use may lead to future use of the simulator for evaluating fatigue
issues related to high-speed operations.
r&d fatigue countermeasures programs
Question. What is FRA doing either to monitor or evaluate working
schedule pilot programs or other fatigue countermeasures now being
implemented by various railroads? Is any work planned in this area for
fiscal year 2000? Are any fiscal year 2000 funds requested for such
evaluation? How is FRA's fatigue research coordinated with these
private sector activities?
Answer. As a member of the North American Rail Alertness
Partnership (NARAP), FRA's Office of Research and Development actively
monitors and evaluates the pilot programs and fatigue countermeasures
currently being implemented by various railroads. For example, each of
the member railroads presented a summary of their fatigue management
plans during the February 1999 NARAP meeting. Various aspects of the
pilot projects are then discussed during the Research and Development
Committee meetings. The Office of Safety and other industry contacts
keep the Office of Research and Development informed about on-going
fatigue initiatives in the industry. The Office of Research and
Development evaluates the details of these proposals and then provides
an opinion regarding the safety of their implementation. The FRA is
sponsoring a NARAP workshop on Program Evaluation during the next NARAP
meeting in May 1999. This workshop will provide basic evaluation skills
to those industry representatives responsible for their railroad's
Fatigue Management Program as well as reference materials for future
use. The goal is to help the industry develop more effective evaluation
programs for pilot fatigue programs currently being implemented.
The FRA will continue its study on the Effects of On-Duty Napping
on Locomotive Engineer Performance in fiscal year 2000. Results of this
study will help the FRA evaluate the variety of napping strategies
currently being implemented in the railroad industry. It will also help
the FRA develop better napping policy guidelines. Discussions are also
underway to assist a major carrier with the evaluation of their Fatigue
Management program during fiscal year 2000. Through the Non-Operating
Subcommittee of NARAP, the FRA will help the industry identify
potential fatigue and work schedule issues of non-operating employees,
and then help them develop an implementation and evaluation program
aimed at non-operating employees. In fiscal year 2000, a new initiative
in ergonomics includes a project on MOW safety and will include
fatigue-related evaluation projects. A total of $650 thousand is
included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for these projects.
FRA's fatigue research is coordinated with the private sector
activities mainly through NARAP. The FRA R&D Office distributed its
draft protocol on the locomotive engineer napping study to all NARAP
member railroads for comment and feedback. The FRA has also offered to
hold a one-day facilitated workshop on fatigue research needs in the
railroad industry. Once specific fatigue and work schedule issues have
been clearly identified through the Non-operating Subcommittee of
NARAP, the FRA plans to conduct a demonstration project on a particular
aspect of the findings from those efforts. Other collaborative efforts
for evaluating fatigue programs in the railroad industry will also be
explored.
status of advanced braking systems evaluation
Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the
``Advanced Braking Systems Evaluation.'' What is your five-year plan
with regard to testing and evaluating that technology? How much has
been spent on this effort for each of the last three years and how much
is proposed for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FRA worked co-operatively with industry in the development
of industry performance and interchange requirements for an advanced
electronically-controlled pneumatic braking system (ECP). Those
requirements include performance specifications, communications
specifications, connector specifications, and locomotive specifications
for the cable-based ECP system. ECP braking systems provide improved
braking response and performance, faster brake application and release,
graduated release, and continuous monitoring of brake system status.
FRA supported the safety-related work inherent in the development of
those specifications including safety-oriented laboratory tests and in-
train tests at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC), testing
advanced braking systems in a number of unit train applications, and
revenue service tests. Those trainsets use the hard-wired power source
(as opposed to local battery/generator on each freight car) and a hard
wire for signal transmission. The safety of those trainsets is being
closely monitored, with failures of individual components being
recorded. In fiscal year 1999, the final Failure Modes and Effects
Criticality Analysis (FMECA) of the cable-based ECP freight train
braking system will be completed. The FMECA is a systematic method used
to anticipate failure modes, design and development problems, as well
as provide a pro-active problem-solving approach to identify design
process pitfalls. The specifications for cable-based ECP brakes have
been adopted and the remaining related specifications are under
development through AAR and railroad leadership and are scheduled to be
completed in 1999. To extend the use of Advanced Braking Systems to
non-unit train cars, that is, the general service car, FRA is
sponsoring the development of automatic couplers with built-in air and
electric lines and added mechanical safety features. This will
facilitate coupling of cars and enhance crew safety. This project is in
its early stage and will continue over several years.
FRA's five year plan includes interoperability testing as ECP
systems from final stages of development to final specifications,
implementation, and monitoring of ECP technology into the car fleet.
Beyond fiscal year 1999, the safety record will be monitored and
additional control and surveillance functions will be proposed for
addition to the total ECP system. As with all new technologies, new
variants appear on the scene. Radio-based signal transmission means
have been proposed by new entrants. A safety assessment of those new
technologies will be required as with the hard-wired systems. In fiscal
year 2000, additional funding is requested to initiate a review of the
hardware and software reliability. Regardless of the communications
medium, hard-wired or radio-based, ECP brakes require extremely
reliable hardware and software since they will control safety critical
braking system and potentially interface with future Positive Train
Control and on-board sensor systems. New research initiatives will
focus on additional on-board condition monitoring systems to be
incorporated with ECP brake technology. The on-board condition
monitoring will continuously monitor the condition of equipment and
components and provide early detection of possible failures. An
advanced user-friendly handbrake will also be developed to operate in
conjunction with ECP brakes. The advanced handbrake will promote safe
and easy braking operations.
Funding for the last three years and the fiscal year 2000 request
is as follows:
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $150,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 250,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 275,000
Fiscal year 2000 (request).................................... 425,000
status of wayside equipment inspection detection program
Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the
Wayside Equipment Inspection Detection Program. What is your strategic
plan for the next five years in this area? How much has been spent on
these efforts for each of the last three years and how much is proposed
for fiscal year 2000? Why is a proposed increase in the level of
support for this program necessary in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FRA has supported and developed a number of measurement
system methodologies to establish car and train stability, equipment
performance or lack thereof, and the means to record and transmit data
for appropriate use. These include wheelset angle-of attack, lateral/
vertical loads, bearing temperatures, and wheel temperatures. Recently,
FRA has funded research to measure wheel residual stress, an all-
important determinant of wheel structural integrity, using an
electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) system. Another project is
to develop an acoustic detector for identifying potentially unsafe
bearings. Phase I laboratory investigations and Phase II field
investigations of acoustic bearing defect detection system have been
successfully completed. Those tests determined that proposed acoustic
systems may be utilized in a simulated revenue service operation to
identify typical bearing defects. A Phase III test is proposed to
evaluate the performance of prototype bearing defect inspection/
detection systems and identify potential improvements in preliminary
wayside acoustic detection systems to enhance system performance with
regards to reliability and repeatability. Inspection strategies for
freight cars based solely on visual inspections have limitations.
Periodic required inspection and maintenance is expensive. Condition-
based inspection and subsequent maintenance and repair may improve the
use of resources. Plans have been made to establish a full-scale
wayside inspection station demonstration in cooperation with a railroad
to demonstrate various types of wayside detectors. The wayside
inspection station will detect defective and malfunctioning equipment
and dispatch the vital information to train operators and/or databases
for use in mitigating accidents and optimizing maintenance procedures.
In time, it should be possible to establish a network of stations
geographically positioned for full coverage thereby giving the railroad
the ability to monitor its fleet for condition.
Funding is as follows:
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $300,000
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 300,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 300,000
Fiscal year 2000 (request).................................... 532,000
The requested increase, in fiscal year 2000, is needed to conduct
critical safety evaluations of the components and entire wayside
inspection system, especially for the automation of data collection and
retrieval and high-speed thermal imaging systems.
volpe's support in grade crossing activities
Question. It has come to the Committee's attention that FRA has
contracted with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to
prepare a research plan on the safety of highway-railroad grade
crossings. When was this contract awarded? What funding source was
used, and how much is the contract? Is any funding requested for this
contract in fiscal year 2000? This research plan appears to be
duplicative of Operation Lifesaver efforts. In the research plan, it is
stated that, ``The Volpe Center will take the lead, working along with
participants in the workshops, to develop materials and programs for
use to improve the safety of the public through education and
training.'' Operation Lifesaver has a 6-year contract, through TEA-21,
to develop these materials and programs. Does it make sense that the
Volpe Center would take the lead on crossing safety education and
training nationally?
Answer. FRA and the Volpe Center have had Project Plan Agreements
(PPA) for Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Research for a number
of years. The program areas covered under the PPA include core
knowledge; project evaluation; whole corridor; ITS/PTC; passive
crossings; improved components; and driver factors.
For fiscal year 1999, a total of $545,000 includes $215,000 from
the Equipment, Operations and Hazardous Materials activity and $330,000
from the Safety of High-Speed Ground Transportation activity.
Equivalent funding is requested in fiscal year 2000.
FRA does not believe that the PPA research plan is duplicative of
Operation Lifesaver efforts. One of the initiatives identified in the
Department of Transportation's 1994 Action Plan for Rail-Highway Grade
Crossing Safety was the need for an intermodal Research Needs Workshop.
In April, 1995 the Volpe Center, as part of its support program to the
FRA, hosted and conducted the Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Safety
Research Needs Workshop and any of the research projects under this PPA
are a direct result of this Workshop. Key members of the Operation
Lifesaver team participated in the Research Needs Conference in 1995,
including Cliff Shoemaker of the UP Railroad and Secretary/Treasurer of
the Operation Lifesaver Board of Directors, Tom Simpson, Vice-President
of RPI and a Board Member of Operation Lifesaver, and Ms. Ernie
Oliphant, currently Arizona's Operation Lifesaver State Coordinator.
One of the top five research priorities identified at the Research
Needs Workshop was Driver Education. Specific research topics which
were identified included:
--Determining Target Audiences;
--Survey of Current and Completed Research (regarding public
education);
--Survey of Existing Programs;
--Funding Sources;
--Operation Lifesaver Program Evaluation;
--Driver Education Evaluation;
--Crossing Safety Media Evaluation;
--Trespassing Media Evaluation;
--Sensitivity of Education to Age and Approach; and
--High Speed Rail.
The Volpe Center convened another workshop in San Antonio in March,
1999 to follow-up on these identified needs, to determine if they were
still current, and to structure a coordinated research program with as
many stakeholders as could be identified. Operation Lifesaver was well
represented and will be involved as decisions are made for specific
research projects. In the Volpe proposed research plan for the Driver
Education research area, prepared for discussion at the Panel of
Experts Workshop, Volpe proposed that ``The Volpe Center will take the
lead, working along with the participants in the workshops, to develop
materials and programs for use to improve the safety of the public
through education and training.'' The proposed research plan included
this statement to elicit comments from stakeholders on whether there
were material and program development areas requiring Volpe Center
leadership.
It is not FRA's intent for the Volpe Center to take the lead on
crossing safety education and training nationally unless the various
stakeholders in the project, including Operation Lifesaver, American
Automobile Association, Driving School Association of the Americas,
American Bus Association, National Association of State Directors of
Pupil Transportation Services, National Association for Pupil
Transportation, and the Transportation Safety Institute indicate that
there is a need for the Volpe Center to do so in particular areas. The
primary focus of FRA's Driver Education project's being carried out at
the Volpe Center is on surveying the various existing driver education
programs and research, determining target audiences and sources of
funding for driver education programs, and determining the
effectiveness of driver education programs for grade crossing safety.
The results will be available to all stakeholders for their use.
fhwa section 130 safety funds
Question. Please confer with the Federal Highway Administration,
and report on available section 130 surface transportation program
safety funds, on a state-by-state basis, for fiscal years 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000 and 2001. Please indicate unobligated balances for each
state's total available section 130 funds.
Answer. Data in the following table has been taken from FHWA
Appropriation Tables for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 and a listing
provided by FHWA's Fiscal Division on unobligated balances. FHWA
advises that similar data for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 are not yet
available, however, since ISTEA, the law requires that States will
continue to fund the Section 130 program at levels identical to 1991.
It is not expected that the appropriation amounts will change
materially during the course of TEA-21. Notes: Figures are dollars
stated in millions. Columns may not total properly due to rounding.
Unobligated figures are Section 130 balances as of year-end for fiscal
years 1997 and 1998 and as of March 31 for fiscal year 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999
State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Unobligated Appropriated Unobligated Appropriated Unobligated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ 3.22 .86 3.22 2.47 3.22 5.428
Alaska......................... 2.439 4.795 2.439 6.878 2.439 8.462
Arizona........................ 1.576 3.908 1.576 5.096 1.576 5.466
Arkansas....................... 2.457 1.339 2.457 3.482 2.457 4.185
California..................... 10.183 ........... 10.183 3.45 10.183 5.678
Colorado....................... 2.203 1.468 2.203 1.253 2.203 3.482
Connecticut.................... 1.048 .678 1.048 .822 1.048 .979
Delaware....................... .505 .314 .505 .86 .505 1.223
District of Columbia........... .211 .421 .211 .632 .211 .843
Florida........................ 4.687 4.2 4.687 5.574 4.687 8.33
Georgia........................ 4.696 6.803 4.696 8.19 4.696 11.037
Hawaii......................... .392 .392 .392 .784 .392 .784
Idaho.......................... 1.429 ........... 1.429 .943 1.429 1.968
Illinois....................... 7.926 3.124 7.926 8.093 7.926 12.82
Indiana........................ 4.962 6.408 4.962 6.81 4.962 7.805
Iowa........................... 3.796 1.906 3.796 4.176 3.796 3.688
Kansas......................... 3.287 .101 4.871 1.754 4.871 .953
Kentucky....................... 2.535 5.806 2.535 4.031 2.535 5.462
Louisiana...................... 3.176 2.662 3.176 1.845 3.176 2.293
Maine.......................... .938 2.156 .938 2.381 .938 3.339
Maryland....................... 1.427 2.384 1.427 2.539 1.427 4.369
Massachusetts.................. 2.011 .215 2.011 2.784 2.011 4.795
Michigan....................... 5.352 2.851 5.352 3.894 5.352 8.168
Minnesota...................... 4.042 4.275 4.042 5.482 4.042 7.962
Mississippi.................... 2.24 .502 2.24 1.352 2.24 3.237
Missouri....................... 3.998 .242 3.998 1.248 3.998 .168
Montana........................ 1.613 2.27 1.613 3.233 1.613 4.572
Nebraska....................... 2.661 3.624 2.661 5.101 2.661 7.731
Nevada......................... .784 .818 .784 .211 .784 .85
New Hampshire.................. .613 .351 .613 .242 .613 .839
New Jersey..................... 2.691 .437 2.691 2.453 2.691 4.829
New Mexico..................... 1.206 .998 1.206 1.199 1.206 1.437
New York....................... 6.02 1.524 6.02 3.623 6.02 3.656
North Carolina................. 3.981 1.085 3.981 5.277 3.981 9.86
North Dakota................... 2.809 1.125 2.243 .507 2.647 2.437
Ohio........................... 6.302 2.305 6.302 1.098 6.302 3.952
Oklahoma....................... 3.301 .317 3.301 .241 3.301 1.837
Oregon......................... 2.194 5.508 2.194 6.127 2.194 7.465
Pennsylvania................... 5.118 .076 5.804 1.701 5.804 5.936
Rhode Island................... .445 .5 .445 .945 .445 1.39
South Carolina................. 2.585 .418 2.585 2.097 2.585 4.41
South Dakota................... 1.655 2.694 1.655 3.292 1.655 3.706
Tennessee...................... 3.267 .992 3.267 2.954 3.267 2.305
Texas.......................... 10.906 2.29 10.906 11.225 10.906 11.235
Utah........................... 1.153 2.167 1.153 2.194 1.153 1.353
Vermont........................ .619 2.753 .619 2.841 .619 3.274
Virginia....................... 2.731 4.605 2.731 3.344 2.771 8.513
Washington..................... 2.717 4.838 2.717 6.267 2.717 8.823
West Virginia.................. 1.708 1.098 1.708 1.327 1.708 1.239
Wisconsin...................... 3.929 8.685 3.929 9.018 3.929 5.448
Wyoming........................ .912 .075 .912 .471 .912 .841
Puerto Rico.................... .74 ........... ............ .043 ............ ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... 153.40 109.36 154.36 163.85 154.77 230.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
use of section 402 funds for grade crossing initiatives
Question. To what extent can Section 402 funds be used to encourage
enforcement of traffic safety laws at highway-rail crossings,
especially those equipped with automatic warning devices and those
provided with ``STOP'' signs? Will innovative pilot programs designed
to increase enforcement be established in accordance with the NTSB
recommendations? If not, please explain why. Is the Department doing
anything to encourage the use of the Section 402 funds for those
activities?
Answer. Section 402 funds can be used, at the discretion of the
state, for a number of highway safety programs including enforcement of
traffic safety laws at highway-rail crossings. Following the
transmittal of NTSB's Safety Recommendations to the Department on
August 11, 1998, a ONE DOT working group was formed to focus anew on
issues of traffic safety at highway-rail crossings. Based on
recommendations from the ONE DOT group, the Department responded
affirmatively to NTSB and outlined its outreach to state and local law
enforcement agencies regarding their plans for programs that increase
enforcement of traffic laws at highway-rail crossings. Innovative pilot
programs could be developed from the ideas suggested by states. While
these ideas are being collected, FRA and NHTSA are actively working
together to encourage states to develop and support Safe Communities
programs that address highway-rail crossing enforcement and education
with their Section 402 funds.
fiscal years 1996-1999 use of 402 funds for grade crossing
Question. In the Department's 1994 Highway-Rail Crossing Safety
Action Plan, NHTSA and FHWA committed to advising states of the
potential use of Section 402 funds to promote targeted public
education, engineering and law enforcement strategies at highway-rail
crossings. Has there been an increase in the use of Section 402 funds
for such purposes? Please provide a table, by state and by year,
tracking the use of Section 402 funds for crossing safety improvements
since 1994.
Answer. As part of the Department's 1994 Rail-Highway Crossing
Safety Action Plan, NHTSA and FHWA issued joint guidance advising the
states that Section 402 funds may be used to address significant
highway-rail crossing problems. Examples of activities that could be
funded included crash analysis, public information and education
campaigns, law enforcement, crash investigation training, and traffic
engineering studies. This guidance was issued on November 4, 1994
(after the start of fiscal year 1995), for use in preparing Section 402
highway safety plans beginning with fiscal year 1996. The table below
shows the amount of Section 402 funding used for highway-rail crossing
safety activities, by state, for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year
1999. The table shows an increase from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year
1997, then a decline in fiscal year 1998, and an increase expected in
fiscal year 1999.
The Department is currently examining proposals to suggest to the
States using specific initiatives that have already shown safety
results based on Section 402 funding. The Department plans to emphasize
to states the safety potential for expanded use of Section 402 funds
for grade crossing safety-related initiatives.
STATE HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING SAFETY ACTIVITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402
-----------------------------------------------
State Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... $6,790 $7,500 .......... ..........
Arkansas........................................................ 5,000 5,000 .......... $6,000
California...................................................... .......... .......... $10,000 40,000
Delaware........................................................ 3,580 .......... .......... ..........
Georgia......................................................... 17,800 19,300 17,500 17,500
Indiana......................................................... 105,207 138,000 67,000 5,000
Kansas.......................................................... 17,200 10,000 10,000 10,000
Louisiana....................................................... 25,000 1,263 21,000 21,000
Missouri........................................................ 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Nebraska........................................................ 1,707 2,000 2,072 2,000
North Carolina.................................................. 28,000 33,000 33,000 33,000
Ohio............................................................ 15,000 35,000 .......... 300,000
Oklahoma........................................................ 11,000 .......... .......... ..........
Pennsylvania.................................................... 20,000 15,000 .......... ..........
South Carolina.................................................. .......... 7,598 .......... ..........
Utah............................................................ .......... 5,000 20,000 ..........
Virginia........................................................ .......... 60,000 40,000 50,000
West Virginia................................................... 6,472 .......... .......... 4,000
Wisconsin....................................................... .......... .......... .......... 30,000
Wyoming......................................................... .......... 3,000 .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 267,756 346,661 225,572 523,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 are planned amounts.
nhtsa and fra efforts in grade crossing safety
Question. NHTSA's Safe Communities initiative could be used as a
means to promote both highway-rail crossing safety and rail right-of-
way trespass prevention in community-level programs. Please discuss how
NHTSA and FRA are collaborating to promote such activities.
Answer. FRA is collaborating closely with NHTSA on the Safe
Communities initiative, as are all other Modal Administrations. In
communities with railroads, both crossing safety and trespass
prevention are among the topics for potential emphasis as Safe
Community programs are planned. Where FRA's Regional Managers have had
the resources to fully participate, productive efforts with some focus
on railroad related issues have evolved. Recent examples include
intermodal Safe Communities programs in Seattle, Washington and El
Paso, Texas. In both cities, highway-rail crossing safety and right-of-
way trespass prevention are high priority elements of the program.
Similarly, a project in Jonesboro, Arkansas has a full time director
funded by NHTSA through the State. FRA is a part of the Jonesboro
coalition which has achieved some success addressing crossing safety.
(There were no crossing deaths in Jonesboro during 1998.) Among other
Operation Lifesaver-type activities, the coalition arranged for the
initial installation of THINK signs at four crossings in Jonesboro.
Another Safe Community-related effort which the FRA promoted is on-
going in Houston, Texas and involves a coalition of Houston's many
railroads, the Houston Independent School District, Police Department,
Parent-Teacher's Association and the Texas DOT. This effort is
targeting trespass prevention and has the attention and participation
of the Mayor and other city officials. In addition, FRA recently
collaborated with NHTSA and FHWA to develop an Executive Intermodal
Seminar to Promote Safe Communities. FRA is assigning key personnel to
serve as seminar facilitators, to help foster sponsorship of Safe
Communities through the network of rail customers and partners.
grade crossing & other equipment & operations projects
Question. What is the status and findings of the following
projects:
--A crosscutting review or assessment of different high-speed rail
demonstration projects and the technologies being advanced in
these projects;
--Reasons drivers violate grade crossing devices and signs; and
--A crosscutting review of grade crossing technology?
Answer. The crosscutting review or assessment of different high-
speed rail demonstration projects and the technologies being advanced
in these projects is entitled ``Problem Definition: At-Grade Crossings
for High-Speed Rail Applications''. The draft final report was
published in June, 1994. The report outlines the existing situation of
the grade crossing problem in each of the designated corridors: the
number of public and private crossings; condition of the National
Inventory; a discussion of the crossing hazards; jurisdictional issues
in each state; operational considerations and Federal programs
available to fund improvements. The report also examined and described
the technologies then under development in high-speed corridors,
specifically the Connecticut 4-quadrant gate with obstruction
detection, the Illinois Vehicle Arrester Barrier (VAB), the Friendly
Mobile Barrier, In-Vehicle warning systems, passive systems, median
barriers and other barrier gate systems. Because the research projects
were underway, there were no conclusions of the effectiveness of these
devices available for inclusion in the study.
There are two projects in the Human Factors research program on
grade crossing safety which will determine the reasons why drivers
violate grade crossing devices and signs. The Accident Causation
project will be a comprehensive analysis of grade crossing accident
causation, based on statistical studies and observations of driver
behavior. FRA currently knows what happened in grade crossing
accidents, but does not know why the accidents occur. In addition to
the overall characteristics of the grade crossing as a system, driver
motivation and expectation may be critical factors, but accident
statistics do not reveal this information. The Evaluation of Driver
Behavior project will be conducted in coordination with the Accident
Causation project. The focus of the Driver Behavior project is to
determine how grade crossing safety systems can be made more effective
by addressing critical aspects of driver behavior, particularly
critical aspects identified in the Accident Causation project. Both of
these projects were started in fiscal year 1999, and research plans for
each project are under development at this time.
FRA assumes that the crosscutting review of grade crossing
technology refers to the compendium of the grade crossing research
conducted to date. Abstracts being prepared for each project will
discuss the goals and results of each project. The compendium will
present the spectrum of research conducted, its results, and synthesize
the results of our past research to help guide future research. It is
being assembled by the Volpe Center and is scheduled to be completed by
December, 1999.
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 track research funding
Question. How will the funds allocated for track research in fiscal
year 1999 be spent? Please explain the purpose of each project and the
amount funded. What are the comparable planned expenses in this area
for fiscal year 2000, and how is this reflected in the request?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, a total of $6.950 million was
appropriated for track research. The total funding requested, for track
research, in fiscal year 2000 is $7.450 million. The following table
shows how these funds are allocated by year and R&D program area.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------
Program activity/project 1999 2000
Enacted Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track & Components Safety--This program activity
assesses the structural integrity of the
existing track structure and its components in
light of the changing environment of higher
axle loads, traffic densities, and speeds and
the recent trends of introducing newer
unconventional vehicle types and newer track
materials. It includes research on more complex
track components, such as turnouts, in addition
to more commonly considered track components,
such as rail, crossties, and ballast. Emphasis
is given to failure modes and degradation
processes which most impact the safety of
track. A second major emphasis is directed at
improving track defect detection techniques and
other technologies related to inspection
equipment, with the goal of reducing train
accidents resulting from failures in the track
structure. Potential research products include
new techniques and equipment that could provide
accurate and reliable assessment of track
safety, or aid in the effective planning of
track maintenance as a preventive measure
against hazardous structural failure of track
or bridges. The new techniques could serve as
the basis for performance-based track safety
standards which do not inhibit innovation:
Material & Rail Inspection--Prevent and 1,450 1,600
improve the detection of material and
structural defects in track and its
components. Develop new methods for
reducing occurrence of fatigue cracks and
other failure modes in rail and for
improving inspection and monitoring
protocols. Assess the safety of new track
materials and components. Develop
technologies for detecting track hazards
such as broken, misaligned, obstructed, or
weakened rails ahead of a moving train.....
Track Strength--Deploy FRA track-testing 1,850 2,000
vehicle to assess performance-based method
of inspecting track gage strength along
mainline and shortline railroads. Develop
risk-assessment methods to prevent lateral
buckling of track due to thermal and
vehicle-induced stresses. Develop and
demonstrate methods for the detection and
prevention of weak vertical track support..
Bridge Safety--Develop non-destructive 500 200
evaluation techniques for safety inspection
of steel and timber railroad bridges.
Investigate the use of composite materials
in railroad bridge repair..................
Signal Systems Safety--Develop methods to 100 100
mitigate potential safety failures in
commonly used signal systems. Investigate
alternate technologies for train presence
detection..................................
Track--Train Interaction Safety--This research
area develops analytical tools,
instrumentation, and test data that can
accurately describe the interaction between the
rolling stock and the supporting track
structure. This interaction is not limited to
the instantaneous transfer of dynamic forces
from vehicle to track but extends to cover
cumulative effects on track degradation such as
wear and surface fatigue of railheads and
deterioration of track geometry. Some of the
safety-related issues which will greatly
benefit from progress in this research area
include the development of wheel and rail
profile standards for passenger and fright
operations, improved understanding and
prediction of the impact of higher-speed
passenger service on existing track, the
development of performance-based track geometry
and vehicle/track interaction standards, and
the development of guidelines for optimum
inspection and maintenance practices to enhance
track safety and durability:
Track Geometry--Assess vehicle performance 700 700
safety due to anomalies in track geometry
and overall track geometry degradation.
Assess vehicle/track interaction safety due
to commutative track panel shift...........
Wheel/Rail Interaction--Assess vehicle/track 900 950
interaction safety due to variations in
wheel to rail forces, wheel/rail profile
and contact conditions, as well as wheel
climb and other related derailment modes...
Special Trackwork--Assess vehicle/track 500 500
interaction safety in turnouts and other
special trackwork. Examine safety
performance of flange bearing frogs. Foster
the development of field retrofits to
reduce high forces generated in turnouts...
Electrification Safety--Foster the 150 100
development of a prototype non-destructive
inspection systems for catenary wire and
third rail installations...................
Heavy Axle Load Safety--Safety assessment of 300 300
vehicle/track interaction under heavy axle
loads......................................
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards-- 500 500
Provide research and other technical
services for the development and
implementation of performance-based vehicle/
track interaction, track geometry, and
track strength safety standards............
Grade Crossings & Train Control--The goal of
this research area is to evaluate critical and
interrelated areas of railroad signaling, train
control, and electrification technology that
are out pacing the content of existing Federal
standards and to develop inspection
technologies and safety practices to greatly
reduce the risk of train collisions and to
maintain the safety of electrified railroads:
Train Control--Foster the development and .......... 500
implementation of advanced but cost-
effective train control technologies to
reduce the risk of train collisions........
-----------------------
Total: Track and Vehicle Track 6,950 7,450
Interaction............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
impact of track research on rail industry
Question. How have the results of the research conducted during
fiscal year 1998 and 1999 help FRA and the rail industry?
Answer. Much has been gained from the track research and test
activities that were completed in fiscal year 1998. The most notable
accomplishments and their benefit to FRA and to the railroad industry
can be summarized as follows:
Track Safety Standards.--In 1998, work within a government-
industry-labor effort under the auspices of the Rail Safety Advisory
Committee, resulted in the issuance of revised track safety standards
for all present classes of track, as well as new standards for high-
speed tracks. This process was greatly influenced and guided by results
from research conducted in fiscal year 1998. One example was the
inclusion of performance-based standards for track gage strength based
on results from the R&D gage widening research and test program using
the Gage Restraint Measurement System (GRMS). As part of this research,
FRA examined track geometry inspection methods and standards used in
European countries, compared methods with those proposed for the U.S.
and reported comparisons to FRA's safety personnel.
Top-of-Rail Lubrication.--Completed in fiscal year 1998, a
cooperative revenue track test program with CSX to examine the safety
performance of a new top-of-rail lubrication system. Several
measurements of lateral forces on curves and mechanical and electrical
energy consumption were made, under dry and lubricated conditions, for
a unit coal train over a 200 mile round trip. The revenue tests were an
important follow up to earlier testing conducted at the Transportation
Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo to examine the safety and energy
reduction benefits under more controlled conditions. The system applies
a specially engineered water-based consumable lubricant behind the last
locomotive to reduce wheel/rail friction under the remainder of the
train. Both the railroad industry and the Department of Energy
participated with FRA in funding these tests. Results to date indicate
significant reductions in lateral forces and in energy consumption with
no impact on braking distances. Additional testing is planned to
examine other safety aspects of this lubrication technology such as
influence on vehicle hunting and operations on steep grades.
Track Buckling.--Developed a risk analysis module to be
incorporated into existing FRA's analytical tools for predicting risk
of track buckling due to thermal and mechanical forces. A technical
paper based on this work entitled, Assessment of Buckling Risk in
Continuous Welded Rail Tracks, was presented at an International
conference on ``Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management,'' that
was held in New York City, New York, in September 1998. Continued work
utilizing the results of R&D efforts to develop standards for the
installation and maintenance of Continuously Welded Rail as proposed in
the new track safety standards. Completed longitudinal rail restraint
tests on high curvature wood tie track, including winter rail break and
summer destress tests. The tests were performed to assess requirements
established by current continuously welded rail destressing policies
and procedures of major railroads.
Track Panel Shift.--Published a joint report with the AAR covering
TLV demonstration and fundamental tests of track panel shift. This work
showed the ability to perform controlled stationary, in-motion, and
repeated passing panel shifts. The effects of ballast and tie type,
consolidation, curvature, maintenance, and forces applied were
examined. A survey of North American Class I railroad slow orders was
also conducted.
Gage Restraint.--Provided technical support to the RSAC Working
Group in formulating regulations which made use of the Gage Restraint
Measurement System (GRMS). This new technology, has been developed
under FRA R&D for track inspection against wide gage derailments, has
been successfully demonstrated, and has gained wide industry
acceptance. Similar systems based on this FRA developed prototype have
been acquired by at least two major railroads and continue to be used
for locating areas of track with weak or unsafe gage restraint. FRA's
longer range GRMS testing continued on a range of railroad operations
including short lines and regional railroads to ensure that crosstie
replacements are being installed in areas of maximum risk for wide-gage
derailments from weak ties.
Heavy Axle Loads.--Completed a third phase of a cooperative program
with the industry to address the safety of heavy axle loads in which
FAST train operations have generated 100 MGT. Various research
publications were completed in the following areas: rail grinding, rail
fatigue, remedial methods to correct track substructure instability,
tie and fastener performance, vehicle/track interaction performance,
and thermite weld performance.
Rail Steel Integrity.--Work continued at the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center on analytical and test methods to support
delayed remedial action for non-critical defects as an alternative
testing strategy. Results from this work continue to provide valuable
input to a second waiver application to the Office of Safety from a
Class I railroad requesting modifications to existing FRA rules on rail
defect inspection. Began installation of rail specimens containing
known internal defects in the FAST heavy axle load track at TTC to
characterize crack growth rates for various defect shapes and sizes as
a function of accumulated tonnage and longitudinal mechanical and
thermal forces for input to analytical models. The knowledge gained
from this multi-year research project that have recently come to
fruition will now be employed in devising rail flaw inspection revisit
protocols and in generating test procedures for assessing rail
lubrication and grinding strategies and their influence on the growth
of fatigue-induced cracks in the rail head. Collaborated with the
railroad industry on completing the construction of a new rail defect
test facility at the TTC in which various rail samples, with known
internal defects, were installed for testing purposes. The facility has
been used to evaluate current inspection equipment and is currently
being used to comparatively test at least two new rail inspection
technologies.
Vehicle/Track Interaction.--Examined vehicle/track interaction and
track-geometry induced wheel/rail forces leading to derailments at both
low and high speeds; monitored field tests of commuter rail equipment
traversing switches and high curvature track and analyzed results to
provide baseline wheel/rail interaction data for the high-speed safety
investigation. This included Ridemeter tests over a three-day period to
gather data on Metro North Railroad passenger equipment operating at
cant deficiencies up to 6 inches on New York State's Empire corridor
between New York City and Poughkeepsie, NY.
Wheel Climb Derailments.--Published a joint report with the AAR
covering TLV tests and NUCARS simulations of wheel climbs. This work
showed the ability to perform controlled steady-state wheel climbs, and
to predict similar results using NUCARS. The effects of friction, axle
angle of attack, and wheel/rail contact angle were presented.
Wheel & Rail Profile Standards.--Initiated a cooperative research
and test program with APTA and with participation from the Canadian
National Research Council (CNRC) and the AAR to develop standards for
wheel and rail profiles in commuter and passenger rail operations to
reduce derailment risk and assure vehicle/track interaction safety.
Railroad Bridges.--Completed testing, analysis, and reporting for
many aspects of a cooperative bridge research program with the AAR.
Final reports on timber bridge research include: results of ultimate
strength testing of bridge stringers removed from revenue service,
results of heavy axle load traffic testing on two timber bridges prior
to strengthening, literature review on fatigue aspects of railroad
bridge timbers, results of tests on timber bridges strengthened using
helper stringers. Also completed is a preliminary report on post-
strengthening tests of three laminated timber bridges. Final reports on
steel bridge research include: results of HAL traffic testing and
fatigue evaluation of a steel truss bridge, and results of longitudinal
force tests on a bridge with AC locomotives. The longitudinal force
testing has resulted in a revision of the industry design guidelines.
It has also prompted further investigations into the effects of high-
adhesion locomotives on bridges. Field testing using acoustic emission
NDE techniques to determine crack growth rates in steel bridges has
been completed.
High-Speed Track at TTC.--Completed destressing of the RTT high-
speed test track in Pueblo, Colorado. The track was destressed again in
July due to concerns over neutral temperature of the rail measured
during installation of insulated joints for the rail break detection
system. The track has been consolidated with additional vehicle traffic
and will receive final surfacing/lining in September. Final adjustments
to catenary height and stagger have been performed. Work has also begun
on the development of maintenance, repair, and inspection procedures
for the RTT. A broken rail and switch indication system installation
for the RTT was also completed by Main Electric, and the system put
into operation by Harmon Industries.
Signals & Train Control.--Completed a cooperative screening test
program with industry to examine seven new systems for improving loss
of shunt for better detection of trains near grade crossings. When
operational, each system was able to properly interpret train arrival
and departure times. However, all systems experienced a high failure
rate of components and sub-systems. Conducted research to develop
procedures for testing and evaluating the safety of train control
devices and systems.
status of earmark for traffic control system
Question. What is the status of development of the automatic
traffic control management and monitoring system for which the
conference committee allocated $500,000 in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA has had conversations with the principals of the
organization to whom these funds are allocated, and have provided them
with a grant application package. Upon receipt of their grant
application, FRA will process the grant and obligate the funds for the
development of the automatic traffic control management and monitoring
system.
status of earmark for carbon composites evaluation
Question. What is the status of the evaluation of carbon composites
for strengthening aging steel railroad bridges for which the conference
committee allocated $500,000 in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA met with representatives from the Constructed
Facilities Center of the West Virginia University, Morgantown, to
discuss the evaluation of the use of composite materials for railroad
bridges. Based on the meeting and follow-up discussions, the University
is currently preparing a draft grant proposal for submittal to the FRA.
In addition, a conference entitled ``A CONFERENCE ON POLYMER
COMPOSITES: INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'' was held
during April 19-21, 1999, at Parkersburg, WV, under the auspices of
WVU. FRA was represented at this conference. FRA intends to work with
the University to encourage partnership with railroads, the supplier
industry, and the WVDOT. Experience has shown that partnership will not
only leverage additional resources for project completion, but also
ensure timely deployment of beneficial research products.
fiscal year 2000 funding for ptc
Question. Is the $500,000 request for the Norfolk Southern/CSX on-
board locomotive communications bus the only positive train control
initiative requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget? If not, what other
funds are requested for PTC, and in what accounts?
Answer. This project is the only PTC initiative requested and
funded in FRA's fiscal year 2000 R&D budget. However, FRA is also
requesting $10 million for PTC, in fiscal year 2000, under the High-
Speed Rail Initiatives-TF. Specifically, $7 million is requested for
the Illinois PTC project and $3 million for the Michigan ITCS project.
fiscal year 2000 funding for safety of hsgt
Question. Please break down in extensive detail how the $4,400,000
requested on page 97 of the budget justification would be used. Will
any of those funds be used to advance the safety of maglev?
Answer. The following table highlights the requested funding by
project:
Accident Avoidance...................................... $1,800,000
Infrastructure.......................................... 300,000
Accident Survivability.................................. 1,400,000
HS Test Support......................................... 500,000
HSR Safety Support...................................... 200,000
HSR Environmental Issues................................ 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,400,000
None of the funds requested in fiscal year 2000 will be used to
advance the safety of maglev.
funding for full-scale rail passenger car crash tests
Question. If further funds are provided by the Appropriations
Committees for full-scale crash testing of rail passenger equipment,
would this subaccount be the logical place to fund the project, or is
it more logically funded through the equipment, operations, and hazmat
subaccount?
Answer. It is more logical to fund the full-scale rail passenger
equipment crash test project through the equipment, operations, and
hazmat subaccount since that is where the funding for the full-scale
crash test was appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
status of sale of rail aluminum
Question. What is the status of your proposed sale of old reaction
rail aluminum for scrap? What is the estimated worth of this material?
How will the sale proceeds be credited?
Answer. The Aluminum Reaction Rail and related components on the
PTACV Guideway were reported to the GSA Denver office as property
available for sale on February 5, 1999. On February 16, 1999 GSA
acknowledged receipt of the report for property sale at TTC and are now
in the process of handling the sale. Based on the local scrap Aluminum
prices, the net value to FRA could be approximately $200,000 which
would be credited to the FRA Task Order 107, TTC Repair and
Restoration.
funding for t-6 car
Question. Does your ``list of key inspection technologies targeted
for integration on the track research instrumentation platform'' on
pages 99-100 of the budget justification constitute your response to
the Committee's direction to include in the fiscal year 2000 budget
justification a ``description of FRA's track research vehicle needs,
and an analysis of whether FRA could utilize the AAR track research
vehicle''? If so, this is an incomplete presentation. Please provide a
more responsive reply for the record.
Answer. FRA provided a description/justification for its track
research vehicle in its fiscal year 1999 budget request. FRA also
confirmed, in the fiscal year 1999 Conference Appeals, that AAR did not
plan to buy a research vehicle. As a result, $500,000 was provided in
fiscal year 1999, for the T-6 car, and, therefore, these funds are
included in FRA's fiscal year 2000 R&D base. Funds will be used to
continue the upgrade of the T-6 car. FRA assumed this was a closed
issue and therefore, did not resubmit this information in the fiscal
year 2000 request.
FRA's research vehicle, the T-6 car, is over fifty years old. It is
rapidly deteriorating and thus requiring more frequent repairs and
maintenance. It is not suitable for any significant future investments.
Funding is requested for a new research platform to replace the
existing and rapidly deteriorating T-6 car. The T-6 car is involved in
advancing the technology of track strength inspection and should be
differentiated from the T-10 car used by the Office of Safety for
routine track geometry only inspection within the ATIP program. If the
new research platform is not funded, the FRA will continue with its
inspection technology development efforts but will lack the means of
integrating and further testing a number of promising new inspection
technologies currently at various stages of development within the
overall R&D program.
These technologies include the at-speed and non-contact measurement
and inspection of internal rail defects, vertical rail head deflection,
wheel/rail profile interface, and subgrade conditions in addition to
gage restraint. The new technologies represent advancement in sensor
design, signal processing, and computing power which allow for a single
vehicle to combine all of these functions. The envisioned track safety
inspection platform will significantly accelerate the development of
additional performance-based track safety standards. It will also serve
as the FRA's yardstick for the approval of waivers or alternate
standards that employ some of the new automated track inspection
technologies. The goal is to provide FRA and its safety assurance staff
with more efficient, reliable, accurate, and capable tools for
intelligent and performance-based track safety inspection. Increased
line capacity requires that necessary inspections be carried out
simultaneously by one vehicle, that they are done at track speeds to
avoid impacting scheduled trains, and that they quickly and accurately
identify areas that are critical to safety for which remedial action
may be required.
The Senate references a research vehicle recently purchased by the
Association of American Railroads [AAR]. FRA staff has confirmed in
consultation with their AAR counterparts, that there has been no recent
acquisition by the AAR, nor are any planned in the near future, of any
research vehicle similar to the T-6 or any that can be utilized for the
purposes for which the T-6 or its planned replacement is intended. It
should be also noted that, in their written commentary to the House
Committee on Appropriations, the AAR pointed out the uniqueness of the
T-6 as a tool ``to assess and develop new technologies for automated
track inspection'' and has indicated that they ``agree that T-6 should
be improved''.
The AAR has recently purchased a high-rail type vehicle to be
mainly dedicated for routine ultrasonic rail flaw inspection of the
test tracks at Pueblo. The AAR has also developed over the past 10
years a Track Loading Vehicle (TLV) for the purpose of conducting
specialized tests of track strength. FRA has jointly funded numerous
test activities with the TLV during that period. Neither of these two
vehicles is a substitute for the T-6 for the following reasons:
--Pursuant to its statutory mandate, FRA needs an independent
capability to evaluate track conditions, and the equipment used
therefor, relative to the established safety standards. This is
particularly relevant in the case of gage widening where newly
introduced performance-based safety standards would require the
FRA to retain a viable T-6 car as a yardstick to guide early
implementation and to respond to potential requests for waivers
and for further development of alternate performance standards.
None of the AAR test vehicles can accomplish this function.
--The T-6 will provide a valuable safety inspection service on a
cooperative basis to a wide range of railroads, including
regional railroads, shortlines, Amtrak, and other public and
government owned operators and commuter rail authorities, which
otherwise would have no access to improved inspection
technology. This inspection is generally carried out at little
or no cost to FRA while providing valuable data to FRA's
research and safety programs, in addition to the value gained
in preventing potential accidents through identifying hazardous
track conditions. The AAR test vehicles are generally dedicated
to testing at Pueblo with infrequent revenue track testing
primarily on class-1 railroad lines. The majority of rail
operators will have no access to any of the AAR's test vehicles
either due to their unavailability or cost.
funding for high-speed rail corridor planning
Question. TEA-21 authorizes $10,000,000 in non-firewall general
funds for fiscal year 2000 for high-speed rail corridor planning. Has
FRA requested any funds for corridor planning purposes in fiscal year
2000? Have any funds been spent in fiscal year 1998 or 1999 for these
purposes? If so, how much was spent, and from which subaccount of the
NGHSR program were these funds derived?
Answer. FRA has not requested any funds for corridor planning in
fiscal year 2000, nor were any funds included in fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
request for nghsr
Question. Please present the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Program budget request as it was submitted by FRA to OST and OMB.
Answer. FRA's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail Program included $26.2 million in the OST
and OMB Submissions.
designated hsr corridors--estimated costs
Question. What level of funding does the Federal Railroad
Administration estimate will be needed to develop high-speed rail
systems in each of the 12 FRA designated corridors in the U.S.? What is
FRA's role in developing, promoting or funding these corridors?
Answer. TEA-21 authorizes 11 designated high-speed rail corridors
in the U.S. At present, eight corridors have been designated--five
under ISTEA and three under TEA-21, as follows:
Corridors Designated under ISTEA
--California Corridor (San Francisco Bay Area--Los Angeles--San
Diego);
--Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, OR--Portland, OR--Seattle, WA--
Vancouver, BC);
--Chicago Hub Corridor, extending from Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO;
to Detroit, MI; and to Milwaukee, WI. TEA-21 extended this
corridor from Milwaukee to Minneapolis; and the Secretary
recently announced a new spoke, from Chicago to Indianapolis
and Cincinnati.
--Florida Corridor (Miami--Orlando--Tampa); and
--Southeast Corridor (linking the metropolitan areas of Washington,
DC, Richmond, VA, Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC). The
Secretary has subsequently extended the Southeast Corridor from
Richmond to Hampton Roads; from Raleigh to Columbia, Savannah,
and Jacksonville; and from Charlotte to Greenville, Atlanta,
and Macon.
Corridors Designated under TEA-21
--The Empire Corridor (New York City--Albany--Buffalo, NY);
--Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston--New Orleans--Mobile--Jacksonville, as
well as New Orleans--Birmingham); and
--Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia--Harrisburg, PA).
As part of the commercial feasibility study of high-speed ground
transportation, the FRA prepared preliminary estimates of the capital
investment required to develop the corridors designated under ISTEA
(without extensions) and the Empire Corridor to various levels of
service. These estimates, including vehicles and fixed plant, were as
follows:
CAPITAL COSTS FOR HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION IN ILLUSTRATIVE CORRIDORS
[FRA Preliminary Estimate--Millions of Dollars \1\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental upgrades (top speeds) (all
are non-electrified) New HSR Maglev
Corridor ---------------------------------------- 200 300
90 110 125 150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California North/South.............................. 1,315 2,915 7,933 8,026 15,795 23,433
Pacific Northwest................................... 598 859 1,233 ........ 7,819 13,980
Chicago Hub Network................................. 1,063 1,488 2,439 3,709 12,286 17,788
Florida............................................. 547 645 883 ........ 4,318 7,055
Southeast Corridor.................................. ........ 1,047 ........ ........ 6,894 10,311
Empire Corridor..................................... ........ ........ 1,932 ........ 10,612 11,232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Blanks Indicate No Estimate Was Prepared.
Source: FRA, ``High-Speed Ground Transportation in America,'' Statistical Supplement.
While FRA does not have analogous estimates for two of the three
new TEA-21 corridors, the following cost ranges--also taken from the
commercial feasibility report--may be of some use:
INITIAL CAPITAL COST RANGES FOR ILLUSTRATIVE CORRIDORS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical Range of Total
Technology/Top Speed Initial Investment per
Route-Mile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental 90................................. $1 to $3.5
Incremental 110................................ $2 to $5
Incremental 125................................ $3 to $5.5
Incremental 150................................ $4.5 to $7
New HSR........................................ $10 to $45
Maglev......................................... $20 to $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 90 and 110 mph incremental upgrading options assume some
upgrading of highway-rail grade crossing protective devices, but do not
assume the installation of any positive barriers against improper
intrusion by motor vehicles onto the railroad right-of-way. By
contrast, the estimates for incremental upgrades at 125 mph or above do
assume that all grade crossings would be closed, separated, or provided
with positive barriers (cf. High-Speed Ground Transportation for
America, page 5-4).
FRA's report found that many corridors, at many speed levels, would
generate positive cash flows from operations that could conceivably be
used to finance a portion of the initial capital costs. For details,
see Chapter 7 of High-Speed Ground Transportation for America, pages 7-
21 and 7-22.
The FRA works closely with the States to assist them in planning
for improved rail passenger service and to develop high-speed rail
service where appropriate. Regular meetings are held with the States
under the auspices of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. FRA continues to attend various meetings with
organizations, consortia, Amtrak, and groups interested in high-speed
passenger rail service. In fiscal years (FY) 19961997, planning grants
were awarded to states for assistance in technical and economic
feasibility studies. Planning funds were not appropriated in fiscal
year 1998-1999.
Under the Next Generation High Speed Rail Technology Program, the
FRA has formed partnerships with the rail industry and States and is
providing funding to develop and demonstrate Positive Train Control, a
High-Speed Non-electric Locomotive, improved safety devices at grade
crossings, and improved track technology.
Under the Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination program, begun under
section 1010 of ISTEA and continued under section 1103(c) of TEA-21,
FRA has provided funding to States with high-speed corridors to close
redundant crossings and make improvements to those that remain.
benefits and costs of high-speed rail projects
Question. Which high-speed rail corridors offer the highest
benefit-to-cost ratios? What factors would FRA use to judge the
benefits and costs of high-speed rail projects? Will FRA develop a list
of funding priorities for high-speed rail projects, and how will this
list be tied to the projects' benefits and costs? If not, how can FRA
target limited funding to the corridors that offer the most benefits?
Answer. In general, FRA's commercial feasibility study of high-
speed rail showed that the 90 and 110 mph upgrading options generate
higher ratios of public benefits to cost than more intensive investment
levels. Within the 90-110 mph speed range, the Chicago Hub Network,
California, and the Pacific Northwest showed particularly high public
benefit-to-public cost ratios. See Chapter 7 of High-Speed Ground
Transportation for America.
FRA's commercial feasibility study used the following factors to
produce the public benefit/public cost ratios explained in High-Speed
Ground Transportation for America.
--Benefit and Cost Categories Used in High-Speed Ground
Transportation for America
--Benefits to the Public at Large:
--Airport Congestion Delay Savings
--Highway Congestion Delay Savings
--Emissions Savings
--Public Costs:
--Initial Investment
--Net Operating and Maintenance Expense
--Continuing Investments
FRA's study recognized, however, that individual States may
perceive various benefits of high-speed rail that might not be
considered from a national perspective, e.g., benefits from high-speed
rail users, the multiplier effects of job creation from high-speed rail
construction and operation--and that it would be perfectly legitimate
for the States to incorporate such localized benefits in their own
evaluations of transport alternatives.
The only high-speed rail projects for which FRA develops priorities
are those that compete for funding under Section 1103(c) of TEA-21,
specifically grade crossing hazard elimination. In fiscal year 2000, a
total of approximately $20 million ($15 million in FRA's Rail
Initiatives Account and $5.25 million in FHWA) is requested for this
program.
amtrak's role in developing high-speed rail corridors
Question. Describe Amtrak's role in the development of high-speed
rail corridors. Outside of Amtrak capital funding, what other potential
federal capital funds are available for the necessary infrastructure
improvements to designated high-speed corridors? How much does Amtrak
plan to spend in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for capital improvements to
designated high-speed rail corridors not within the Northeast Corridor?
Answer. Outside the Northeast, the States are the prime movers in
promoting the development of high-speed rail service. Amtrak must
become the partner of these States, providing them with the benefit of
the Corporation's planning and operational expertise, and sharing in
capital investments where such investments are consistent with the goal
of eliminating Amtrak's dependence on Federal operating subsidies.
The federal government, in general, does not provide capital funds
to develop those projects. The Administration requested $20.5 million
in fiscal year 2000 for this purpose. States also have the discretion
to use certain Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to them for grade
crossing improvements or eliminations on any rail line, including those
designated as high-speed corridors. And to the extent that a project
can be shown to contribute air quality benefits, conjestion mitigation
Air Quality Improvement funds may be eligible. The new loan programs
authorized in TEA-21, TIFIA, and RRIF also could provide a source of
capital as part of an overall project funding plan.
Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 capital program includes approximately
$144 million of investments that would support high-speed service in
corridors outside the Northeast. Amtrak is still developing its fiscal
year 2000 capital program; therefore, FRA does not yet know the amount
management will propose to spend on corridor development next year.
impact of fox project on other hsr projects
Question. What lessons has DOT/FRA learned from its experience with
the FOX project? Will the demise of the FOX project make it more easy
or difficult to develop other high-speed rail corridors? Will FRA
analyze the FOX experience to determine whether, in general, the
federal government should target its funds to projects pursuing the
incremental approach? Will the demise of the FOX project help other
projects receive funding that would have gone to FOX?
Answer. The FOX project, with its particular design and funding
framework, was unique to Florida. FRA does not believe that its demise
will adversely affect the many incremental high-speed rail projects
envisioned by other States, or other new high-speed rail projects that
may arise in other locales with different market and financing
conditions.
Current funds support highway-rail grade crossing safety
enhancements in emerging corridors, and, therefore, already target
limited components of incremental projects. With regard to more
comprehensive investments, FRA believes that each State is in the best
position to know which variety of high-speed ground transportation
would provide the optimal mix of locally-perceived benefits and costs.
For this reason, FRA has no present plans to conduct further,
theoretical commercial feasibility comparisons that would substitute
the federal government's judgement for that of the States as they
evaluate transportation alternatives.
The lesson learned from the FOX project is that strong support from
both public and private sources is necessary for capital-intensive
projects to be built. The Department had no plans to fund the FOX
project so funds are available for the other projects.
management of the nghsr program
Question. The TRB has recommended that FRA strengthen its program
management capabilities to speed up and better control the individual
projects. How have the management capabilities been strengthened?
Answer. The Next Generation High-speed Rail Program has been
shifted organizationally and is now part of FRA's passenger programs
organization. This organizational structure provides a more direct link
between FRA's efforts at promoting the development and demonstration of
advanced technologies and the likely customers for these advanced
technologies--specifically, the States and Amtrak.
funding for ptc projects
Question. Assuming that the RABA funds will not be used for PTS and
PTC projects, what was the basis of the decision to not request any
appropriated funds to advance those technologies? Are there any
projects or new approaches that merit federal support?
Answer. The President's budget assumed that RABA funds would be
used for such projects and the decision regarding appropriated funds
was based on the availability of RABA to fund these high priority
projects. We strongly urge the Congress to support the Administration's
request for these projects.
impact of zero funds on illinois ptc project
Question. If the requested RABA funding for the positive train
control/separation does not materialize, how will that affect FRA's
participation in the Illinois positive train control project? How will
the project's progress be affected? Could the project continue on a
cooperative basis with no additional funding? Are there sufficient
unspent funds to cost-share with industry to advance the Illinois
project? Please specify the amount of federal funds that are still
available to support this project and the sources of these balances.
Answer. Completion of the joint project is planned over a four year
schedule, with over 50 percent participation committed from the
combined contributions of the Association of American Railroads and the
Illinois Department of Transportation. Any delays in FRA funding will
be mirrored in contributions of project partners AAR and Illinois DOT,
who also require time to request and program matching funding, and will
threaten continuation of the joint program.
With $3 million in anticipated Illinois funds in fiscal year 1999,
there will have been $23.1 million available to the project: $11.3
million FRA, $5.2 million IDOT, $6.6 million AAR. About $3.4 million
will have been expended, for a balance of $19.5 million. Fiscal year
2000 project expenditures are now estimated at over $19 million,
including expenditure for the System Design and Integration contractor
in three quarters of fiscal year 2000. The plan anticipates major
staffing and rapid expenditure rates in the early stages of the
contract, to achieve the overall four year project timetable. Suppliers
are intensely interested in the SDI award and are being kept informed
through project workshops and will receive a Request for Information in
late 1999, enabling a rapid start when the contract is awarded.
If the requested FRA fiscal year 2000 funding from RABA is not
provided, a one year delay would occur in project completion and much
longer delays are likely, threatening program continuity and
potentially destroying the cooperative cost-sharing basis on which the
project depends.
status of illinois ptc project
Question. For the Illinois positive train control project, please
provide an estimate of project costs for fiscal year 2000, and the out-
years. Please delineate anticipated cost sharing arrangements among the
various partners, being certain to specify federal funds, industry
share, and monies provided by the State of Illinois.
Answer. The information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Prior ---------------- Future Total
Year 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal (47 percent)............ 10.0 1.3 \1\ 7. \2\ 9. 28.0
0 7
Illinois (20 percent)........... 2.2 \1\ 3. \2\ 3. \2\ 3. 12.0
0 0 8
AAR \1\ (33 percent)............ 1.6 5.0 \3\ 5. \3\ 8. 20.0
0 4
---------------------------------------
Total (100 percent)....... 13.8 9.3 15.0 21.9 60.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested in Federal and State budget requests; contingent on
appropriations.
\2\ Contingent on future requests and appropriations.
\3\ Contingent on matching public sector funding.
\4\ AAR is the Association of American Railroads, representing the major
freight railroads and Amtrak.
michigan ptc project
Question. How does technical progress at the Michigan project
relate to and help advance the Illinois project? What are the funding
needs of the Michigan incremental train control system (ITCS) high-
speed passenger rail demonstration project during fiscal year 2000 and
subsequent years? How would those funds be used? If no additional funds
are provided for that project, what are the implications?
Answer. The Michigan Incremental Train Control System (ITCS)
demonstration project has developed and is proof-testing methods to
integrate grade crossing warning systems with the positive train
control communications systems. This technique is already being shared
with the Illinois joint project team. Use of the PTC communications
networks for this purpose, on a proven safety-vital basis, provides
marked reductions in the costs otherwise needed to alter the existing
grade crossing circuitry to accommodate increased train speeds. A total
of $3 million is proposed for the Michigan project in fiscal year 2000.
The funding requested in fiscal year 2000 is to complete the safety
validation of the 80-mile demonstration territory and to place it in
revenue service at speeds above 79 mph, and to begin to conform the
Michigan system to the industry interoperability standards developed in
the Illinois project. If no additional Federal funding is provided,
Michigan and its partners will have to decide if the project merits a
higher degree of their participation.
status of alaska railroad ptc project
Question. What is the status of the Alaska Railroad positive train
control demonstration project? Please provide a schedule of project
benchmarks and funding history, breaking out funding by federal, Alaska
Railroad, and other funding sources.
Answer. The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARR) has contracted with
GE-Harris Railroad Electronics for the first phase of a Positive Train
Control (PTC) system which consists of a computer-aided dispatching
system. ARR has also upgraded its backbone microwave system and added
digital radios to handle the communications requirements for PTC. ARR
plans to contract with GE-Harris this year for the development of
locomotive on-board hardware and software. Full system testing should
take place in 2001. FRA has provided $4 million in fiscal year 1997 and
is providing $3 million in fiscal year 1999 for the project. The Alaska
Railroad has provided $100,000 in in-kind services so far, and intends
to provide $1,500,000 in funding from internal sources this year for
the next phase of the project.
funding for the alaska railroad ptc project
Question. What amount of funding for the Alaska Railroad positive
train control project was requested of OST and OMB for fiscal year
2000?
Answer. No funding was included in FRA's fiscal year 2000 OST or
OMB Budget submissions for the Alaska Railroad PTC project.
status of virginia--pennsylvania pts project
Question. What is the status of the second phase of the Manassas,
Virginia to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania pilot project that was intended to
develop Positive Train Separation (PTS) and what contracts have been
signed? Please discuss how this project is advancing the goal of
interoperable PTCS. How much federal money has been invested in that
project? Is this NGHSR funding, or FRA R&D funding?
Answer. The Norfolk Southern/CSX project team has signed contracts
with two suppliers to develop prototype on-board locomotive
communications units according to the specifications developed in the
first phase of the project. Prototype hardware is expected to be
available from the contractors later this year. The NS/CSX project team
has also signed a contract with Safetran to develop the first of the
software ``objects'' that will be used to test the prototype on-board
busses. The project sponsors believe that this project will advance the
goal of interoperable Positive Train Control systems by providing a
standard harness that railroads could use to retrofit locomotives to
permit them to operate with the wide variety of train control systems
that railroads have in place and are currently developing. This project
is developing and proving concepts and capabilities which will be
needed in the Illinois joint PTC project. FRA is working with the
railroads to integrate the two efforts within the Illinois project.
Federal funding in the amount of $1.5 million (from the FRA R&D
account) has been invested in this project; the railroads have
indicated that they have invested approximately the same amount in this
project with in-kind services.
status of ptc rulemaking
Question. Does FRA still plan to conduct a rulemaking to require
the use of PTC by Class I railroads? If so, what is the status of that
rulemaking? When do you expect to issue such a rule? If not, what type
of rulemaking is contemplated?
Answer. FRA is promoting the implementation of PTC through a broad
range of actions that include deployment of the Nationwide Differential
GPS network, funding of technology demonstration and deployment, and
development of safety standards for processor-based signal and train
control technology (``PTC performance standards''). In addition, FRA is
supporting the railroad industry before the FCC to insure that radio
frequencies are available for PTC. FRA has asked the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) to review the steps needed to deploy PTC, and
a report from the RSAC working group is expected within the next few
weeks. This report will be forwarded to the Congress, and the working
group will continue its efforts by addressing issues such as compatible
railroad operating rules for PTC, human factor issues related to
various PTC architectures, liaison with ongoing PTC development
projects, and other issues.
The RSAC is studying the costs and benefits of PTC and the manner
in which risk is distributed over the national rail network, as a basis
for considering the implications of a potential mandate of PTC systems.
In addition, the RSAC is preparing proposed PTC performance standards
that will create a predictable environment in which investments in PTC
technology can be made with confidence. FRA is urging the RSAC working
group to conclude its efforts regarding proposed PTC performance
standards this year.
progress on installing ptc systems
Question. Please provide an update on what progress has been made
by the railroads in installing positive train control systems. What has
been done since last year, and how many of the major railroads have
installed these systems? What new projects are planned for fiscal year
2000?
Answer. FRA is aware of three railroads in the process of
installing positive train control systems at this time. This work will
continue into 2000. Amtrak is installing both the vehicle and track-
mounted portions of the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES)
on the Northeast Corridor between New Haven and Boston and will be
extending the installation to the remainder of the Northeast Corridor.
New Jersey Transit is equipping all trackage it owns (338 route miles),
first with automatic train control and subsequently with a more
advanced system which will be interoperable with the Amtrak ACSES
system. The Alaska Railroad is upgrading the dispatch system and
communications for its entire main line (over 400 miles) preparatory to
installing a communications-based Positive Train Control system.
FRA is not aware of any new starts of complete positive train
control systems planned for fiscal year 2000. However, the major
freight railroads and equipment suppliers are moving forward with key
investments which will underpin the eventual widespread deployment of
positive train control systems. The major freight railroads are
planning to invest more than $100 million to upgrade the computer-aided
dispatch systems in their central control centers with new-generation
equipment designed for compatibility with positive train control. Both
major freight locomotive manufacturers are focusing their new
generation locomotive control systems to be fully compatible with PTC
installation, subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary
safety verification process. Over the past decade, railroads have
worked with wayside signal suppliers to apply digital radio to replace
aging wirelines on poles along the track. In many cases, the new
systems make use of the standards developed in the industry's earlier
Advanced Train Control System (ATCS) project, and this investment too
will facilitate the deployment of new train control systems. Overall,
in addition to the demonstration programs, the industry continues to
commit major resources to lay the groundwork for ultimate deployment of
positive train control systems.
status of ptc report
Question. What are the status and preliminary findings, if any, to
date of the study requested by the Committee on the interoperability of
PTC systems?
Answer. The conferees did not fund a separate study of
interoperability because the joint Illinois PTC project will include,
within its scope, the development of interoperability standards (H.
Rept. 105-825 at 1428). Working with Illinois project team, the
Association of American Railroads (AAR) is currently developing
information necessary to produce industry standards. FRA is closely
monitoring this effort, which is scheduled to reach completion by the
end of calendar 1999.
In addition, FRA had tasked the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) with development of a status report on progress toward
development and deployment of PTC systems. An important part of that
effort has been consideration of the role of interoperability among PTC
systems. At the April meeting of the Data and Implementation Task Force
of the PTC Working Group, the task force finalized instructions for the
report on a consensus basis. FRA will provide copies of this report to
the Committee and will keep the Committee apprised of the status of the
AAR standards development process.
status and funding for prototype locomotives
Question. The fiscal year 1998 Act provided $4,800,000 for work on
prototype locomotives, including: (a) research on flywheel turbine
technology; (b) development of non-electric locomotive concepts; and
(c) evaluation of the potential of the recently developed locomotive
car bodies at speeds of 150 miles per hour. Please describe the
progress in each of these three areas of research. In fiscal year 1999,
this effort received an appropriation of $7,000,000. How are you using
the fiscal year 1999 funds in each of those areas? How will the fiscal
year 2000 request of $3,000,000 be used? What specific contracts have
you signed in each of these three areas since last year? Please state
the purpose of each relevant contract along with the fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 funding amount for each contract.
Answer. The flywheel effort, being pursued by the University of
Texas Center for Electromechanics, will construct the first
``Megagenerator'' and the first full-scale flywheel rotor. The non-
electric locomotive concept efforts, as well as the 150-mph qualified
car bodies, are incorporated in the construction of a prototype
turbine-powered locomotive by Bombardier Transit Systems, Inc, in a 50-
50 cost sharing partnership with FRA. The first prototype locomotive is
now under construction at Bombardier's Plattsburgh, NY plant, and is
scheduled to operate in the year 2000.
The $7 million (Federal funds) modification to the existing
Cooperative Agreement between Bombardier and FRA was signed on April
28th, bringing the total investment in the project (Federal and
Bombardier) to $20 million. The existing project cooperative agreement
was initiated in fiscal year 1998 with $3 million of Federal funds and
$3 million of cost sharing by Bombardier. The fiscal year 2000 request
for $3 million fully funds the Federal share of the original project
estimate of $26 million.
Fiscal year 1998 Federal funding for the Advanced Locomotive
Propulsion Systems (ALPS) project which includes the flywheel and
Megagenerator being conducted by a consortium led by The University of
Texas at Austin was $3.7 million, funded though an Interagency
Agreement with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
and a DARPA contract with the Southern Coalition for Advanced
Transportation of which the university is a member. Additionally, $90K
in fiscal year 1998 funds were provided to the Naval Surface Warfare
Center to support test planning activities for the Megagenerator.
Fiscal year 1999 funds, in support of the ALPS project, will amount to
$3.8 million. The award of a $3.4 million cooperative agreement to the
University of Texas at Austin is in the final stages. The remaining
$400K will be provided to the Naval Surface Warfare Center to perform
testing of the Megagenerator.
design for high-speed non-electric locomotives
Question. Is the non-electric locomotive program developing a
consensus about a common design that could serve several markets and
generate sufficient demand? If so, please explain how progress towards
that technological accomplishment is evolving. How do the states
influence this development?
Answer. Yes. One primary element of synergy is that the new
prototype turbine locomotive will be compatible with operations on the
Northeast Corridor, since it is adapted from the electric power car
used in Amtrak's new Acela trainsets. In addition, Amtrak has begun a
high-speed initiative for corridors outside the Northeast Corridor. In
the last year, FRA has conducted well-attended outreach meetings in New
Orleans, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC, in
addition to attendance at relevant technical gatherings for state
transportation officials such as the Standing Committee on Rail
Transportation of AASHTO. Input from state officials is sought at all
such meetings. The prototype locomotive development has been
prominently featured, and well received, at all such meetings. The pace
of the prototype development and construction has been very rapid. FRA
and Bombardier are now planning further outreach efforts to implement
an effective demonstration program. States are already expressing
interest in hosting demonstration runs of the prototype locomotive, and
interest in acquiring production units is growing.
status of flywheel (alps) project
Question. What is the status of the flywheel project, and what are
the planned activities for fiscal year 2000? How many additional years
will be required to complete work on the flywheel project, and how much
will this cost? Please provide costs for both development and large-
scale testing. What are the cost-sharing arrangements for this project?
What is the likelihood that this technology will be commercialized
during the next five years?
Answer. The ALPS Project has been re-planned to support the FRA-
Bombardier Non-Electric High-Speed Passenger Demonstration Locomotive
effort with advanced and enabling technologies. ALPS developed
prototype subsystems are planned for introduction into the
demonstration locomotive as they become available and as the locomotive
test schedule permits. The high-speed generator (Megagenerator) will be
the first component delivered. The prototype Megagenerator is currently
in the assembly stage, with initial testing scheduled to begin in
August 1999. Requested fiscal year 2000 funding will complete the
testing and prepare the machine for installation into the locomotive.
Schedules for full load testing and final integration preparations show
completion in June 2000, so the introduction into the new locomotive
can occur at any time after that.
All flywheel component fabrication will be completed, and assembly
operations will be approximately 75 percent completed within fiscal
year 1999. Fiscal year 2000 activities will include completion of the
flywheel assembly, spin testing of the flywheel in the laboratory,
revision of the Megagenerator design for use with the flywheel, design
of the flywheel power converters which provide the locomotive power
system interface, and the identification of a suitable tender car for
demonstrating the flywheel. The current schedule envisions completion
of the flywheel development and testing in 2001.
Activities through 1998 were cost shared on a 50/50 basis and the
project was administered through the National Electric Vehicle
Consortium at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Beginning
this year, a cooperative agreement between the University of Texas and
FRA is being finalized to complete the project. The project
participants (AlliedSignal, the U.S. Navy, and the Association of
American Railroads) are providing cost sharing of roughly 25 percent
during fiscal year 1999.
Studies conducted indicate that ALPS technologies will provide
substantial benefits (improved fuel economy, reduced trip times,
reduced maintenance costs) to future non-electric locomotives. After
the initial introduction of turbine locomotives, and demonstration of
the ALPS technologies; it is believed that its integration into
commercial systems will be straightforward and justifiable on economic
and performance bases. It is expected that after demonstrations are
completed in fiscal year 2001, the products of the ALPS program will be
ready for commercial applications.
status of ndgps project
Question. Please bring us up to date on the status of the
nationwide differential global positioning system and the FRA's role in
that initiative. Provide a funding history, as well as a 5-year
schedule of benchmarks, anticipated costs, and anticipated funding
sources (please specify which DOT or other federal agencies will be
providing funds).
Answer. On March 15, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation and the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard announced Full Operational
Capability of the Maritime DGPS Service, which provides differential
coverage along the coasts, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River.
At the same time, the Secretary and the Commandant announced the
expansion of that Service into a Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) with the
addition of eight operational inland GWEN sites. FRA's role in this
initiative is to support the addition of the inland sites and to
coordinate their implementation with railroad positive train control
projects. FRA was given this responsibility because railroads
especially need a continuous, uniform, accurate, high-quality
radionavigation signal for new Positive Train Control systems. The
Coast Guard will be responsible for the actual construction, operation,
and maintenance of the NDGPS. FRA will reimburse Coast Guard from the
fiscal year 2000 RABA funds for these services.
The NDGPS project will take 5 years to complete (1998-2002) at an
estimated cost of $37 million in capital funding. Once fully
implemented, the system is estimated to cost approximately $6.9 million
per year to operate and maintain. An allocation of Capital and
Operating costs by fiscal year is detailed in the table below:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Fiscal year Capital costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................... \1\ 2.4 ..............
1999.................................... \1\ 5.5 ..............
2000.................................... \2\ 7.2 \2\ 3.2
2001 and beyond......................... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriated.
\2\ Requested.
\3\ TBD.
Based on the funding made available in the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act, 12 GWEN sites, including one that was converted at
Clark, South Dakota in February of 1999, will be integrated into the
NDGPS by the end of fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 phase of
this five-year project will expand the NDGPS by an additional 17
transmitting sites and complete the NDGPS Master Control Station
installations at Alexandria, Virginia, and Petaluma, California. The
current plan is for the establishment of 16 sites through fiscal year
1999, 17 sites in fiscal year 2000, 22 sites in fiscal year 2001, and
12 sites in fiscal year 2002 for a total of 67 NDGPS stations. As
required by Public Law105-66, Section 346, the new sites will all be
integrated into the Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) and
Precipitable Water Vapor System (PWVS) networks operated by the US
Department of Commerce.
No decision has been made regarding which Federal agency, if any,
will request federal funding to achieve these benchmarks. In addition,
many other federal and state organizations see the benefit of the NDGPS
service and have offered their support. Examples of this support
include: GWEN assets from USAF; TVA staging and storage sites
(including environmental analysis); US Army Corps of Engineers real
property; and Minnesota DOT real property and environmental analysis.
Discussions are continuing with other organizations concerning
potential broadcast sites, environmental analysis, and long-term
facility maintenance. It is anticipated that as the value of the NDGPS
is increasingly understood across the nation, offers to contribute to
its establishment will similarly increase.
integration of ndgps with ptc
Question. How is the NDGPS program being integrated with positive
train control efforts already underway?
Answer. All modes of transportation need precise positioning
information. This information must be in real time and must be accurate
to permit safe control of vehicles--trains, ships, aircraft, trucks,
automobiles, transit, and emergency response. Intelligent
Transportation Systems are being designed to incorporate precise
positioning information. Coverage and integrity are important
attributes of a positioning system.
Over a 7-year period, railroads experienced at least 876 collisions
and other accidents, which fully-implemented communications-based
positive train control (PTC) systems would likely have prevented. In
fact, the National Transportation Safety Board has listed PTC as one of
its ``ten most-wanted'' initiatives for national transportation safety.
FRA proposes to facilitate the deployment of PTC within the railroad
industry by completing the installation of a Nationwide Differential
Global Positioning System (NDGPS) network, which FRA and several
railroads have determined to be a prerequisite for PTC.
In July, 1994, FRA published a report to Congress, entitled
Railroad Communications and Train Control, as required by the Rail
Safety Enforcement and Review Act. In that report, FRA outlined an
action plan and time line to advance PTC deployment by the end of the
century. FRA indicated that in fiscal year 1997 it would commence
rulemaking regarding the installation PTC on identified railroad
corridors. That rulemaking has begun and is taking place under the
auspices of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.
In June, 1995, FRA published another report to Congress, entitled
Differential GPS: An Aid to Positive Train Control, in response to a
request from the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It
concluded that if the Coast Guard's DGPS service were expanded
nationwide, it could satisfy the location determination system
requirements for PTC systems. Full nationwide deployment of the Coast
Guard DGPS network would significantly aid the development and
deployment of PTC systems by providing an affordable, uniform,
continuous, accurate, reliable, secure, real-time location
determination system throughout the United States.
PTC systems that will use positioning information from the NDGPS
are being installed in Alaska, Illinois, Michigan, South Carolina, and
Georgia, and are being considered in other areas of the country because
of the need to handle growing railroad freight, intermodal, intercity
passenger, and commuter rail traffic at higher levels of safety.
status of ndgps report
Question. What is the status and major findings of the report on
the nationwide differential global positioning system that the
Committee directed the Department to submit with the fiscal year 2000
budget justification (page 112, Senate Report 105-249)?
Answer. The draft report has been completed and is in the clearance
process. FRA expects to forward the final report to the Committees in
June 1999.
fiscal years 1998-2000 funding of grade crossing hazard mitigation
technologies
Question. Regarding the development of grade crossing hazard
mitigation technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999 and planned fiscal year 2000 FRA investments for each
major project in this program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following tables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
1998 Enacted 1999 Enacted 2000 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor................................................. $2,000,000 \1\ $2,000,000 $400,000
Mitigating Hazards.............................................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Low Cost HSR Crossing........................................... 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 5,600,000 5,600,000 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1M from TEA-21 and $1M from NGHSR Program.
GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor.......................
Tests of long gate arms and articulated North Carolina DOT is
gate arms are complete and produced examining alternate routes
reductions of violations of 67 percent between Durham and Raleigh.
and 78 percent, respectively.
Significant construction has been
completed since the Master Agreement
between the Norfolk Southern Railroad
and NCDOT was signed April 6, 1998: 4
crossings with four-quadrant gates; 15
crossings with median barriers (with 3
more getting concrete barriers in
1999); 1 crossing with long gate arms
with 10 more in design (51 are
planned); and 12 crossings closed (4
private), with plans to close an
additional 7 crossings.
Locked Gate at Private Crossing....... Project awarded to NYSDOT under BAA in No significant issues at this
1997. Work has involved finding an time.
appropriate site, negotiating with the
private land owner and CSX railroad,
and other details needed before the
demonstration can begin.
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)....... Additional projects are planned for No significant issues at this
award in fiscal year 1999. Two time.
selected, but not yet awarded, include
examining electronic sensors for
detecting grade crossing hazards and
using advanced video content extraction
for detecting obstacles at grade
crossings. Awards for these concepts
are forthcoming. The BAA is still open
and applications are reviewed as they
are received.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of tea-21 funded hsr grade crossing projects
Question. What is the status of each of the high speed rail
corridor crossing hazard elimination projects under TEA-21 Section
1103(c)? How much contract authority is requested in fiscal year 2000
under current law? How much contract authority is requested under the
Administration's budget request? What would be the source of those
additional funds?
Answer. Under current law, $5.25 million in contract authority is
available in fiscal year 2000. The Administration has requested all of
this plus $15 million from the Highway Trust Fund's Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority (RABA). The accomplishments of the grade crossing
hazard mitigation program, begun under section 1010 of ISTEA and
extended under section 1103(c) of TEA-21, are presented in the
following table.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS--FISCAL YEARS 1992-1998
[In thousands of dolalrs]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
State rec'd Accomplishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California....................... 5,700 To date, 45 crossings
have been upgraded, 13
crossings (11 private
and 2 public) closed,
and 18 proposed for
closure. Fresno County
has agreed to close two
public crossings in
exchange for upgrades to
18 additional grade
crossings. Five have
been upgraded and the
remaining 13 will be
upgraded over a two year
period. The design for a
simplified grade
separation for farm
vehicles (an underpass)
in San Joaquin County is
complete. Construction
is scheduled for Summer,
1999.
Florida.......................... 3,700 Nine crossings have been
upgraded with median
gates, 22 equipped with
medians, four with 4-
quadrant gates with
video monitoring, 3 with
gate extensions, and
event recorders are
planned for all 72
crossings and 26 track
control points with
radio link to
Jacksonville, FL
dispatcher. Two event
recorders have been
installed and the
balance are programed
for installation in 1999
and 2000.
Illinois 4,725 Demonstration of the
Vehicle Arrester Barrier
(VAB) has begun at two
of three crossings and
the third should be
operational shortly.
Testing and evaluation
will last 18-24 months.
Preliminary engineering
for a grade separation
at Chatham with closure
of two crossings is
underway. In addition,
three crossings on the
high-speed route have
been closed.
Indiana.......................... 1,200 One crossing was upgraded
with flashing lights and
gates, one 4-quadrant
gate and eight closures
are planned, and funding
has been provided for
the preliminary
engineering for a bridge
at Wilson Road, Burns
Harbor.
Michigan......................... 5,175 Three public and 12
private crossings have
been closed and an
alternate access road
constructed, and 36
grade crossings have
been upgraded.
Installation of median
barriers and upgrading
additional crossings are
in the planning and
design stage. This
summer, MIDOT and Amtrak
will begin closing 16 to
20 private crossings on
the Amtrak-owned track
segment between
Kalamazoo and the
Michigan/Indiana state
line.
North Carolina................... 2,830 Four crossings have been
equipped with four-
quadrant gates, 15
crossings with median
barriers (3 more will
get concrete barriers
this summer), 1 crossing
with long gate arms with
10 more in design (51
are planned), and 12
crossings have been
closed (4 private).
There are plans to close
an additional 7
crossings by the end of
1999. Traffic Separation
studies have identified
up to 13 additional
crossings as candidates
for closure. A connector
road to a new grade
separation in Greensboro
will begin construction
in late 1999, with
construction of the
grade separation to
follow at a later date.
When complete, three
crossings will be
closed.
Oregon........................... 625 Eight crossings in Salem
have been upgraded, one
median barrier
installed, and two
crossings have been
closed. A work plan to
demonstrate a locked
gate at a private
crossing with control by
the railroad dispatcher
is being developed.
Virginia......................... 4,245 To date, 36 crossings
have been upgraded, 4-
quadrant gates planned
for one crossing, 4
crossings closed,
preliminary engineering
for 2 grade separations
is complete, and design
for one pedestrian
bridge is complete.
Washington....................... 3,900 Two date, 18 crossings
have been upgraded, 3
closed, and preliminary
engineering for one new
grade separation is
underway. The design for
rebuilding one bridge in
Kelso, which will
eliminate one crossing,
is complete and
construction will begin
later this year. The
access road needed to
support the closure of
two crossings in Cowlitz
County is in the design
phase.
Wisconsin........................ 100 A study examining a grade
crossing in Sturtevant
is complete. Five
alternative treatments
for this site were
developed by a
consultant's study,
including three
locations for a grade
separation. These
alternatives are now
being evaluated by the
State.
-------------
Total...................... 32,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of gulf coast corridor grade crossing project
Question. What is the status of the Gulf Coast corridor hazard
mitigation project, and is additional funding required for that effort?
Answer. At a news conference on November 18, 1998 in New Orleans,
Secretary Slater announced the designation of the Gulf Coast High-Speed
Rail Corridor. Present at that meeting were Senator Trent Lott,
Governor Kirk Fordice, Meridian Mayor John Robert Smith and New Orleans
Mayor Marc Morial as well as other notable guests that heartily
endorsed this action and pledged to implement the high-speed rail
corridor.
FRA held a kick-off meeting with corridor and state representatives
from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas on February 11, 1999 in
New Orleans to discuss next steps, funding available and the
establishment of an action plan.
The fiscal year 1999 Enacted earmarked $1 million of the fiscal
year 1999 TEA21 funds for the Gulf Coast Corridor. The four states of
the Gulf Coast Corridor, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama,
applied for more than $6.7 million under this program. Section 1601 of
the TEA21, ``High Priority Projects Program'', also contains a 1999
earmark for $1 million of funding for the portion of the high-speed
rail corridor in Louisiana. Finally, Amtrak has promised $1 million for
the Gulf Coast Corridor in its 1999-2000 budget and is negotiating uses
of those funds now with the Southern Rapid Rail Transit Commission and
other corridor representatives. The corridor, however, is almost 1,000
miles in length and has over 1,100 grade crossings. A regular long term
funding program to eliminate or upgrade grade crossings, to insure
safety, will be required in order to allow for higher speeds on the
corridor.
status of kalamazoo to grand beach grade crossing projects
Question. What is the status of the Kalamazoo to Grand Beach,
Michigan corridor, which received an earmark of $250,000 in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. This segment of the Detroit-Chicago high-speed corridor is
owned by Amtrak and has an alignment which will allow operating speeds
of 110 mph or higher. To date, Michigan has received $5.175 million in
grade crossing hazard mitigation funds. Using approximately half of
these funds, 36 grade crossings have been upgraded, 3 public and 12
private crossings have been closed with one alternate access road
constructed. Using the remaining funds, the state is planning to
install median barriers and upgrade additional crossings. MIDOT is in
the process of contracting with Amtrak to close 16 to 20 private
crossings on the Amtrak-owned track segment between Kalamazoo and the
Michigan/Indiana state line. Preliminary work is well underway, and
closures will begin this summer. This work is estimated at $966,000.
For fiscal year 1999, the State has applied for $5.5 million to
begin design for a grade separation and to close five crossings and
upgrade nine crossings, including construction of walls along the
railroad right-of-way to prevent trespassing.
Other notable progress in the corridor has resulted from the
``Model Community Initiative'' program. In Dowagiac, an fiscal year
1994 grant of $600,000 enabled the city to close two crossings of six
within the town, and upgrade the warning systems at the remaining four
crossings. These funds were also instrumental in leveraging an
additional $1,052,340 in federal, state and local funds for the
realignment of Depot Road, commercial improvements and renovations to
the Dowagiac depot and the adjacent area.
In fiscal year 1995, the Model Community Initiative program used $1
million to close 12 private crossings in Comstock. This funding, along
with $800,000 in state funds, was used to complete the closure of these
12 private crossings, one additional public crossing and construct an
alternate access road.
status of milwaukee to wisconsin-illinois grade crossing projects
Question. What is the status of the Milwaukee to the Wisconsin-
Illinois border corridor, which statutorily receives $250,000 of the
$5,250,000 in section 1103 of TEA-21?
Answer. TEA-21 set aside not less than $250,000 to be available
each fiscal year for eligible improvements to the Minneapolis/St. Paul-
Chicago segment of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Corridor. Wisconsin DOT
has proposed $500,000 to upgrade four crossings between Milwaukee and
Chicago with new lights, gates, and constant warning time (CWT)
circuits. Minnesota DOT supports this work. Amtrak, which runs 14
trains per day on the line, has indicated that upgrading the four
crossings is its highest priority.
Wisconsin and Minnesota have participated in the nine-state Midwest
Regional Rail Initiative of which this line is a major segment. Both
states are completing the analysis of the requirements to upgrade this
line for 110 mph service.
status of sealed corridor project
Question. What is the status of the sealed corridor project? Why
are you proposing a decrease in funding at this time for that
initiative? How much do you expect to allocate to the sealed corridor
project during fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The planning and installation of median barriers, four-
quadrant gate systems, long gate arms and other warning devices
continues, as do the efforts to close redundant crossings. With the
funding to be received in fiscal year 1999, the demonstration will be
extended from Charlotte to Durham and will cover 168 public crossings.
Additional technologies have been tested at Orr Road in Charlotte:
long gate arms produced a decrease in violations by 67 percent and an
articulated gate (which has a hinge allowing it to fold over on itself)
produced a 78 percent reduction in traffic violations. The Video
Ticketing project in Salisbury has proven very successful at reducing
violations (by 78 percent) and without requiring the passage of special
legislation. To date:
--4 crossings have been equipped with four-quadrant gates;
--15 crossings with median barriers (3 more will get concrete
barriers this summer);
--1 crossing with long gate arms with 10 more in design (51 are
planned); and
--12 crossings have been closed (4 private).
There are plans to close an additional 7 crossings in the next 6
months. Seven Traffic Separation studies are underway to identify
additional crossings eligible for closure (perhaps as many as 13).
A connector road to a new grade separation in Greensboro will begin
construction in late 1999, with construction of the grade separation to
follow at a later date. When complete, three crossings will be closed.
From 1996 to date, $7.58 million has been provided from FRA's Next
Generation High-Speed Rail (NGHSR) and Section 1010 (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)) programs. Overall, the State has
matched the Federal allocations by approximately 20 percent.
There is $2 million in fiscal year 1999 funds available for Sealed
Corridor Initiative: $1 million from the section 104(d)(2) program, the
extension of the section 1010 program; and $1 million from the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail program. The State is providing $500,000 in
matching funds in fiscal year 1999. These funds will enable crossings
between Burlington and Durham to be evaluated and treated.
The State is examining alternative routes between Durham and
Raleigh. Estimates for completion of the Sealed Corridor between Durham
and Raleigh is very roughly estimated to cost an additional $3-4
million, but much work needs to be done to examine the alternative
alignments, identify crossings for consolidation and develop plans for
treating those that remain. Because of these alignment questions and
the studies needed, an allocation of $400,000 will be adequate for the
State in fiscal year 2000.
arrester net project--next steps
Question. What is the next step in the advancement of the arrester
net project? What has this project accomplished? Are other communities
likely to deploy the technology? What is FRA doing to accomplish that
objective?
Answer. The next step for the arrester net project is to complete
the demonstration. The arrester net is being demonstrated at three
locations on the Chicago-St. Louis high-speed rail corridor:
1. Trunk Rte 35A, near Chenoa, (UP, mp 105.93) Crossing # 290786R
2. US Route 136, McLean, (UP, mp 141.2) Crossing # 290964A
3. Hawthorne St., Hartford, (Gateway Western Railway and UP, UP MP
264.85), Crossing # FAU 8975.
The two sites at Chenoa and McLean have been operating
independently since the last week in March, 1999. The site in Hartford
is undergoing the final pretests needed before beginning independent
operations. The demonstration will continue for 18 to 24 months, and
evaluations of the video images recording driver behavior and any
impacts, driver surveys and other human factor and mechanical
evaluations will be conducted by the University of Illinois.
Future use of the vehicle arrester barrier (VAB) will be determined
by the results of the demonstration. The results will include:
practicality in terms of reliability, maintainability, and cost of the
hardware; susceptibility to vandalism; public acceptance of the concept
(both before and after an impact occurs), and railroad acceptance based
on whether disruption and delays are created both before and after an
impact occurs. Potential delays and disruption, and possibly secondary
accidents, could result from the debris after a first vehicle impacts
the net. Other factors to be considered are the highway volumes and
speed, percentage of large trucks, sight distance and visibility as
determined by local weather conditions (such as the tendency for fog at
certain times of day). Should the demonstration prove effective, the
FRA will work with State DOT's to develop the installation criteria and
estimates of funding necessary for their deployment.
status and funding of hsr track and structures technology
Question. Regarding the development of high-speed rail track and
structure technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999, and planned fiscal year 2000 FRA investments. Please
include information on each major FRA project in that program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Enacted 1999 Enacted 2000 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and structures funding............ $1,200,000 $1,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACK AND STRUCTURES STATUS AND ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced HS Rail Vehicle and Prototype System greatly
Track Monitoring System successfully reduces costs of
(Portable on board device for tested. In-service FRA-required ride
monitoring ride quality with demonstration quality
remote communications underway in monitoring in
capability). Pacific Northwest. Pacific
CALTRANS using to Northwest.
monitor service Methodology to
quality on San most effectively
Joaquin line. use detailed
information
provided by
system will be
further refined
through
operational
experience.
Evaluation and Demonstration of Initial analyses Project proceeding
Techniques to Assure Subgrade completed, as planned.
Performance for High-Speed demonstration site Expected to
Track. selection underway. greatly reduce
life-cycle cost
of correcting
certain types of
subgrade
anomalies.
Demonstration of HS Track First Stage of Results indicate
Maintenance Using Objective project completed substantial
Gage Strength Data. early CY 1999 on opportunities to
Richmond- use gage strength
Washington data to reduce
corridor. Second cost of upgrading
stage pending. and maintaining
wood-tie track
for high-speed
services.
BAA 98-1 project to demonstrate Concept selected, Could decrease
techniques to treat contract to be costs of
maintenance-intensive subgrade awarded shortly. correcting
problems. certain types of
maintenance
problems by as
much as 90
percent over
current
techniques.
BAA 98-1 project to demonstrate Concept selected, Previous work in
techniques to improve ride contract to be this area
quality and increase speeds awarded shortly. resulted in the
over bridges and other successful
sections of track with large demonstration of
stiffness variations. low-cost tie pads
which improve
ride quality to
permit higher
speeds over some
bridges at
minimum cost.
BAA 98-1 project to develop Concept selected, No outstanding
methodology to apply contract to be issues at this
ultrasonic track inspection awarded shortly. time.
techniques to high-speed
tracks to minimize maintenance
costs while assuring safe
operations.
BAA 98-1 project to identify Concept selected, No outstanding
components which can be used contract to be issues at this
to upgrade speeds over special awarded shortly. time.
trackwork at minimal cost.
Broad Agency Announcement BAA Concept selected, No significant
98-1 to solicit additional contract to be issues at this
proposals in this technology awarded shortly. time.
area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r&d vs nghsr high-speed rail projects
Question. There would seem to be a natural synergy and overlap
between NGHSR's track and structures technology program, and R&D's
safety of high-speed ground transportation program. What are the
distinctions between these programs? Could the track and structures
technology program be integrated into the R&D safety of high-speed
ground transportation program?
Answer. Although both programs deal with track and structures
issues, the programs have different objectives, different
constituencies, and different implementation mechanisms. The NGHSR
track and structures technology program is targeted at meeting the
needs of states proposing to upgrade existing lines to higher speeds,
and to successfully and economically maintain the higher service
levels. While safety is always a consideration, to a significant degree
the NGHSR efforts target cost effectiveness issues which are outside
the purview of the safety-related programs. The primary constituency
for the NGHSR efforts is state transportation officials. The primary
mechanism for implementation of the NGHSR program is financial
assistance grants and cooperative agreements to demonstrate worthwhile
new technologies. Of course, as with all NGHSR program efforts, new
technologies will succeed only if they are consistent with the needs of
all partners participating in the incremental corridor upgrades,
including safety, and including the needs of freight railroads which
often own, operate, and maintain the corridors.
Although the corridors are operated by the freight railroads, it is
important to note the nationwide trend toward states contributing major
capital amounts for corridor maintenance and improvement. A single
example: CALTRANS contributed almost $100 million to upgrade the
infrastructure of the Union Pacific route between Sacramento and
Oakland, in exchange for the right to operate five additional passenger
roundtrips per day in the increased line capacity resulting from the
improved signal system and eliminating longstanding traffic
bottlenecks. The NGHSR technology development effort is targeted at
increasing the resulting performance and/or reducing the total required
investment of these scarce dollars.
In contrast, the objective of the safety of high-speed ground
program is to assure that high-speed operations are safe. In this
regard, a primary constituency of this program element is FRA's Office
of Safety which requires technical support to assess new technologies
and to underpin necessary rulemakings, such as the revised Track Safety
Standards which now address operations at speeds over 110 mph. The
program implementation mechanism is primarily contracts and work with
technical resources such as the Volpe Center. One element of providing
technical support capability is to have adequate technical support
facilities, including the proposed high-speed test car which will be
available to conduct safety research tests and assessments in the
higher speed environment. As many new high-speed initiatives are
undertaken, often utilizing new equipment designs, track-train dynamics
issues will arise with very high visibility and very high priority to
resolve. The success of implementing the new high-speed programs will
depend on FRA's ability to quickly and effectively deal with such
issues. This can be accomplished only if resources are provided
targeted for this purpose.
In summary, the two programs are significantly different and will
be most effective if the present program structure is retained.
maglev program
Question. Does the Administration seek to continue implementing the
provisions specified in TEA-21 for the planning, development, and
implementation of maglev projects? If not, please explain, and further
justify the proposed transfer of funds requested from the maglev
program to the advanced vehicle technology program?
Answer. The Administration shares with Congress the ultimate goal
of deploying cost effective magnetic levitation systems. However, the
Administration does not propose to continue implementing the provisions
of Section 1218 of TEA-21, the Maglev Deployment Program beyond fiscal
year 1999. The preponderance of research, including FRA's analysis,
indicate that Maglev systems are not currently cost-effective, and
cost-justified. Therefore, the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
proposes $20 million appropriation of RABA funds to initiate an
intensive research program to refine existing technology and develop
new American technology to reduce the capital costs of maglev
deployment. The two operational high-speed maglev systems that have
been developed to date, those of Germany and Japan, can cost from $20
to $50 million dollars per mile. The proposed research would be
directed toward significantly reducing the cost of a maglev project,
making it more feasible under the Maglev Deployment Program. Meanwhile,
the $20 million in contract authority under TEA-21 is proposed to be
transferred to advanced vehicle technology program.
maglev administrative costs
Question. In fiscal year 1999, $500,000 of the total $15,000,000
maglev program was made available for FRA's administrative expenses and
technical assistance. Please specify exactly how these funds are being
spent in fiscal year 1999. Assuming that the TEA-21 maglev contract
authority funds will not be transferred to the advanced vehicle
technology program, what are the maglev program administrative needs in
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Of the $500,000 earmarked for administrative and technical
assistance, $225,000 was allocated to the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (VNTSC) to provide analytical support to FRA for the
administration of the Maglev Deployment Program. The VNTSC has
considerable experience from previously funded maglev initiatives. The
remaining balance will be used for contract support in technical
monitoring and reporting on the States and authorities selected to
prepare Project Descriptions.
At least $2,000,000 in administrative funding would be needed in
fiscal year 2000 to continue an adequate level of contract support from
VNTSC and other contractors, and to lay the groundwork for the approval
of the technology within safety parameters.
staffing for the maglev program
Question. Were any new positions associated with the maglev
administrative funding? If so are these part of the additional FTE
request?
Answer. None of the $500,000 in maglev administrative funds
authorized for fiscal year 1999 is being used to fund new positions.
earmark for blacksburg, virginia maglev project
Question. Funding for the Blacksburg, Virginia maglev project was
conditioned upon the financial participation of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Has the State committed to providing the required one-third
match? Will a reprogramming be necessary to free up these funds for
another maglev applicant?
Answer. FRA has not received an application for a project in or
near Blacksburg, Virginia. The House and Senate subcommittees staff
have advised FRA that the funds may be allocated to other maglev
applicants, in accordance with FRA procedures, without further action
by Congress.
status of philadelphia to pittsburgh maglev project
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
Philadelphia to Pittsburgh high-speed intercity magnetic levitation
project, which received $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. Have these
funds been released to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or another
designated public authority?
Answer. FRA has received an application for a preconstruction
planning grant from the Port Authority of Allegheny County. The grant
will support a 45 mile maglev line, linking Pittsburgh Airport to
Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs, as the initial segment of a
Pittsburgh to Philadelphia system. The Federal Railroad Administration
is in the process of negotiating a cooperative agreement with the Port
Authority of Allegheny County to conduct the preconstruction planning
activities and will release funds once the agreement is signed.
fiscal year 1999 applications for maglev funding
Question. As of February 16, 1999, the Federal Railroad
Administration had received eleven applications for preconstruction
planning grants from states or authorities designated by states. Of
these eleven, has any project subsequently withdrawn its application?
Answer. An application from the University of Alabama at Huntsville
has been withdrawn, and an application from the City of Birmingham,
Alabama was never completed. The Huntsville application supported a
line between Huntsville and Decatur, Alabama, representing the first
phase of a 350-400 mile system, connecting Memphis, TN with Atlanta,
GA.
rating, selection and funding of maglev projects
Question. Has the FRA convened a rating committee to recommend the
most meritorious projects to the Administrator? When will these be
selected and announced? How many projects will receive fiscal year 1999
funds? What will the grant amounts be?
Answer. The FRA Administrator appointed a six person Rating
Committee to review, score, and rate the applications that were
received by FRA for preconstruction planning grants. The applicants
have been selected and the process should be completed by the week of
May 17. Details regarding the grant amounts will be available after the
Secretary announces his decision and FRA has negotiated with the
applicants.
status of the rhode island rail development project
Question. Please provide a funding history of the project,
detailing funding sources, amounts, and project benchmarks, by fiscal
year, from the project's inception to completion.
Answer. Funding for the Rhode Island Project began in fiscal year
1995 when Congress appropriated $5 million for the Freight Rail
Improvement Project (FRIP). An additional $23 million was appropriated
between fiscal years 1996 and 1999 in the following annual amounts:
fiscal year 1996--$1 million; fiscal year 1997--$7 million; fiscal year
1998--$10 million; and fiscal year 1999--$5 million. Through fiscal
year 1999 a total of $28 million has been appropriated. An additional
$10 million is requested in fiscal year 2000 for a total of $38
million. The Federal commitment is $55 million.
In the November, 1996 elections, Rhode Island voters approved a
bond referendum, the proceeds of which would be used by the state to
satisfy the dollar-for-dollar matching requirement of the Rhode Island
Project.
Benchmarks or milestones for the Project include:
--March 1995: RIDOT and FRA sign a grant agreement which obligates
the first $5 million of Federal funds.
--May 1998: Administrators Wykle of the Federal Highway
Administration, and Molitoris of the Federal Railroad
Administration sign the environmental record of decision for
the Freight Rail Improvement Project.
--November 1998: Amtrak and RIDOT sign the Track 7 construction
agreement.
--April 1999: Construction of 5 miles of replacement track scheduled
to begin and continue for 15 months.
--April 2000: Construction of the third track scheduled to begin and
continue for 18 months.
--Bridge construction packages 1 through 5b scheduled to be awarded
during the first eight months of 2000.
--Summer of 2001: All bridge construction packages scheduled to be
completed.
--Fall of 2001: High and wide rail operations authorized.
completion date of the rhode island rail project
Question. When is the estimated date of completion for this rail
access project? What is the 2000 and outyear funding and construction
schedule?
Answer. RIDOT estimates that the FRIP will be sufficiently
completed by the Fall of 2001 to allow high and wide rail operations to
begin. Estimates of cash outlays continue through the second quarter of
fiscal year 2001, an indication that a limited amount of construction,
and final contract payments, will occur beyond the start of rail
operations.
Through fiscal year 1999, $28 million of Federal funds have been
appropriated leaving a balance of $27 million to complete the Federal
commitment of $55 million for the FRIP. If the Administration's fiscal
year 2000 budget request of $10 million is appropriated the balance
will fall to $17 million. Exactly how much of this remainder is
requested for fiscal year 2001 and 2002 is to be determined.
coordination of rhode island rail and nec project
Question. Please describe how the ongoing work on the Rhode Island
freight corridor is coordinated with the Northeast Corridor
electrification and track work between Providence and Quonset Point/
Davisville. Is there a possibility that freight track construction that
extends beyond the Northeast Corridor completion will interfere with
Amtrak operations?
Answer. Acknowledging the need for careful coordination between
construction activities associated with the Freight Rail Improvement
Project and Northeast Corridor track and electrification work, RIDOT
decided to contract directly with Amtrak for all its track work. This
arrangement will allow Amtrak to make all decisions with regards to
material procurement, construction planning, and train operations to
the ultimate benefit of both projects. At present it appears that FRIP
construction will not begin until all work that is critical to the
start of high-speed service in late 1999 has been completed. For this
reason, construction of a third track and other capacity enhancements
will extend beyond the start of high-speed passenger service. It is
doubtful that this work will interfere with Amtrak operations for three
reasons: Amtrak, because it is responsible for both operating its
trains and coordinating FRIP construction, will schedule work to avoid
interferences; much of the FRIP track work will be adjacent to the
Corridor mainline but not directly on it; and, because current plans
anticipate a more gradual introduction of high-speed service than
earlier plans, there will be greater flexibility in scheduling track
construction.
fiscal year 2000 funding level for rhode island rail project
Question. The State of Rhode Island is requesting $15,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 for the freight improvement project (FRIP); the
Administration's request is for $10,000,000. Please discuss the
relative merits of funding this project at both requested levels. What
could be the effect of funding the project at $5,000,000, the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 funding needs for FRIP will, to some
extent, be determined by how quickly Amtrak completes the
electrification and related high-speed service projects, and is able to
reassign its resources to track 7 and third track construction. The $10
million request in the President's budget would be consistent with the
current schedule for completion of the FRIP. Rhode Island's request
might permit acceleration of the schedule, but FRA has not had an
opportunity to review the State's new plan. A drop in the appropriation
to $5,000,000 may cause additional delays if it prevents the timely
ordering of long lead materials.
amtrak's funding history
Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of
Amtrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the
Corporation's creation to present.
Answer. The information of Amtrak's Federal appropriations
including the Northeast Corridor Program follows:
Amtrak Federal Appropriations Including the Northeast Corridor Program
Fiscal year (Millions of
Current Dollars)
1971.......................................................... 40.0
1972.......................................................... 170.0
1973.......................................................... 9.1
1974.......................................................... 140.0
1975.......................................................... 276.5
1976.......................................................... 659.1
1977.......................................................... 800.7
1978.......................................................... 1,116.0
1979.......................................................... 1,234.0
1980.......................................................... 1,223.4
1981.......................................................... 1,246.3
1982.......................................................... 905.0
1983.......................................................... 895.0
1984.......................................................... 816.4
1985.......................................................... 711.6
1986.......................................................... 602.7
1987.......................................................... 624.0
1988.......................................................... 607.5
1989.......................................................... 603.6
1990.......................................................... 629.1
1991.......................................................... 815.1
1992.......................................................... 856.0
1993.......................................................... 891.1
1994.......................................................... 908.7
1995.......................................................... 972.0
1996.......................................................... 750.0
1997.......................................................... 843.0
1998.......................................................... 594.0
1999.......................................................... 609.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 20,549.1
amtrak's net operating losses by year
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating losses, by year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year operating losses by fiscal year
are as follows:
Net Operating Loss
Fiscal year ($ Millions)
1971 (Year end 12/31)......................................... 92
1972 (Year end 12/31)......................................... 151
1973 (Year end 12/31)......................................... 159
1974 (Year end 12/31)......................................... 273
1975 (Year end 12/31)......................................... 353
1976 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 343
1977 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 537
1978 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 582
1979 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 620
1980 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 27
1981 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 179
1980-1981 Adjustment.......................................... \1\ 41
1982 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 795
1983 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 805
1984 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 763
1985 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 774
1986 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 702
1987 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 699
1988 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 650
1989 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 665
1990 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 703
1991 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 722
1992 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 712
1993 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 731
1994 (Year end 9/30).......................................... \2\ 1,077
1995 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 808
1996 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 764
1997 (Year end 9/30).......................................... 762
1998 (Year end 9/30).......................................... \3\ 353
\1\ This adjustment was due to a change in Amtrak's method of accounting
for track structure depreciation which had the effect of increasing net
losses for fiscal years 1983, 1982, and 1980-81 by $35 million, $24
million, and $41 million, respectively.
\2\ Includes $244 million of one-time expenses.
\3\ Offset of $577 million of TRA receipts, including interest earned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amtrak's net end of year debt
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year debt loads by fiscal year are as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Federally- Federally-
Fiscal year guaranteed guaranteed Total debt
debt debt \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971............................................................ 0.7 .............. 0.7
1972............................................................ 7.1 .............. 7.1
1973............................................................ 30.9 78.6 109.5
1974............................................................ 76.6 .............. 76.6
1975............................................................ 107.1 377.8 484.9
1976............................................................ 132.5 608.9 741.4
1977............................................................ 169.7 624.8 794.5
1978............................................................ 146.5 761.6 908.1
1979............................................................ 113.3 859.3 972.6
1980............................................................ 92.3 1,175.8 1,268.1
1981............................................................ 78.9 1,703.2 1,782.1
1982............................................................ 68.7 2,155.1 2,223.8
1983............................................................ 6.5 2,531.9 2,538.4
1984............................................................ 13.2 3,010.6 3,023.8
1985............................................................ 22.2 3,175.4 3,197.6
1986............................................................ 23.8 3,248.4 3,272.2
1987............................................................ 22.7 .............. 22.7
1988............................................................ 35.9 .............. 35.9
1989............................................................ 126.5 .............. 126.5
1990............................................................ 183.8 .............. 183.8
1991............................................................ 288.0 .............. 288.0
1992............................................................ 418.8 .............. 418.8
1993............................................................ 492.3 .............. 492.3
1994............................................................ 770.3 .............. 770.3
1995............................................................ 837.0 .............. 837.0
1996............................................................ 987.0 .............. 987.0
1997............................................................ 1,336.4 .............. 1,336.4
1998............................................................ 1,637.9 .............. 1,637.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This debt was forgiven in fiscal year 1987.
loans made to amtrak
Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1998
and thus far in fiscal year 1999 (through March 31). Please include
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment
period, and interest rate.
Answer. The list of loans made by Amtrak during that period is as
follows:
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest
Term rate
Lender/Lessor Description Amount (Years) (Per
year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
First Union National Bank.................. Capital Lease 1(17 P-42 Locomotives)..................................... 44.2 17 5.9
Riverfront Development Corporation......... Capital Lease (Operations Center)........................................ 6.8 20 7.0
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (20 mail vans)............................................. 0.6 9 6.0
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (94 inter-bogies).......................................... 2.3 9 6.0
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (250 aluminum vans)........................................ 5.9 9 6.0
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (16 coupler mates)......................................... 0.5 9 6.0
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (8 RoadRailer vans)........................................ 0.3 9 6.0
State Street Bank and Trust Co. of Capital Lease (50 Greenbriar cars)....................................... 3.8 15 5.6
Connecticut.
State Street Bank and Trust Co. of Capital Lease (200 Trenton boxcars)...................................... 16.7 18 6.4
Connecticut.
State Street Bank and Trust Co. of Capital Lease (50 Viewliner cars)........................................ 96.5 20 5.6
Connecticut.
First Union National Bank.................. Capital Lease (8 GE dual mode locomotives)............................... 32.0 17 4.7
First Union National Bank.................. Capital Lease (2 F-59 locomotives)....................................... 4.4 20 5.6
First Union National Bank.................. 112 Superliner cars...................................................... 250.3 17.5 6.7
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail Finance High-speed trainsets financing........................................... 221.6 20 ( \1\ )
Corporation (of Japan).
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail Finance High-speed facilities financing.......................................... 37.3 20 ........
Corporation (of Japan).
Fiscal Year 1999 (through March 31):
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail Finance High-speed trainsets--additional draws................................... 25.8 20 ( \1\ )
Corporation (of Japan).
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail Finance High-speed trainsets--additional draws................................... 29.6 20 ( \1\ )
Corporation (of Japan).
First Union National Bank.................. Capital Lease (19 F-59 locomotives)...................................... 42.8 20 5.6
Wabash National Finance Corporation........ Capital Lease (4 inter-bogies)........................................... 0.1 9 6.0
New York Air Brake Corporation............. Capital Lease (5 simulators)............................................. 1.0 5 4.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
revised capital definition--impact on qualified expenses
Question. Is it accurate that, if Amtrak were to have the same
qualified expenses as the definition applied to projects funded by the
Federal Transit Administration, payment of interest and principal on
obligations for acquisition, upgrading, and maintenance would not be an
eligible expense?
Answer. If Amtrak's capital grant were to have the same qualified
expenses as the definition applied to projects funded by the Federal
Transit Administration, the payment of the principal portion on
obligations for the acquisition, upgrading and maintenance would
continue to be an eligible expense. It is FRA's view that the FTA
definition would supplement, but not replace, the generally accepted
accounting principals' (GAAP) treatment of capital. GAAP views the
principal portion of debt service for obligations associated with
capital investment as a capital expense. It should also be noted that
the discussion above applies only to Amtrak's capital grant and not to
funds made available to Amtrak under Section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997, which are covered by their own statutory definition of
qualified expenses.
extension of fiscal year 1999 capital definition
Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations legislation permits
Amtrak to expend its appropriated funds on maintenance of existing
equipment as well as for capital improvements, consistent with eligible
uses of Taxpayer Relief Act funds. Absent similar report language in
the fiscal year 2000 bill or the accompanying House, Senate, or
conference reports, will Amtrak be legally authorized to extend that
use of appropriated funds for maintenance of way and maintenance of
facilities?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2000
proposes that Amtrak be given the same flexibility in spending its
capital grant as provided to transit grantees, including for
maintenance of way and maintenance of facilities. It is the long
standing position of the Administration that Amtrak can act in accord
with such a proposal contained in the President's grant request absent
a statement rejecting the proposal in the Appropriations Act or the
accompanying House, Senate or conference reports.
fra vs amtrak's fiscal year 2000 funding request
Question. The Federal Railroad Administration has sent up a request
for $570,976,000 for fiscal year 2000 and the Amtrak legislative
request is for a total of $571,000,000. What accounts for the $24,000
difference.
Answer. In testimony before the House Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, Amtrak's President indicated that the Corporation merely
rounded the Administration request to the closest $100,000 and that
Amtrak could live with $570,976,000.
maximum amount funded under proposed capital definition
Question. If the Federal Transit Administration's expanded capital
definition were applied to Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount
of the $571,000,000 in the fiscal year 2000 request that could be used
for: maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities, and
maintenance of way? (Please break out your response by category.)
Answer. Amtrak has indicated to FRA that the Corporation's total
maintenance expense in fiscal year 2000 will total approximately $481
million. Of this amount, $304 million would be for maintenance of
equipment, and $177 million for maintenance of way. If the Federal
Transit Administration's expanded capital definition were applied to
Amtrak capital, any and all of these expenses could be funded from
Amtrak's capital grant; however, Amtrak does not intend to fund all of
these expenses from its capital grant. Amtrak's current strategic
business plan projects that approximately $362 million of the capital
grant would be used for maintenance expenses, which have been
traditionally funded from sources other than Amtrak's capital grant.
______
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
administrative expenses
Question. Please prepare an organizational chart for the Federal
Transit Administration, showing the office structure and regional
office locations, as well as the current number of FTE currently
assigned to each office.
Answer. The information follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.010
bill language provisions
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 appropriations act, $800,000 is
transferred from Oversight funds to the DOT Inspector General for costs
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway systems. In
the fiscal year 2000 budget request, FTA proposes to reimburse the
Inspector General using funds from within the general administrative
expenses account, for audits and investigations of all transit-related
issues and systems. Why the proposed change in source of, and use of,
these reimbursed funds? Why is the proposed amount increased from
$800,000 to $1,700,000?
Answer. The expectation is that OIG's activities will be expanded
beyond transit mega-projects to general oversight of grantees,
therefore increased funding is needed. The change in funding from
Oversight to Administrative Expenses is intended to maximize the funds
available for FTA oversight activities.
budget activity increases
Question. Please justify the increases proposed in the following
areas: communications, utilities and miscellaneous charges ($1,728,000
to $2,154,000); other services ($3,948,000 to $6,909,000); and
equipment ($635,000 to $986,000).
Answer. Telecommunications have increased $623,000 from fiscal year
1998 to fiscal year 1999 because of the implementation of our
Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) System. We expect
that these charges will increase $426,000 from fiscal year 1999 to
fiscal year 2000 as more grantees come on-line and FTA moves to a
``paperless'' grant making process.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS--OBJECT CLASS 23
(In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year Change--1998 year Change--1999 year
1998 to 1999 1999 to 2000 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunication:
Local & Long Distance............................. 472 214 686 65 751
Local & FTS....................................... 455 227 682 57 739
TEAM--Network Infrastructure Upgrades............. ........ 100 100 ............ 100
Network Infrastructure Upgrades (TASC)............ ........ 50 50 300 350
Mail/Messenger-Postage............................ 58 34 92 1 93
Mail/Messenger-Postage--(TASC).................... 96 13 109 3 112
Rental--Other Equipment........................... 24 -15 9 ............ 9
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 2300...................................... 1,105 623 1,728 426 2,154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $1,936 million increase from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
1999 is due primarily to $1.1 million in Y2K compliance costs and $250
thousand needed for the Contracting-Out Study required by Section 3032
of TEA-21. Since some of the same activities are funded from both the
25.2 line item Other Services and 25.3 line item Purchases of Goods and
Services from Government Accounts, it is clearer to view the entire
line item 25 as shown in the following table:
OTHER SERVICES--OBJECT CLASS 25
(In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year Change--1998 year Change--1999 year
1998 to 1999 1999 to 2000 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit and Financial Reviews Services.................. ........ ............ ........ 1,700 1,700
Building management:
Guard service, health services, repairs, etc...... 513 69 582 6 588
TASC management services (e.g. library)........... 556 -21 535 8 543
Contracting Out Study................................. ........ 250 250 -250 ........
DOT Drug and Alcohol Office........................... 52 ............ 52 3 55
Maintenance and Repair................................ 80 30 110 5 115
Financial Systems:
Accounting System Conversion...................... ........ ............ ........ 200 200
Operations and Maintenance........................ 508 -31 477 209 686
Credit Checks..................................... 20 -10 10 1 11
Grants Systems:
GMIS/TEAM......................................... 1,149 795 1,944 771 2,715
PDD63............................................. ........ ............ ........ 300 300
Contractor Support (service, Help Desk, etc.)......... 1,063 -13 1,050 715 1,765
Human Resources Information System.................... 315 -15 300 2 302
LEXIS/NEXIS........................................... 30 ............ 30 2 32
Meeting support (e.g. State Programs, TEA-21, etc.)... 37 10 47 ............ 47
Security Investigations............................... 10 ............ 10 2 12
Training:
Honors Attorney................................... 20 ............ 20 2 22
Civilian Training (gov)........................... 242 57 299 260 559
Y2K Compliance:
Financial systems................................. ........ 100 100 -80 20
Grants systems.................................... ........ 1,000 1,000 -900 100
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................... 4,595 2,221 6,816 2,956 9,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment costs increase significantly from fiscal year 1998 to
fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000. This is the result of new
equipment purchases to meet the needs of Y2K and the implementation of
TEAM.
EQUIPMENT--OBJECT CLASS 31
(In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year Change--1998 year Change--1999 year
1998 to 1999 1999 to 2000 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment:
Information Technology Equipment \1\.............. 35 365 400 ............ 400
Office............................................ 20 80 100 ............ 100
Office Equipment.................................. 15 20 35 51 86
Electronic Commerce............................... ........ 100 100 300 400
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 3100...................................... 70 565 635 351 986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Y2K and TEAM.
staffing
Question. The FTA has proposed increasing the FTE level from 485 to
495 in fiscal year 2000. Please break out these staffing increases by
title, grade, and projected starting dates, including where each
position will be located.
Answer. The information follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 HIRING PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE TITLE GRADE EOD DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Planning................ Community Planner...................... GS-9/11/12............ 1/01/00
Community Planner...................... GS-11/12.............. 1/01/00
Financial Specialist................... GS-9/11/12............ 7/01/00
Region 1.......................... General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 1/01/00
Region 2.......................... General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 1/01/00
Region 3.......................... Community Planner...................... GS-9/11/12............ 7/01/00
Region 4.......................... General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 1/01/00
General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 7/01/00
Region 5.......................... Community Planner...................... GS-11/12.............. 1/01/00
Region 6.......................... Community Planner...................... GS-11/12.............. 1/01/00
Region 8.......................... Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-11/12/13........... 7/01/00
Region 9.......................... General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 1/01/00
Region 10......................... Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-11/12/13........... 7/01/00
Office of Program Management...... Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-12/13.............. 1/01/00
Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-12/13.............. 7/01/00
General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 4/01/00
General Engineer....................... GS-11/12/13........... 4/01/00
Office of Budget and Policy....... Program Analyst........................ GS-12/13.............. 7/01/00
Office of Research Demons. & Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-12/13.............. 7/01/00
Innovation.
Trans. Program Specialist.............. GS-12/13.............. 7/01/00
TOTAL (20 Positions).............. ....................................... ...................... 10 FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table similar to the one found on page
1246 of the House fiscal year 1999 hearing record, part 4, detailing
FTA's FTEs for fiscal years 1998, 1999 on-board, estimated end-of-year,
and 2000 proposal.
Answer. The information follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
Organization 1997 1998 1999 2000
Actual Actual 1999 On- Projected Proposed
FTE FTE Board FTE FTE FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Offices:
Administrator........................................ 5 6 5 5 5
Public Affairs....................................... 11 11 13 13 13
Chief Counsel........................................ 33 32 27 30 30
Budget and Policy.................................... 53 48 51 54 54
Civil Rights......................................... 24 25 26 26 26
Administration....................................... 67 69 65 65 65
Research, Demons and Innovation...................... 44 42 43 43 43
Program Management................................... 56 57 56 59 61
Planning............................................. 27 25 28 28 30
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal HQ........................................ 320 316 314 323 327
======================================================
Regional Offices:
Reg 1, Cambridge, MA................................. 14 13 13 13 14
Reg 2, New York, NY.................................. 19 18 18 18 19
Reg 3, Philadelphia, PA.............................. 20 20 19 20 20
Reg 4, Atlanta, GA................................... 19 21 21 21 22
Reg 5, Chicago, IL................................... 21 22 24 24 25
Reg 6, Fort Worth, TX................................ 15 16 16 16 17
Reg 7 Kansas City, MO................................ 11 9 12 12 12
Reg 8, Denver, CO.................................... 7 7 8 8 8
Reg 9, San Francisco, CA............................. 20 20 21 21 22
Reg 10, Seattle, WA.................................. 10 9 9 9 9
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Regions................................... 156 155 161 162 168
======================================================
Total FTA.......................................... 476 471 475 485 495
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many FTE are fully funded in fiscal year 1999 and
2000? How many are authorized?
Answer. The FTA has 485 FTE authorized and fully funded in fiscal
year 1999, and requests funding for 495 authorized FTE in fiscal year
2000.
Question. What positions are vacant at this time (indicate office,
title, salary range of each vacancy). What are FTA's plans for filling
these vacancies in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The information follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999 HIRING PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE POSITIONS SALARY RANGE EOD DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Counsel................ Attorney Advisor, GS-15........................... $80,658-$104,851 5/10/99
Paralegal Specialist, GS-11....................... 40,714-52,927 5/10/99
Attorney Advisor, GS-14........................... 68,570-89,142 4/12/99
Attorney Advisor, GS-14........................... 68,570-89,142 4/12/99
Paralegal Specialist, GS-11....................... 40,714-52,927 5/10/99
Attorney Advisor, GS-14........................... 68,570-89,142 4/26/99
Budget & Policy.............. Clerk (OA), GS-4/5................................ 19,849-28,868 4/12/99
Budget Analyst, GS-12/13.......................... 48,796-75,433 5/10/99
Systems Accountant, GS-13/14...................... 58,027-89,142 4/26/99
Program Analyst, GS-12/13......................... 48,796-75,433 6/13/99
Administration............... Staff Advisor, GS-9/11/12......................... 33,650-52,927 5/10/99
Procurement Analyst, GS-11/12/13.................. 40,714-75,433 4/26/99
Research & Innovation........ Transportation Systems Manager, GS-14/15.......... 68,570-104,851 6/13/99
Transportation Program. Mgr., GS-15............... 80,658-104,851 6/13/99
Transportation Program Mgr., GS-13/14............. 58,027-89,142 4/26/99
Program Management........... Trans. Safety and Security Spec., GS-7/9/11....... 27,508-40,714 6/13/99
General Engineer, GS-11/12/13..................... 40,714-75,433 4/12/99
Trans. Program Specialist, GS-13/14............... 58,027-89,142 3/28/99
Trans. Program. Specialist, GS-7/9/11............. 27,508-40,714 5/10/99
Planning..................... Supervisory Community Planner, GS-15.............. 80,658-104,851 5/24/99
Financial Specialist, GS-9/11/12.................. 33,650-63,436 4/26/99
Realty Specialist, GS-11/12/13.................... 40,714-75,433 4/12/99
Community Planner, GS-9/11/12..................... 33,650-63,436 4/26/99
Region 2..................... Supervisory Transportation Specialist, GS-14...... 68,570-89,142 4/26/99
Community Planner, GS-9/11/12..................... 33,650-63,436 4/26/99
Community Planner, GS-9/11/12..................... 33,650-63,436 4/26/99
Region 3..................... Community Planner, GS-9/11/12..................... 33,650-63,436 4/26/99
Region 6..................... Community Planner, GS-12/13....................... 48,796-75,433 5/10/99
Region 8..................... Community Planner, GS-7 (Student)................. 27,508-35,760 8/01/99
Region 9..................... Trans. Program. Specialist, GS-12/13.............. 48,796-75,433 5/24/99
Region 10.................... Community Planner, GS-11/12/13.................... 40,714-75,433 5/10/99
------------------------------
TOTAL POSITIONS--31..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What was FTA's request for its salaries and expenses
account to OST (both in terms of budget authority and FTE)? What was
OST's request for FTA's salaries and expenses account to OMB? What was
OMB's passback and FTA's appeal?
Answer. The following chart shows the FTA request and appeal
figures for the Administrative Expenses account:
SALARY AND BENEFITS
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA OST OMB OMB Final
Request Request Passback FTA Appeal Passback
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget.............................................. $42 $42 $40 $42 $41
Authority FTE....................................... 505 505 490 505 495
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
information technology
Question. What is the status of FTA's efforts to convert the
current automated accounting system (DAFIS) to a new automated
accounting system that better interfaces with FTA's other information
systems?
Answer. The total planned cost of all activities related to
accounting system conversion is $300,000 to be phased in over a 2-year
period, beginning in fiscal year 2000. This approach allows for the
integration of communications software into the hardware environment,
training of staff, implementation of the ORACLE Financials application
platform, and travel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Target Completed Description/Milestone Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Fiscal year 2000 Provides the acquisition of labor resources, hardware, $200,000
integration of software, and implementation in Budget and
Financial Management Office.
2 Fiscal year 2001 And beyond Provides the acquisition of labor resources for feeder system 100,000
integration with ORACLE platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. On pages 31-34 of the budget justification, you describe
the components of the requested $2,750,000 increase for information
technology. Please present this list of activities in priority order,
and justify why each project is necessary in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The information follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY JUSTIFICATION AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEAM Application Enhancements.......... To complete 250 of the 850 service requests needed for the $750,000
new system.
Telecommunications..................... To expand capacity to handle high volume of electronic 300,000
processing.
Presidential Directive Decision 63..... To protect critical infrastructure cyber systems essential 300,000
to FTA operations.
Accounting System Conversion........... FTA is required to transition to the new Departmental 200,000
Accounting System.
Contract Support for Financial Systems. To maintain existing technology for financial management 200,000
activity.
Electronic Commerce.................... Required by the National Defense Act of 1998 and become Y2K 300,000
compliant.
Contract Support for Office Automation. To maintain FTA's corporate database and other automated 700,000
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. FTA's Oversight Tracking System will replace the
Triennial Review Information System. What is the status of the
Oversight Tracking System? Was it completed by the end of fiscal year
1998, as planned? Is the new system operational?
Answer. The Oversight Tracking System has replaced the Triennial
Review Information System and became operational in the fall of 1998.
The oversight software program has been installed in all ten regional
offices and headquarters. All oversight program staff and consultant
contractors have been trained. The 1999 oversight review data are being
directly recorded in the oversight tracking system as reviews are
performed.
Question. Please provide a schedule and cost accounting for each
major phase, both completed and planned, for the electronic grant
making and management system. Please delineate the amount and source of
funds necessary to complete this activity.
Answer. On November 2, 1998, the FTA introduced the Transportation
Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) system. This Y2K compliant
system, which features the client server technology, replaces the EGM&M
system with a 3rd generation of business practices and processing. All
funding specified below is to be derived from the administrative
expenses account.
Costs in the out-years will be higher since additional licensing
and training costs will be necessary as grantee users increase. These
future costs increases will be accommodated within the guaranteed
funding levels in TEA-21.
TEAM FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Activity year 1999 year 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition/Implementation......................... 1,200 .........
Operations/Maintenance............................ ......... 1,500
Application Enhancements.......................... ......... 750
Equipment......................................... ......... 200
Telecommunications................................ 100 100
---------------------
Total....................................... 1,300 2,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What burdens could FTA's move toward a ``paperless
office'' and electronic grant filing place on smaller transit grantees,
who may not have access to sophisticated computer technology? Has this
issue been raised by any of FTA's customers?
Answer. The FTA move towards an electronic grant process places a
minimum burden on smaller transit grantees that may not have the
technology to process grants electronically. The grantees are only
required to have Y2K compliant hardware with dial-up capabilities in
order to access FTA's electronic system. To minimize the burden on our
grantees, the FTA has absorbed the major portion of the application
processing cost. In fiscal year 1991, FTA implemented ``paperless''
drawdown requests where grantees requested funds electronically and
received their disbursements from FTA electronically as well. At that
time, many grantees, especially the smaller operators, did not have the
necessary office automation equipment for electronic funds transfers. A
number of the grantees said later that the electronic disbursements
gave them the justification they needed to convince their boards to
approve purchase of office automation equipment. For those grantees
that chose not to purchase office automation equipment, FTA entered the
appropriate data into our ECHO system on behalf of the grantees. Over
time, more and more grantees have purchased office automation
equipment, so that only about a dozen grantees still use hardcopy forms
to request their drawdowns. We expect that the paperless TEAM grant
process will parallel our experience with the ECHO system where more
and more grantees will purchase appropriate office automation equipment
over time. We will of course continue to process hardcopy paper grants
for those grantees that are unable to take advantage of the TEAM
system, until they are able to do so. Office automation hardware and
software continue to be eligible capital expenses under the Federal
transit program, and with the increased guaranteed funding available
under TEA-21, the burden of purchasing updated computer equipment
should be less burdensome for our grantees. For those grantees that do
convert to TEAM, we will provide a full range of technical support
services.
new programs
Question. Please provide a general description of each of FTA's
four major new programs: (1) Job Access and Reverse Commute Program,
(2) transit system fleet replacement of alternative fueled buses, (3)
the Joint Partnership Program, and (4) the International Mass
Transportation Program. What is the statutory authorization and funding
for each of these programs? What is the time frame for establishing the
programs, developing regulatory guidelines, program implementation, and
distributing grant funds for each program? What staff's support is
associated with each program? Are new staff required; have these staff
been brought onboard?
Answer. (1) The statutory authority for the Job Access and Reverse
Commute Program is Section 3037 of TEA-21. The program was announced in
the Federal Register on November 6, 1998, and 266 applications were
received. An additional headquarters staff person is requested in
fiscal year 2000. Evaluation of applications is complete, and formal
grant applications are expected during May 1999, with most awards by
the end of fiscal year 1999. FTA Headquarters and regional staff have
been intimately involved in both program development and implementation
activities. All proposals were initially reviewed by the regional
offices. Each regional office also has designated one individual as the
official regional welfare-to-work contact. Finally, we anticipate that
the regional offices will administer and monitor Job Access and Reverse
Commute grants. FTA has not positioned specific regional office staff
positions to administer the program.
(2) The statutory authority for the Clean Fuels Formula Grant
Program is 49 U.S.C. Section 5308, established by Section 3008 of TEA-
21. The legislation established a capital formula grant program for
purchase or lease of clean fuel buses or related facilities or
equipment. In the fiscal year 1999 appropriations, the $50,000,000 of
funds designated for this program in TEA-21 was transferred to the Bus
and Bus Facility Grants portion of the appropriation for Section 5309
Capital Investments Grants and Loans. All of the bus capital investment
projects were earmarked. FTA staff drafted implementation guidelines
for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Clean Fuels program, but
the urgency for pursuing the Notice diminished when no funds were made
available for the program in fiscal year 1999. FTA is considering
whether or not to proceed with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or
technical guidance in support of clean fuel bus projects that might be
included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
(3) The statutory authority for the Joint Partnership Program (JPP)
is Section 3015 of TEA-21, which establishes a new 49 U.S.C. Section
5312(d), Joint Partnership Program for Deployment of Innovation. The
JPP, following the model established by the Defense Advanced Research
Project Agency's ``other transaction'' authority under 10 U.S.C.
Sections 845 and 2731, was established and announced in the Federal
Register on October 2, 1998. No separate funding was authorized. FTA
funding for JPP projects will come from other eligible funding sources
including specific annual appropriations. Thirty initial concept
proposals were received. A two-step evaluation of those applications is
underway, and formal assistance applications may be requested during
the summer 1999, with some awards possible by the end of fiscal year
1999. FTA Headquarters staff have been intimately involved in both
program development and implementation activities. A new position has
been established to coordinate the JPP, and recruitment to fill the
position is underway. An additional staff position needed for the JPP
is included in FTA's fiscal year 2000 request.
(4) Section 3015 of TEA-21 creates a new Section 5312(e) in Title
49, United States Code, which authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to inform the United States domestic mass transportation
community about technological innovations available in the
international marketplace and to undertake activities that may afford
domestic businesses the opportunity to become globally competitive in
the export of mass transportation products and services. FTA will issue
a Federal Register notice in May 1999 describing the objectives of the
program and implementation activities. No grant funds are to be
distributed under the program. An International Program Manager was
hired in March 1999, and FTA has requested one additional program staff
for fiscal year 2000.
regulatory requirements
Question. According to a white paper prepared by the Community
Transportation Association of America, many statutes and regulations
first drafted to protect the private sector from potential adverse
impacts are now used to artificially protect the public sector, and
inhibit the ability of public transportation services to be provided in
a responsive, cost-effective, responsible fashion. Please discuss the
assertion that the federal transit program is full of many outdated
regulatory requirements.
Answer. The Community Transportation Association of America's paper
refers to several statutory provisions of the Federal Transit laws and
other Federal laws and asserts that these protect the public sector and
inhibit innovation. Specifically, they refer to the private sector
protection provisions, the New Model bus testing requirements, the
charter bus restrictions, the school bus restrictions, and the
interstate motor carrier registration requirements. The goals of these
provisions vary, however, none would appear to protect the public
sector. In fact, the provisions on private sector protection, charter
bus, and school bus services all are intended to protect private
transportation providers from unfair competition from transit operators
using equipment purchased with Federal assistance.
The private sector provisions require localities to consider having
transit services provided by private operators to the maximum extent
feasible. FTA has made efforts to streamline its enforcement of this
provision, and relies on the local planning process to make these
decisions. The school and charter bus provisions prohibit FTA funding
recipients from providing exclusive school bus services, and from
competing with private charter bus operators where they are willing and
able to provide the service. FTA has streamlined its rules governing
these provisions as well. The New Model Bus Testing provisions require
manufacturers to have any new model buses tested at a national facility
on the basis of a set of uniform performance tests. This is a consumer-
protection program, designed to provide the local transit agency with
information on the quality of buses before they are purchased, and was
instituted in response to complaints from the transit industry about
the unreliability of buses being offered for purchase with Federal
assistance. The motor carrier registration requirements are part of the
Office of Motor Carrier Safety's program and apply to any provider of
interstate transportation, public or private.
FTA is always seeking to ensure that the Federal requirements it
administers are addressed in a cost-effective manner. In addition, we
are continually reviewing our statutory mandates, and can propose
changes during reauthorization of our program.
oversight
Question. Does the budget request assume the fully authorized
takedown amounts for oversight activities? Please detail the authorized
takedown levels for both formula and capital investment grants for
fiscal year 2000, and the amounts requested in the budget.
Answer. Yes, the budget request assumes the fully authorized take-
down amounts for oversight activities.
Question. Are oversight tasks performed by FTA staff, or are they
contracted out the private sector? What legal restrictions are placed
on contracting out oversight activities?
Answer. Oversight is performed by FTA with assistance from its
contractors. 49 U.S.C. 5327 only allows Oversight funding to be used
for making contracts. Oversight includes overseeing major capital
projects and providing safety, procurement, management and financial
compliance reviews, and audits.
Question. Please provide the names of contractors, their geographic
location, annual and total costs of contracts, and a short description
of each contract, for each PMO contract let in fiscal year 1998 and
thus far in 1999.
Answer. There were 15 new PMO contract awards planned for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 and 14 awards have been completed. This list does
not include non-PMO activities such as Financial Management Oversight
and Procurement Review. All contracts have the same short description
as follows: ``Provide Project Management Oversight (PMO) Services on
FTA Capital Projects''. The total and annual cost of each contract is
provided in the chart below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Costs of Contracts
Total Costs ---------------------------
Contractor/Geographic Location of Contracts Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centennial Engineering, Inc., $10,585,422 $670,248 $441,009
Arvada, CO...................
Frederic R. Harris, 12,394,675 753,245 500,000
Washington, DC...............
Carter & Burgess, Inc., Ft. 13,005,826 860,392 1,000,000
Worth, TX....................
DeLeuw, Cather & Co., 11,836,275 368,598 677,084
Washington, DC...............
Stone & Webster Transportation 9,843,869 2,000,000 ............
Services, Boston, MA.........
Gannett Fleming, Inc., Camp 12,183,951 ............ 1,000,000
Hill, PA.....................
Hill International, Newport 11,533,331 ............ 2,107,344
Beach, CA....................
Day & Zimmerman 10,810,846 ............ 1,934,484
Infrastructure, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.............
STV Incorporated, New York, NY 13,850,585 ............ 1,500,000
Daniel, Mann, Johnson And 9,474,885 ............ 1,480,000
Mendenhall, Baltimore, MD....
Sverdrup Civil, Inc., Maryland 11,576,298 ............ 1,000,000
Heights, MO..................
Urban Engineers, Inc., 11,353,154 500,000 439,530
Philadelphia, PA.............
Delon Hampton, Washington, DC. 12,507,225 ............ 1,000,000
Fluor Daniel, Inc., Irvine, CA 10,391,273 ............ 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------
Total Costs of 14 PMO 161,347,615 5,152,483 14,079,451
Contracts..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table similar to that found on page 1233
of the House fiscal year 1999 hearing record, part 4, indicating
oversight obligations by activity broken out for fiscal years 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999 estimate, and 2000 planned.
Answer. The information follows:
OVERSIGHT OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY
(In thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Actual Actual Actual Enacted Planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Management Oversight............................. 17,019 3,984 10,198 25,649 18,067
Financial Management Oversight........................... 2,702 2,060 3,533 4,589 3,560
Fare Collection Oversight............................ 199 ......... ......... ......... .........
Turnkey Demonstration................................ 674 ......... ......... ......... .........
Safety Oversight......................................... 2,371 2,825 3,000 2,837 4,010
Drug & Alcohol Compliance................................ 1,000 1,750 1,525 1,511 2,200
SAMIS.................................................... ......... 75 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
DAMIS.................................................... 561 ......... ......... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
State Rail Safety Oversight.............................. ......... 200 650 550 900
Security Audits.......................................... ......... 550 825 776 910
Alternative Fuels........................................ ......... 250 ......... ......... .........
Procurement Oversight.................................... 1,718 1,130 1,588 1,992 1,347
Management Oversight..................................... 3,128 13,417 6,216 6,758 6,915
Civil Rights Reviews................................. 586 586 477 962 .........
DBE, EEO, and Title VI............................... ......... ......... 485 870 810
ADA Civil Rights Reviews............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 900
National Transit Database............................ 1,159 4,308 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Triennial and State Management Reviews............... ......... 4,010 3,959 3,726 3,490
Electronic Grant Making.............................. 996 2,000 ......... ......... .........
Planning Compliance.................................. ......... 467 995 900 1,345
Rail Control Technology.............................. ......... ......... ......... 300 270
Management Oversight................................. 250 ......... ......... ......... .........
Bus Technology....................................... ......... 500 300 ......... 100
Turnkey Oversight.................................... 137 1,546 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
------------------------------------------------------
Total Oversight.................................... 27,811 23,416 24,535 41,825 33,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under National Research and Technology.
\2\ Turnkey Oversight is funded under other oversight activities.
Question. What financial management oversight (FMO) reviews were
conducted in fiscal year 1998? What FMO reviews are underway or planned
for fiscal year 1999? What FMO reviews are planned for fiscal year
2000?
Answer. The following FMO reviews were conducted in fiscal year
1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee Type of Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (ext. to On-going Financial Capacity
the SFO Airport). Review.
Birmingham, Alabama....................... Follow-up System Review.
Cape Ann Transportation Authority, Full Scope System Review.
Gloucester, MA.
Des Moines, IA............................ Full Scope System Review.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. On-going Financial Capacity
Authority. Review.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Follow-up System Review.
(MBTA).
Milford Transit District (MTD), Fairfield, Full Scope System Review.
CT.
National Transit Institute................ Full Scope System Review.
Northwestern Indiana RPC (NIRPC) Portage, Full Scope System Review.
IN.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Follow-up System Review.
Authority.
State of California Department of Full Scope System Review.
Transportation.
Wichita, KS............................... Full Scope System Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following FMO reviews are underway or planned for fiscal year
1999:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee Type of Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Pottstown...................... Full Scope System Review.
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency..... Full Scope System Review.
Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority....... Full Scope System Review.
City & County of Honolulu................. Full Scope System Review.
City of Washington........................ Full Scope System Review.
Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Full Scope System Review.
Transportation.
Galveston--Island Transit................. Full Scope System Review.
Georgia DOT............................... Full Scope System Review.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Full Scope System Review.
Authority.
Greenville Transit Authority.............. Full Scope System Review.
Indianapolis Public Transportation Follow-up System Review.
Corporation.
Lehigh & Northhampton Transportation Full Scope System Review.
Authority.
Lincoln Transportation System............. Full Scope System Review.
Metro (Seattle)........................... Full Scope System Review.
Minnesota DOT............................. Full Scope System Review.
Port Authority of Allegheny County........ Full Scope System Review.
Regional Transp. Comm. of Washoe County Full Scope System Review.
(Reno).
Shreveport Transit Management, Inc........ Full Scope System Review.
Triangle Transit Authority................ Full Scope System Review.
U.S. Virgin Islands....................... Full Scope System Review.
VA Department of Rail & Public Full Scope System Review.
Transportation.
Vermont Agency of Transportation.......... Full Scope System Review.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (ext. to On-going Financial Capacity
SFO Airport). Review.
Bi-State Development Agency............... Financial Capacity Review.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART).......... Financial Capacity Review.
Denver Regional Transportation District... Financial Capacity Review.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. On-going Financial Capacity
Authority. Review.
LYNX--Central Florida Regional Financial Capacity Review.
Transportation Corp.
Maryland Mass Transit Administration...... Financial Capacity Review.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Financial Capacity Review.
Memphis Area Transit Authority............ Financial Capacity Review.
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Financial Capacity Review.
Authority.
MTA of Harris County--Houston Metro....... Financial Capacity Review.
New Jersey Transit........................ Financial Capacity Review.
New York Metropolitan Transportation Financial Capacity Review.
Authority.
North County Transit District............. Financial Capacity Review.
Puerto Rico Dept. of Transportation and Financial Capacity Review.
Public Works.
Regional Transp. Comm. Of Clark County Financial Capacity Review.
(Las Vegas).
Sacramento Regional Transit District...... Financial Capacity Review.
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Financial Capacity Review.
Board.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Financial Capacity Review.
Authority (San Jose).
Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority........ Financial Capacity Review.
Utah Transit Authority.................... Financial Capacity Review.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Financial Capacity Review.
Authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned FMO reviews for fiscal year 2000: At this point, FTA has
not selected the planned FMO reviews for fiscal year 2000. FTA's annual
Risk Assessment Process will assist us in identifying grantees to be
reviewed. The Risk Assessment process will be completed in September
1999.
Question. Has the cost of performing FMO reviews increased with the
FTA's closer scrutiny of a grantee's ability to manage its financial
resources?
Answer. Yes. The number of reviews has increased substantially and
consequently the annual cost of performing reviews has increased.
However, the cost per review has remained approximately the same. From
fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1998 the annual obligations under the
FMO program averaged $1.8 million. In fiscal year 1999 the obligations
as of March 31, 1999 total $3.1 million. Under the FMO program FTA
conducts primarily two types of reviews: financial management systems
reviews and financial capacity reviews of grantees with existing or
anticipated full funding grant agreements. An average one-time
financial management system review cost ranges from $70,000 for a small
grantee to $100,000 for a medium-to-large grantee. An average financial
capacity review cost ranges from $80,000 for a small grantee to
$120,000 for a medium-to-large grantee over approximately a two-year
period. For a large complex grantee, such as the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the cost was $260,000 from
February 1997 to March 1999.
Question. If you were directed to provide the requested $1,700,000
transfer of FTA funds to the OIG from PMO, what activities would you
decrease in order to make the funds available?
Answer. FTA would likely reduce the ongoing Oversight activities
proportionately among the various FTA oversight programs.
Question. In your justification of procurement oversight activities
($1,350,000), you state that, ``These funds will be used to conduct
procurement system reviews to determine if grantees' procurement
systems meet the requirements of the Common Rule and to advise FTA on
the effectiveness of the grantees' procurement systems.'' What is ``the
Common Rule?''
Answer. The ``Common Rule'' is codified at 49 CFR Part 18 and is
officially entitled ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.'' It is
referred to as the ``Common Rule'' since it is intended to establish
uniform, or common, administrative rules for all Federal grants and
cooperative agreements with States and local and Indian tribal
governments. It basically consists of four sections as follows:
--General.--Provides definitions for such terms as cash
contributions, equipment, outlays, third party in-kind
contributions, and unliquidated obligations, etc.
--Pre-award requirements.--Prescribes forms and instructions to be
used when requesting grants.
--Postaward requirements.--Addresses financial requirements for
accounting for the use of Federal funds such as reporting,
internal controls, budget controls, allowable costs, audits,
and cash management. This section also establishes requirements
concerning non-Federal match such as in-kind contributions,
valuation of donated services, and program income. This section
also addresses procurement requirements including the
maintenance of a contract administration system, written code
of standards, conflict of interest, prohibition on the use of
local preference requirements, and acceptable methods of
procurement.
--After-the grant requirements.--Spells out requirements for
closeouts such as reporting requirements, cost adjustments, and
collection of amounts due to grantee.
Where appropriate, each Federal agency may add other requirements
that are unique to its grant programs. For example, FTA has added a
requirement that prohibits the use of Federal transit assistance to
support procurements that use exclusionary or discriminatory
specifications.
Question. What are the trigger factors in FTA's annual procurement
system risk assessments? Are all FTA grantees' procurement systems
assessed on an annual basis, or is there a rolling schedule?
Answer. The Regional Offices on an annual basis conduct risk
assessments on all grantees. The risk assessment includes a review of
the grantees' grant administration, profile, property management,
financial management, and procurement management. Based upon the risk
assessment, the Regional Office then selects the grantee and the type
of oversight review they recommend to be conducted. For the past three
fiscal years, the Regional Offices have recommended approximately 16
procurement system reviews per year.
Question. Please provide under separate cover the FTA's most recent
risk assessment of all section 5309 new start grant recipients.
Answer. We will provide the overall risk rating for each Grantee
undertaking a section 5309 New Starts project.
Question. Are the procurement system reviews and the management
reviews conducted concurrently in a coordinated manner? Are there
separate dedicated staff for each type of review? Please describe the
intra-office coordination between these two different oversight
activities.
Answer. We coordinate all oversight reviews through the Oversight
Council and try not to schedule more than one type of review of an
individual grantee in a given year. We do have separate headquarters
dedicated staff which manage each type of review. In most cases, a
Regional staff member attend the review with a contractor. We have
contractors with specific expertise who conduct the actual reviews,
prepare the reports and enter the data into the Oversight Tracking
System (OTrak).
Question. The PMO budget request includes $270,000 for rail control
technology. The description of this oversight activity on page 45 of
the justification discusses the technology aspects of this program, but
the ``safety, procurement, management, and financial compliance''
oversight aspects are not clear. Wouldn't this be more appropriately
funded within Transit Planning and Research (which includes a
$1,000,000 request for this program)? Did FTA consult with the DOT
Inspector General to determine if existing statutory language permits
the FTA to fund this activity from the PMO program?
Answer. Oversight would take place after program implementation.
FTA has worked closely with the Inspector General to resolve any
disagreement over the permissible scope of activities funded from the
PMO program in general. This new activity will be carried out in strict
adherence to the Inspector General's guidance and related Congressional
direction.
job access and reverse commute grants
Question. Why has the Department proposed to delete fiscal year
1999 appropriations language which, consistent with section 3037(l)(2)
of TEA21, limits to $10,000,000 the amount of funds that may be set-
aside for reverse commute grants?
Answer. An identical provision was included in both TEA-21 and the
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act, and thus the fiscal year 2000
Budget request is consistent with current law. The deletion was
suggested as a technical measure since the authorization language makes
specific appropriation limitations unnecessary.
Question. To what extent will DOT obligate all fiscal year 1999 Job
Access and Reverse Commute program funds by the end of the fiscal year?
For the funds that it will receive in fiscal year 2000, what are the
Department's time frames for evaluating and awarding additional grants?
Answer. We plan to obligate all but $4,000,000 by the end of the
fiscal year. The remaining funds will be for the category of medium and
small urbanized areas with populations ranging between 50,000 and
200,000. In that funding category, we received proposals for
approximately $17 million, and we expect to award approximately $11
million of the $15 million available in fiscal year 1999.
We plan to announce the fiscal year 2000 Access to Jobs/Reverse
Commute program by July 1, 1999. The grant applications will be due
October 1, 1999. Allowing five months for the review and evaluation of
applications, we expect to announce the selected grantees by March 1,
1999. With more time available to prepare applications and with
increased applicant knowledge and experience with the new program, we
expect that applications and demand for funding will expand
significantly in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Assuming that the $75,000,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA) funds proposed in the administration's budget request
will not be used for the Access to Jobs program, would the department
support transferring other guaranteed funds that cannot be obligated to
the Access to Jobs program?
Answer. No. While the Access to Jobs program has high priority, we
believe it is not appropriate to transfer other guaranteed funds to
this program. The transfer of RABA funds was proposed in the spirit of
TEA-21 to maintain the balance between highways and transit enacted in
TEA-21. The programs proposed for additional funding were those for
which it was felt additional resources were justified based on
priorities and needs. If RABA funds are not transferred, then the
Access to Jobs increase could be funded from non-guaranteed funds, as
authorized by Section 5338(h) of Title 49, U.S.C.
Question. When will the FTA publish in the Federal Register its
selection of Job Access and Reverse Commute awards? Please provide a
list of the fiscal year 1999 grantees, including state, city, grantee
organization, amount of grant, and use of funds. Please provide a
profile of the grantees--list each grant award by state, city or
county, name of recipient, population of target area (urban/rural),
amount of grant, activity to be supported by the grant, and the number
of individuals to whom transportation services are to be provided.
Answer. FTA plans to announce selected applicants during May 1999.
FTA will publish a list of the grant recipients, the amount of the
grant, and the activity to be funded at that time.
Question. How many applications did DOT receive in the fiscal year
1999 grant cycle? How much in requested funds is represented by these
applications?
Answer. DOT received 266 applications; some consolidated state-wide
applications included a number of distinct funding proposals for
discrete localities within the state. Funding requests totaled
$108,500,000.
Question. Please describe the criteria used in making these grants.
To what extent was the Department's criteria able to allow for clear
distinctions among the applications? To what extent did DOT use bonus
points to break ties among applicants?
Answer. The grant award criteria are drawn directly from the
legislation. They include the following:
Coordinated Human Services/Transportation Planning Process and Regional
Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation Plan (25 points)
Each applicant will be evaluated based on the extent to which the
applicant:
--Demonstrates a collaborative planning process, including: (1)
coordination with, and the financial commitment of, existing
transportation service providers; (2) coordination with the
state or local agencies that administer the state program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(TANF and WtW grant programs); (3) coordination with public
housing agencies (including Indian tribes and their tribally
designated housing entities as defined by the Secretary of HUD)
if any, which intend to apply for Welfare to Work Housing
Vouchers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(4) consultation with the community to be served; and (5)
consultation with other area stakeholders.
--Presents a Regional Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation
Plan addressing the transportation needs of welfare recipients
and low-income individuals.
Demonstrated need for additional transportation services (30 points)
Each applicant will also be evaluated based on the extent to which
the applicant demonstrates:
--in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance a Job
Access project, the relative need for additional services in
the area to be served to transport welfare recipients and
eligible low-income individuals to and from specified jobs,
training and other employment support services; and
--in the case of an applicant seeking assistance to finance a Reverse
Commute project, the need for additional services to transport
individuals to suburban employment opportunities.
Extent to which proposed services will meet the need for services (35
points)
Each applicant will be evaluated based on the extent to which:
--The proposed service will meet the need.
--To which the applicant demonstrates the maximum use of existing
transportation service providers and expands transit networks
or hours of service, or both.
Financial commitments in terms of match and long term sustainability
(10 points)
Each applicant will be evaluated based on the extent to which the
applicant:
--Identifies long-term financing strategies to support proposed
services.
--Identifies financial commitments by human service providers.
--Identifies financial commitments by existing transportation
providers.
In addition to these criteria, applicants may earn up to 10 bonus
points for proposals such as the following:
Innovative approaches that are responsive to identified service
needs.
Use of employer-based strategies.
Linkages to other employment-related support services.
Other strategies that are effective in meeting program goals.
Bonus points were considered in determining each application's
final evaluation rating, but it was not necessary to use bonus points
to break ties among applicants.
Question. Please describe how the agency has responded to
Congressional direction in the statement of managers accompanying the
fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations bill, which directs FTA
to ``give high priority to applications that address the transportation
access needs of counties that are not served or are under served by
public transportation systems'' when making grants with the funds set
aside for non-urban areas.
Answer. DOT has responded to this direction by establishing two of
the four basic criteria used in evaluating proposals to address service
needs and service effectiveness. These evaluation criteria represent 65
out of a possible 100 points awarded in scoring proposals. Areas
without service and with a large proportion of their population
qualifying as being low income or welfare recipients would receive a
high rating under the needs criterion. Service that would effectively
move to fill these transportation gaps would likewise receive a high
rating under the service effectiveness criterion.
Question. What types of transportation projects can grantees fund
with what may be a low level of funding per applicant?
Answer. Typically, applicants have proposed funding fixed-route
service extensions to new job centers or extended hours of service.
Additionally, ridesharing programs, guaranteed ride home, special late-
night and weekend van and paratransit services have been proposed.
Grant applications also include transportation information systems and
brokerage projects to assist case workers and individuals in better
utilizing existing services. These services have been proposed within
the funding guidelines established for major urban, medium urban and
rural and small urban areas.
Question. Will FTA approve multi-year grants? How will it assure
that multi-year funding does not overcommit the program?
Answer. Applicants may seek multi-year grants. Multi-year Federal
support may be necessary in order to create and help mature new
transportation/human service partnerships and to allow time to
establish the credibility of new services and develop long term funding
arrangements among the partners.
In general, it is anticipated that out-year expenses will be funded
in subsequent fiscal years rather than awarded in fiscal year 1999. For
projects that merit multi-year funding, a letter of intent may be
issued to the applicant expressing FTA's intent to continue funding the
project in future fiscal years. However, in order to receive additional
years of funding, a project must submit a revised application that
demonstrates its progress since the previous year and its future goals.
Question. How have the regional offices responded to the challenges
of implementing this new program? Were new staff brought on at the
regional level to help implement this program? Did FTA staff visit and
meet with each applicant?
Answer. FTA regional staff members have been intimately involved in
both program development and implementation activities. All proposals
initially were reviewed by the regional offices. Each regional office
also has designated one individual as the official regional welfare-to-
work contact. Finally, we anticipate that the regional offices will
administer and monitor Job Access and Reverse Commute grants. FTA
regional offices are increasing staffing; however, specific regional
staff to administer the program is not requested. While individual
field visits were not undertaken in the application stage, the regional
offices met and discussed proposals with several interested applicants.
In particular, each regional office held a welfare-to-work conference
in association with HHS, HUD and DOL that brought together state and
local transportation, human service and employment officials to discuss
the development of local job access transportation plans and programs.
Question. According to DOT and DOL officials, DOT's Access to Jobs
and DOL's Welfare to Work funds cannot be used to help individuals
purchase cars. However, many entry level jobs require shift work in the
evenings or on weekends, when public transit services are either
unavailable or limited. What is the statutory or policy prohibition
against use of Access to Jobs and Welfare to Work funds to help
individuals purchase cars? Can Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
block grant funds be used to help individuals purchase cars? What
action would be required to overturn the prohibition against using the
DOT and DOL funds for purchase of vehicles?
Answer. The enabling Job Access statute applies all of the Section
5307 requirements to the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. This
means that, statutorily, Job Access funds only can be used for purposes
that fall under the definition of mass transportation. We have
traditionally defined mass transit services as those services available
to the public on a regular and continuing basis and that are shared-
ride in nature. Paratransit services that are contained within that
definition include ridesharing and shared-ride taxi programs. However,
private ownership programs do not fall within the definition of mass
transportation. It would take specific statutory action to overcome
this prohibition. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds,
on the other hand, can be used for this purpose.
Question. In order to evaluate the success of the Access to Jobs
program, has the Department established goals or benchmarks against
which output data, such as the number of new/expanded transportation
services, the number of jobs made accessible, or the number of people
using new transportation services can be compared?
Answer. Yes, initially DOT will measure the number of new
employment sites reached as a result of Job Access and Reverse Commute
grants. In major urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more,
we expect to average 40 new job sites per grant; in areas between
50,000-200,000 population, we expect to average 15 new sites per grant;
in rural and small urban areas with population below 50,000, we expect
to average 5 new job sites per grant. A site is characterized by a stop
with employers within one-quarter mile.
Question. In total, how many new transit riders (welfare
recipients) will be provided services by the fiscal year 1999 Access to
Jobs awards? What is the average cost per new transit rider of this
program?
Answer. Since welfare recipients and low-income persons are very
likely transit users already, it is difficult to project how many will
be new transit riders. However, since the services will be new or
extended services providing new access to jobs and employment services,
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program services most likely will
represent new transit rides. These services will be thousands of trips
and may range from ridesharing arrangements to fixed-route transit
extensions.
We will have better data to determine the average cost per new
transit rider once grants are awarded and service begins to new
employment sites. We do know that last year SEPTA made a number of
service changes to provide access to jobs for city residents. One of
these was on SEPTA's Route 68 that operates from South Philadelphia,
Broad and Oregon Subway stop to the United Parcel Service (UPS) Air
Hub. SEPTA added 13 new one way trips to and from the Broad and Oregon
to UPS to meet the demand of new UPS employees. Based on SEPTA reported
costs the added expense on the Route 68 service was $216,366 annually.
The ridership to UPS was 834 trips per day generating $195,656 in
fares. Therefore, the operating cost to SEPTA was $20,710 annually to
transport 417 people to jobs at UPS. This is $49 per person a year.
Question. What is the local match requirement for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program? Can Job Access and Reverse
Commute program funds be used as a local match?
Answer. There is no local match requirement for the TANF program.
States must maintain their welfare spending at 80 percent of historic
spending levels (or 75 percent if they meet the work participation
rates). Job Access and Reverse Commute program funds, and any state
funds expended to meet the local match requirement of the Job Access
and Reverse Commute program, do not count toward the state's required
spending levels. TANF funds can be used as the local match for the Job
Access and Reverse Commute program.
formula grants
Question. Please provide a table displaying the state-by-state
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the program
categories for fiscal year 2000 (as shown on pages 126-127 of Senate
Report 105-249).
Answer. The information is provided in the chart below:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2000 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly and Total formula
State urbanized area nonurbanized persons with programs
area disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... $12,345,815 $4,601,674 $1,262,364 $18,209,853
Alaska...................................... \1\ 7,159,272 686,209 191,850 8,037,331
American Samoa.............................. ............... 97,806 52,632 150,438
Arizona..................................... 31,278,488 2,014,492 1,112,036 34,405,016
Arkansas.................................... 4,808,246 3,678,847 879,566 9,366,659
California.................................. 440,827,753 8,978,871 6,874,937 456,681,561
Colorado.................................... 34,346,300 1,916,629 860,712 37,123,641
Connecticut................................. 43,412,116 1,738,563 987,472 46,138,151
Delaware.................................... 5,819,571 433,730 293,751 6,547,052
District of Columbia........................ 24,133,985 ............... 291,511 24,425,496
Florida..................................... 136,124,791 5,772,011 4,636,540 146,533,342
Georgia..................................... 51,566,541 6,728,137 1,639,325 59,934,003
Guam........................................ ............... 278,431 133,754 412,185
Hawaii...................................... 21,805,177 755,131 375,895 22,936,203
Idaho....................................... 2,842,008 1,523,454 384,869 4,750,331
Illinois.................................... 192,661,811 6,172,689 2,994,303 201,828,803
Indiana..................................... 30,583,459 5,962,678 1,567,146 38,113,283
Iowa........................................ 9,049,807 3,835,253 946,179 13,831,239
Kansas...................................... 7,299,329 3,050,822 791,908 11,142,059
Kentucky.................................... 15,834,432 5,036,242 1,209,462 22,080,136
Louisiana................................... 25,230,847 4,165,337 1,213,401 30,609,585
Maine....................................... 2,038,744 2,009,937 483,251 4,531,932
Maryland.................................... 69,328,328 2,509,310 1,219,178 73,056,816
Massachusetts............................... 105,990,461 2,689,218 1,759,633 110,439,312
Michigan.................................... 56,390,876 7,282,862 2,560,666 66,234,404
Minnesota................................... 27,793,106 4,190,867 1,236,483 33,220,456
Mississippi................................. 4,327,424 4,089,742 854,282 9,271,448
Missouri.................................... 31,112,334 4,881,280 1,589,372 37,582,986
Montana..................................... 2,150,550 1,234,118 352,436 3,737,104
Nebraska.................................... 7,609,130 1,862,127 555,935 10,027,192
Nevada...................................... 16,410,558 607,956 411,508 17,430,022
New Hampshire............................... 3,013,098 1,609,709 388,305 5,011,112
New Jersey.................................. 161,401,967 2,301,543 2,114,182 165,817,692
New Mexico.................................. 6,403,038 1,809,361 487,951 8,700,350
New York.................................... 482,151,901 8,101,711 4,909,688 495,163,300
North Carolina.............................. 24,160,905 8,606,405 1,865,487 34,632,797
North Dakota................................ 2,096,375 912,685 298,799 3,307,859
Northern Marianas........................... ............... 90,638 52,404 143,042
Ohio........................................ 78,650,959 8,761,919 3,125,261 90,538,139
Oklahoma.................................... 10,130,348 3,745,630 1,042,604 14,918,582
Oregon...................................... 24,189,968 2,974,063 968,730 28,132,761
Pennsylvania................................ 133,583,533 9,774,012 3,748,659 147,106,204
Puerto Rico................................. 43,036,204 2,920,782 918,554 46,875,540
Rhode Island................................ 8,476,199 374,157 429,237 9,279,593
South Carolina.............................. 10,419,785 4,307,549 1,007,521 15,734,855
South Dakota................................ 1,512,262 1,112,492 323,318 2,948,072
Tennessee................................... 20,264,508 5,560,553 1,492,017 27,317,078
Texas....................................... 147,603,791 11,739,874 3,871,834 163,215,499
Utah........................................ 18,747,454 843,330 454,162 20,044,946
Vermont..................................... 760,019 994,664 265,866 2,020,549
Virgin Islands.............................. ............... 212,891 136,116 349,007
Virginia.................................... 52,410,334 4,929,969 1,552,472 58,892,775
Washington.................................. 77,136,196 3,454,367 1,391,500 81,982,063
West Virginia............................... 3,664,123 2,937,208 734,024 7,335,355
Wisconsin................................... 32,707,189 5,075,151 1,420,820 39,203,160
Wyoming..................................... 1,050,115 709,817 224,933 1,984,865
Unallocated................................. ............... ............... ............... ...............
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 2,763,851,530 192,644,903 72,946,801 3,029,443,234
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight................................... 13,888,701 968,065 ............... 14,856,766
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 2,777,740,231 193,612,968 72,946,801 3,044,300,000
===================================================================
Clean Fuels................................. ............... ............... ............... 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility............. ............... ............... ............... 3,700,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total........................... ............... ............... ............... 3,098,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad.
set-asides within formula grants program
Question. The budget includes two set-asides within the formula
grants program: one for $25,000,000 for grants related to costs of the
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, and the other for $20,000,000 for the
Long Island Railroad East Side Access project. Did FTA's request to the
Office of Management and Budget include these set-asides? If so, why?
If not, why not?
Answer. While we were considering funding for both projects, our
FTA formal Budget Submission to OMB in September 1998 did not include
either item. The Long Island East Side Access is a New Start project
that was being considered along with many other potential New Start
projects for funding in fiscal year 2000. It was not until December
1998 that we received sufficient information upon which to base our
recommendations to Congress. At that time, we had a series of
discussions with OMB where we reached agreement on the funding
recommendations that we would make in our fiscal year 2000 Budget
Submission to Congress. The overall rating for this project is not
recommended at this time, due to the fact that a final capital plan has
not yet been developed by the MTA. Therefore, we are not currently
recommending the project for funding within the New Starts line item.
We believe that it is appropriate to fund additional project
development activities to better define the benefits and costs of the
project as well as to complete the development of a capital plan. Thus,
we have proposed that further funding for this project come from the
Formula Grants program. With respect to our request for assistance to
the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympics, our intent was to propose funding
in the fiscal year 2000 budget, similar to that appropriated by
Congress for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. While we had oral
discussions on the need for such assistance, it was not until after we
had submitted our formal budget request to OMB that we settled on the
appropriate level of funding to request.
Question. To what extent is FTA setting a precedent by providing
specific transit projects with funds provided from the formula grants
program?
Answer. We believe that we have been judicious in proposing two
very special exceptions. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated
funding for the Atlanta 1996 Olympics by way of a takedown from Formula
Grants, so we are consistent with this previous action. The Long Island
East Side Access received an overall Project Rating of ``not
recommended,'' in FTA's fiscal year 2000 Annual Report on New Starts
Proposed Allocation of Funds, and therefore should not be funded in the
New Starts category. However, we believe that the statutory project
justification criteria may not fully reflect the benefits of this type
of project and further work is justified. Formula Grants was the most
appropriate place to request funding.
Question. Assuming that the $212,270,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA) funds proposed in the administration's budget request
will not be used for transit formula grants, how should the Committee
provide the requested additional $25,000,000 for the Salt Lake City
Winter Olympics planning, operations, vehicles, and facility
construction (otherwise bus and bus facilities and/or new starts
projects) and the $20,000,000 for the Long Island Railroad East Side
Access project (otherwise a new start project)?
Answer. Funding the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics at $25,000,000
affords Salt Lake the same opportunity as Atlanta was given for their
1996 Olympic Games. The Long Island East Side Access project is
identified by the Administration and TEA-21 as a ``high priority''
project for which $20,000,000 is requested. It was determined that
these projects were best funded from the Formula Grants Program and
off-set by revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) from the highway
program. We would like to work with the Committee on alternative
funding options should the RABA not be allocated as proposed in the
President's budget.
Question. The requested bill language waives provisions of TEA-21
for purposes of making grants related to the Olympic Games. Which
specific provisions of TEA21 must be waived to make grants as
envisioned in the department's request?
Answer. The waiver requested applied only to the Salt Lake City
Downtown Connector. 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(1)(B) and (C) and section
5309(e)(6) and (7) must be waived for FTA to make a grant to support
the Salt Lake City Downtown Connector Segment for the West-East LRT
project. According to section 5309(e)(1)(B) and (C), the Secretary may
approve a grant for a new start project when, among other things, he
finds that the project is justified based on a comprehensive review of
its mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness,
and operating efficiencies and supported by an acceptable degree of
local financial commitment, including evidence of stable and dependable
financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the system or
extension. According to FTA's ``Annual Report on New Starts Proposed
Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2000'' this project was rated
``low-medium'' for mobility improvements, ``high'' for environmental
benefits, ``medium'' for operating efficiency, and ``low-medium'' for
cost-effectiveness, ``low'' for stability and reliability of capital
financing plan and ``low'' for stability and reliability of operating
financing plan.'' FTA rated this project as ``Not recommended'' for
fiscal year 2000. Therefore, to fund this project, it must be exempt
from 5309(e)(1)(B) and (C). Because FTA approved entry into preliminary
engineering, the project does not need to be exempted from Section
5309(e)(1)(A).
Section 5309(e)(6) allows a project to advance from preliminary
engineering to final design only if the Secretary finds that the
project meets the requirements of Section 5309 and that it will
continue to meet the requirements of this section. Section 5309(e)(7)
prohibits the Secretary from entering into a FFGA unless the project
has been approved for final design. Because this project does not yet
meet the criteria of 5309(e)(1)(B) and (C), and because it has not been
approved for final design, it must also be exempted from 5309(e)(6) and
(7) to receive funding in fiscal year 2000.
For a more detailed discussion of this project, please see FTA's
``Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal
Year 2000'' at A-303-A-307.
Question. Please provide a detailed listing by activity/project and
amount showing how the Department would likely allocate the $25,000,000
set-aside from the formula program for the Olympic Games in Salt Lake
City.
Answer. As of this date, we are reviewing the proposed budget
prepared by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) and are not yet
prepared to provide a detailed listing of projects with corresponding
amounts. The SLOC Budget identifies activities such as: spectator
loading and unloading facilities; a loaned-bus program providing 1,400
buses, along with drivers and mechanics on loan from U.S. transit
systems; and, three service centers for storing, fueling, cleaning and
maintaining the bus fleet during the games.
The proposed budget also includes funding for the acquisition of
land for park and ride lots at Olympic venues; a general category of
transportation activities for the Paralympic Winter Games; and, funding
for the development of an overall multi-modal plan addressing the
transportation needs of athletes, spectators, media and officials while
preserving basic regional mobility. The costs are for planning
operating and maintaining mass transit services to accommodate the
Olympic spectator crowds.
Question. Please provide a list of all transportation projects and
activities that are deemed to be ``core'' activities by the Olympic
Committee, necessary for the efficient operation of the Olympic Games
in Salt Lake City.
Answer. A letter from the Salt Lake Organizing Committee to the
Utah Transit Authority dated, December 22, 1998, summaries as agreement
on ``Core Projects.'' These include:
--SLOC transit capital projects, including venue load and unload,
transit bus, bus maintenance facilities, Olympic park-and-ride
lots, and projects to be defined for the Paralympic Games.
--UTA transit capital projects, including completion of the North-
South light rail line as presently scoped, purchase of transit
buses, and expansion of park-and-ride lots located at stations
along the North-South light rail line.
--Park City purchase of transit buses.
--Operating assistance for the SLOC Olympic bus fleet and additional
assistance for UTA and Park City Transit operations associated
with the Winter Games.
Question. The Long Island Railroad East Side Access project was
exempt from the criteria established in TEA21. Why, if at all, should
this project be exempt from the investment criteria? Given this
exemption, why did the FTA decide that it needed to rank the project,
and what factors were used in determining the project's rating?
Answer. FTA does not believe that the project should be exempt from
the New Starts criteria. Congress established the criteria to provide
an objective mechanism for measuring the costs and benefits of projects
competing for New Starts funding. The New Starts criteria thus serves
as an important assessment tool for both FTA and Congress to assist us
in deciding which projects merit the annual appropriation of scarce
Federal discretionary resources.
TEA-21 Section 3030(c)(3) states that the Long Island Railroad East
Side Access project [LIRR ESA] ``shall also be exempted from all
requirements relating to criteria for grants and loans for fixed
guideway systems under section 5309(e). However, 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(7)
directs FTA to ``enter into a full funding grant agreement [FFGA] based
on the evaluations and ratings'' of a project. FTA bases these
evaluations and ratings, in turn, on FTA's analysis of the project
relative to the New Starts criteria. FTA interprets this provision to
mean that for FTA to enter into an FFGA for a given project, FTA must
first subject the project to an evaluation and rating of the project on
the basis of the New Starts criteria. Therefore, exempt projects that
choose to forego FTA's evaluation and rating may not be eligible for an
FFGA.
FTA has communicated to sponsors of exempt projects that they
should consider waiving their exemption and submit to FTA its New
Starts criteria for the purposes of being evaluated and rated in the
annual New Starts Report to Congress. This would ensure that the
project would be eligible to seek an FFGA.
On November 12, 1998, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) provided New Starts criteria information on the LIRR ESA to FTA
for the fiscal year 2000 New Starts Report. MTA stated its
understanding that this information would enable FTA to ``include
project profiles for all potential New Starts projects and make
recommendations for fiscal year 2000 Section 5309 New Starts funding in
its report to Congress.''
FTA used the same criteria that are applied to all proposed New
Starts projects to evaluate and rate the LIRR ESA. These criteria are
mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies,
cost effectiveness, transit-supportive existing land use policies and
future patterns, local financial commitment, and other relevant
factors.
Question. Should other projects with similar circumstances also be
exempt from the investment criteria? What projects share similar
considerations as the Long Island Railroad Eastside Access project?
Answer. FTA does not believe that projects pursuing New Starts
funding should be exempt from the New Starts criteria. The criteria
provides both FTA and Congress with important data with which to
evaluate the relative costs and benefits of proposed New Starts
projects. The criteria also provide a level playing field for projects
competing for Federal discretionary funding. It is unfair to those
projects that must meet the requirements of Section 5309(e) to provide
New Starts funds to projects that are not subject to these
requirements. Under TEA-21, the Long Island Railroad Eastside Access
project is the only one designated as a high priority. There are no
projects with similar considerations or circumstances.
major transit systems' service effectiveness trends
Question. The ten major transit systems--New York MTA, Chicago RTA,
Los Angeles LACMTA, Washington, D.C. WMATA, Boston MBTA, Philadelphia
SEPTA, San Francisco Muni/BART, New Jersey Transit, Atlanta MARTA, and
Baltimore MDMTA--showed an overall decline in transit productivity
(which can be measured in boardings per service hour) of approximately
10 percent from 1989 to 1993. Smaller systems across the country also
experienced a decline in transit productivity over this same time
frame, but the largest systems were much harder hit. (Source: Access.
University of California Transportation Center, Fall 1998 Issue 13.
``Lost Riders'', Brian D. Taylor and Williams S. McCullough.)
Please provide annual boardings per service hour in calendar years
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 (if available) for each of the ten major
transit systems listed above.
Answer. The article in Access used 1989 National Transit Database
(NTD) data on boardings (unlinked passenger trips) per revenue service
hour to calculate a productivity baseline. For each of the ten
agencies, all boardings/trips, for all modes--subway, commuter rail,
motor bus, ADA demand response, streetcar--were lumped together, and
then divided by total revenue service hours for all modes. This 1989
baseline was compared to 1993 data, with the 1993 data showing a 10
percent decline. Measuring productivity across transit modes may yield
dubious results. For example, no adjustment was made for the
significant increase in ADA paratransit service, which was required by
statute beginning in 1992. In the industry, ADA paratransit service is
considered good if each vehicle can complete three trips per hour.
In the following table, the calculations in the article were
updated with NTD data for 1995, 1996 and 1997. At this time, data for
1998 are not available. Comparing the 1997 total for the ten agencies
to the 1993 total, transit productivity has increased by almost 5
percent. The 1997 total was only six percent below the 1989 baseline.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION TRENDS IN SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS: 1989 TO 1997
(Measured in boardings per revenue service hour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the article--
City/Transit System -------------------- 1995 1996 1997
1989 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York--NYCMTA.............................................. 74.6 65.6 67.2 71.4 78.5
Chicago--RTA-CTA.............................................. 61.6 53.2 48.9 48.8 48.6
Los Angeles--Metro............................................ 60.0 56.6 53.2 54.2 57.1
Washington, DC--WMATA......................................... 82.7 73.8 70.5 67.2 69.3
Boston--MBTA.................................................. 80.1 74.2 73.0 65.0 64.8
Philadelphia--SEPTA........................................... 63.1 60.7 58.3 54.5 57.9
San Francisco--Muni........................................... 76.8 77.3 76.0 74.0 74.7
New Jersey--NJT............................................... 34.1 30.3 29.8 30.1 30.2
Atlanta--MARTA................................................ 55.6 51.4 50.3 48.9 53.4
Baltimore--MDMTA.............................................. 49.9 47.6 47.3 42.5 43.1
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................... 66.5 59.7 58.6 59.0 62.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
expanded definition of capital
Question. Transit properties which receive Federal funds through
FTA are now statutorily authorized to use an expanded definition of
capital expenses allowing them to categorize activities such as
preventive maintenance as a capital expense. What has FTA's experience
been with this expanded definition?
Answer. With respect to grants awarded under the expanded
definition of capital projects, in fiscal year 1998 under the Urbanized
Area Formula Program FTA awarded grants in the following amounts:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Awarded Number of
Category of Capital Project Fiscal Year Grantees
1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventive Maintenance (1).................... $244 114
Vehicle Overhauls (2)......................... 49 55
Operating assistance at 80/20 in areas with 38 67
populations under 200,000 (3)................
Transit Enhancements (4)...................... 14 31
ADA operating expenses at 80/20 (5)........... 1 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following further explains information related to the
``Category of Capital Projects'' column: (1) Preventive Maintenance as
a capital project category was made available with the 1998 DOT
Appropriations Act and subsequently was included in TEA21; (2) Vehicle
overhaul as a capital project amounting to 20 percent of a guarantee's
annual vehicle maintenance costs was made available with the 1996 DOT
Appropriations Act; (3) Operating assistance with an 80 percent Federal
match ratio was available to urbanized areas under 200,000 for fiscal
year 1998 only; (4) Transit enhancements were defined as capital
projects by TEA-21, enacted June 9, 1998; and (5) ADA operating
expenses up to 10 percent of an urbanized area formula apportionment
was defined as a capital project by TEA21.
appropriations conferees' legislative directives
Question. Please update the Committee on the joint efforts between
the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to create state and regional planning guidelines that promote
transportation coordination between public transit agencies and human
service transportation providers, as directed in the Senate report. The
joint planning guidelines task force was urged to work collaboratively
with Madison, WI METRO and the Coalition for Paratransit Solutions--has
this work begun?
Answer. Work is under way toward drafting joint planning
guidelines. At a July, 1998 stakeholders meeting, which included
practitioners such as the Coalition for Paratransit Solutions, a
conceptual outline was developed for the guidelines. Subsequent work
has included the collection of coordination case studies, including
Madison, WI METRO; several briefings given to the Coalition; and a
presentation before the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility by
Madison, WI METRO. Two reports have been prepared, one presenting 15
case studies and the other reviewing current practices and
implementation strategies. Portions of the guidelines are being drafted
and will be presented to the stakeholders group prior to their being
issued.
Question. The conferees stated their expectation that of the funds
apportioned to Los Angeles, at least $25,000,000 was expected to be
expended for the purchase of new clean fuel vehicles, to assist in
complying with the bus consent decree. What amount of apportioned
formula funds went to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority? What amount of these apportioned funds were expended on
clean fuel bus purchases? What additional bus purchases were made with
1999 formula funds? In total, what level of funding has LACMTA already
spent on complying with the bus decree? What future funding has LACMTA
committed toward complying with the bus consent decree?
Answer. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) received $85.9 million in 5307 formula funds in
fiscal year 1999. Of that amount, $56.3 million was used for clean fuel
vehicles. This includes the $25 million expected by the Congress to be
applied to the purchase of clean fuel vehicles. An additional $19.1
million in CMAQ funds was also utilized for the purchase of clean fuel
buses in fiscal year 1999.
LACMTA has expended $106 million in operating and capital expenses
in complying with the Bus Consent Decree. Accelerated Bus purchases
specifically targeted to compliance with the Bus Consent Decree are
expected to total approximately $100 million annually over the next two
years.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of public
transportation services at the Presidio, San Francisco, California.
What arrangements have been agreed upon by the City and the municipal
transportation authority to ensure that ample public transportation
services are available to the Presidio, its visitors and workers, and
the surrounding community?
Answer. The needs of public transportation services at the Presidio
in San Francisco, California have been made known to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), the metropolitan planning organization
and the designated recipient for FTA formula funds in the San Francisco
Bay Area, and its nine-county membership through arrangements made by
FTA/FHWA for the National Park Service to become involved in the
region's transportation planning process. As a result of this effort,
the National Park Service has gained membership in the Bay Area
Partnership, a forum for transportation representatives of various
jurisdictions in the region who make policy decisions on transportation
related programs. Specific transportation services needs have been
identified for the Presidio which the City is reviewing to determine
whether service augmentation is appropriate.
clean fuels formula program
Question. Please outline the guidelines for apportioning funds and
the time frame for clean fuels formula program applications as
specified in TEA21.
Answer. Designated recipients are required to submit an application
for these funds no later than January 1 of each fiscal year. FTA is
required to apportion the funds no later than February 1 of each fiscal
year. Funds are apportioned according to a formula based on the air
quality rating for ozone and carbon monoxide, number of buses, and bus
passenger miles. Two-thirds of the total would be apportioned to
designated recipients in areas over one million population. One-third
would be apportioned to designated recipients in areas under one
million population.
Question. Briefly summarize FTA's regulations for implementing this
program, including the types of eligible projects.
Answer. FTA has not yet issued regulations implementing the clean
fuels formula program, as called for in TEA-21, because of the
uncertainty surrounding funding for the program. If there is an
indication from the Congress that this program will be funded in fiscal
year 2000, we will proceed to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
in order to have implementation procedures in place by the beginning of
fiscal year 2000.
As per TEA-21, eligible projects would include the following:
purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including buses that employ a
lightweight composite primary structure; constructing or leasing clean
fuel buses or electrical recharging facilities or related equipment;
improving existing mass transportation facilities to accommodate clean
fuel buses; repowering pre-1993 engines with clean fuel technology that
meets the current urban bus emission standards; or retrofitting or
rebuilding pre-1993 engines if before half life to rebuild; and, at the
discretion of the Secretary, may include projects relating to clean
fuel, biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions technology vehicles
that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions reductions to existing
clean fuel or hybrid electric technologies.
Question. Of the bus and bus related projects identified in the
appropriations act for fiscal year 1999, which specific projects would
have been eligible for funding under the clean fuels formula program?
(Please arrange this list by state, and note the amount provided for
each project in the appropriations bill.)
Answer. The clean fuels formula funds lost their identity when
merged with the section 5309 bus program. It is not possible to
determine which projects might have been funded under the clean fuels
formula program except those for which an alternative fuel source was
specifically mentioned. Further, since clean diesel fuel buses are also
eligible under the clean fuels formula program, conceivably any
projects for the purchase of clean diesel buses could also qualify.
However, under the clean fuels formula program formula, only 35 percent
of the clean fuel formula funds may be used for clean diesel buses.
Therefore, under the clean fuels formula program, each clean diesel
project may have received a lower funding level than that earmarked
within the bus Capital Investment funds.
over-the-road bus accessibility program
Question. Why does the department believe that this program
requires additional funding in fiscal year 2000? Assuming that the
$1,300,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) funds proposed in
the administration's budget request will not be used to augment this
program, what adjustments will FTA make to its budget proposal for the
over-the-road bus accessibility program?
Answer. The higher level of financial assistance for fiscal year
2000, coupled with the proposed increase in federal share, would help
to offset accessibility costs for more providers. In addition, it may
also accelerate the purchase of lift-equipment for over-the-road buses,
thus improving the time-frame in which the nation's over-the-road bus
fleet could be made accessible. Although it is difficult to estimate
how many additional grants could be made if supplemental funds were
provided because we have not yet made any funded grants under the
program, we can estimate the number of lifts that the two levels of
funding could cover. The $1.3 million, would fund an additional 54
lifts to new vehicles. This estimate, of course, assumes that all funds
are used for the incremental cost of adding lifts to vehicles, rather
than for training purposes.
Question. Please define an over-the-road bus, and include in your
answer examples of over-the-road bus operators. Differentiate between
OTR buses in intercity fixed route service and other OTR bus service.
Are any such providers private entities, rather than public agencies?
Answer. Most providers of over-the-road bus services are private,
for-profit entities and the funding under FTA's over-the-road bus
accessibility program is available only to such private entities.
An ``over-the-road bus'' is a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment. Intercity fixed
route over-the-road bus service is regularly scheduled bus service for
the general public, using over-the-road buses that have the capacity
for transporting baggage carried by passengers. This service operates
with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas
not in close proximity or connecting one or more rural communities with
an urban area not in close proximity. The service provides meaningful
connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant
points. Examples of intercity, fixed route over-the-road bus operators
include well-known providers such as Greyhound and Trailways. The one
characteristic that distinguishes intercity service from other types of
services provided by over-the-road buses, is that it provides
meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more
distant points. Charter service is provided under a single contract at
a fixed charge for exclusive service to a particular group, such as a
company traveling together to a special event. Tour bus service is
usually regularly scheduled, fixed-route service offering sightseeing
excursions to the general public, such as those that stop regularly at
hotels to pick up guests to show them local tourist attractions. Local
commuter service provides regularly scheduled, fixed-route service for
commuters, usually on a week-day basis. A local example of commuter bus
service is provided by Eyre, which has regularly scheduled, fixed-route
services designed to meet the needs of individuals commuting between
Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, DC, with several scheduled stops
between the two cities. Many over-the-road bus operators provide
several types of service.
Question. Please identify the criteria used in determining grant
awards in this program.
Answer. Program guidance and application procedures are provided in
a Federal Register Notice dated February 8, 1999, ``Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility Program Grants.'' The grants will be awarded
competitively based upon the criteria taken directly from Section 3038
of TEA-21, listed below. No weight factors have been assigned to these
criteria.
--The identified need for over-the-road bus accessibility for persons
with disabilities in the areas served by the applicant;
--The extent to which the applicant demonstrates innovative
strategies and financial commitment to providing access to
over-the-road buses to persons with disabilities;
--The extent to which the over-the-road bus operator acquires
equipment required by DOT's over-the-road bus accessibility
rule prior to the required timeframe in the rule;
--The extent to which financing the costs of complying with DOT's
rule presents a financial hardship for the applicant; and
--The impact of accessibility requirements on the continuation of
over-the-road bus service, with particular consideration of the
impact of the requirements on service to rural areas and for
low-income individuals.
Question. Please provide a list of each award made in fiscal year
1999, the recipient, the amount of the award and the purpose of the
award.
Answer. FTA accepted grant applications through April 16, 1999. We
expect to notify all applicants who applied for funding in June of
1999, and make grants by September 30, 1999. The number of grants that
will be made under the program will depend on the number of
applications we receive from eligible applicants able or willing to
comply with the terms and conditions imposed on FTA grant recipients.
Since this is the first year in which this new program has been
implemented, it is difficult to anticipate the number of applications
we will receive and grant awards that we will make.
Question. Please describe in detail the rule implementing
accessibility of OTR buses required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Include any time frames required in the regulation. What
involvement did the Access Board have in developing these regulations?
Answer. Under the over-the-road bus accessibility rule, all new
buses obtained by large (Class I carriers, i.e., those with gross
annual operating revenues of $5.3 million or more), fixed-route
carriers, starting in October 2000, must be accessible, with wheelchair
lifts and tie-downs that allow passengers to ride in their own
wheelchairs. The rule requires the fixed-route carriers' fleets to be
completely accessible by 2012. The buses acquired by small (gross
operating revenues of less than $5.3 million annually) fixed-route
providers also are required to be lift-equipped, although they do not
have a deadline for total fleet accessibility. Small providers also can
provide equivalent service in lieu of obtaining accessible buses.
Starting in 2001, charter and tour companies will have to provide
service in an accessible bus on 48-hours' advance notice. Fixed-route
companies must also provide advance-notice accessible service on an
interim basis until their fleets are completely accessible. Small
carriers who provide mostly charter or tour service and also provide a
small amount of fixed-route service can meet all requirements through
48-hour advance reservation service.
transit planning and research
Question. The budget proposes to allocate an additional $4 million
in RABA funds to the transit planning and research account. What
specific activities will these funds support? In your answer provide
amounts by activities.
Answer. The $4 million made available from the revenue aligned
budget authority (RABA) funds will be used to expand FTA's essential
safety and transit operations databases consisting of the National
Transit Database (NTD); the Safety Management Information System
(SAMIS) and the Drug and Alcohol Testing Management Information System
(DAMIS). These databases provide information necessary for FTA to
apportion funding, analyze safety data, identify transit needs and
conditions, and a host of other fundamental program and project needs.
A table which provides amounts by activities follows:
Research and Technology Databases
Safety Management Information System (SAMIS)............ $350,000
Drug and Alcohol Testing Management Information System
(DAMIS)............................................. 850,000
National Transit Database (NTD)......................... 2,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,000,000
metropolitan and statewide planning
Question. Please provide a table displaying the formula
apportionments to States and MPOs of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 Metropolitan and State Planning Funds.
Answer. The table below provides the fiscal year 1999
apportionments for the Metropolitan Planning Program and the State
Planning Program. For fiscal year 2000, the following table provides
both the authorized and the guaranteed funding levels for these two
programs. For both programs, funding is shown by state recipient.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION METROPOLITAN AND STATE PLANNING
[Program Allocations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Planning and Research Metropolitan Planning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Fiscal year--
STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2000
1999 Guaranteed 1999 Guaranteed
Apportioned Authorization Apportioned Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... $101,355 $113,516 $384,440 $434,724
Alaska.......................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Arizona......................................... 146,306 163,861 699,026 790,634
Arkansas........................................ 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
California...................................... 1,402,810 1,571,121 7,482,037 8,461,743
Colorado........................................ 130,982 146,699 571,100 645,764
Connecticut..................................... 135,272 151,503 512,969 580,201
Delaware........................................ 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
District/Col.................................... 46,286 51,840 236,694 267,652
Florida......................................... 560,635 627,904 2,392,714 2,706,385
Georgia......................................... 179,614 201,166 847,148 958,068
Hawaii.......................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Idaho........................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Illinois........................................ 467,049 523,089 2,564,877 2,900,127
Indiana......................................... 148,326 166,124 622,689 704,060
Iowa............................................ 51,926 58,157 196,974 222,718
Kansas.......................................... 56,110 62,842 227,672 257,469
Kentucky........................................ 70,336 78,775 272,747 308,398
Louisiana....................................... 122,731 137,457 471,350 532,929
Maine........................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Maryland........................................ 197,285 220,957 1,019,100 1,152,276
Massachusetts................................... 260,573 291,839 1,242,933 1,405,418
Michigan........................................ 320,181 358,598 1,601,331 1,810,560
Minnesota....................................... 130,603 146,274 650,198 735,187
Mississippi..................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Missouri........................................ 153,287 171,680 718,958 812,845
Montana......................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Nebraska........................................ 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Nevada.......................................... 50,188 56,210 190,387 215,262
New Hampshire................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
New Jersey...................................... 365,189 409,007 2,175,970 2,460,509
New Mexico...................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
New York........................................ 777,583 870,883 4,418,750 4,996,473
North Carolina.................................. 138,421 155,030 524,905 593,708
North Dakota.................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Ohio............................................ 366,700 410,699 1,512,725 1,710,401
Oklahoma........................................ 74,604 83,556 282,947 319,987
Oregon.......................................... 78,224 87,610 317,882 359,433
Pennsylvania.................................... 397,026 444,664 1,962,133 2,218,344
Rhode Island.................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
South Carolina.................................. 78,592 88,022 298,025 337,092
South Dakota.................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Tennessee....................................... 122,179 136,839 463,404 524,043
Texas........................................... 626,441 701,606 2,982,127 3,372,443
Utah............................................ 72,688 81,409 275,638 311,767
Vermont......................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Virginia........................................ 210,961 236,274 980,769 1,109,284
Washington...................................... 177,084 198,332 781,819 884,139
West Virginia................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Wisconsin....................................... 135,769 152,060 557,792 619,015
Wyoming......................................... 46,286 51,840 175,605 198,528
Puerto Rico..................................... 117,070 131,117 475,683 537,966
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 9,257,248 10,368,000 43,901,198 49,632,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
national research and technology program
Question. Please provide a list by activity and amount of the
earmarks contained in TEA-21 that must be administered under the FTA's
transit planning and research account in fiscal year 2000.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year
Activity 2000 amount
Metropolitan Planning Funding................................. 49,632
Statewide Planning and Research Funding....................... 10,368
Transit Cooperative Research Program Funding.................. 8,250
National Transit Institute Funding............................ 4,000
Rural Transit Assistance Program Funding...................... 5,250
National Research and Technology: Funding..................... 29,500
Palm Springs, CA Fuel Cell Buses.........................\1\ (1,000)
MBTA Advanced Electric Transit Buses & Related
Infrastructure.........................................\1\ (1,500)
SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control........................\1\ (3,000)
Gloucester, MA Intermodal Technology Center..............\1\ (1,500)
Washoe County, NV Transit Technology.....................\1\ (1,250)
Project ACTION...........................................\1\ (3,000)
\1\ These specific projects are earmarked in TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety and security activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $5,450,000 for safety
and security activities and products in fiscal year 2000. Please
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 125 of the justification,
noting the priority order of each of the 17 activities planned for
fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in TEA-21?
Answer. The information is provided in the chart below:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 SAFETY AND SECURITY KEY
ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS
(In Priority Order)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Activity/Products 2000 Request TEA-21 Earmark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Safety Institute Safety & $1,200,000 No
Security Training......................
Grade Crossing Safety: Signalization w/ 400,000 No
Train Pre-emption......................
Safety Management Information System 350,000 No
(SAMIS)................................
Drug & Alcohol Management Information 850,000 No
System (DAMIS).........................
Bus Safety: Model Legislation for 500,000 No
Voluntary State-Based Oversight........
Research and Engineering Analysis....... 50,000 No
Computer Breaching/Assessing 50,000 No
Vulnerabilities of Electronic Fare
Payment Systems........................
Chemical/Biological Agent Detection 450,000 No
System.................................
Clearinghouse/Bulletin Board/WebSite.... 175,000 No
Passenger Security...................... 200,000 No
Information Data Outreach: Newsletter, 200,000 No
Workshops, Journals....................
Safety and Security Technical Support... 200,000 No
Development of Safety and Security 200,000 No
Training Courses.......................
Drug & Alcohol Testing Updated 225,000 No
Guidelines & Newsletter................
Security Survey: Public Perception...... 100,000 No
Human Factors: Fatigue Symposium, 150,000 No
Transit Operational....................
Fire Materials Testing.................. 150,000 No
-------------------------------
TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST.... 5,450,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a list of all U.S. airports that are
served by rapid transit lines currently, as well as those that are
planned to connect to airports by 2010.
Answer. U.S. airports in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,
Cleveland, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. are currently
served by rail LRT transit lines.
A list of all proposed rail projects which would provide access to
airports which are currently in preliminary engineering and final
design, as well as all such projects with a Full Funding Grant
Agreement, follows. In addition, this list also identifies proposed
non-Section 5309-funded rail-airport access projects and several major
investment studies that are examining rail access to airports.
planning studies and new starts with proposed transit access to
airports
Major Investment Studies (15)
Aspen/Roaring Fork Valley, CO--Aspen to Glenwood Springs
Austin, TX--Southeast Corridor
Boston, MA--Airport Circulator
Boston, MA--Urban Ring
Charlotte, NC (South Corridor Transitway)
Cleveland, OH--Berea Extension
Denver, CO--East Corridor
Denver, CO--Airport to Glenwood Springs Corridor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL--Airport/Seaport Multi-Modal Connector Study
Honolulu, HI--Primary Corridor
Kansas City, MO--Northland Corridor
Louisville, KY--South Central Corridor
Orlando, FL--Airport Corridor
Seattle, WA--SeaTac Airport People Mover
Washington, DC/Northern Virginia--Dulles Corridor
Projects in Preliminary Engineering and Final Design (11)
Cincinnati, OH--Northeast Corridor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL--Tri County Commuter Rail
Las Vegas, NV (Resort Corridor)
Miami, FL--East/West Corridor
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN--Hiawatha Ave. Corridor
Orange County, CA--Irvine/Fullerton Transitway Corridor
Phoenix, AZ--East/Central to Tempe Corridor
Raleigh, NC--Regional Transit Plan
Salt Lake City, UT--Airport to University (West-East)
Seattle, WA--Sound Move Regional System
Tampa, FL--Tampa/Hillsborough/Lakeland/Polk Mobility Study)
Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) (3)
Pittsburgh, PA Phase I Airport Busway/HOV Facility (FFGA commitment
completed)
St. Louis--St. Clair County, IL LRT Extension
San Francisco, CA--BART Extension to SFO
Non-Federally Funded Proposed Projects (No Section 5309 New Starts
Funds Proposed)
New York City--JFK International Airport Light Rail System
New York City--Proposed Rail Extension to LaGuardia Airport
Portland, OR--Tri-Met Extension to Portland International Airport
Question. The budget requests new funding for assessments of rail
and other transit systems' susceptibility to terrorist attacks. Given
the findings of the NTSB and the Inspector General on transit bus
safety and state oversight activities, wouldn't it be wiser to spend
these resources on improving existing safety deficiencies and improving
everyday operations of transit bus and rail safety, rather than on rare
and improbable terrorist attacks?
Answer. Terrorism is a definite and continuing threat to public and
employee safety in transit systems. This effort is in response to
recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection and Presidential Directives 62 and 63.
FTA is undertaking a comprehensive nine-month review of the FTA's
safety and security functions and roles. This effort will be conducted
by representatives from the safety offices of other DOT modal agencies.
It is anticipated that this review will result in specific
recommendations which will define, direct and possibly expand FTA's
safety and security functions.
Question. Of the activities requested within the safety and
security area, which are directly supported by or in response to NTSB
recommendations?
Answer. $500,000 is requested for the ``Bus Safety'' (line item
#1.5.7 on page 125 of the budget submission. This request is responsive
to NTSB's October 1998 recommendations that FTA, in cooperation with
the transit industry: (1) develop and implement an oversight program to
assess and ensure the safety of transit bus operations that receive
Federal funding; and (2) develop a model comprehensive safety program
to be provided to all transit agencies.
In response to 1997 and 1998 NTSB recommendations, FTA has
initiated an internal review of its safety data derived from the
National Transit Database. Although that in-depth review has not
produced any recommended changes for fiscal year 2000, FTA does plan to
pursue NTSB's recommendation to collect and evaluate accident causal
factor data in order to identify safety deficiencies at transit
agencies. This activity would be conducted in cooperation with the
transit industry; it would be an exploratory effort to better
understand the industry's data collection capabilities, identify common
causal factors, and determine how such data might be collected. Safety
data efforts total $350,000 (line #1.5.5.2 on page 125).
Following NTSB's recommendations concerning fatigue related
accidents, the FTA co-sponsored with APTA a fatigue symposium. One
product of that meeting was a recommendation by the participants that a
second symposium be conducted in fiscal year 2000. FTA is requesting
funding for the purpose. Funds requested total $150,000 (line #1.5.8 on
page 125).
The Transportation Safety Institute has developed a series of
courses for transit industry personnel relating to fitness-for-duty
which address fatigue issues. FTA will continue funding of that program
with fiscal year 2000 funding totaling $1,200,000 (line #1.5.1 on page
125).
equipment and infrastructure activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $11,600,000 for
equipment and infrastructure activities and products in fiscal year
2000. Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 138 of the
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 14 activities
planned for fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in
TEA21?
Answer. The information follows:
Fiscal year
Equipment and Infrastructure Key Activities and Prod2000 Request
Projects (in priority).................................. $4,600,000
Turnkey Demonstration Program....................... 500,000
Transit Construction Roundtable..................... 80,000
Fuel Cell Bus: 200KW PEM Fuel Cell.................. 1,500,000
Advanced Bus Subsystems............................. 1,150,000
Construction Technology Review...................... 370,000
Communication Based Train Control................... 1,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Projects earmarked in TEA-21 (not in priority order).... 7,000,000
Palm Springs, CA Fuel Cell Buses.................... 1,000,000
MBTA Advanced Electric Transit Buses & Related
Infrastructure.................................... 1,500,000
SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control................... 3,000,000
Gloucester, MA Intermodal Technology Center......... 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority Requested.................. 11,600,000
Question. Why is it necessary to provide funding to the FTA for
advanced vehicle subsystems when this activity can be supported within
the advanced vehicle transportation program?
Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is a Departmental
Initiative with a diverse transportation focus. It includes medium- and
heavy-duty trucks as well as buses. It also includes railroad,
aviation, and maritime applications. This Program was never intended to
be solely about transit, although we envision that there will be a
number of transit related efforts. The program typically selects 30-40
technology innovation or demonstration projects per year at a
relatively low funding level per project. The program acts as an
incubator for new and high risk technologies, carrying the development
of those technologies to a point where FTA or other transportation
modes are willing to invest and complete the development and deployment
cycle.
FTA requests funding for advanced vehicle systems specifically for
transit applications because of the anticipated high benefits from
these technologies. For example, preliminary results from FTA sponsored
hybrid-electric transit bus development efforts have demonstrated a 30
percent improvement in fuel efficiency and a 50 percent reduction in
emissions. Electric and hybrid-electric technologies will also
significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. The FTA programs support
a more extensive development of technologies through a cooperative
process with transit manufacturers and operators. The FTA support will
typically begin once the technology has reached the concept
demonstration stage (where the AVP ends). AVP projects selected by the
FTA for continued development will be supported through FTA's National
Research and Technology programs or capital projects. This will be
accomplished through a planned process that is being developed
cooperatively with both transit manufacturers and operators.
Question. What are the costs to complete the turnkey demonstration
program? What activities are to be supported with the $500,000
requested in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The FTA Turnkey Demonstration Program includes three active
projects: New Jersey's Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line, Bay Area Rapid
Transit District's (BART) San Francisco International Airport
Extension, and San Juan's Tren Urbano Project. These projects exceed
one billion dollars in construction funds each and therefore require a
significant amount of monitoring, data collection, reporting, and
evaluation. A minimum level of effort for these tasks is estimated at
one person-year during the projects' implementation schedule, plus a
subsequent year for the evaluation of system operation in the cases of
the San Juan and New Jersey projects.
Fiscal year 2000 costs for contractor support are $450,000. In
addition, the Turnkey Demonstration Program requires funds to conduct
special studies on key issues of concern to FTA and a related industry
workshop. One example of an outstanding issue is the level of
engineering necessary before a turnkey contract is awarded. A special
study and workshop require about one-third of a person-year or about
$50,000 annually. The combination of technical program support and
evaluation efforts represents annual activity of about $500,000 in
fiscal year 2000.
The three active turnkey demonstration projects are about halfway
into their construction phases and are expected to conclude
construction and initiate operations by 2001. The Turnkey Demonstration
Program will continue with a subsequent year to finish the evaluation
efforts. FTA will synthesize data collected on all five of the turnkey
demonstration projects, document lessons learned, and prepare technical
guidance as required by ISTEA.
The planned technical support for fiscal year 2000 will include
such activities as monitoring, data collection, reviewing and reporting
on the progress of the projects' construction, financing, and
management. In addition, each of the turnkey projects will be compared
to projects delivered through conventional methods. For example, the
BART SFO Extension will be compared to the East Bay extensions. The New
Jersey Hudson-Bergen LRT may be compared to the Secaucus Connection.
The Maryland Phase 2 LRT extensions will be compared to the Phase 1 LRT
project. The San Juan Tren Urbano may be compared to a similar mainland
project. Tasks will involve monitoring project progress, including the
identification of issues, attending quarterly reviews and making other
periodic site visits.
Also, in fiscal year 2000, FTA intends to conduct an industry
workshop on the level of engineering and design necessary before
issuing a turnkey request for proposal.
Question. What are the total project costs of the tunnel design and
construction activity? Are other modal administrations participating in
this activity given that such information would be helpful to the
transportation community generally and not the transit community
specifically?
Answer. This is a new activity for which $370,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2000. We have discussed this activity with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and intend to coordinate with FHWA and
other DOT modal administrations. Research efforts will be undertaken to
identify and review tunneling innovations and, once the identification,
evaluation, and research documentation activities are completed, FTA
will consult with the transit design and construction industry to
determine the applicability and deployment of innovative methods
identified. The products of this research effort will be documented as
``best practices'' in tunneling techniques.
Question. Has the $250,000 grant provided in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill for the survey on rail rights-of-way vegetation
control been released? What agencies applied for these funds? Are
follow-on costs requested or foreseen?
Answer. The grant for management of vegetation on rail rights-of-
way was awarded April 14, 1999 to the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
No follow-on costs are anticipated at this time.
fuel cell transit bus
Question. Please detail the full funding memorandum of
understanding that is being developed with Georgetown University to
develop commercially viable fuel cell transit buses. Will the
memorandum be finalized? What is the total federal funding assumed in
the memorandum, and will it exceed the total funding provided for this
project in TEA21? If so, for what activities? Has the university sought
to include structures, buildings or other non-vehicle related aspects
of the fuel cell transit bus project in the memorandum of
understanding?
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has structured the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Georgetown University (GU) to define
the total program, schedule, end products and funding requirements. It
also includes the Intermodal Fuel Cell Bus Maintenance Facility so that
the total Fuel Cell bus activities are defined in a single document.
The Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program contains the following elements: A
total of eight Fuel Cell transit buses (includes the two currently
being developed); Fuel Cell power plants provided by two vendors;
Potential of later buses being non-hybrid (no batteries, with a 200 kW
Fuel Cell power plant); and Testing and training at GU and at various
transit agencies.
The MOA is in the final stages of being implemented. It will be
completed in May 1999. The total identified funding is: Fuel Cell
Transit Bus Program--$71.8 million: this includes the $37.0 million
already provided through fiscal year 1999 (of which $10.5 million was
provided by DOD).
Funds
Source of Funding (millions)
FTA Research & DARPA.............................................. $37.0
TEA-21 section 5309 funding....................................... 14.5
To be determined (shortfall)...................................... 20.3
______
Total, Fuel Cell Transit Bus................................ 71.8
Intermodal Transportation Fuel Cell Bus Maintenance Facility--$24.6
million: This includes $10.0 million available under previous grants.
Funds
Source of Funding (millions)
FTA Research...................................................... $6.5
FHWA Funds........................................................ 3.5
TEA-21 section 5309 funding....................................... 14.6
______
Total, Fuel Cell Bus Maintenance Facility................... 24.6
The TEA-21 funding, providing $4.85 million a year under section
5309, is split evenly (50 percent-50 percent) between the Fuel Cell
Transit Bus Program and the Intermodal Transportation Fuel Cell Bus
Maintenance Facility, with all of the TEA-21 funding for the first
three years being dedicated to the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.
Currently, there is an identified shortfall of $20.3 million in the
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program that totals $71.8 million. This includes
the $37.0 million already provided through fiscal year 1999 (of which
$10.5 million was provided by DOD), and the $14.5 million in TEA-21
section 5309 funds.
The entire Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program described in the MOA is
structured to design, develop, build and test a total of eight Fuel
Cell transit buses. This includes six more buses than originally
planned. The intent is to offer these buses to transit agencies
participating in the program for operational experience and technical
feedback. It is not feasible to commercialize a product with only one
of each type of vehicle. The MOA defines a program that will develop
eight Fuel Cell transit buses in order to bring the Fuel Cell Bus to
the marketplace.
There is a clear statement in the MOA that, ``No Federal funds will
be applied towards any facility for student, faculty, or staff
parking.'' The MOA does not include development of a national
clearinghouse or repository on fuel cell bus technologies at the
university. GU is tasked to engineer, design and construct an
Intermodal Transportation Fuel Cell Bus Maintenance Facility, to
include developing and administering a training curriculum to train
transit operators in the operation and maintenance of Fuel Cell transit
buses.
Question. What is the cost to complete the Georgetown University
fuel cell bus program?
Answer. Georgetown estimates fiscal year 2000 and beyond cost to
complete the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program is $25.5 million.
Question. Why is it necessary to provide $1,500,000 from the
national transit planning and research account when TEA-21 provides
$4,850,000 each year for the fuel cell bus program from the bus capital
program?
Answer. There are still a number of systems issues with the
integration of the fuel cell propulsion system onto a transit bus
platform that are appropriate to address under FTA's research and
technology program. The current hybrid configuration of the two initial
fuel cell buses offers valuable insight into other diesel hybrid-
electric transit buses. There is a continuing interest in ensuring that
data collection, evaluation, and engineering and technical support for
this effort are maintained to maximize the benefits to the information
developed. These are all appropriate under FTA's research and
technology program.
Question. What transit agencies have provided firm commitments in
acquiring the Georgetown fuel cell buses?
Answer. There is insufficient experience to date with Fuel Cell
transit buses to convince any transit agency of the technology
readiness, operational benefits, or vehicle performance needed for
practical fleet implementation. Multiple vehicles are absolutely
essential to meet this objective. There are several agencies that are
interested in participating in the evaluation of these buses. Towards
that end, the MOA establishes a Transit Review Committee (TRC)
comprised of interested transit agencies to review the Fuel Cell
Transit Bus Program. The objective of this review committee is to
ensure that Fuel Cell buses, maintenance and training satisfy the
operational requirements of the transit industry. Recommendations of
this review committee will help guide the Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Program.
phosphoric acid fuel cell bus
Question. What is the status of the phosphorus acid fuel cell
development, and when will the project be completed?
Answer. The PAFC bus development is complete. The Fuel Cell was
fabricated, tested and integrated into a 40-foot NovaBUS platform.
Lockheed Martin Control Systems (LMCS) provided the power and
propulsion system, which is the same design that is being used on
several hybrid-electric buses in New York City. The following chart
lists the total PAFC funding profile as provided last year through
1998, additional funding provided in 1999 and the total Phosphoric Acid
Fuel Cell dollars to date. The differences accommodated test support,
evaluation, and engineering support. Total funding to date are $28.8
million, as indicated in the following chart (amounts are in millions).
PHOSPHORIC ACID FUEL CELL
(Dollars in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric
Year Fuel System Drive Program Total
Cell Integration Train Management Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 and Prior........................................... $18.5 $5.9 $1.7 $2.0 $28.1
1999..................................................... 0.6 ........... ........ 0.1 0.7
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................. 19.1 5.9 1.7 2.1 28.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the total amount requested for the development of
the phosphoric acid fuel cell bus in fiscal year 2000? What has been
spent on this program to date (by fiscal year)? What are the out-year
costs associated with this program?
Answer. There will be no further development efforts for the PAFC
transit bus. Fiscal year 2000 funding for the PAFC bus is expected to
be less than $500,000, and will be used for testing, evaluation,
continued support, and troubleshooting. The following chart lists the
total PAFC funding profile as provided last year through 1998,
additional funding provided in 1999 and the total Phosphoric Acid Fuel
Cell dollars to date. The differences accommodated test support,
evaluation, and engineering support. The total spent to date on
development of the PAFC transit bus is $28.8 million, as indicated
below (amounts are in thousands).
COSTS TO DATE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PHOSPHORIC ACID FUEL CELL BUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric
Year Fuel System Drive Program Total
Cell Integration Train Management Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994..................................................... $3,510 ........... ........ $525 $4,035
1995..................................................... 6,200 $1,800 ........ 475 8,475
1996..................................................... 6,600 2,200 ........ 300 9,100
1997..................................................... 1,800 1,300 $1,700 350 5,150
1998..................................................... 400 600 ........ 350 1,350
1999..................................................... 600 ........... ........ 100 700
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................. 19,110 5,900 1,700 2,100 28,810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
proton-exchange membrane fuel cell bus
Question. What is the status of the proton-exchange membrane fuel
cell bus development and test and when will this project be completed?
Answer. The 100 kW PEMFC power plant has been fabricated and
tested. To our knowledge, this is the largest PEMFC in the world that
can operate on liquid fuel. Georgetown University completed acceptance
testing in January. At this time, the PEMFC power plant is awaiting
integration into a bus platform. As reported last year, reduced funding
postponed the planned PEMFC bus roll-out from December 1998 until
September 1999. That date has been further delayed until December 1999.
This was caused by the delayed fiscal year 1998 funding, which hampered
contractual efforts to order and build the next bus chassis, develop
the propulsion system, and integrate all of the subsystems into the
vehicle.
To enhance the successful operation of the PEMFC once it is
integrated into the bus platform, dbb Fuel Cell Engines, Inc. will
complete some additional testing during the intervening period followed
by integrated bus testing at its Poway, California facility. Total
costs of these activities are less than $150,000. The PEMFC development
effort cost is about $7.5 million to date.
Question. What is the total amount requested for the development of
the proton-exchange membrane fuel cell bus in fiscal year 2000? What
has been spent on this program to date (by fiscal year)? What are the
out-year costs associated with this program?
Answer. The projected out-year costs for the Fuel Cell Transit Bus
program defined in the MOA have not been finalized. The fiscal year
2000 requested amount is $9.7 million. This includes the $4.85 from
5309 and $1.5 million from the National Research and Technology Program
requested for fiscal year 2000 and $3.35 million from fiscal year 1999
Section 5309 funding. The primary expenditures will be for additional
buses destined for the participating transit agencies. The fiscal year
2000 requested amounts are provided in the chart below:
Fuel cell bus program
(Dollars in thousands)
Fiscal year
Task 2000
Program Management................................................$1,100
PEMFC bus #3...................................................... 1,500
PEMFC bus #4...................................................... 1,500
PEMFC bus #5...................................................... 2,000
PEMFC bus #6...................................................... 2,000
Bus System........................................................ 100
Power & Propulsion................................................ 500
Additional Buses & Integration.................................... 1,000
______
Annual Total................................................ 9,700
hybrid electric and electric vehicles
Question. Generally, does FTA plan to transition its hybrid-
electric and electric vehicle research program to the Advanced Vehicle
Transportation Program? How will this affect program and staffing needs
in the area? If the proposed Maglev/AVTP funding switch is not enacted,
where does this leave the hybrid electric/electric vehicle program?
Answer. FTA does not plan to transition its research and technology
efforts for advanced propulsion systems, including hybrid-electric and
electric propulsion systems, for transit buses to the Advanced Vehicle
Program (AVP). Preliminary results from FTA sponsored hybrid-electric
transit bus development efforts have demonstrated a 30 percent
improvement in fuel efficiency and a 50 percent reduction in emissions.
Electric and hybrid-electric technologies will also significantly lower
greenhouse gas emissions. Lower maintenance costs are also expected
with these technologies. Given the significant potential benefits, it
is appropriate for FTA to commit funds to support these efforts
directly.
There should be minimal impact to program and staffing levels. FTA
intends to play an active role since we believe that there are
significant benefits to transit to the development and deployment of
advanced vehicle technologies. We also believe that the technologies
developed for transit applications have benefits to a much wider
vehicle market than transit buses. Given FTA's prior role and its
continuing interest in this area and the technical expertise and
experience that have been developed within FTA, one of our key staff
persons is serving as the Department's Program Officer for the AVP
further ensuring that efforts will not be redundant, but complementary.
Question. Please update the Committee on the zinc-air battery bus
research program. Is no further Federal involvement in this program
needed or desired?
Answer. The zinc-air battery bus will be completing the first
demonstration vehicle in early calendar year 2000 using fiscal year
1998 funding. The development team has submitted a proposal for tasks
under the fiscal year 1999 funding. This proposal has been evaluated,
and award of the funding is pending the results of the original
project. FTA expects the project to be completed under the fiscal year
1999 funding. Additional funding in fiscal year 2000 will not be
required.
Question. Please update the Committee on the CALSTART programs. Is
no further Federal involvement in this program needed or desired?
Answer. FTA has supported CALSTART's efforts to develop and
demonstrate electric and hybrid-electric vehicle technologies to
improve transportation services and operations. CALSTART served as a
catalyst for the development of a globally competitive U.S.-based
advanced transportation technology industry by identifying, contacting,
evaluating, and assisting a wide array of firms developing advanced
technologies. CALSTART is a major participant in the Department's
Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) managed by the Research and Special
Projects Administration. CALSTART projects with FTA are similar to
those sponsored under the AVP. FTA will complete the current projects
with CALSTART sponsored by FTA funding. However, all future funding for
CALSTART should be included as a part of the Advanced Vehicle Program.
advanced technology transit bus
Question. What is the status of the ATTB? Have any of the scheduled
milestones slipped over the past year? Has testing of the ATTB
prototypes been completed? What has this testing revealed?
Answer. The Advanced Technology Transit Bus (ATTB) program with Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) to
develop a lightweight, low floor, low emissions transit bus, and to
provide the results to the transit industry, is nearing completion. The
program has been successful in achieving almost all of its technical
research and development objectives, and has facilitated the industry
to pursue advanced vehicle technologies for transit. Northrop Grumman
Corporation has produced six prototype vehicles, which have undergone
demonstration and testing and have recently been delivered to LACMTA.
Final reporting and evaluations on the ATTB development program are now
being developed.
As part of the original intent of the program, one ATTB prototype
will be delivered to Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas, where three advanced subsystem technologies (an energy storage
system, dynamic suspension system for improved ride quality, and
improved wheel motors) will be integrated into the bus and undergo
evaluation.
Throughout the course of the project with LACMTA, several project
milestones have slipped, which is normal for a project of this
magnitude and complexity. However, the remaining milestones,
specifically reporting, are expected to be completed on schedule.
Testing of the six prototype vehicles, as called for in the program
test schedule, has been completed and all prototypes are with the
LACMTA.
Prototype #2 completed testing at the Pennsylvania Transit
Institute (PTI) bus testing facility in December 1998 and has been
returned to LACMTA. Because of recurring reliability problems with the
prototypes, the ATTB completed only 50-percent of the prescribed
durability testing protocol at PTI, so the lifecycle cost analysis
could not be fully completed. The testing revealed support for the
basic design concepts and technologies incorporated into the ATTB, and
documented the strengths and weaknesses in the bus design. Many of the
systems and components that are causing the lack of reliability have
been identified and are thought to be related to issues with the
manufacture, installation, or integration of these systems and
components, and not the underlying technologies themselves.
Question. Are any funds programmed in fiscal year 1999 or requested
in fiscal year 2000 for further development or testing and analysis of
the ATTB?
Answer. No funds are programmed or requested for further
development or testing of the ATTB beyond current program obligations.
Question. Have any transit authorities indicated whether they would
intend to procure ATTBs for their fleets?
Answer. A manufacturer has yet to be identified to pursue further
development and production of the ATTB in the near term. However, some
manufacturers are already pursuing the manufacture of ATTB-based
technologies for the U.S. transit bus market, and there is an
increasing demand by transit agencies for some of the advanced
technologies developed and demonstrated as part of the program. LACMTA,
however, is considering a reliability improvement program for some of
the prototypes, which is outside the scope of the original project.
LACMTA is also planning to develop a production model and eventually
procure ATTB vehicles. LACMTA plans to seek funding for procurement of
the production model from the Section 5309 Capital Investment program.
FTA intends to follow these developments, and other ATTB technology
commercialization efforts, closely.
fleet operations activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $3,800,000 for fleet
operations activities in fiscal year 2000. Please reproduce the funding
breakout table on page 148 of the justification, noting the priority
order of each of the 9 activities planned for fiscal year 2000. Are any
of these projects earmarked in TEA-21?
Answer. Only one project is earmarked in TEA-21.
Fiscal year
Fleet Operations Key Activities and Products 2000 Request
Projects (in priority order)............................ $2,550,000
BRT Data Collection & Analysis...................... 500,000
BRT Technology Transfer............................. 150,000
BRT Project Administration.......................... 600,000
BRT Lessons Learned Workshop........................ 250,000
BRT Systems Integration Workshop.................... 350,000
BRT Professional Development Workshops--Design,
Vehicle Systems, Services, System................. 200,000
BRT Design & Operational Parameters, Impacts........ 300,000
Open Architecture for Vehicle systems............... 200,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Projects earmarked in TEA-21 (not in priority order).... 1,250,000
ITS Applications: Washoe County, NV Transit
Technology........................................ 1,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority............................ 3,800,000
Question. The budget requests $200,000 for open architecture for
vehicles systems in fiscal year 2000. What is the total cost of this
activity, and what are the outyear considerations? Couldn't this
activity be funded within the Intelligent Transportation Systems
program?
Answer. In light of the emphasis on system integration through open
architecture standardization of all ITS technologies, the question
remains as to how many systems in a transit vehicle should be included
in this concept. The $200,000 requested will allow FTA to work with the
transit vehicle manufacturers and operators to evaluate the possible
systems and likely candidates for open architecture and architecture
and standardization. FTA would expect that the Transit Standards
Consortium, organized through APTA, would assume responsibility for
further work beyond fiscal year 2000.
This activity will be evaluating the integration and
interoperability of transit vehicle components that are considered
outside the normal ITS purview, such as vehicle management systems and
propulsion system components.
bus rapid transit research
Question. What is the total amount allocated to bus rapid transit
activities in fiscal year 1999 and planned for fiscal year 2000? What
are the out-year costs associated with this program?
Answer. The total amount allocated to bus rapid transit technical
assistance activities in fiscal year 1999 is $1.5 million. This
includes the following:
--$150,000--BRT Operational Analysis Support to provide technical
assistance to BRT Consortium members and others in designing
infrastructure and operations. A virtual reality simulation for
BRT operation will be included.
--$250,000--BRT Data Analysis and Project Evaluations to objectively
determine the benefits, costs, impacts, and operational issues
of BRT in a uniform manner.
--$200,000--BRT Systems Integration Workshops, for BRT Consortium
members to jointly address issues of common interest such as
Intelligent Transportation Systems (traffic signal priority,
smart cards, passenger information systems, passenger counters
and in-vehicle monitoring systems, etc.), vehicle design and
procurement. The task emphasizes system integration ability for
various locations.
--$500,000--BRT Project Administration, which supports local agency
administrative expenses of about $50,000 per project for data
collection, logistical support and progress reporting.
--$150,000--BRT Technology Transfer, to communicate results to
interested organizations through audio, video and written
materials; scanning tours; and efforts with news media, such as
Dateline and other networks.
--$200,000--BRT Professional Development, involving preparation of
training and technical assistance aids specifically for transit
operators, transportation planners, engineers, architects,
local land use planners and university students.
--$100,000--BRT Lessons Learned Annual Workshop, including
preparation of technical papers on contemporary planning,
design, systems and implementation issues and by gathering
successful implementers with potential adopters to explore
preliminary findings.
In fiscal year 2000, the total amount planned for bus rapid transit
is $2.35 million. The categories of effort are the same as for fiscal
year 1999, but with proportionately greater emphasis and funding for
technology transfer, professional development and industry diffusion.
FTA expects that in fiscal year 2000, more projects will be moving into
actual design and operations, providing opportunities to heighten
industry awareness and adoption of BRT. In addition, more information
will be available for the project evaluations.
Fiscal year 2000 funding categories and amounts are as follows:
--$300,000--BRT Operational Analysis Support
--$500,000--BRT Data Analysis and Evaluation
--$350,000--BRT Systems Integration Workshops
--$600,000--BRT Project Administration
--$150,000--BRT Technology Transfer
--$200,000--BRT Professional Development
--$250,000--BRT Lessons Learned Workshops
Question. What is the status of the competition to determine a
potential demonstration of the bus rapid transit application in the
states? What funding is associated with this competition?
Answer. A Federal Register Notice was published on December 10,
1998. It described the Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program, the
need for improved bus transit service, and the goals of the Bus Rapid
Transit Demonstration Program and also solicited Statements of
Participation from those interested entities.
Twenty-four proposals were received from transit agencies, local
governments and combinations of the two. The selected project sponsors
will compose the initial BRT Consortium.
Proposals consisted of the following types: Curitiba-type exclusive
rights-of-way systems, Priority treatments on local arterials, and
Skip-stop service on local arterials.
An evaluation by FTA staff of those received statements is now
underway, and FTA expects to announce selected demonstration projects
by May of this year. Those not selected as demonstration projects will
however receive technical assistance through the technology transfer,
professional development and lessons learned workshops.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation includes $1.5 million for the
Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration initiative, and we have requested an
additional $2.35 million in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Please summarize the results of FTA's bus rapid transit
research thus far. Have you developed preliminary scoping of the
concept data, including cost per mile, land use parameters, efficiency
measurements, and cost of operations?
Answer. FTA has only recently begun the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Demonstration Program. It will require several years to implement the
proposed projects, collect data on their operation and draw conclusions
about the general effectiveness and efficiency of BRT. However, FTA has
begun the process of defining the key issues surrounding BRT. These key
issues include:
--How successful is BRT in reducing bus travel time?
--Which BRT elements (exclusive lanes or roadways, traffic signal
preference, faster fare collection and boarding, etc.) are the
most effective in reducing travel time?
--How successful is BRT in attracting increased ridership from
reduced travel time, improved visibility, supportive land use,
etc.?
--How expensive is BRT implementation and operation?
--How successful is BRT in improving operating efficiency for transit
agencies?
--How easy (or difficult) is the implementation of BRT?
--In what type of locations is BRT most successful?
--What is the impact of BRT on land use and development?
These issues and others will, together with specific project site
characteristics, determine the required data collection and analysis
that will lead to the drawing of general and specific conclusions about
BRT. FTA will also organize a national BRT Consortium of the selected
demonstration sites to work together on issues of mutual interest. The
FTA will hold periodic workshops for Consortium members on specific
topics such as the use of ITS capabilities, traffic signal preference,
faster fare collection and boarding, vehicles, etc. It is likely that
additional issues and insights will be raised during these workshops
that will expand and amplify the preliminary key issues.
FTA has had other ongoing related bus operations research
activities in recent years:
--The Bus Transit System: Its Underutilized Potential by Dr. Vukan
Vuchic of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Vuchic identified
ways to improve bus service--mostly by buses operating on
exclusive lanes, busways or other exclusive rights-of-way.
--The development of a Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
under the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) managed
by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences. This manual will be of significant aid to transit
planners, engineers and operators in planning and operating
transit services. Chapters on transit capacity and the effect
of transit vehicles on the capacity and speed of highway
traffic were also produced for the Highway Capacity Manual
2000.
--Building on the body of previous work that has been developed on
BRT, the TCRP has recently developed a problem statement
soliciting a contractor to (1) identify how BRT could operate
in the U.S.; (2) identify and articulate obstacles to BRT
implementation in the U.S., such as political and
institutional, land-use, vehicle selection, and traffic signal
preemption; and (3) develop a suite of information/guidance
packages, including a discussion of the role of traffic
simulation, animation and visualization, to evaluate and
communicate expected impacts of proposed BRT services tailored
to meet the needs of various potential stakeholders interested
in the implementation of BRT, including citizens, elected
officials, the business community, and transit agencies.
specialized customer services activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $4,050,000 for
specialized customer service activities in fiscal year 2000. Please
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 154 of the justification,
noting the priority order of each of the 4 activities planned for
fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in TEA-21?
Answer. One project, Project ACTION, is earmarked in TEA-21 for $3
million annually. The chart follows:
Fiscal year
Specialized Customer Services Key Activities and Pro2000 Request
Projects (in priority order)............................ $1,050,000
RTAP National Program............................... 750,000
Job Access Support.................................. 200,000
Mobility Manager Assistance......................... 100,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Projects earmarked in TEA-21 (not in priority order).... 3,000,000
Project ACTION...................................... 3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority............................ 4,050,000
Question. The budget requests $200,000 for job access support to
conduct information sharing, coordination, technical assistance, and
other related activities. Can't funds provided under the job access and
reverse commute program be retained or set-aside for such
administrative activities? What funds are set-aside from the job access
and reverse commute program in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Answer. TEA-21 restricts funding to the provision of new or
expanded transportation services and the promotion of transit in non-
traditional hours, employer strategies and transit pass programs. No
funding is provided for technical assistance, information sharing or
evaluation activities.
information management and technology activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $3,800,000 for
information management and technology activities in fiscal year 2000.
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 159 of the
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 4 activities
planned for fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in
TEA21?
Answer. None of the projects are earmarked in TEA-21.
Fiscal year
Information Management and Technology Key Activities and
Products 2000 Request
Projects (in priority order):
National Transit Database........................... $2,800,000
International Program: Technical Assistance and
Training.......................................... 100,000
Technology Sharing, FTA Website, Transit GIS........ 500,000
Small Business Innovation Research.................. 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority............................ 3,800,000
Question. Why is it necessary to connect the national transit
database to the transportation electronic award and management system?
How does this benefit grantees and the Federal Transit Administration?
Answer. The National Transit Database contains statutory required
financial and operational statistics. Operational data in the NTD is
used to develop the allocations for the Formula Grant Programs. In
addition, the NTD provides an important post-grant history of vehicle
fleets, financial records and operating data. Our grantees and FTA
Regional Offices use both systems extensively and believe linking the
two would provide benefits to accessing data and oversight functions. A
major component of the NTD is an inventory of transit fleets by
operator. Vehicle data provides the resources to make fleet inventory
and age for disposal and purchase decisions. Linking, for example, will
help our grantees ensure that the Fleet Management requirements for FTA
grants will be implemented. These Fleet Management requirements were
put in place to respond to past IG oversight suggestions about spare
buses at certain properties. These fleet requirements must be met prior
to a bus purchase and are critical part of a TEAM grant application.
Linking will also help our grantees use NTD performance measures
and expenditure data in evaluating different grant program
expenditures, such as expenditures on preventive maintenance, transit
police and security, etc. The NTD provides the capability to make
performance and expenditure comparisons of similar transit systems
across the nation. These data are important to grantees, as well as for
Metropolitan Planning Organizations that review projects in the local
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Question. Why is $100,000 necessary for international programs when
funding up to $1,000,000 is available without appropriation to conduct
the same activities?
Answer. Although Section 3015(e)(3) of TEA-21 allows the Department
to receive revenues from any cooperating organization or persons for
the FTA international mass transportation program, FTA has just begun
structuring the first year's activities, including defining the program
emphasis areas, developing a Federal Register notice and conducting
outreach meetings with the transit industry.
Thus, at this time FTA is spending the better part of fiscal year
1999 developing the program elements for the international mass
transportation program and has yet to solicit revenues from any other
organizations or persons. The requested $100,000 is needed to conduct
workshops, develop program outreach materials, sponsor or co-sponsor
international program conferences, and conduct other related program
support activities for this new initiative.
metropolitan/rural policy development activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $1,600,000 for
metropolitan/rural policy development activities in fiscal year 2000.
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 164 of the
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 6 activities
planned for fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in
TEA-21?
Answer. There are no Metropolitan/Rural Policy Development projects
earmarked in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2000. The chart follows:
Fiscal year
Metropolitan/Rural Policy Development Key Activities and
Products 2000 Request
Projects (in priority order):
Transit Performance, Condition and Needs............ $300,000
Innovative Finance.................................. 200,000
Reauthorization Implementation...................... 200,000
Program Evaluations and Strategic Plan.............. 200,000
Benefits of Transit................................. 400,000
Policy Analysis..................................... 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority............................ 1,600,000
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the grant
for the City of Branson, Missouri congestion study. When was this
funding released? Do you anticipate further costs associated with this
study. Can general policy implications be drawn concerning small cities
with large tourist populations, and their seasonal effects on the
transit needs of the community?
Answer. The City of Branson, Missouri (City) received a Section
5314, $450,000 planning earmark in fiscal year 1999 to conduct a
congestion study to analyze congestion problems within the City. The
City is suffering from severe traffic congestion due to the influx of
tourism. Currently, there is no public transportation system within the
City. The study will also consider recommendations resulting from an
FTA New Starts funded study currently underway. This study is
considering various transportation options including commuter rail
between the City of Branson and Springfield, Missouri.
The grant application for the congestion study is expected to be
submitted later this calendar year, therefore no funding has been
released to date. FTA does not anticipate costs in excess of the
earmarked funds for the congestion study.
In regard to the question on policy implications on seasonal
effects of tourists, Missouri Department of Transportation reports that
the tourist population in Branson is now fairly constant throughout the
year, not seasonal. It should be noted that findings of the congestion
study when completed could have an impact or relevance in dealing with
transit issues of other small cities with large tourist attractions.
planning and program development activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $2,500,000 for planning
and program development activities in fiscal year 2000. Please
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 168 of the justification,
noting the priority order of each of the 6 activities planned for
fiscal year 2000. Are any of these projects earmarked in TEA21?
Answer. There are no Planning and Project Development projects
earmarked in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2000.
Fiscal year
Planning and Project Development Key Activities and 2000 Request
Projects (in priority order):
Transportation Planning and Programming............. $750,000
Major Investment Planning and Project Development... 650,000
Outreach New Provisions/TEA-21...................... 200,000
Land Use and Environmental Planning................. 200,000
Planning Methods.................................... 600,000
Financial Planning.................................. 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Budget Authority............................ 2,500,000
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of each of the
three community planning land analysis projects included in the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations bill: (1) Skagit County, Washington North
Sound connecting communities; (2) Desert air quality comprehensive
analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada; and (3) Seattle, Washington livable city.
Have these grants been released? Were any problems encountered? Are
follow-on costs required or anticipated?
Answer. The status of the three community planning land analysis
projects follows:
(1) Skagit County, Washington North Sound Connecting Communities:
The County is in the process of making an application for the funds. We
expect to receive the application soon at our Region X Office in
Seattle.
(2) Desert Air Quality Comprehensive Analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada:
FTA received an application dated April 1, 1999 and expects to award a
cooperative agreement in the near future.
(3) Seattle, Washington Livable City: Seattle has not yet submitted
an application. Our Regional Office expects to receive an application
soon.
rural transportation assistance program (rtap)
Question. Why does the RTAP require both formula TEA21 funding
($5,250,000) in fiscal year 2000 and specialized customer services
discretionary funding ($750,000 in fiscal year 2000)?
Answer. FTA allocates the formula funding entirely to the states to
support training and technical assistance for rural transit providers,
according to an administrative formula based on nonurbanized population
and a minimum allocation to each state. The discretionary funding
supports a national RTAP project administered through a cooperative
agreement with the American Public Works Association. National RTAP
products include the Transit Resource Center operated by the Community
Transportation Association of America, training modules tailored to the
needs of rural transit, technical assistance briefs, and other products
which support the state RTAP.
FTA's fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects the funding
experience in recent years. From the time RTAP originated in fiscal
year 1987 through fiscal year 1992, FTA allocated 85 percent of the
appropriation to the states and the remainder to the national project.
In fiscal year 1993, when Congress reduced the annual appropriation
from $5 million to $4.25 million, FTA allocated the entire amount the
states and began funding the national RTAP separately. The amount
available for the national program then fluctuated annually until
Congress established an earmark of $750,000 for the national RTAP in
fiscal year 1998.
transit cooperative research program
Question. Is the amount of transit cooperative research program
funding set in a TEA21 formula? Please provide the cite and the funding
schedule over the authorized period.
Answer. No, it is a fixed amount rather than a formula. Section
3029(a) of TEA21 authorizes not less than $8,250,000 annually for the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) for each year of the TEA-21
authorization, fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003. In January
1999, pursuant to authorization in TEA-21, FTA executed a Memorandum of
Agreement with the National Academy of Sciences and the American Public
Transit Association for the conduct of the TCRP. This MOA reflects
FTA's continued interest in focusing the responsiveness of the
sponsored research on the department's strategic plans and on the
tactical and practical requirements of the nation's transit industry.
national transit institute
Question. Is the amount of National Transit Institute funding set
in a TEA21 formula? Please provide the cite and the funding schedule
over the authorized period.
Answer. No, it is a fixed amount rather than a formula. Section
3029(a) of TEA21 authorizes not less than $4,000,000 annually for the
National Transit Institute for each year of the TEA-21 authorization,
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003. FTA and Rutgers University
are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding for the continued
management of the National Transit Institute by the University. This
MOU will incorporate the important policy directions and transportation
and transit training priorities contained in the Department's strategic
plans and program performance standards.
altoona, pennsylvania bus testing
Question. How much has been allocated for technical support for
testing new bus models in Altoona in fiscal years 1997 through? From
what program is this funding derived?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the amount was $85,040; in fiscal year
1998, $95,000. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the amount is expected to
be $100,000 annually. The funds are derived from the Section 5309
Capital Investments account.
Question. What new buses were tested at the facility in fiscal
years 1998, 1999 and planned for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Buses Tested in fiscal year 1998.--In fiscal year 1998, 16
bus models were tested at the Altoona facility. These are listed on the
following chart:
BUSES TESTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman...................... ATTB.
New Flyer Industries.................. D60LF.
Supreme/Freedom One................... Low-Floor Minivan.
Supreme Corp.......................... PS-31.
El Dorado National.................... Aerotech 240.
Coach & Equipment Mfg. Corp........... Condor.
Freedom One/Supreme Corp.............. Low Floor Mini Van.
Metrotrans............................ Classic 20 foot.
Metrotrans............................ Classic 24 foot.
Motor Coach Industries................ 102-D3 CNG.
Supreme Corp.......................... 28 foot Bus.
Cable Car Concepts.................... MIDI.
Nova Bus Corp......................... T80206.
Champion Bus Inc...................... CTS.
Champion Bus Inc...................... Contender TB.
Thomas Built Buses Inc................ 110-8-N-1069.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buses Tested in fiscal year 1999.--Thus far in fiscal year 1999,
nine (9) buses have been tested at the Altoona facility. Additional bus
models have been scheduled for testing.
BUSES TESTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starcraft................................ Allstar.
New Flyer Industries..................... D45 Viking.
Orion Bus Industries..................... Orion II CNG.
Champion Bus, Inc........................ Defender.
Supreme Corp............................. Trolley.
ABI...................................... MSV-1120S.
Goshen................................... Sentinel.
Glavel................................... Universal.
Champion................................. Solo-LPG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buses Initiating Testing in fiscal year 2000.--To date, no buses
have been scheduled for testing in fiscal year 2000.
capital investment grants unobligated funds
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated contract
authority funds that have remained on the books for more than three
years (that is, funds appropriated or authorized in or prior to fiscal
year 1996).
Answer. The Capital Investment Grants (Discretionary Grants) funds
that are more than three years old and not obligated are as follows:
Federal Transit Administration Funds more than three-years old and
Unobligated as of 4/30/99
Capital Investments Program Unobligated Funds
Capital Program, Section 5309, Bus...................... \1\ $7,455,535
Capital Program, Section 5309, Fixed Guideway Mod....... \2\ 2,022,708
Capital Program, Section 5309, New Starts............... \1\ 3,886,253
Undistributed Discretionary............................. 2,653,298
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 16,017,794
\1\ Includes amounts not obligated per congressional guidance, reports
and bill language.
\2\ Funds are available for 4 years.
Question. Please provide a list of recoveries by program/project
and amount made in fiscal year 1998, planned for fiscal year 1999 and
estimated for fiscal year 2000. Delineate by program/project how these
recoveries were (or are to be) allocated.
Answer. A list of recoveries by program and amount made in fiscal
year 1998 is provided in the table below. We estimate a similar
distribution of recoveries as they become available for fiscal years
1999 and 2000.
Funds recovered under our Formula Grants programs and Planning
programs, remain with the account and are reapportioned to all areas in
the succeeding fiscal year according to legislative formula. Amounts
recovered under the previous section 5 formula are authorized to be
transferred to section 5307, Urbanized Area Formula and are
reapportioned. Funds recovered under section 5311(b) Rural Transit
Assistance Program (RTAP) previously funded with Formula Grants, are
transferred to the Transit Planning and Research account and are
distributed with section 5311(b), RTAP. Recoveries under the Research
Training and Human Resources account are authorized to be transferred
to the Transit Planning and Research account and are distributed with
section 5314, National Planning and Research. Section 5309 New Starts
and Bus funds recovered from projects previously earmarked are
reprogrammed after notification to and approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Recovery
Activities
Fiscal year
Program 1998
FORMULA GRANTS:
Sec. 5307, Urbanized Area Formula Program........... $21,500,729
Sec. 5307, Urbanized Area Formula Program, Oversight 29,108
Sec. 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities.... 90,318
Sec. 5311, Nonurbanized Area Formula Program........ 3,628,921
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Formula Grants............................. 25,249,076
========================================================
____________________________________________________
TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH:
Sec. 5303, Metropolitan Planning Program............ 1,556,566
Sec. 5313, State Planning and Research Program...... 132,507
Sec. 5314, National Planning and Research........... 196,938
Sec. 5311, RTAP..................................... 122,328
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Transit Planning and Research.............. 2,008,339
========================================================
____________________________________________________
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS:
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Bus..................... 1,770,372
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, New Starts.............. 16,008,275
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Rail Mod................ 1,219,734
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Innovative Techniques... 33,235
Sec. 5303, Special Studies.......................... 681,732
Sec. 5303, Metropolitan Program..................... 1,388
Sec. 5313, State Planning and Research.............. 657
Sec. 5314, National Planning and Research........... 27,804
Sec. 5307, Urbanized Area, 9(B)..................... 507,020
Sec. 5317, University Transportation Centers........ 871,471
Sec. 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities.... 301,397
Sec. 5307 Transferred to sec. 5311.................. 149,089
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Discretionary Grants....................... 21,572,174
========================================================
____________________________________________________
RESEARCH TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCES................... 371,680
INTERSTATE TRANSFER GRANTS.............................. 6,036,466
URBAN DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.............................. 555,920
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Federal Transit Administration............. 55,793,655
Question. Transit new starts and bus and bus facilities funds are
subject to the ``three-year rule'', wherein earmarked appropriated
funds not obligated after three fiscal years are available to be
reprogrammed. The November 6, 1998 Federal Register ``Apportionment,
Allocations and Program Information'' notice listed over $78 million
worth of fiscal year 1997 Section 5309 bus unobligated allocation.
Answer. The information is in the table below.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1997 UNOBLIGATED SECTION 5309 NEW START ALLOCATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR
STATE PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1997 CARRYOVER STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT Hartford--Griffin Light Rail Project $993,023 Project deleted from Regional Transportation Plan.
VT Burlington--Charlotte Commuter Rail 993,023 Application under review--Obligation expected in 4th Qtr.
NY New York--Whitehall Ferry Terminal 1,675,037 NEPA process still underway; anticipate 4th Qtr obligation.
NJ Burlington--Gloucester Line \1\ 1,488,750 Obligation not likely this fiscal year.
VA Virginia Railway Express--Commuter Rail 2,979,069 Application under review--Obligation expected in 4th Qtr.
Project
MS Jackson--Intermodal Corridor 5,461,626 Application not yet submitted; project scope under refinement.
FL Miami--Metro Dade East-West Corridor Project 1,489,534 Obligated on 11/20/98.
FL Miami--North 27th Avenue Project 993,023 Obligated on 11/20/98.
NC Research Triangle Park--Regional Transit 693,384 Application under review--Obligation expected in 4th Qtr.
Plan
TX Houston--Regional Bus Plan 40,306,799 Grant under review; obligation In 4th Qtr.
TX Dallas--Ft. Worth RAILTRAN 15,143,599 Grant under final review; obligation In 4th Qtr.
LA New Orleans--Canal Street Corridor Project 7,944,183 Environmental issues under study; obligation this fiscal year possible.
AR Little Rock--Junction Bridge Project 1,806,046 Environmental Assessment being completed; obligation in 4th Qtr.
MO St. Louis--Metrolink Project 3,405,809 Application under review--Obligation expected in 4th Qtr.
CA San Diego Mid-Coast Extension 1,489,534 Application under review--Obligation expected in 4th Qtr.
AK Hollis--Ketchikan Ferry Project 6,345,416 Under final review--obligation expected in 3rd Qtr.
WA Seattle-Renton-Tacoma Light Rail Project 2,979,069 Obligated on 1/22/99.
----------------
Total 96,186,924
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds [$1,488,750] identified in the fiscal year 1997 Carryover column are fiscal year 1995 funds extended for obligation by the fiscal year
1999 Appropriation Conference Report for Burlington--Glouchester, NJ Commuter Rail.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.014
state by state breakout of federal transit funds
Question. For fiscal year 2000, please prepare a table that
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as
included in the administration's budget, and TEA-21 (Section 3031)
earmarked bus funds, breaking out the funding distribution by state and
category. Show a total at the bottom, and note what percentage of that
total is represented by each state's subtotal.
Answer. The information is provided in the chart below:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT/ALLOCATIONS FOR FTA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310 Elderly Section 5309 Fixed State Total State
State Section 5307 Section 5311 Non- & Persons with Section 5309 New Guideway Section 5309 Bus Selected FTA percent of
Urbanized Area urbanized Area Disabilities Starts Modernization Allocation Programs Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................. $12,345,815 $4,601,674 $1,262,364 ................. .................... $1,250,000 $19,459,853 0.36
Alaska................................... \1\ 7,159,272 686,209 191,850 \2\ $5,161,000 .................... ................. 13,198,331 .24
American Samoa........................... ................. 97,806 52,632 ................. .................... ................. 150,438 ..........
Arizona.................................. 31,278,488 2,014,492 1,112,036 ................. $1,714,915 3,360,000 39,479,931 .73
Arkansas................................. 4,808,246 3,678,847 879,566 ................. .................... ................. 9,366,659 .17
California............................... 440,827,753 8,978,871 6,874,937 225,870,289 97,447,440 14,125,000 794,124,290 14.67
Colorado................................. 34,346,300 1,916,629 860,712 35,000,000 1,276,142 1,875,000 75,274,783 1.39
Connecticut.............................. 43,412,116 1,738,563 987,472 ................. 35,613,122 6,750,000 88,501,273 1.64
Delaware................................. 5,819,571 433,730 293,751 ................. 900,963 ................. 7,448,015 .14
District of Columbia..................... 24,133,985 ................. 291,511 ................. 41,405,152 7,350,000 73,180,648 1.35
Florida.................................. 136,124,791 5,772,011 4,636,540 64,000,000 14,894,671 9,250,000 234,678,013 4.34
Georgia.................................. 51,566,541 6,728,137 1,639,325 45,141,609 20,056,733 13,500,000 138,632,345 2.56
Guam..................................... ................. 278,431 133,754 ................. .................... ................. 412,185 .01
Hawaii................................... 21,805,177 755,131 375,895 \2\ 5,161,000 717,140 2,250,000 31,064,343 .57
Idaho.................................... 2,842,008 1,523,454 384,869 ................. .................... ................. 4,750,331 .09
Illinois................................. 192,661,811 6,172,689 2,994,303 50,000,000 109,835,226 8,200,000 369,864,029 6.83
Indiana.................................. 30,583,459 5,962,678 1,567,146 ................. 7,372,357 7,500,000 52,985,640 .98
Iowa..................................... 9,049,807 3,835,253 946,179 ................. .................... 1,885,000 15,716,239 .29
Kansas................................... 7,299,329 3,050,822 791,908 ................. .................... ................. 11,142,059 .21
Kentucky................................. 15,834,432 5,036,242 1,209,462 ................. .................... ................. 22,080,136 .41
Louisiana................................ 25,230,847 4,165,337 1,213,401 ................. 2,719,194 ................. 33,328,779 .62
Maine.................................... 2,038,744 2,009,937 483,251 ................. .................... ................. 4,531,932 .08
Maryland................................. 69,328,328 2,509,310 1,219,178 8,703,308 21,651,851 11,500,000 114,911,975 2.12
Massachusetts............................ 105,990,461 2,689,218 1,759,633 53,961,528 63,230,944 3,750,000 231,381,784 4.28
Michigan................................. 56,390,876 7,282,862 2,560,666 ................. 449,343 13,500,000 80,183,747 1.48
Minnesota................................ 27,793,106 4,190,867 1,236,483 8,000,000 2,844,835 12,000,000 56,065,291 1.04
Mississippi.............................. 4,327,424 4,089,742 854,282 ................. .................... ................. 9,271,448 .17
Missouri................................. 31,112,334 4,881,280 1,589,372 ................. 1,632,113 1,250,000 40,465,099 .75
Montana.................................. 2,150,550 1,234,118 352,436 ................. .................... ................. 3,737,104 .07
Nebraska................................. 7,609,130 1,862,127 555,935 ................. .................... ................. 10,027,192 .19
Nevada................................... 16,410,558 607,956 411,508 ................. .................... 2,250,000 19,680,022 .36
New Hampshire............................ 3,013,098 1,609,709 388,305 ................. .................... ................. 5,011,112 .09
New Jersey............................... 161,401,967 2,301,543 2,114,182 111,000,000 87,109,545 4,250,000 368,177,237 6.80
New Mexico............................... 6,403,038 1,809,361 487,951 ................. .................... 1,250,000 9,950,350 .18
New York................................. 482,151,901 8,101,711 4,909,688 ................. 320,395,319 21,225,000 836,783,619 15.46
North Carolina........................... 24,160,905 8,606,405 1,865,487 8,000,000 .................... 4,839,000 47,471,797 .88
North Dakota............................. 2,096,375 912,685 298,799 ................. .................... ................. 3,307,859 .06
Northern Marianas........................ ................. 90,638 52,404 ................. .................... ................. 143,042 ..........
Ohio..................................... 78,650,959 8,761,919 3,125,261 ................. 16,007,175 625,000 107,170,314 1.98
Oklahoma................................. 10,130,348 3,745,630 1,042,604 ................. .................... 5,000,000 19,918,582 .37
Oregon................................... 24,189,968 2,974,063 968,730 11,061,930 3,059,860 6,150,000 48,404,551 .89
Pennsylvania............................. 133,583,533 9,774,012 3,748,659 ................. 95,594,209 25,642,000 268,342,413 4.96
Puerto Rico.............................. 43,036,204 2,920,782 918,554 82,000,000 1,777,215 600,000 131,252,755 2.43
Rhode Island............................. 8,476,199 374,157 429,237 ................. 2,412,069 3,294,000 14,985,662 .28
South Carolina........................... 10,419,785 4,307,549 1,007,521 ................. .................... 1,220,000 16,954,855 .31
South Dakota............................. 1,512,262 1,112,492 323,318 ................. .................... 1,500,000 4,448,072 .08
Tennessee................................ 20,264,508 5,560,553 1,492,017 15,109,600 79,754 ................. 42,506,432 .79
Texas.................................... 147,603,791 11,739,874 3,871,834 132,516,377 5,696,889 5,750,000 307,178,765 5.68
Utah..................................... 18,747,454 843,330 454,162 57,928,359 .................... 8,800,000 86,773,305 1.60
Vermont.................................. 760,019 994,664 265,866 ................. .................... ................. 2,020,549 .04
Virgin Islands........................... ................. 212,891 136,116 ................. .................... ................. 349,007 .01
Virginia................................. 52,410,334 4,929,969 1,552,472 ................. 464,097 2,250,000 61,606,872 1.14
Washington............................... 77,136,196 3,454,367 1,391,500 8,000,000 15,992,245 4,950,000 110,924,308 2.05
West Virginia............................ 3,664,123 2,937,208 734,024 ................. .................... 17,000,000 24,335,355 .45
Wisconsin................................ 32,707,189 5,075,151 1,420,820 ................. 696,482 18,000,000 57,899,642 1.07
Wyoming.................................. 1,050,115 709,817 224,933 ................. .................... ................. 1,984,865 .04
Unallocated.............................. ................. ................. .................... 46,432,000 .................... 183,008,500 229,440,500 4.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... 2,763,851,530 192,644,903 72,946,801 973,047,000 973,047,000 436,898,500 5,412,435,734 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight................................ 13,888,701 968,065 .................... 7,353,000 7,353,000 3,301,500 $32,864,266
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 2,777,740,231 193,612,968 72,946,801 980,400,000 980,400,000 440,200,000 5,445,300,000
======================================================================================================================================================
Clean Fuels.............................. 50,000,000 ................. .................... ................. .................... 50,000,000 100,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.......... 3,700,000 ................. .................... ................. .................... ................. 3,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total........................ 2,831,440,231 193,612,968 72,946,801 980,400,000 980,400,000 490,200,000 5,549,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad.
\2\ Amount for Alaska/Hawaii Ferries distributed one-half to Alaska and one-half to Hawaii.
Question. For fiscal year 1999 enacted, please prepare a table that
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as
earmarked in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill (before
project management oversight is subtracted), and all earmarked bus
funds (before project management oversight is subtracted), breaking out
the funding distribution by state and category. Show a total at the
bottom, and note what percentage of that total is represented by each
state's subtotal.
Answer. The information is provided in the chart below:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPORTIONMENT/ALLOCATIONS FOR FTA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 Non- Elderly & Section 5309 New Section 5309 Section 5309 Bus State Total State
State Urbanized Area urbanized Area Persons with Starts Fixed Guideway Allocation Selected FTA percent of
Disabilities Modernization Programs Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... $11,402,391 $4,250,030 $1,160,647 $1,000,000 ................ $23,840,000 $41,653,068 0.82
Alaska................................................ \1\ 7,005,198 633,771 185,871 \2\ 5,200,000 ................ 7,500,000 20,524,840 .40
American Samoa........................................ ................ 90,332 52,397 ................ ................ ................ 142,729 ..........
Arizona............................................... 28,888,298 1,860,551 1,023,763 5,000,000 $1,286,274 7,000,000 45,058,886 .88
Arkansas.............................................. 4,440,818 3,397,723 812,084 1,000,000 ................ 3,060,000 12,710,625 .25
California............................................ 407,141,247 8,292,733 6,271,268 146,980,000 86,945,465 40,555,000 696,185,713 13.64
Colorado.............................................. 31,721,677 1,770,167 794,916 41,000,000 1,080,875 8,675,000 85,042,635 1.67
Connecticut........................................... 40,094,714 1,605,709 910,339 3,500,000 34,799,686 7,550,000 88,460,448 1.73
Delaware.............................................. 5,374,860 400,586 278,659 ................ 666,931 1,000,000 7,721,036 .15
District of Columbia.................................. 22,289,751 ................ 276,620 ................ 32,038,246 7,350,000 61,954,617 1.21
Florida............................................... 125,722,610 5,330,935 4,233,062 28,500,000 11,094,890 19,500,000 194,381,497 3.81
Georgia............................................... 47,626,007 6,213,996 1,503,895 53,610,000 14,967,672 15,500,000 139,421,570 2.73
Guam.................................................. ................ 257,155 132,972 ................ ................ ................ 390,127 .01
Hawaii................................................ 20,138,902 697,426 353,457 \2\ 8,200,000 532,305 3,250,000 33,172,090 .65
Idaho................................................. 2,624,831 1,407,037 361,628 ................ ................ ................ 4,393,496 .09
Illinois.............................................. 177,939,272 5,700,995 2,737,694 44,000,000 106,700,651 9,300,000 346,378,612 6.79
Indiana............................................... 28,246,378 5,507,032 1,438,171 3,000,000 7,161,958 7,700,000 53,053,539 1.04
Iowa.................................................. 8,358,254 3,542,177 872,739 250,000 ................ 6,685,000 19,708,170 .39
Kansas................................................ 6,741,540 2,817,690 732,264 1,000,000 ................ 2,000,000 13,291,494 .26
Kentucky.............................................. 14,624,420 4,651,390 1,112,476 ................ ................ 5,300,000 25,688,286 .50
Louisiana............................................. 23,302,797 3,847,036 1,116,063 24,000,000 2,323,293 11,000,000 65,589,189 1.28
Maine................................................. 1,882,950 1,856,345 451,211 ................ ................ ................ 4,190,506 .08
Maryland.............................................. 64,030,500 2,317,558 1,121,323 20,541,000 19,950,711 10,000,000 117,961,092 2.31
Massachusetts......................................... 97,891,042 2,483,718 1,613,444 56,233,000 60,214,839 13,728,000 232,164,043 4.55
Michigan.............................................. 52,081,684 6,726,332 2,342,839 200,000 321,028 10,600,000 72,271,883 1.42
Minnesota............................................. 25,669,254 3,870,615 1,137,080 17,000,000 2,452,324 17,500,000 67,629,273 1.32
Mississippi........................................... 3,996,738 3,777,218 789,061 ................ ................ 5,500,000 14,063,017 .28
Missouri.............................................. 28,734,839 4,508,270 1,458,410 1,000,000 1,527,879 11,750,000 48,979,398 .96
Montana............................................... 1,986,212 1,139,811 332,096 ................ ................ 1,500,000 4,958,119 .10
Nebraska.............................................. 7,027,667 1,719,830 517,396 1,000,000 ................ ................ 10,264,893 .20
Nevada................................................ 15,156,521 561,498 385,885 4,000,000 ................ 6,115,000 26,218,904 .51
New Hampshire......................................... 2,782,848 1,486,701 364,757 ................ ................ 2,770,000 7,404,306 .15
New Jersey............................................ 149,068,196 2,125,667 1,936,285 77,000,000 82,332,792 11,750,000 324,212,940 6.35
New Mexico............................................ 5,913,740 1,671,096 455,491 5,000,000 ................ 5,750,000 18,790,327 .37
New York.............................................. 445,307,544 7,482,603 4,481,782 24,000,000 303,962,647 27,950,000 813,184,576 15.93
North Carolina........................................ 22,314,616 7,948,734 1,709,831 13,000,000 ................ 10,161,000 55,134,181 1.08
North Dakota.......................................... 1,936,178 842,941 283,256 ................ ................ 2,000,000 5,062,375 .10
Northern Marianas..................................... ................ 83,712 52,189 ................ ................ ................ 135,901 ..........
Ohio.................................................. 72,640,731 8,092,364 2,856,940 8,500,000 14,917,615 13,450,000 120,457,650 2.36
Oklahoma.............................................. 9,356,223 3,459,402 960,541 ................ ................ 5,000,000 18,776,166 .37
Oregon................................................ 22,341,456 2,746,796 893,273 25,718,000 2,284,605 8,550,000 62,534,130 1.22
Pennsylvania.......................................... 123,375,552 9,027,117 3,424,587 10,000,000 94,236,678 32,966,000 273,029,934 5.35
Puerto Rico........................................... 39,747,536 2,697,587 847,585 20,000,000 1,336,512 950,000 65,579,220 1.28
Rhode Island.......................................... 7,828,479 345,565 402,028 ................ 1,813,989 5,450,000 15,840,061 .31
South Carolina........................................ 9,623,540 3,978,381 928,595 2,200,000 ................ 4,570,000 21,300,516 .42
South Dakota.......................................... 1,396,700 1,027,479 305,582 ................ ................ 5,300,000 8,029,761 .16
Tennessee............................................. 18,715,967 5,135,635 1,369,761 4,700,000 59,037 2,000,000 31,980,400 .63
Texas................................................. 136,324,426 10,842,756 3,536,745 90,670,000 4,488,746 17,000,000 262,862,673 5.15
Utah.................................................. 17,314,841 778,886 424,725 75,000,000 ................ 10,300,000 103,818,452 2.03
Vermont............................................... 701,941 918,655 253,268 2,000,000 ................ 4,000,000 7,873,864 .15
Virgin Islands........................................ ................ 196,622 135,122 ................ ................ ................ 331,744 .01
Virginia.............................................. 48,405,321 4,553,238 1,424,809 27,000,000 467,604 13,950,000 95,800,972 1.88
Washington............................................ 71,241,720 3,190,397 1,278,234 47,250,000 12,320,187 22,700,000 157,980,538 3.09
West Virginia......................................... 3,384,125 2,712,757 679,558 4,000,000 ................ 14,500,000 25,276,440 .50
Wisconsin............................................. 30,207,820 4,687,326 1,304,931 500,000 514,561 16,875,000 54,089,638 1.06
Wyoming............................................... 969,869 655,575 215,996 ................ ................ ................ 1,841,440 .04
Unallocated........................................... ................ ................ ................ 48,000 ................ ................ 48,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 2,553,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,105,000,000 100
=========================================================================================================================================
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility....................... 2,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total..................................... 2,555,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,107,000,000 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 appropriated for the Alaska Railroad.
\2\ Amount for Alaska/Hawaii Ferries distributed one-half to Alaska and one-half to Hawaii.
eligibility issues
Question. Please provide a comprehensive list (alphabetically by
state) of new starts and bus and bus facilities projects earmarked in
the fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations
bills that have encountered problems with having grants released
because of eligibility problems. Please describe the eligibility issues
that are delaying the release of funds, and note what steps are being
taken by FTA and the grantee to resolve the issue.
Answer. The information is provided below.
Fiscal Year 1999 New Start Earmarks With Eligibility Issues:
Earmark: Hartford--Old Saybrook Rail Extension [$496,280]
State: Connecticut
Grantee: Midstate Regional Planning Agency
Project Description: The proposed project is for the reconstruction
of an existing rail line between Old Saybrook and Hartford. The line is
basically inactive except for a short tourist operation near Old
Saybrook.
Project Status: Discussions have been held with the Midstate
Regional Planning Agency to develop a grant application for a corridor
study to explore the feasibility of a rail project.
Eligibility Issues: Use of the earmark to fund a corridor study
would be an eligible use of FTA funds.
Current Status: A draft work program has been reviewed and
commented upon. Once the work program is approved, grantee is expected
to submit an application for the funds. This is expected later in the
fiscal year.
Earmark: Stamford--Fixed Guideway Connector [$992,550]
State: Connecticut
Grantee: City of Stamford
Project description: City is now proposing the Stamford Urban
Transitway Project, which will provide improved commuter and transit
access to the Stamford Train Station. Project will incorporate reserved
bus lanes, bus shelters, ITS elements and a new Transit shuttle
service.
Eligibility Issues: Original highway project being changed to a
transit project and would appear to be eligible.
Status: Regional staff is now waiting for revised justifications
and maps, which are expected by May 15, 1999.
Earmark: New London--Waterfront Access Project [$496,280]
Grantee: City of New London
Project Description: City has proposed a transitway project as part
of a comprehensive multi-modal transportation program to link the
Thames Science Center, Connecticut College and the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy to the Downtown area and the City's Multi Modal Transportation
Center in the City center and extended to the Ocean Beach Part at the
City's southern tip.
Eligibility Issues: The proposal is currently under FTA review to
determine eligibility.
Current Status: A follow-up meeting will be held with the City of
discuss project eligibility items and the specifics of a grant
application.
Earmark: Savannah, GA--Water Taxi [$496,280]
State: Georgia
Grantee: Georgia Department of Transportation (GA DOT) is a
potential candidate
Project Description: Project currently not well defined. Project
may be sponsored by the Georgia Department of Transportation but this
requires additional clarification with local authorities. Plans
apparently call for the water taxi service to be established to connect
with the Hutchinson island development. GA DOT envisions that the local
authority would operate the service.
Eligibility Issues: Questions remain about the eligibility of the
earmark. Apparently, the type of service, the operator, and source of
operating funds are among the issues which are still under discussion.
Moreover, the Georgia Legislature recently passed a measure providing
funds to undertake an additional study of the concept.
Status: FTA regional office is seeking additional information and
clarification on the scope of the project in order to determine transit
eligibility. This project is not authorized by TEA21.
Fiscal Year 1999 Bus Earmarks With Eligibility Issues:
EARMARKS: WASHINGTON COUNTY INTERMODAL FACILITIES--
$625,275; WESTMORELAND COUNTY INTERMODAL FACILITY--
$198,500; FAYETTE COUNTY INTERMODAL FACILITIES &
BUSES--$1,260,475
State: Pennsylvania
Grantee: No grantee identified
Project Description: All three of these earmarks are for the
construction of river landings (boat docks). Three are located in
Washington County; one in Westmoreland County and two in Fayette
County. This is in conjunction with the American River Heritage Program
as the rivers where the docks would be located are designated heritage
rivers by the Department of Interior. There is no boat service
identified to use the landings. The Fayette County earmark also
includes buses.
Eligibility Issue: There is no water borne public transportation
component either identified or planned for which might utilize these
docks. There is no surface public transportation service to the docks.
However, the buses for Fayette County are eligible and account for
approximately $1,000,000 of the $1,260,475 earmark.
Status: Regional staff has spoken with the Port of Pittsburgh staff
regarding the earmarks. Representatives from Congressman Frank
Mascara's office will be meeting with FTA regional staff in mid-May to
define the eligible transit elements of the project.
EARMARK: TOLEDO MUD HENS TRANSIT CENTER STUDY--$198,500
State: Ohio
Grantee: Toledo Regional Transit Authority
Project Description: Study of the feasibility of constructing a
transit center at the Toledo Mud Hens baseball stadium in Toledo.
Eligibility Issue: Feasibility study [e.g., early planning prior to
project selection] not eligible for Bus Capital funds.
Status: FTA has been informed that the applicant is seeking
clarification from the committees on the description of the project.
EARMARK: MILWAUKEE INTERMODAL FACILITY REHABILITATION--
$992,500
State: Wisconsin
Grantee: None identified
Project Description: Region V indicates that this may be the same
project as the 1998 earmark ``Milwaukee Rail Station Rehabilitation''
in the amount of $996,774. That earmark was initiated by the Chicago
Milwaukee Corporation (CMC), a private corporation. CMC leases the
station to Amtrak. CMC would like to rehabilitate the station.
Eligibility Issue: If this is a rail project, it is not eligible
for bus funds. However, if a portion of the rehabilitation of the
station includes more efficient intermodal connections for bus, this
portion might be eligible. Finally, even if eligible, an FTA grant
cannot be made to a private corporation.
Status: Region V staff have meet with the attorneys for the
Milwaukee Rail Station. Milwaukee County has been identified as the
applicant for this project. FTA is working closely with Milwaukee
County to resolve any eligibility issues that may arise.
EARMARK: HUNTSVILLE INTERMODAL SPACE CENTERS--$4,962,500
State: Alabama
Grantee: U.S. Space and Rocket Center (State Agency)
Project Description: Based on information received to date from the
U.S. Space and Rocket Center, a state agency, the project is for
visitor shuttle service, perhaps Peoplemover, between the Marshall
Space Flight Center and the U.S. Space Camp.
Eligibility Issue: The service is within the space center complex,
only serving visitors. [Section 5302(a)(7) of the Federal Transit Act
of 1998, as amended, states that ``the term `mass transportation' means
transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing
general or special transportation to the public, but does not include
school bus, charter, or sightseeing transportation''].
Status: FTA is currently working with the applicant to define the
eligible transit elements of the project and to resolve any eligibility
issues that may arise.
EARMARK: HIGH STREET JACKSON INTERMODAL CENTER--$1,985,000
State: Mississippi
Grantee: City of Jackson
Project Description: Region IV indicates that this project was
erroneously submitted as a supplement to the Downtown Multimodal
Transit Center on Capital Street in Jackson. The correct wording of the
earmark should be the ``Jackson Intermodal Corridor'' and would
supplement the fiscal year 1997 New Start earmark ($5,461,626) for the
Jackson Intermodal Corridor.
Eligibility Issue: No transit project has been identified
Status: Region IV has had discussions with the City of Jackson and
the City is working on developing a transit project for this
supplemental funding. In addition, this earmark should be a New Start
earmark, not a bus earmark.
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 bill, all bus and bus facilities
projects received bill language earmarks. Please provide a list of any
of these grantees who have encountered problems with having grants
released because of the project name listed in the appropriations
legislation does not precisely match the description of the project
forwarded by the grantee in their application.
Answer. The information is listed below:
--Louisiana (Statewide earmark) State Infrastructure Bank, Transit
Account--(There is no SIB in place for this area/LADOTD would
like to reprogram these funds)
--Butte, Montana--Bus Replacements (Should be changed to ``buses and
bus facilities'')
--Mount Vernon, Washington--Multimodal Center (Should be changed to
``buses and bus facilities'')
--Los Angeles, California--Municipal Transit Operators Consortium
(Should include in language ``buses and bus facilities'')
--Solano Links, California--Links Intercity Transit Consortium
(Should include in language ``bus purchases'')
Question. Generally describe the process FTA undergoes when an
eligibility issue is raised. What procedure does the agency follow in
its attempt to resolve these problems?
Answer. FTA attempts to identify earmarks with eligibility issues
early in the appropriations process. If FTA knows of an eligibility
issue at the time of Senate mark up, we will advise the Senate
accordingly when the Senate requests FTA comments on earmarks proposed
by members. When the House and Senate appropriations bills are passed
the regions are asked to inquire of grantees for detailed information
regarding the earmarks. The regions forward information to FTA
headquarters regarding earmarks and identify earmarks with eligibility
issues. Headquarters prepares a list of earmarks with eligibility
issues and provides it to the House and Senate appropriations
committees. The regional offices work with the grantees on an ongoing
basis to see if they can define an eligible project. In quite a few
cases the regions are successful. If the regional office cannot
successfully define an eligible project the earmark may need to be
revised in the following year's appropriation bill.
Question. Several U.S. communities are advancing bus rapid transit
projects, including Dulles corridor, Virginia; Eugene, Oregon
university corridor; Cleveland Euclid Avenue corridor; and West
Hollywood, Los Angeles. Are these projects eligible for both new starts
and bus funding? Which is more appropriate?
Answer. In general, bus rapid transit projects would be eligible
for funding from both the new starts and bus programs. The definition
of ``fixed guideway'' used by FTA to define new starts specifically
includes exclusive facilities for buses and other high-occupancy
vehicles. Whether one or the other funding programs would be more
appropriate would depend on the specific project being proposed.
bus and bus-related facilities
Question. Please reproduce the fiscal year 1999 bill language
listing of appropriated bus projects found on pages 185-190 of the
justification. Add a column to the right and note which projects have
been specified in TEA21 for fiscal year 2000 funding, and the level of
that funding. Include totals at the bottom of both the 1999 and 2000
columns.
Answer. The information is provided in a chart below:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
State Project 1999 Conference 2000 TEA-21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Anchorage Ship Creek $4,300,000 ..............
intermodal facility
Alaska Fairbanks intermodal 2,000,000 ..............
rail/bus transfer
facility
Alaska North Slope Borough 500,000 ..............
buses
Alaska Whittier intermodal 700,000 ..............
facility and
pedestrian overpass
Alabama Birmingham intermodal 2,000,000 ..............
facility
Alabama Birmingham-Jefferson 1,250,000 $1,250,000
County, buses
Alabama Dothan Wiregrass 500,000 ..............
Transit Authority
demand response
shuttle Vehicles and
transit facility
Alabama Huntsville, 5,000,000 ..............
intermodal space
centers
Alabama Huntsville, transit 1,000,000 ..............
facility
Alabama Jasper buses 50,000 ..............
Alabama Lee-Russell Council 790,000 ..............
buses
Alabama Mobile, GM&O building 5,000,000 ..............
Alabama Montgomery Union 5,000,000 ..............
Station intermodal
center and buses
Alabama Pritchard, bus 500,000 ..............
transfer facility
Alabama Tuscaloosa, 1,950,000 ..............
intermodal center
Alabama University of North 800,000 ..............
Alabama pedestrian
walkways
Arkansas Arkansas Highway and 200,000 2,000,000
Transit Department
buses
Arkansas Fayetteville, 500,000 500,000
University of
Arkansas Transit
System buses
Arkansas Hot Springs, 560,000 560,000
transportation depot
and plaza
Arkansas Little Rock, Central 300,000 300,000
Arkansas Transit
buses
Arkansas Statewide bus needs 1,500,000 ..............
Arizona Phoenix bus and bus 4,000,000 ..............
facilities
Arizona Tucson alternatively 2,000,000 ..............
fueled buses
Arizona Tucson intermodal 1,000,000 ..............
facility
California Central Contra Costa 200,000 ..............
County transit vans
California Culver City, CityBus 1,250,000 1,250,000
buses
California Davis, Unitrans 625,000 625,000
transit maintenance
facility
California Davis/Sacramento area 950,000 ..............
hydrogen bus
technology program
California Folsom multimodal 1,000,000 ..............
facility
California Healdsburg, 1,000,000 1,000,000
intermodal facility
California Humboldt, intermodal 1,000,000 ..............
facility
California Huntington Beach 200,000 ..............
buses
California I-5 corridor 2,500,000 ..............
intermodal transit
centers
California Lake Tahoe intermodal 500,000 ..............
transit center
California Livermore automatic 1,000,000 1,000,000
vehicle locator
program
California Los Angeles County 3,000,000 ..............
Metropolitan
transportation
authority buses
California Los Angeles Foothills 1,000,000 ..............
Transit maintenance
facility
California Los Angeles municipal 2,500,000 ..............
transit operators
consortium
California Los Angeles, Union 1,250,000 1,250,000
Station Gateway
Intermodal Transit
Center
California Modesto, bus 1,355,000 625,000
maintenance facility
California Monterey, Monterey- 625,000 625,000
Salinas buses
California Morongo Basin, 650,000 ..............
Transit Authority
bus facility
California North San Diego 1,750,000 ..............
County transit
district buses
California Perris, bus 1,250,000 1,250,000
maintenance facility
California Riverside Transit 1,000,000 ..............
Agency buses and
facilities and ITS
applica- tions
California Sacramento, CNG buses 1,250,000 1,250,000
California San Bernardino buses 1,000,000 ..............
California San Diego City 1,000,000 ..............
College multimodal
center (12th Avenue/
College Station)
California San Fernando Valley 300,000 ..............
smart shuttle buses
California San Francisco, Islais 1,250,000 1,250,000
Creek maintenance
facility
California San Joaquin 1,000,000 ..............
(Stockton) buses and
bus facilities
California Santa Clara Valley 1,000,000 ..............
Transportation
Authority buses and
bus facilities
California Santa Clarita buses ............... 1,250,000
California Santa Clarita transit 2,250,000 ..............
maintenance facility
California Santa Cruz 625,000 625,000
metropolitan bus
facilities
California Santa Cruz transit 1,000,000 ..............
facility
California Santa Rosa, Cotati, 750,000 ..............
and Rohnert Park
facilities
California Santa Rosa/Cotati, 750,000 750,000
intermodal
transportation
facilities
California Solano Links 1,000,000 ..............
intercity transit
consortium
California Ukiah Transit Center 500,000 ..............
California Windsor, Intermodal 750,000 750,000
Facility
California Woodland Hills, 325,000 625,000
Warner Center
Transportation Hub
California Yolo County, bus 1,200,000 ..............
facility
Colorado Boulder/Denver, RTD 625,000 625,000
buses
Colorado Colorado buses and 6,800,000 ..............
bus facilities
Colorado Denver, Stapleton 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal Center
Connecticut Hartford, 800,000 ..............
Transportation
Access Project
Connecticut New Haven, bus 2,250,000 2,250,000
facility
Connecticut Norwich, buses 2,250,000 2,250,000
Connecticut Waterbury, bus 2,250,000 2,250,000
facility
District/ Fuel cell bus and bus 4,850,000 4,850,000
Columbia facilities program
(section 3015(b))
District/ Washington, D.C. 2,500,000 2,500,000
Columbia Intermodal
Transportation
Center
Delaware Delaware statewide 1,000,000 ..............
buses
Florida Broward County, buses 1,000,000 ..............
Florida Clearwater multimodal 2,500,000 ..............
facility
Florida Daytona Beach, 2,500,000 2,500,000
Intermodal Center
Florida Gainesville buses and 1,500,000 ..............
equipment
Florida Jacksonville buses 1,000,000 ..............
and bus facilities
Florida Lakeland, Citrus 1,250,000 1,250,000
Connection transit
vehicles and related
equip- ment
Florida Lynx buses and bus 1,000,000 ..............
facilities
Florida Miami, bus security 1,000,000 ..............
and surveillance
Florida Miami Beach 1,000,000 ..............
multimodal transit
center
Florida Miami Beach, Electric 750,000 750,000
Shuttle Service
Florida Miami-Dade, buses 2,250,000 2,250,000
Florida Orlando, Intermodal 2,500,000 2,500,000
Facility
Florida Tampa Hartline buses 1,250,000 ..............
Georgia Atlanta, MARTA buses 12,000,000 13,500,000
Georgia Savannah/Chatham Area 3,500,000 ..............
transit bus transfer
centers and buses
Hawaii Honolulu, bus 3,250,000 2,250,000
facility and buses
Illinois Illinois statewide 6,800,000 8,200,000
buses and bus-
related equipment
Illinois Rock Island, buses 2,500,000 ..............
Indiana City of East Chicago 200,000 ..............
buses
Indiana Gary, Transit 1,250,000 1,250,000
Consortium buses
Indiana Indianapolis, buses 5,000,000 5,000,000
Indiana South Bend, Urban 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal
Transportation
Facility
Iowa Fort Dodge, 885,000 885,000
Intermodal Facility
(Phase II)
Iowa Iowa statewide buses 3,000,000 ..............
and bus facilities
Iowa Iowa/Illinois Transit 1,000,000 1,000,000
Consortium bus
safety and security
Iowa Sioux City park and 1,800,000 ..............
ride facility
Kansas Johnson County bus 2,000,000 ..............
maintenance/
operations facility
Kentucky Louisville, Kentucky 3,000,000 ..............
University of
Louisville and River
City buses
Kentucky Northern Kentucky 100,000 ..............
Area Development
District senior
citizen buses
Kentucky Owensboro buses 200,000 ..............
Kentucky Southern and eastern 2,000,000 ..............
Kentucky buses and
bus facilities
Louisiana Statewide buses and 11,000,000 ..............
bus-related
facilities
Louisiana Baton Rouge [200,000] ..............
Louisiana Jefferson Parish [350,000] ..............
Louisiana Lafayette [425,000] ..............
Louisiana Louisiana DOTD, [650,000] ..............
including vans
Louisiana Monroe [450,000] ..............
Louisiana New Orleans [8,075,000] ..............
Louisiana Shreveport [400,000] ..............
Louisiana State infrastructure [350,000] ..............
bank, transit
account
Louisiana St. Tammany Parish [100,000] ..............
Massachusetts Essex and Middlesex 3,128,000 ..............
buses
Massachusetts New Bedford/Fall 250,000 ..............
River Mobile Access
to health care
Massachusetts Pittsfield intermodal 4,600,000 ..............
center
Massachusetts Springfield, Union 1,250,000 1,250,000
Station
Massachusetts Westfield intermodal 2,000,000 ..............
center
Massachusetts Worcester, Union 2,500,000 2,500,000
Station Intermodal
Transportation
Center
Maryland Maryland statewide 10,000,000 11,500,000
bus facilities and
buses
Michigan Lansing, CATA bus 600,000 ..............
technology
improvements
Michigan Michigan statewide 10,000,000 13,500,000
buses
Minnesota Duluth, Transit 1,000,000 1,000,000
Authority community
circulation vehicles
Minnesota Duluth, Transit 500,000 500,000
Authority
intelligent
transportation
systems
Minnesota Duluth, Transit 500,000 500,000
Authority Transit
Hub
Minnesota Northstar 6,000,000 10,000,000
Corridor,Intermodal
Facilities and buses
Minnesota Twin Cities area 9,500,000 ..............
metro transit buses
and bus facilities
Missouri Kansas City Union 2,500,000 ..............
Station
redevelopment
Missouri OATS Transit 2,500,000 ..............
Missouri Southwest Missouri 1,000,000 ..............
State University
park and ride
facility
Missouri St. Louis, Bi-state 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal Center
Missouri Statewide bus and bus 4,500,000 ..............
facilities
Mississippi Harrison County 1,900,000 ..............
multimodal center/
hybrid electric
shuttle buses
Mississippi High Street, Jackson 2,000,000 ..............
Intermodal Center
Mississippi Jackson buses and 1,600,000 ..............
facilities
Montana \1\ Butte bus 1,500,000 ..............
replacements and bus
facilities
New Hampshire Berlin Tri-County 120,000 ..............
Community Action
transit garage
New Hampshire Carroll County 200,000 ..............
transportation
alliance buses
New Hampshire Concord Area Transit 750,000 ..............
buses
New Hampshire Greater Laconia 450,000 ..............
Transit Agency buses
New Hampshire Keene HCS community 100,000 ..............
care buses and
equipment
New Hampshire Lebanon advance 150,000 ..............
transit buses
New Hampshire Statewide transit 1,000,000 ..............
systems
New Jersey New Jersey Transit 1,750,000 1,750,000
jitney shuttle buses
New Jersey Newark, Morris & 1,250,000 1,250,000
Essex Station access
and buses
New Jersey South Amboy, Regional 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal
Transportation
Initiative
New Jersey Statewide 7,500,000 ..............
alternatively fueled
vehicles
New Mexico Albuquerque, buses, 3,750,000 1,250,000
paratransit
vehicles, and bus
facility
New Mexico Northern New Mexico 2,000,000 ..............
park and ride
facilities
Nevada Clark County Regional 2,615,000 ..............
Transportation
Commission buses and
bus facilities
Nevada Reno, RTC transit 1,250,000 ..............
passenger and
facility security
improvements
Nevada Washoe County, 2,250,000 2,250,000
transit improvements
New York Babylon, Intermodal 1,250,000 1,250,000
Center
New York Brookhaven Town, 225,000 ..............
elderly and disabled
buses and vans
New York Brooklyn-Staten 800,000 ..............
Island, Mobility
Enhancement buses
New York Broome County buses 900,000 ..............
and fare collection
equipment
New York Broome County buses ............... \2\ 2,700,000
and related
equipment
New York Buffalo, Auditorium 3,000,000 2,000,000
Intermodal Center
New York Dutchess County, Loop 521,000 521,000
System buses
New York East Hampton, elderly 100,000 ..............
and disabled buses
and vans
New York Ithaca, TCAT bus 1,250,000 1,250,000
technology
improvements
New York Long Beach central 750,000 \2\ 750,000
bus facility
New York Long Island,CNG 1,250,000 1,250,000
transit vehicles and
facilities and bus
replacement
New York Long Island, vehicles ............... \2\ 3,050,000
and facilities
New York Mineola/Hicksville, 1,250,000 1,250,000
LIRR Intermodal
Centers
New York Nassau County CNG 1,000,000 ..............
buses
New York New York City Midtown 1,500,000 ..............
West Ferry Terminal
New York New York, West 72nd 1,750,000 1,750,000
St. Intermodal
Station
New York Niagara Frontier 500,000 ..............
Transportation
Authority Hublink
New York Rensselaer intermodal 1,000,000 6,000,000
bus facility
New York Riverhead, elderly 125,000 ..............
and disabled buses
and vans
New York Rochester central bus 1,000,000 \2\ 12,500,000
facility
New York Rome, Intermodal 400,000 ..............
Center
New York Shelter Island, 100,000 ..............
elderly and disabled
buses and vans
New York Smithtown, elderly 125,000 ..............
and disabled buses
and vans
New York Southampton, elderly 125,000 ..............
and disabled buses
and vans
New York Southold, elderly and 100,000 ..............
disabled buses and
vans
New York Suffolk County, 100,000 ..............
elderly and disabled
buses and vans
New York Syracuse CNG buses 2,000,000 ..............
and facilities
New York Ulster County bus 1,000,000 ..............
facilities and
equipment
New York Utica and Rome, bus 500,000 ..............
facilities and buses
New York Utica, Union Station 2,100,000 2,100,000
New York Westchester County, 979,000 979,000
Bee-Line transit
system fareboxes
New York Westchester County, 1,000,000 1,000,000
Bee-Line transit
system shuttle buses
New York Westchester County, 1,250,000 1,250,000
DOT articulated
buses
North Carolina Greensboro, 3,340,000 3,339,000
Multimodal Center
North Carolina Greensboro, Transit 1,500,000 1,500,000
Authority buses
North Carolina Greensboro, Transit 321,000 ..............
Authority small
buses and vans
North Carolina Statewide buses and 5,000,000 ..............
bus facilities
North Dakota Statewide buses and 2,000,000 ..............
bus-related
facilities
Ohio Cleveland, Triskett 625,000 625,000
Garage bus
maintenance facility
Ohio Dayton, Multimodal 625,000 625,000
Transportation
Center
Ohio Statewide buses and 12,000,000 ..............
bus facilities
Ohio Toledo Mud Hens 200,000 ..............
transit center study
Oklahoma Oklahoma statewide 5,000,000 5,000,000
bus facilities and
buses
Oregon Lane County, Bus 4,400,000 4,400,000
Rapid Transit
Oregon Portland, Tri-Met 1,750,000 1,750,000
buses
Oregon Rogue Valley transit 1,000,000 ..............
district bus
purchase
Oregon Salem area mass 1,000,000 ..............
transit system buses
Oregon Wilsonville, buses 400,000 ..............
and shelters
Pennsylvania Allegheny County ............... 1,500,000
buses
Pennsylvania Altoona bus testing 3,000,000 3,000,000
facility (section
3009)
Pennsylvania Altoona, Metro 842,000 842,000
Transit Authority
buses and transit
system improvements
Pennsylvania Altoona, Metro 80,000 ..............
Transit Authority
Logan Valley Mall
Suburban Transfer
center
Pennsylvania Altoona, Metro 424,000 ..............
Transit Authority
Transit Center
improvements
Pennsylvania Altoona, pedestrian 800,000 ..............
crossover
Pennsylvania Armstrong County-Mid- 150,000 150,000
County, PA bus
facilities and buses
Pennsylvania Beaver County bus 1,000,000 ..............
facility
Pennsylvania Bradford County, 1,000,000 ..............
Endless Mountain
Transportation
Authority buses
Pennsylvania Cambria County, bus 575,000 575,000
facilities and buses
Pennsylvania Centre Area, 1,250,000 1,250,000
Transportation
Authority buses
Pennsylvania Chambersburg, Transit 300,000 ..............
Authority buses
Pennsylvania Chambersburg, Transit 1,000,000 ..............
Authority Intermodal
Center
Pennsylvania Chester County, Paoli 1,000,000 1,000,000
Transportation
Center
Pennsylvania Crawford Area, 500,000 ..............
Transportation buses
Pennsylvania Erie, Metropolitan 1,000,000 1,000,000
Transit Authority
buses
Pennsylvania Fayette County, 1,270,000 1,270,000
Intermodal
Facilities and buses
Pennsylvania Lackawanna County, 600,000 600,000
Transit System buses
Pennsylvania Mercer County, buses 750,000 ..............
Pennsylvania Monroe County, 1,000,000 ..............
Transportation
Authority buses
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, 5,000,000 5,000,000
Frankford
Transportation
Center
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal 30th
Street Station
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, 750,000 ..............
Regional
Transportation
System for Elderly
and Disabled
Pennsylvania Reading, BARTA 1,750,000 1,750,000
Intermodal
Transportation
Facility
Pennsylvania Red Rose, Transit Bus 1,000,000 ..............
Terminal
Pennsylvania Robinson, Towne 1,500,000 1,500,000
Center Intermodal
Facility
Pennsylvania Schuylkill County 220,000 ..............
buses
Pennsylvania Somerset County, bus 175,000 175,000
facilities and buses
Pennsylvania Towamencin Township, 1,500,000 1,500,000
Intermodal Bus
Transportation
Center
Pennsylvania Washington County, 630,000 630,000
Intermodal
Facilities
Pennsylvania Westmoreland County, 200,000 200,000
Intermodal Facility
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre, 1,250,000 1,250,000
Intermodal Facility
Pennsylvania Williamsport, Bus 1,200,000 1,200,000
Facility
Puerto Rico San Juan Intermodal 950,000 600,000
access
Rhode Island Providence, buses and 2,250,000 3,294,000
bus maintenance
facility
Rhode Island Rhode Island Public 3,200,000 ..............
Transit Authority
buses
South Carolina Columbia Bus 1,100,000 ..............
replacement
South Carolina Pee Dee buses and 1,250,000 ..............
facilities
South Carolina South Carolina 1,220,000 1,220,000
statewide Virtual
Transit Enterprise
South Carolina Spartanburg buses and 1,000,000 ..............
facilities
South Dakota Computerized bus 800,000 ..............
dispatch system,
radios, money boxes,
and lift
Replacements
South Dakota Sioux Falls buses 1,000,000 ..............
South Dakota South Dakota 3,500,000 1,500,000
statewide bus
facilities and buses
Tennessee Statewide buses and 2,000,000 ..............
bus facilities
Tennessee Chattanooga [1,000,000] ..............
alternatively fueled
buses
Texas Austin,buses 2,250,000 1,250,000
Texas Brazos Transit 1,500,000 ..............
Authority buses and
facilities
Texas Corpus Christi 1,000,000 ..............
transit authority
buses and facilities
Texas Dallas Area Rapid 2,750,000 ..............
transit buses
Texas Fort Worth bus and 2,500,000 ..............
paratransit vehicle
project
Texas Galveston buses and 1,000,000 ..............
bus facilities
Texas Texas statewide small 6,000,000 4,500,000
urban and rural
buses
Utah Ogden,Intermodal 800,000 800,000
Center
Utah Utah Hybrid electric 1,500,000 ..............
vehicle bus purchase
Utah Utah Transit 1,500,000 1,500,000
Authority,
Intermodal
Facilities
Utah Utah Transit 6,500,000 6,500,000
Authority/Park City
Transit, buses
Vermont Brattleboro Union 2,500,000 ..............
Station multimodal
center
Vermont Burlington multimodal 1,000,000 ..............
center
Vermont Deerfield Valley 500,000 ..............
Transit authority
Virginia Alexandria, bus 1,000,000 1,000,000
maintenance facility
and Crystal City
canopy project
Virginia Alexandria, King 1,100,000 ..............
Street Station
access
Virginia Harrisonburg, buses 200,000 ..............
Virginia Lynchburg, buses 200,000 ..............
Virginia Richmond, GRTC bus 1,250,000 1,250,000
maintenance facility
Virginia Roanoke, buses 200,000 ..............
Virginia Statewide buses and 10,000,000 ..............
bus facilities
Virginia Falls Church electric [400,000] ..............
bus and bus
facilities
Virginia Franconia-Springfield [650,000] ..............
bus and bus
facilities
Virginia Manassas Transit [280,000] ..............
Depot park and ride
lot expansion
Virginia Potomac and [1,600,000] ..............
Rappahannock
Transportation
Commission fleet
Replacement
Virginia Richmond Main Street [2,000,000] ..............
Station
Virginia Stringfellow Road/ [1,000,000] ..............
Interstate 66 park
and ride lot
improvements
Virginia Warrenton Circuit [25,000] ..............
Rider
Washington Anacortes ferry 500,000 ..............
terminal information
system
Washington Ben Franklin transit 1,000,000 ..............
operating facility
Washington Bremerton 1,000,000 ..............
transportation
center
Washington Central Puget Sound 8,000,000 ..............
Seattle bus program
Washington Chelan-Douglas 900,000 ..............
multimodal center
Washington Everett, Multimodal 1,950,000 1,950,000
Transportation
Center
Washington Everett, Multimodal ............... \2\ 1,000,000
Transportation
Center
Washington Grant County, buses 600,000 ..............
and vans
Washington \1\ Mount Vernon, buses 1,750,000 1,750,000
and bus related
facilities
Washington Port Angeles Center 1,000,000 ..............
Washington Seattle, Intermodal 1,250,000 1,250,000
Transportation
Terminal
Washington Snohomish County, 1,000,000 ..............
Community transit
buses
Washington Tacoma Dome, buses 1,750,000 ..............
and bus facilities
Washington Thurston County 1,000,000 ..............
intercity buses
Washington Vancouver Clark 1,000,000 ..............
County (C-Tran) bus
facilities
Wisconsin Milwaukee 4,000,000 6,000,000
County,buses
Wisconsin Wisconsin statewide 12,875,000 12,000,000
bus facilities and
buses
Wisconsin Appleton, Green Bay, [2,075,000] ..............
Shawano, Menominee
Tribe and Oneida
Tribe
Wisconsin LaCrosse, Onalaska, [1,000,000] ..............
Prairie Du Chien,
Rice Lake, Viroqua
and Ho Chuck Nation
Wisconsin Ashland, Chippewa [300,000] ..............
Falls, Eau Claire,
Ladysmith,
Marshfield,
Rhielander, Rusk
County
Wisconsin Milwaukee intermodal [1,000,000] ..............
facility
rehabilitation
Wisconsin Waukesha transit [500,000] ..............
center
West Virginia Huntington, 8,000,000 12,000,000
Intermodal Facility
West Virginia West Virginia 6,500,000 5,000,000
statewide Intermodal
Facility and buses
----------------------------------
Total 501,400,000 \2\ 273,890,00
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amendments included in fiscal year Senate passed
supplemental (S-544).
\2\ These projects authorized in TEA-21 for non-
guaranteed funds total $20,000,000.
new starts
Question. Please provide a brief legislative history and
description of the Full Funding Grant agreement funding mechanism.
Answer. As part of its 1978 ``Policy on Rail Transit'' [43 FR
942830 (3/7/78)], FTA established the concept of a contract providing
for a multi-year commitment of Federal funding for new starts
projects--the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). The concept was
simple--FTA's commitment of funds was exchanged for a commitment by the
grantee to complete the project and bear all expenses beyond those
originally estimated as necessary for completion. In addition to
limiting total Federal participation in any one project (thereby
increasing the availability of funds for other projects), an FFGA
benefited both parties by establishing a firm date for project
completion; providing a mechanism for obligating outyear funds;
allowing the project to advance without jeopardizing future Federal
funding; and developing accurate cost projections for individual
projects.
By the late 1980's, FTA (then UMTA) recognized the need to ensure a
more uniform approach in developing FFGA's, and administering the
projects under them, to achieve greater consistency and equity in the
new starts program. In particular, FTA saw the need to produce explicit
guidance to project sponsors for preparing their applications for
funding under FFGA's. Thus, in 1990, FTA prepared a draft model FFGA
and an accompanying circular. This draft agreement was used in
negotiating FFGA's during the last years of the Surface Transportation
and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA).
Congress in turn consulted this draft model and circular in
devising several of the provisions under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). In Title III of ISTEA--
the Federal Transit Act Amendments of 1991--Congress expressly
authorized FTA to enter into FFGA's which: (1) establish the terms and
conditions of Federal financial participation in major capital
investment projects (``new starts''); (2) establish the maximum amounts
of Federal financial assistance for those projects; (3) cover the
periods of time to completion of those projects, including any periods
that may extend beyond the period of the authorization; and (4)
facilitate timely and efficient management of those projects in
accordance with Federal law. In response to these and other changes in
the new starts program under ISTEA, FTA issued Circular 5200.1 (the
``FFGA Circular'') in final form on July 2, 1993.
Throughout most of the 1990's, the FFGA remained FTA's primary new
starts management tool. That role was strengthened by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which for the
first time established the FFGA in law as the means by which Federal
new starts funding would be provided. Section 3009(e) of TEA-21,
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309(e)(7), states that ``a project financed
under this subsection shall be carried out through a full funding grant
agreement,'' and that the decision to enter into an FFGA must be based
on the results of the statutory project evaluation process established
by TEA-21.
Though it has evolved and increased in importance, the core purpose
of an FFGA remains the same: it represents an agreement between FTA and
a project's sponsor(s) that defines the project, including cost and
schedule; commits to a maximum level of Federal financial assistance
(subject to appropriations); covers the period of time for completion
of the project; and helps to manage the project in accordance with
Federal law. It assures the grantee of predictable Federal financial
support while placing a ceiling on the amount of that support.
Question. Please describe each step that a transit authority would
undertake in analyzing the need for a new fixed guideway transit
system, designing and engineering such a system, securing local and
Federal funds for the system, and constructing such a system. For each
step of this process, give a general range of time needed and
approximate costs. (For construction costs, base estimates on a per
mile basis, for different types of systems, e.g., rapid transit bus,
light rail, heavy rail, etc.)
Answer. To be eligible for New Starts funding, candidate fixed
guideway projects must follow the New Starts Planning and Project
Development Process. There are three specific stages to this process:
1. Candidate New Starts projects must result from an alternatives
analysis (also known as major investment study or multimodal corridor
analysis) study which evaluates several modal and alignment options for
addressing mobility needs in a given corridor. This alternatives
analysis is intended to provide information to local officials on the
benefits, costs, and impacts of alternative transportation investments.
Potential local funding sources for implementing and operating the
investment should be identified and studied during alternatives
analysis. At local discretion, environmental analysis and documentation
required by of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) may
be initiated. Alternatives analysis is considered complete when a
locally preferred alternative (LPA) is selected by local and regional
decisionmakers and adopted by the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) into the financially-constrained metropolitan transportation
plan. At this point, the local project sponsor may submit to FTA the
LPA's New Starts project justification and local financial commitment
criteria and request FTA's approval to enter into the preliminary
engineering phase of project development. FTA bases its approval on how
the proposed project measures up against the New Starts criteria.
The length of time and cost for undertaking alternatives analysis
depends on several factors, including the magnitude of the
transportation problem to be solved; the length of the study corridor;
the number of alternatives to be considered; the level of public
involvement in the study; whether or not NEPA is initiated; and several
other variables. The table below summarizes the range of time periods
typically required to complete alternatives analysis.
2. During the preliminary engineering phase of project development,
local project sponsors refine the design of the proposal, taking into
consideration all reasonable design alternatives. Preliminary
engineering results in estimates of project costs, benefits, and
impacts for which there is a much higher degree of confidence. In
addition, requirements must be met, project management plans are
finalized, and local funding sources are committed to the project (if
not previously committed). Preliminary engineering for a New Starts
project is considered complete when FTA has issued a Record of Decision
(ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as required by NEPA;
when sufficient engineering and design of the project is complete
(typically 30 percent of design activities); and when the local project
sponsor has demonstrated to FTA its technical capability to implement
and operate the proposed investment.
Like alternatives analysis, the length of time and costs for
undertaking preliminary engineering depends on a number of factors. In
addition to those variables mentioned above, the cost and length of
preliminary engineering is contingent upon the alignment and technology
of the proposed project; corridor geography and land use; degree of
environmental impacts, and the amount of NEPA analysis and
documentation undertaken. Finally, securing local financial commitments
may delay projects in preliminary engineering from advancing into the
next stage of project development. The table below summarizes a range
of time periods and costs for typical preliminary engineering efforts.
3. Projects which have completed preliminary engineering must
request FTA approval to enter the final design stage of project
development. Like the approval to enter into PE, FTA's approval to
enter final design is based upon a review and evaluation of the
project's New Starts criteria. Final design is the last phase of
project development, and includes right-of-way acquisition, utility
relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans (including
construction management plans), detailed specifications, construction
cost estimates, and bid documents. Projects which have completed final
design advance into construction. Contingent on the amount of New
Starts funding available and the demand for funding in a given year,
FTA may enter into a Full Funding Grant Agreement with projects which
are rated as ``Highly Recommended'' or ``Recommended,'' based on the
New Starts criteria.
The length of time and costs for undertaking final design depends
on a number of factors, depending largely on the level of right-of-way
acquisition, utility relocation, and other mitigation factors. For
turnkey projects, final design is concurrent with the construction, and
final design will last as long as the construction effort. The table
below summarizes a range of time periods and costs for typical final
design efforts.
The figures included in the table below are based on a review of
several current and completed projects in the various stages of
planning and project development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (percent of
Planning Project Development Length of Time total project
Phase capital costs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Analysis.......... 1-5 years............ Varies widely.
Preliminary Engineering....... 6 months-3 years..... 3-6 percent.
Final Design.................. 1-3 years............ 6-10 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following capital cost estimates, provided in the chart below,
are based upon the range of estimates of projects currently undergoing
Preliminary Engineering and Final Design in the New Starts Pipeline.
These are not actual construction costs.
AVERAGE COST PER MILE PER MODE
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of
Mode Capital Cost
Per Mile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Busway and Bus Rapid Transit............................ $10-$40
Commuter Rail........................................... 5-10
Diesel Multiple Unit.................................... 10-25
Heavy Rail.............................................. 100-300
Light Rail.............................................. 25-50
Trolley................................................. 10-25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that there is a wide variation in capital costs because
projects require different environmental mitigation efforts, have
different right-of-way costs, equipment and station needs, above and
below grade alignments, and other variables which affect capital costs.
Question. Please provide a table broken out alphabetically by state
that shows all new start projects that received appropriated federal
funds in fiscal year 1999, with a federal funding history for each
project back to the first year of federal funding, and a total for each
project.
Answer. The requested table follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS [NEW STARTS]--PROJECTS WITH FISCAL YEAR 1999 EARMARKS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Earmarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
State Geographic Location -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1993 earmarks
1991 and 1992 1993 1994 reall. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
prior earmarks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK/HI Alaska or Hawaii Ferry ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... $10.32 $10.32
Projects
AL Birmingham--Fixed ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Guideway
AR Little Rock--River Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... $1.99 ......... 0.99 2.98
Project
AZ Phoenix--Metropolitan ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... $3.99 4.96 8.95
Area Transit
==========================================================================================================================
CA San Diego--Mission ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.00 1.49 2.49
Valley--East LRT
CA San Diego--Mid-Coast $0.40 $1.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.49 1.50 1.99 6.42
CA San Diego--Oceanside- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.99 2.98 5.97
Escondido LR Project
CA Los Angeles--MOS-3 ......... ......... $59.55 $99.38 $34.05 $163.76 $83.98 69.51 61.30 37.72 609.25
CA Los Angeles--East Side ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 7.94 7.94
& Mid-City projects
CA Orange County-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 1.99 2.48 7.46
Fullerton-Irvine
Project
CA Riverside County, CA-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
San Jacinto Branch
CA San Bernardino ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.00 0.99 1.99
Metrolink Project
CA San Francisco Bay Area-- ......... 22.50 18.25 14.75 ......... ......... 1.11 27.31 29.80 39.70 153.42
BART to the Airport
CA San Jose--Tasman West ......... 34.77 25.97 13.24 ......... 20.00 8.77 ......... 21.33 26.80 150.88
LRT
CA Sacramento--South LRT ......... ......... 0.99 0.99 ......... ......... 1.98 5.96 20.23 23.31 53.46
Extension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--CALIFOR ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 999.77
NIA
==========================================================================================================================
CO Denver--Southwest LRT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.83 22.93 39.70 65.46
Extension
CO Denver--Southeast ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Multimodal Corridor
CO Colorado--North Front ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Corridor Feasibility
Study
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--COLORAD ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 66.45
O
==========================================================================================================================
CT Hartford--Light Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.49 1.49
Project
CT Hartford--Old Saybrook ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Project
CT New London--Waterfront ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Access Project
CT Stamford, CT--Fixed ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Guideway Connector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--CONNECT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3.47
ICUT
==========================================================================================================================
FL Ft. Lauderdale--Tri- ......... ......... 4.64 9.93 ......... 9.93 9.88 8.94 7.97 3.97 55.26
County Commuter Rail
FL Orlando--I-4 LRT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.99 31.70 17.37 51.06
Project
FL Miami--North 27th Ave ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 1.98 0.99 4.98 2.98 11.92
FL Miami--East/West ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.49 4.98 2.98 9.45
Corridor Project
FL Miami--Palmetto ......... ......... 0.33 ......... ......... ......... ......... 6.40 ......... \1\ 10.60 17.33
Extension
FL Tampa Bay Regional Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.49 0.49 1.99 1.00 0.99 4.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--FLORIDA ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 149.99
==========================================================================================================================
GA Atlanta--Dunwoody--Nort 10.00 ......... 29.46 ......... ......... ......... 60.27 63.96 44.46 51.72 259.87
h Springs
GA Atlanta--DeKalb County ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.66 1.00 0.99 2.65
Light Rail Project
GA Savannah--Water taxi ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.25 0.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--GEORGIA ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 262.76
==========================================================================================================================
HI Honolulu--Major ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 2.98
Investment Analysis of
Transit Alt
IA Sioux City--Micro Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.25 0.25
Trolley System
==========================================================================================================================
IL St. Louis--St. Clair 4.45 2.05 1.99 ......... ......... 5.95 1.98 31.77 29.90 34.74 112.83
LRT Extension
IL Chicago--Ravenswood & ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 2.98
Douglas Br. Lines
Projs
IL Chicago--Metra Com. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5.96 5.96
Rail Exts. & Upgrades
Projs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--ILLINOI ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 124.99
S
==========================================================================================================================
IN Indiana--Northern ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 3.99 2.98 7.46
Indiana Commuter Rail
KS KC Area--Johnson Cnty, ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
KS--I-35 Commuter Rail
==========================================================================================================================
LA New Orleans--Canal ......... ......... ......... 3.57 ......... 9.93 4.94 7.94 5.98 21.84 54.20
Street LRT
LA New Orleans--Desire ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.99 1.99 1.99 5.97
Streetcar Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--LOUSIAN ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 68.62
A
==========================================================================================================================
MA Boston--S. Piers ......... 10.75 37.96 9.93 10.00 23.82 19.95 29.79 46.10 53.58 241.88
Transitway--Phase 1
(MOS-2)
MA Boston--NS-SS Link ......... 0.25 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.75
MA Boston Metropolitan ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.09 ......... ......... 1.00 0.74 2.83
Urban Ring
MA Boston--North Shore ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Corridor Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--MASSACH ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 246.45
USETTS
==========================================================================================================================
MD Maryland--MARC System- ......... ......... 9.93 23.32 ......... 13.90 9.88 32.96 30.90 16.91 137.80
wide Improvements
MD Baltimore--Double ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Tracking Project
MD Baltimore--Central ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Downtown Transit Alt.
MIS
MD Washington, DC/MD-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Largo Extension
MD Washington, DC/MD-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Route 5 Corridor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--MARYLAN ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 141.28
D
==========================================================================================================================
MI Detroit (SE Michigan) ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.20 0.20
Commuter Rail Viab.
Study
MN Twin Cities--Transitway ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 11.96 16.87 28.83
[Hiawatha] Project
==========================================================================================================================
MO Kansas City--Commuter ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Rail Study
MO Kansas City--Jeff. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
City--StL. Commuter
Rail Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--MISSOUR ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99
I
==========================================================================================================================
NC Raleigh-Durham-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.99 11.96 9.93 23.88
Research Triangle
Transit Plan
NC Charlotte--South ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.00 2.98 3.98
Corridor Transitway
Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--NORTH ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 27.86
CAROLINA
==========================================================================================================================
NE Omaha--Trolley System ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
==========================================================================================================================
NJ New Jersey Urban Core-- ......... ......... 21.86 16.74 ......... 50.49 ......... 9.93 59.81 69.48 228.30
Hudson-Bergen LRT
NJ New Jersey Urban Core-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5.96 5.96
Newark--Rail Link
NJ New Jersey--West ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 ......... 0.99 1.49
Trenton--Commuter Rail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--NEW ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 235.75
JERSEY
==========================================================================================================================
NM Albuquerque--Light Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.96 4.96
Project
NV Las Vegas Clark Cnty-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.98 3.97 8.95
Fixed Guideway Project
NY New York--East Side ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 19.94 23.82 43.76
Access (LIRR to GCT)
==========================================================================================================================
OH Cleveland--Euclid Ave 4.73 1.00 ......... 0.79 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.99 8.51
Corridor/Berea Ext
OH Cincinnati--Northeast ......... ......... ......... 1.34 ......... 1.19 0.99 2.98 0.50 1.79 8.78
Corridor
OH Cleveland--Berea ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.70 0.99 1.69
Extension to Airport
OH Dayton--Light Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Study
OH Ohio--Canton-Akron- ......... ......... ......... 0.99 ......... ......... 4.20 3.48 1.99 2.18 12.85
Cleveland Commuter
Rail
OH Ohio--Northeast ......... 0.80 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 1.30
Commuter Rail
OR Portland--Westside/ 1.00 13.31 67.49 82.87 10.38 89.62 128.58 137.04 63.20 25.53 619.02
Hillsboro Extension
OR Portland--South/North ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5.96 ......... ......... 5.96
Extension
==========================================================================================================================
PA Pittsburgh--Stage II ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3.97 3.97
LRT Reconstruction
PA Harrisburg--Corridor ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
One Project
PA Philadelphia--Cross ......... 0.51 0.69 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 2.19
County Metro Study
PA Philadelphia--Schuylkil ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 2.98
l Valley Metro Project
PA Pittsburgh--North Shore ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
CBD Transit Options
MIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--PENNSYL ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 11.13
VANIA
==========================================================================================================================
PR San Juan--Tren Urbano ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.96 7.41 6.06 14.95 19.85 53.23
Phase I
SC Charleston--Monobeam ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.50 2.18 3.68
Rail Project
==========================================================================================================================
TN Memphis--Regional Rail ......... ......... ......... 0.50 ......... ......... 1.23 3.02 1.00 2.18 7.93
TN Knoxville--Electric ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.49 1.49
Transit Project
TN Nashville--Regional ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Commuter Rail Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--TENNESS ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10.41
EE
==========================================================================================================================
TX Dallas--RAILTRAN ......... 2.48 ......... ......... ......... 2.98 5.93 15.14 7.97 11.91 46.41
TX Houston--Regional Bus 146.07 15.36 33.75 38.71 1.00 29.77 22.36 40.31 50.94 59.23 437.50
TX Dallas--North Central ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.48 2.96 10.92 10.96 15.88 43.20
TX Austin--Capital Metro ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.00 0.99 1.99
TX Houston--Advanced ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.00 1.99 2.98
Regional Bus Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--TEXAS ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 532.09
==========================================================================================================================
UT Salt Lake City--South 15.52 2.56 2.98 2.98 ......... 4.96 9.64 34.75 63.20 69.48 206.07
UT Salt Lake City--Airport ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.96 4.96
to Uni. (West-East)
LRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--UTAH ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 211.03
==========================================================================================================================
VA Norfolk--Tidewater Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.99 7.94 9.93
Project
VA Virginia Railway ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 1.99 1.99 6.96
Express--Commuter Rail
Project
VA Washington, DC/VA-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 16.87 16.87
Dulles CorridorProject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--VIRGINI ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 33.77
A
==========================================================================================================================
VT Burlington to Essex, VT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.98 1.99 6.97
Commuter Rail
==========================================================================================================================
WA Seattle--Link LRT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.98 8.97 4.96 16.91
Project
WA Seattle--Sounder ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 8.97 40.69 49.66
Commuter Rail Project
WA Spokane, WA--Light Rail ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.99 0.99
Project
WA Seattle (King County)-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Elliot Bay Water Taxi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--WASHING ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75.03
TON
==========================================================================================================================
WI Wisconsin--Ken.-Rac.- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.50 0.50
Milw. Commuter Rail
WV Morgantown, WV-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4.21 ......... 3.97 8.18
Personal Rapid Transit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In accordance with Congressional direction, deobligated Metromover funds are the source of the funds obligated to Miami's Palmetto Extension.
Question. Please provide a table detailing by existing FFGA the
amount of the FFGA, the actual amounts received through fiscal year
1999, the Attachment 6 amounts through fiscal year 1999, any shortfalls
or overages to date, the fiscal year 1999 enacted level, the fiscal
year 2000 Attachment 6 amount, the amount of shortfall included in the
fiscal year 2000 budget, and total fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Answer. The following table provides the requested information on
existing FFGAs.
ATLANTA, GA--NORTH LINE EXTENSION [DUNWOODY TO NORTH SPRINGS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PY Deob/Reob............................ $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $295,010,400 ................ ................ PY Deob/Reob.
1993................................ 18,729,384 29,457,400 276,281,016 ................ ................ 1993.
1994................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995................................ 10,728,016 ................ 265,553,000 ................ ................ 1995.
1996................................ 42,410,000 41,900,252 223,652,748 -$509,748 ................ 1996.
1996................................ ................ \1\ 18,372,860 205,279,888 18,372,860 ................ 1996.
1997................................ 66,820,000 63,960,604 141,319,284 -2,859,396 ................ 1997.
1998................................ 52,110,000 44,455,750 96,863,534 -7,654,250 ................ 1998.
1999................................ 52,110,000 51,721,925 45,141,609 -388,075 ................ 1999.
2000................................ 52,103,000 45,141,609 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 305,010,400 305,010,400 ................ 6,961,391 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deobligated funds added to the project.
BOSTON, MA--SOUTH BOSTON PIERS [MOS-2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... ................ $10,750,000 ................ ................ ................ 1992.
1993.................................... ................ 37,963,124 ................ ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ \1\ 10,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1994.................................... $48,713,124 9,925,000 $282,013,196 ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... 43,745,000 23,820,000 238,268,196 ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... 22,620,000 19,951,638 218,316,558 $2,668,362 ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 53,720,000 29,790,686 188,525,872 23,929,314 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 53,983,334 46,100,413 142,425,459 7,882,921 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 53,983,334 53,580,975 88,844,484 402,359 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 53,961,528 53,961,528 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 330,726,320 295,843,364 ................ 34,882,956 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1993 reallocated earmark.
NOTE: Although the original FFGA Attachment 6 schedule concludes in fiscal year 2000, the project has an outstanding balance of $34.9 million,
consisting entirely of shortfall.
DENVER, COLORADO--SW CORRIDOR EXTENSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... $8,000,000 $2,831,040 $117,168,960 $5,168,960 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 25,000,000 22,925,610 94,243,350 2,074,390 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 40,000,000 39,702,110 54,541,240 297,890 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 35,000,000 35,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 12,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 120,000,000 100,458,760 ................ 7,541,240 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON, TX--REGIONAL BUS PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989.................................... ................ $49,750,000 ................ ................ ................ 1989.
1990.................................... ................ 64,480,975 ................ ................ ................ 1990.
1991.................................... ................ 31,840,000 ................ ................ ................ 1991.
1992.................................... ................ 15,360,000 ................ ................ ................ 1992.
1993.................................... $195,000,000 33,569,025 $305,000,000 ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ \1\ 39,883,475 ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... 69,658,475 29,775,000 235,341,525 $3 ................ 1995.
1996.................................... 22,630,000 22,357,997 212,983,528 272,000 ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 40,590,000 40,306,799 172,676,729 283,201 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 59,670,000 50,934,727 121,742,002 8,735,273 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 59,670,000 59,225,625 62,516,377 444,375 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 52,770,000 \2\ 62,516,377 ................ ................ $9,734,852 2000.
2001.................................... 11,525 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 500,000,000 500,000,000 ................ ................ 9,734,852 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1.0 million in fiscal year 1993 Reallocated earmark.
\2\ Proposed fiscal year 2000 Budget amount includes shortfall ($9,734,852 and residual fiscal year 2001 Attachment 6 amount ($11,525).
LOS ANGELES, CA--MOS-3 [North Hollywood Only]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-1997................................ $364,235,841 $364,235,841 $316,801,159 ................ ................ Pre-1997.
1997.................................... 69,511,602 69,511,602 247,289,557 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 76,000,000 61,301,090 185,988,467 $14,698,910 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 62,000,000 37,717,000 148,271,467 24,283,000 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 50,000,000 50,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 50,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
2002.................................... 9,289,557 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 681,037,000 582,765,533 ................ 38,981,910 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARYLAND COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM--SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... $13,895,000 $13,895,000 $91,356,373 ................ ................ 1993.
1996.................................... ................ 9,879,805 81,476,568 +$9,879,805 ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 50,000,000 32,959,424 48,517,144 +17,040,576 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 41,356,373 30,899,736 17,617,408 +10,456,637 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... ................ 16,914,100 703,308 -16,914,100 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... ................ 703,308 ................ ................ $703,308 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 105,251,373 105,251,373 ................ ................ 703,308 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Project received appropriation in fiscal year 1996 although FFGA schedule did not include a fiscal year 1996 payment; however as subsequent
appropriations were lower than FFGA schedule; the net shortfall was addressed by extending the FFGA payment schedule first to fiscal year 1999 and
then to fiscal year 2000.
NORTHERN NEW JERSEY--HUDSON-BERGEN LRT SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................... ................ $21,860,000 ................ ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ 16,740,000 ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... ................ 50,488,750 ................ ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... $89,088,750 ................ $515,000,000 ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 9,930,229 9,930,229 505,069,771 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 64,000,000 59,805,941 445,263,830 $4,194,059 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 70,000,000 69,478,700 375,785,130 521,300 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 99,000,000 99,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 121,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
2002.................................... 151,069,771 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 604,088,750 327,303,620 ................ 4,715,359 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTLAND, OR--WESTSIDE-HILLSBORO LRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... $14,305,000 $14,305,000 $615,755,336 ................ ................ 1992.
1993.................................... 67,490,000 67,490,000 548,265,336 ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... 10,380,300 \1\ 10,380,300 537,885,036 ................ ................ 1994.
1994.................................... 82,873,750 82,873,750 455,011,286 ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... 89,615,000 89,615,000 365,396,286 ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... 128,575,779 128,575,779 236,820,507 ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 137,037,157 137,037,157 99,783,350 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 74,065,336 63,194,945 36,588,405 $10,870,391 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 25,718,014 25,526,475 11,061,930 191,539 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... ................ 11,061,930 ................ ................ $11,061,930 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 630,060,336 630,060,336 ................ ................ 11,061,930 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1993 reallocated earmark.
SACRAMENTO, CA--SOUTH LRT EXTENSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... ................ $1,975,961 ................ ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... $7,934,098 5,958,137 $103,265,902 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 20,883,900 20,234,344 83,031,558 $649,556 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 23,480,000 23,305,140 59,726,418 174,860 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 25,000,000 25,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 33,902,002 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 111,200,000 76,473,582 ................ 824,416 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALT LAKE CITY, UT--SOUTH LRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................... $12,500,000 $12,500,000 $224,893,530 ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... 9,893,530 9,893,530 215,000,000 ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... ................ 9,642,195 205,357,805 +$9,642,195 ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 35,000,000 34,755,801 170,602,004 -244,199 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 50,000,000 63,194,945 107,407,059 +13,194,945 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 70,000,000 69,478,700 37,928,359 -521,300 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 60,000,000 37,928,359 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 237,393,530 237,393,530 ................ +22,071,641 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES: Project received appropriation in fiscal year 1996 although FFGA schedule did not include a fiscal year 1996 payment as well as $13.2 million
over the FFGA amount in fiscal year 1998; consequently, the fiscal year 2000 budget request takes into account the fiscal year 1996 amount as well as
the amount received over the FFGA amount in fiscal year 1998. The fiscal year 2000 budget request completes the FFGA funding schedule.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA--BART TO SFO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... $22,500,000 $22,500,000 $727,500,000 ................ ................ 1992.
1993.................................... ................ 18,247,871 ................ ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ 14,752,129 ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... 33,000,000 ................ 694,500,000 ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... ................ 1,115,051 ................ ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 28,423,180 27,308,129 666,076,820 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 56,394,669 29,803,294 636,273,526 $26,591,375 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 74,000,000 39,702,110 596,571,416 34,297,890 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 84,000,000 84,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 80,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
2002.................................... 80,605,331 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2002.
2003.................................... 100,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2003.
2004.................................... 100,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2004.
2005.................................... 91,076,820 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 750,000,000 237,428,584 ................ 60,889,265 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO--TREN URBANO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... $7,409,854 $7,409,854 $300,000,000 ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 10,000,000 6,058,367 293,941,633 $3,941,633 ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 30,000,000 14,951,485 278,990,148 15,048,515 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 60,000,000 19,851,055 259,139,093 40,148,945 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 82,000,000 82,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 118,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS............................ 307,409,854 130,270,761 ................ 59,139,093 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JOSE, CA [SANTA CLARA COUNTY]--TASMAN WEST LRT PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... $12,750,000 $34,740,000 $170,000,000 ................ ................ 1992.
1993.................................... 48,000,000 26,010,000 122,000,000 ................ ................ 1993.
1994.................................... ................ 13,236,371 ................ ................ ................ 1994.
1995.................................... ................ 19,998,875 ................ ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... 32,000,000 8,764,754 90,000,000 ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 10,000,000 ................ 80,000,000 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 25,000,000 21,330,786 58,669,214 $3,669,214 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 35,000,000 26,798,925 31,870,289 8,201,075 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 20,000,000 31,870,289 ................ ................ $11,870,289 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 182,750,000 182,750,000 ................ ................ 11,870,289 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. LOUIS, MO-IL--METROLINK EXTENSION--ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL FFGA ACTUAL AMOUNTS/ SHORTFALL IN
FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REMAINING SHORTFALL BY FISCAL YEAR 2000 FISCAL YEAR
[ATTACHMENT 6] BUDGET REQUEST BALANCE YEAR BUDGET REQUEST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... ................ $5,955,000 ................ ................ ................ 1995.
1996.................................... $7,930,961 1,975,961 $236,000,000 ................ ................ 1996.
1997.................................... 31,776,732 31,776,732 204,223,268 ................ ................ 1997.
1998.................................... 35,000,000 29,902,970 174,320,298 $5,097,030 ................ 1998.
1999.................................... 35,000,000 34,739,350 139,580,948 260,650 ................ 1999.
2000.................................... 50,000,000 50,000,000 ................ ................ ................ 2000.
2001.................................... 60,000,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2001.
2002.................................... 24,223,268 ................ ................ ................ ................ 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 243,930,961 154,350,013 ................ 5,357,680 ................ ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table that provides by project the
capital cost, federal share (dollars and percentage) and local share
(dollars and percentage) for each FFGA, those projects proposed for
FFGA's in the budget request, and the fifty remaining projects that are
furthest along in the planning and preliminary engineering process. Use
estimates where necessary.
Answer. The following table displays the requested information.
Please note in the table for the column entitled GRANTEE ESTIMATED SEC.
5309 SHARE, the amount listed for projects not covered by an FFGA is
the grantee suggested Section 5309 level.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION NEW START PIPELINE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 5309 SHARE LOCAL SHARE
STATE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST -------------------------------------------------------
IN DOLLARS AS PERCENT IN DOLLARS AS PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Funding Grant
Agreements (FFGA)
[14]
CA Los Angeles Metrorail--MOS-3 [North Hollywood]............... $1,310.80 $681.00 52.0 $629.80 48.0
CA Sacramento South LRT Extension.............................. 222.00 111.20 50.1 110.80 49.9
CA San Francisco BART Extension to the SFO Airport................ 1,513.20 750.00 49.6 763.20 50.4
CA San Jose Tasman West LRT Project.......................... 325.00 182.75 56.2 142.25 43.8
CO Denver Southwest Corridor LRT........................... 176.32 120.00 68.1 56.32 31.9
GA Atlanta MARTA North Springs Extension.................... 381.26 305.01 80.0 76.25 20.0
MA Boston South Boston Piers Transitway.................... 413.41 330.73 80.0 82.68 20.0
MD Baltimore-Wash, DC-WV MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements................. 131.56 105.25 80.0 26.31 20.0
MO St. Louis, MO/IL Metrolink St. Clair Extension.................... 339.17 243.93 71.9 95.24 28.1
NJ Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail......................... 992.14 604.09 60.9 388.05 39.1
OR Portland Westside/Hillsboro LRT........................... 963.52 630.06 65.4 333.46 34.6
PR San Juan Tren Urbano...................................... 1,676.00 307.40 18.3 1,368.60 81.7
TX Houston Regional Bus Plan................................ 625.00 500.00 80.0 125.00 20.0
UT Salt Lake City South LRT........................................ 312.50 237.40 76.0 75.10 24.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ................................................. 9,381.9 5,108.8 ............ ............ ............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTEE ESTIMATED SEC. LOCAL SHARE
5309 SHARE ---------------------------
TOTAL COST ----------------------------
IN DOLLARS AS PERCENT IN DOLLARS AS PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN FINAL DESIGN [10] -----------------------------------------------------------------------
TDallas North Central Extension........................ 517.3 333.0 64.4 184.3 35.6
MSt. Louis, MO/IL MetroLink--St. Clair Ext. Phase................ 121.0 60.0 49.6 61.0 50.4
FFort Lauderdale/Miami Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade................. 422.0 130.8 31.0 291.2 69.0
LNew Orleans Canal Street Corridor LRT...................... 153.5 123.2 80.3 30.3 19.7
CSan Diego Mission Valley East LRT Extension.............. 361.3 275.2 76.2 86.1 23.8
PPittsburgh Stage II LRT Reconstruction.................... 512.5 162.6 31.7 349.9 68.3
PPittsburgh MLKJR Busway East Extension.................... 62.8 8.6 13.7 54.2 86.3
NNorthern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LRT [MOS-2]...................... 900.0 400.0 44.4 500.0 55.6
WSeattle SOUND MOVE: Commuter Rail [Tacoma]............. 401.0 100.0 24.9 301.0 75.1
FOrlando I-4/Central Florida LRT........................ 600.1 330.0 55.0 270.1 45.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--In Final ............................................... 4,051.5 1,923.4 ............ 2,128.1 ............
Design
=======================================================================
IN PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING [PE] [30]
TMemphis Medical Center Extension....................... 30.4 24.3 80.0 6.1 20.0
CSan Diego Oceanside-Escondido LRT........................ 213.7 124.0 58.0 89.7 42.0
OCleveland Euclid Corridor Busway......................... 327.0 262.0 80.1 65.0 19.9
ALittle Rock River Rail Project [Phase I]................... 7.6 6.1 80.3 1.5 19.7
FMiami East-West Corridor............................. 2,152.2 808.0 37.5 1,344.2 62.5
NNorthern New Jersey Newark Rail Link LRT [MOS-1]................... 150.0 112.5 75.0 37.5 25.0
USalt Lake City East-West LRT [Downtown Loop] \1\.............. 75.0 60.0 80.0 15.0 20.0
IChicago Metra--Kane County Extension................... 92.5 55.5 60.0 37.0 40.0
IChicago Metra--North Central Double-Tracking........... 188.7 117.4 62.2 71.3 37.8
IChicago Metra--Southwest Corridor Extension............ 164.8 104.4 63.3 60.4 36.7
PSan Juan Tren Urbano-Minillas Extension................. 478.3 382.6 80.0 95.7 20.0
OPortland South/North LRT \2\............................ 1,186.3 636.3 53.6 550.0 46.4
FMiami North 27th Avenue Extension.................... 477.4 334.2 70.0 143.2 30.0
MMinneapolis [Twin Hiawatha Corridor Transitway................... 446.0 223.0 50.0 223.0 50.0
Cities]
VNorfolk Norfolk--Virginia Beach LRT.................... 524.6 288.6 55.0 236.0 45.0
CSan Diego Mid-Coast LRT--Phase I......................... 104.6 54.7 52.3 49.9 47.7
MWash, DC--Suburban Metrorail Extension to Largo................... 397.1 316.1 79.6 81.0 20.4
Maryland
MBaltimore Light Rail Double Tracking..................... 150.0 120.0 80.0 30.0 20.0
WSeattle SOUND MOVE: Northgate-Seatac Light Rail Line... 2,917.0 1,458.0 50.0 1,459.0 50.0
WSeattle SOUND MOVE: Commuter Rail [Everett to Seattle/ 196.0 49.0 25.0 147.0 75.0
Tacoma to Lakewood].
NResearch Triangle Regional Commuter Rail......................... 284.0 111.0 39.1 173.0 60.9
[Raleigh-Durham]
NLas Vegas Resort Corridor People Mover [MOS]............. 500.3 225.1 45.0 275.2 55.0
COrange County Irvine--Fullerton Corridor..................... 1,916.5 959.1 50.0 957.4 50.0
CDenver Southeast Extension............................ 479.7 383.8 80.0 95.9 20.0
APhoenix Central Phoenix/East Valley [MOS].............. 390.0 195.0 50.0 195.0 50.0
NNew York City LIRR Access to Grand Central Terminal.......... 3,454.5 1,727.3 50.0 1,727.2 50.0
OCincinnati Northeast Corridor [MOS]....................... 675.8 337.9 50.0 337.9 50.0
FTampa Early Action Plan.............................. 575.0 288.0 50.1 287.0 49.9
MKansas City [PE work Southtown LRT--Phase I......................... 220.0 176.0 80.0 44.0 20.0
suspended]
MBoston South Boston Piers--Phase II................... 258.0 206.4 80.0 51.6 20.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--In ............................................... 19,033.0 10,146.3 ............ 8,886.7 ............
Preliminary
Engineering
=======================================================================
ANTICIPATED PE REQUESTS
[9]
CDenver East Corridor Extension to DIA................. 330.0 264.0 80.0 66.0 20.0
CDenver West Corridor Extension........................ 251.0 200.8 80.0 50.2 20.0
KLouisville South Central Corridor......................... 500.0 250.0 50.0 250.0 50.0
KS/MJohnson County, KS I-35 Commuter Rail to Kansas City.............. 35.0 24.0 68.6 11.0 31.4
[Request Submitted]
MSt. Louis Cross County Metrolink Extension............... 350.0 300.0 85.7 50.0 14.3
NOmaha Downtown Trolley System........................ 35.0 25.0 71.4 10.0 28.6
MBoston North-South Station Corridor................... 2,000.0 1,000.0 50.0 1,000.0 50.0
CAspen--Glenwood Springs Roaring Fork Valley Rail....................... 129.0 61.0 47.3 68.0 52.7
VWashington, DC/VA Dulles Corridor Rapid Bus...................... 180.0 141.0 78.3 39.0 21.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--Anticipate ............................................... 3,810.0 2,265.8 ............ 1,544.2 ............
d PE Requests
\1\ Salt Lake City-East-West [Airport to University] total cost is estimated at $480 million.
\2\ Project to be reconfigured.
Question. Please detail by fiscal year and project how the FTA
plans to allocate the $10,400,000 provided for Alaska or Hawaii
projects. Include in your answer the total cost and the local/federal
share of each project (dollar and percentage).
Answer. The scope and nature of the ferry projects in Alaska and
Hawaii remain under development. A number of proposals are currently
being finalized. Once the costs have been refined for these projects
and a complete list has been finalized, this information will be
conveyed to the Congress.
Question. How did FTA determine that $8,000,000 for the Baltimore
Central Corridor project, the Hiawatha corridor transitway project in
Minneapolis, the Raleigh-Durham-Research Triangle regional rail project
and the Sound Move project in Seattle were the appropriate and
necessary amounts to be allocated in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The $8 million figure is a level designated for planning
purposes.
Question. Why isn't bill language requested for these four
projects?
Answer. These four projects were not identified in the proposed
appropriation language in recognition that FTA will work with the
Congress to identify a funding level consistent with the estimated
needs of these projects.
new starts evaluation criteria
Question. The new starts report that was released by the Secretary
of Transportation on March 23 includes detailed evaluations and ratings
of 42 new starts projects that are in final design and preliminary
engineering stages. However, the new starts report excludes any
evaluation or rating of the current 14 full funding grant agreement
(FFGA) projects. These 14 projects represent a proposed $668 million of
the total $980 million that is to be available for new starts in fiscal
year 2000, or 68 percent. Some of these projects are experiencing
significant cost increases and scope changes that may severely impact
the ability of the projects' sponsors to complete the projects on time
and within budget, as stipulated by the full funding grant agreement.
These considerations, as well as an evaluation and rating of each new
start project--irrespective of a project's developmental status--should
be part of the annual comprehensive review to determine the appropriate
funding levels for each new project. Why did the department decide not
to evaluate the full funding grant agreement projects? Can a similar
evaluation and rating process be performed by FTA for these 14
projects? If not, what parts of this process present a particular
challenge? What components of the evaluation process can be performed?
Answer. In the case of these 14 projects, the FFGAs were issued
prior to TEA21. Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309(e)(8)(A), projects for which
the Department entered into FFGAs prior to the date of enactment of
TEA-21 are exempt from evaluation under the revised new starts
evaluation and rating process. These projects were evaluated and found
to meet the Federal requirements that were in place at the time the
FFGAs were negotiated. These evaluations can be found in earlier
editions of the Annual Report on New Starts. Future FFGAs will of
course be based on an evaluation of the proposed project under the full
TEA-21 criteria.
As noted in each edition of the Annual Report on New Starts, the
issuance of an FFGA--FTA's decision to commit Federal funds to a new
starts project--represents the final determination of project
justification. Projects for which FFGAs have been issued are no longer
undergoing the development stages; rather, they have been fully
developed, and are ready for a Federal funding commitment for
construction. Thus, there is no further need for project evaluation.
The Department recognizes that the FFGAs represent Federal commitments
that are to be honored; the financial community considers the FFGA to
be a key determinant in making loans and setting appropriate interest
rates. If the Federal commitment represented by an FFGA is not honored,
project financing is damaged, making project advancement and medium-
and long-range planning efforts exceedingly difficult. Of course, the
end of project development is not the end of FTA oversight; FTA
continues to monitor the progress of a project once an FFGA has been
negotiated, and may take corrective actions when necessary.
As for projects that may be experiencing scope changes, cost
overruns, and the like, the FFGA acts to protect the Federal government
against such circumstances. The FFGA defines the project, including
cost and schedule; commits to a maximum level of Federal financial
assistance (subject to appropriation); establishes the terms and
conditions of Federal financial participation; covers the period of
time for completion of the project; and helps to manage the project in
accordance with Federal law. The FFGA assures the grantee of
predictable Federal financial support for the project (subject to
appropriation) while placing a ceiling on the amount of that Federal
support.
An FFGA also limits the exposure of FTA and the Federal government
to cost overruns that may result if project design, engineering and/or
planning is not adequately performed at the local level. FTA is
primarily a financial assistance agency; it is not directly involved in
the design and construction of new starts projects. While FTA is
responsible for ensuring that planning projections are based on
realistic assumptions and that design and construction follow
acceptable industry procedures, it is the responsibility of project
sponsors to ensure that proper planning, design and engineering have
been performed.
Question. Table 1-A of the 1999 Annual Report on New starts,
``Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Ratings'', reveals that not a
single new starts project was rated as having both a high financial
rating and a high project justification rating. Do you believe the
criteria outlined in TEA-21 have set the standard too high? Or does
this indicate that we are providing federal resources to build mediocre
projects?
Answer. Neither. In developing the measures for evaluating proposed
new starts projects under TEA-21, FTA intentionally set high standards
for achieving a high rating for project justification and local
financial commitment. A ``high-high'' rating represents the ``gold
standard,'' and the standards should be set accordingly. While it is
true that none of the proposed projects received high ratings for both
justification and finance, a total of eight were rated higher than
medium for both, earning them overall ratings of ``highly
recommended.'' Similarly, a rating of ``medium'' does not denote a
``mediocre'' project; rather, it signifies that the proposed project
``passes'' the justification process and is eligible for new starts
funding. In order to earn an overall project rating of ``recommended,''
a proposed new start must be rated at least ``medium'' for both
justification and finance. A total of 19 proposed projects were rated
``recommended'' or higher in the 1999 Annual Report on New Starts. Such
projects have costs which are exceeded by easily quantified benefits
(not counting other benefits which are not so easily quantified) and
have a local financial commitment which is sufficient. A rating below
medium on either would result in an overall rating of ``not
recommended.''
Question. Please provide for the record the rating given to each of
the projects proposed for FFGAs in fiscal year 2000 and the four
additional projects recommended for appropriations within the amounts
provided for planning and preliminary engineering.
Answer. The ratings are provided in the following table.
TABLE 1-A.--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 NEW STARTS RATINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5309
Total Capital Total Sect. Funds Share of
Phase and City (Project) Cost 5309 Funding Capital Costs Overall Project Rating Financial Rating Project Justification Rating
(millions) (millions) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Full Funding Grant
Agreements
Dallas (North Central LRT).......... $517.20 YOE $333.00 64 RECOMMENDED............................. High........................... Medium.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL (Tri-County 422.00 YOE 130.80 31 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...................... Medium-High.................... Medium-High.
Commuter Rail).
Memphis (Medical Ctr. Trolley 35.90 YOE 24.30 80 RECOMMENDED............................. Medium-High.................... Medium.
Extension).
Northern New Jersey (Newark- 150.00 YOE 112.50 75 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...................... Medium-High.................... Medium-High.
Elizabeth Rail Line).
Orlando (I-4 Central Florida Light 600.10 YOE 330.00 55 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...................... Medium-High.................... Medium-High.
Rail).
Salt Lake City (Downtown Connector- 74.80 YOE 59.84 80 NOT RECOMMENDED......................... Low............................ Medium.
West/East).
San Diego (Mission Valley East)..... 361.00 YOE 275.20 76 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...................... High........................... Medium-High.
Projects Recommended for Funding
Undergoing Preliminary Engineering
Baltimore (MTA Double Tracking 150.00 YOE 120.00 80 RECOMMENDED............................. Medium......................... Medium-High.
Project).
Minneapolis (Hiawatha Avenue)....... 446.00 1997 223.00 50 RECOMMENDED............................. Medium-High.................... Medium.
Raleigh, NC (Regional Transit Plan). 284.00 YOE 110.76 39 RECOMMENDED............................. Medium......................... Medium.
Seattle Link LRT (Northgate-Seatac). 2,917.00 YOE 1,458.50 50 HIGHLY RECOMMENDED...................... High........................... Medium-High.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (a) Year of Expenditure total project costs and Section 5309 share were calculated by FTA by applying a standard formula to cost estimates supplied by the project sponsor.
(b) Year of Expenditure Section 5309 share calculated by FTA.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the projects that are
likely to be ready for FFGAs in the near term (fiscal years 1999
through 2002). Include current stage of project development, project
description, estimated record of decision date, and estimated federal
share.
Answer. The information follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION NEW START PROJECTS ESTIMATED TO BE READY FOR FINAL DESIGN IN FISCAL YEAR 1999/
2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTEE
ESTIMATED
STATE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEC. 5309
SHARE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN FINAL DESIGN [9]
TX Dallas North Central Extension............................... $333.0
MO St. Louis, MO/IL MetroLink--St. Clair Ext. Phase I..................... 60.0
FL Fort Lauderdale/Miami Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade........................ 130.8
LA New Orleans Canal Street Corridor LRT............................. 123.2
CA San Diego Mission Valley East LRT Extension..................... 275.2
PA Pittsburgh Stage II LRT Reconstruction........................... 162.6
PA Pittsburgh MLKJR Busway East Extension........................... 8.6
WA Seattle SOUND MOVE: Commuter Rail [Tacoma].................... 100.0
FL Orlando I-4/Central Florida LRT............................... 330.0
---------------
Total--In Final Design ...................................................... 1,523.4
===============
IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING [PE]
[31]
TN Memphis Medical Center Extension.............................. 24.3
CA San Diego Oceanside-Escondido LRT............................... 124.0
OH Cleveland Euclid Corridor Busway................................ 262.0
AR Little Rock River Rail Project [Phase I].......................... 6.1
FL Miami East-West Corridor.................................... 808.0
NJ Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LRT [MOS-2]............................. 400.0
NJ Northern New Jersey Newark Rail Link LRT [MOS-1].......................... 112.5
UT Salt Lake City East-West LRT [Downtown Loop] \1\..................... 60.0
IL Chicago Metra--Kane County Extension.......................... 55.5
IL Chicago Metra--North Central Double-Tracking.................. 117.4
IL Chicago Metra--Southwest Corridor Extension................... 104.4
PR San Juan Tren Urbano--Minillas Extension....................... 382.6
OR Portland South/North LRT \2\................................... 636.3
FL Miami North 27th Avenue Extension........................... 334.2
MN Minneapolis [Twin Cities] Hiawatha Corridor Transitway.......................... 223.0
VA Norfolk Norfolk--Virginia Beach LRT........................... 288.6
CA San Diego Mid-Coast LRT--Phase I................................ 54.7
MD Wash, DC-Suburban Maryland Metrorail Extension to Largo.......................... 316.1
MD Baltimore Light Rail Double Tracking............................ 120.0
WA Seattle SOUND MOVE: Northgate-Seatac Light Rail Line.......... 1,458.0
WA Seattle SOUND MOVE: Commuter Rail [Everett to Seattle/Tacoma 49.0
to Lakewood].
NC Research Triangle [Raleigh- Regional Commuter Rail................................ 111.0
Durham]
NV Las Vegas Resort Corridor People Mover [MOS].................... 225.1
CA Orange County Irvine-Fullerton Corridor............................. 959.1
CO Denver Southeast Extension................................... 383.8
AZ Phoenix Central Phoenix/East Valley [MOS]..................... 195.0
NY New York City LIRR Access to Grand Central Terminal................. 1,727.3
OH Cincinnati Northeast Corridor [MOS].............................. 337.9
FL Tampa Early Action Plan..................................... 288.0
MO Kansas City [PE work suspended] Southtown LRT--Phase I................................ 176.0
MA Boston South Boston Piers--Phase II.......................... 206.4
---------------
Total--In Preliminary ...................................................... 10,546.3
Engineering
===============
ANTICIPATED PE REQUESTS [9]
CO Denver East Corridor Extension to DIA........................ 264.0
CO Denver West Corridor Extension............................... 200.8
KY Louisville South Central Corridor................................ 250.0
KS/MO Johnson County, KS [Request I-35 Commuter Rail to Kansas City..................... 24.0
Submitted]
MO St. Louis Cross County Metrolink Extension...................... 300.0
NE Omaha Downtown Trolley System............................... 25.0
MA Boston North-South Station Corridor.......................... 1,000.0
CO Aspen-Glenwood Springs Roaring Fork Valley Rail.............................. 61.0
VA Washington, DC/VA Dulles Corridor Rapid Bus............................. 141.0
---------------
Total--Anticipated PE ...................................................... 2,265.8
Requests
===============
Total--FEDERAL DEMAND ...................................................... 14,335.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Salt Lake City-East-West [Airport to University] total cost is estimated at $480 million.
\2\ Project to be reconfigured.
los angeles transit projects
Question. Approximately $650,000,000 in contingent commitment
authority has been allocated for the Mid-City and Eastside extensions
in the MOS-3 Full Funding Grant Agreement. These funds have been
committed against the balance of the trust fund. In November 1998, the
local region voted to end subway construction. What plans do you have
for these contingent commitments?
Answer. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) has undertaken a comprehensive Regional
Transportation Alternatives Analysis (RTAA) to study viable
alternatives to the originally planned subway alignments for the Mid-
City and East Side components of MOS-3. The local population is being
extensively consulted during this process. The RTAA is well underway
and should be completed by the end of the year.
Although Los Angeles residents voted in November, 1998 to ban
subway construction using Proposition A and C monies (local sales tax
revenues), the fact remains that the East Side and Mid-City corridors
are heavily transit-dependent, contain high levels of transit ridership
today and warrant major capital investments to provide higher capacity
service. As such, the ban does not preclude construction of surface
alternatives such as light rail, rapid bus or enhancing existing bus
operations, all of which are likely to be seriously considered in the
RTAA.
FTA does not expect to revisit the issue of the remaining
commitment to East Side and Mid-City until the RTAA is completed and
the region reaches a consensus on locally preferred alternatives for
these corridors. Any selected alternatives would, of course, be subject
to the FTA new starts criteria and would need to be rated according to
local financial, land use and mobility factors.
An additional factor which must be taken into account is the recent
ruling by the Special Master mandating additional measures to ensure
LACMTA compliance with the terms of the Bus Consent Decree. The effect
of this far-reaching decision on the capital and operating budgets of
the LACMTA, both for the current year and future budgets, as well as
the degree to which other capital initiatives (including the RTAA) will
be impacted, must now be assessed.
Question. If this contingent commitment were not made available to
MOS-3, would it be available to fund other FFGAs
Answer. This commitment or a portion thereof could be used to fund
other potential FFGAs in the event an adjustment to the commitment
level to Los Angeles is required.
TEA-21 continues the ``contingent commitment'' concept (providing
commitment authority to ``bridge'' authorization periods) and replaces
the complicated ISTEA formula with a much simpler mechanism for
determining contingent commitment authority. The TEA-21 provision (as
amended by the Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997)
provides for ``an amount equivalent to the last two fiscal years of
funding authorized under section 5338(b) for new fixed guideway systems
and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems'' to serve as the
``contingent commitment''.
Question. The special master has ruled that the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA) is not in compliance with the
bus consent decree, and ordered the LACMTA to buy over 500 new buses
and hire additional operators. Does this order impose any additional
requirements on the LACMTA since it has already committed about
$1,000,000,000 to buy more than 2,000 buses to comply with the earlier
decree?
Answer. The Special Master's order to purchase 500 new buses and
hire additional operators is in addition to the 2,000 new buses LACMTA
has previously programmed in their procurement to comply with the
consent decree. The new order would add an estimated $225 million in
capital requirements to their bus program budget of more than $800
million. Additional operating costs are estimated to total $275 million
to $400 million over the next five years.
Question. A very limited number of bus manufacturers exists today
and there is currently a two-year backlog for bus orders. To the extent
that the LACMTA needs to buy additional buses, how can LACMTA meet the
details of special master's order, given this backlog?
Answer. Since the 1970s, the transit bus industry has grown from
mainly two manufacturers, GMC and Flexible to six current
manufacturers. Backlogs vary from six months to over two years for each
of the six bus manufacturers. FTA has calculated the average backlog
for all the manufacturers to be roughly one and a half years at this
time. In fact, the majority of the manufacturers maintain a one year
backlog because of the uncertainty in bus orders from year to year.
Although the effect of the Special Master's ruling is still unclear, it
is possible that a stable order base of the magnitude as LACMTA's
accelerated plan may provide the incentive for the industry to increase
yearly capacity for the duration of LACMTA's order.
Question. To what extent are other transit providers in the country
vulnerable to similar legal challenges to those levied against the
LACMTA?
Answer. It is very difficult to predict whether the rulings in
Labor/Community Strategy Center, et al. v. LACMTA will serve as
precedent for litigation elsewhere in the nation. A similar suit was
filed in Federal court in New York City at about the same time as the
Los Angeles case, New York Urban League and the Straphangers Campaign
v. MTA. However, this case was decided in favor of the defendant
transit agency. The theories of these suits are grounded in the
precepts of Title VI, ``environmental justice'' and ``transportation
equity,'' but they are not yet well defined. At the moment, the
Department is aware of only one other suit of this type that may be
filed in the near future. The Environmental Defense Fund and the
Rainbow Coalition have threatened litigation against the Georgia
Department of Transportation and the Atlanta Regional Commission based
on Title VI and alleged inequities in the distribution of
transportation benefits and adverse environmental impacts on minority
and low-income communities.
Question. Recently the Los Angeles Pasadena Blue Line Construction
Authority was created to oversee the construction of the Pasadena Blue
Line in the Los Angeles area. This action stripped the LACMTA of its
responsibility for the construction of that light rail line and
requires the LACMTA to transfer $250 million to the new board. What
effect will this action have on the LACMTA's general financial position
and its ability to fund both the Red Line and the Alameda corridor
project?
Answer. The Act which created the Construction Authority (SB 18476)
requires LACMTA to transfer funds already programmed for the Pasadena
Blue Line project in the Authority's Restructuring Plan. These funds
consisted of $280 million in state funds and $89 million in local sales
tax funds. Since these resources had already been programmed for the
Pasadena Blue Line, this transfer does not affect the Authority's
financial condition or its ability to fund the rail Line projects under
construction.
Question. The full funding grant agreement for MOS-3 assumed that
the Pasadena Blue Line would be funded entirely from local revenue. Do
you support federal appropriations to construct this light rail line?
Answer. The Pasadena Blue Line has always been considered a locally
planned and funded project, and it is unclear if LACMTA and its
predecessor agencies followed Federal procedures in developing the
project. Bringing the project into Federal compliance, including
generating New Starts criteria, would translate into additional costs
for the project and would further delay construction. Another
complicating factor is presented by the fact that the Pasadena Line was
not authorized by TEA-21.
Question. Given the recent events, should the LACMTA produce a new
financial plan showing how it can complete the Red Line and comply with
the bus consent decree?
Answer. FTA has already engaged its financial management oversight
consultant to conduct an assessment of the impact of the Special
Master's ruling on LACMTA's capital and operating budgets. FTA will
await the results of the consultant's assessment and defer reaching any
conclusions until the assessment has been received and studied.
Question. What does the LACMTA's approved recovery plan assume for
federal appropriations in fiscal year 2000? What annual appropriations
are assumed for the out-years in the recovery plan to complete the
federal share of the project? If the Los Angeles Red Line project
received expected federal and state funding at the levels assumed in
the recovery plan, will it be completed on schedule and near budget?
Answer. LACMTA's approved recovery plan contained very conservative
estimates for Federal appropriations, assuming that the expected
appropriation would not become available until the following budget
year. For Federal fiscal year 2000, LACMTA assumed a $50.0 million
appropriation.
The assumed outyear appropriations for the North Hollywood line are
essentially in line with the Attachment 6 schedule, calling for $50.0
million in fiscal year 2001 and $47.8 million in fiscal year 2002.
These figures also take into account the current shortfall total ($39
million).
Provided federal and state funding meet expected levels, the Red
Line North Hollywood extension will continue on schedule and could open
ahead of the revenue operations date (Dec. 2000) specified in the FFGA.
The project is also currently within budget and is expected to continue
to track budget projections to project completion.
Question. What is the status of alternative analysis for the Mid-
City and East side corridors?
Answer. Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis report evaluated
options for East Side, Mid-City and San Fernando Valley. A Peer Review
Panel comprised of transit industry experts with planning and
investment analysis experts critiqued the study and provided advice to
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). In
November 1998, the Board directed MTA to: Further analyze fixed
guideway alternatives on East Side and Mid-City; and promptly implement
a Rapid Bus Program demonstration project in the East Side, Mid-City
and San Fernando Valley corridors.
MTA is starting to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) with potential of Board review late in 1999.
st. louis metrolink project
Question. Last year the FTA requested that funding for the St.
Louis-St. Claire extension project be accelerated. This year the budget
does not include a similar request. Why not?
Answer. The additional funds were requested to alleviate a
perceived cash flow requirement and diminish the need for additional
up-front local funds to the project. A similar request was not included
in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request because the problem was time
sensitive and thus has already been addressed.
Question. Newspaper reports indicate that East St. Louis city
leaders are demanding changes to the Metrolink light rail extension
under construction, and that such changes could delay or drive up the
costs of the project. Please describe the current state of affairs.
What are the demands of the city officials; how are they different from
the plan assumed under the FFGA; what costs or delays may be incurred
because of these changes; what is the status of discussions between
city leaders and Metrolink?
Answer. City officials from East St. Louis have requested that: (1)
18th and 71st Streets, both planned to be closed as a result of the
Metrolink alignment design, remain open; and (2) that the design
calling for an at-grade crossing at St. Clair Avenue be changed to a
grade-separated crossing.
With regard to the St. Clair Avenue crossing issue, the street is
located in Washington Park, outside of the East St. Louis city limits.
The Mayor of Washington Park supports the present Metrolink at-grade
design. Accordingly, Bi-State does not plan to change the crossing
design.
The 71st Street issue is a more complicated one. According to the
preliminary engineering report, the 71st Street bridge was to remain in
place and a station and park and ride facility was originally planned
at the bridge site. However, an unfavorable hydraulics study resulted
in the elimination of both the station and the park and ride lot during
the design phase. BiState proceeded to demolish the 71st Street bridge
based on the hydraulics study which detailed the history of severe and
constant flooding conditions in the area. The bridge had been closed by
the Metro East Sanitary District in conjunction with the City of East
St. Louis for two years prior to the demolition due to severe flooding
problems in 1996. Reconstruction of the bridge and associated
infrastructure was rejected by Bi-State due to the high cost (about
$5.5 million). Although considerable coordination took place, no formal
agreement was executed between the parties regarding the closure. Bi-
State is continuing to talk with city officials to satisfactorily
resolve this issue.
The cost to convert the 18th Street closure to a grade crossing is
estimated in excess of $800,000. Bi-State maintains that East St. Louis
officials originally acceded to the closure of 18th Street and has
proceeded to build the project as designed. BiState has already made
payment of $25,000 in permit fees to the City of East St. Louis but has
not secured all street closure permits. Bi-State is prepared to go to
litigation in case the City takes any action to delay the project.
Metrolink officials will continue discussions with East St. Clair
officials to resolve differences over the 71st Street closure.
Question. Is there a local agreement between participating Bi-State
entities relating to the timing and scope of proposed Bi-State
projects, a sort of ``gentlemen's agreement?'' Please describe this
agreement and discuss how it has affected the timing of implementing
different aspects of proposed St. Louis area transit projects.
Answer. Yes, there is an agreement between local governments in the
St. Louis, MO/IL area detailing the order and pace in which Metrolink
extensions are expected to occur. After the basic system was opened in
1993, the agreement provided for the next extension to serve St. Clair
County, IL. A planned extension to St. Charles County (northwest of St.
Louis) was shelved after a funding referendum was rejected by the
voters of that county. Consequently, the next extension after St. Clair
is completed will be the Cross-County extension, expanding Metrolink
west into St. Louis County.
minneapolis light rail
Question. Please provide an update on the efforts of the Minnesota
state government to provide a total of $100 million in state funds for
the construction of the light rail system. In addition, please update
the Committee on the status of the authorized bond sale to raise
$40,000,000.
Answer. In 1998, a $100 million request in state bonding authority
was made to the Minnesota Legislature for the Hiawatha Avenue light
rail project. The Legislature subsequently appropriated $40 million for
the proposed project in the 1998 session, with the understanding that
the remaining $60 million will be appropriated in the next state
bonding cycle in the year 2000.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has not drawn on
the available bonding authority for the proposed light rail project
because the need for it has not yet arisen. It is FTA's understanding
that local funds from the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
are currently being used to finance project development activities
associated with the proposed project.
The $40 million in bonds for the proposed project are not issued
separately. They are part of the overall MnDOT authorized bonding
program. FTA has been informed that funds for the proposed project will
be transferred on an as-needed basis.
Question. Please provide an update of the Minneapolis Northstar and
Riverview corridors. Does the FTA plan to incorporate these corridors
into the Record of Decision and FFGA with the Twin Cities Metro Transit
Authority, or will each of the proposed corridors have its own FFGA?
Answer. The Northstar Corridor Development Authority, created by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and two
metropolitan planning organizations are conducting a Major Investment
Study for a proposed 70-mile corridor between Minneapolis and St.
Cloud, Minnesota. The MIS, which is evaluating a range of
transportation alternatives including commuter rail, is scheduled for
completion in May or June of 1999.
The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, in conjunction with
MnDOT, is conducting a Major Investment Study to examine transportation
options in the Riverview corridor connecting St. Paul, MN, the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and the Mall of America.
The MIS is scheduled for completion in Spring 2000.
FTA is not planning to incorporate the recommended alternatives
under study in these two corridors into a proposed Record of Decision
or potential Full Funding Grant Agreement under consideration for other
projects in the Twin Cities area. FTA will address each proposed
project in these individual corridors as an independent decision point
or action at the appropriate time in the project development process.
salt lake city transit projects
Question. Please list all of the ongoing and planned Salt Lake City
transit projects (rail and bus), with a brief description of each,
funding history, local match, and administration request for fiscal
year 2000.
Answer. The following projects, and groups of projects, are ongoing
and planned transit projects in Salt Lake City that FTA is aware of:
--The North-South light rail transit project, which is under
construction, will extend from downtown Salt Lake City to
suburban areas to the south. FTA entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in
1995 for an amount totaling $237.39 million. An additional
$6.60 million in Section 5309 funds was granted prior to the
FFGA. Through fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $206.07
million. The proposed local match is 22.75 percent. For fiscal
year 2000, the Administration has requested $37.93 million.
--The Downtown Connector is a proposed one mile segment of a larger,
10.9 mile West-East proposal that would extend from the Airport
through downtown to the University of Utah. Our budget proposes
a project that would consist of the Downtown Connector linking
the North-South line and downtown destinations. Through fiscal
year 1999, Congress appropriated $4.96 million. The proposed
local match is 20.0 percent. For fiscal year 2000, the
Administration has requested $20.0 million.
--The Draper Light Rail project would extend service from the
southern terminus of the North-South line southward to Draper
and Sandy. No Section 5309 funds have been obligated for this
extension. FTA is not aware of a local match. The
Administration has not requested funds for fiscal year 2000.
--An alternatives analysis is being conducted to evaluate
transportation improvements in a proposed 120-mile corridor and
includes a proposed Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Commuter Rail.
Through fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $3.9 million in
Section 5309 funds. No Section 5309 funds have been obligated
for the project. No local match has been identified and no
funds have been requested for fiscal year 2000.
--UTA is conducting a feasibility study of the West Jordan Light Rail
Extension. The project would extend a seven-mile segment of the
North-South transit line to Utah County. No local match has
been identified and no funds have been requested for fiscal
year 2000.
--UTA is seeking funding to procure new buses and to transport
borrowed buses from transit authorities and manufacturers to
Utah and return to the provider of the vehicles. No local match
has been identified. Elements of this project are similar to
those afforded Atlanta for their 1996 Olympic Games from
funding set-aside in the Formula Grants Program. The
Administration has requested a similar provision for the Salt
Lake City Games.
--UTA is seeking engineering and design, right-of-way purchase, and
construction funds for six projects: Park City Intermodal
Terminals, Gateway Intermodal Terminal, Ogden Intermodal
Terminal, West Valley Transit Center, Orem Intermodal Terminal,
and Provo Intermodal Terminal. Engineering and design,
construction and land purchase funds are being sought for park-
and-ride lots for the Bus Station Stops and Terminals project.
Engineering and design, construction, and land purchase funds
are being requested for a maintenance facility for the Bus-
Support Equipment/Facilities Transit Maintenance Facility.
--UTA is seeking the total requested Section 3030(c)(2)(B) funding
for these projects totaling $158.3 million.
Question. The budget includes appropriations language that provides
``that the importance of a downtown segment to the system connectivity
necessary to meet the demands of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake
City, Utah, may be considered by the Secretary in determining whether
to approve a grant or loan under 49 U.S.C. 5309(e)(1).'' Why is this
language necessary? Absent this language, will the secretary be able to
provide a grant to the west-east downtown segment? Does this Provision
waive any local match requirements?
Answer. This language is intended to convey the fact that the
transportation needs of the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Games was a
determining factor in the fiscal year 2000 funding recommendation for
the Downtown Connector project in Salt Lake City. While this project
has been rated ``not recommended'' under the project evaluation
criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309(e), as amended by TEA21, the
approximately one-mile ``Downtown Connector'' segment is an integral
part of the transportation needs for the 2002 Olympics (all
ticketholders will be expected to travel to events and venues by
transit). This is a compelling argument for Federal support of this
segment of the project. The language in the budget was intended to
convey this fact.
Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309(e)(1), the Secretary may approve a grant
or loan for a new start project only if the project is found to be
justified based on a comprehensive review of its mobility improvements,
environmental benefits, cost effectiveness and operating efficiencies,
and that it is supported by an acceptable degree of local financial
commitment. FTA's evaluation of the West-East LRT in Salt Lake City,
according to the criteria and requirements contained in Sec. 5309(e),
did not make these findings. The WestEast LRT was rated ``medium'' for
project justification and ``low'' for local financial commitment,
resulting in an overall project rating of ``not recommended.'' The
``low'' financial rating is due primarily to the fact that the Utah
Transit Authority has not yet identified a source of local funds to
build and operate the proposed system.
Given the results of FTA's evaluation, the Secretary would be
unable to approve a grant or loan for this project under Sec. 5309 (e)
without the language referenced above.
This provision does not waive any local match required by permanent
law. The UTA is currently developing a financial plan for the Downtown
Circulator segment of the West-East LRT, and is proposing that the $15
million local match be provided through a combination of leveraged
lease funds, bonding, cash reserves, and sale of excess property.
Question. Does TEA-21 in any way waive the local match for projects
related to the Olympic Games?
Answer. No. In fact, Section 3030(c)(2)(B)(ii) specifies that the
Federal share of project costs for the Salt Lake City Olympic Games
shall not exceed 80 percent.
Question. Section 3030(c)(2)(B)(ii) of TEA-21 permits for funds
authorized to be appropriated under section 5338(h)(5) that for
determining the local match, highway, aviation, and transit projects
shall be considered to be a program of projects. What is the effect of
this provision?
Answer. In terms of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
proposal, there is no effect. This provision applies to the ``non-
guaranteed'' funds authorized under Section 5338(h). The
Administration's budget is based on the TEA21 ``guaranteed'' funding
levels; no Section 5338(h) funding is proposed.
In general, the effect of this language would permit Salt Lake City
to consider Olympic-related transit, aviation, and highway projects as
a single ``transportation project'' for purposes of local funding. This
means that if the total cost of such interrelated projects is $100
million, for example, and Salt Lake City constructs a $20 million
highway segment entirely with local funds, those funds would count as
the local match for the entire program of projects. This in turn would
reduce the amount of local funds that the city would need to raise
specifically for the West-East LRT. This would only hold true for
projects funded under Section 5338(h), however.
Question. Are the appropriation requests for the Salt Lake City
transit projects made from funds available under 5338(h)(5)?
Answer. No. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for
new starts is based entirely on the TEA21 ``guaranteed'' funding level;
no ``non-guaranteed'' funds are proposed.
Question. Why isn't the westeast project included among the
projects evaluated in FTA's new starts report evaluation? Why did FTA
choose to evaluate the downtown connector only and not the westeast to
university segment?
Answer. Although the Annual Report on New Starts for fiscal year
2000 includes a profile of the proposed Downtown Connector, the ratings
contained in that profile reflect the New Starts criteria for the
entire 10.9 mile West-East light rail transit line. The evaluation and
the rating included in the profile relates to the entire West-East
project.
tren urbano
Question. What is the current cost to complete the Tren Urbano
project? How does this compare to the original estimate when the FFGA
was signed? What accounts for any cost increase?
Answer. The current cost to complete the Tren Urbano project is
$1.676 billion. This compares with the original estimate of $1.25
billion when the full funding grant agreement was signed in March,
1996.
A portion of the increase stems from the addition of enhancements
to further heighten the viability and attractiveness of the line. The
grantee added two additional stations in high ridership potential areas
as well as other improvements to efficiently handle the 113,300 daily
passengers expected to ride Tren Urbano in 2010. Additional factors
were an expanded system integration and quality assurance program,
enhanced fare collection system, 10 additional railcars, alignment
changes and enhanced station designs.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the annual sources and
uses of funds to pay for the capital costs of Tren Urbano at the
current $1,550,000,000 cost to complete. Identify the specific amounts
and sources of local and federal funding (section 5309, FHWA flex
funding, block grant transfers, or other federal) planned to complete
the current construction program on an annual basis.
Answer. The latest Financing Plan for Tren Urbano prepared by the
Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), based on a
cost of $1.676 billion for Phase I, displays aggregate totals for local
funds and FHWA funds and thus it is not possible to break out the exact
amount of FHWA funds PRHTA plans to flex to the project nor to target
which local funds are being used to finance Tren Urbano. In the
aggregate, PRHTA Financing Plan appears to demonstrate that total
revenues plus borrowing provides the resources to complete Tren Urbano
(and the Minillas extension). However, it is not possible to determine
if revenues are sufficient to also maintain Puerto Rico's other
transportation responsibilities such as the highway network. In this
vein, the level of flex funds to be transferred needs to be verified to
determine whether the assumed level is feasible. The level of Federal
Section 5309 funding for Phase I in the plan reflects the FFGA Federal
commitment rather than assuming a continuation of historic amounts
received to date.
We expect a submission shortly from PRHTA which will specifically
lay out the distribution of new start, Section 5307 formula and
flexible funding to be used to finish Phase I.
Question. Please provide a table showing the annual sources and
uses of funds to pay the capital costs of the Minillas extension of
Tren Urbano. Identify the specific amounts and sources of local and
federal funding (section 3, FHWA flex funding, block grant transfers,
or other federal) planned to complete the proposed construction program
on an annual basis.
Answer. The latest Financing Plan for Tren Urbano prepared by the
Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), based on a
cost of $1.69 billion for Phase I and $478.3 million for the Minillas
extension, displays aggregate totals for local funds and FHWA funds and
thus it is not possible to break out which local funds are being used
to finance the Minillas extension. In the aggregate, PRHTA Financing
Plan shows that total revenues plus borrowing provides the resources to
complete both Tren Urbano and the Minillas extension. However, it is
not possible to determine if revenues are sufficient to also maintain
Puerto Rico's other transportation responsibilities such as the highway
network.
san francisco bart
Question. What is the current estimate of the cost to complete the
BART extension to the San Francisco Airport? How does this estimate
compare to the original estimate at the time the FFGA was negotiated?
Please identify by major cost activity or element what accounts for the
increase in costs.
Answer. The currently estimated cost to complete the BART extension
to the airport is $1,513.2 million. The original cost of the project
when the FFGA was signed was $1,167 million.
Cost increases to the BART to the airport project by major activity
are detailed in the chart below:
BART TO THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original
Major Activity Budget Revised Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line, Trackwork & Systems............... $410,000,000 $553,000,000
South San Francisco Station............. 33,000,000 39,000,000
San Bruno Station....................... 35,000,000 46,200,000
Millbrae Station........................ 61,000,000 70,500,000
Third Party Contracts................... 116,000,000 179,000,000
Right-of-Way............................ 113,000,000 178,500,000
Finance................................. 24,000,000 40,500,000
Project Administration.................. 39,000,000 56,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The original financing package assumed $300,000,000 in
commercial paper, which was to be provided by the Union Bank of
Switzerland. Why did Union Bank withdraw from BART's commercial paper
program, and what disruptions in financing cash flow shortfalls have
resulted? How will these shortfalls be remedied?
Answer. The Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) has indicated their
desire to withdraw from the municipal finance market in general and has
specifically requested BART to find a replacement source of credit. The
UBS withdrawal is part of a strategy to reduce commitments in light of
substantial losses incurred from hedge fund investments. With
assistance from UBS, BART reports that West Deutsche Bank and Morgan
Guaranty have verbally agreed to assume this commitment and provide the
same level of short term borrowing capacity ($300 million) on the same
terms as provided under the agreement with UBS.
Question. Cost increases and withdrawal by Union Bank have required
project sponsors to revise the project's finance plan. Please provide a
table and brief discussion showing the annual sources and uses of funds
to pay the capital costs of the BART project at the current cost to
complete. Identify the specific amounts and sources of local funds
(e.g., SamTrans, MTC, state, etc.) and federal funds (e.g., new start,
TIFIA, FHWA flex funds, other federal funds) planned to complete the
current construction program on an annual basis.
Answer. Local funding partners have signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU), now approved by the partners' corresponding
Boards, which specifies the amount of funds pledged to alleviate the
BART project's funding shortfall. The following table details the
amount and source of these funds. Please note that the total Federal
commitment to this project remains at $750 million and will not change.
There are no other Federal funds involved in the project.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS--BART TO THE SFIA PROJECT
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Funding Partner Funds Explanation/Source of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California (CTC)........................... $44.0 State Grant to Project.
SamTrans................................... 72.0 Additional Funding (Sales Tax).
MTC........................................ 16.5 Additional Funding (Bridge Tolls).
BART....................................... 50.0 Warm Springs Funds ($35 million); General Project
Savings ($15 million).
BART....................................... 79.0 CAPRA Proceeds (Fare surcharges).
BART....................................... 12.5 BART Substation (BART funds).
BART....................................... 2.0 San Mateo Flood Control (BART funds).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, MTC will advance $60 million to BART to meet cash flow
requirements. This amount, including the $16.5 million noted above, as
well as the SamTrans ($72 million), and BART ($50 million)
contributions, will be provided to the project by September 1, 1999.
BART has also indicated an interest in applying for a TIFIA loan or
loan guarantee.
Question. Construction on the line is well underway, but
acquisition of about one-fifth of the right-of-way is yet to be
completed? Is this matter of concern to the FTA? To what extent might
the remaining rights-of-way acquisition costs increase the project's
total costs?
Answer. BART maintains that the property acquisition effort is on
schedule. FTA has reviewed BART's reports on this activity and
generally concurs. Acquisitions and relocations appear to be on
schedule, especially in light of the opening date for the line.
Estimates indicate that property acquisitions should be generally in
line with the new budget.
Question. Are there any discussions or proposals to scale back the
project in order to cut costs?
Answer. Deferral of selected stations on the line was considered.
Only one station, the Millbrae intermodal terminal, represented any
significant cost savings. However, deferring just the Millbrae
intermodal terminal would reduce the projected ridership for the
extension by about 33,000 [almost 50 percent of the projected ridership
for the extension]. Deferral of the Millbrae station is estimated to
save $135 to $165 million. However, the decision would trigger
additional environmental restudies and substantial redesigns [airport
as sole terminal of the line, endangered species impacts, wetlands
issues] generating delays and potentially significant cost escalation.
long island east side access project
Question. What considerations were taken into account when deciding
that it was appropriate to fund the Long Island Railroad East Side
Access project from the transit formula grants program? Why didn't the
Department request funding for the project from new starts?
Answer. The Department has explored a number of options for funding
the Long Island East Side Access project. Ultimately it was decided
that the project would be best funded from the Formula Grants program
where its costs would be offset by a transfer of revenue aligned budget
authority from the highway program.
Question. FTA's new starts report states that the Long Island
Railroad Eastside Access project is exempt from the new starts
criteria. How does this exemption affect FTA's ability to evaluate this
project? To what extent does this exemption affect FTA's requirement
for entering into a full funding grant agreement with project sponsors?
Answer. TEA-21 Section 3030(c)(3) states that the Long Island
Railroad East Side Access project [LIRR ESA] ``shall also be exempted
from all requirements relating to criteria for grants and loans for
fixed guideway systems under section 5309(e). ``However, 49 U.S.C.
5309(e)(7) directs FTA to ``enter into a full funding grant agreement
[FFGA] based on the evaluations and ratings'' of a project. FTA bases
these evaluations and ratings, in turn, on FTA's analysis of the
project relative to the New Starts criteria. FTA interprets this
provision to mean that for FTA to enter into an FFGA for a given
project, FTA must first subject the project to an evaluation and rating
of the project on the basis of the New Starts criteria. Therefore,
exempt projects that choose to forego FTA's evaluation and rating may
not be eligible for an FFGA.
FTA has communicated to sponsors of exempt projects that they
should consider waiving their exemption and submit to FTA its New
Starts criteria for the purposes of being evaluated and rated in the
annual New Starts Report to Congress. This would ensure that the
project would be eligible to seek an FFGA.
On November 12, 1998, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) provided New Starts criteria information on the LIRR ESA to FTA
for the Fiscal Year 2000 New Starts Report. MTA stated its
understanding that this information would enable FTA to ``include
project profiles for all potential New Starts projects and make
recommendations for Fiscal Year 2000 Section 5309 New Starts funding in
its report to Congress.''
FTA used the same criteria that are applied to all proposed New
Starts projects to evaluate and rate the LIRR ESA. These criteria are
mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies,
cost effectiveness, transit-supportive existing land use policies and
future patterns, local financial commitment, and other relevant
factors.
FTA does not believe that the project should be exempt from the New
Starts criteria. Congress established the criteria to provide an
objective mechanism for measuring the costs and benefits of projects
competing for New Starts funding. The New Starts criteria thus serves
as an important assessment tool for both FTA and Congress to assist us
in deciding which projects merit the annual appropriation of scarce
Federal discretionary resources.
general provisions
Question. Section 353 of last year's transportation appropriations
chapter in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill provided
that discretionary grants funds for bus and bus-related facilities made
available in this act and in the fiscal year 1998 act for the Virtual
Transit Enterprise project were available to fund any aspect of the
South Carolina transit integration of information project. What funds
have been appropriated for this project, and in what accounts? Have all
these funds been made available to the project? What follow-on costs,
if any, are anticipated? What is the most appropriate funding category
for this project?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, $997,196 and in fiscal year 1999,
$1,210,850 was appropriated for this project in the Section 5309
Capital Investments-Bus account. We do not anticipate any follow on
costs in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 1998 funds ($977,196) were
obligated on February 2, 1999. The South Carolina DOT has not yet
submitted an application to FTA for the fiscal year 1999 funds. If the
SCDOT intends to further implement this project, it should apply for
funds under the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants program,
which is the appropriate account for that purpose.
Question. Section 354 of last year's transportation appropriations
chapter in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill amended
TEA21 to provide that Vermont and Oklahoma are authorized to use
transit formula grants for capital improvements to, and operating
assistance for, intercity passenger rail service. Have either of these
States applied transit formula funds for intercity passenger rail
purposes in fiscal year 1998 or 1999?
Answer. Vermont did not take advantage of the Section 354 option in
1998. Vermont does have a grant application pending for intercity
passenger rail service in fiscal year 1999. Oklahoma did not take
advantage of the Section 354 option in 1998. We are unaware of any
plans for Oklahoma to apply for transit formula funds for intercity
passenger rail service in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Section 360 of last year's transportation appropriations
chapter in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill amended
TEA21 to provide that transit providers operating 20 or fewer vehicles
in urbanized areas with a population of at least 200,000 are authorized
to use formula funds for operating costs in providing services to
elderly and persons with disabilities, provided that such assistance
does not exceed $1,000,000 annually. What transit providers does this
provision affect? (Please include State, city, transit authority,
number of vehicles, annualized cost of operating assistance.)
Additionally, please describe the effects of TEA21 sections 302(c)(1)
and (2), which directly precede the amendment added in last year's
appropriations bill. (Please include State, city, transit authority,
number of vehicles, annualized cost of operating assistance.)
Answer. FTA published a Federal Register Notice on January 25,
1999, to announce the availability of $1 million in funds from the
Urbanized Area Formula Program to carry out the provisions of Section
360 of the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Eligible transit providers
were asked to submit by April 15, 1999, letters of intent to apply the
provisions of Section 360. FTA will respond by May 14. Section 360
affects the following transit providers, as indicated by the letters of
intent FTA received from the localities that qualify for the funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
State/City Transit Authority No. of vehicles Assistance
Requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas:
Arlington..................... Handitrans................... 17 vehicles.................. $696,000
Mesquite City................. MTED......................... 6 vehicles................... 205,000
City of Plano................. City of Plano................ Fewer than 10................ 16,000
Grand Prairie................. Grand Connection............. 8 vehicles................... 206,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please explain the effect of and reason for including
Section 321 of last year's transportation appropriations chapter in the
fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which is included in the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, with slight modifications.
Answer. Only Greenville, S.C., has expressed an interest in the
provisions of section 3027(c)(1) and (2) of TEA-21. Greenville has
applied for a grant in the amount of $315,000. Greenville currently
operates 13 vehicles.
______
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
SAFETY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CONTRACTS
Question. Please list the purpose, amount and recipients of
contracts over $50,000 issued during fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
Answer. Below is a list of contracts over $50,000 issued
during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Description Amount
Fiscal Year 1998 Contracts:
16 Side impact tests for fiscal year 1998 NCAP--Calspan
Corporation............................................. $273,104
11 Frontal impact tests for fiscal year 1998 NCAP--Karco
Engineering............................................. 214,896
10 Offset impact tests--Karco Engineering................. 193,275
6 Frontal impact tests for fiscal year 1998 NCAP--MGA
Research Corporation.................................... 163,206
14 Side impact tests for fiscal year 1998 NCAP--MGA
Research Corporation.................................... 253,528
6 Frontal impact tests for fiscal year 1998 NCAP--
Transportation Research Center.......................... 154,878
Quality assurance for NCAP data--Conrad Technologies...... 68,321
Quality assurance for NCAP data--Alcosys, Inc............. 78,000
Brake Testing--U.S. Army.................................. 97,485
Determination of Static Stability Factors of NCAP
Vehicles--Sea, Inc...................................... 71,535
Cost and Leadtime for Offset Frontal Crash Protection Time
Analysis--Ludke and Associates.......................... 67,906
Consumer Research--Global Exchange........................ 145,995
Computer and other Information Systems support for
rulemaking activities--Information Management
Consultants............................................. 185,771
Fiscal Year 1999 Awarded Contracts to date:
14 Frontal impact tests for fiscal year 1999 NCAP--Calspan
Corporation............................................. 252,182
4 Side impact tests for fiscal year 1999 NCAP--Calspan
Corporation............................................. 83,692
2 Frontal impact tests for fiscal year 1999 NCAP--MGA
Research Corporation.................................... 51,000
17 Side impact tests for fiscal year 1999 NCAP--MGA
Research Corporation.................................... 209,040
4 Side impact tests for fiscal year 1999 NCAP--
Transportation Research Center.......................... 69,600
Quality assurance for NCAP data--Alcosys, Inc............. 225,000
Consumer Research-Global Exchange......................... 90,000
nhtsa regulations
Question. Please prepare a list of all final rulemakings that have
been issued since you submitted a similar list last year.
Answer. Below is a list of all final rulemakings published since
last year.
final rules published--may 1998-april 1999
Standard/Subject
105--In response to a petition for reconsideration from Lucas
Varity Light Vehicle Braking Systems, the agency, with an interim final
rule, is delaying the compliance date of the antilock brake system
(ABS) malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) activation protocol of the
standard until September 1, 1999. The agency is also soliciting
comments on this amendment (64 FR 9961--3/1/99).
108--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the agency is
allowing upper and lower beams to be emitted by separate dedicated
headlamps on either side of a motorcycle's vertical centerline or by
separate off center light sources within a single headlamp that is
located on the vertical centerline. This represents a further step
towards harmonization with the light standards of other nations (63 FR
42582--8/10/98).
Technical amendment to remove superseded paragraph relating to
headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and
headlamp housing, or vice versa from the 3/10/97 (62 FR 10710) Advisory
Committee on Regulatory Negotiation final rule (63 FR 63800--11/17/98).
131--Permits the use of additional light sources on the surface of
retro reflective stop signal arms (Light Emitting Diodes [LED]) and
permits a certain amount of the retro reflective surface to be obscured
by mounting hardware (63 FR 29139--5/28/98).
201--The agency permits, but not requires, the installation of
dynamically deploying upper interior head protection systems currently
being developed by some vehicle manufacturers to provide added head
protection in lateral crashes. Compliance with these requirements is
tested at specified points called ``target points'' (63 FR 41451--8/4/
98).
201/208/752--The agency makes permanent three interim final rules
related to the depower of air bags: certain exclusions or special, less
stringent test requirements in related standards that applied to
vehicles certified to the unbelted barrier test would also apply to
vehicles certified to the alternative sled test and modifications in
the test dummy be consistent with respect to the instrumentation
specified in the sled test protocol for measuring neck injury criteria
(63 FR 45959--8/28/98).
In April 1997, the agency issued a final rule amending its
requirements for protecting vehicle occupants from impacts with upper
vehicle interiors in crashes. This technical amendment corrects a
provision specifying that the radius was to be measured along the
surface of the vehicle interior (64 FR 7139--2/12/99).
208--Amends the final rule published in March 1997 that expedites
the depowering of air bags. This notice clarifies the ``corridor''
requirements of the sled tests and makes the sled test easier to
conduct (63 FR 71390--12/28/98).
In response to a petition for rulemaking from VW, the agency is
providing vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility regarding the
location of the telltale for air bag on-off switches in new motor
vehicles (64 FR 2446--1/14/99).
210--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the agency is
requiring the anchorages of all lap/shoulder belt to meet a 6,000 pound
strength requirement, regardless of whether a manufacturer has the
option of installing a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at the seating
position (63 FR 32140--6/12/98).
213--Adopts as final most of the amendments made by interim final
rules (4/17/97 (62 FR 18723) and 6/4/97 (62 FR 30464) to the air bag
warning label requirements (63 FR 52626--10/1/98).
216--In response to petitions for rulemaking, the agency revises
the test procedure to make it more suitable to testing vehicles with
rounded roofs or vehicles with raised roofs (64 FR 22567--4/27/99).
221--Requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding
the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a
force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body
panel, extends the applicability of the standard to school buses with a
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, narrows an exclusion of maintenance
access panels from the requirements of the standard, and revises
testing requirements (63 FR 59732--11/5/98).
225--In response to several petitions for rulemaking, the agency
establishes a new standard that requires motor vehicle manufacturers to
provide motorists with a new way of installing child restraints. In the
future, vehicles will be equipped with child restraint anchorage
systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts
(64 FR 10785--3/5/99).
304--In response to petitions for rulemaking, the agency deletes
the material and manufacturing process requirements in the standard on
compressed natural gas fuel container integrity. The agency believes
that this amendment will facilitate technological innovation, without
adversely affecting safety (63 FR 66762--12/3/98).
500--Reclassifies small passenger-carrying vehicles (such as golf
carts) from passenger cars to ``low-speed'' vehicles and establishes a
new FMVSS (63 FR 33193--6/17/98).
Part Number/Subject
533--Establishes the average fuel economy standard for light trucks
manufactured in model year (MY) 2001 at 20.7 mpg (64 FR 16860--4/7/99).
538--Establishes a minimum driving range for dual fueled electric
passenger automobiles, otherwise known as hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs) (63 FR 66064--12/1/98).
564/108--The agency amends part 564 and FMVSS 108 to remove the
references to Docket No. 93-11 and add new Docket No. NHTSA 98-3397,
which has been established to receive manufacturers' information on
replaceable light sources (63 FR 42586--8/10/98).
571--Revises selected FMVSSs on tires by converting English
measurements specified in those standards to metric measurements (63 FR
28912--5/27/98).
Revises selected FMVSSs by converting English measurements
specified in those standards to metric measurements (except tires) (63
FR 28922--5/27/98).
Technical amendment to correct typographical and other errors in
the 5/27 final rule converting English measurements to metric (63 FR
50995--9/24/98).
572--Establishes specifications and qualification requirements for
a newly developed anthropomorphic test dummy to be used in compliance
testing for the new dynamically upper interior protection system final
rule (63 FR 41466--8/4/98).
Modifies the Hybrid III test dummy's clothing and shoes, and the
hole diameter in the femur flange in the pelvis bone flesh (63 FR
53848--10/7/98).
575--Modifies the rollover warning currently required for small and
mid-size utility vehicles (64 FR 11734--3/9/99).
581--Technical amendment removes the bumper standard protective
criteria referring to visibility requirements of the lighting standard.
This section of the lighting standard no longer exists. The references
to SAE standards are also obsolete (64 FR 16359--4/5/99).
Question. What is the number and nature of the major rulemaking
activities that are now before NHTSA?
Answer. The agency is currently undertaking significant rulemaking
actions in 17 areas, as follows:
Occupant Crash Protection.--To preserve and enhance the benefits of
air bags, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
September 1998, for advanced air bags. The proposal to upgrade FMVSS
208, Occupant Crash Protection, would require additional air bag system
performance tests for passenger cars and light trucks in order to
minimize risks for infants, young children and adults who get too close
to inflating air bags and to enhance the benefits for adults. NHTSA is
in the process of evaluating public comments to the NPRM and continues
to keep the channels of communication open with all interested parties,
toward development of the final rule. A supplemental notice (SNPRM) is
planned by September 1999, to solidify the proposal. A final rule will
be published before March 1, 2000.
New Family of Dummies.--In separate but related rulemaking actions,
the agency issued NPRM's in 1998 and 1999 to add design and performance
specifications for four new dummies: a more advanced 6-year old child
dummy, a dummy whose height and weight are representative of a fifth
percentile female adult, a 3-year old child dummy, and a 12-month old
infant dummy. Final rulemaking actions on all of these dummies are
expected by December 1999. It is likely that within the next two years
a rulemaking will be initiated for a 95th percentile male dummy,
following adoption of an acceptable design by the Society of Automotive
Engineers.
Side Impact Protection Harmonization and Upgrade.--The agency is
continuing research toward harmonization with other countries on one
side impact dummy. The agency also is currently developing plans for a
future major upgrade to FMVSS 214, which could include changes in
injury criteria and second generation side impact dummies.
Frontal Offset Harmonization.--Additional testing on vehicles with
depowered air bags is planned for the near future to complete the
assessment of the European test procedure relative to the current NHTSA
frontal tests. Cost work has been completed and an NPRM for offset
frontal protection is in preparation. (The current draft NPRM for
advanced air bags contains a low speed offset test procedure.)
Head Restraint Upgrade.--In the near term, the agency will publish
an NPRM to upgrade the current U.S. head restraint standard. The
proposal will increase the head restraint height, set a ``backset''
requirement and amend the current optional dynamic test to coincide
with these new static requirements. This rulemaking will be directed at
reducing the significant number of whiplash injuries in low-speed rear
impacts.
Rear Impact Protection.--The agency plans to study the potential
for upgrades of the seat standard to address the problem of moderate to
high speed rear impact protection. This is expected to lead to either a
Request for Comments or an NPRM within the next two years.
Light Vehicle Rollover.--Track testing was completed in 1998 to
determine if certain maneuvers induce rollovers; dynamic testing
continues toward the development of meaningful information on the
rollover propensity of light vehicles; and research is being conducted
to determine if an NPRM is warranted to upgrade FMVSS 216, Roof Crush
Resistance that addresses the relationship between roof crush, occupant
head room and occupant injuries in rollover crashes.
Vehicle Safety for Children.--An independent panel of experts was
formed in January 1999--under the leadership of the National SAFE KIDS
Campaign--to examine the issue of trunk entrapment. The agency is
observing and providing technical assistance to this panel and will
make decisions about potential rulemaking actions, following panel
recommendations.
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.--Priority
rulemaking actions on FMVSS 108 are a final rule to reduce the problem
of glare from Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)(also addresses international
harmonization issues)and an NPRM on headlamp mounting heights for LTVs
to reduce glare.
Safety for Disabled Americans.--An NPRM has been issued to promote
safety and preserve the mobility of people with disabilities. The
proposal identifies certain safety features that can be altered, if
needed, when vehicles are modified for people with disabilities. By
specifying which modifications may be made, the proposed rule provides
universal, comprehensive guidance to all modifiers, thereby enhancing
the safety of modified vehicles. The final rule is expected by
September 1999.
Ejection Mitigation Out of Vehicle Windows.--The agency is planning
to publish a Request for Comments in 1999 on ejection mitigating
glazing and dynamic inflatable systems that could mitigate occupant
ejection out of glazing. Based on the comments on this notice, and
near-term research, the agency will decide whether to publish a notice
concerning an ejection-mitigating test procedure for rollover
situations.
Fuel System Integrity.--Currently, a Rulemaking Support Paper (RSP)
is in preparation to upgrade the rear impact requirements of FMVSS 301.
An NPRM is expected in late summer 1999.
Door Locks and Door Retention Components.--An NPRM to upgrade the
side hinged door requirements of FMVSS 206 is planned for August 1999.
This will help mitigate ejections in rollovers. The NPRM will propose
new tests for side, hinged doors and ask for comments on upgrades to
sliding doors and rear doors.
Other rulemaking areas include changes and/or upgrades to.--FMVSS
210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; FMVSS 122, Motorcycle Brake
Systems; FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets; and a Negotiated Rulemaking on
Part 567, Vehicle Certification for multi-stage vehicles.
nhtsa reprogrammings
Question. Please provide the amount and description of all
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred during fiscal year
1998 or thus far in fiscal year 1999 in any of NHTSA's accounts.
Answer. During fiscal year fiscal year 1998, NHTSA received
Congressional approval to reprogram $1.111 million in carryover
balances from its Safety Assurance, Safety Performance, Traffic Safety
and Plans and Policy contract programs to process and track requests
made by the public for installation of air bag on-off switches. This
amount was to supplement dedicated program funding for the development,
printing and distribution of information brochures and request forms
and for the design and development of a database system to collect
information on requests for, and approvals and installation of, on-off
switches. Due to the low amount of requests received, the majority of
this funding was not required for this effort and $1 million was
returned to the program offices.
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA received approval to reprogram a total
of $2.35 million derived from various Research and Development programs
and from the Highway Safety Improved Identification program. This
funding will cover a portion of the additional costs resulting from the
unforeseen technical complexity of the National Advanced Driving
Simulator program and the related schedule slippage and rate increases.
unobligated balances
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and
carryover funds from previous fiscal years.
Answer. In the Operations and Research appropriation, an
unobligated balance of $13.816 million was brought forward and made
available for use in fiscal year 1999. This represents 7.1 percent of
the total available for spending in fiscal year 1998. Approximately
56.7 percent of the carryover ($7.837 million) is earmarked for the ITS
program.
The following is a listing of unobligated balances brought forward:
[In thousands of dollars]
Contract Program
Safety Performance........................................ $58
Safety Assurance.......................................... 124
Highway Safety............................................ 1,056
State and Community Services.............................. 136
Research and Development.................................. 9,673
General Administration.................................... 128
Salaries and Benefits..................................... 1,196
Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses.............. 489
Miscellaneous............................................. 956
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 13,816
Safety Performance.--Carryover is associated with underruns in the
Vehicle and Consumer Safety program, NCAP, Fuel Economy and the Theft
program.
Safety Assurance.--Carryover is associated with cost underruns in
the program areas of Defects Investigation, Vehicle Safety Compliance
and the Hotline.
Highway Safety.--Carryover is associated with delays in contract
awards in the areas of Safe Communities ($375,000) and miscellaneous
contract programs ($181,000). The School Bus Restraints carryover
funding ($500,000) will be applied to an Occupant Research program.
State and Community Services.--Carryover is associated with delays
in contract awards in the Alcohol ($75,000) and the Occupant Protection
($53,000) programs. The remaining $8,000 is associated with cost
underruns in the Records and Enforcement areas.
Research and Development.--$7.837 million is earmarked for the ITS
program and resulted from delays in awards of ITS procurements.
$500,000 is associated with the delay in awards of Biomechanics
contracts; $407,000 is associated with Special Crash Investigations
that were not completed in fiscal year 1998 and the remaining $929,000
is for purchases of parts and services related to a variety of Motor
Vehicle Research programs.
General Administration.--Carryover is the result of a delayed
contract award for the Injury Severity Index study.
Salaries and Benefits.--Carryover resulted from delays in hiring
and will be applied to the fiscal year 1999 personnel costs.
Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses.--This amount
comprises carryover from both field and headquarters operating expenses
and was the result of delayed procurement actions as well as
postponement of planned trips.
Miscellaneous.--Miscellaneous underruns and deobligations from
prior years totaled $956,000. Funds will be used to cover a shortfall
in NHTSA's salaries and benefits.
safety performance program funding
Question. NHTSA is proposing to increase funding for the Safety
Performance Standards program by more than 100 percent. Why is this
large increase necessary?
Answer. The areas of increase are as follows:
Safety Standards Support.--+ $600,000 Half of the requested
increase in this area will support NHTSA's major new responsibilities
with respect to international harmonization. The agency is committed to
working with other countries to develop global motor vehicle safety
standards that will advance safety protection while eliminating
barriers to trade. The budget request in this program also reflects a
new emphasis on enhancing vehicle safety for people with disabilities.
The agency would take a more pro-active approach in this area through
improved problem identification and assessment of needs. In addition,
NHTSA will re-examine some of its outdated standards. These standards
include the motorcycle braking standards, mirror standards, and others.
This increase also supports additional cost and lead time work required
for upcoming rulemaking actions.
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).--+$2,426,000 This increase is
needed to enable the agency to regain much of the vehicle fleet
coverage that has been lost due to reduced carry-over of data resulting
from changes in restraint system designs. It will allow the agency to
provide the crash test information expected by the public--frontal and
side impact information on 80-90 percent of new vehicles; to conduct
approximately 10-15 tests with the 5th percentile female dummy to
evaluate the use of this safety dummy in providing information to small
adults who are at greater risks in high speed frontal crashes; to
provide stopping distance test information to consumers for all makes
and models tested in NCAP, for use in their vehicle buying decisions;
and to test an array of vehicles prior to crash tests to evaluate
prospective measures for headlighting performance.
Consumer Information.--+$814,000 (net increase of $467,000 over and
above what is currently being allocated out of the NCAP and Safety
Standards Support programs). This increase is necessary to respond to
requests from Congress and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for
NHTSA to broaden the scope of the information it provides to consumers,
improve the presentation of the information, and expand the
dissemination outlets it uses to distribute the information.
Specifically, the increase will support: consumer research and
materials development for emerging issues such as a rollover propensity
rating, anti-lock brakes, theft prevention, adapted vehicles, and
previously owned vehicles; improvements in the information and services
currently provided by the agency including warning labels, public
service announcements and brochures; and expansion of partnerships to
leverage government resources for delivering vehicle safety information
to consumers.
Fuel economy.--+$60,000 The fiscal year 2000 budget request will
enable the agency to maintain the ``plants and lines'' database that
provides pertinent details of automobile manufacturing plants, such as
products, capacities, employment levels, financial data, and product
planning information. This information is used to analyze industry
capabilities to improve fuel economy performance. Without funding to
support the Volpe Centers' efforts, NHTSA will not be able to
adequately maintain this database.
Theft and other.--+$20,000 Funding above the fiscal year 1999 level
is needed to carry out the analysis of insurer reports required by law.
49 U.S.C. 33112(h) requires that the insurance information obtained by
the Secretary from insurance and rental/leasing companies shall be
periodically compiled and published in a form that will be helpful to
the public, including Federal, State, and local police and Congress.
Question. If the Safety Performance Standards Program was funded at
the fiscal year 1999 level, how would the funds be allocated.
Answer. If the Safety Performance Standards Program was funded at
the fiscal year 1999 level, NHTSA would level fund the Safety Standards
Support and Theft line items. NCAP funds would be reduced and the Fuel
Economy program would be eliminated to absorb other mandatory
administrative costs.
harmonized side impact standard report
Question. Senate Report 105-249 directed NHTSA to submit a progress
report regarding the development of a harmonized side impact standard.
What is the status of the report?
Answer. This report has been completed by NHTSA and should be
delivered to Congress in late May or early June 1999.
international harmonization projects
Question. What projects are planned regarding international
harmonization and what amount are you programming for each project?
Answer. The agency's overarching objectives on international
harmonization are: (1) to advance vehicle safety by identifying and
adopting best safety practices from around the world or by developing
new regulations reflecting technological advances and anticipated
safety problems; (2) to establish globally harmonized motor vehicle
safety regulations to the extent consistent with maintaining or
improving existing levels of vehicle safety performance; (3) to
preserve our ability to adopt regulations that meet U.S. vehicle safety
needs; and (4) to ensure the opportunity for public participation
through means such as facilitating access to information and
opportunities to comment and discuss agency proposals. To reach this
goal, the agency's objective for fiscal year 2000 is to continue
working on a multilateral and on a bilateral basis. The following are
examples of multilateral and bilateral agency international activities.
Multilateral Agency International Activities
(a) Continued substantive participation in the activities of the
Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles (WP.29) of the Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE).
(b) On June 25, 1998, the U.S. became the first signatory to the
United Nations/Economic Commission on Europe (UN/ECE) Agreement
Concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled
Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be Used on
Wheeled Vehicles (the ``1998 Agreement''). The 1998 Agreement provides
for the establishment of global technical regulations regarding motor
vehicle safety, emissions, energy conservation, and theft prevention.
The Agreement is expected to enter into force October 1999 if the ECE,
Japan, and two other countries have signed it by that date. The
agency's goal would then be to effectively implement the Agreement.
(c) Having institutionalized a process for the determination of
functional equivalence of motor vehicle safety regulations in fiscal
year 1998, the agency plans to continue to use that process to reduce
differences between U.S. and foreign vehicle safety standards,
consistent with the interests of vehicle safety.
(d) The agency will continue to lay the basis for future
international regulatory cooperation by fulfilling the agency's
commitments in the implementation of the International Harmonized
Research Agenda (IHRA), especially in the areas of biomechanics, side
and frontal impact. A detailed description of the IHRA projects is
presented below.
(e) Continued substantive participation in the Road Transport
Harmonization Project of the Transportation Working Group of the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), while promoting the adoption by
the APEC economies of globally harmonized motor vehicle safety
regulations.
(f) Work through the Automotive Standards Council of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in addressing the
incompatibilities among the vehicle safety standards of the member
countries of NAFTA.
(g) Continued participation in interagency meetings on trade and
regulatory multilateral matters.
Bilateral Agency International Activities
(a) Continued contribution to the implementation of the
Administration's New Transatlantic Agenda and the Transatlantic
Economic Partnership in those areas pertaining to motor vehicle
regulatory cooperation.
(b) Continued responsiveness to the recommendations of the
Transatlantic Business Dialogue concerning harmonization of motor
vehicle regulation.
(c) Continued implementation of bilateral Memoranda of
Understanding such as those concluded with Canada, Mexico, Japan and
the Russian Federation.
(d) Continued participation in interagency meetings on trade and
regulatory bilateral matters.
The dollar amount for travel associated with the above activities
is $90,000.
The agency has also programmed specific amounts for the following
rulemaking and research harmonization projects:
Brakes.--The United States and Europe have adopted harmonized, but
not identical, light vehicle braking standards. Tests of the braking
performance of vehicles manufactured to the U.S. and European standards
will show if the standards are ``functionally equivalent.'' No such
testing has been done. The agency has budgeted $100,000 for this
testing in its fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS).--Europe currently requires that, if
ABS is offered on cars and vans, the ABS must pass certain performance
tests. NHTSA would like to test current U.S. vehicles to these European
requirements to see if the European requirements are appropriate for
the U.S. standards. The agency has budgeted $100,000 for this testing
in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Tires.--The current U.S. tire safety standards are 30 years old and
based on obsolete bias tires. The United Nations Group of Tire Experts,
including a NHTSA representative as the Delegate for the United States,
has decided to develop a harmonized worldwide tire standard. The tire
industry has developed a proposed global tire standard and petitioned
NHTSA to adopt the global tire standard in place of the current U.S.
tire standard. NHTSA wants to test tires to the current U.S. tire
standard and the proposed global tire standard to assure that any
harmonization efforts are based on accurate information about the
safety impacts of such harmonization. The agency has budgeted $100,000
for this testing in the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
As mentioned earlier, under the International Harmonized Research
Activities (IHRA), NHTSA also coordinates worldwide safety research to
develop a solid foundation of research findings for future harmonized
safety regulations worldwide. IHRA is a joint effort of about 12
countries, and is comprised of a steering group made up of government
only representatives from the member countries and six working groups.
The following details some of the activities under IHRA:
Pedestrian.--The IHRA pedestrian safety working group has agreed to
work toward a comprehensive test procedure for pedestrian protection.
Substantial testing and evaluation will be needed to bring this to
fruition. A complication in the harmonization effort is a proposed
European Commission directive on pedestrian safety. It will be
necessary to ensure that this proposed directive does not conflict with
the IHRA comprehensive procedure, and that it does not diminish
pedestrian safety in the U.S. vehicle fleet. NHTSA budgeted $250,000
for this project.
ITS.--The ITS Working Group continues to explore opportunities for
international research coordination in four areas: Driver Workload,
Direct Safety, Behavioral Adaptation, and Usability. At its most recent
meeting, eight problem areas were selected and a lead-country was
identified. The next step is to identify existing relevant projects in
each country and begin to synthesize the work. This will be followed by
attempts to coordinate the work and seek synergistic results. The
agency has budgeted about $200,000 for this project.
Side Impact Protection.--The side impact working group is analyzing
the side impact safety problem with the objective of developing an
uniform test procedure and development of harmonized side impact injury
criteria, as well as adopting a suitable dummy for use in side crash
testing. The proliferation of side airbags in many cars and their
potential for injuries to out-of-position children is of concern. NHTSA
is conducting tests to determine the risks, if any, posed by side
airbags to out-of-position children in static and dynamic tests of
production vehicles. NHTSA is planning research to develop a pole
impact test procedure for enhancing side impact protection. The agency
has budgeted approximately $590,000 for side impact research under this
program.
Biomechanics.--The overall mission of the IHRA Biomechanics Working
Group is the harmonization and coordination of world wide impact
biomechanics research efforts to develop injury criteria and
anthropometric test devices for all major crash situations. The group's
current focus is on harmonizing efforts in side impact biomechanics. To
accomplish this, the group has been charged to: (1) analyze world-wide
crash data and quantify the type and severity of injuries that
constitute the side impact problem; (2) analyze human biomechanical
data to identify meaningful injury functions that address the above
safety problems; (3) examine the performance capabilities of existing
side impact dummies with respect to their biofidelity and risk
assessment capabilities, provide recommendations to the IHRA Steering
Committee as to the most suitable dummy and injury assessment criteria,
and recommend any necessary refinements to both. While the U.S.
research activities supporting these efforts are embedded within the
agency's NTBRC research budget, an additional $10,000 per year has been
budgeted for contingency expenses to support these activities.
Frontal Crash Protection.--Frontal crash protection is an
international problem, and is being addressed through the International
Harmonization Research Activities (IHRA) advanced offset frontal crash
protection working group. The IHRA working group is working toward the
development of comprehensive test procedures for improving frontal
crash protection. Extensive testing and computer modeling are planned
for meeting this objective. The agency budgeted $300,000 for this
project.
Vehicle Compatibility.--Vehicle aggressivity and fleet
compatibility also is an international problem, and is being addressed
through the International Harmonization Research Activities (IHRA)
vehicle compatibility working group. The IHRA working group is working
toward identifying and developing comprehensive test procedures for
improving vehicle compatibility. Testing and extensive computer
modeling are planned for meeting this objective. The agency budgeted
$500,000 for this project.
consumer information programs
Question. How much did you spend or plan to spend on all consumer-
related information activities in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year
1999 relevant to the Safety Performance Program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998 Congress set aside $247,000 from the
NCAP program for consumer information. In addition, $100,000 was
allocated from the Safety Standards Support budget for consumer
information, for a total of $347,000. In fiscal year 1999, the same
amount of NCAP and Safety Standards Support funds were allocated for
consumer information programs.
Question. What is the basis for the amount requested in fiscal year
2000 for consumer-related information programs?
Answer. Consumers need high quality vehicle safety information to
make informed vehicle purchasing and other safety decisions. Both
Congress and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have recently
called for NHTSA to broaden the scope of the information it provides to
consumers, improve the presentation of the information, and expand the
dissemination outlets it uses to distribute the information.
NHTSA has used consumer information to effectively address traffic
safety issues such as impaired driving, speeding, and seat belt usage.
With sufficient resources, the agency is confident that consumer
information can also be used effectively to significantly increase the
public's awareness and consideration of safety when purchasing a
vehicle and how to properly use vehicle safety features.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request seeks to reach a greater share
of the public that needs vehicle safety information through the
expansion of current activities as well as the development and
implementation of major new initiatives. The consumer information
program will serve as the focal point responsible for marketing
research, planning, coordination, and development of vehicle safety
consumer information activities, and for determining the most cost
effective means of delivering them. The program will increase
activities to support and promote NCAP program information and on the
understanding and proper use of safety features. It will also develop
strategies for engaging and building on key public and private sector
partnerships for promoting and disseminating vehicle safety
information.
Question. Please explain how the funds requested in fiscal year
2000 will be allocated for consumer-related information programs.
Answer. The requested $814,000 will be allocated as follows:
--$347,000 will be spent to consolidate the current vehicle consumer
information program by including the amount of funds from the
NCAP ($247,000) and Safety Standards Support ($100,000) budgets
that were allocated to support consumer information activities
in fiscal year 1999. These funds will continue present NCAP and
other consumer information materials development and
dissemination.
--$150,000 will be used to increase the marketing, distribution and
outreach for the ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer
Car For Child Passengers'' brochures and other current
materials being produced. This effort will emphasize outreach
to new partners and constituents such as automobile dealers,
the insurance industry, child safety advocates, the public
health community and consumer groups.
--$100,000 will be used to support partnerships with organizations
such as Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. (CART) to develop
activities and materials to deliver motor vehicle safety
information to consumers through partner access to the media,
corporate sponsors, and fans.
--$150,000 will be used for consumer research, working with partners,
and materials development for emerging issues such as a
consumer information initiative on a rollover propensity
rating. Other issues such as anti-lock brakes, theft
prevention, adapted vehicles, and previously owned vehicles
will also be addressed through consumer research and materials
development and dissemination.
--$67,000 will be used to examine and improve information and
services currently provided by the agency in support of
consumer information activities and programs. This includes
initiatives to improve warning labels, public service
announcement and brochures.
new car assessment program (ncap)
Question. How do you intend to spend the funds for NCAP? Please
compare that to last year's spending allocation. Please delineate
specific projects, activities, and associated amounts.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the agency expects to crash
approximately 90 vehicles, at a total cost of $4,332,000. This would
allow the consumer to have frontal and side safety information on 85 to
90 percent of the vehicles sold in the USA. This is roughly the
percentage of vehicles covered before the frontal air bags were
redesigned in 1998. Due to leveled funding, in fiscal year 1999 testing
was significantly reduced and fleet coverage was approximately 75
percent. The funding increase will provide consumers safety information
on a greater proportion of the vehicle fleet.
The remaining fiscal year 2000 NCAP funds of $924,000 will be used
to evaluate the use of the 5th percentile female dummy in frontal NCAP
testing and to explore crash avoidance NCAP activities. The specific
projects and costs for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are given
below:
NCAP FUNDING
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontal NCAP...................................... $1,430 $2,560
Side NCAP......................................... 953 1,772
NCAP Promotional Program.......................... 247 .........
NCAP 5th percent Female Dummy Testing............. ......... 724
Crash Avoidance Demonstration Program............. 200 200
---------------------
TOTAL....................................... 2,830 5,256
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Assuming the Safety Performance budget was funded at
fiscal year 1999 levels, would NHTSA support increasing funding for
NCAP above the fiscal year 1999 level at the expense of another
program?
Answer. With the rapid introduction of advanced safety technologies
into the new vehicle fleet for both frontal and side impact protection,
NCAP funding at the fiscal year 1999 level would provide consumers with
relative crashworthiness safety information on less than 70 percent of
the new vehicle fleet. The increased funding request for fiscal year
2000 will provide consumer information for both front and side crash
protection on approximately 85 percent of the new vehicle fleet and
will provide evaluation of the small female dummy in assessing frontal
impact safety for a much larger segment of the population. This small
female dummy is scheduled for introduction as a regulatory device in
July 1999.
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA efficiently utilized vehicle compliance
testing funds to meet dual goals--assessing compliance to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 belted occupant requirements and
increasing the number of frontal NCAP tests. The agency had planned to
test 16 vehicles in the FMVSS 208 barrier compliance test program.
These tests were conducted at the 35 mph NCAP speed with the intent to
retest any vehicles at the 30 mph compliance speed if any potential
non-compliant vehicles were found. No retests were necessary. This dual
use of funds was discussed with Congress. However, in fiscal year 2000,
FMVSS 208 belted occupant barrier compliance testing is not scheduled.
Therefore, the agency has no options to supplement NCAP funds.
volpe transportation systems center
Question. How did you conduct or pay for the plants and lines
database during fiscal year 1999? Did the Volpe Transportation Systems
Center maintain the database at no charge to NHTSA?
Answer. Due to fiscal year 1999 budget reductions, there was no
funding available to pay for the plants and lines database during
fiscal year 1999. However, early in the fiscal year the Volpe
Transportation Systems Center voluntarily made some needed
modifications to the database at no charge to NHTSA.
Question. Could the Volpe Center continue the maintenance of the
plants and lines database during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Only if NHTSA is authorized additional funding to support
the Volpe Centers' efforts.
safety defects investigation program
Question. NHTSA officials and reports state that in implementing
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 for the Safety
Defects Investigation program, the measurement of performance is the
average time to complete a defect investigation. How does this
measurement provide useful information about the impact of this
program? Why doesn't the safety defects performance measure reference
NHTSA's mission goals to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
traffic-related and other economic costs?
Answer. The length of time it takes to complete a defects
investigation has a direct impact on when a manufacturer conducts a
safety recall campaign. In most instances where NHTSA is conducting an
investigation, the manufacturer has not completed its own
investigations and does not believe there is a safety-related problem.
It is often only due to NHTSA's examination of the problem and its
consequences that manufacturers recognize the safety implications and
agree to conduct recalls. Therefore, the more expeditious NHTSA is in
conducting a defect investigation, the sooner the motoring public will
receive corrective action for defective motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment, thus reducing both the severity and occurrence of
crashes. NHTSA's mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
traffic-related and other economic costs is clearly impacted by the
amount of time it takes to complete an investigation and convince the
manufacturer that a safety recall is warranted. However, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to measure the effect of our program on
these goals directly. The majority of defect recalls are performed to
correct conditions that might otherwise create safety problems. It is
impossible to precisely compute the benefits from such recalls. For
example, we often persuade manufacturers to recall vehicles that
exhibit fuel leaks. Such leaks can lead to fires, which could clearly
cause death and serious injury. However, no one could possibly
calculate the number of fires that would have occurred in the absence
of a recall, or estimate the actual consequences of such potential
fires. Moreover, a recall may be conducted to remedy a safety defect
that is not present in all recalled vehicles. Sometimes the
manufacturer or dealer can inspect the vehicles and determine which
vehicles will be affected; other times the manufacturer may be able to
isolate quality control problems on an assembly line which accounted
for a problem. However, frequently, manufacturers cannot isolate
exactly which vehicles are manufactured with the defect. Thus, it is
impossible to quantify the lives saved, injuries prevented, and
economic costs saved due to the Safety Defects Investigation program.
Question. What are the limiting factors that determine the ability
of NHTSA to investigate safety defects? How does the fiscal year 2000
budget request address those factors?
Answer. The ability of NHTSA to investigate safety defects is
limited by funding constraints in several ways. Aside from general
limitations on staff and funding to conduct tests of potentially
defective vehicles and items of equipment, there are a number of
specific areas for which we have sought additional funding in fiscal
year 2000. These include the hiring of an engineer/investigator to
support NHTSA defect investigations through on-site investigations of
crashes and vehicle inspections; the hiring of an engineer/investigator
to monitor and investigate small population vehicle groups such as
transit buses, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and fire and rescue
vehicles, for which the consequences of a vehicle defect can be
catastrophic; obtaining the expertise and equipment to conduct
computer-aided design analyses of vehicle components; and enhancing the
defects database to maintain consistency with today's industry
definitions, thereby improving the data evaluation process necessary to
identify potential defects. Automotive design is more complex now and
vehicular safety systems and features have become a prominent showcase
for state of the art manufacturing design. As a result, the issues
NHTSA investigates have become more technically challenging and require
more on-site inspections, require additional analyses which can be
provided through the use of computer aided design, and require more
complex testing and analysis.
NHTSA's fiscal year 2000 budget request anticipates these needs
with the request of an additional $665,000 in funding above the fiscal
year 1999 level for the defects investigation program.
Question. As directed by last year's Senate report, please detail
why additional funding is necessary to continue monitoring and
investigating small population vehicle groups.
Answer. The additional funding received for fiscal year 1999 has
allowed NHTSA to focus more closely on small vehicle and populations
such as heavy trucks, transit buses, motorcycles, and recreational
vehicles. While the number of vehicles in each of these groups may not
be large, the results of defective components or design can be
catastrophic. For instance, multiple vehicle crashes involving large
trucks result in a disproportionate number of fatal crashes. Similarly,
the injury rate for motorcyclists is several times greater than that
for passenger cars. Problems involving vehicles which carry a large
number of passengers, such as transit buses, can also have catastrophic
consequences because of the sheer numbers of people involved.
Additionally, recreational vehicles frequently involve second stage
manufacturers who may not be familiar with the underlying vehicles
which they are converting. All of these vehicle groups require special
screening methods in order to be effectively monitored for safety
problems. The drivers/owners of these vehicles often do not file
complaints with NHTSA, so it is important to develop working
relationships between NHTSA and fleets and owner/operators so that
safety problems will be identified and corrected in these vehicle
groups. Furthermore, the manufacturers of some of these vehicles are
small companies that do not necessarily have sophisticated records on
customer complaints, engineering changes, etc., that are maintained by
the large manufacturers, nor do they know what constitutes a safety
defect or when it should be reported to NHTSA. Thus, an investigation
sometimes requires educating the manufacturers of these vehicles as to
their responsibilities.
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA entered into a contract to obtain the
services of an engineer to develop and institutionalize relationships
with the users of some of these small population vehicles. As these
contacts are developed, information is also gathered about problems
experienced that may be safety-related. The primary focus of this
effort has been on heavy trucks. Despite the fact that this project is
in its infancy, several investigations have already been initiated. To
date in fiscal year 1999, seven heavy truck investigations have been
opened, resulting in three recalls, with three investigations ongoing.
An additional ten investigations have been opened into alleged problems
in transit buses, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and trailers. Of
these, five have resulted in recalls, with four still ongoing. Thus,
the initial results of our efforts in this regard appear to be
successful; however, the true measure of success can only be determined
after further analysis of our continuing efforts with vehicle owners,
operators and manufacturers.
highway safety program
Question. How did you improve the allocation or targeting of the
Highway Safety funds since last year? How is this allocation consistent
with your performance goals?
Answer. For the most part, the Highway Safety funds are allocated
consistent with last year's budget request. The majority of the highway
safety program funds are allocated to programs targeted at achieving
the agency's alcohol and belt goals, to reduce alcohol-related
fatalities to 11,000 by 2005 and to increase seat belt usage to 85
percent by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. Funding is also included to
provide for programs mandated by TEA-21.
NHTSA published a new strategic plan in October 1998 that created a
new strategic outcome goal of reducing the number of highway-related
fatalities and injuries by 20 percent by 2008. The agency's annual
performance plan includes that overall goal, plus two intermediate
outcome goals: (1) to reduce the occurrence of crashes; and (2) to
mitigate the consequences of crashes. The performance plan ties each
highway safety program to one of these intermediate outcomes.
Question. If the highway safety program were level funded, how
would you allocate the funds? Please explain your proposed allocation
within the context of your performance goals and strategic plan.
Answer. There would be significant reductions in some of the
highway safety programs under a level-funded budget. The agency would
attempt to include funding for all of the Departmental and agency's
Strategic Plan performance goals. This would require making changes to
assure continued minimum program levels and to fund important new
initiatives at base start up levels. Consideration would also be given
to requirements mandated in TEA-21 which directed the agency to develop
a program to train law enforcement officers on motor vehicle pursuits
conducted by the officers. This would require an increase in the
Traffic Law Enforcement budget over fiscal year 1999 levels.
Two important programs not funded in fiscal year 1999--Safe
Communities and Emerging Traffic Safety Issues (Older Drivers and
Aggressive Driving)--would receive funding in fiscal year 2000. Because
these emerging issues need attention, we will divert funds from other
important areas in order to focus on those issues. The research program
would need to receive increased funding to assure that the agency does
not fall behind in either the identification of looming problems or
preparing tested countermeasures for traffic safety programs three to
five years in the future. A funding increase for the National Occupant
Protection Usage Survey is needed to conduct timely and vital
assessments of the Occupant Protection program. The Records and
Licensing program budget would have to be increased to assure continued
progress as states improve their traffic records technology and
graduated licensing programs.
Other program budgets would have to be reduced in varying amounts
to meet budget constraints while attempting to assure minimum loss of
program effectiveness. The gains in seat belt usage rates, which have
increased under the highly focused Buckle Up America initiative could
decelerate; the increased emphasis targeting impaired driving by youth
would be diminished; and overall traffic safety activities, focusing on
hard to reach and diverse groups often over-represented in traffic
crashes, fatalities and injuries would lose momentum. These and
continued budget constraints could have a negative impact on meeting
the agency's highway safety performance goals.
safe communities program
Question. What is the status of your program evaluation efforts?
What have you learned about the benefits and costs of the Safe
Communities initiative? Why is it important to increase the number of
sites to 1000 in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Safe Communities evaluation program is fully
operational and is yielding positive initial results and best practices
information. The program evaluation efforts consist of demonstration
and evaluation grants awarded to four communities. Two cooperative
agreements were awarded in fiscal year 1996 to The Greater Dallas
Injury Prevention Center and to East Carolina University. These grants
will conclude in September 1999, although the Dallas project is in the
process of requesting a brief time extension to allow additional time
to document results. In fiscal year 1997, two additional grants were
awarded, one to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, and one to the
Alaska Medical Center, each of which are scheduled to conclude in
September 2000.
Fiscal year 1998 funds are being used for a cooperative agreement
with the American Hospital Association/Hospital Research and
Educational Trust to integrate the Safe Communities model with a
continuous quality improvement overlay into an existing network of
community health improvement programs. This effort will expand the
scope of these existing community health improvement programs to
include a traffic safety component.
Information about costs and benefits will be available at the
conclusion of these projects. Interim results, however are positive.
For example, the Dallas project continues to experience increases in
seat belt and child safety seat use as a result of the project's
interventions in the community. Following educational programs
conducted at one community health clinic, car seat use rose from
approximately 35 percent to 90 percent in those vehicles where the
drivers were wearing seat belts. Seat belt use among Hispanic drivers
in Dallas, which was less than 60 percent prior to the educational
program, is approaching and in some cases surpassing the national
average of 70 percent.
NHTSA would like to have a much larger and sustained network of
effective Safe Communities to deliver priority traffic safety programs
at the local level. The 1,000 Safe Communities for fiscal year 2000 is
a nationwide goal. These 1,000 programs will provide the foundation for
an on-going institutional framework for local implementation of
national programs. Programs such as Buckle Up America and Partners in
Progress will not be effective if they are only implemented at the
national level. Safe Communities possess huge potential for reducing
injuries and costs associated with motor vehicle crashes, and
implementing additional Safe Communities programs will yield greater
reductions in injuries and fatalities. This model affords communities
an opportunity to examine their unique problems and develop local
solutions that are based upon national programs. The Buckle Up America
and Partners in Progress programs have been successful in large part
because of the involvement of communities who tailored the national
program to meet local needs.
Question. Please explain how the $2,2500,000 would be allocated.
What is the empirical basis for the amount requested?
Answer. Because the Safe Communities program is shifting from being
largely a demonstration program to one of technology transfer, the core
of the program for fiscal year 2000 is transferring strategies and best
practices to existing and future Safe Communities sites. In so doing,
Safe Communities programs will be well-positioned to deliver injury
prevention and control programs to reach agency impaired driving,
safety belt use and other traffic safety goals. The following elements
and basis for the amount requested are essential to making that shift:
$400,000 Safe Communities Service Center and related materials.--
Providing support to current and future Safe Communities through
responding to requests for information, coordinating community-based
training, maintaining and expanding a web site, publishing a Service
Center bulletin, maintaining and updating a database of Safe Community
sites, expanded services to other modes and their local programs, and
the development of how-to handbooks and marketing materials.
$1,000,000 Peer-to-peer technical assistance.--NHTSA has found that
engaging peers to educate their colleagues is an effective tool in
expanding programs. Peer-to-peer programs afford professionals the
opportunity to share their expertise and best practices. Professionals
who are involved in the program are in the best position to assist
colleagues in tailoring programs to that particular profession, such as
physicians, prosecutors, academia, etc. This effort includes (1) the
creation of a ``Network of Injury Prevention Medical Professionals,'' a
trained group of experts who will be available to educate their peers
on the effectiveness of the Safe Communities model; (2) regional best
practices workshops to aid rural communities in institutionalizing
NHTSA's priority programs such as Buckle Up America and Partners in
Progress; (3) the development of an Intermodal Safe Communities manual
and regional and bi-regional Safe Communities Strategic Planning
Sessions to increase the partnerships across modes in support of
transportation safety issues; (4) the development of a ``Safe
Communities at Work'' initiative to engage employers in local Safe
Community programs; and (5) training sessions and executive briefings
by management teams from the most successful Safe Communities programs
to share ``best practices'' information and provide assistance in data
collection, linkage and analyses.
$600,000 Promotion Through National Organizations.--NHTSA's Traffic
Safety Programs counts approximately 40 national organizations
representing culturally and ethnically diverse populations among its
partners. Some of these organizations have expressed interest in
expanding the Safe Communities model into their communities. The
funding would be used to: underwrite Cooperative Agreements with
national organizations representing Hispanic, African American, Asian/
Pacific Islander and/or American Indian communities to mentor their
constituents in the Safe Communities model and work with us to ensure
that programs are culturally relevant to their members ($200,000);
develop and print culturally sensitive training materials ($100,000);
provide Safe Communities training for state and local representatives
of diverse organizations ($200,000), and translate and print existing
Safe Communities materials into Spanish ($100,000).
$250,000 Safe Communities Award Program.--As Safe Communities
program sites grow and mature, they will be recognized nationally and
regionally for both their work in implementing the Safe Communities
model and in the reductions of crashes and their resultant deaths and
injuries. This is both a recognition and technology transfer effort
that will recognize outstanding Safe Communities sites and provide
information about these programs to other communities for replication.
We expect to recognize over 1,000 communities by next fiscal year. The
program will consist of:
--Recognition ``roadway'' signs for local communities
--Regional awards honoring local communities for their efforts
--National recognition program honoring outstanding Safe Communities
--Promotional and marketing brochures
Question. What are the implications of not funding the Safe
Communities initiative? If it is funded, what other programs would be
considered lower priorities?
Answer. Through the Safe Communities initiative, NHTSA is
developing an infrastructure to deliver the high priority national
safety programs. Lack of funding support for this initiative damages
the agency's ability to deliver key programs such as Buckle Up America
and Partners in Progress.
Also, NHTSA provides direction to States to encourage the use of
Section 402 and other state highway safety grant funds for local Safe
Communities programs. NHTSA demonstrates by its resource allocation
that Safe Communities is one of its highest priorities. With no Federal
funding assigned to the Safe Communities initiative, NHTSA's leadership
role is weakened. and State and local governments perceive lack of
support for the program.
Furthermore, without funding, NHTSA's ability to provide technical
assistance is limited. There are now over 632 local programs that
identify themselves as a ``Safe Community,'' and the number is growing.
These programs are requesting assistance and materials to improve the
quality of their programs, and new interested communities are
requesting information about the Safe Communities model. NHTSA needs
resources to sustain the work it started and to meet this increasing
demand.
For example, results from the demonstration and evaluation program
will soon be available. In keeping with the spirit of a demonstration
program, NHTSA must share the results and lessons learned from these
projects with other communities. Widespread dissemination of results
can not occur without funds to prepare, publish, and distribute
materials.
In NHTSA's original budget request, all of the highway safety
programs are funded at levels which the agency believes are appropriate
to implement programs to meet the goals published in its 1998 Strategic
Plan. All of NHTSA's programs will benefit from the continuation of the
Safe Communities initiative in terms of program implementation at the
local level.
.08 bac laws
Question. Please describe the activities that have been conducted
or are planned in response to the Committee's assertion that more
guidance and research is needed on the impacts of 0.08 BAC laws and on
countermeasures targeted at the 21-34-year-old drivers impaired by
alcohol.
Answer. It is important that timely research results be available
to inform legislators and the public regarding the effectiveness of
various laws and countermeasures. To that end, a number of actions have
recently been completed, and others initiated to study the 0.08 BAC
issue. Additional activities are focused on countermeasures for the 21-
34 year old age group.
Three studies that examined the impact of 0.08 per se legislation
were released on April 28, 1999. One project examined the effectiveness
of 0.08 BAC law in North Carolina, another examined the effects in 11
states, and the third study looked at 0.08 BAC laws nationwide. The
preponderance of evidence from these and previous studies shows that
0.08 BAC laws are effective in reducing alcohol-related fatalities,
particularly when they are implemented in conjunction with other
impaired driving laws (such as Administrative License Revocation) and
programs.
A new project in fiscal year 1999 will analyze the effectiveness of
0.08 legislation in Illinois, which was the first large mid-western
state to adopt 0.08 and provides an excellent research opportunity.
This study will document the law's impact on police and court systems.
Another study will examine the legislative history of states where 0.08
BAC laws have already been enacted, providing valuable information on
how the legislation was passed. Information is also being obtained on
other countries' alcohol-impaired driving legislation (including BAC
limits) and their alcohol-involved fatality crash rates. Other studies
are documenting the impairing effects of 0.08 BAC on driving skills.
Subjects dosed to 0.08 BAC are being videotaped as they navigate in a
driving simulator. Another project is examining what the public knows
about 0.08 BAC, and their understanding of the issues involved (e.g.,
how many drinks are required to reach 0.08 BAC).
A national public education campaign has targeted 21-34 year olds
for deterrence and prevention messages. The campaign includes two
enforcement mobilization periods to raise awareness about impaired
driving. ``Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management on Campus'' is a
program to help facility operations managers at colleges and
universities deal effectively with alcohol problems at their events.
Another program is underway to reduce binge drinking among college
fraternities through peer-led summits across the country.
Research is also being conducted on a ride service program and
designated drivers, and additional studies are planned in fiscal year
2000 to examine other alternative transportation strategies which will
allow individuals to drink at licensed establishments, but alleviate
their ``need'' to drive.
Question. What NHTSA-supported studies are underway regarding the
effectiveness, costs, or benefits of 0.08 BAC laws? When are those
studies expected to be released? What studies on 0.08 BAC laws are
planned with fiscal year 2000 funds? Please estimate the amount of
funding for each of those studies.
Answer. Three studies which examined the impact of 0.08 per se
legislation were released on April 28, 1999. One project examined the
effectiveness of a 0.08 BAC law in North Carolina, another analyzed the
effects in 11 states, and the third study looked at 0.08 BAC laws
nationwide. In aggregate, these three studies provide additional
support for the premise that 0.08 BAC laws help to reduce alcohol-
related fatalities, particularly when they are implemented in
conjunction with other impaired driving laws and programs. Nearly all
of the findings of these and previous studies show analyses that
suggest that 0.08 BAC legislation (as well as 0.10 BAC laws and
Administrative License Revocation laws) have contributed to the trend
toward reduced alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.
A new project in fiscal year 1999 will examine the effectiveness of
0.08 BAC law in Illinois, the first large mid-western state to adopt
0.08 BAC. This study will obtain data not only on alcohol-related
crashes, but also on the law's impact on the law enforcement and court
systems. For example, the study will address how many arrests are being
made in the 0.08--0.10 range, and how many of these arrests are being
prosecuted. It will also be determined whether the increase in arrests
caused any problems for the police officers, prosecutors, or judges.
Preliminary data from this study will be available in early 2000. The
study is scheduled to be completed in 2001. Although initiated in
fiscal year 1999 ($75,000), this study will require $150,000 of fiscal
year 2000 funding. A similar project ($200,000 total funding) will be
initiated in fiscal year 2000 examining the effectiveness of the 0.08
BAC law in Washington state, which is the most recent state to adopt
0.08 BAC.
One part of a larger project examining various traffic safety laws
computed the savings (both in terms of number of lives saved, and in
dollars) that each state could obtain from passing 0.08 BAC
legislation. Fact sheets for each state will be available in Summer
1999.
open container laws
Question. Although a final determination has not yet been made, how
many states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid
funds for not adopting and enforcing an open container law as specified
in TEA-21? How does the fiscal year 2000 budget address the issue of
open container laws?
Answer. As of April 26, 1999, 10 states are in compliance with
their current state law, and nine will be in compliance should they
enact proposed legislation without change. Additionally, 14 states and
the District of Columbia have submitted either current law or proposed
legislation which, upon legal review, is not in compliance with the
open container provisions in TEA-21, and 17 states and Puerto Rico have
not submitted any documentation for review.
Efforts to address the issue of open container laws under the
fiscal year 2000 budget will focus on assessing the effectiveness of
Open Container laws and developing new educational support materials
for distribution. A new booklet on the effectiveness of Open Container
laws will be available in fiscal year 2000. Additionally, NHTSA will
continue to provide technical assistance to states in review of
existing statutes and proposed legislation to determine compliance
status.
repeat offender provisions
Question. Although a final determination has not yet been made, how
many states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid
funds for not adopting and enforcing the repeat offender provisions
that are specified in TEA-21?
Answer. As of April 26, 1999, two states (Michigan and New
Hampshire) are in compliance with the repeat offender provisions with
their current laws, while three more (Arkansas, Texas, South Dakota)
will be in compliance should they enact proposed legislation without
change. Additionally, 29 states which have submitted documentation for
review have not been found to be in compliance, while 18 states have
submitted nothing for review.
drug evaluation and classification program
Question. Please explain how the funds requested for the Drug
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program would be used and compare
the fiscal year 2000 request to fiscal year 1999 expenditures.
Answer. There is no longer a separate budget line item for the DEC
Program. The DEC program has been incorporated into the overall
impaired driving program and the Drugs, Driving and Youth initiative.
The following chart is reflective of the drug impaired driving budgeted
items.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Projects -------------------------------
1999 2000 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drug Driving Training.......... $733,000 $250,000
Drug Driving Research................... 250,000 50,000
National Summit Meeting................. 150,000 ..............
International Conference on Drug .............. 20,000
Research...............................
Public Information and Education........ 24,000 150,000
Coordination and Data Collection........ .............. 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countermeasures are needed to reduce the number of alcohol-impaired
and other drug impaired drivers on the nations highways. The funding
will increase and promote training in drugged driving detection, drug
detection and training for prosecutors; involve prosecutors in
community drug prevention programs; promote uniform sanctions for drug
offenders; continue DEC related research; promote the collection and
analysis of state arrest data on drug impaired drivers; develop
courtroom skills for testifying in alcohol and drug impaired driving
cases and expand DEC to community policing programs.
Public information and education materials are needed to educate
the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks of
drugged driving.
Numerous foreign countries have conducted research in the drugged
driving area. We plan to hold a conference which would include other
federal agencies with significant alcohol responsibility (HHS, DOJ) to
discuss the research and programs conducted on the drugged driving
impairment problem. A summit level conference with state leaders, law
enforcement administrators, prosecutors, and judges will be held to
examine issues involving drugs, driving and youth programs and develop
strategies and action steps for reducing the incident of drug-impaired
driving.
impaired driving
Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has
underway or planned that will help the criminal justice system deal
with drug-impaired drivers. How much will be spent on those efforts
during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000?
Answer. NHTSA will spend $100,000 in fiscal year 1999 to conduct a
``State of the Knowledge'' review of the literature of drug-impaired
driving. Another $100,000 will be spent to determine the feasibility of
developing a set of observable cues police officers could use to
establish probable cause for stopping a driver who might be driving
while impaired by drugs. These cues would be analogous to the
``stopping cues'' for driving while intoxicated currently available for
police. If the study shows that such cues are feasible, development and
test of such cues to determine if they are valid and reliable
($200,000) could begin in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is NHTSA doing to work with the states to improve
laws pertaining to drug-impaired driving? How much is in your fiscal
year 1999 spending plan and fiscal year 2000 budget request for that
activity?
Answer. NHTSA has planned to expend $150,000 in fiscal year 1999 to
support a national drugged driving summit to take place in fiscal year
2000. The summit will bring together law enforcement leaders, drug
recognition experts, and prosecutors to focus on the drugged driving
issue, including an assessment of current state drugged driving laws.
Other Federal partners will be invited to co-sponsor the summit.
Conference proceedings will include a description of the problem,
action steps for addressing the problem, and model drugged driving laws
for state use. Approximately $50,000 will be used in fiscal year 2000
to implement the recommendations from the summit and provide technical
assistance to states.
Question. Please explain the expected costs of each of the new and
on-going initiatives specified under the Drugs, Driving & Youth
initiative.
Answer. The following summarizes the planned expenditures in fiscal
year 2000 for drugs, driving, and youth.
Projects Fiscal year 2000
Training...................................................... $250,000
Drug Driving Research......................................... 50,000
Coordination and Data Collection.............................. 300,000
Public Information and Education.............................. 150,000
International Conference on Drug Research..................... 20,000
In 1997, 6,258 youths, ages 15 through 20, died in motor vehicle
crashes, a 1.2 percent decrease from 1996. Of this number, 2,209
fatalities were alcohol-related--a 5 percent decrease from 1996. Since
1982, youth fatality trends have compared favorably to those of the
adult (over age 21) population, with a 26 percent overall decline for
youth compared to a 2 percent increase for adults. However, in terms of
fatality rates per 100,000 population, youth are still overrepresented
by a factor of 3 to 2 (10 to 7 for alcohol-related fatalities).
Countermeasures are needed to reduce the number of alcohol and
other drug impaired drivers on the nation's highways. Additional
training for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges are
needed in the identification, prosecution and adjudication of the drug
impaired driver. Funding will be provided to collect additional data to
more clearly define and understand the extent of the drug impaired
driving problem.
Public information and education materials will be developed to
educate the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks
of drugged driving, particularly among youth, and potential prevention
strategies.
Numerous foreign countries have conducted research in the drugged
driving area. An international conference, to include other federal
agencies and the transportation-related research community, is needed
to discuss the research and programs conducted on the drugged driving
impairment problem.
A summit level conference will be held in 2000, with state leaders,
law enforcement administrators, prosecutors, and judges to discuss
drugs, driving and youth programs. The recommendations will be
implemented following the conference in 2000 and beyond.
graduated licensing systems
Question. How many states are now receiving grant funds to test and
evaluate graduated licensing systems? Please indicate funding amounts
and results of the various evaluations now being conducted.
Answer. Two states are currently receiving grant funds to test and
evaluate their graduated licensing systems.
Michigan received $50,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $200,000 in
previous years. In fiscal year 2000, $50,000 is requested to complete
the test and evaluation of its graduated licensing system.
Kentucky has received $120,000 to date to test and evaluate its
graduated licensing system. While Kentucky did not receive any fiscal
year 1999 funds, $110,000 is requested in fiscal year 2000 to complete
the test and evaluation.
Draft evaluation reports of the impact of the evaluations of the
Kentucky and Michigan graduated licensing systems will be available in
calendar year 2000. Evaluations of graduated licensing systems in other
states have shown more than five (5) percent reductions in crash
involvement of drivers 15-17 years of age.
seat belt usage
Question. According to a recent announcement by Secretary Slater,
seat belt usage is estimated at 70 percent. How does NHTSA intend to
achieve the goal of increasing usage to 85 percent by 2000?
Answer. NHTSA will continue the Buckle Up America (BUA) campaign as
its highest priority. Between May and December 1998, seat belt use in
the U.S. increased eight percentage points, as measured by a series of
four National Occupant Protection Usage Surveys (NOPUS) \1\. These
results can be attributed to implementing the proven strategies of
strong legislation, effective public education, building partnerships
between government and the private sector, and high visibility law
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In previous years, NHTSA estimated national belt use by
aggregating data from state surveys. Some states surveyed only drivers,
some excluded pick up trucks, vans and/or sport utility vehicles, and
many excluded local roads and rural areas. Because of these differences
in methodology, the aggregate of the state surveys has historically
been 6 to 8 percentage points higher than the NOPUS survey. As a
consequence of switching to the NOPUS survey for calculating national
seat belt use, the eight percentage point increase in seat belt use
will not be reflected in the 1998 use rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA will intensify efforts to encourage enforcement of existing
occupant protection laws; emphasize expanding partnerships throughout
the public and private sectors at the national, state and local levels
with special emphasis on diverse populations; and assist states and
communities with technical support to enact primary enforcement seat
belt laws and ordinances and improve child passenger protection laws.
NHTSA will continue the Ad Council national media campaign and
develop new multi-media outreach materials targeted to high risk groups
such as pickup truck drivers and young males. NHTSA will target diverse
populations by working with minority firms to develop culturally
appropriate materials to resonate with the target audiences. To that
end, the agency will redouble its efforts to focus sustained attention
on the high risk group.
NHTSA will expand the cadre of over 5,000 law enforcement agencies,
assisting them to mount larger, more visible, national seat belt
enforcement mobilizations during Memorial Day and Thanksgiving weeks.
NHTSA's regional offices, and the field offices of all other DOT
Modal Administrations, will provide technical assistance to the States.
One initiative is the development of a cadre of law enforcement
liaisons (LELs) within the States. The LELs are police officers,
sheriff's deputies and state troopers who coordinate statewide waves of
highly visible seat belt and child passenger safety enforcement.
Another initiative is the inter-modal sponsorship of Safe Communities
programs which promote use of seat belts and child safety seats. The
DOT field offices will also assist the States in developing
partnerships with the trucking industry, urban transit systems,
railways, shipping, and aviation to deliver the Buckle Up message.
section 157 grant program
Question. Please prepare estimates of the amount of funds that may
be available for the innovative grant portion of the Section 157
program. How will those funds be integrated with the ongoing NHTSA
Section 403 program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 authorization level for the Section
157 program is $92 million. Applying the same obligation limitation
percentage as was used in fiscal year 1999 (88.3 percent), an estimated
$81 million would be available for the Section 157 program. Based on
preliminary state data, approximately $55 million may be awarded under
the incentive grant portion of the program, leaving approximately $26
million available for the innovative grant program.
To insure coordination between the Innovative Grants and Section
403, the Federal Register notice announcing the Innovative Grant
program required that the State's application discuss how this grant
will `` * * * integrate and coordinate with other on-going efforts in
the State, resulting in * * * increased usage rates.'' In effect, this
special factor requires that the proposed effort be complimentary to
the State Highway Safety Office's overall plan and coordinated with
other grant programs such as Sections 402 and 405.
Other efforts to insure that the Section 157 Innovative Grant
Program is integrated with Section 403 were to include several examples
of ``innovative programs'' in the Federal Register notice which support
the core components of the Section 403 Occupant Protection program.
These include high visibility seat belt and child safety seat
enforcement efforts, participation in the semi-annual national seat
belt enforcement mobilizations (Operation ABC Mobilization: America
Buckles Up Children), creating awareness for implementation of new seat
belt and child safety seat laws, and the establishment of new
partnerships and coalitions.
primary enforcement laws
Question. How many additional states enacted primary enforcement
laws last year? What was NHTSA's role in those legislative initiatives?
Answer. One additional state, Indiana, enacted a primary
enforcement law last year. NHTSA Regional staff provided technical
assistance to the Indiana Safety Belt Coalition, supplying information
and data that illustrated the injury reduction and health care cost
savings due to increased belt use. Such reductions and savings normally
follow the passage of a primary law.
air bag safety
Question. Please update us on NHTSA's efforts to reduce the adverse
effects of airbag deployment, specifically as related to serious
injuries and fatalities.
Answer. On September 18, 1998, the agency published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (63 FR 49958)
proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' to require advanced air bag
protection.
The NPRM proposed improvements in the ability of air bags to
cushion and protect occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted,
and would cause manufacturers to redesign air bags to minimize risks to
infants, children, and other occupants. The advanced air bags would be
required in some new passenger cars and light trucks beginning
September 1, 2002, and in all new cars and light trucks beginning
September 1, 2005. The agency's proposal is consistent with recent
legislation mandating the issuance of a final rule for advanced air
bags. Statutory requirements direct the agency to publish a final rule
no later than March 1, 2000.
The 90-day comment period for the NPRM closed on December 17, 1998.
Although the many issues raised by the respondents to the NPRM are
still undergoing technical review, it is apparent that major
refinements may be needed in the performance strategies and test
protocols that were proposed in the NPRM. Currently, the agency is
conducting the research and analysis to address these issues.
Additionally, the agency has been actively pursuing its public
information campaign related to air bag safety issues. Since the Buckle
Up America campaign began in 1996, motor vehicle deaths for children
(0-4 years) have been reduced 7.5 percent. This reduction was the
direct result of the agency's efforts to implement the strategies of
high visibility enforcement of child passenger safety laws combined
with public education. The agency plans to continue these same
strategies.
The agency's educational activities to reduce the adverse effects
of air bag deployment are conducted through the Buckle Up America
campaign to increase education to consumers on the correct use of both
safety belts and child safety seats and to ensure that children ride in
the back seat.
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2000 budget request would be
allocated to that area?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, $7.684 million will
be allocated to conducting air bag safety research and development to
reduce the adverse effects of air bag deployment. This amount includes
$3 million for the Biomechanics Program, $2.431 million for the Safety
Systems Program, and $2.253 million for the Special Crash
Investigations Program.
Additionally, the entire Occupant Protection Program under Traffic
Safety Programs of $11 million integrates the air bag safety message in
all activities. The Buckle Up America campaign, within the Occupant
Protection Program, specifically addresses educational efforts to
reduce the adverse effects of air bag deployments as well as the vital
importance of using safety belts and child safety seats.
traffic law enforcement program
Question. What are the major challenges facing the law enforcement
community and how does your budget request address those challenges.
Answer. Law enforcement agencies are vital partners in achieving
increases in safety belt use and reducing fatalities and injuries
resulting from traffic crashes. The major challenges facing law
enforcement include demands for continuing visible, publicized traffic
enforcement in the face of mounting demands for other public safety
services; improving the ability of law enforcement administrators to
understand and apply new technologies, such as lidar, radar, digital
cameras, etc., to augment traffic safety services; maintaining a
balanced traffic enforcement program to address increasing public
concern over unsafe, aggressive driving and excessive speed; and,
encouraging efforts by enforcement officers to increase belt use and
identify drunk and drugged drivers. NHTSA must continue to support
highly visible and effective traffic enforcement efforts as an
effective public safety strategy in the face of mounting concerns about
bias in traffic stops. The Traffic Law Enforcement programs are
intended to improve the efficiency and operations of law enforcement by
incorporating traffic safety into the overall public safety mission.
The Traffic Law Enforcement program budget addresses these concerns
by focusing on five program areas supporting the agency's Strategic
Plan: national organizations, enforcement and demonstration projects,
technology, training and technical assistance and public information
and education. The national organizations program will allow the
continuation of support to insure involvement of law enforcement
agencies in high priority mobilization efforts--concentrating on
occupant protection and impaired driving. The enforcement and
demonstration budget will provide funds for speed management and
aggressive driving pilot programs started in fiscal year 1999 to combat
the increase in speeding related fatalities since the elimination of
the national maximum speed limit. The technology program budget
includes funding to conduct a traffic law enforcement technology
conference to showcase new and developing applications to augment staff
resources. The training and technical assistance budget adds funds to
continue with a pursuit training train-the-trainer course, as
authorized under TEA-21. The public information and education budget
sets aside funds to maintain an aggressive driving public information
campaign. NHTSA will collaborate with the International Association of
Chiefs of Police in the development of its aggressive driving
countermeasures program.
NHTSA will also continue to work with law enforcement groups to
develop policy, training, and supervisory controls to eliminate
differential enforcement practices.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request for this program is
$1.65 million more than last year's appropriation. Why is this large
increase necessary? What new initiatives are planned for next year?
Answer. The increase in Traffic Law Enforcement funding directly
supports the agency's strategic plan to reduce speeding related
fatalities, which have been on the rise since the elimination of the
national maximum speed limit, unlike other traffic safety programs that
have shown steady successes, such as increasing seat belt use and
deterring impaired driving. Speed management, aggressive driving
programs and police pursuit training will all target these dangerous,
unsafe driving actions.
In response to the public's concern about speeding, NHTSA will
conduct two demonstration projects addressing the complex problems of
setting and enforcing speed limits. One site will be rural; the other
will be in a more urbanized location. Both will use technology as the
centerpiece of the effort, including the use of variable speed limits.
The agency plans to conduct these demonstration programs in cooperation
with FHWA, which will focus on engineering, roadway and congestion
issues. This activity is a result of the Transportation Research Board
report that explains how state and local governments should set and
enforce speed limits as a result of the elimination of the federal role
in the national maximum speed limit. Accompanying the demonstration,
NHTSA will develop a high profile public information and education
program concentrating on increasing public awareness of the dangers
associated with high risk driving actions and speeding.
NHTSA will also conduct two demonstration projects, based on a
prior pilot program to determine the effectiveness of a suspended and
revoked operator program.
The public has also demanded action regarding crashes involving
police pursuits. Under section 2002 of TEA-21, direction was provided
to address this issue through the development of policy and training
relating to police pursuits. NHTSA will develop and distribute a police
pursuit driving training program to law enforcement agencies
nationwide. This effort will also include the production and
distribution of computer based training relating to law enforcement
vehicle pursuit driving. A comparative analysis of pursuit related
crashes in local law enforcement will include an assessment of variable
training and policy in these agencies is planned.
aggressive driving
Question. What is the scope and nature of your efforts to reduce
aggressive driving? How much are you planning to allocate towards that
activity in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Efforts to address the problem of aggressive driving have
focused on demonstration projects to assess countermeasure
effectiveness; research to examine the public's perceptions about high
risk driving behavior; examination and dissemination of best
enforcement practices; and, review of existing applicable laws. In
fiscal year 2000, NHTSA will focus more attention on identifying
specific enforcement practices that show promise and develop
educational programs to increase the public's perception of high risk
driving behavior.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) sponsored a symposium titled
Aggressive Driving and the Law in January 1999. The meeting provided a
forum for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement and defense attorneys to
discuss the seriousness of aggressive driving and propose
recommendations for addressing the problem. The recommendations from
this Symposium will be addressed during fiscal year 2000.
A permanent Intermodal Aggressive Driving Team, representing the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Railroad Administration has developed
recommendations for a coordinated, Departmental aggressive driving
program.
Several demonstrations using advanced technology are underway.
Engineering efforts supporting an automated enforcement project is
underway on the George Washington Parkway and should be operational in
fiscal year 2000. Project ADVANCE to identify and apprehend both
commercial and private vehicles driving aggressively in Maryland is
underway, in conjunction with the Maryland State Police.
As a follow-up to a fiscal year 1998 award to the Milwaukee Police
Department, two additional demonstrations began in fiscal year 1999 to
demonstrate and evaluate innovative aggressive driving programs. The
two additional projects will continue in fiscal year 2000. Research
projects will include studies to determine the effect of enforcement
and legislative programs to reduce aggressive driving. An observational
study will be conducted to determine what constitutes aggressive
driving.
NHTSA will allocate $775,000 to support the continuation of the
demonstration projects started in fiscal year 1999, and will continue
an active public information and education campaign to reduce
aggressive driving.
traffic law enforcement funding
Question. Please provide a table for the components in the Traffic
Law Enforcement Program which shows how the funds requested for fiscal
year 2000 are intended to be spent. In that table, please compare the
amount provided for similar activities for fiscal year 1999 and provide
a justification for the need for the requested increases above fiscal
year 1999 appropriations.
Answer. Comparison between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
for the five Traffic Law Enforcement Program areas are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program area -------------------------------
1999 Enacted 2000 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Demonstrations.............. $428,000 $1,153,000
Training and Technical Assistance....... 429,400 1,404,400
Technology Transfer..................... 250,000 240,000
National Organizations.................. 255,000 245,000
Public Information and Education........ 350,600 325,600
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,713,000 3,368,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in Traffic Law Enforcement directly supports both TEA-
21 initiatives and the agency's strategic plan to reduce speeding
related fatalities, which have been on the rise since the elimination
of the national maximum speed limit. Speed management and aggressive
driving programs will target these high risk driving behaviors. NHTSA
will conduct two projects to determine the effectiveness of a speed
management program based on the recently published Transportation
Research Board report entitled ``Managing Speed: Review of Current
Practices for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits.''
Under TEA-21, Congress authorized NHTSA to spend up to $1 million
per year to develop a pursuit driving training program. Also, NHTSA
will conduct two demonstration projects based on a prior pilot program
to determine the effectiveness of a suspended and revoked operator
program.
integrated driver licensing system
Question. What is encompassed in the proposed comprehensive
integrated driver licensing system? How much will it cost to develop?
Over how many years?
Answer. A comprehensive integrated driver licensing system would
result in the elimination of state issuance of multiple drivers
licenses. The integrated driver licensing system would combine the
three currently operating driver license information systems: (1) The
National Driver Register's index of approximately 30 million problem
drivers; (2) The Federal Highway Administration's Commercial Driver
License Information System's (CDLIS) index of approximately 8 million
commercial drivers; and (3) The American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators' Driver License Reciprocity system currently being used
by five states to facilitate the electronic exchange of driver records.
The integrated system would include all 175-180 million licensed
drivers in the states.
Costs associated with the development of the system would depend on
the scope of the project and planning would require about six years
from initial development to implementation, not including the time
needed to enact the federal legislation necessary to implement such a
system.
Question. How does this program relate to the grant program for
state data systems?
Answer. Since driver licensing is an element of state data systems,
it is possible that grant recipients could use Section 411 grant funds
for improvements to their driver licensing systems.
older driver program
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee indicated that
NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration activities for
technologies and practices intended to improve driver performance of
older drivers at risk of losing their licenses. How is that directive
reflected in the fiscal year 2000 budget request and in the fiscal year
1999 spending plan for TSP? Please provide a list of each activity and
its funding level.
Answer. NHTSA's older driver program has two objectives: to
identify and regulate unsafe drivers and to extend the mobility of safe
drivers. In the fiscal year 2000 budget, $300,000 is requested for
cooperative agreements in up to three states to perform field tests of
model older driver systems that are currently being pilot tested. These
systems include screening drivers for physical, mental, and sensory
capabilities that affect driving safety; providing rehabilitation for
limitations that can be improved; and counseling individuals who should
modify driving practices or need alternative transportation. These
systems must be tested in several states to determine their
effectiveness and feasibility under different circumstances.
In the fiscal year 1999 budget, $250,000 is being spent to complete
a large-scale pilot study of technologies and practices for improving
older driver performance (i.e., the Model Driver Screening and
Evaluation Program). This project involves evaluating tools for
identifying at-risk drivers in licensing agencies, social service
agencies, and health care settings for referral to occupational
therapists and other specialists for retraining or rehabilitation.
Where appropriate, the retraining and rehabilitation efforts are also
being evaluated. Information obtained from this effort will be
incorporated into the proposed cooperative agreements in the fiscal
year 2000 budget plan.
Question. How many states are involved in the older driver
demonstrations supported with NHTSA funds? Will those efforts be
expanded during fiscal year 2000? How much is allocated toward those
efforts in fiscal year 1999? How much is requested for those efforts in
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. NHTSA is supporting a study evaluating assessment tools
that can be used in licensing agencies, social service settings, and
medical offices. Two states, Maryland and Florida, are participating in
this pilot effort. In fiscal year 1999, $250,000 was allocated for that
effort. In fiscal year 2000, $300,000 will be shared by up to three
states in cooperative agreements that will draw on the lessons learned
from the earlier projects.
driver fatigue
Question. Senate Report 104-325 directed NHTSA to prepare a report
on driver fatigue and inattention, and encouraged collaborative efforts
and funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep
Disorders Research. Please provide the findings of that report and tell
us how NHTSA intends to proceed in this area.
Answer. The collaboration between NHTSA and the National Center on
Sleep Disorders Research (NCSDR) to produce a program to combat drowsy
driving was a direct result of special appropriations in fiscal year
1996 and 1997. The report to congress required by the appropriations
report contains a brief summary of the collaborative program and a
status report on each of the projects comprising the program to combat
drowsy driving.
The NCSDR convened a panel of experts to provide initial direction
and ongoing guidance to NHTSA's program. The panel report covered the
biology of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of drowsy-
driving crashes, risk factors for drowsy-driving crashes, population
groups at highest risk, countermeasures, and recommendations for an
educational campaign.
Based on the panel's recommendation, staff from NHTSA, NCSDR, and
project contractors selected shift workers as the primary target group
for the NHTSA program and high-school youth for NCSDR's activities.
Focus groups provided fundamental information for program themes and
content. Materials include a brochure, posters, cards for ``take-one''
dispensers, a video, and scripts for conducting safety meetings. Twenty
employers in various occupations will receive funds in calendar year
1999 to assist in the evaluation of the program, assessing changes in
workers' knowledge, attitudes, and, most importantly, behaviors.
Revised materials are expected in calendar year 2000.
NHTSA also funded research to instrument private vehicles owned by
members of high-risk (sleep-deprived) groups embarking on long-distance
trips. This research is designed to record a variety of vehicle
performance measures simultaneously with video of the driver and the
roadway. The study produced over 100 hours of real-time data, including
many incidents of drowsy and inattentive driving.
NCSDR, working with NHTSA staff and Scholastic Publications (an
organization that publishes and distributes educational materials to
schools nationwide), developed materials for high-school students and
distributed them to high schools throughout the nation in May, 1998.
These materials are available for public use. NCSDR also published a
report for secondary school educators, ``Educating Youth about Sleep
and Drowsy Driving,'' based on the proceedings of a workshop with
experts in adolescent sleep, driver education, high-and middle-school
education, and curriculum development.
In fiscal year 2000, NHTSA plans to initiate programs addressing
fatigue on long-distance trips by young drivers and will also work with
the Federal Highway Administration to educate the public about rumble
strips and proper responses to their warnings.
national occupant protection use survey (nopus)
Question. Why does NHTSA believe that a substantial increase in
funding for the NOPUS survey is necessary at this time? Do the
additional surveys conducted by the states under the Section 157
program reduce the need for NHTSA to conduct surveys?
Answer. The increase in funding for the National Occupant
Protection User Survey (NOPUS) reflects: (1) collecting additional data
needed by the agency (e.g., restraint use by all children under 16
years old and driver distance behind the steering wheel); (2) the
addition of one data collector at each of the 50 Primary Sampling
Units, and, (3) conducting smaller versions of the NOPUS (a survey to
measure overall use only, a ``Mini-NOPUS'') to measure the progress of
the President's Initiative in the Buckle Up America Campaign.
The NOPUS is a research and evaluation tool that has important
characteristics that cannot be gleaned from aggregating the results of
the surveys states conduct under the Section 157 program. First, each
NOPUS provides an accurate estimate of the nation's belt use rate over
a specified period of time for front seat outboard occupants in a well-
defined population of vehicles. Some states conduct surveys in the
spring, others in summer and still others in the fall. Aggregating
state findings tends to mask on-going trends in belt use. Second, NOPUS
uses a truly representative sample of the country's roadway segments,
including all types of roads, and rural as well as urban areas. Most
state surveys exclude the most rural portions of the state, and only a
few include local roads. Third, NOPUS surveys allow the agency to gauge
the impact of such major events as the national waves of mobilization
of seat belt and child passenger safety enforcement, by conducting pre-
and post-mobilization Mini-NOPUS surveys that represent the whole
country.
The time distribution of the state surveys precludes their
evaluative use for pre-and post-measurement.
Question. Why are three surveys needed?
Answer. Three smaller versions of the National Occupant Protection
User Survey (NOPUS ) (the Mini-NOPUS--a national survey collected at a
reduced sample and measuring only overall safety belt use) were
conducted in 1998 as the result of the agency's response to the
President's Initiative for the Buckle Up America Campaign. The first
Mini-NOPUS estimated the ``baseline'' national belt use rate before the
Buckle Up America Campaign mobilization conducted during the week of
Memorial Day. The remaining surveys were conducted just after the
Memorial Day and Thanksgiving Day week Buckle Up America mobilizations.
It is anticipated that the agency will continue to monitor changes in
belt use across the country by conducting Mini-NOPUS surveys subsequent
to Buckle Up America mobilization weeks. These three mini-surveys have
proven their value in assisting the agency in monitoring the
effectiveness of the three major Buckle Up America Campaign
mobilizations. However, the regular NOPUS will continue to be conducted
biennially.
advanced air bags
Question. What is the status of your work to advance smart air
bags? What are some of the remaining challenges and how does the fiscal
year 2000 budget address them?
Answer. Currently the agency is conducting research and testing in
support of rulemaking on advanced air bags. Full-vehicle crash tests
are being conducted on 1999 model year vehicles with belted and
unbelted mid-sized male and small female crash test dummies in
different crash configurations and at different impact speeds. Air bag
aggressivity tests are being conducted with out-of-position small
female driver dummies and small child passenger dummies. Advanced air
bag technology, including advanced inflators, advanced crash sensors,
belt use sensors, seat position sensors, occupant classification
sensors, etc., are being evaluated through cooperative research efforts
with restraint suppliers and using future model year vehicles provided
by manufacturers. Real world crash investigations are collecting data
on redesigned air bag systems (model years 1998 and 1999) to identify
air bag-related serious injuries and fatalities. Biomechanical injury
criteria for the new family of dummies are being refined and evaluated.
A public workshop was recently held on April 20, 1999, to discuss the
agency's proposed injury criteria with the biomechanical community.
The remaining challenges associated with smart air bags include
developing performance-based test procedures to assess the
effectiveness of dynamic occupant position sensors. The fiscal year
2000 budget plan will address this by evaluating the better-performing
advanced air bag systems under development. They are designed to
function in dynamic precrash braking scenarios such as those identified
from the field experience (particularly those that involve children).
Other challenges include the refinement of pediatric and small female
injury criteria associated with complex out-of-position air bag
deployment situations. The fiscal year 2000 budget will address this by
developing essential biomechanical tools for the assessment of current
and emerging advanced air bag systems that are designed to maximize
crash protection. Finally, real world crash performance will need to be
closely monitored. Because of the rapid deployment of advanced
technology air bags into the fleet, it is important to closely monitor
their real world performance so that any unforeseen problems can be
detected and corrective steps taken early. The fiscal year 2000 budget
plan includes special crash investigations of the current and new-
generation, and advanced air bag cases.
Question. If this account were funded at the fiscal year 1999
level, how would you allocate the funding in fiscal year 2000? Please
explain your allocation within the context of your performance goals
and strategic plan.
Answer. The implementation of advanced air bag systems in the
fleet, through the establishment of performance-based Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, is an important goal to the agency. If this
account were funded at the fiscal year 1999 level, it would be
necessary to take additional resources from other crashworthiness
research programs, such as upgraded frontal crash protection and
rollover protection under safety systems research in support of the
Department's strategic goals of reducing consequences of crashes.
ciren centers
Question. What is the amount and status of your financial support
to each of the CIREN centers?
Answer. During fiscal year 2000, the anticipated cost is $500,000
for each of the CIREN Centers.
CIREN is a unique collaboration of medical practitioners,
engineers, and other related professions. Working with seven multi-
disciplinary, geographically diverse trauma centers, the agency hopes
to learn more about the dynamics of highway crashes. These real world
laboratories are linked by a computer network that allows researchers
to review crash and injury data and share their particular expertise.
Though the network--funded by NHTSA and General Motors--is still in
its infancy, much has already been learned. NHTSA has gained greater
insight into injuries that are caused by safety devices themselves,
including shoulder and lap restraints and air bags. The agency is
beginning to understand how real world crashes compare to the outcomes
predicted during a controlled research crash test. NHTSA has
significantly improved the understanding of injuries affecting infants
and children.
CIREN focuses on cases which include frontal and side impact
injuries treated at participating centers, pediatric cases, vehicle
fires, and certain rollovers.
What is new and exciting about this venture is that it is drawing
support from vehicle manufacturers and government to improve vehicle
safety and trauma care.
national transportation biomechanics research center (ntbrc)
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, NHTSA was urged to redouble its
efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with other organizations
which benefit from the national center. What progress has been made?
Answer. The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center
(NTBRC) has entered into an interagency agreement with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to study and evaluate the potential of
using the NTBRC's advanced frontal test dummy, THOR, and other crash
injury evaluation technologies to evaluate crash situations of interest
to the FAA. A preliminary series of impact tests have been conducted at
the FAA crash test facility in Oklahoma City and are currently
undergoing analysis. Further collaborations in research areas of mutual
interest are expected.
The NTBRC staff has made preliminary contact with a group concerned
with personnel protection from the Department of Defense to determine
if common research interests exist. These discussions will continue
during a planned visit by NTBRC staff to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in
the next few weeks.
Question. What is the status of the second phase of the project to
field test the dissemination and implementation of head injury pre-
hospital protocols?
Answer. Head injuries are among the most difficult injuries for
emergency medical personnel to recognize in the field. This project
provides additional education that will assist providers to better
manage these injuries. A draft of the guidelines for pre-hospital
management of head injuries has been developed and is currently being
prepared for pilot testing. During the first phase of the project,
available research evidence was gathered and synthesized and the draft
guidelines were reviewed by a steering committee representing the full
range of the EMS professional community. The second phase of the
project is directed at achieving consensus on the content of the
guidelines and conducting pilot tests at several locations across the
country. Pilot tests will be conducted in the fall and winter of 1999.
Question. NHTSA is requesting an additional $340,000 to conduct
research regarding the implications of the location and function of
vehicle controls and displays. What new information justifies the need
to reexamine this issue?
Answer. Previous analyses of crash databases have shown that about
15 percent of crash-involved drivers are driving unfamiliar vehicles
(those driven less than 500 miles). Previous laboratory experiments
have indicated that drivers take significantly longer to find and
operate unfamiliar controls and displays. Drivers have difficulty
adapting to unfamiliar vehicles for various reasons, including
unfamiliar controls and displays as well as unfamiliar vehicle
handling/braking characteristics and unfamiliar visibility
characteristics. With the introduction of many new devices such as
cellular telephones and other gadgets in vehicles, the problem is
likely to be exacerbated. The goal of this new program is to better
understand the role of vehicle unfamiliarity as a crash risk and to
identify possible countermeasures, including guidelines for voluntary
standards and public information campaigns.
The justification for this funding is not based on new information
but on the fact that NHTSA can now use several new research tools to
better understand the specific nature and cause of driver errors
associated with vehicle unfamiliarity. One such tool is the Data
Acquisition System for Crash Avoidance (DASCAR), which can be installed
in an individual's personal vehicle to track driving performance as
drivers learn the unfamiliar controls and displays. Another new tool is
the National Advanced Driving Simulator, which will provide a realistic
and safe environment for conducting experiments on driver distractions
and errors as they interact with unfamiliar vehicle components in a
controlled experiment.
crash outcome data evaluation system (codes)
Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding how
NHTSA has conducted work beyond the CODES project in the areas of
injury assessment, costs, and relationships to the use of seat belts,
air bags, and other engineering enhancements.
Answer. NHTSA continues to support state-specific applications of
linked data and development of Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems
(CODES) by states. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA funded five new CODES
states--Kentucky, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska and South Carolina to
develop data linkage capabilities and state-specific applications for
the linked data. Three of the five states--Iowa, Nebraska, and South
Carolina--plan to focus on safety belt and roadway issues by comparing
injury severity and average inpatient charges for restrained and
unrestrained victims of motor vehicle crashes. South Carolina will
report its results by sex, age, and county for direct access by the
public on the Internet, and Nebraska will add intoxicated drivers to
the analysis. Iowa will analyze the benefits of roadway safety
improvements, such as guardrails, to crash rates and injury severity.
Also in 1999, NHTSA has published several reports from CODES states
including An Analysis of Seat Belt Use and Outcomes in 1996 Maine
Crashes (prepared by the Maine CODES team) and Using Linked Data To
Evaluate the Effectiveness of Child Safety Seats in Pennsylvania
(prepared by the Pennsylvania CODES team). Both reports support the
benefits of safety belt and child safety seat usage. Of the seven CODES
states funded in fiscal year 1998, New Hampshire and Oklahoma are using
their linked data to identify differences in injury patterns by
restraint use. CODES states have not yet investigated how they could
support investigation of injuries associated with the engineering
enhancements in specific vehicles or types of vehicles because not all
states collect the information necessary for these studies--the vehicle
identification number (VIN). Without the VIN, it is not possible to
identify which engineering enhancements are present in a vehicle or
even to classify accurately that vehicle by make or model. A NHTSA
project, being conducted cooperatively with the FHWA and the National
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, will identify
a Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) for reporting motor
vehicle crash data. The collection of the VIN is included in that
Model.
partnership for a new generation of vehicles (pngv)
Question. Please prepare a list indicating the allocation of PNGV
funds for fiscal year 1999 that details recipient of funds (including
government entities), the amount, and type of activity.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Recipients Description 1999 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Washington University...... Finite Element Model $400,000
Development,
Validation, and
Analysis (Minivan,
small pickup, large
van).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory..... Finite Element Model 250,000
Development,
Validation, and
Analysis (Sport
utility vehicle).
Applied Research Associates....... Finite Element Model 100,000
Development,
Validation, and
Analysis (Large
car).
TNO Madymo North America.......... Vehicle Articulated 300,000
Mass Model
Development
(Subcompact car,
compact car,
midsize car, sport
utility vehicle).
EASi Engineering.................. Vehicle Articulated 400,000
Mass Model
Development (base
vehicle of PNGV
platforms).
University of Virginia............ Vehicle Interior/ 200,000
Occupant Model
Development.
Volpe National Transportation System Model 300,000
Systems Center (U.S. DOT). Development,
Integration, Fleet
Studies.
TRC of Ohio....................... Vehicle/Component 300,000
Testing.
Various........................... Vehicle Purchases... 100,000
Volpe National Transportation Computer Hardware/ 150,000
Systems Center. Software Purchase.
---------------
Total Funding............... .................... 2,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the implications of funding the PNGV program at
the fiscal year 1999 level?
Answer. Funding at the fiscal year 1999 level would entail a $1
million reduction in the planned activities. This would delay the
completion of the development of the articulated models of the vehicle,
vehicle interior, and occupants; and would result in a delay of the
completion of the systems model integration and fleet studies.
Question. What assurance does NHTSA now have that the final
products from the PNGV will meet U.S. safety standards?
Answer. For PNGV vehicles to be introduced into the fleet in the
United States, they have to comply with the then existing Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA has not received any assurance
from the automobile industry that it is currently focused on the safety
needs. Meeting the safety standards could be readily accomplished by
the PNGV participants, provided a conscious effort is made in meeting
that goal. Each of the participants has extensive experience in
manufacturing vehicles that are in the anticipated weight range of the
PNGV vehicles (i.e., 60 percent of that from which the PNGV vehicles
are based) and which meet the safety standards. The real challenge
facing the participants is ensuring that the overall safety of the
fleet is maintained when the PNGV vehicles are introduced. This level
of safety extends beyond that simply required by the safety standards.
Therefore, there is a need for NHTSA's research activity in developing
the systems model from which the overall safety of PNGVs can be
evaluated.
Question. How much of PNGV funding has been spent on economic
analyses, market penetration studies, industry impact, and regulatory
impact evaluations?
Answer. No PNGV funding allocated to NHTSA has been spent on
economic analyses, market penetration studies, and industry or
regulatory impact evaluations.
nhtsa on-site contract employees
Question. During the last three years, how many outside employees
are under contract with NHTSA? How much was spent on contract employees
in each year? How much is estimated to be allocated in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. Listed below is the information requested for NHTSA
contractor employees working on-site in the Nassif Building.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Fiscal year contractor Expended Expended/ Planned
employees projected allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.......................................................... 113 7.24 .......... ..........
1998......................................................... 117 8.28 .......... ..........
1999.......................................................... 119 .......... 9.06 ..........
2000.......................................................... 120 .......... .......... 9.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
administrative expenses
Question. For fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999 and planned for
fiscal year 2000, please provide a table similar to that provided
previously to the Committee, showing the amount of funds spent or
allocated for non-mandatory awards and bonuses, PCS, overtime pay,
travel and training.
Answer. The information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
Actual Enacted Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards and Bonuses.................. 653 649 669
PCS................................. 68 87 87
Overtime............................ 37 40 45
Travel.............................. 1,329 1,125 1,501
-----------------------------------
Training...................... 176 198 216
------------------------------------------------------------------------
irm staff
Question. Why is it necessary to hire two technical staff requested
to support Y2K activities and to strengthen security on NHTSA's web
site? Could these activities be supported by contractors?
Answer. The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion identified
computer security as a significant concern due to the magnitude of Y2K
renovation work performed on mission critical systems (often performed
by contractors) and the system vulnerabilities introduced during the
remediation process. Federal agencies are requested to review all
systems to ensure increased vulnerabilities to ``cyber attacks'' were
not introduced by opportunists seeking to capitalize on the Y2K problem
and weaken the posture of agency security. Such attacks will surely
continue beyond the turn of the century and become more frequent and
technically sophisticated. In addition, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Office of the Inspector General recently cited all
Operating Administrations for not conducting these security reviews.
In order to effectively address the above concerns, NHTSA requests
two full time equivalents to manage information systems (IS) security
programs for its applications, networks and Internet systems. IS
security has become specialized in these areas and it is no longer
feasible for one person to adequately conduct IS planning and
implementation for the multifaceted requirements in all areas.
Implementing and maintaining a NHTSA-wide information systems security
program requires unique technical skills to ensure appropriate
technical and operational controls support overall management controls.
To be most effective, OMB Circular A-130 requires management controls
be part of day-to-day operations and an integral part of overall
planning; thereby, demanding ongoing management by at least two career
government employees. These governmental functions require the exercise
of discretion in applying Government authority and the use of value
judgment in making decisions for the Government, as required by Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, and could not be
successfully supported by contractors.
highway safety data systems and traffic records grants
Question. Please describe how this new grant program is being
implemented.
Answer. By January 15 of each year, states can submit an
application for a Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic Records
grant. A state that applies for a grant for the first time has three
options for which it may apply: (1) an implementation grant, which
requires that the state have in place a traffic records coordinating
committee, an assessment or audit of its traffic records system that
was conducted or updated within the past five years, and a strategic
plan for effecting traffic records system improvements; (2) an
initiation grant, that also requires an in place traffic records
coordinating committee and an audit or assessment within the past five
years, but only requires that development of a strategic plan has
begun; or, (3) a start up grant, that requires the state to certify
that it does not meet the criteria for either an implementation or an
initiation grant. In fiscal year 1999--the first year of this program--
NHTSA awarded 54 grants totaling $4.8 million to 47 states, DC, the
territories and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Start-up grants
($25,000 each) were awarded to 7 states, DC, 4 territories and the BIA,
initiation grants ($63,100 each) to 11 states and implementation grants
($126,260) to 29 states and Puerto Rico. Three states did not apply.
A state that has previously received only a start up grant may
apply for either an initiation or an implementation grant in a
subsequent year, under the same criteria listed above. A state that has
previously received either an initiation or an implementation grant may
apply for a subsequent year grant, provided that its traffic records
coordinating committee continues to be in operation and continues to
oversee implementation of the strategic plan. States receiving any
grant funds are required to certify that the funds will be used only to
adopt and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic
records program, in accordance with 23 CFR 1335.10(b). A team of agency
subject matter experts reviews all applications from the states and
determines compliance with the grant criteria.
Question. How are you overseeing the use of those funds by the
states? What technical assistance is NHTSA providing to the states?
Answer. States applying for Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic
Records grants must certify that the funds will be used only to adopt
and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic records
program. After grant award, a state must document for NHTSA how it
plans to use these funds, as part of the its comprehensive Highway
Safety Plan. Then, NHTSA's regional staff work with the states on a
regular basis to provide oversight and technical assistance in
implementation of the states' highway safety plan. Also, prior to
receipt of a subsequent data grant, a state must document progress made
in improving highway safety data systems and traffic records since the
previous submission of a grant application, including an accounting of
how previous grant funds were used. NHTSA's technical assistance
efforts include offering the services of regional data analysis
contractors. In addition, at a state's request, NHTSA facilitates the
conduct of an independent assessment of a state's traffic records
system by experts from across the nation. These traffic records
assessments have been scheduled or are in the planning stages for all
thirteen states that received start-up grants during fiscal year 1999
and for the three states that elected not to apply for fiscal year 1999
grants. Some states that completed assessments nearly five years ago
have expressed interest in seeking NHTSA's help in updating them. Also,
NHTSA has been providing technical assistance to states concerning
expansion of the states' traffic records coordinating committees to
ensure fuller representation of the organizations that use, collect or
maintain traffic records files.
section 405(b) child passenger protection education grants
Question. Could the potential benefits of the Section 405(b) Child
Passenger Protection Education Grant Program be accomplished by other
grants authorized by TEA-21?
Answer. The Section 405(b) Child Passenger Protection Education
Grant Program is intended to help implement programs that educate the
public about the many aspects of child passenger protection, including
the proper installation of child restraints and the training and
retraining of key personnel on all aspects of child restraint use.
Other grants authorized by TEA-21 could possibly address the same
objectives, but competing traffic safety issues may impede those funds
from being spent on promoting child passenger safety. Only Section
405(b) specifically targets the promotion of child passenger protection
education and training.
The Section 405 (a) Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program is
intended to help states implement and enforce programs that encourage
proper use of safety belts and child restraints. One of the eligibility
criteria under this grant program (states must meet 4 out of 6
criteria) specifically focuses on promoting child passenger protection
education, technician training and child safety seat clinics. States
may use these grant funds only to implement and enforce adult and child
occupant protection programs, including the activities that could be
funded under Section 405(b).
In addition, the funds awarded to States under the Section 402
State and Community Grants program, the Section 157 Seat Belt Use
Incentive Grant program, the Section 157 Seat Belt Use Innovative Grant
program, and the Section 163 0.08 BAC Incentive Grant program may be
used to promote child passenger protection initiatives, but there are
no provisions in any of these other grant programs that would require
States to use these grant funds specifically for child passenger
protection activities.
Buckle Up America establishes two goals. The first and more widely
publicized goal is to increase seat belt use to 85 percent in 2000 and
90 percent in 2005. The second goal is to reduce the number of child
occupant fatalities (0-4 years) by 15 percent by 2000 and 25 percent by
2005. In 1997, 612 children in this age group died as occupants in
motor vehicles.
section 410 grants
Question. How many states are receiving grant funds from fiscal
year 1999 appropriations? Please indicate how much funding was provided
to each state and how each state spent the grant.
Answer. To date, no states have submitted applications for fiscal
year 1999 Section 410 funds. Section 410 was significantly modified
under TEA-21. The Interim Final Rule implementing the revised program
was published in December 1998, and NHTSA Regional staff are currently
providing technical assistance to the states on the new criteria.
Applications for fiscal year 1999 funding are due by August 1. All
grant funds provided under this incentive program must be used for
activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
state sanctions related to .08 bac
Question. Are sanctions on states that do not enact .08 BAC laws
still needed?
Answer. To date, under the new TEA-21 incentive program, over 25
states (including the District of Columbia) have introduced or
indicated plans to introduce .08 BAC legislation, but only DC has
enacted this legislation during fiscal year 1999. The potential funding
has not been sufficient to overcome the resources that the opposition
has mustered to defeat .08 legislation. It is difficult to educate the
general public on .08 BAC issues because the science is complex. More
importantly, the opposition to .08 circulates and publicizes
misinformation and myths about the effects of an .08 law, in
particular, that social drinkers will be arrested. The opposition
(primarily, the alcoholic beverage industry) believes that .08 will
effect its bottom line through a reduction in sales/consumption. The
most recent research on this issue, commissioned by NHTSA, shows a
slight (2-3 percent) but significant decrease in beer consumption due
to .08 and .10 BAC laws, as well as Administrative License Revocation
(ALR) laws. However, this could be associated with an existing downward
trend nationwide. If this is a byproduct of legislation that saves
lives, it may be considered worth the societal trade-off.
The experience with sanctions generally has been positive. Two
examples illustrate the effectiveness of sanctions. On July 1, 1984,
only 18 states had Age 21 laws. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act
was signed into law on July 17, 1984 by President Reagan. The Act
strongly encouraged states to have laws prohibiting the ``purchase and
public possession'' of alcoholic beverages by anyone under 21 years of
age by withholding a portion of Federal-aid highway funds from states
without such laws. In 1986, NHTSA and FHWA published a joint final rule
implementing the statute. By 1988, all states had enacted an Age 21
law.
Zero Tolerance laws provide another example. On June 10, 1995, only
24 states had enacted Zero Tolerance laws despite incentive grant funds
offered through the Section 410 program. On that date, President
Clinton called on Congress to make Zero Tolerance the law of the land.
On November 28, 1995, the National Highway Safety Act was signed which
included the Zero Tolerance requirement. All states now have enacted
this legislation.
In these instances, sanctions were effective in motivating states
to enact the desired lifesaving legislation. However, incentives are
preferable to sanctions, and the agency is committed to finding ways to
enhance the ability of incentives to encourage enhanced traffic safety
initiatives.
Question. As more states enact .08 BAC laws, the amount of
incentive funds granted to each state will decrease. Will the incentive
program still be effective despite decreasing grants?
Answer. Currently, it is unclear whether the new TEA-21 incentive
program is effective in encouraging states to enact .08 BAC laws. To
date, only the District of Columbia has enacted new .08 BAC legislation
since the incentive was established. Unless many more states pass a .08
BAC law, it is unlikely that decreasing grant funds will factor into
the effectiveness of the incentive program since the authorized funding
level increases at least $10 million each year--from $55 million
available in 1998 to $110 million in 2003.
______
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
new positions within research and special programs
Question. Page 50 of the budget justification states that there
will be a direct increase of 5 full time equivalent workyears (FTEs)
from fiscal year 1999 to 2000 (187 to 192). However, when each office's
request is looked at individually, it appears that RSP is requesting an
6.5 FTE increase: 4.5 FTEs in Hazardous Materials Safety, 1 FTE in
Emergency Transportation, and 1 FTE in Program Support (which assumes a
total of 13 new positions throughout Research and Special Programs,
with each position at half a year). Please explain this discrepancy.
Answer. RSPA is requesting an increase of 4.5 FTE (rounded to 5 FTE
in the summary tables) funded by direct appropriations and 27 FTE
funded by reimbursements, as shown on page 38 of our budget. The
difference noted in your question is the net effect of a decrease in
the base number of FTE funded by direct appropriations, offset by an
increase of 3 reimbursable FTE. Our request under the Research and
Technology tab on page 99 contains a proposal to fund two existing FTEs
and one new FTE from the Highway Trust Fund. Due to a technical error,
the summary for the RSP appropriation on page 50 does not show a 3 FTE
increase for Reimbursable FTE, but it should.
office of hazardous materials safety
new or increased registration fees
Question. The bill language provision regarding charging user fees
and depositing such fees as an offsetting collection to the
appropriation appears to hold harmless the agency from any failure to
collect the full $4,575,000 in user fees--in other words, should the
new user fees not be authorized, or the total anticipated amount not be
collected, the agency still receives the underlying increase in
appropriated general funds. Is this correct?
Answer. If fees are not authorized to be used for the Hazardous
Materials Safety program, then the amount proposed from user fees in
our fiscal year 2000 request ($4,575,000) would need to be appropriated
from the general fund. Even if the proposal is authorized, the funding
is requested as discretionary and must be decided upon by the
appropriators. If the proposal is authorized and appropriated and the
amount of funding necessary is not collected from user fees, then the
funding would not come automatically from the General Fund.
Question. The administration's appropriations legislative proposal,
contingent upon authorization, gives the Secretary authority to charge
a fee for the Department carrying out the transportation hazardous
materials oversight responsibilities outlined in chapter 51 of title 49
United States Code. Certain sections of chapter 51 are exempted from
this new fee-charging ability in the proposed bill language. Please
enumerate the exempted sections, and explain why they are exempted.
Answer. The Administration's hazardous materials transportation
reauthorization bill proposes broader uses than the current law for the
registration fees imposed and collected under section 5108(g). Proposed
section 5108(g)(2)(B) would require the Secretary to collect fees
adequate to cover:
--supplemental training grants (proposed sections 5116(j) and
5129(b));
--planning and training grants (proposed sections 5116(a), (b) and
(f) and 5129(d));
--North American Emergency Response Guidebook (NAERG)(proposed
section 5129(e));
--administrative costs of fee collection (proposed sections
5116(I)(4) and 5129(f));
--Research and Special Program Administration's (RSPA) Hazardous
Materials Safety (HMS) program costs (proposed section
5129(a)(2));
--training curriculum costs (proposed sections 5115 and 5129(c)); and
--training of hazmat employee instructors (proposed sections 5107(e)
and 5129(g))
Proposed section 5129(a) lists the following specific activities
that would not be funded out of the registration fees (with reasons for
that lack of fee-funding in brackets):
--motor carrier safety permits (proposed section 5109)) [to be funded
from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) appropriations];
--highway routing of hazardous material (proposed section 5112)) [to
be funded from FHWA appropriations];
--unsatisfactory safety ratings (proposed section 5113) [no funding
required for this cross-reference to penalty provisions];
--uniform registration and permitting forms and procedures (proposed
section 5119)) [to be funded from FHWA appropriations]; and
--study of possible Federal permits for high-risk hazardous material
carriers (proposed section 5128) [to be funded from FHWA
appropriations].
Question. In February 1999, the Secretary transmitted a bill to the
President for introduction and referral to the appropriate committees
to authorize appropriations for hazardous materials transportation
safety. This bill would provide continued authority for the hazmat
program through 2005 and would fund RSPA's entire Hazardous Materials
Safety program from registration fees which are currently used to fund
the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants program. On an
annualized basis, how much does the agency anticipate collecting under
this new fee structure (if the administration's bill is enacted as
requested)? Does this fund the entire hazardous materials safety
program and the emergency preparedness grants program?
Answer. Consistent with the Administration's policy, the fiscal
year 2000 budget and the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Reauthorization proposals to Congress include legislative authority to
fund RSPA's entire Hazardous Materials Safety (HMS) Program from the
registration fee program, beginning with the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2000. If this authority is granted, RSPA will initiate additional
rulemaking action to collect the approximately $35 million needed to
adequately fund both the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
Grants program (HMEP)($15 million) and RSPA's HMS Program ($20
million)on an annual basis.
Question. How has the hazardous materials transportation industry
reacted to the proposed increase of the minimum annual registration fee
from $300 to $500, and to the overall policy shift to fund all
regulatory and compliance activities from user fees rather than general
revenues?
Answer. RSPA plans to propose a fee structure that will retain a
relatively modest fee for the majority of registrants that are small
businesses. We believe that an equitable assessment of fees that is
easy to understand and implement, but which will also provide increased
funding for the training and planning grants, will be acceptable to
industry, and we will be seeking industry input as the rulemaking
proceeds.
Question. In April 1998, the DOT Inspector General published a
management advisory on the hazardous materials registration program
which found that RSPA does not collect the full amount of potential
registration fees. RSPA's collections are limited because it has not
identified all shippers and carriers that are potentially subject to
its regulations, does not follow up to ensure that covered entities
register as required, and has not established an equitable graduated
fee structure. How much of the assumed increase from user fees can be
attributed to improved registration fee collection under current law,
in response to the recommendations in the Inspector General's
management advisory? How much of the assumed increase from user fees
can be attributed to new or increased fees?
Answer. Actions taken consistent with the Inspector General (IG)
recommendations have identified approximately 1,000 new registrants and
raised an additional $500,000, including collections from prior years.
On March 22, 1999, the IG determined that our actions were timely and
appropriate and reported the recommendations as resolved and closed.
RSPA expects that these new registrants will contribute about $250,000
annually. The additional increase in the estimated fiscal year 2000
collection to $14.5 million reflects the proposed revisions to the
registration program fee structure.
Question. How has RSPA responded to each of the four
recommendations made by the Inspector General to improve the hazmat
registration collection process?
Answer. RSPA mailed registration information to approximately
48,500 companies from two FHWA sources as an alternative to using the
state sources recommended by the IG. The IG agreed at a meeting with
RSPA that requiring responses from entities not required to register,
as they had recommended, would impose a paperwork burden on the public
inconsistent with Federal policy. RSPA increased its follow-up mailings
to companies previously registered or newly identified as possible
registrants in accordance with the third IG recommendation.
Approximately 42,000 companies were included in these additional
mailings. RSPA is actively pursuing the publication of a notice of
proposed rulemaking with the intention of increasing the monies
available for the HMEP Grants program.
personnel issues and operating expenses
Question. What steps have been taken to comply with the staffing
level that was approved by Congress in fiscal year 1999, the full
requested level of 122 FTEs? What is the current onboard FTE strength?
Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) has a full-
time permanent (FTP) authority of 129 positions, and full-time
equivalent (FTE) authority of 122. We are currently fully staffed with
122 FTE on board.
Question. Please provide a table showing the authorized number of
inspectors for each of the last three fiscal years, and the number of
inspectors actually on-board during those periods.
Answer. The following table shows the authorized number of
inspectors and the actual number of inspectors on-board for the last
three years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-
Fiscal year Authorized board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................... 37 36
1998............................................... 37 34
1999............................................... 37 \1\ 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On board as of April 5, 1999.
Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, please prepare a breakout
of the number of personnel assigned to each office for each of the last
three fiscal years, the grade level, and number of current vacancies.
Answer. The following table summarizes the current on-board FTP
staff, grade levels, and vacancies in OHMS for the last three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1997--as of 6/4/ 1998--as of 4/15/ 1999--as of 4/5/
97 98 99
Office -----------------------------------------------------
No. of Grade No. of Grade No. of Grade
FTP/VAC levels FTP/VAC levels FTP/VAC levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Admin. & Int'l Standards........................ 6-1 2-SES 6-1 2-SES 6-0 2-SES
1-15 1-15 1-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
1-13 1-13 1-13
1-7 1-7 1-8
Standards................................................. 16-4 1-15 20-1 2-15 19-3 2-15
3-14 5-14 5-14
1-13 2-13 3-13
4-12 4-12 4-12
1-11 3-11 1-11
3-9 3-7 1-9
2-7 1-6 2-7
1-6 1-6
Technology................................................ 14-5 1-15 18-1 2-15 18-1 2-15
4-14 3-14 3-14
7-13 8-13 11-13
1-7 2-12 1-7
1-6 1-11 1-6
1-7
1-6
Exemptions & Approvals.................................... 15-2 1-15 15-2 1-15 15-2 1-15
1-14 1-14 2-14
5-13 6-13 6-13
4-12 3-12 4-12
1-9 1-11 1-11
2-7 1-9 1-6
1-6 1-7
1-6
Enforcement............................................... 29-10 1-15 35-3 1-15 35-3 1-15
6-14 7-14 7-14
6-13 5-13 5-13
8-12 10-12 17-12
6-11 10-11 3-11
1-9 1-9 1-9
1-7 1-7 1-7
Initiatives & Training.................................... 8-3 1-15 9-2 1-15 10-1 1-15
1-14 2-14 2-14
1-13 1-13 2-13
4-12 4-12 3-12
1-7 1-7 1-9
1-7
Planning & Analysis....................................... 14-2 2-15 14-2 2-15 14-2 2-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
5-13 5-13 5-13
3-12 4-12 4-12
1-11 1-7 1-7
1-7 1-6 1-6
1-6
-----------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................................. 101-28 ....... 117-12 ....... 117-12 .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: RSPA also has 5 other than FTP to bring our total FTE to 122. These positions are: (1) Reader for visually
impaired employee, (1) Co-op student, (1) Stay-in-School student, and (2) worker trainees.
Question. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety is requesting an
increase of 9 staff members (at \1/2\ work-year per position). The new
positions include 5 regional inspection and enforcement staff, 1 team
leader to coordinate the field operations, 2 staff members to work with
USDA and the FDA on implementation of the Sanitary Food Transportation
Act, and 1 transportation and information specialist to develop
compliance assistance packages. Please give the full annualized PC&B
costs for each of these nine positions (which should add to a total of
$684,000).
Answer. The full annualized cost (1 FTE) for the nine positions
(which equals the cost for 9 FTE) identified in our budget for
Hazardous Materials Safety is $740,000. That equals an average salary
and benefits for a GS-13, Step 5 level employee at a cost of $82,200
annually.
The amount requested in the RSPA appropriation for an increase of
4.5 (6.5 new) FTE and an increase of 13 (11 new) positions is $342,000.
That amount includes a reduction of $198,000 from the base for our
proposal to fund 2 existing FTE in Research and Technology from the
Highway Trust Fund. We are also requesting a third FTE funded from the
Highway Trust Fund, which does not impact the base.
Question. Please identify the amount and nature of any
reprogramming or funding shift below the reprogramming threshold that
occurred during the last two years.
Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety did not reprogram
funding in fiscal year 1998. That office does not anticipate the need
to reprogram funding in fiscal year 1999. Minor transfers occurred in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 between object classes within
operating expenses only, with one exception, to meet changing
priorities. The exception in fiscal year 1998 was the transfer of
$200,000 from the Office of Emergency Transportation's Contract
Programs account to the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's R&D
account. The funding was transferred to conduct a Hazard Analysis &
Critical Control Point (HACCP) study similar to the one conducted by
FDA/USDA but concerning transportation of hazardous materials. The
study would look at actual incidents to determine what factors in the
system could be reduced to avoid consequences given various degrees of
probability. The funding was available for transfer because amounts
initially vetoed in fiscal year 1998 were restored after supplemental
legislation provided funding for the same purpose.
information systems
Question. What technology is the HMIS using as its core information
handling system? How old is that system? When will that system be
updated?
Answer. The Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) currently
resides on a Compaq Alpha 7620 platform as part of the computer cluster
located at the Volpe Center. The operating system software is Compaq's
OpenVMS, and the database management system software is Computer
Corporation of America's System 1032. The operating system and database
management system software were last upgraded in 1997. RSPA is in the
process of migrating the HMIS to a new database management system
running on state-of-the art software. This new system is scheduled to
be completely functional in fiscal year 2001.
Question. Do the other modal administrations and the public have
access to the system or does a contractor have to provide all of the
separate analyses requested by the various modes?
Answer. All modal administrations as well as all Federal, state and
local government agencies can be provided direct access to the full
HMIS system. Sixty state and local government agencies and over 480
staff in 60 Federal offices use the HMIS. At the state level, incident
data are used to support legislative and regulatory actions, prioritize
enforcement efforts, allocate emergency response training resources,
conduct studies, and plan and implement hazardous materials programs.
Direct public access is currently provided to the summary data and
statistics posted on OHMS's Internet website. RSPA's HMIS support
contractor can also provide customized analyses of the data to
requesters on a cost-reimbursable basis.
Question. What plans, if any, does OHMS have to update the system
and provide search access to data via the Internet?
Answer. Full Internet access and search capability are functions
planned for the HMIS as part of its migration to the new database
management system. Full functionality is scheduled for fiscal year
2001.
research and analysis
Question. What have you done so far with the additional funds
provided for research to address propane gas service?
Answer. To date, RSPA has concentrated on the development of a
comprehensive safety program for the transportation and unloading of
liquefied compressed gases in cargo tank motor vehicles. RSPA
established a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee (Committee)
comprised of representatives of interests affected by our regulations
working together to analyze safety issues and identify potential
solutions. The Committee has reached agreement on all issues, and a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in Docket HM-225A was published on
March 22, 1999. We expect to publish a final rule this summer.
The NPRM proposes a two-year period from the date of the final rule
for development and testing of emergency discharge control technology.
After a final rule is in place, RSPA plans to use the additional
funding to work with the Committee and in partnership with industry on
the development and testing of emergency discharge control technology.
Question. What progress have you made since last year in developing
improved performance criteria for both passive and remote-controlled
shutoff systems on cargo tank motor vehicles? Do you expect to meet the
reporting requirements specified in the committee report issued last
year?
Answer. On July 16, 1998, RSPA established a negotiated rulemaking
advisory committee (Committee) to develop recommendations for
regulations applicable to the transportation and unloading of liquefied
compressed gases in cargo tank motor vehicles. In a negotiated
rulemaking, representatives of interested parties worked together to
analyze safety issues and identify potential solutions.
The Committee met six times between July 1998 and February 1999,
and reached consensus on a comprehensive safety program. The program
recommended by the Committee includes new performance criteria for the
following elements: (1) new inspection, maintenance, and testing
requirements for cargo tank discharge systems; (2) revised requirements
for monitoring unloading operations of liquefied petroleum gas and
anhydrous ammonia to take account of certain unique operating
characteristics while assuring that the person attending the unloading
operation can quickly determine if an unintentional release occurs; and
(3) revised requirements for state-of-the-art emergency discharge
control equipment on cargo tank motor vehicles, such as passive systems
that will shut down unloading without human intervention and remote
control devices that enable an attendant to stop the unloading process
at a distance from the vehicle. The proposal is flexible and cost-
effective and, when fully implemented, will materially improve the
safety of cargo tank unloading operations.
The proposed regulations will replace the temporary regulation,
which expires on July 1, 1999. A notice of proposed rulemaking was
published on March 22, 1999. We expect to publish a final rule this
summer.
inspection and enforcement program
Question. How has RSPA been working with FHWA to develop an
electronic intrastate database to determine the effectiveness of HM-
200? What is RSPA's technical and financial involvement? What is the
state of that project? Are funds requested for that activity in fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. We have worked with FHWA as it develops an intrastate
database intended to support an enforcement strategy and to determine
the effectiveness of HM-200 in contributing to a reduction in highway-
related incidents involving the intrastate transportation of hazardous
materials. RSPA has not provided funds for this effort and is not
requesting funding for the project in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What are the GPRA goals and performance measures for the
OHMS enforcement and compliance program? How well did you perform last
year against the fiscal year 1998 measures?
Answer. The enforcement program has one performance measure:
decrease the percentage of compliance inspections leading to
enforcement cases to less than 18 percent of reinspections in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 (baseline is 25 percent in fiscal year
1995). In fiscal year 1998, the percentage of compliance inspections
leading to enforcement cases (including tickets) was 18.3 percent.
Question. Please describe how OHMS measures the effectiveness and
productivity of the inspection and enforcement program. Include average
number of enforcement cases, warnings issued, amounts of civil
penalties assessed, and the amounts collected for each of the last
three years. Please evaluate those data on a per inspector or similar
normalized basis.
Answer. RSPA does not measure productivity based on how many
inspections, tickets, cases, or penalties OHMS inspectors produce each
year. Rather, we require each inspector to conduct inspections a
certain number of weeks per year. Our goal is to have each inspector
fully trained and complete his or her assigned amount of inspection
time. Inspections are intended to ensure compliance, vary in length and
complexity, involve considerable training assistance, and often do not
result in any sanctions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 \1\ 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Initiated.................. 246 239 223
Tickets Initiated................ ........... 84 343
Cases Closed..................... 189 189 244
Tickets Closed................... ........... 62 237
Case Penalties Collected......... $900,418 $1,164,154 $1,412,593
Ticket Penalties Collected....... $70,725 $177,175 $257,239
Total Penalties Collected........ $971,143 $1,341,329 $1,669,832
Warning Letters.................. 166 249 217
Work Years of Effort............. 19.75 28.0 31.67
Cases Initiated/Work-Year........ 12.1 6.9 7.0
Cases Closed/Work-Year........... 9.6 7.1 7.7
Penalties........................ $45,693 $41,577 $44,604
Warning Letters/Work-Year........ 8.4 8.9 6.9
Tickets Issued/Work-Year......... ........... 6.1 10.8
Tickets Close/Work-Year.......... ........... 5.2 7.5
Ticket Penalties/Work-Year....... ........... $6,328 $8,122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tickets are not included in the per-work-year statistics because the
first activity did not occur until June 1996.
Question. Please calculate the average settlement percentage
[amount of civil penalties collected for valid claims divided by the
amount of civil penalties originally assessed for valid claims] for
those hazmat cases. Please provide data comparable to those provided
last year.
Answer. The following tables describe civil penalty cases and
tickets closed in the years indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 \1\ 1997 \1\ 1998 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties Proposed............... $1,358,225 $1,608,095 $2,053,196
Penalties Collected.............. $900,418 $1,164,154 $1,412,593
Percentage Collected............. 66 72 69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include tickets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticket Proposed.................. $70,725 $180,325 $257,980
Penalties Ticket Collected....... $70,725 $177,175 $257,239
Penalties Percentage Collected... 100 98 99.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will the compliance assessment audits to be performed by
the five new staff members solely be for educational purposes? What
will be the scope and nature of those audits? Will any enforcement
actions result from those activities? Will other inspectors now on
staff be conducting compliance assessment audits or will those
employees continue enforcement-oriented activities?
Answer. Although the strategy for utilizing five requested
positions is still in development, RSPA intends to analyze past
enforcement histories to identify entities with chronic compliance
issues. RSPA will then contact them with an invitation to work with us
to develop comprehensive compliance plans. RSPA would allow the
entities some time to prepare and implement these plans without threat
of enforcement action. Once the plans were in place, RSPA would inspect
at some future date. Any subsequent noncompliance might result in
enforcement action. In short, while the process itself involves
education to improve compliance, those participating in it will still
be responsible for complying with the regulations. Although the five
new positions will be primarily responsible for this program, RSPA
expects to involve other inspectors, especially when dealing with large
entities.
Question. What are the implications of not funding the
transportation and information specialist position specified on page 58
of the budget justification? How many staff do you currently have on
board in your training office? Why can't those personnel develop the
compliance assistance packages associated with HM-200 and with other
recent rulemakings? Aren't those staff already developing such
materials?
Answer. The size of the regulated community significantly increased
with the adoption of HM-200, which extended the Federal Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR) to all intrastate motor carrier
transportation of hazardous materials. Many small hazardous materials
shippers and carriers, previously not subject to Federal regulations,
need training and educational materials tailored to small businesses to
support training requirements and voluntary regulatory compliance. This
position will provide much needed support in developing educational and
training materials targeted to specific areas of hazardous materials
transportation safety. Our training office has a total of 9
professional and 1 clerical staff. The training staff develops and
distributes educational and outreach materials including training
packages, information brochures, and videotapes. It also publishes and
distributes the NAERG. It conducts outreach and co-sponsors the
Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development program and a
series of multi-modal seminars. As the level of outreach and training
needs have increased, an increased demand for materials that provide
more technical support has developed. Our training staff is not able to
keep up with the demand for the development and distribution of
publications, videotapes and training packages. Without this additional
position, the backlog will increase and materials needed to enhance
compliance and preparedness will not be produced, which could have a
negative impact on the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
Question. What changes in enforcement philosophy or practice have
you made since last year?
Answer. RSPA has made no significant changes to its enforcement
philosophy or practice since last year. We continue to believe in
reaching as many regulated entities as we can through inspections and
outreach, providing awareness and information in both arenas, and
taking appropriate enforcement action when warranted.
With the training of the last of the inspectors hired in 1997
nearly complete, RSPA increased the number of compliance inspections
conducted in 1998 by 25 percent, particularly inspections of shippers.
RSPA's regional hazardous materials offices also increased their
technical assistance and training to state and local enforcement and
response personnel, and industry and the public through presentations,
seminars, and workshops. RSPA continued its successful interagency
agreement with the Department of Defense for package testing. By
targeting packaging marked as capable of withstanding the most rigorous
testing requirements, RSPA has identified compliance problems and
shared them with industry representatives. We have requested additional
funds to expand our testing capability and purchase more packages in
the future.
RSPA has asked for six positions to expand its compliance outreach
effort. If these positions are provided, RSPA intends to establish a
compliance intervention program focusing on companies posing increased
risk in transportation. Enforcement data would be analyzed for evidence
of companies that continue to surface as violators in repeat
enforcement actions. Those companies would be contacted by RSPA and
asked to participate with RSPA in a one-on-one intervention with the
goal of developing a corporate-wide compliance plan.
Question. With the increase in enforcement field office outreach
and training efforts, has the enforcement office reduced the number of
inspections or reinspections conducted?
Answer. No. The number of inspections increased by over 12 percent
in 1997, from 1,218 in 1996 to 1,365, and by 25 percent in 1998, from
1,365 to 1,716.
shipper and carrier registration program
Question. How much of the proposed $320,000 increase for the
registration program is associated with implementing the
recommendations in the April 1998 Inspector General's management
advisory?
Answer. A portion of the increase will be used, in accordance with
the IG recommendations, to expand public information efforts and
enlarge follow-up programs to publicize any changes to the registration
requirements. Additional funds will finance increased costs for the
services provided by banks and contractors under the anticipated
revised regulations. Services provided by banks include data entry of
the registration statements as well as financial services. In fiscal
year 1998 RSPA reimbursed the U.S. Department of Treasury approximately
$45,000 for bank services in excess of those covered by Treasury's
lockbox bank arrangements. In the past, these costs were covered by
Treasury. An increase in this amount is anticipated for fiscal year
2000. The remaining funds will pay for additional costs associated with
an anticipated increase in the number of annual registrations that will
occur if the proposed revisions to the registration program are
instituted in fiscal year 2000. These services include registration
certificate issuance, assistance to registrants, and additional
mailings and public informational efforts.
Question. Please display the total in registration fees collected
for each of the last five fiscal years, broken out by use (emergency
response activities and administrative costs). How much do you expect
to collect during fiscal year 1999 and during fiscal year 2000?
Answer.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNDS RECEIPTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing fee Grants program
Registration year receipts receipts Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................................................ 1.397 6.986 8.383
1995............................................................ 1.365 6.873 8.238
1996............................................................ 1.605 6.910 8.515
1997............................................................ 1.300 7.372 8.673
1998............................................................ 1.409 7.970 9.379
1999 \1\........................................................ 1.400 7.000 8.400
2000 \1\........................................................ 1.125 14.500 15.625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
Question. For each of the modal administrations that enforce the
registration requirement, please present data on the number of
enforcement actions taken against those that have not registered or
paid the required fee, or failed to present the registration number as
required. What else is being done to ensure that those companies which
are required to pay do pay? What recent checks for compliance were
conducted?
Answer. The FHWA opened 374 cases between June 1993 and September
1998 that included citations for violations of the registration
regulations. Additionally, FHWA has issued 96 ``Notices of the
Requirement to Register,'' an informal notice developed for use during
Roadcheck 1993. From June 1995 through June 1998, FRA and state rail
inspectors issued 185 defect notices related to the registration
requirements. In CY 1995 through 1998, RSPA's Office of Hazardous
Materials Enforcement initiated 80 enforcement actions at included
violations for failure to register.
RSPA continues to implement a public information effort by mailing
registration information to companies identified in Federal sources as
being likely to be required to register. In fiscal year 1998, RSPA
implemented recommendations from the IG that enlarged this effort. RSPA
also annually publishes a public notice in the Federal Register
outlining the registration program requirements, sends information to
cooperating industry groups for publication in their newsletters, and
supplies informational brochures to requesting organizations for
distribution to their members. RSPA places registration information in
information racks in approximately 200 truck stops across the Nation.
In addition to the Federal enforcement efforts, most state enforcement
agencies assume responsibility for enforcing the Federal HMR, including
the registration requirements.
Question. What is the scope of cooperation and assistance that you
are receiving from the Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety
regarding enforcement of the hazmat registration program? How many new
cases did FHWA open during each of the last three years? How many did
they close? What action was taken on each case?
Answer. RSPA and FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety
(OMCHS) continue to work together to improve compliance with the
registration program. For example, OMCHS has incorporated the
registration regulations into its routine compliance review procedures
and has issued at least 374 citations for failure to register or for
related record-keeping requirements, of which 79 were issued in fiscal
year 1996, 44 in fiscal year 1997, and 35 in fiscal year 1998. When
cases for failure to register are completed, OMCHS frequently issues a
press release to highlight the enforcement actions taken. RSPA supplies
copies of the registration brochure to the OMCHS regional offices for
them to distribute.
Question. What compliance rates were achieved in the 1996-1997
registration cycle and are estimated for the 1998-1999 registration
cycle?
Answer. We believe compliance with the registration requirement is
greater than 90 percent. This conclusion is based upon analysis by use
of the Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS) (1987), which provides
specific data on truck characteristics and other data on
characteristics of the hazardous materials industry. Included in TIUS
are data on the number of trucks involved in hazardous materials
transport, and the number of trucks and/or trailers owned and/or
operated at the same home base. We were able to extrapolate from these
data the approximate number of companies, not under lease, using one or
more placarded trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more. Airlines and
railroads are well known, and we are confident that they are
registered. During fiscal year 1996 the OMCHS opened 79 enforcement
cases citing the registration regulations as a result of 3,215
compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers, indicating a 97
percent compliance rate. During fiscal year 1997 the OMCHS opened 44
enforcement cases citing the registration regulations as a result of
1,369 compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers, indicating a
97 percent compliance rate. During fiscal year 1998 the OMCHS opened 35
enforcement cases citing the registration regulations as a result of
2,032 compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers, indicating a
98 percent compliance rate. During CY 1996 RSPA's Office of Hazardous
Materials Enforcement conducted 610 inspections resulting in 15
citations of the registration regulations. In CY 1997 875 inspections
were performed, resulting in 20 citations of the registration
regulations. In CY 1998 1,053 inspections were performed, resulting in
20 citations of the registration regulations. These two sets of
inspection results indicate a compliance rate of 97 percent. We expect
that the compliance rate for 1999 will remain consistent with the
previous years.
safe food transportation
Question. What types of cooperative efforts are now underway with
USDA and the Food and Drug Administration? Don't you conduct those
activities using existing staff?
Answer. With existing staff, RSPA conducts limited monitoring of
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) activities. Existing staff are expert at hazardous
materials transportation safety, which is significantly different from
sanitary food transportation. Thus, RSPA's current staff does not have
the capability to carry out Sanitary Food Transportation Act (SFTA)
mandates. RSPA also does not have staff that can be diverted to
undertake food safety responsibilities.
Question. What new activities will be undertaken with the $300,000
in program dollars requested for implementation of the Sanitary Food
Transportation Act?
Answer. RSPA proposes to cooperate with USDA, FDA and the
Environmental Protection Agency to address food safety transportation
issues. Activities would include determining the adequacy of packagings
in minimizing or eliminating risks of transporting food products in
vehicles used for nonfood products, issuing regulations with respect to
the transportation of food in motor vehicles or by railroad. We will
also provide cross-training to Federal (DOT, FDA, and USDA) and state
inspectors to recognize and report suspected food contamination
incidents.
Question. Why is it critical at this time to increase the number of
staff working on this challenge? What was the origin of the funding and
staff request in this area?
Answer. The Administration's efforts to transfer principal
responsibilities for the safe transportation of food to the FDA and
USDA have been unsuccessful, and RSPA remains responsible for
implementing SFTA, as it has since 1990. RSPA believes it has unique
expertise and an appropriate role in food transportation in cooperation
with FDA and USDA. Regardless of whether primary responsibility for
SFTA is transferred, RSPA will continue to be responsible for
significant elements of the Act.
research and development
Question. The regulation compliance activity has been doubled from
the enacted level of $236,000 to $470,000. Why is such a large increase
necessary for this activity? What would be the consequences of freezing
the funding for this activity at the enacted level?
Answer. The funding is for our testing program to determine
compliance with packaging performance standards. RSPA has an
interagency agreement with the Department of Defense's package testing
facility in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, and has been purchasing and
testing packagings for the past three years. This program has been very
successful in determining non-compliance, and in capturing the
attention of the new and reconditioned drum industries, and has led to
a number of outreach presentations and meetings with industry and trade
association representatives.
The additional funding was requested because Tobyhanna has modified
its facility to allow us to purchase and test intermediate bulk
containers (IBCs), another area where we have found non-compliance.
These packages are much larger than those currently being tested and
thus cost much more both to purchase and test. We also want to expand
our testing beyond only those packages that we believe are incapable of
meeting the marked requirements; we want to broaden the test program to
include random purchase and testing of a full range of UN-certified
packages. Without the additional funding, we would be limited in our
ability to purchase IBCs and unable to expand the testing program.
office of research and technology
research and technology strategic goals
Question. Please update the answer provided last year on pages 740-
741 of Senate Hearing 105-851, regarding the role of the RSPA Research
and Technology Office in coordinating transportation research and
development across the federal government. What, if anything, is new in
the Department's process of proposing, approving, planning and
deploying research programs and projects, and disseminating the
resulting knowledge to interested parties in the public and private
sector? How did TEA-21 influence those mechanisms?
Answer. The strategic planning process described in last year's
answers remains essentially unchanged. Steps have been taken, however,
to strengthen the linkage among the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) strategic planning process (e.g., Transportation Science
and Technology Strategy, Transportation Technology Plan and
Transportation Strategic Research Plan), the DOT Strategic Plan, DOT
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Performance Plans, and the annual
performance agreements between the heads of the operating
administrations and secretarial officers and the Secretary. TEA-21 did
not influence these mechanisms but has helped to institutionalize and
strengthen the strategic planning process for R&D across the department
ensuring that it better supports the Department's five strategic goals
and the mission-related goals of the operating administrations.
Specifically, it will strengthen the analytic base of the DOT
Transportation R&D Plan and the coupling of that Plan to the overall
DOT Strategic Planning Process. It will also expand the current
National Research Council (NRC)/Transportation Research Board Committee
on the Federal Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process to look at
specifically how DOT Strategic and Performance Plans and Program
Performance Plans in the context of DOT surface transportation research
and technology development.
Question. You have stated that RSPA needs to do cross-cutting and
intermodal research. Please give specific examples of key needs in
cross-cutting or intermodal research that you plan to fund in fiscal
year 2000.
Answer. RSPA's budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes funding
to perform cross-cutting research, education and technology transfer
programs in TEA-21 assigned by the Secretary (i.e., University
Transportation Center Program).
Question. Did RSPA or OST obtain any funding in either fiscal year
1998 or 1999 from FHWA's surface transportation research account for
research planning or completion of strategic documents prepared by RSPA
or OST? If so, please specify the amount in each year. Besides the UTC
personnel costs, and the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program costs,
does RSPA plan to obtain any funds from DOD?
Answer. RSPA received $174,000 in fiscal year 1998 from the FHWA
surface transportation research account to develop two research plans
dealing with human performance and behavior. The plans--Fatigue
Management for Transportation Operators and Advanced Instructional
Technology--are being finalized. RSPA and OST did not receive any other
funding in fiscal year 1998 for completing the strategic documents they
prepared concerning research and development.
RSPA is expecting to receive $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for the
Advanced Vehicle Technology Program from DOD, RSPA does not anticipate
receiving any additional funding from DOD.
personnel and administrative expenses
Question. Your budget request proposes funding three full-time
positions through the highway trust fund to support the University
Transportation Centers (UTC) program. There have traditionally been two
FTEs associated with this program, funded from general funds under
RSPA's R&T budget. The additional position is being proposed to support
the expansion of the UTC program as outlined in TEA-21. The PC&B
savings associated with this proposal are $129,000. Is this correct?
What is the level of reimbursable funding from Federal Highway
Administration highway trust funds to support the three total UTC
positions?
Answer. The amount of $129,000 is the difference between enacted
PC&B level for fiscal year 1999 and the fiscal year 2000 request. This
is a net difference includes increases for pay raises and merit
increases for the staff positions that will continue to be funded from
appropriated budget authority.
The cost of funding the two current positions associated with the
UTC program is $198,000. The amount of reimbursable funding from
Federal Highway Administration highway trust funds that will be
necessary to support the three total UTC positions is $297,000.
Question. Please provide an explanation of how the $105,000
requested for administrative expenses is used.
Answer. The $105,000 requested for administrative expenses will be
used as shown below:
Fiscal year 2000
Administrative Expenses (Planned)
Training...................................................... $10,000
Printing...................................................... 49,000
Supplies & Materials.......................................... 15,000
Equipment..................................................... 14,000
Travel........................................................ 17,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 105,000
r&d planning and management
Question. Please break out the amount requested for each of the
research planning and management activities for fiscal year 2000 that
will be funded with the $2,235,000 requested on pages 104 through 109
of the budget justification.
Answer. RSPA plans to fund the following R&D research planning and
management activities in fiscal year 2000:
Strategic Planning and Systems Assessment:
Peer/Merit Review......................................... $200,000
NSTC Transportation Technology Plan....................... 100,000
Private-public Partnership Outreach....................... 50,000
NSTC Strategic Research Plan.............................. 100,000
DOT R&D Plan.............................................. 150,000
International S&T Assessments............................. 100,000
Sustainability............................................ 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 800,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
DOT Research and Technology Coordination and Facilitation:
Public-private Partnerships............................... 300,000
Enabling Research Outreach................................ 100,000
Research and Technology Coordinating Council.............. 50,000
Innovation Partnerships................................... 50,000
National Research Council Government University-Industry
Research Roundtable..................................... 125,000
TRB Annual Fee............................................ 50,000
International (e.g., NAFTA,U.S.-E.U.)..................... 150,000
DOT R&D Tracking System................................... 200,000
DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer Program................... 100,000
Homepages................................................. 210,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,335,000
Intermodal and multimodal Research and Education: Small
Business Innovative Research.............................. 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 100,000
Question. Please provide a project break out of how research
planning and management funds which were appropriated in fiscal years
1998 and 1999 have been or will be spent. Please indicate whether
projects are ongoing (into 2000), or have been completed.
Answer. RSPA has funded or plans to fund R&D research planning and
management activities in fiscal year 1998 and 1999 (NOTE: (o) indicates
project is ongoing; (c) indicates project is completed):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Planning and Systems Assessment:
NSTC Science and Technology Strategy (c).... $100,000 $50,000
Peer/Merit Review (o)....................... 152,000 150,000
NSTC Transportation Technology Plan (o)..... 50,000 100,000
Private-public Partnership Outreach (o)..... 86,000 100,000
NSTC Strategic Research Plan (o)............ 50,000 100,000
DOT R&D Plan (o)............................ 150,000 150,000
International S&T Assessments (o)........... 100,000 100,000
Sustainability (o).......................... 75,000 100,000
DOT Research and Technology Coordination and
Facilitation:
Public-private Partnerships (o)............. 300,000 300,000
Enabling Research (o)....................... 125,000 100,000
Research and Technology Coordinating Council 50,000 50,000
(o)........................................
Innovation Partnerships..................... 50,000 50,000
Government-University Industry Research 125,000 125,000
Roundtable (o).............................
TRB Annual Fee (o).......................... 50,000 50,000
International (e.g., NAFTA, U.S.-E.U.)(o)... 100,000 150,000
DOT R&D Tracking System (o)................. 100,000 100,000
Research and U.S. Database.................. 70,000 ..........
DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer Program (o). 75,000 100,000
Homepages (o)............................... .......... 210,000
Intermodal and multimodal Research and
Education:
Small Business Innovative Research (o)...... 42,000 150,000
R&D Surveys................................. 200,000 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Has the Office of Research and Technology concluded its
work on the DOT Transportation R&D Plan, as required by both ISTEA and
TEA-21? Are any fiscal year 2000 funds requested to support the
printing and distribution of this plan, or will it be released in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The first edition of the DOT Transportation R&D Plan is in
the final stages of development and will be released in fiscal year
1999. A second edition will be developed, updated to include more
detailed information as required by TEA-21 and released in February
2000 as part of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget submission to
the Congress.
university transportation centers grants program
Question. Please display the University Transportation Centers
(UTC) budget for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Include funding
sources, amounts released in grants (by TEA-21 institution groupings),
and administrative and evaluation costs.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Funding sources -----------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA R&D Approps................................................. $5,980,00 \2\ $5,940,000 $1,000,000
Transit Acct. of the Hwy. Trust Fund............................ .............. .............. 4,400,000
Highway Trust Fund.............................................. 22,800,000 22,640,000 \3\ 24,197,100
-----------------------------------------------
Total Program Funding..................................... 28,780,000 28,580,000 29,597,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
\2\ FTA did not indicate how much came from which source.
\3\ Assumes FHWA will withhold $55,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Costs \1\ -----------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A......................................................... $9,147,200 $8,744,360 $8,598,230
Group B......................................................... 2,195,200 2,097,600 3,436,000
Group C......................................................... 6,174,000 6,469,100 6,449,750
Group D......................................................... 10,975,800 10,992,000 10,872,000
Admin. and Evaluation........................................... 287,800 276,940 241,120
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 28,780,000 28,580,000 29,597,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table indicates the fiscal year of the funding awarded and not the year in which the grants were made.
\2\ Estimate.
Question. Please list all of the universities now receiving funds
authorized in TEA-21 and the amounts provided to each university in
fiscal years 1998, 1999, and anticipated for fiscal year 2000.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------------------------
UTC Name Location 1998-1998 1998 1999 2000 2000
Authorized Awarded Awarded Authorized Awarded \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama, U. of....................................... $750,000 $686,000 $655,500 $750,000 $644,250
Arkansas, U. of...................................... 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
Assumption College................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
Central Florida, U................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
Denver, U. of........................................ 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
George Mason U....................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,718,000
Idaho, U. of......................................... 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
Marshall U........................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,718,000
Minnesota, U. of..................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Missouri-Rolla, U.................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
Montana State U...................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,718,000
Morgan State U....................................... 750,000 686,000 940,300 750,000 970,000
+250,000 +250,000
NC State U........................................... 750,000 686,000 940,300 750,000 970,000
+250,000 +250,000
NCA&T................................................ 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
NJIT................................................. 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
Northwest U.......................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Purdue............................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
Rhode Island......................................... 2,000,000 1,829,300 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,718,000
Rutgers U............................................ 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
San Jose State U..................................... 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
So. Carolina State................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
South Florida, U. of................................. 750,000 686,000 655,500 750,000 644,250
Southern Calif., U................................... 300,000 274,400 262,200 500,000 429,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGIONAL CENTERS--RECIPIENTS OF FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2003 TO BE SELECTED COMPETITIVELY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTC Name Location 1998-1998 1998 1999 2000 2000
Authorized Awarded Awarded Authorized Awarded \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 2....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 3....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 4....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 5....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 6....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 7....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 8....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 9....................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
Region 10...................................... 1,000,000 \2\ 1,000,0 \2\ 890,000 1,000,000 859,823
00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estmate.
\2\ Award amount included unobligated fiscal year 1997 UTC Program Funds.
Question. For each university which has received grants from the
UTC program in fiscal years 1998 or 1999, please specify what research
programs are supported, and describe what the Department is doing to
integrate the research activities conducted by each center or
university with the Department's own research.
Answer. To date, UTC grants awarded under TEA-21 have involved
funding from fiscal year 98 and prior years' carryovers. Because UTC
grants have historically been awarded at the end of the fiscal year, no
fiscal year 1999 funding has yet been awarded.
All UTCs are empowered to select their research projects, but they
must do so through a process that includes peers and other experts in
the field, including at least one individual from the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT). In addition to considering each proposal's
technical completeness and feasibility, a UTC's selection process must
include multiple additional rating factors, not least of which is the
project's relevance to the UTC's chosen theme and to the Department of
Transportation's strategic goals. Participation by DOT staff ensures a
two-way conduit for information about on-going research between DOT and
the university.
All UTCs are now required to post on their web sites a brief
project description for each of their research projects. These are all
to be provided in HTML format and are to use standard TRB keywords. All
final reports of research conducted with UTC funding, after required
peer review, must be published on the UTC's web site in the same
manner. This innovation in the program will greatly facilitate access
by DOT researchers and planners to new and ongoing research. The
Internet makes possible direct interaction between academic researchers
and outside experts.
Of the 33 UTCs authorized in TEA-21, the ten in Group A are about
to be selected through a process of full and open competition. For that
reason, the thrust of their research programs is not known at this
time. The remaining 23 UTCs that were designated in TEA-21 have all
selected their respective center themes. Of those 23, 13 are still
developing their multiyear strategic plans and have not yet begun to
conduct a research program. Ten UTCs are currently operating under an
approved strategic plan. Their research programs address the following
themes:
Montana State University............................ Rural Travel & Transportation.
Morgan State University............................. Transportation: A Key to Human and Economic Development.
New Jersey Institute of Technology.................. Productivity Improvements through Transportation.
Purdue University................................... Safe, Quiet and Durable Highways.
University of Alabama............................... Management and Safety of Transportation Systems.
University of Arkansas.............................. Improving the Quality of Rural Life through
Transportation.
University of Central Florida....................... Application of Simulation Technology to Transportation
Design, Operations, & Safety.
University of Idaho................................. Advanced Transportation Technology.
University of Missouri-Rolla........................ Advanced Materials & Non-destructive Testing Technologies.
University of Southern California................... Solutions to Transp. Issues in Major Metropolitan Areas.
The themes of the ten regional UTCs that are in the last year of
their current grants and must compete to retain the designation are
shown below:
University of California............................ Improving Accessibility for All.
City University of New York......................... Regional Mobility and Accessibility: Investment
Strategies.
University of Michigan.............................. Commercial Transportation.
MIT................................................. Strategic Management of Transportation Systems.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln...................... Improved Design & Operation of Transp. Facilities and
Services in Mid-America.
North Dakota State University....................... Rural & Non-metropolitan Transportation.
Penn State.......................................... Advanced Technologies in Transportation and Management.
University of Tennessee............................. Transportation Safety.
Texas A&M........................................... Sustainable Transportation for Mobility & Development.
University of Washington............................ Management & Planning in Intermodal Operations.
Question. What are the ten regional centers in each of the ten
United States Government regions? How were these regional centers
selected? Is this selection a fixed, permanent status? If not, what is
the selection term expectancy?
Answer. The current ten regional centers are listed alphabetically
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Regional center
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9................................... California, University of.
2................................... CUNY.
5................................... Michigan, University of.
1................................... MIT.
7................................... Neb.-Lincoln, University of.
8................................... North Dakota State.
3................................... Penn State.
4................................... Tennessee, University of.
6................................... Texas A&M.
10.................................. Washington, University of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first regional centers were selected through a process of full
and open competition in 1987. The winners of that competition received
four-year grants which were renewed non-competitively for an additional
three years. The current regional centers were also selected through a
process of full and open competition which took place in 1994. Grants
were awarded for the three years remaining in the authorization of the
program. When it became clear that the program would not be
reauthorized until a point in the academic calendar when few but the
incumbents would respond to the call for proposals, DOT opted to extend
the incumbent centers' grants non-competitively for one year.
DOT is currently in the midst of the recompetition of the regional
center grants for the five years of program funding remaining in the
program.
Question. How much is spent on conducting the annual on-site
evaluations? What is the source of these funds? What are the benefits
of these assessments, and how does RSPA ensure that universities
respond to the comments?
Answer. RSPA does not yet have actual data on the costs of visiting
the 33 centers created under TEA-21, but can extrapolate costs based on
average costs incurred in conducting such evaluations under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The travel
costs for two RSPA staffers to visit each of the 19 ISTEA grantees once
a year was approximately $12,000. TEA-21 expanded the number of
grantees by 74 percent, from 19 to 33. It also added many sites which
cannot be visited in one day, a factor which increases total travel
costs. At the present time, RSPA estimates that the annual travel costs
for site visits to all 33 centers will be approximately $28,000.
The direct costs of the site inspections are administrative
expenses, some of which are charged against RSPA's administrative
account for travel. The University Transportation Centers Program
authorizes the use of 1 percent of funds available for grants to be
used for coordinating research and conducting annual reviews and
evaluations. The program's two funding sponsors, the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, routinely retain
a portion of that amount to defray the costs they incur in connection
with the program. RSPA uses the balance to comply with the mandate to
establish a clearinghouse for the program and to defray the travel
costs of the annual site visits.
There are many reasons to conduct on-site evaluations of the
centers. Written reports of progress are necessarily limited in their
ability to convey the true status of a center. They cannot convey what
is immediately apparent from an on-site inspection, e.g., whether the
atmosphere of a center is one of positive and productive collegiality
or fiercely disputative parochialism. A written report can document the
number of students participating in research programs, but a site visit
can confirm not merely that there are such students, but also their
enthusiasm, diversity, and extent of involvement in education and
research programs of the center. A site visit can disclose what might
not have been included in a progress report, both positive and negative
findings. For example, one center failed to report its outreach
activities to pre-college students because they were unsure of whether
this was an allowable activity under their grant. The site visit not
only disclosed this activity, but also enabled DOT to highlight it so
that similar undertakings could benefit from the lessons already
learned in running such activities. Annual face-to-face meetings can
improve communications between DOT administrators and the entire center
staff. DOT administrators can give each center's staff guidance focused
on those areas where the center needs to improve (e.g. tracking of
costs and matching funds). One of the most important benefits of on-
site evaluations is the cross-fertilization of ideas that occurs when
DOT staff connect what they've learned at one center with what they
observe at another.
RSPA can ensure that the universities respond to comments or
directions because RSPA retains control of the flow of funding. Unlike
many grant programs, the UTC grants provide funding to the universities
only as reimbursement for costs already incurred. If a center failed to
take action or provide information as directed, RSPA could suspend
payment of the university's claims.
fiscal year 1997 omnibus funding
Question. RSPA received $2,500,000 in the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus
to conduct a transportation system vulnerability assessment. Please
summarize the findings of this assessment.
Answer. The Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessment has
been completed and is in the process of receiving a classification
review by the Department and the National Security Council. Since the
document may be classified, the key findings of the Assessment will be
transmitted under separate correspondence once its final classification
is determined. A September 1998 letter report from the National Academy
of Sciences advisory committee on surface transportation security,
which reviewed the Assessment, states that: ``Even at this early stage
of the study, it is clear that, as noted in the DOT vulnerability
assessment, the security of the U.S. surface transportation system is a
serious problem that deserves careful attention. The system has had
many years of experience responding to natural disasters and accidents,
and it has proven to be quite robust, but it has little experience with
hostile attack. The committee believes that the wide variety of
opportunities for attack on surface transportation is staggering, that
the threat of attacks is incontestable, and that research and
development opportunities that could address that threat must be
examined.''
Question. An amount of $500,000 was provided for a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences for an advisory committee on surface
transportation security. What are the accomplishments of this advisory
committee? Please detail the committee's actions, schedule, and any
initial findings or recommendations thus far.
Answer. The National Academy of Sciences advisory committee on
surface transportation security has completed its review of the surface
transportation vulnerability assessment and ongoing and proposed
Federal security R&D. The Committee is led by the National Research
Council's Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) (i.e.,
National Materials Advisory Board) with participation from the
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Application (e.g.,
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board) and the Transportation
Research Board (TRB). The committee has provided two letter reports
summarizing its review and providing its preliminary observations. The
committee's final report is in the process of being cleared by the
National Research Council before its release in May.
advanced vehicle technologies program
Question. RSPA will oversee the management of the AVTP program. Why
is such a large increase in funding needed--from $14,000,000 in
combined DOT and DOD funds in fiscal year 1999 to $20,000,000 in DOT
funds requested for 2000? What is the empirical basis for that request?
Answer. TEA-21 authorized the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program
(a.k.a. AVP) at $50 million annually. Based on previous funding history
for the DARPA Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program, the Administration
requested $20 million for AVP in the DOT fiscal year 1999 budget
request. Congress appropriated $5 million for DOT.
In fiscal year 1999, the program management is undergoing a
seamless transition from the Department of Defense (DOD) to DOT. DARPA
will contribute $9 million and DOT will contribute $5 million for the
joint awards, with a portion of the DOD funding covering administrative
costs.
The DOT request for $20 million in fiscal year 2000 reflects the
intention to fully transfer the program from DARPA to civilian agency
management. This request was based on previous funding history and on
demonstrated need.
The need for federal funding in this area is reflected in the value
of the proposed projects that went unfunded, and the likelihood that
additional worthy projects were not even proposed due to the funding
limitations. In response to the fiscal year 1999 Advanced Vehicle
Program call for proposals from the seven regional consortia, DOT and
DOD received approximately 280 project white papers requesting about
$140 million in Federal funding. The $140 million was matched by an
equal amount in public and private sector share.
After a formal review and evaluation process by the Government, the
seven consortiums were asked to develop full proposals for 100 of the
proposed projects. These 100 proposals requested over $40 million in
Federal funding with more than $40 million public and private sector
match. After a formal review and evaluation process, the final projects
are being selected to fit within the constraints of available Federal
fiscal year 1999 funds of $14 million.
Question. The Federal Highway Administration budget includes
$20,000,000 in contract authority from the highway trust fund for the
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program. This particular $20,000,000 in
contract funds is authorized in TEA-21 for the Magnetic Levitation
Technology Deployment program, but in the budget request, DOT proposes
that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, these funds be made
available for the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVTP). Is this
the only instance in the President's budget request, other than the
treatment of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority funds, where a
``firewalled'' program's funds have been eliminated in order to fund a
project that is authorized for general funds only?
Answer. Yes, AVTP is the only instance in the President's budget
request, other than the treatment of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
funds, where a ``firewalled'' program's funds have been eliminated in
order to fund a project that is authorized for general funds only.
Question. Did the Department of Energy contribute any funds to this
partnership in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Department of Energy did not contribute any funds to
the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program in fiscal year 1999. DOE
staff provided technical input into the review and evaluation of the
full proposals submitted.
Question. Is any Department of Defense or Department of Energy
funding requested for the AVTP program in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget request? If so, how much is requested in each budget, and
from what agencies and accounts?
Answer. The Department of Defense has planned to transfer the AVTP
program to civilian agency management in fiscal year 2000. As a result,
the Department of Defense has not requested funds for this program in
fiscal year 2000.
The Department of Energy has not requested funds for the AVTP.
Question. How much of the fiscal year 1999 and the fiscal year 2000
monies for that program will be allocated to RSPA or to any other DOT
budget, and how much will be contracted to the partners?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, none of the funds will be allocated
to RSPA or any other DOT offices; all DOT funds will be awarded to the
partners. DARPA is funding the technical and management support
activities in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, DOT will need to
fund this activity, estimated at about $650,000.
Question. Please detail the agreements now in hand for industry
matching funds for this program.
Answer. The ``other transactions'' agreements between DOT and the
consortia are nearing completion. The agreements contain the
requirement that a minimum 50 percent cost sharing on the consortium
project will be provided by non-federal sources.
Question. What were the broad performance guidelines that
influenced the initial concept papers for the solicitation? Which
consortia received the initial awards?
Answer. The solicitation for the concept papers focused on
technologies and projects that would help serve the following goals and
performance objectives: (1) improving vehicle fuel efficiency (2)
reducing vehicle emissions (3) fostering economic competitiveness in
advanced transportation vehicle technologies and (4) enhancing public
acceptance of advanced vehicles and infrastructure. Based on these
objectives, the proposals were evaluated in terms of the technical
merit of the concept and the application potential. The final
recommendations for project selections have been identified by a
Project Evaluation Team made up of representatives from the Department
of Defense, Transportation and Energy. These recommendations have been
transmitted to DOT and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for
approval. Each of the seven consortia have several project awards that
meet the performance criteria.
Question. Which types of technologies will be emphasized?
Answer. The emphasis is on electric and hybrid-electric vehicle
technologies and associated infrastructure development for medium and
heavy duty vehicles. This encompasses vehicle component technologies
such as batteries, fuel cells, ultra-capacitors, flywheels and
containment, electric drive trains, auxiliary power units, high
efficiency motors, high power electronics, vehicle controllers,
lightweight chassis developments, rapid chargers and infrastructure
technologies such as rapid battery charging facilities and alternative
fuel supply systems.
Question. Please summarize the scope and nature of the research
proposals (white papers) that you received from each of the consortia.
Answer. The following are selected examples that represent the
general scope and cross section of research proposal topics received
from the consortia. They do not necessarily represent projects that
will be funded.
Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortia (NAVC).--Composite Hybrid
Bus; Solectria motors and controllers; hybrid propulsion systems;
hybrid ultra capacitor battery storage and inverters with PML
capacitors; Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles
(MARCAV): Extending range of hybrid electric vehicles; analytical
techniques to simulate battery processes; high performance hybrids;
brushless motor and alternator systems;
The Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation (SCAT).--
Flywheel systems and safety; electric bus systems; hybrid truck
chassis; capacititive charging systems; Nickel-Cadmium batteries and
Powered trailer systems;
ELECTRICORE.--Hybrid conversion systems; EV/HEV's for national park
systems; Modeling and simulation; electric variable transmission and
battery test methods;
CALSTART.--High efficiency turbo generation; hybrid electric truck;
rapid recharging fly wheel systems; airport vehicle systems; micro
turbines; magnetic bearings and fuel cells;
Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium (SETC).--fuel cells
exchange membrane; electric bus platforms; battery dominant hybrids;
battery test laboratory; fast charging systems and Plastic Lithium-Ion
batteries;
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project (HEVDP).--electric
and hybrid vehicle national data center; rapid charging electric
infrastructure systems; EV ready state projects and battery management
systems.
Question. How does this program form an integrated or coordinated
approach to research in this diverse area? Would it be worthwhile to
prepare a strategic plan or outline of a five year research program for
the joint partnership to ensure that an integrated and coordinated
program is actually implemented?
Answer. AVTP is coordinating its activities with other agencies
including DOD and DOE performing R&D on medium and heavy-duty vehicles
to minimize duplication.
The National Science and Technology Council Transportation R&D
Subcommittee, which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of
Transportation, is in the process of developing a strategic plan for
all Federal medium and heavy-duty vehicle R&D programs. This will
include AVTP. AVTP will also be incorporated as part of the DOT
strategic planning process and DOT Transportation R&D Plan.
The NSTC Subcommittee on Transportation R&D has requested a review
by the National Research Council (NRC) of Federal medium and heavy-duty
vehicle technologies with the objective of ensuring coordination of
programs across the federal agencies and with public and private sector
entities and of establishing an appropriate merit review process for
the programs.
emergency transportation response
personnel increase
Question. Please describe in detail the job description,
responsibilities and GS ratings of the two new positions for this
office contained in the budget request.
Answer. The two positions requested are for Emergency
Transportation Specialists (GS-2101) at the GS-13/14 level. In 1998,
OET received a number of critical new assignments centering around new
Presidential Decision Directives (PDD), namely, PDD 62, 63 and 67.
These PDDs place an extraordinary responsibility on a small office with
department-wide responsibilities. To meet these responsibilities and
workload, two additional staff positions are critically needed.
The incumbent of one position would provide high-level program
management for the Department-wide Continuity of Operations (COOP) and
Continuity of Government (COG), Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) programs.
Duties would be split between managing and directing operational
activities and plans at HQ, along with the other DOT Operating
Administrations, as well as at the DOT COOP alternate facility at the
FEMA Mt. Weather Emergency Assistance Center (MWEAC). This position
will maintain the DOT functional capability at MWEAC, conduct training,
design exercises, maintain communications with the Operating
Administrations and other Federal agencies and test and maintain
equipment at that facility. Lastly, they will maintain call down lists,
manage contractor support, maintain a close liaison with FEMA, and
serve as staff link between DOT HQ and the COOP/COG sites.
The incumbent in the second position would serve as the
technological/natural hazards project manager. The incumbent's duties
concern operational crisis management issues, and the performance of
research and analysis on special projects. In addition, the incumbent
would prepare transportation plans for a major earthquake affecting the
7 States of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC),
maintain emergency plans, and work directly with State DOT's and
emergency services agencies in the multi-State area in the central U.S.
as well as the four FEMA and DOT regions in the area. This
unprecedented tasking came to DOT from FEMA. Additionally, the
incumbent will provide guidance to the Regional Emergency
Transportation Representatives (RETREPs) in earthquake planning
efforts.
Lastly, the incumbent will work on Project Impact disaster
mitigation activities which include contact with State officials,
collection and analysis of information from a variety of sources,
attendance at related FEMA regional meetings, collaboration with States
and local governments and the identification of DOT related mitigation
projects. DOT serves as a centralized information exchange for the
other DOT operating administrations on Project Impact.
Question. How much of the $197,000 PC&B increase is associated with
\1/2\ year funding for these two new positions, and how much is
associated with merit increases and colas?
Answer. The Office of Emergency Transportation requires $104,000 to
fill 2 half-year new positions at the 13/14 level to handle the new
responsibilities resulting from Presidential Decision Directives 62, 63
and 67. The remainder of the total $197 thousand increase is necessary
for time-in-service and annual pay raises, as well as for merit
increases, promotions and overtime.
crisis management center
Question. How much of your budget request supports the maintenance
of the Crisis Management Center?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $37,000 would be available for Crisis
Management Center maintenance and repair (i.e., ensure computer systems
and audio-visual equipment work properly at all times).
Question. How many times in fiscal year 1998 was the Center
activated and for which reasons? How many times thus far in fiscal year
1999 has the Center been activated and for what reasons?
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, RSPA's Office of Emergency
Transportation, in coordination with the other DOT Operating
Administrations, responded to 31 separate disaster incidents. During
these disaster activations, the CMC was used to produce and disseminate
224 reports and studies. These included: ice storms in the Northeast;
the Midwest snow storm; Operation Desert Thunder efforts in the Persian
Gulf; wildfires in FL, TX and Mexico; several typhoons; flooding in TX
and TN; Hurricanes Mitch, Georges, Pauline, Bonnie and Danielle, and
other seasonal storms. With its available technology and usefulness as
a training environment, the CMC is essentially used on a daily basis.
To date, in fiscal year 1999, we have activated the CMC
approximately 9 times for tornadoes in AR, winter storms in the Pacific
Northwest, blizzards in the Midwest and in the NE, severe cold weather
in AK, DC snow storms, TX fall flooding, landslides in ID and winter
storms in New York. In addition, the CMC is used daily by the Office of
Emergency Transportation Staff in seeking information on ongoing
disasters and in preparing reports.
The CMC was also activated in association with the White House
Information Coordination Center for a trial run of possible Y2K events
with the turnover of the Julian Calendar on April 9. The CMC will also
be used as the Y2K Emergency Response Center for DOT on other
significant Y2K events throughout the year, and as a link to the FEMA
Operations Center during late December 1999 and early January 2000.
emergency transportation budget
Question. Please specify what research and development activities
the Office of Emergency Transportation plans to accomplish with a
budget of $235,000. Why is it judged critical to increase funding at
this time?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, OET will continue ongoing research
projects ($50,000)and will initiate R&D efforts to support our new
COOP/WMD/CIP assignments under PDD 62, 63 and 67. We need contractor
assistance to research reliable, realistic and cost-effective ways of
meeting and updating our COOP/WMD/CIP plans ($110,000). Research
assistance is necessary to complete the technical portions of a multi-
State transportation plan for responding to what could be the most
catastrophic event in history, involving air, surface, rail and
waterway elements. Portions of the plan are heavily dependent upon
technical data gathered from and in association with research
institutions concerning the possible seismic effects on the
transportation infrastructure. In addition, assistance is needed in
developing topic related Annexes to the Federal Response Plan.
($75,000). The new PDD requirements placed on RSPA/OET are extensive,
both in size and scope, and while they will be overseen and managed
with the help of the two additional FTEs, portions of these directives
are very extensive and too technically complex for in-house personnel
to develop without contract support.
The new requirement to develop a multi-state transportation plan
requires the technical expertise of a contractor.
The new work specified in the PDDs requires the completion of
highly technical portions of the DOT COOP Plan, developing a counter
terrorism strategy to address preparedness and consequence management
matters related to WMD and cyber warfare. These are significant long-
term, large scale programs, some with short deadlines requiring
extensive research and interaction among DOT operating administrations,
Federal and State governments, industry groups, and research
institutions.
Question. For the Crisis Response Management program, please
provide a breakdown of how the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
funds were or will be used. Please include a description and rationale
for the reprogramming of fiscal year 1998 funds.
Answer:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Appropriation/Obligation -----------------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program: Crisis \1\ $450,000/ ...................
Response Mgmt................ $200,000
R&D: Response Mgmt Support.... \2\ 50,000/61,000 ...................
Grant: Supplemental-Arab, AL). \3\ 1,000,000/ ...................
.........
Contract Program: Crisis ................... \4\ $382,000/
Response Mgmt................ $632,000
R&D: Response Mgmt Support.... ................... \5\ 50,000/65,000
Grant: Supplemental-Arab, AL.. ................... \6\ 1,000,000/
975,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unused funds carried over; includes $250,000 resulting from Supreme
Court override of line-item veto.
\2\ Used fiscal year 1996 and 1997 carryover funds.
\3\ Unused funds carried over.
\4\ Estimated obligations (include Y2K supplemental and fiscal year 1998
carryover).
\5\ Estimated obligations; used fiscal year 1998 carryover.
\6\ Estimated obligations; unused funds carried over.
The reprogramming effort in fiscal year 1998 came about because of
a grant to the City of Arab, AL for the construction of a tornado
emergency center and a mobile emergency vehicle to travel throughout
the state responding to a disaster. The grant amount was $1 million and
is retained as a separate item. Also in fiscal year 1998 we
reprogrammed $250,000 from the Supreme Court override of the line-item
veto for use in upgrading some of the hardware/software in the Crisis
Management Center and to begin the CUSEC work effort.
This reprogrammed amount raised our initial Crisis Response
Management appropriation of $200,000 to $450,000.
program support
Question. Two new positions are requested for management and
administration: a chief Information Officer, and a Senior Contracting
Specialist. Of the two new positions requested, which is more important
to the agency, and why?
Answer. For two very different reasons, both positions are key to
RSPA's success. Efficient use of resources and accomplishment of RSPA's
performance goals depend on our ability to maintain adequate support
staffing.
As IRM and IT funding within the program offices increases to
support growing and more complex programs, RSPA cannot afford to risk
mismanagement (e.g. inefficiencies, overlap, electronic incompatible
design) of its $8 million, and growing, IRM program. This is
particularly critical concerning information and database systems
within Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials Safety, and RSPA-wide
automation systems. RSPA's CIO will be dedicated to ensuring that a
consolidated, leveraged, customer-focused, and forward thinking program
is developed and implemented. The CIO will bring agency focus to a
disparate RSPA-wide IRM/IT program that currently addresses individual
program needs. RSPA's CIO will be able to review past program
accomplishments in order to link budget requests to performance and
make adjustments or foresee the need for internal analysis before
formal requests are made.
The One DOT vision requires a cross-modal IRM perspective in order
to ensure maximized communications between modes and to ensure cross-
modal programs are appropriately linked. A CIO will be able to provide
an empowered single IRM/IT voice to ensure RSPA is heard and that
databases and other electronic systems within our cross-modal programs
are appropriately developed.
Significant increases in RSPA's Research and Safety programs will
require a skilled, senior procurement professional to execute and
manage complex state of the art agreements and contracts. The Advanced
Vehicle Program (AVP), National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS), and new
R&D programs are highly visible projects of national significance.
Effective implementation of these programs will require the contract
management expertise of a Senior Contracting Specialist on a full time
basis.
The Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is just one of RSPA's major new
high dollar value (requested at $20 million in 2000) research programs
that was authorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century. We will manage that program in partnership with other federal
agencies, private companies, research institutions, and state and local
governments. The AVP program includes innovative contracting mechanisms
such as ``other transactions authority''. This nontraditional,
industry-driven, cost-shared approach to federal contracting increases
the commitment of the partners, leverages valuable research funding,
strengthens the likelihood for success, and reduces risk to the federal
investment.
There will be other significant workload created by other research
projects, such as the Remote Sensors and Advanced Instructional
Technology programs. These R&D programs will also require an
experienced and skilled contracts professional to award and manage
multiple complex R&D contracts, involving multiple contractors and
complex contractor teaming arrangements.
The National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) is a new major safety
program that also directly supports the DOT Strategic Plan by
accomplishing the promotion of our goals (Safety, Mobility, and
Economic Growth and Trade) for the American people. The NPMS
encompasses the management of a complex Architect and Engineering (A&E)
Support Services contract and the awarding and administration of
multiple cooperative agreements with state agencies.
Question. An Increase of $235,000 above the enacted level is
requested for RSPA's information support center. Why is an increase of
this magnitude needed? Please specify what activities were performed
with these funds in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and what activities are
planned for fiscal year 2000 under the budget request.
Answer. In previous years, RSPA has been able to operate its IRM
program using available financial alternatives. Those alternatives no
longer exist. This request simply covers the costs for existing
operations--it does not provide for new initiatives or provide
increased levels of effort for existing activities.
Basic IRM contract support for information technology and automated
systems is essential to the Agency's ongoing operations. RSPA has a
very small contract support organization that must keep up with the
demands (e.g., development of HTML materials for our public websites;
maintenance of financial and incident reporting systems; maintenance of
e-mail, calendaring and other management support protocols) that
sophisticated users and other customers require in order to remain
productive.
Finding and retaining qualified technicians requires offering
competitive salaries in today's job market. The public has expectations
that we will maintain our accessability and that we will continue to
provide them with information through our websites. They also expect us
to continue to be responsive to their Internet inquiries and continue
to support information tools such as broadcasting live discussions of
regulatory issues.
The skill level of our contracted technicians must be maintained to
provide sufficient support for other user service demands as well. We
must continue to maintain the existing demands for support of the
hardware and software used in RSPA.
Question. Is there a current or projected shortage of
transportation engineers or professionals? If not, please explain the
scope and nature of and justification for your commitment to the
Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program. Why is
funding critical at this time, especially given the progress made to
date?
Answer. In 1998 the unemployment rate for engineers was 1.5
percent, which is tantamount to full employment. Within the past five
years, demand for engineering skills has skyrocketed with actual
engineering employment growing almost 20 percent. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts continuing growth in engineering jobs in the coming
century. With this much demand for engineers as well as for other
transportation professionals, it is critical to attract workers who
have the knowledge and skills to design, develop, deploy and maintain
the transportation systems of the future. Without this knowledge base,
the national transportation system will not be able to operate at peak
efficiency.
Question. Department-wide, how much money was allocated for the
Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program during
fiscal year 1998 and how much will be allocated during fiscal year
1999? Please specify the exact source of those funds.
Answer. While all DOT agencies are involved in the Morgan program,
they have been asked to build on existing programs. During fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999, USCG and FAA both contributed $100,000 to
RSPA for the Morgan program.
Question. How much of the GSA rent increase of $280,000 is
associated with headquarters and field office space to be utilized by
the additional RSP staff in hazardous materials, emergency
transportation, and management and administration?
Answer. None of the $280,000 increase is associated with the
increase in staff for RSP. We plan to absorb our office space needs for
the new employees through a more efficient use of existing space. RSP's
request for rent is the Administration's best estimate for the cost of
square footage authorized for RSPA. The increase of 280,000 provides
for increases for RSP's new leases nationwide. New leases were required
as a result of renewing several expiring leases, and the departmental
mandatory requirements for co-locating offices nationwide.
Additionally, the increase provides for GSA's rent increase nationwide
(inflation) of 2.6 percent.
Question. Why is the TASC Working Capital Fund budget estimate so
much higher than the enacted pro-rata share?
Answer. The amount for TASC funding requested in our fiscal year
2000 submission is based on an estimate (provided by TASC) of
anticipated RSPA obligations that are incurred as part of the TASC
revolving fund. The estimates are developed by TASC officials, who
consult with Operating Administration staff. We prorate that estimate
between the RSP and Pipeline Safety appropriations.
The charges that flow through TASC are either mandatory or directly
impact our safety and R&D programs.
RSPA's fiscal year 2000 request increased significantly over the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level due to several factors.
--The amount enacted for RSPA's TASC payment in fiscal year 1999 will
not fully cover the fiscal year 1999 TASC billing estimate. We
have requested the full amount of the fiscal year 2000 TASC
estimate in our budget request for fiscal year 2000.
--The fiscal year 1999 enacted level was based on a TASC estimate
developed during a period when RSPA had many vacancies, but in
the Spring of fiscal year 1998, when the TASC estimate for
fiscal year 2000 was developed, RSPA was at nearly full
staffing. Since a number of the TASC charges are based on a
proration of modal on-board staffing levels, RSPA's share of
total TASC estimate for fiscal year 2000 increased.
--The total estimate for the fiscal year 2000 TASC revolving fund
increased slightly, thereby increasing RSPA's share.
--The fiscal year 1999 enacted level cut $524,000 (general provision
320) from the original fiscal year 1999 TASC estimate. The
combination of those actions caused an overall fiscal year 2000
TASC increase that has impacted RSPA's request.
emergency preparedness grants
Question. Has the agency determined how the increased level of
hazardous materials shipper and registration fees will be assessed?
Will the universe of registered shippers be increased, the fee
structure changed, or enforcement of current fee assessments improved?
When do you expect to complete a rulemaking on this subject?
Answer. RSPA plans to propose a fee structure that will retain a
relatively modest fee for the majority of registrants that are small
businesses. We believe that an equitable assessment of fees that is
easy to understand and implement, but which will also provide increased
funding for the training and planning grants, will be acceptable to
industry. We fully intend to seek industry input as the rulemaking
proceeds. The new fee schedule would be effective July 1, 2000, the
start of the hazmat registration year. In anticipation of that date, it
is expected that a final rule would be published not later than March
1, 2000.
Question. Will the increased emergency preparedness grants program
go into effect if the new or additional hazardous materials
transportation registration fees are not authorized?
Answer. Yes. RSPA has authority to modify the fee structure to
raise approximately $14.3 million for emergency preparedness grants in
fiscal year 2000.
Question. The budget request includes an increase of $6,400,000 for
hazardous materials emergency preparedness grants--$7,800,000 for
training grants, and $5,000,000 for planning grants. This represents a
100 percent increase over the amount let in grants in fiscal year 1999.
The bill language provision regarding charging user fees and depositing
such fees an offsetting collection to the Research and Special Programs
appropriation assumes the collection of $4,575,000 in user fees. Would
the $6,400,000 additional fee funding for emergency preparedness grants
be assumed in addition to the $4,575,000 for activities of the Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2000? Does this mean that RSPA anticipates collecting an additional
$10,975,000 in registration fees and other user fees in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. RSPA will propose to modify the registration fee structure
to raise approximately $14.3 million in fiscal year 2000 for the HMEP
Grants program. If legislative authority to fund RSPA's entire HMS
Program from the registration fee program is granted, we will initiate
an additional rulemaking action to collect approximately $35 million
annually. We would fund the fourth quarter of the HMS Program in the
amount of $4,575,000 from these fees. On an annual basis, we would use
the $35 million to fund both the HMEP Grants program ($15 million) and
the HMS Program ($20 million).
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount allocated to
each of the states for each of the last three years and display the
increase that would be provided if the full request was allowed.
Answer. Increasing the registration fee would double the amount
available for the grants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNT
ALLOCATED IN INCREASE IN
STATES EACH FISCAL FULL REQUEST
YEAR 1996, ALLOWED
1997, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................. $117,942 $117,942
ALASKA.................................. 41,180 41,180
ARIZONA................................. 81,763 81,763
ARKANSAS................................ 72,907 72,907
CALIFORNIA.............................. 485,207 485,207
COLORADO................................ 83,356 83,356
CONNECTICUT............................. 75,144 75,144
DELAWARE................................ 44,913 44,913
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.................... 37,448 37,448
FLORIDA................................. 216,353 216,353
GEORGIA................................. 142,701 142,701
HAWAII.................................. 44,789 44,789
IDAHO................................... 58,847 58,847
ILLINOIS................................ 316,505 316,505
INDIANA................................. 152,033 152,033
IOWA.................................... 104,755 104,755
KANSAS.................................. 117,072 117,072
KENTUCKY................................ 90,198 90,198
LOUISIANA............................... 103,884 103,884
MAINE................................... 53,871 53,871
MARYLAND................................ 94,179 94,179
MASSACHUSETTS........................... 108,362 108,362
MICHIGAN................................ 169,076 169,076
MINNESOTA............................... 129,639 129,639
MISSISSIPPI............................. 88,831 88,831
MISSOURI................................ 134,987 134,987
MONTANA................................. 58,847 58,847
NEBRASKA................................ 92,313 92,313
NEVADA.................................. 58,723 58,723
NEW HAMPSHIRE........................... 52,252 52,252
NEW JERSEY.............................. 155,142 155,142
NEW MEXICO.............................. 73,776 73,776
NEW YORK................................ 252,183 252,183
NORTH CAROLINA.......................... 151,533 151,533
NORTH DAKOTA............................ 77,385 77,385
OHIO.................................... 264,376 264,376
OKLAHOMA................................ 94,553 94,553
OREGON.................................. 91,941 91,941
PENNSYLVANIA............................ 210,132 210,132
RHODE ISLAND............................ 46,281 46,281
SOUTH CAROLINA.......................... 91,692 91,692
SOUTH DAKOTA............................ 61,708 61,708
TENNESSEE............................... 123,044 123,044
TEXAS................................... 321,605 321,605
UTAH.................................... 70,169 70,169
VERMONT................................. 41,927 41,927
VIRGINIA................................ 121,177 121,177
WASHINGTON.............................. 99,033 99,033
WEST VIRGINIA........................... 71,786 71,786
WISCONSIN............................... 129,761 129,761
WYOMING................................. 49,890 49,890
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the application package for the emergency planning
and training grant program include a needs assessment section which
OHMS previously indicated would be used as a baseline to measure the
effectiveness of the program? In addition, did OHMS indicate that as a
part of the curriculum development effort, qualitative and quantitative
state assessment procedures would include state level peer groups to
assist in monitoring and evaluating the program?
Answer. Grantee applications include need assessment sections at
the beginning of each project period. These needs assessments show a
need far in excess of available resources. Each grantee has made
substantial progress against identifying training needs. So far,
694,000 responders and others have been trained, in part, with HMEP
Grants.
State level peer groups qualify courses for inclusion in the
national list of courses. The process in each state, using the national
curriculum guidelines, identifies areas needing improvement. State
training officers modify courses to conform to national standards. In
many cases course material from states having excellent programs is
shared with states needing assistance, thereby realizing economies of
scale.
Question. What is the role of the OHMS training office in the
emergency planning and training grant program meetings, conferences,
training and outreach activities? What is the role of the training
office in the development of training curriculum that training courses
must comply with in order to receive funding under the grant program?
Answer. The OHMS training office is responsible for providing
training materials to the broad spectrum of the hazardous materials
community, including industry, enforcement personnel, and emergency
responders. It also develops, publishes and distributes the NAERG. The
grants program is an interagency grants program designed to assist
public sector emergency responders in planning for and training to
respond to incidents involving hazardous materials.
The training office participates in development of the curriculum
guidelines for the grants program and has provided valuable information
for curriculum development efforts. Training office expertise is
primarily in awareness, compliance and enforcement training. Since the
HMEP grants program is an interagency program, the expertise of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Management Institute
(EMI) is utilized in coordinating the national author team responsible
for preparing and updating the curriculum guidelines. EMI has the
expertise in the higher levels of response training, and is the premier
Federal facility with the knowledge and experience to take the lead to
support guideline development and course preparation.
Question. How could OHMS better merge the activities of the
training office with those of the grant program to realize increased
cost sharing and synergistic benefits?
Answer. The grants unit and the Office of Hazardous Materials
Initiatives and Training work closely together in areas of common
interest to improve the capabilities of the emergency response
community. Grantees and local responders attend training office
sessions funded as grant eligible activities, providing cost sharing
and synergistic benefits. Joint meetings are planned to bring together
grantees and the traditional regulatory, compliance and enforcement
audience served by the training office. Coordination of meetings will
improve the communication and information flow between the grantees and
other state agencies served by the training office and its outreach
activities. Cost savings are realized by reducing the number of
meetings and sharing costs for existing activities to reach a larger,
more diverse audience.
office of pipeline safety
Question. What are the current unobligated balances in the various
sub accounts pertaining to the appropriation for the Office of Pipeline
Safety? What will be unobligated at the end of fiscal year 1999? Will
any unobligated funds be returned to the pipeline safety fund?
Answer. As of April 21, 1999, the total unobligated balance for the
Office of Pipeline Safety was $23.6 million. This includes $5.8 million
for operation expenses; $2.7 million for contract program activities
(one year funds); $1.5 million for R&D program activities (three year
funds); and $13.6 million for grants. We plan to obligate all contract
program and grant funding by close of fiscal year 1999. We estimate
that our 3-year funding that was enacted in fiscal year 1999 for R&D
will have an unobligated balance of approximately $600,000.00 at the
end of fiscal year 1999. At this time, we are estimating a lapse of
less than $100,000 of one year operating expenses. By law, unobligated
``one-year'' funds for a given fiscal year are returned to the Pipeline
Safety Fund 5 years after the close of the fiscal year in which they
were appropriated.
Question. What activities can be funded with the monies that are
available for three years?
Answer. Three year funding availability is requested in our fiscal
year 2000 President's Budget as follows. We have indicated the funding
sources and note that an activity may be funded by more than one source
(e.g. State Pipeline Safety Grants).
Program Activity Amount
Funding Source: Trust Fund Share of Pipeline Safety..... $4,248,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Activity:
Operating Expenses:
Personnel Compensation & Benefits............... 260,000
Administrative Expenses......................... 45,000
Contract Programs:
Information & Analysis.............................. 400,000
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies................. 400,000
Compliance.......................................... 100,000
Training & Information Dissemination................ 100,000
OPA: Implementing the Oil Pollution Act................. 2,443,000
Grants: State Pipeline Safety Grants.................... 500,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Funding Source: Pipeline Safety Fund
Activity: Research and Development.................. 2,144,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Information Systems................................. 400,000
Risk Assessment..................................... 300,000
Mapping............................................. 800,000
Non-Destructive Evaluation.......................... 219,000
Pipe Locating and Monitoring Technology............. 425,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Grants.................................................. 15,519,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
State Pipeline Safety Grants........................ 13,019,000
Risk Grants......................................... 500,000
One-Call Grants..................................... 1,000,000
Damage Prevention Grants............................ 1,000,000
Question. Why is the TASC working capital fund budget estimate so
much higher than the enacted pro rata share?
Answer. The amount for TASC funding requested in our fiscal year
2000 submission is based on an estimate (provided by TASC) of
anticipated RSPA obligations that are incurred as part of the TASC
revolving fund. The estimates are developed by TASC officials, who
consult with Operating Administration staff. We prorate that estimate
between the RSP and Pipeline Safety appropriations.
The charges that flow through TASC are either mandatory or directly
impact our safety and R&D programs.
RSPA's fiscal year 2000 request increased significantly over the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level due to several factors.
--The amount enacted for RSPA's TASC payment in fiscal year 1999 will
not fully cover the fiscal year 1999 TASC billing estimate. We
have requested the full amount of the fiscal year 2000 TASC
estimate in our budget request for fiscal year 2000.
--The fiscal year 1999 enacted level was based on a TASC estimate
developed during a period when RSPA had many vacancies, but in
the Spring of fiscal year 1998, when the TASC estimate for
fiscal year 2000 was developed, RSPA was at nearly full
staffing. Since a number of the TASC charges are based on a
proration of modal on-board staffing levels, RSPA's share of
total TASC estimate for fiscal year 2000 increased.
--The total estimate for the fiscal year 2000 TASC revolving fund
increased slightly, thereby increasing RSPA's share.
--The fiscal year 1999 enacted level cut $524,000 (general provision
320) from the original fiscal year 1999 TASC estimate. The
combination of those actions caused an overall fiscal year 2000
TASC increase that has impacted RSPA's request.
Question. What could be done in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000 to expedite implementation of some of the objectives of the one-
call provisions of TEA-21?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA is doing everything possible to
expedite implementation of the one-call provisions of TEA-21, including
analyzing best practices, establishing cooperative relationships with
all parties to construction around underground utilities, and planning
the grant process contemplated by TEA-21. RSPA is working with 160
federal and state government and private sector experts to identify
best practices in preventing damage to underground facilities. The Team
meets regularly and plans to complete its report to Congress by the end
of June 1999. We are working with several constituencies to determine
how best to ensure that the findings of this effort are understood and
put to use. We will broadcast an interim report via satellite and
Internet in early May. A public meeting will be held, jointly with the
NTSB, on June 30, 1999 to announce the results. In fiscal year 2000, we
will be ready to execute the TEA-21 grants to encourage implementation
of best practices identified in the report.
user fees
Question. Please prepare a comparative historical table displaying
the per mile user fee assessed to gas transmission and liquid pipeline
operators, and the total collected in user fees from each industry in
fiscal years 1996 through 1998 and anticipated for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. A table follows which shows the per mile rate and the total
collections for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. We are currently in the
process of collecting for fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the amounts
shown below indicate the assessment made to the gas and liquid
operators. We estimated the fiscal year 1999 figures based on the
amount of $29,771,259.86. This includes the President's Budget Request
for the Pipeline Safety Program of $34,648,000, less funds derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund of $4,248,000 and $1.4 million
derived from existing user fees, plus an offset to the Research and
Special Programs Appropriation for labor costs to support the Pipeline
Safety Program. Other variables include the offset from previous year
collections. The law allows RSPA to collect 105 percent of the
appropriation and changes for pipeline mileage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Gas Transmission Per Mile Rate Collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996........................ $77.49 $22,475,000
Fiscal Year 1997........................ 67.46 18,927,423
Fiscal Year 1998........................ 67.98 20,050,437
Fiscal Year 1999........................ 70.47 \1\ 20,793,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 based on assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Liquid Per Mile Rate Collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996........................ $49.67 $7,683,000
Fiscal Year 1997........................ 61.27 8,869,716
Fiscal Year 1998........................ 59.59 8,864,335
Fiscal Year 1999........................ 57.88 \1\ 9,077,066
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 based on assessment.
Question. How did you allocate the user fee between gas
transmission lines and product lines for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998? Does this accurately reflect the true allocation of your
efforts and resources? Please document your answer.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, RSPA charged gas
operators 55 percent of program costs and 87 percent of grants. We
charged liquid operators 45 percent of program costs and 13 percent of
grants. These percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts
and resources, as shown in the table that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscla
year 1997 year 1998
Program Activity Gas/ Gas/
Liquid Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B \1\ for the Inspectors (Regions)............. 50/50 50/50
PC&B for HQ personnel............................. 67/33 60/40
Administration.................................... 50/50 50/50
Information and Analysis.......................... 50/50 50/50
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies............... 50/50 50/50
Compliance........................................ 50/50 50/50
Training & Information Dissemination.............. 75/25 75/25
Emergency Response (NRC).......................... 50/50 50/50
Public Education Campaign (One-call).............. 50/50 50/50
Research & Development............................ 50/50 50/50
Average Apportionment......................... 54/47 54/47
Actual Apportionment.......................... 55/45 55/45
Grants........................................... 87/13 87/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel, Compensation & Benefits.
pipeline safety reserve fund
Question. What is the current balance in the pipeline safety
reserve fund? Please provide a historical table displaying the annual
unappropriated balance in the fund from the end of fiscal year 1988
through fiscal year 1999 with an estimated level for fiscal year 2000,
assuming your full request was approved. Please describe how much of
the unobligated balance could safely be drawn down.
Answer. The current balance in the Pipeline Safety (reserve) Fund
as of April 1, 1999 is $15,367,538. The historical table requested is
provided as follows. It replaces the table on page 174 of our budget
request which is in error and is corrected as follows to match the
balance reflected in the U.S. Treasury:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION PIPELINE SAFETY UNAVAILABLE COLLECTIONS \1\
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
Actual Enacted Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance, start of year................. 17,354 16,748 15,348
Receipts............................... 28,964 29,364 34,584
--------------------------------
Total: Balances and collections.. 46,318 46,112 49,932
Pipeline safety (appropriation)........ -29,421 -30,190 -33,939
Research and Special Programs.......... -574 -574 -645
--------------------------------
Total appropriations............. -29,995 -30,764 -34,584
Unobligated balance returned to 354 ......... .........
receipts..............................
Other adjustments...................... 71 ......... .........
Balance, end of year............. 16,748 15,348 15,348
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Identification code 69-5172-0-2-407.
A recent analysis confirms that, as of the end of fiscal year 2000,
the amount held in the fund--in excess of the $11 million needed to
sustain OPS operations--is projected to be about $4 million. This $4
million is far less than the general fund appropriations that this
program had to rely upon in 1986 and 1987 while the pipeline safety
fees were disputed in court. Therefore, we consider the fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2000 estimated reserve fund level of $15.4 million
to be justified.
Question. Please recalculate your answer from last year regarding
the minimum dollar amount that should be retained in the pipeline
safety fund balance in order to maintain the integrity of the pipeline
safety program. What is the justification for the recalculated amount?
Answer. The following table shows funds entering and leaving the
Pipeline Safety Fund from October 1, 1998 through March 30, 1999.
Pipeline Safety Fund (PSF) Balance
[dollars in millions]
Starting Balance--Oct. 1, 1998................................ $16.7
Amount warranted out for program costs--Mar. 30, 1999......... -30.9
Collections through Mar. 30, 1999............................. 32.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Remaining Balance--Mar. 30, 1999........................ 15.4
Additional collections and adjustments to collections
(overpayments/under payments) will impact the balance through September
30, 1998.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, OPS needs a balance in the
fund of at least $11 million to sustain operations until fees can be
collected to replenish the fund. Because appropriations were passed
early in fiscal year 1999, fee assessments were able to be sent out
much earlier in the fiscal year than usual--December 1998. Fortunately,
OPS was able to bill the fee assessments early in fiscal year 1999.
Since the fee assessments are based on the level of appropriations, it
would be too risky to assume that we would receive appropriations in
October each year, as we did in fiscal year 1999.
As of the end of fiscal year 2000, the amount held in the fund--in
excess of the $11 million needed to sustain OPS operations--is
projected to be about $4 million. This $4 million is far less than the
general fund appropriations that this program had to rely upon in 1986
and 1987 while the pipeline safety fees were disputed in court.
Therefore, we consider the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
estimated reserve fund level of $15.4 million to be justified by both
operational needs ($11 million reserve needed to sustain operations)
and as a partial ``reimbursement,'' in effect, to the General Fund.
oil pollution act expenses and other environmental issues
Question. Please allocate and describe all OPS expenses that
legally could be associated with the Oil Pollution Act requirements in
fiscal year 1999 and anticipated in fiscal year 2000. How does this
compare in each fiscal year with the amount derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund? For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, what were the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund transfer levels requested by RSPA prior to
the OMB passback?
Answer. The table below depicts those expenses that legally could
be associated with the Oil Pollution Act requirements for fiscal years
1999 and 2000, and compares the fiscal year 1999 enacted and the fiscal
year 2000 request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999
Activity -------------------------------
Allocation Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B.................................... $729,000 $260,000
Administrative Costs.................... 145,000 45,000
Program................................. 1,071,000 1,000,000
Implementing OPA \1\.................... 2,433,000 2,443,000
R&D..................................... 1,134,000 ..............
Grants/Liquid Programs.................. 1,700,000 500,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 7,442,000 4,248,000
===============================
Fiscal year 1999 RSPA request prior to 7,442,000 ..............
OMB passback...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Plan review, approval, and exercises.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
Activity -------------------------------
Allocation Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B.................................... $906,000 260,000
Administrative Costs.................... 150,000 45,000
Program................................. 2,491,000 1,000,000
Implementing OPA \1\.................... 2,433,000 2,443,000
R&D..................................... 800,000 ..............
Grants/Liquid Programs.................. 2,024,000 500,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 8,814,000 4,248,000
===============================
Fiscal year 2000 RSPA request prior to 8,814,000 ..............
OMB passback...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Plan review, approval, and exercises.
A description of resources and activities used in support of the
OPA program follows:
Positions and FTE
Seven (7) FTE address environmental policy, regulatory development,
spill response plan review and exercise, pipeline inspection and spill
response technical monitoring; special task force/studies of oil
pipeline company risk management programs and operations.
Travel
More than 360 hazardous liquid inspections, including accident
investigations and pipeline construction.
Three (3) area exercises and 20 table top drills.
Information and Analysis
Over half the incident reporting, data collection, analysis and
labor.
Identifying accident cause and consequence, evaluating and acting
on environmental impacts, particularly related to protecting drinking
water sources.
Risk Assessment and Technical Studies
Systematically identify hazardous liquid risks, and compare
relative likelihood and consequences of an adverse event.
Monitor, report and expand the Risk Demonstration and System
Integrity Inspection Pilot programs.
Increase public awareness about potential risks from liquid
pipelines.
Compliance and Spill Response Monitoring
Technical field engineering support for monitoring major spills and
remediation.
Dedicated personnel for integrating public and private sector
incident coordination and decision support for protective actions.
Training and Information Dissemination
Computer-based training (CBT) to update safety evaluations of
hazardous liquid pipeline systems.
Classes and seminars specifically provided to address hazardous
liquid risk and system integrity concerns.
National Pipeline Mapping Systems Operations and Maintenance
Collecting and digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline location
information as it becomes available. Location data are used in
conjunction with data on population, drinking water intakes, and
terrain to set priorities for prevention and response actions.
Non-Destructive Evaluation
Detect mechanical damage to liquid pipelines.
State Grants for Hazardous Liquid Programs
Fund 13 states oversight of intrastate pipeline operations and
maintenance, construction, repairs.
Question. Please describe progress made in the environmental
indexing effort. What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal
year 1998? How much is being spent in fiscal year 1999 for this
activity, and for what purposes? What new initiatives will be conducted
during fiscal year 2000 and how much will that cost?
Answer. RSPA has been working with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), as mandated by statute, and the Departments of Interior
(DOI), Agriculture (USDA), and Commerce (DOC), environmental
organizations, technical experts, and the pipeline industry to identify
and locate resources that are most susceptible to a hazardous liquid
release, or for which consequences would be most adverse if affected by
a release. RSPA is working on databases that will provide the
information necessary to locate unusually sensitive areas, once we have
a completed definition.
As a first step, RSPA has used fiscal year 1998 funding to create a
catalog that tells how we determined what drinking water resources are
most susceptible to contamination from a hazardous liquid release, and
how to locate these resources. We have placed the catalog on the RSPA
Internet site http://ops.dot.gov.
RSPA has also used fiscal year 1998 funding to gather drinking
water data and to process this data in a geographic information system
(GIS)in several states. In addition, fiscal year 1998 funds were used
to create agreements with the agencies responsible for drinking water
data to verify that the final maps truly depict the most unusually
sensitive drinking water resources. Because the data are not created
and maintained by a single government agency, RSPA is collecting the
data and putting it into a common format.
RSPA expects to spend $400,000 in fiscal year 1999 to continue to
obtain and process drinking water data, and to begin collecting and
processing ecological data. Ecological data includes threatened and
endangered species, species at risk of global extinction, and areas
where a large percentage of the world's migratory birds congregate. All
of the location data on threatened and endangered species and species
at risk of global extinction are created and maintained at the state
level by State Heritage Programs or State Nature Conservancies. RSPA is
establishing agreements with each agency to access the data. RSPA is
also working with several agencies and environmental organizations to
co-fund standardizing this data, converting the paper data on the
sensitive resources to digital data, gathering the digital data into a
common national database, and making the data available to the public
and other government agencies at various mapping scales.
RSPA anticipates that $800,000 will be needed in fiscal year 2000
to continue gathering and processing drinking water and ecological
resource data in the top thirty states, based on pipeline mileage. The
data will be in the format of maps that the hazardous liquid pipeline
industry can use to apply additional prevention and response measures
where it is determined that a pipeline release could affect an
unusually sensitive area.
Question. Please summarize the results of last year's review of
pipeline operators' emergency response plans. Include the number of
plans reviewed, the number accepted, and the number of plans which
required corrective measures.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, OPS reviewed 59 new response plans and
292 revisions to existing response plans. Of the 59 new plans we
reviewed, all 59 had at least one deficiency requiring correction. Of
the 292 revisions to existing plans, 89 of them had at least one
deficiency requiring correction. When OPS finds a deficiency in a
response plan, we send our findings to the operator with guidance on
how to bring the plan into compliance. We work closely with operators
to help them improve their plans, providing them examples of how to
address difficult response issues, such as getting people and equipment
to remote areas. OPS usually gives operators 90 days to submit their
revised plans. Most plans require more than one iteration to correct
all of their deficiencies.
Question. Please discuss the amount of funds spent on spill
response exercises during each of the last three years. How much do you
expect to spend during fiscal year 1999 and during fiscal year 2000?
What is the continuing value of those expenditures? Given the lessons
learned, could the number of drills be reduced during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, OPS spent $545,000 on spill response
exercises, $443,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $567,000 in fiscal year
1998. These amounts include contractor support for exercise design,
conduct, and evaluation. These figures also include an estimated
$15,000 per year for travel costs of OPS staff to participate in
exercises.
We expect to spend $525,000 on exercises in both fiscal year 1999
and in fiscal year 2000. The value of conducting exercises is evident
in the improvement of pipeline operators' spill response capabilities.
Indicators of better performance are increased oil recovery rates, more
rapid response times, and diminished environmental damages. In
addition, Federal, state, and local environmental and emergency
response agencies, have built working relationships with one another
and have performed better during an actual spill response following an
OPS response exercise.
The 20 tabletop exercises each year are a small sample of the 1,350
facility response plans for facilities under our jurisdiction. We
select operators based on risk factors, as identified in our review of
their response plans and as suggested by our OPS regional staff. Until
we reach a point of diminishing returns, it would be premature to begin
reducing our exercise program.
Question. Please update us on the implementation of the Alyeska
memorandum of agreement regarding valves and corrosion. Are there any
new issues in this area?
Answer.
Coupon Monitoring Program
In March 1996, Alyeska began a long term, comprehensive study to
specifically determine if corrosion coupons could be used to evaluate
cathodic protection on the large diameter pipeline. Alyeska has now
completed all action items contained within the Corrosion Coupon
Agreement. The results of the study indicate that, although corrosion
coupons represent an important contributor to the monitoring of the
cathodic protection system on Alyeska, they cannot be used as a stand
alone method for determining adequate cathodic protection. However,
coupons may be used in conjunction with other acceptable engineering
practices such as internal inspection tools, close interval surveys,
and local knowledge of environmental conditions. Alyeska will submit
their final Corrosion Coupon Report in early 1999. We will meet with
Alyeska to review the final report and determine whether the proposed
comprehensive corrosion monitoring program is effective as an
alternative to current regulatory requirements.
Corrosion at Transition Joints
We have ordered Alyeska to evaluate and, if necessary, repair all
aboveground fiberglass coating at transition joints to ensure that
water does not penetrate the external pipeline coating. The fiberglass
coating helps prevent corrosion where the pipeline transitions from
belowground to aboveground. This action was supported by reports of
corrosion at several of the transition areas.
Mainline Valve Program
We closely monitor Alyeska's maintenance of the large mainline
valves used to shut off the pipeline if an accident occurs. In 1995, we
became concerned that many of these valves did not seal properly and
initiated action to assure that public safety and the environment were
not placed at risk. In 1996, Alyeska began a system-wide review of
these valves and in January 1997, agreed with the Joint Pipeline Office
on a plan for assessment of valves on the TAPS. During 1997, Alyeska
conducted a risk assessment on mainline valves in order to prioritize
these mainline valves for testing, and to establish performance
standards for internal leak through. Fifty (50) valves were tested in
1996 and 1997. Forty-six (46) valves were tested in 1998. The remaining
seventy-six (76) valves will be tested by year 2000.
Alyeska is in the process of rehabilitating or replacing many of
its valves. One valve in an environmentally sensitive area near the
Yukon River will be replaced in 1999. Alyeska has revised its valve
testing, repair and maintenance program. The program now provides for
extensive maintenance and testing beyond what is required by the
pipeline safety regulations.
Fuel Gas Pipeline
We have ordered Alyeska to take steps to protect their fuel gas
pipeline from future detrimental movement and external forces, such as
frost heave. The fuel gas pipeline, originally buried, has become
exposed and is experiencing considerable bending stresses.
Overpressure of the Pipeline
We have ordered Alyeska to take corrective actions to prevent
future overpressure of the pipeline. These actions include SCADA system
examination and adjustment, evaluation of the pipeline control system
and personnel training. This action follows two overpressure situations
in 1997 and 1998.
risk assessment and technical studies
Question. The Office of Pipeline Safety is requesting a $275,000
increase in the risk assessment program, primarily for the system
integrity inspection pilot program and for risk management
communications activities. What are the primary distinctions between
system integrity inspection (SII) practices and the risk management
demonstration and pilot programs that are already underway? What
portion of the requested increase is associated with SII and what
portion is associated with risk management communications activities?
Answer. In the System Integrity Inspection program, OPS requires
compliance with regulations, only the approach to inspection is
changing. OPS and the operator will address a broad set of system-wide
safety and integrity issues, instead of the standard regulatory
compliance inspection. These inspections will focus on areas of
greatest risk so that OPS and operators can work together to find and
fix problems related to significant risk at the earliest possible
stage. Discussion will focus on corrosion control, hydro testing and
internal inspection, natural hazard-related programs and use of new
technologies for risk identification and control. OPS expects to
discuss integrity related information that would not normally be
addressed in a standard inspection and to address safety issues, like
training, more systematically throughout a company's operations.
In the Risk Management program, OPS allows operators to propose
alternatives to the regulations that can demonstrate risk reduction and
superior safety performance. Justification of superior safety
performance can focus on several factors such as strengthened pipe
condition; enhanced damage prevention; and increased inspection, repair
and replacement in high risk segments. In preparing these
justifications, operators usually employ advanced risk analysis
techniques, including root cause analysis or better quantification of
risk. As an example, OPS may approve different inspection techniques
and schedules based on the risks found, and different repair and test
processes.
We plan to allocate equal proportions of the fiscal year 2000
increases to SII and communications activities. We are providing
additional opportunities for public involvement in the Risk Management
Program though interactive communication technologies, including the
Internet and satellite broadcasts that include field interviews at
demonstration project sites.
Question. Who are the current participants in pipeline risk
management demonstration projects? What progress has been made in each
of those projects?
Answer. Ten companies are working with OPS in the risk management
demonstration program, at various stages of project maturity. Chevron
Pipe Line Company, Equilon Pipeline Company (formerly Shell Pipe Line
Corporation), Mobil Pipe Line Company, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, and Phillips Pipe Line Company are operating under approved
risk management work plans. RSPA is close to reaching agreement on
demonstration project provisions with two more companies, Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation/Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, and
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, whose applications will be open to a
public comment period in the near future. RSPA is working with three
other companies, Duke Energy, Enron Gas Pipeline Group, and Tennessee
Gas Pipeline/East Tennessee Natural Gas, who have met the program
criteria, and whose proposals may be reviewed and approved later this
year. The ten operators with whom RSPA is working in the risk
management program have produced a report which documents the progress
they have made to date in each of these projects, which will be
available on the OPS Web site shortly.
Question. How much funding was associated with those demonstration
projects in fiscal year 1999, and how much is requested for these
projects in the fiscal year 2000 risk assessment program?
Answer. A total of $855,000 was associated with the demonstration
projects in fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, $735,000 provides for
continued evaluation, approval, and monitoring of the projects; $95,000
provides for maintenance and continued development of the information
system used by regulators, the companies, and the public to stay
abreast of project status; and $25,000 provides for development and
distribution of newsletters and prospectuses to all interested parties.
For fiscal year 2000, RSPA has requested about $900,000 for
continued support of these projects. The balance of funding covers our
investigation of the feasibility of applying risk management to
distribution systems and to administrative support, and the requested
increase for implementing the System Integrity Program and instituting
additional communications activities.
compliance programs
Question. For each of the last three fiscal years, please provide
data on all enforcement actions taken by OPS, including the number of
enforcement cases opened, closed, and the amount of civil penalty
assessments collected. Please compare these data with the number of
reportable events, number of deaths and injuries, and any other
measures of pipeline safety for both hazardous liquids and gases.
Answer. The following table is provided:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY
--------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement:
Measures:
Cases Opened................... 185 179 218
Cases Closed................... 167 186 273
Civil Penalty Assessments $46,750 $228,170 $316,846
Collected.....................
Reportable events:
Incidents Reported:................ 374 362 379
Deaths............................. 20 11 19
Injuries........................... 85 93 74
Property Damage (in millions)...... 64 65 104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many of those companies provided with technical
education were reinspected? Did you find those companies still out of
compliance? If so, how many enforcement actions were taken against
those companies?
Answer. Fifty-four (54) of the companies that were inspected and
received enforcement actions in fiscal year 1997 were inspected at
different locations in their system during fiscal year 1998.
Enforcement action was initiated on eighteen (18) of the companies in
fiscal year 1998. However, it should be noted that the concerns found
in fiscal year 1997 were not necessarily the same items found in fiscal
year 1998.
Question. Please prepare an updated table indicating the number of
pipeline safety inspectors on board and the number of pipeline safety
inspector positions authorized for each of the last three fiscal years.
Please explain whether the number of authorized positions has or has
not increased relative to congressional directives. If not, why not?
Answer. The total number of filled inspector positions varies
during the year due to personnel turnover and hiring of new inspectors.
NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized/onboard
Region --------------------------------
1997 \1\ 1998 \1\ 1999 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern................................ 7/5 8/8 8/8
Southern............................... 8/8 8/7 8/8
Central................................ 12/11 12/11 11/11
Southwest.............................. 11/11 11/11 12/12
Western................................ 13/13 13/13 12/12
--------------------------------
Total............................ 51/48 51/50 51/51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers do not include the Region Director or headquarter
inspector positions that supply technical support to all five regions.
We are currently in the process of hiring nine additional regional
inspectors, two each in the Eastern, Southwest, Central Regions and
three in the Western Region. These were included in the onboard
numbers above. Some of the authorized inspector positions have been
moved between regions and the headquarters technical support as part
of a risk-based allocation effort.
The number of authorized positions is consistent with congressional
directives allowing for internal promotions and personnel turnover.
Question. How many accident investigations were conducted during
each of the last three fiscal years? Please include information on the
number of follow-up accident investigations and the results.
Answer.
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Investigations..................... 64 51 50
Follow-up Investigations..................... 58 65 43
Accident Reports Generated................... 6 5 \1\ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional reports are forthcoming.
damage prevention/public education campaign
Question. Please describe what steps OPS has taken in considering
commissioning production of a TV public service announcement for the
national damage prevention campaign. What will the related costs be for
such a PSA. Has OPS approached interested excavators and underground
utility representatives about cost-sharing?
Answer. The OPS Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) has
been considering commissioning a TV public service announcement (PSA).
We have consulted with our advertising agency for the Dig Safely
campaign who estimated that producing a TV PSA would cost between
$50,000 and $100,000. We have also investigated the likelihood of
getting air time since many PSAs compete for time on TV broadcast
airwaves. We did commission a radio PSA for the pilot campaign which
ran for six months in Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia. Despite the
best efforts of the public relations staff of our advertising agency,
the PSA was only aired a handful of times.
By contrast, print media for the campaign was highly successful.
The staff of the advertising agency and members of the Damage
Prevention Quality Action Team both recommended that the campaign focus
on distribution of print media and the training video.
OPS did approach excavators and underground utility representatives
about sharing costs of the campaign. While these groups did provide the
expertise of their staffs and paid their travel expenses, we were
generally unable to generate funds from these sources for production
purposes at this stage of the campaign. The American Petroleum
Institute allocated $5,000 so the Office of Pipeline Safety could
purchase rights to the art work that was produced for the Dig Safely
campaign.
OPS will revisit this issue following our public meeting scheduled
for June 30, 1999, and a full consideration of next steps in public
education among the entire utility industry, Federal and state
governments. A commitment to a broadcast campaign will require a
comprehensive and concerted effort of the utility industries and
government to make use of and evaluate the effectiveness of the media
materials.
Question. To date, what has been the Damage Prevention Quality
Action Team's assessment of its national education campaign? What
improvements have been recommended?
Answer. The Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT)
conducted a six-month pilot campaign of its national education, Dig
Safety, campaign materials from May through October 1998 in three
states (Virginia, Tennessee and Georgia). The campaign elements
included a training video, point of sale brochures, bill inserts, press
kits and other print media as well as radio PSA's. Prior to the pilot,
we conducted a survey to collect baseline data about damage prevention
awareness and practices in the pilot states. After the pilot, a second
survey was conducted to measure the impact of the campaign. The results
far exceeded our expectations.
We identified four key practices in damage prevention: call before
you dig; wait the required time; respect the marks; and dig with care,
i.e., hand dig around exposed facilities. Use of the first practice,
call before you dig, was already quite high prior to the campaign, but
still showed an increase. Use of the other three practices (wait the
required time; respect the marks; and dig with care), increased
dramatically, almost doubling in all three states. The post pilot
survey indicated that all components of the campaign were very well-
received. RSPA worked with the Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC) to revise the video. Given the limited effectiveness of
the radio PSA in reaching the target audience during the pilot, we have
decided not to use it in the national campaign. The radio PSA ran only
a few times due to intense competition for PSA air time. We will
reconsider use of the PSA at a later time.
Question. What is the status of your work regarding the ``best
practices'' employed by one-call systems in operation in the states?
How are you encouraging states to adopt those ``best practices?'' How
much is planned for this activity in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal
year 2000? What are the total costs of this project?
Answer. RSPA is working with 160 federal and state government and
private sector experts to identify best practices in preventing damage
to underground facilities. We have been presenting early concepts of
best practices at national and regional meetings of professionals in
the field. We will broadcast an interim report via satellite and
Internet in early May. A public meeting is planned for June 1999 and
the Team plans to complete its report to Congress by the end of June
1999.
We are also working with several constituencies, including state
agencies to determine how best to ensure that the findings of this
effort are understood and put to use. By Fall, we will be ready to
execute the TEA-21 grants this fall to encourage implementation of best
practices.
We encourage States to adopt the best practices in damage
prevention in several ways. First, we have enlisted their assistance in
the best practices study. We have eleven State pipeline safety and
highway organization representatives in various task teams. Their
participation is key to the success of the best practices study, as
well as promoting their understanding of other issues and interests in
preventing damage to underground facilities.
Second, we are looking forward to implementing the damage
prevention grants authorized in TEA-21 in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001. At the June 30th meeting we will solicit input on the means
to most effectively encourage adoption of best practices in one-call
notification systems and other means of damage prevention.
RSPA expects to spend $250,000 for the best practices study in
fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, there are no planned
expenditures for the best practices study. The budget calls for
$1,000,000 for a damage prevention grant program to the States.
Question. Since last year, what have you done to motivate states to
improve their one-call notification systems and excavation damage
prevention activities? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. OPS made one-call grant funds available to States. For
fiscal year 2000, OPS is requesting the same amount as last year, $1
million in grant funds for State pipeline safety. For the past few
years, many States have significantly improved their one-call
notification systems and damage prevention activities by strengthening
State one-call legislation, increasing enforcement efforts, and
continuing public education. This considerable increase in one-call
efforts has occurred since agency one-call program activities began.
Since last year, State pipeline safety representatives were invited
to serve on the damage prevention ``Best Practices'' study authorized
by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Through
their participation, they are becoming more knowledgeable on how to
improve and enhance all aspects of one-call system operations and how
to minimize risks of third-party damage. We plan to conduct this
separate grant program authorized under TEA-21 at the $1 million level
in fiscal year 2000. This separate grant funding would improve
operational efficiency of one-call systems, including marking,
locating, planning and design activities and would support States
electing to implement best practices developed by the damage prevention
study.
Question. What are your views on establishing a foundation to
advance damage prevention activities and to continue the work and
funding authorized by TEA-21 regarding damage prevention? Would it be
appropriate for the Department to provide seed monies to help establish
such a foundation? If so, how much would it cost to establish such a
foundation? Would the private sector likely continue those activities
once federal support ended?
Answer. We expect, that when implemented, the recommendation of the
One Call System Best Practices study (also known as ``Common Ground'')
will greatly advance the effectiveness of national damage prevention
efforts. The work of the Common Ground team has not only identified
areas that require further investigation but has also highlighted the
need for sustained efforts to encourage appropriate damage prevention.
However, these efforts are beyond the scope of the grants program
established by Congress in TEA-21.
A foundation or other nonprofit organization may be an appropriate
vehicle for finding and encouraging best practices. Maintaining a high
level momentum in this initiative is central to the Department's
strategy to achieve damage prevention and improve safety and
environmental protection. Given the importance of these activities,
resources could be allocated from within RSPA's Office of Pipeline
Safety requested budget for fiscal year 2000 to stimulate the formation
oif such an organization by providing ``seed'' resources for temporary
executive staff or other related activities.
Question. What is the status of your national one-call campaign?
How would you evaluate the pilot tests? What lessons were learned?
Answer. We have completed development of materials for the national
Dig Safely campaign. We expect to launch the campaign in June 1999. The
campaign included these elements: print media such as, point of sale
brochures, bill inserts, press kits; a training video; and radio PSA's.
The post pilot survey showed that the campaign materials were very
effective. The OPS Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) had
identified four key damage prevention practices for protection of
underground facilities: call before you dig; wait the required time;
observe the marks; and dig with care, i.e., hand dig around exposed
facilities. Use of call before you dig, i.e., one-call was already
quite high prior to the campaign, but still showed an increase. Use of
the other three practices increased dramatically, almost doubling in
all three states. The post pilot survey indicated that all components
of the campaign were very well-received. The Associated General
Contractors of America (AGC) made recommendations to improve portions
of the training video. We have worked with AGC to address these
concerns. We have also decided not to use the radio PSA in the national
campaign due to intense competition for available air time to runs PSAs
limits their effectiveness. We will reconsider the use of PSA at a
later time.
Question. How did you use the additional funds provided last year
to improve damage prevention programs. What would you do with
additional funds if a similar increase were provided in that program
for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Funds were allocated for production of additional campaign
materials and revision of the training video. There is great variation
in the sophistication of damage prevention programs conducted by one-
call centers, public works departments, facility operators and
excavators. Some were prepared to use the materials produced for the
pilot; others needed help to implement the campaign. To address this
issue, funds were used to produce a comprehensive training manual. The
Office of Pipeline Safety will also conduct regional training sessions
for all interested parties in the use of these materials. The first
session is scheduled for May 20-21,1999, in Mobile, AL.
Funds were also used to provide administrative support for meetings
of the Damage Prevention Quality Action Team and to underwrite the cost
of the One-Call Systems Best Practices Study, known as Common Ground.
In particular, funding was used to facilitate the meetings of the many
task teams investigating all damage prevention functions. Additional
costs include assembling a broadcast production of a report on interim
findings, a public meeting, and publishing a final report. This effort
is identifying practices which are most effective in damage prevention
and preventing disruption to services provided by underground
facilities.
Question. What was accomplished in the area of leveraging private
sector funds and conducting a new joint public meeting with the NTSB on
one-call systems? How are you working with NTSB to advance damage
prevention strategies?
Answer. Private sector funds are contributed by the various
industry and government organizations participating in RSPA's damage
prevention efforts including the Damage Prevention Quality Team and
Best Practices Study Team. Each initiative involves planning for and
attending meetings at locations around the country. Team members from
private sector organizations travel at their own expense. In addition,
several private sector organizations have hosted various meetings, and
contributed to the costs of promotional items for the damage prevention
campaign.
RSPA continues to work with NTSB to improve pipeline safety by
improving damage prevention to underground facilities. RSPA recently
responded to 14 NTSB Safety Recommendations regarding damage prevention
issues resulting from an NTSB Safety Study titled, ``Protecting Public
Safety Through Excavation Damage Prevention.'' As required by the
Senate Appropriations Committee Report for our fiscal year 1999 budget,
RSPA is preparing a joint public meeting with NTSB, scheduled for June
30, 1999. RSPA Administrator Kelley Coyner and National Transportation
Safety Board Chairman James Hall are expected to participate in this
meeting which will focus on national damage prevention efforts. The
meeting agenda will include progress reports on:
--the One-Call System/Best Practices Damage Prevention Study;
--Damage Prevention Quality Action Team's work products;
--the One Call Systems International (OCSI) ``call before you dig''
decal program; and
--the OCSI national 1-800-one-call number.
An open discussion by attendees on next steps and comments on the
implementation of the Damage Prevention Grant Program to States in
fiscal year 2000 is expected.
A Federal Register Notice concerning this meeting will be published
in the near future.
Question. What specific commitments for cost-sharing have you
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call/damage
prevention outreach effort? Please quantify cash and in-kind
contributions.
Answer. The private sector has contributed to the one-call damage
prevention effort in many ways by providing staff experts to serve on
the Damage Prevention Quality Action Team, meeting space and
administrative support services, and by underwriting staff travel
expenses for the past two and a half years. RSPA does not have a record
of contributions in quantifiable terms. In addition, the groups
represented on the Team have supported the effort by producing articles
in association newsletters, promoting the campaign on their web sites
and in speeches across the country. The Utility Protection Center of
Georgia has paid for the production of promotion items for the
campaign. Southwest Bell Corporation is also prepared to fund
production of promotional items.
research and development
Question. Which industries and research organizations have
demonstrated an interest in partnering with OPS to advance pipeline
locating and monitoring technologies? Do you have any firm cost-sharing
commitments? How far do you anticipate being able to leverage the
$450,000 in the fiscal year 2000 request?
Answer. RSPA is exploring conducting research in the area of real-
time monitoring for third-party damage with PRC International, the
research organization administratively associated with the American Gas
Association. PRC International represents both the oil and gas industry
worldwide. Third-party damage is the leading cause of gas and hazardous
liquid pipeline failures in the U.S.
This would involve an innovative approach to contracting as the
research would be co-funded by PRC International, ourselves, and other
partners from the pipeline industry and perhaps other underground
utilities. The funding level of each partner has not been established
but the total project cost is likely to run in the multimillion dollar
range. We would use our cooperative agreement authority to implement an
agreement to conduct this proposed research. The research would first
define the nature of the problem of third-party damage, identify
technologies which could be explored, including past research
conducted, and finally fund the development of one or two technologies
identified. A comprehensive research proposal is being produced by PRC
International with research scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000. It
is contemplated that the research would take five years to complete.
In addition, we plan to commence a new initiative to identify and
evaluate location equipment for buried plastic gas mains and service
lines.
Question. Please describe the progress made in your mapping
initiative since last year. When will the project be completed? How
much was appropriated and spent on this effort in fiscal years 1997 and
1998 and planned for fiscal years 1999 and 2000? What are the remaining
challenges? Will there be a need for funding over the long-term?
Answer. Over the past year, RSPA and the Joint Government/Industry
Pipeline Mapping Quality Action Team (MQAT) have created, pilot tested,
and revised the standards, computer templates, and model for the
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). Two Commerce Business Daily
Announcements were published to determine which State agencies and
pipeline mapping vendors are interested in, and qualified to become,
State repositories and the National repository. Contracts were awarded
to nine state repositories (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Oklahoma, California, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) and the
NPMS National Repository. These repositories are now operational.
RSPA, the American Petroleum Institute, the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Energy,
and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission held five public workshops on
the NPMS in Houston, TX; Chicago, IL; and San Francisco, CA;
Washington, D.C.; and New Orleans, LA. RSPA also held a repository
workshop to familiarize state repositories with the revised standards
and to discuss outstanding issues. RSPA created and released a mapping
video to familiarize pipeline operators, Federal and state agencies,
private industry, and the public on our mapping initiative.
RSPA met with EPA Region 5 to discuss a joint mapping effort of
hazardous liquid pipelines and EPA has agreed to collect and help fund
this initiative. RSPA has discussed similar efforts with the Department
of Defense.
RSPA and MQAT have also developed a rollout implementation strategy
for the NPMS. RSPA, the American Petroleum Institute, and the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America will send notices to
pipeline operators by May asking them to submit pipeline data. We will
target the interstate and larger intrastate operators first.
$400,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1997 and 1998. This money
has been spent on accomplishing the items listed above. $800,000 was
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 and the same amount was requested for
fiscal year 2000. RSPA will use this money to collect and process
pipeline and liquefied natural gas facility data. RSPA expects to
complete 70 percent of the NPMS by the end of the year 2000. Remaining
challenges include creating a seamless pipeline map from the multitude
of pipeline data that operators have in various formats, sustaining
communication between the repositories and EPA to avoid multiple
requests for the same data and duplication of effort, and working with
the states and other agencies that have already obtained pipeline data
to use these data to the extent possible.
RSPA anticipates that additional funds will be needed in the future
to update and maintain the NPMS.
Question. What progress has been made on the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the Gas Research Institute in nondestructive
evaluation technology? What are the accomplishments to date on this
partnership? Are there any unobligated balances? What are the
challenges associated with this cooperative research?
Answer. The laboratory work has revealed a multilevel magnetization
signal is needed to fully characterize the two components of mechanical
damage, which is the change in pipe geometry and changes in the
properties of the pipe metal resulting from mechanical damage. A
procedure to distinguish the difference using the multiple
magnetization level approach has been proven. This work may allow a
mechanical damage detection capability to be added to existing
corrosion pigs. If testing, to be completed in fiscal year 1999 at the
Gas Research Institute's Pipeline Simulation Facility, located near
Columbus, Ohio, proves this concept in actual pigs, only one pig survey
would be needed to identify corrosion and mechanical damage in
operating pipelines. In fact, a domestic pig vendor, Tuboscope Vetco
Pipeline Services, is assembling a mechanical damage pig using data
obtained as a result of this research.
Since completing its report on magnetic measurements in March 1998,
the research team has begun to determine the effects of pipe stress and
mechanical damage on the magnetic fields induced in the pipe wall by
magnetic flux leakage pigs. A number of advanced engineering approaches
have been used, including finite element analysis of manufactured dents
and gouges in a 24-inch pipe. The research team continues to evaluate
alternative methods of classifying and characterizing mechanical damage
using neural networks and nonlinear harmonics.
At the Pipeline Simulation Facility, the research team upgraded the
pig that serves as the Test Bed Vehicle with state-of-the-art sensors
and a new data acquisition system, and has upgraded the magnetizers to
produce higher magnetization levels. The team has fabricated 38
controlled dents, scrapes, and gouges that simulate real-world pipe
conditions, including some that resemble pipe damage from backhoes and
other construction equipment. These are being used for testing the
instrumented pig.
A final report on the first two years of the project has been
completed and is available on the Office of Pipeline Safety's Internet
web site, http://ops.dot.gov.
RSPA has obligated all prior year funds for this research.
Comprehensive characterization of mechanical damage due to
examination with the magnetic flux produced only along the pipe's
longitudinal axis is a challenge in this current research. A project to
include examination with the magnetic flux along the pipe's
circumference also is being considered for additional funding in fiscal
year 2000. Because of possible funding limitations for the
circumferential analysis, we decided to seek co-funding from our
industry partners. GRI agreed to co-fund the circumferential analysis.
We received a proposal from GRI dated March 8 to conduct the study and
are presently analyzing the proposal.
grants
Question. For fiscal year 1998 and 1999, please list the states
that participated in your hazardous liquids and natural gas state grant
programs. For each participating state, display the amount requested by
state, the amount of federal grant funds received, and the percentage
of federal contribution to total costs represented by that grant. What
efforts were taken to increase participation in the grant program?
Answer. Attached are the allocations for fiscal year 1998. As soon
as the allocations for fiscal year 1999 are complete, we will forward
them to the Congress.
RSPA has encouraged further intrastate jurisdiction and
improvements to state one-call damage prevention programs. In addition,
RSPA has enhanced participation by the states on risk management and
industry committee meetings-all of which increase the amount of money
available to the states.
Question. RSPA and the states have agreed to attempt to provide 50
percent of the states' pipeline safety program funding from the federal
government. As an aggregate, what percent of the states' pipeline
safety program funds were appropriated through the OPS state grant
program in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999?
Answer. The funding level for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 were 44
percent and 41 percent. The funding level for fiscal year 1999 will be
42 percent.
Question. Part of the original justification for the increase in
the pipeline grant program was that with increased funds the states
would be encouraged to expand their enforcement responsibilities.
Please provide quantitative data on a state-by-state basis indicating
whether that has happened.
Answer. The states have expanded their enforcement jurisdiction in
the past few years by adding new intrastate gas and liquid programs and
new areas of Municipal, LPG or master meter operators jurisdiction in
their particular state and enhanced one-call compliance.
Question. Please provide an assessment of your monitoring of the
state grant program. How has OPS improved various state programs?
Answer. Field evaluation scores and other performance measures are
used to determine the grant allocation for each State. Each year, OPS
evaluates the states pipeline safety programs based on current
performance measures. OPS monitors state inspections to ensure that the
Pipeline Safety Regulations are being appropriately enforced. The
annually submitted State certifications contain data on such factors as
adequacy of one-call efforts, field inspection days, the number of
regulations adopted, and inspector qualification.
Over the last five years, OPS has taken steps to improve our
oversight of the state pipeline safety programs including the full-time
designation of an inspector in each region office to monitor and
evaluate their activities.
These inspectors, the state liaison representatives, have worked
together to improve the monitoring and evaluation process so that areas
of needed improvement can be more readily identified and corrected.
When OPS identifies a potential weakness in a state pipeline program,
we work closely with the program manager to correct the circumstances
and provide technical support.
Question. How are the states using funds for risk management and
assessment activities? What challenges do the states face and how is
OPS providing technical assistance?
Answer. The states may draw on $500,000 in Risk Management Grants
to participate in the evaluation and monitoring of risk management
projects, and related support initiatives such as communications,
training associated with risk analysis and risk control decision
making, developing and tracking performance measurement, damage
prevention evaluation and improved mapping of pipeline location and
environmental factors. State participation brings the most site-
specific, geographic, and socioeconomic information into the risk
evaluation process.
To ease some of the challenges states face participating in a new
regulatory approach, RSPA factored state concerns into the development
of protocols, evaluation criteria, and other program elements. RSPA
includes states in briefings provided to staff before meetings with
demonstration companies to provide them with current information. RSPA
also includes affected states in the same risk-related training
activities it provides for its own staff.
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations
Omnibus, the conferees appropriated $1,000,000 to be made available for
one-call grants to states. How much was requested by the states in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Thirty-three states requested a total of $1,482,800 for
one-call grants.
Question. Please update past data provided on the status of one-
call systems, their completeness, effectiveness, legislative status,
and enforcement capabilities of the states. How many, and which, states
have utilized one-call grant funds to establish one-call programs?
Answer. Within the past four years, sixteen States have passed or
improved one-call legislation: Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota,
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and
Wyoming. Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1996, we have
been working closely with Puerto Rico (PR) for legislation to create a
one-call center. This legislation was passed in September 1998. There
is also a growing number of States with a strong one-call enforcement
mechanism (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia) that include:
--A specific agency with jurisdiction over excavators and facility
operators
--Authority to issue immediate citations and the power to collect
penalties
--Administrative encouragement and staff assigned to enforce the law.
Eleven States do not require all underground facility operators to
belong to one-call organizations. We expect several state legislatures
to enact or modify one-call legislation for this purpose.
More than 30 States have emergency service available on a 24-hour
basis. In States without 24-hour emergency service, excavators have to
notify operators of impending excavation after business hours.
OPS also utilizes one-call grant funds to support States to
establish one-call programs. This past year, the following 31 State
programs have requested one-call grants to further one-call activities:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Question. OPS is requesting to use $1,000,000 of fiscal year 2000
funds for damage prevention improvement grants. Will those funds be
obtained from general revenues? How will that grant program be
coordinated with other similar OPS and private sector activities?
Answer. RSPA proposes to use pipeline safety user fees to finance
damage prevention improvement grants. Reducing outside force damage has
long been our top ranked solution to improve pipeline safety. The
expenditure of pipeline safety user fees for the purpose of promoting
best practices to prevent damage to pipelines is consistent with RSPA's
priorities.
We will be announcing a public meeting on June 30, 1999, to solicit
input on criteria for award of the Damage Prevention Improvement Grants
and on the means to most effectively encourage adoption of best
practices in one-call notification systems and other means of damage
prevention. We also will enlist the help of the Grant Allocation
Committee of the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives in integrating state pipeline program activities to
improve damage prevention efforts.
volpe national transportation systems center
Question. For fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, what percent
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal year 1999 what percent of
funds do you plan to contract out?
Answer. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998 about 76 percent and 77
percent percent, respectively, of the Center's obligations were
contracted to the private and university sectors. The percentage is
expected to remain stable for fiscal year 1999.
Question. What percent of your personnel costs are for contract
administration, technical program direction, and in-house research?
Answer. About 4 percent of personnel costs are for contract
administration. About 70 percent is tied to specific technical project
work, including both technical direction and technical performance. No
funds or staff were devoted to in-house research (i.e. independent
research and development not tied to a client project) in fiscal year
1998 and none is planned for fiscal year 1999-2000. The remaining 26
percent of personnel costs covers facility operations, staff
development, stakeholder reporting, managerial process improvements,
and outreach.
Question. In which areas do you propose to use the additional FTE?
Answer.
VOLPE CENTER FTE CORE TECHNICAL SKILL AREAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
request
-----------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Planning, Analysis & Simulation................ 160 166
Vehicle Guideways & Terminals......................... 45 46
Communication, Navigation & Surveillance.............. 56 59
Information System Engineering........................ 85 89
Human Factor.......................................... 10 12
Environmental Analysis & Engineering.................. 41 45
Transport System Security............................. 15 19
Administration & Clerical............................. 114 114
-----------------
Total........................................... 526 550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please break out, in tabular form, obligations by each of
the DOT modal administrations to the Volpe Center for each of the last
three fiscal years. What is the significance of these funding trends?
Answer. The following table shows obligations of DOT Modal
Administrations to the Volpe Center in millions of dollars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------
1999
1997 1998 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA.......................................... 85.1 84.5 85.6
FHWA......................................... 13.9 11.8 12.0
USCG......................................... 7.4 6.8 7.5
FRA.......................................... 9.6 10.9 11.5
FTA.......................................... 4.8 7.5 7.8
NHTSA........................................ 8.5 8.8 9.0
RSPA......................................... 6.4 6.6 6.7
OTHER DOT.................................... 2.5 2.3 2.4
OST.......................................... 1.0 2.6 0.8
--------------------------
Total.................................. 139.2 141.8 143.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Each amount includes that customer's participation in DOT's SBIR
program, which the Volpe Center manages.
The trends generally reflect changes in our customers' program
emphasis or changes to DOT's appropriations.
Question. What are the performance goals and measures related to
service delivery at Volpe? How have you done so far? What are the key
challenges that remain?
Answer. There are 10 Volpe Center service delivery measures:
--Project Initiation
--Project Definition
--Administrative Process of Project Definition (Start Work)
--Availability of Staff
--Competence of Staff
--Working Relationships
--Project Management
--Content & Quality of Deliverables
--Best Value
--Overall Satisfaction
The goal is to have an accurate, multi-dimensional understanding of
Center customers views to facilitate continual improvement in overall
service delivery. Results to date, shown graphically below, indicate
this goal is being achieved.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.009
These formal measurements are taken through structured interviews
with each Center customer every two years. The Center is midway through
the second cycle of interviews.
The challenge is to continue to improve given the excellence of
results already achieved.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the percent of the Volpe
work that has been conducted for non-DOT agencies for each of the last
four years.
Answer. The following table shows Volpe Center Obligations for Non-
DOT Agencies.
[In percentages]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------
1999
1996 1997 1998 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD......................................... 12 12 10 12
Other Non-DOT............................... 16 20 18 18
---------------------------
Total................................. 28 32 28 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the Volpe overhead charges and how have you
tried to reduce these charges? Please provide a detailed explanation
and dollar figures of all overhead costs for each of the last three
fiscal years.
Answer. Following is the distribution of the Center's indirect
expenses (in millions of dollars obligated):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Indirect Activity -----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 (est)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Operations............................................. 4.5 3.4 3.7
Business Services............................................... 8.3 9.8 9.5
Line Management................................................. 2.5 2.5 2.5
Center-wide Services............................................ 1.2 1.5 1.8
Computer & LAN Services......................................... 2.3 3.8 3.3
Industry Outreach............................................... 0.4 0.3 0.3
Capability Development.......................................... 0.3 0.3 0.5
Plans & Pgm Development......................................... 0.8 0.9 1.2
Chief Counsel................................................... 0.6 0.3 0.3
Executive Management............................................ 0.6 1.0 1.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Indirect............................................ $21.5 $23.8 $24.1
Total Obligations \1\..................................... $204.3 $196.1 $197.0
Indirect to Total......................................... 10.5 12.1 12.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net of recoveries of prior year obligations.
The estimated fiscal year 1999 indirect expenses reflect increases
for salaries, benefits, negotiated contract price adjustments and other
normal cost growth plus an amount for depreciation of prior year
capital investments and increased investment in staff training and
recruitment. Increases have been partially offset by continuing cost
reduction efforts with major emphasis on process simplification,
improved automation and introducing current energy conservation
technology.
Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 new start reimbursable agreements that the Volpe
Center has with other Federal agencies. Include all costs that are paid
out to contractors hired by the Volpe Center.
Answer.
Fiscal year 1998
Planned Digital Video Storage System, DOD Air Force, $90
Thousand, 72 percent.
The Volpe Center will assess and evaluate state of the art security
and digitized video technology. Tasks include: review and validation of
design documentation, evaluate options for interface/integration at
Eglin AFB, FL.
Aircraft Noise Prediction Model Support, NASA Langley,
$24.3 Thousand, 0 percent.
Support will be provided in the area of improved aircraft noise
prediction algorithms. Technical support involves a comprehensive
field-noise measurement program to take place in the vicinity of Logan
International Airport, followed by subsequent laboratory data reduction
and analysis to produce improved noise propagation algorithms for
inclusion in aircraft noise prediction models.
Transportation and Organizational Systems Support, DOI/NPS,
$30 Thousand, 0 percent.
Develop and implement a water transportation plan for Boston
Harbor. This will involve working to help clarify and work through
critical water transportation issues; assist in writing the water
transportation portion of the master plan for Boston Harbor.
Organizational Systems Support, EPA/OSEC, $20 Thousand, 0
percent.
Provide organizational systems support to EPA/OSEC in its South
Florida Urban Initiative, an EPA project intended to complement a
federal-state-local partnership currently working to restore the
Everglades ecosystem. A major thrust of these efforts is to redirect a
substantial portion of the region's future population growth away from
the region's remaining ecologically sensitive resources. Viable
solutions must include and address a broad range of transportation
issues.
Support to EPA/Office of Information Resources Management,
EPA/ORIM, $200 Thousand, 0 percent.
Assist OIRM in moving toward a more strategic use of information
technologies in accomplishing its core missions, tasks significantly
influenced by transportation systems infrastructure and operation.
NRC Transportation Survey Of Radioactive Material, NRC, $35
Thousand, 0 percent.
The Volpe Center will identify and compile existing sources
describing nuclear materials movements in the U.S. The Center will also
conduct all of the tasks necessary to develop and pre-test a data
collection instrument for nuclear materials movements that cannot be
tracked through government or publicly available data sources.
Coast Guard Polar Research vessel (CGC Healy), USCG, $100
Thousand, 80 percent.
Restructure the configuration data received with the new Coast
Guard Polar Research Vessel (CGC Healy) from the Navy's Real-time
Outfitting Management System (ROMIS) format to the USCG's CMPlus data
format. CMPlus was developed, and is being implemented, by the Volpe
Center for the USCG. Fiscal year 1999
Aviation Mail Hazmat Support Services, USPS, $1.6 Million,
40 percent.
The Volpe Center will support the Aviation Mail Security group by
assisting in the planning, development, and implementation of policies
and training supporting HAZMAT acceptance, handling, transportation,
and delivery.
EPA, Region 8 Site Assessment and Remediation, EPA, $1.5
Million, 68 percent.
To provide environmental support services in the assessment,
design, remediation, restoration and oversight of contaminated sites in
Region 8.
Question. The Committee has been concerned that almost all of the
funds provided for RSPA's research and technology activities were being
allocated to the Volpe Center or to the Transportation Research Board.
Please provide quantitative evidence that you have expanded the
universe of companies and institutions participating in your contract
program.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the RSPA research and technology
activities have or will fund the following organizations or contractors
to assist it in supporting the strategic planning process for Federal
transportation R&D and the Department's technology transfer program,
and to maintain the Department's membership on various roundtables and
conferences:
STRATEGIC PLANNING: Fiscal year 1999
Volpe Center.............................................. $550,000
National Research Council/Transportation Research Board
(TRB)................................................... 100,000
Civil Engineering Research Foundation..................... 50,000
National Science Foundation............................... 50,000
Library of Congress....................................... 50,000
National Research Council/Standing Committee to Review the
Research Program of the Partnership for a new Generation
of Vehicles............................................. 50,000
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIPS:
Volpe Center.............................................. 810,000
Council on Competitiveness................................ 50,000
TRB (RSPA Annual Fee)..................................... 50,000
National Academy of Sciences Government-University-
Industry Research Roundtable............................ 125,000
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (R&D
Track-
ing).................................................... 100,000
Arrowhead Space and Telecommunications (Technology
Sharing/Technology Transfer)............................ 100,000
INTERMODAL AND MULTI-MODAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION: Small
Business Innovation Research Program...................... 150,000
Question. Who are the new registrants that will be impacted by
RSPA's proposed rulemaking to change the Registration program fee
structure?
Answer. The new registrants that would be impacted by RSPA's
proposed rule are persons that offer or transport shipments of
hazardous materials that require placarding. These persons primarily
include companies that offer or transport hazardous materials in (a)
bulk containers with capacities less than 3,500 gallons or less than
468 cubic feet, or (b) other than bulk containers in shipments of
between 1,000 and 5,000 pounds. Please refer to the discussion on page
18791 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Federal register on April 15, 1999 (attached).
Question. What efforts has RSPA made to fully enforce the current
rule?
Answer. RSPA, other DOT administrations, and state and local
enforcement offices share the responsibility of enforcing the Hazardous
Materials Regulations. All of these conduct compliance inspections to
determine compliance with all aspects of the regulations, including the
registration requirements. FHWA conducts about 2,000 inspections of
hazmat trucking companies annually; RSPA conducts about 1,000
inspections of hazmat shipping companies. Results of these enforcement
efforts indicate a compliance rate of over 95 percent. We believe that
compliance among other modes is similarly high. Additional information
is contained in the discussion on pages 18789-90 of the NPRM
(attached).
RSPA also conducts extensive outreach to inform the hazardous
materials community of the registration requirements. Last year, RSPA
mailed registration information to approximately 48,500 companies. RSPA
has increased its follow-up mailings to companies previously registered
or newly identified as possible registrants. These actions identified
approximately 1,000 new registrants and raised an additional $500,000,
including collections from prior years.
Question. Will RSPA be able to collect $14.3 million by the end of
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. We will complete the steps necessary for this rulemaking as
expeditiously as possible. If, after review of comments, we adopt the
proposed rule, then we will conduct a public information program to
inform the regulated community of the changes in the regulations. If
the proposed rule is adopted in time to be implemented for the 2000-
2001 registration year, we expect to begin collection of fees at the
higher rate before the end of fiscal year 2000.
Question. Please estimate the amount of registration fees that the
following companies would be required to pay under the proposed rule:
Davidson Oil Company, Cooper Oil Company, Allen Companies, Max Oil
Company, and Morgan Oil Company. How is this fee determined?
Answer. We have proposed a two-tiered fee schedule, as discussed on
page 18791 of the April 15, 1999 NPRM (attached). A small business, as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) criteria, would
pay a the minimum fee of $300. A company which is not a small business
would pay the maximum fee of $2,000. The SBA criteria for a small
business for retail fuel oil dealers (SIC 5983) is gross annual revenue
of less than $9.0 million. The companies identified above are retail
fuel oil dealers (SIC 5983), but RSPA has no information on the annual
gross income of these specific companies. Therefore, we cannot
determine the amount of their fee.
[From the Federal Register, Apr. 15, 1999]
part iv--department of transportation, research and special programs
administration
49 cfr part 107--hazardous materials transportation; registration and
fee assessment program; proposed rule
[docket no. rspa-99-5137 (hm-208c)], rin 2137-ad17
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing changes to the current registration and
fee assessment program for persons who transport or offer for
transportation certain categories and quantities of hazardous
materials. The proposed changes would increase the number of persons
required to register and increase the annual registration fee for
shippers and carriers who are not a small business under Small Business
Administration criteria. The proposed changes are intended to raise
additional funds to enhance support for the national Hazardous
Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Program.
DATES: Written Comments: Comments must be received on or before
June 14, 1999.
Public Meeting Date: A public meeting will be held on May 25, 1999;
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. An additional meeting may be scheduled if
there is substantial interest.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Address comments to the Dockets Unit,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh St., SW,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number
RSPA-99-5137 (HM-208C) and should be submitted in two copies. Persons
wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Comments may also be
submitted by e-mail to: http://dms.dot.gov, or by fax to (202) 366-
3753. The Dockets Unit is located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
Building at the U.S. Department of Transportation at the above address.
Public dockets may be viewed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Internet
users may access all comments and related background materials by using
the Universal Resource Locator (URL) http://dms.dot.gov. An electronic
copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable
communications software from the Government Printing Office Electronic
Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.
Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held in room 3200-3204
at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Nassif building, 400 Seventh
Street SW, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Donaldson, Office of
Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, (202) 366-4484, or Ms. Jodi
George, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, RSPA,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
supplementary information:
I. Background
A. Current Registration Program
In 1990, amendments to Federal hazardous materials transportation
law, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. (the law), required the
Secretary of Transportation to establish a registration program. The
Secretary delegated this authority to the Administrator, Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA). 49 CFR 1.53(b)(1). The purpose
of the registration program is to gather information about the
transportation of hazardous materials and to fund a grants program to
support hazardous materials emergency response planning and training
activities by State and local governments. Under 49 U.S.C. 5108, each
person who transports or causes to be transported in commerce one or
more of the categories of hazardous materials listed below must file a
registration statement with RSPA and pay an annual registration fee:
(1) A highway-route controlled quantity of Class 7 (radioactive)
materials;
(2) More than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of a Division 1.1, 1.2, or
1.3 (explosive) material in a motor vehicle, rail car, or freight
container;
(3) A package containing more than one liter (1.06 quarts) of a
hazardous material the Secretary designates as extremely toxic by
inhalation, which has been identified as a material meeting a criterion
of a Zone A material that is toxic by inhalation;
(4) A hazardous material in a bulk packaging, container, or tank if
the packaging, container, or tank has a capacity equal to or greater
than 13,248 liters (3,500 gallons) or more than 13.24 cubic meters (468
cubic feet); or
(5) A shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268 kilograms
(5,000 pounds) or more of a class of hazardous materials for which
placarding of a vehicle, rail car, or freight container is required.
In addition, 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2) permits RSPA to require
registration by each person who:
(1) Transports or causes to be transported hazardous material in
commerce but does not engage in the activities listed above; or
(2) Manufactures, fabricates, marks, maintains, reconditions,
repairs, or tests packagings that the person represents, marks,
certifies, or sells for use in transporting in commerce hazardous
materials.
Section 5108(g) allows RSPA to set the registration fee at an
amount between $250 and $5,000, based on one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The gross revenues from the transportation of hazardous
materials;
(2) The types of hazardous materials transported or caused to be
transported;
(3) The quantities of hazardous materials transported or caused to
be transported;
(4) The number of shipments of hazardous materials;
(5) The number of activities which a person carries out for which
filing a registration statement is required;
(6) The threat to property, individuals, and the environment from
an accident or incident involving the hazardous materials transported
or caused to be transported;
(7) The percentage of gross revenues which are derived from the
transport of hazardous materials;
(8) The amount of funds which are made available to carry out the
emergency response planning and training grants program; and
(9) Such other factors RSPA considers appropriate.
Section 5108(i)(2) specifically excepts the following persons from
the registration requirements:
(1) A department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
Government;
(2) An authority of a State or political subdivision of a State;
(3) An employee of a department, agency, instrumentality, or
authority carrying out official duties; and
(4) An employee of a hazmat employer, which for the purposes of
registration includes the owner-operator of a motor vehicle that
transports in commerce hazardous materials, if that vehicle at the time
of those activities, leased to a registered motor carrier under a 30-
day or longer lease as prescribed in 49 CFR part 376 or an equivalent
contractual agreement.
Section 5108(a)(4) permits RSPA to waive the registration
requirements for a person not domiciled in the United States that
solely offers hazardous materials for transportation in commerce to the
United States from a place outside the United States if the country of
which such person is a domiciliary does not require persons domiciled
in the United States who solely offer hazardous materials for
transportation to the foreign country from places in the United States
to file registration statements, or to pay fees, for making such an
offer. In 1995, this exception for foreign offerors was incorporated
into the regulations at 49 CFR 107.606(a)(6).
In establishing the registration program, RSPA chose to require
registration by only those persons under a statutory obligation to
register and to impose the minimum $250 fee on those persons, plus an
additional fee, currently set at $50, to pay for the costs of
processing the registration statements, as authorized by 49 U.S.C.
5108(g). All registrants pay the same registration fee, regardless of
their size, their income, or the extent to which they engage in
hazardous materials transportation activities.
The current regulations, in Sec. 107.608(a), require the annual
submission of a registration statement. Section 107.620 requires each
registrant to maintain a copy of its registration statement and the
certificate of registration issued by RSPA at its principal place of
business for three years. In addition, each highway carrier and vessel
operator is required to keep a copy of the current registration
certificate or another document bearing the registration number on
board each vehicle or vessel carrying the types and quantities of
hazardous materials that require registration.
In each of the seven years since 1992, when offerors and
transporters were first required to register, RSPA has received
approximately 27,000 registration statements and an average of $6.9
million to support the HMEP Grants Program.
B. Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants Program
1. Purpose and Achievements of the HMEP Grants Program
The HMEP Grants Program, as mandated by the law, establishes a role
for the Federal government in providing financial and technical
assistance, national direction, and guidance to enhance State, local,
and tribal hazardous materials emergency planning and training. The
HMEP Grants Program is designed to build upon existing programs and to
support the working relationships within the National Response System
and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986
(Title III). 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. The grants are used to develop,
improve, and implement emergency plans, to train public sector
hazardous materials emergency response employees to respond to
accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials, to determine
flow patterns of hazardous materials within a State and between States,
and to determine the need within a State for regional hazardous
materials emergency response teams.
The grants program was designed to encourage the growth of
hazardous materials planning and training programs of State, local and
tribal governments. To ensure this growth, Sections 5116(a)(2)(A) and
5116(b)(2)(A) of the law require a State or Native American tribe
applying for grants to certify that the amount it expends on hazardous
materials planning and training, not counting Federal funds, will at
least equal the average amount spent for these purposes during the last
two fiscal years. The HMEP grants therefore represent additional funds
that supplement the amount already being provided by the State or
tribe. To further encourage growth in planning and training funds,
Section 5116(e) limits the Federal share of the costs of the additional
activity for which the grants are made to 80 percent, thus requiring
the State or tribe to provide 20 percent of these additional costs. By
accepting an HMEP grant, the State or tribe commits itself not only to
maintaining its previous level of support, but increasing that level by
an amount representing 20 percent of the funds newly expended on grant-
supported activities each year. For example, an HMEP grant of $100,000
requires an additional commitment of $25,000 in State or tribal funds
over the average amount expended by the agency during the previous two
years. These additional State or tribal funds may be provided in the
form of direct fiscal support or through the provision of in-kind
resources.
Effective responses to hazardous materials incidents depend on the
extent and quality of planning and training. Generally, a State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC) coordinates the activities of the
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). The nation's more than
3,000 LEPCs prepare and, in the case of an emergency, implement
emergency plans that delineate how responders coordinate activities at
the scene of an incident. Emergency plans include: (1) commodity flow
studies to determine the materials most likely to create an emergency;
(2) exercise plans to test the effectiveness of emergency response; and
(3) training requirements for responders. RSPA awards grants to
agencies designated by a State or territorial Governor or tribal
leader. These agencies are primarily emergency response and
environmental protection agencies and Native American tribal
governments. The designated agency distributes funds within the State,
territory, or Native American tribe in accordance with HMEP grant rules
and required certifications. Each grant is made in two portions. Under
49 U.S.C. 5116(a), the first portion of grant funds is awarded for
developing, improving, and implementing emergency plans under Title
III; conducting commodity flow studies; and determining the need for
regional hazardous materials response teams. In each year, RSPA
allocates approximately 40 percent of the grant funds for emergency
preparedness planning purposes.
The second portion of the grant is designated for training. RSPA
allocates approximately 60 percent of the grant funds for emergency
preparedness training purposes. This portion is used to train public
sector employees to respond safely and efficiently to accidents and
incidents involving hazardous materials. The people trained include
paid and volunteer firefighters, police, and emergency medical service
providers. The designated agencies distribute the major portion of the
grants to local emergency response organizations. This system promotes
representation of many interests within a State or territory.
The States are also required by Section 5116(a)(2)(B) to pass at
least 75 percent of the planning grant amount to LEPC's to develop
emergency plans, and by Section 5116(b)(2)(C) to make available at
least 75 percent of the training grant amount for training public
sector employees employed or used by a political subdivision of the
State. These provisions ensure that funds are provided to the local
emergency response teams for planning purposes, and that training is
provided to first responders.
Since 1993, all States and territories and 35 Native American
tribes have been awarded planning and training grants totaling $38.6
million. These grants, which were supplemented by funds from States,
tribes, and local agencies, were used to:
--Train 576,000 hazardous materials responders;
--Conduct 1,825 commodity flow studies;
--Write or update more than 1,000 emergency plans during the first
grant period, 1,200 in the second, 4,475 in the third, and
5,775 in the fourth;
-- Conduct 2,850 emergency response exercises; and
--Assist 1,200 LEPCs during the first year, 2,225 in the second,
2,150 in the third, and 1,900 in the fourth.
In addition, over the past six years, HMEP Grants Program funds
have been used to support the following related activities in the total
amounts indicated:
--$2.1 million for development and periodic updating of a national
curriculum of courses necessary to train public sector
emergency response and preparedness teams. The curriculum
guidelines, developed by a committee of Federal, State, and
local experts, include criteria for establishing training
programs for emergency responders at five progressively more
skilled levels: first responder awareness, first responder
operations, hazardous materials technician, hazardous materials
specialist, and on-scene commander. To date, there have been
three major and many minor updates to the curriculum
guidelines. The guidelines are used to qualify courses for
inclusion in the list. In this way, a national list of courses
is generated in full partnership with the States and other
interested parties. In addition, RSPA used some of the
registration fees to distribute more than 16,000 copies of the
HMEP interagency-developed curriculum guidelines to grantees,
LEPCs, SERCs, and local fire departments. A small portion of
the funds is used for coordination with other Federal agencies
through the National Response Team Training/Curriculum Sub-
Committee, chaired by RSPA. The guidelines are available from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) via its internet
web site at http://www.fema.gov/emi/hmep or by calling FEMA at
301-447-1009.
--$1.7 million to monitor public sector emergency response planning
and training for an accident or incident involving hazardous
materials, and to provide technical assistance to a State or
Native American tribe for carrying out emergency response
training and planning for an accident or incident involving
hazardous materials.
--$3.3 million for periodic updating and distribution of the North
American Emergency Response Guidebook.
--$0.5 million for supplemental grants to the International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to train instructors to
conduct hazardous materials response training programs.
--$2.0 million for administrative costs of carrying out the HMEP
Grants Program.
The HMEP Grants Program has allowed RSPA to support a wide array of
emergency preparedness planning and training activities of States and
Native American tribes, thereby enabling them to better respond to
numerous hazardous-materials-related emergencies. The experiences of
emergency response personnel in actual emergency situations during the
last six years demonstrate the effectiveness of the grants program. A
few representative examples attest to the benefits of this program:
--On October 25, 1995, a tank car containing nitrogen tetroxide
ruptured in Bogalusa, Louisiana, causing evacuation of a large
part of the town. The emergency plans of St. Tammany and
Washington parishes, written and updated in part with HMEP
grants funds, were implemented during this accident. Sergeant
Robert Pinero of the Louisiana State Police said, ``Twelve
State and local agencies involved in the Bogalusa response
received training because of the HMEP Grants Program and we
were able to effectively respond to this accident.''
--On April 21, 1996, an explosion at a chemical plant in Lodi, New
Jersey, killed four people. Local emergency plans had recently
been updated with HMEP grant funds to include a transportation
perspective and updated mutual aid plans. According to Sergeant
Lance Oram of the New Jersey State Police, ``Mutual aid from
surrounding communities, made possible by updated plans, was
critical to limiting the effect of the accident, as was
hazardous materials emergency training of local responders.''
--The Commonwealth of Virginia has implemented a hazardous materials
response team organization in part with HMEP funding. Steven
Patrick, Hazardous Materials Officer for the Virginia State
Department of Emergency Services, stated, ``It would have been
impossible to implement or maintain the response team
organization without the training and planning grants provided
by the HMEP Grants Program.'' Virginia's regional response team
approach was used in Lynchburg, Virginia, on March 31, 1998,
when a 61-car freight train carrying acetone derailed and an
explosion and fire occurred, resulting in the evacuation of a
36-block area, including a school, and $1 million in damages to
a nearby storage warehouse. Two regional hazardous materials
teams trained to the technician level using HMEP grant funds
responded to this accident. The availability of trained teams
was instrumental in minimizing the time and expense necessary
to respond to the accident according to the Virginia Department
of Emergency Services.
2. Increased Funding of the HMEP Grants Program
The HMEP Grants Program has accomplished much in a short period of
time, but many needs are not being met. Between 1993 and 1998, the
average of $6.4 million available for planning and training grants has
been only 50 percent of the $12.8 million authorized by the law for
these purposes ($5 million for planning and $7.8 million for training).
The HMEP training grants are essential for providing adequate training
of those persons throughout the nation responsible for responding to
emergencies involving the release of hazardous materials, both through
direct Federal financial assistance for such training and by
encouraging the provision of additional state and local funds for this
purpose.
In a recent review, RSPA estimated that 800,000 shipments of
hazardous materials make their way through the national transportation
system each day. These shipments range in size and type from single
small parcels of consumer commodities, such as flammable adhesives and
corrosive paint strippers, to bulk shipments of gasoline in cargo tank
motor vehicles and flammable or toxic gases in railroad tank cars. Such
shipments are transported in every State, every day of the year, and it
is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty when and where an
incident may occur. The potential threat requires the development of
emergency plans and training of emergency responders on the broadest
possible scale. Yet, RSPA also believes there are over 2 million
emergency responders requiring initial training or periodic
recertification training, including more than 250,000 paid
firefighters, 800,000 volunteer firefighters, 725,000 law enforcement
officers, and 500,000 emergency medical services (EMS) providers.
The continuing need for training for emergency response personnel,
whether paid or volunteer, is partially the result of a relatively high
rate of turnover. Emergency response personnel must be available at any
time and at a moment's notice to respond to situations that by their
very nature are unpredictable and pose a threat not only to the public
in general but to the responder in particular. This turnover means that
each year there is a significant number of recently recruited
responders who must be trained at the most basic level. In addition,
training at more advanced levels is not simply desirable, it is
essential if emergency response personnel capable of effectively and
safely responding to serious releases of hazardous materials are to be
provided. For this reason, RSPA advocates advanced training at the
first responder operations, hazardous materials technician, hazardous
materials specialist, and on-scene commander levels in every emergency
response team in the country. An increase in the funds available to the
HMEP Grants Program will encourage the State, tribal, and local
agencies to provide this more advanced, and more expensive, training.
The unmet needs of States and Native American tribes for financial
assistance in emergency preparedness planning and training for
transportation-related incidents involving hazardous materials are
great. RSPA is determined to narrow the current gap between the
authorized grant levels and the available Federal funds by its careful
targeting of the additional funds collected as a result of this
rulemaking. RSPA believes that it is essential to increase the awards
for emergency planning and training grants to the full $12.8 million
authorized by the law and, at the same time, maintain current funding
of the additional activities supported by the HMEP Grants Program
described above. We fully expect that the additional funds collected as
a result of this rulemaking effort will enable us to achieve that
objective. For FY-2000, RSPA is seeking Congressional appropriations of
$14.3 million in support of HMEP Grants Program activities to permit
funding for:
--Training and planning grants ($12.8 million);
--Grants/support to certain national organizations to train
instructors to conduct hazardous materials response training
programs ($250,000);
--Revising, publishing, and distributing the North American Emergency
Response Guidebook ($600,000 per year average);
--Monitoring and technical assistance ($150,000);
--Continuing development of a national training curriculum
($200,000); and
--Administering the grants program ($300,000).
II. Meeting the Need for Increased Funding
A. Publicity Campaigns to Notify Affected Persons
RSPA has conducted extensive outreach efforts to increase awareness
of the registration requirement. Approximately 780,000 informational
brochures have been distributed through direct mailing campaigns and
during presentations to industry. Those mailing campaigns targeted,
among others:
(1) More than 60,000 carriers and shippers identified as carriers
or shippers of hazardous materials by the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carriers (OMC);
(2) 6,000 motor carriers required to maintain financial
responsibility in the amount of $1 million or $5 million in insurance;
(3) 700 railroad companies known to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA);
(4) More than 22,000 generators and 13,000 transporters of
hazardous waste identified by the Environmental Protection Agency;
(5) Over 16,500 carriers and shippers identified in RSPA's
Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System;
(6) Approximately 4,000 holders of hazardous materials exemptions
issued by RSPA;
(7) Thousands of shippers and carriers who are members of trade
associations with interests in the transportation of hazardous
materials; and
(8) Thousands of carriers and shippers known to State agencies.
To avoid duplication of mailings when possible, RSPA has cross-
checked its registration data base with other lists provided by the
various Federal and State agencies and industry sources. Annually, RSPA
mails registration brochures and forms to hazardous materials shippers
and carriers newly entered into the OMC census of highway carriers and
shippers and into the RSPA list of shippers and carriers named on the
hazardous materials incident report form. The registration program has
been publicized in trade magazines and industry newsletters. Seven
notices of the registration requirements have been published in the
Federal Register.
B. Measures to Enhance Compliance
Many commenters to Docket HM-208B (60 FR 5822, January 30, 1995)
questioned whether a significant number of persons required to register
failed to do so, and whether an accelerated enforcement program would
raise sufficient funds to support the HMEP Grants Program fully. In
1994, to ensure compliance with the registration requirements, RSPA
proposed that offerors and transporters verify the registration status
of each other before transportation begins (Docket HM-208A, 59 FR
15602, April 1, 1994). Most commenters opposed this proposal.
Commenters overwhelmingly believed that Federal and State agencies, and
not industry, should be responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Commenters opposing this proposal cited logistical problems,
administrative burdens, and increased costs as reasons for their
opposition. RSPA did not adopt the proposal in the final rule (59 FR
32930, June 27, 1994).
The DOT modal administrations have incorporated verification of
registration into their normal compliance inspection routines.
Enforcement efforts sponsored by FHWA indicate a relatively high
compliance rate by motor carriers. Enforcement of the registration
requirements was a key element of ROADCHECK-93, and ROADCHECK-95,
nationwide inspection efforts led by FHWA. In ROADCHECK-93, of 2,300
placarded trucks that were checked for proof of registration, 88
percent were registered and had proof on board. Of the 12 percent that
did not have proof on board, 80 percent were already registered. In
ROADCHECK-95, 1,220 placarded trucks were stopped. Of these, 91 percent
were registered and had proof of registration on board. Of the 9
percent that did not have proof on board, 60 percent were registered.
This indicates a compliance rate among highway carriers of over 95
percent.
The safety compliance reviews conducted by FHWA (motor carriers)
and RSPA (non-bulk shippers and other offerors) confirm high rates of
compliance with the registration rule by industry. The following table
contains a summary of compliance statistics.
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEWS--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION RULE (1995-1997)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of citations for Percent of
Period and agency inspections failure to failures to
register register
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 FHWA........................................... 2,338 100 4.3
Fiscal year 1996 FHWA........................................... 3,215 79 2.5
Fiscal year 1997 FHWA........................................... 1,369 44 3.2
Fiscal year 1998 FHWA........................................... 2,032 35 1.7
CY 95 RSPA...................................................... 586 19 3.2
CY 96 RSPA...................................................... 610 15 2.5
CY 97 RSPA...................................................... 875 20 2.3
CY 98 RSPA...................................................... 1,053 26 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA publicized the registration program through technical bulletins
and informational brochures distributed to its regional offices and all
FRA inspectors. FRA checks for registrations during compliance reviews
and issues notices of defects for failure to register. FRA, FHWA, and
28 State enforcement agencies have issued more than 700 informal
notices of the requirement to register, a form developed for use in
ROADCHECK-93, but used beyond that operation. The majority of these
notices were issued in 1993, 1994, and 1995.
RSPA's goal remains 100 percent compliance. Therefore, RSPA once
again requests assistance from all interested persons to identify those
elements of affected industries, or individual companies, that they
suspect are required to file a registration statement and pay a fee,
but have not done so. Suspected violations of the registration
requirements, as well as other possible violations of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations, may be reported by calling RSPA's Hazardous
Materials Regulations Information Center at (800) 467-4922.
C. DOT Inspector General Recommendations
In 1996 the DOT Office of Inspector General performed a review of
the hazardous materials registration program, concentrating on RSPA's
efforts to inform the public of the registration requirements. The OIG
issued a ``Management Advisory'' on April 3, 1998, as a result of this
review, which made several recommendations, including one that called
on RSPA to establish a graduated registration fee schedule based on the
types and quantities of hazardous materials transported in order to
increase the grants program funds. That recommendation is addressed in
this notice. The other recommendations were related to increasing
RSPA's efforts to encourage compliance with the current registration
requirements through additional public information efforts.
To implement these recommendations, in May 1998 RSPA sent brochures
to 42,300 companies that were identified as carriers or shippers of
hazardous materials by the OMC. All of these companies had previously
been sent information on the registration program since 1992. In
October 1998 RSPA resent brochures to 33,000 of these companies in an
effort to ensure that companies likely to be required to register had
been informed of the registration program. RSPA also mailed
registration information to 6,229 companies in the OMC insurance record
database that are insured for $1 million or $5 million. RSPA estimates
that approximately 800 companies registered as a result of the May 1998
mailing and approximately 200 in response to the October 1998 mailing.
While these new registrations provide an additional $250,000 in annual
fees to support the HMEP Grants Program, it is an amount far short of
what is necessary to enhance funding for the program at the intended
level. The results of this effort are consistent with RSPA's finding
that at least 90 percent of the persons required to file a registration
statement and pay a fee are complying with the current rule, and that
little additional levels of revenue may be obtained by a more
aggressive compliance enforcement effort.
D. RSPA's Past Proposal to Increase Funding the Grants Program
On January 30, 1995, RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
under Docket HM-208B (60 FR 5822) proposing a three-tier registration
fee schedule. The proposed registration fee schedule was based on
various factors related to the extent of a company's involvement in the
transportation of hazardous materials. After considering over 300
comments from the public and other interested parties, RSPA concluded
that it needed more time to assess the registration and grant programs
and to reconsider fee equity based on the risks posed by various types
and quantities of hazardous materials. A final rule adopting some minor
revisions to the registration program, but maintaining a flat fee of
$300, was published on May 23, 1995 (60 FR 27231). In the four years
since that proposal, providing funds to support planning and training
aspects of the HMEP Grants Program at the levels authorized by Congress
has been an important goal for RSPA and the grant recipients.
E. Negotiated Rulemaking Convening Report
RSPA has considered advice, comments, and suggestions from the
public and interested industry groups made in previous rulemakings, and
at meetings, seminars, workshops, and discussions concerning the
reauthorization of the hazardous materials safety program. In the
Spring of 1998, in anticipation of this proposed rulemaking, RSPA
awarded a contract to assess the feasibility of addressing this issue
through a negotiated rulemaking. The convenor contacted approximately
40 representatives of the hazardous materials industry and State
regulatory agencies affected by the registration and grants programs to
ascertain issues of concern to these parties. The convenor recommended
that RSPA should proceed to use the negotiated rulemaking process to
develop an NPRM on the registration and fee requirements.
Although RSPA determined not to convene a committee, the convening
report has been useful in formulating this current proposal. A copy of
the Convening Report has been entered into this docket and is available
for review through DOT's Docket Unit and via the Internet at the URL
indicated in the addresses section of this document.
III. Proposal to Increase Funding of the HMEP Grants Program
In setting a registration fee, RSPA believes that its proposal
should meet the following objectives: (1) Be simple, straightforward,
and easily implemented and enforced; (2) employ an equity factor that
reflects the differences between the risk imposed on the public by the
business activities of large and small businesses; (3) ensure the
adequacy of funding for the HMEP Grants Program; and (4) be consistent
with the law.
Alternatives considered by RSPA for increasing the funds available
for the HMEP Grants Program included: (1) Increasing the flat fee
imposed on current registrants; (2) imposing a flat-fee on an expanded
base of registrants; (3) imposing a two-tier fee schedule on the
current registrants; and (4) imposing a two-tier fee schedule on an
expanded base of registrants. RSPA has concluded that imposing a two-
tiered fee schedule on an expanded base of registrants is the best
approach to meet the objectives listed above. The preliminary
regulatory evaluation prepared in support of this notice of proposed
rulemaking contains a discussion of each of those alternatives. A copy
of the preliminary regulatory evaluation was entered into the docket
and is available for review by all interested parties.
A. Impose a Two-Tier Fee Schedule on an Expanded Base of Registrants
RSPA proposes to expand the number of persons required to register
and to impose a fee schedule based on the size of the business. The
base of registrants would be expanded to all persons offering or
transporting a shipment of hazardous materials that requires
placarding, with the exception of farmers, as discussed below. A two-
tier fee schedule would be created, with the lower fee imposed on
registrants meeting the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
criteria for a small business, also discussed below. This alternative
would distribute fees according to a long-established measurement of
business size and ensure the collection of sufficient funds to support
the HMEP Grants Program at an enhanced level. Under this proposal, RSPA
would achieve its goal of raising $14.3 million annually (exclusive of
funds collected for administrative processing), by collecting a fee of
$300 (which includes a $25 processing fee) from approximately 43,500
registrants that are small businesses and a fee of $2,000 (which
includes a $25 processing fee) from an estimated 1,500 registrants not
meeting the criteria for a small business. Should the amount actually
collected exceed $14.3 million, the law, at Sec. 5108(g)(2)(B),
specifies that the Secretary of Transportation shall adjust the amount
being collected to reflect any unexpended balance in the account.
However, the Secretary is not required to refund any fee.
This alternative recognizes the risks posed to health and safety or
property by the transportation of hazardous materials in significant
quantities that require placarding. It would require that shippers,
carriers and other persons involved in the shipment of a placarded load
of hazardous materials bear a fair share of the financial burden that
falls on State and local government agencies to develop emergency plans
and to train first-on-the-scene responders.
expanded base
RSPA proposes to expand the base of persons required to register to
include, with one exception, offerors, carriers, and other persons who
transport or cause to be transported hazardous materials in a bulk
packaging, freight container, unit load device, transport vehicle, or
rail car that must display a hazard warning placard, under the
provisions of subpart F of part 172 of the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180).
The one exception is for those activities of a ``farmer,'' as
defined in Sec. 171.8 of the HMR, that support the farmers farming
operations. Absent this exception, the registration rule would
potentially apply to a very large number of the nation's more than two
million farms. If the actual number of affected farmers were only one
percent of the total number of farms, i.e., 20,600, that segment of the
economy would nearly equal the current number of 27,000 registrants
drawn from all segments of the economy. However, this is not a blanket
exception for all farmers from the registration rule. If a farmer
offers for transportation or transports in commerce a hazardous
material that is specifically identified in Sec. 5108(a)(1) of the law,
that farmer must submit a registration statement and pay the required
fee.
RSPA's proposal to expand the base of persons required to register
by including all placarded loads is responsive to concerns raised by
numerous persons who participated in earlier rulemaking proceedings on
this topic and through the convening process discussed earlier in this
preamble. This proposed expansion of the base to include all placarded
loads incorporates three important elements. First, the classes and
quantities of hazardous materials for which placarding is required pose
a substantial threat to health and safety or property during
transportation. Second, the application of generally well understood
hazard communication criteria for placarding greatly simplifies the
matter of whether a shipper, carrier or other person is required to
register. Simplification of the regulations similarly makes the rule
much easier to enforce, thereby further assuring a high rate of
compliance. Third, by expanding the scope of the registration rule RSPA
expects that it will have the financial resources necessary to increase
funding of planning and training grants under the HMEP Grants Program
to levels currently authorized by the law.
RSPA estimates that the proposed expansion of the universe of
additional persons required to register will result in an additional
15,000 to 18,000 registrations, for a total of 42,000 to 45,000
annually. This is based on RSPA's review of the best available data
from a number of sources, including the FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers
(OMC) database of motor carriers and their shippers, the 1992 Truck
Inventory and Use Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, and the
1992 Economic Census, also conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
While none of these sources discussed above contain the number of
persons who offer or transport hazardous materials in shipments that
require placarding, RSPA believes its estimate of the total number of
registrants is conservative and reasonable. We request information on
other sources from which to better estimate the number of persons who
would be required to register under the proposed rule. If such new
information suggests a number significantly larger than RSPA's current
estimate, RSPA would consider adjusting the proposed registration fees
to avoid collecting an amount in excess of the $14.3 million needed to
enhance funding of the HMEP Grants Program.
In addition, RSPA is interested in public comments on the
advisability of expanding the number of persons required to register as
proposed above, especially in relation to the economic impact of
adopting or not adopting this element of the proposal.
two-tier schedule of fees
RSPA proposes a two-tier fee schedule based on information that:
(1) Is readily available to potential registrants; (2) can be verified
by inspection and enforcement personnel; and (3) is based on one or
more of the fee determinants permitted by law. Although the
registration statement is excepted by 49 U.S.C. 5108 from requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, RSPA seeks to avoid any approach that
entails a large record keeping and accounting burden on industry and
the government. For example, basing the annual registration fee on a
person's hazardous materials shipments could require significant
changes in the way a registrant handles its paperwork tracking and
accounting procedures. Further, law enforcement personnel would have to
verify this information in order to ensure that a person's annual fee
is in fact commensurate with its activities.
RSPA believes that its goals are best met by establishing a two-
tier fee schedule under which a company not meeting the small-business
criterion established for it by the SBA at 13 CFR 121.201 pays a larger
fee than that required for a small business. Upon careful review of
census data concerning establishments identified by SIC codes
corresponding to operations involving the likely manufacture,
distribution, or sale (wholesale and retail) of hazardous materials,
RSPA estimates that of the 27,000 current registrants, approximately
1,000 registrants do not qualify as a SBA small business. If the base
of registrants is expanded to include all persons who offer or
transport placarded shipments, RSPA estimates that 1,500 shippers,
carriers, and offerors of hazardous materials would not qualify as a
SBA small business, while an estimated 43,500 registrants would meet
the criterion established by SBA appropriate to their commercial
activity.
RSPA believes this regulatory approach provides fee levels that
reflect a key factor contained in 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)(2)(A),
specifically, the relative size of a business. In addition, this
proposal addresses the different levels of risk posed by smaller
companies that are engaged in fewer and smaller shipments of hazardous
materials as compared to larger companies that annually manufacture,
offer, and transport thousands of tons of hazardous materials. RSPA
maintains that five of the specific factors permitted by 49 U.S.C.
5108(g)(2)(A) as fee determinants were intended to be indications of
the level of risk imposed by the registrant, and that two were intended
to be indications of the size of the business (see the list of fee
determinants above). Use of the SBA standards for differentiating small
businesses offers a simple and direct factor that is commonly used and
established by Federal regulation. The use of alternative size
criteria, even though they could be defined to reflect, for instance,
the relative percentage of specific hazardous materials related
businesses, would impose additional and possibly significant record-
keeping requirements on the registrants.
RSPA believes that the use of the SBA size criteria as a fee
determinant will not impose any additional recordkeeping requirements
on the registrants since existing personnel and payroll records can be
used to substantiate the number of employees, and financial records
subject to routine audits can be used to substantiate gross annual
receipts.
The SBA size standards for small businesses are readily available
and relatively simple to apply to a business. Each Standard Industrial
Code is assigned a standard that is either the number of employees or
the gross annual receipts of the business. If a registrant's number of
employees or gross annual receipts is equal to or less than the
standard assigned to the SIC category that best describes its
commercial activities, it qualifies as a small business. In most
instances a registrant will be able to immediately determine whether it
meets the small business definition. For instance, the size standard
for SIC Division D (Manufacturing) is the number of employees, and
depending on the product manufactured can be 500, 750, 1000, or 1,500.
Any registrant whose primary business is manufacturing that employs 500
persons or less, will qualify as a small business, and, again depending
on the SIC code, may qualify as a small business with up to 750 or 1000
employees. Registrants whose primary business falls within the SIC
Major Group ``Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing'' are
defined as small businesses if the gross annual receipts are equal to
or less than $18.5 million, with two exceptions (``Garbage and Refuse
Collection, without Disposal'' has an upper limit of $6.0 million, and
``Terminal and Joint Terminal Maintenance Facilities for Motor Freight
Transportation'' has a limit of $5.0 million). Here again, RSPA
believes that most motor carriers will immediately recognize whether
they meet the SBA criterion for a small business.
The SBA size criteria in 13 CFR part 121 are applied to a
``business concern'' or ``business entity.'' For the purposes of
determining the appropriate registration fee, the SBA criteria are to
be applied to the registering ``person'' as defined in 49 CFR 107.3,
even if that ``person'' is substantively different from the SBA
``concern'' or ``entity.'' For example, the SBA, at 13 CFR 121.103(a),
sometimes looks beyond the specific operations of a legally organized
business to consider whether its affiliation with another business
concern or business entity through identical or substantially identical
business or economic interests, such as family members, persons with
common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through
contractual or other relationships, may be treated as one party with
such interests aggregated. In its application of requirements for
registration RSPA makes no such distinction and each business concern
or business entity subject to the registration regulation would be
required to file a separate registration statement and pay the
appropriate fee.
Under this proposal, a foreign carrier that transports a specified
type and quantity of hazardous material within the United States would
have to determine its small-business status by applying the criteria in
13 CFR 121.201, using the U.S. Dollar equivalent of annual receipts or
the number of employees, as appropriate.
RSPA is interested in public comments on the advisability of
imposing a two-tier schedule of fees as proposed above, particularly in
relation to the alternative of maintaining the greater simplicity of a
flat fee collected from all registrants regardless of their business
size or amount and type of hazardous materials activities.
Lower Administrative Fee for All Registrants.
In this notice, RSPA proposes to reduce the processing fee to $25
in order to bring the aggregate amount collected closer to the amounts
needed to process the registration statement and to issue the
Certificate of Registration. All amounts collected by RSPA (including
the processing fee) are deposited into the U.S. Treasury, and Congress
appropriates funds for RSPA to process registration statements, issue
registration certificates, and perform the related parts of the
registration program. In fiscal years 1996-99, the amounts needed by
RSPA to administer the registration program, and appropriated by
Congress, have been about one-half of the total processing fees
collected. Although the current proposal would increase the number of
persons required to register and pay a registration fee, RSPA estimates
that a processing fee of $25 per registration statement will still be
necessary and sufficient to administer the registration program at that
level.
B. Registration Procedures
In connection with the proposed fee schedule, RSPA notes that
additional information would be required on the Registration Statement
submitted by persons subject to the registration requirements. The
proposed new information includes the SIC Code and certification of
whether the registrant meets the SBA standards for a small business.
The SIC Code would replace the former indication of ``Industrial
Classification'' on the Registration Statement.
At the request of various industry representatives, RSPA is also
proposing to permit registration for one, two, or three years on a
single registration statement. Registration for more than a single year
would be strictly optional. Registrants that register for years in
advance would not receive RSPA's courtesy mailing of registration
materials in the years for which they have pre-registered, but would
receive a notice to register when their current registration is about
to expire. A single administrative fee of $25 would be collected for
each registration statement submitted under this proposal, whether for
one, two, or three years, and a single registration statement and
number would be issued for the entire period.
IV. Fiscal year 2000 Budget Request and Hazardous Materials
Transportation Reauthorization Proposal
The Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget and the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Reauthorization proposals to Congress include
legislative authority to fund RSPA's entire Hazardous Materials Safety
Program from the registration fee program, beginning with the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2000. If this authority is granted, RSPA will
initiate additional rulemaking action to collect the approximately
$32.5 million needed to adequately fund both the HMEP Grants program
($14.3 million) and the remainder of RSPA's Hazardous Materials Program
($18.2 million).
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. The rule is considered significant
under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of
Transportation [44 FR 11034]. A regulatory evaluation is available for
review in the public docket. This proposal is intended to collect
annual registration fees in the amount of $14.3 million to support
activities of the HMEP Grants Program. Because Federal hazardous
materials transportation law mandates the establishment and collection
of fees, the discretionary aspects of this rulemaking are limited to
setting the amount of the fee within the statutory range for each
person subject to the registration program, and to extending the
registration requirements to persons who transport or cause the
transportation of hazardous materials but who are not specifically
required to register by law. The proposed fees are not related to the
cost of RSPA's hazardous materials safety programs. The fees to be paid
by shippers and carriers of certain hazardous materials in
transportation are related to the benefits received by these persons
from the sale and transportation of hazardous materials and from
emergency response services provided by public sector resources, should
an accident or incident occur. The fees are also related to expenses
incurred by State, Native American tribal, and local hazardous
materials emergency preparedness and response activities.
B. Executive Order 12612
This action has been analyzed in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (``Federalism''). States and local governments are ``persons''
under 49 U.S.C. 5102, but are specifically exempted from the
requirement to file a registration statement. The regulations herein
have no substantial effects on the States, on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. This
registration regulation has no preemptive effect. It does not impair
the ability of States, local governments or Native American tribes to
impose their own fees or registration or permit requirements on
intrastate, interstate or foreign offerors or carriers of hazardous
materials. Thus, RSPA lacks discretion in this area, and preparation of
a federalism assessment is not warranted.
C. Executive Order 13084
RSPA believes that revised regulations evolving from this NPRM
would have no significant or unique effect on the communities of Indian
tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria
contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments''). Therefore, the funding and
consultation requirements of this Executive Order would not apply.
Nevertheless, this NPRM specifically requests comments from affected
persons, including Indian tribal governments, as to its potential
impact.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires each
agency to review regulations and assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on
its preliminary regulatory evaluation prepared in support of this
proposal, RSPA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposal would expand the number of persons subject to RSPA's
registration and fee program to include all persons who offer for
transportation or transport a shipment of hazardous materials required
to be placarded. RSPA is also proposing to maintain at the current
level the combined registration and processing fee in the amount of
$300 as authorized by the Federal hazardous materials transportation
law for persons meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition of small business. In addition, RSPA is proposing a limited
exception for farmers that offer for transportation or transport
certain shipments of hazardous materials in support of their farm
operations.
Approximately 27,000 persons registered with RSPA for each of the
last two registration years, and these persons are expected to engage
in hazardous materials transportation activities that require
registration in the coming years. Approximately 65 percent (17,550) of
these persons are carriers or carriers-and-shippers, the remaining 35
percent (9,450) being shippers or other offerors who do not transport
hazardous materials. RSPA estimates that the proposed expansion of the
universe of persons required to register will result in an additional
15,000 to 18,000 registrations, for a total of 42,000 to 45,000 annual
registrations. This represents the least number of registrations that
can be reasonably expected under the proposed rule.
The 1992 Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS-92) conducted by the
Bureau of the Census as part of the Census of Transportation indicates
that there were 17 million trucks (not including pickups, vans, utility
vehicles, and station wagons) in the United States. Except for a few
specialized vehicle types, essentially all of those 17 million trucks
may be used in the transportation of hazardous materials. With
deregulation of the trucking industry there are essentially no economic
barriers to entry into this field of transportation; carriers that are
ready, willing, and able to transport hazardous materials are generally
free to do so. The data indicate that only 360,000 of the 17 million
trucks are actually used to carry placarded shipments of hazardous
materials. The number of companies maintaining these trucks was not
included in the census, but fleet sizes were provided. The number of
fleets that included a truck that carried hazardous materials is
estimated to be 40,000. This number contains an undetermined number of
farmers who would be excepted under the proposed rule.
The number of persons who offer shipments of hazardous materials
for transportation exclusively by rail, air, or water is thought to be
quite small by comparison to multi-modal shippers, and probably does
not exceed 500 to 1,000. An increase is expected in the number of motor
carriers that would be required to register and in the number of
persons that offer shipments of hazardous materials that require
placarding for transportation. RSPA expects that the estimated 15,000
to 18,000 new registrants will be divided in approximately the same
proportion as the current mix of registrants, i.e., 65 percent (9,750
to 11,700) would be carriers or carriers-and-shippers, and 35 percent
(5,250 to 6,300) would be persons who never transport their own
shipments of hazardous materials. Of the estimated 15,000 to 18,000 new
registrants, RSPA estimates that all but 400 to 500 are small
businesses.
RSPA believes the $300 in annual registration fees is so small as
to not constitute a significant burden on any small business. For
example, an independent owner-operator, i.e., a motor carrier not
operating under lease to a registered motor carrier, probably
represents the smallest of all small businesses potentially subject to
requirements in this proposed rule. These owner-operators typically own
one truck and average 2,000 revenue-miles per week at an estimated cost
per mile of $0.80 cents. Assuming the typical independent owner-
operator is in service 40 weeks per year, the additional cost per mile
attributed to $300 in registration and processing fees is $0.00375
cents. Stated differently, the independent owner-operator's increased
cost of doing business would be less that one-half of 1 percent of
current costs. That does not represent a significant impact on an
independent owner-operator's cost of doing business.
As indicated above, there are nearly 17 million vehicles in either
private commercial operations or for-hire service. Assuming, on the
basis of census data, that one-truck-only operators comprise 28 percent
of the national fleet, it follows that there are at least 4.25 million
concerns that could, at their discretion, engage in the transportation
of hazardous materials. In this analysis, RSPA notes that the estimated
total number of 9,750 to 11,700 persons described as carriers or
carriers-and-shippers that the agency expects would be subject to the
requirement to register is less than one-half of 1 percent of the 4.25
million very small carriers that comprise the for-hire and commercial
business services sector of the national economy. That is neither a
substantial number of all potentially affected transporters, nor is it
a substantial number of the 97 percent of those operators that RSPA
believes meet SBA criteria for a small business.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of
$100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State,
local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.
This proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the rule.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under 49 U.S.C. 5108(i), reporting and recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to the registration rule are specifically excepted from
information management requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
G. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems (Year 2000)
Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates may, on
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work.
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion,
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year
2000 problem.
This NPRM does not propose business process changes or require
modification to computer systems. Because the NPRM apparently does not
affect organizations' ability to respond to the Year 2000 problem, we
do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the proposed requirements
in the NPRM.
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
list of subjects in 49 cfr part 107
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 107 as follows:
part 107--hazardous materials program procedures
1. The authority citation for part 107 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 44701; Sec. 212-213, Pub. L. 104-
121, 110 Stat. 857; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.
subpart g--registration of persons who offer or transport hazardous
materials
2. Section 107.601 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 107.601 Applicability
(a) The registration and fee requirements of this subpart apply to
any person who offers for transportation, or transports, in foreign,
interstate or intrastate commerce--
(1) A highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive)
material, as defined in Sec. 173.403 of this chapter;
(2) More than 25 kg (55 pounds) of a Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3
(explosive) material (see Sec. 173.50 of this chapter) in a motor
vehicle, rail car or freight container;
(3) More than one L (1.06 quarts) per package of a material
extremely toxic by inhalation (i.e., ``material poisonous by
inhalation,'' as defined in Sec. 171.8 of this chapter, that meets the
criteria for ``hazard zone A,'' as specified in Sec. Sec. 173.116(a) or
173.133(a) of this chapter);
(4) A shipment of a quantity of hazardous materials in a bulk
packaging (see Sec. 171.8 of this chapter) having a capacity equal to
or greater than 13,248 L (3,500 gallons) for liquids or gases or more
than 13.24 cubic meters (468 cubic feet) for solids;
(5) A shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268 kg (5,000
pounds) gross weight or more of one class of hazardous materials for
which placarding of a vehicle, rail car, or freight container is
required for that class, under the provisions of subpart F of part 172
of this chapter; or
(6) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a quantity
of hazardous material that requires placarding, under provisions of
subpart F of part 172 of this chapter.
(b) Paragraph (a)(6) of this section does not apply to those
activities of a farmer, as defined in Sec. 171.8 of this chapter, that
are in direct support of the farmers farming operations.
(c) In this subpart, the term ``shipment'' means the offering or
loading of hazardous material at one loading facility using one
transport vehicle, or the transport of that transport vehicle.
3. In Sec. 107.608, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) would be revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 107.608 General registration requirements.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 107.616(d), each person subject to
this subpart must submit a complete and accurate registration statement
on DOT Form F 5800.2 not later than June 30 for each registration year,
or in time to comply with paragraph (b) of this section, whichever is
later. Each registration year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of
the following year.
(b) No person required to file a registration statement may
transport a hazardous material or cause a hazardous material to be
transported or shipped, unless such person has on file, in accordance
with Sec. 107.620, a current Certificate of Registration in accordance
with the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) Copies of DOT Form F 5800.2 and instructions for its completion
may be obtained from the Hazardous Materials Registration Program, DHM-
60, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by
calling 617-494-2545 or 202-366-4109, or via the Internet at http://
hazmat.dot.gov.
* * * * *
4. Section 107.612 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 107.612 Amount of fee.
(a) Registration year 1999-2000 and earlier. For all registration
years through 1999-2000, each person subject to the requirements of
Sec. 107.601(a)(1)-(5) must pay an annual fee of $300 (which includes a
$50 processing fee).
(b) Registration year 2000-2001 and following. For each
registration year beginning with 2000-2001, each person subject to the
requirements of this subpart must pay an annual fee as follows:
(1) Small business. Each person that qualifies as a small business
under criteria specified in 13 CFR part 121 applicable to the standard
industrial classification (SIC) code that describes that person's
primary commercial activity must pay an annual fee of $300 (which
includes a $25 processing fee).
(2) Other than a small business. Each person that does not meet
criteria specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must pay an
annual fee of $2,000 (which includes a $25 processing fee).
(3) The processing fee is limited to $25 for each registration
statement filed for more than one year, as provided in Sec. 107.616(c).
5. In Sec. 107.616, paragraphs (c) and (d)(2) would be revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 107.616 Payment procedures.
* * * * *
(c) Payment must correspond to the total fees properly calculated
in the ``AMOUNT DUE'' block of the DOT Form F 5800.2. A person may
elect to register and pay the required fees for up to three
registration years by filing one complete and accurate registration
statement.
(d) * * *
(2) Pay a registration and processing fee of $350 (including a $50
expedited handling fee). For registration years 2000-2001 and
following, persons who do not meet the criteria for a small business,
as specified in Sec. 107.612(b)(1), must enclose payment of $1,700 with
the expedited follow-up material, for a total of $2,050 (including a
$50 expedited handling fee); and
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 12, 1999, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
______
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan, Chairman
fiscal year 2000 budget request
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Linda J.
Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). It is my
pleasure to submit the budget request for the Board for fiscal year
2000.
background on the board
As you know, on January 1, 1996, the Board was established pursuant
to Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA).
Consistent with the trend toward less economic regulation of the
surface transportation industry, the ICCTA eliminated the ICC and, with
it, several regulatory functions that it had administered. The ICCTA
transferred to the Board core rail functions and certain non-rail
adjudicative functions previously performed by the ICC. Motor carrier
licensing and certain other motor functions were transferred to the
Federal Highway Administration within the Department of Transportation
(DOT).
The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent,
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT. The rail
oversight of the Board encompasses maximum rate reasonableness, car
service and interchange, mergers and line acquisitions, and line
constructions and abandonments. The important rail reforms of the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980 are continued under the ICCTA. The
jurisdiction of the Board also includes certain oversight of the
intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers; rate regulation involving
non-contiguous domestic water transportation, household goods carriers,
and collectively determined motor rates; and the disposition of motor
carrier undercharge claims. The ICCTA empowers the Board, through its
exemption authority, to promote deregulation administratively.
the board's fiscal year 2000 budget request
The Board's fiscal year 2000 budget request totals $17.0 million
and 140 FTEs, essentially adjusting the fiscal year 1999 level for
inflation and pay raises. This request reflects the relatively constant
workload that is expected and the statutory and regulatory deadlines
associated with the resolution of the cases filed.\1\ The workload of
the Board at any given time, other than motor carrier undercharge
cases, remains relatively constant because, even as cases are resolved,
new cases are filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attached (Attachment # 1) is a table that presents in more
detail the specifics of the Board's fiscal year 2000 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is confronted with three concerns involving the resources
necessary to adjudicate its constant workload and meet statutory and
regulatory deadlines. The Board must have a way of ensuring that it can
hire new employees in sufficient time to be prepared to replace the 38
percent of experienced employees who will be eligible to retire in the
next 3 years. While some of these employees may wish to continue to
work after their retirement eligibility date, many will not. Second,
the Board must have the necessary resources to accommodate any
legislative changes that Congress might approve. And lastly, the
funding source must remain stable for the Board to carry out its
mandate. In this regard, a debate continues over whether the Board
ought to be fully funded through user fees, and the Administration has
included such a proposal in its fiscal year 2000 budget. Such an
approach would require additional legislative authority and until
Congress provides new direction, the financing mechanism of
appropriations and offsetting collections is the appropriate way to
proceed.
overall goals of the board
In the performance of its functions, the objective of the Board is
to ensure that, where regulatory oversight is necessary, it is
exercised efficiently and effectively, integrating market forces, where
possible, into the overall regulatory model. In particular, the Board
seeks to resolve matters brought before it fairly and expeditiously.
Through use of its regulatory exemption authority, streamlining of its
decisional process and the regulations applicable thereto, and
consistent application of legal and equitable principles, the Board
seeks to facilitate commerce by providing an effective forum for
efficient dispute resolution and facilitation of appropriate business
transactions. The Board continues to strive to develop, through
rulemakings and case disposition, new and better ways to analyze unique
and complex problems, to reach fully justified decisions more quickly,
and to reduce the costs associated with regulatory oversight.
To be more responsive to the surface transportation community by
fostering governmental efficiency, innovation in dispute resolution,
private-sector solutions to problems, and competition in the provision
of transportation services, the Board will:
--Continue to strive for a more streamlined process for the
expeditious handling of rail rate reasonableness and other
complaint cases, in an effort to provide additional regulatory
predictability to shippers and carriers;
--Continue to reduce processing time for all cases before the Board,
in particular to ensure that appropriate market-based
transactions in the public interest are facilitated; and
--Continue to develop new opportunities for the various sectors of
the transportation community to work cooperatively with the
Board and with one another to find creative solutions to
persistent industry and/or regulatory problems involving
carriers, shippers, employees, and local communities.
fiscal year 1998 accomplishments of the board
During fiscal year 1998, the Board issued 1,170 decisions,
involving adjudications and rulemakings, dealing with rail and non-rail
transportation issues. These decisions pertained to rail carrier
consolidations; review of rail labor arbitral decisions; rail rates and
service; line sales; line constructions; set terms and conditions for
continued rail service; and abandonments. They also related to truck
rate undercharge cases, intercity bus merger and pooling matters, motor
carrier collective ratemaking oversight, and other non-rail matters
such as pipeline rate cases.
With respect to rulemaking activity, the Board issued decisions
exempting commodities, services, and other classes of transactions from
regulation where regulation is not necessary. In addition, the Board
initiated STB Ex Parte No. 575, Review of Rail Access and Competition
Issues, in response to complaints by shippers dependent on rail service
that, as a result of consolidation in the industry, competitive options
have not been expanded, that rail service is inadequate, and that the
available regulatory remedies are burdensome and unresponsive.
Following two days of hearings during which approximately 60 witnesses
testified, the Board initiated actions addressing rail revenue adequacy
procedures, competitive rail access, product and geographic competition
in market dominance rail rate reasonableness determinations, expedited
relief for service inadequacies, the role of smaller railroads, and
formalized discussions between the railroads and their customers.
With regard to specific cases, the Board made significant progress
in resolving pending rail and pipeline rate complaints. In particular,
the Board affirmed its decision in Arizona Public Service Company v.
Santa Fe Railroad that certain rail rates for the movement of coal were
unreasonably high, prescribing a rate that represents a 35 percent
reduction from the rate earlier charged by Santa Fe. The Board also
made progress in resolving other major rail and pipeline maximum rate
complaints, including STB Docket No. 42022, FMC Wyoming Corporation and
FMC Corporation v. Union Pacific Railroad Company; STB Docket No.
41295, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company v. Consolidated Rail
Corporation; and STB Docket No. 41685, CF Industries, Inc. v. Koch
Pipeline Company, PL.. In addition, STB Docket No. 41989, Potomac
Electric Power Company v. CSX Transportation Inc., and STB Docket No.
42012, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Idaho Power Company v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company, were resolved voluntarily by the parties; it
is important to note, however, that the Board had done significant work
on these cases by the time they were settled. Finally, the Board
defended its decision on simplified evidentiary guidelines for
determining the reasonableness of challenged rail rates charged on
captive traffic where the Constrained Market Pricing guidelines cannot
practicably be applied (Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-No.2), Rate Guidelines-
Non-Coal Proceedings); the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia declined to review the Board's decision in this
case as not being ripe, finding that it ``would benefit from an actual
application of'' the simplified rate guidelines. Further, the Board set
the terms and compensation for Amtrak's operations over tracks owned by
the Guilford Rail System.
With respect to rail restructuring, the Board continued its annual
oversight of the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific (UP/SP) merger, and
specifically initiated a proceeding focused on rail transportation in
the Houston area. In addition, the Board continued its proceeding
dealing with the rail service emergency in the West until the rail
emergency abated. Furthermore, the Board issued a decision approving
the control of Conrail by the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads, with
various competitive, environmental, labor, and operational conditions,
including a 5-year oversight condition and substantial operational
reporting and monitoring. The Board also began its review of the merger
application dealing with the acquisition of Illinois Central Railroad
by the Canadian National Railway.
The Board issued decisions on various other rail matters, including
452 rail abandonment decisions, 42 rail line construction decisions,
138 decisions involving rail consolidations, and 185 short-line and
non-carrier acquisition decisions. In particular, the Board adopted a
procedural schedule for the construction and operation of a 281-mile
segment of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad in Wyoming to be
used to transport coal from the Powder River Basin to the Upper
Midwest.
Regarding other matters, the Board issued a decision permitting
Amtrak to transport express traffic over UP/SP lines provided that this
transportation is ancillary to genuine passenger service (STB Finance
Docket No. 33469, Application of the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Union Pacific Railroad Company
and Southern Pacific Transportation Company). The Board also
established a joint task force with the Department of Agriculture to
address shipper and railroad information needs related to seasonal
issues affecting grain transportation. Non-rail decisions included 119
motor carrier undercharge decisions and 34 decisions dealing with
intercity bus merger cases and pooling agreements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These numbers are subsets of the decisions included in the
workload summary table that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal years 1999 and 2000
Attached is a table (Attachment #2) that shows workload trends and
accomplishments, which form the basis for the Board's request to have
its current level of funding relatively maintained in fiscal year 2000.
As the table indicates, the Board believes that the number of decisions
issued is the best measure of workload and performance. In accordance
with the Board's continued commitment to resolving matters before it
expeditiously, it anticipates a relatively constant workload and output
through fiscal year 2000.
During fiscal year 1999 and 2000, the Board will continue to look
for ways to streamline or otherwise improve applicable regulations and
the regulatory process. The Board will entertain whatever exemptions
from regulation might be appropriate and resolve as expeditiously as
possible petitions for rulemaking filed by parties.
Regarding specific rulemaking activity, during fiscal year 1999, in
rulemakings arising out of the rail access and competition hearings and
proceedings, the Board eliminated the consideration of evidence of
product and geographic competition in market dominance determinations
and established procedures for obtaining temporary alternative rail
service to provide relief from service inadequacies. The Board observed
that removing the product and geographic competition evidentiary
standards would expedite rail rate cases in accordance with
Congressional intent, and would further level the playing field between
railroads and shippers, thereby resulting in more private-sector
solutions to rate disputes. With respect to service inadequacies, the
Board established new procedures under which shippers or connecting
railroads affected by service problems of an ``incumbent'' carrier can
seek temporary service from an alternative rail carrier. Also, the
Board will continue to monitor the implementation of private-sector
agreements entered into in accordance with the Board's directive as
part of the rail access and competition proceedings.
With respect to rail carrier consolidations, workload is expected
to remain constant for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. In
particular, the Board will continue to monitor the UP/SP merger and the
Conrail acquisition pursuant to the five-year oversight conditions that
the Board imposed as part of its approval of those mergers. During
fiscal year 1999, the Board issued a decision regarding UP/SP service
in the Houston area and general oversight of the UP/SP merger. In
addition, the Board during fiscal year 1999 will decide on the merger
application dealing with the acquisition by Canadian National Railway
of the Illinois Central Railroad.
Regarding rail rates and services, the workload is expected to
increase in fiscal year 1999 and then further increase in fiscal year
2000, due to an anticipated increase in the number of rate
reasonableness complaints, as long-term coal transportation contracts
continue to expire, as complaints are filed seeking application of the
Board's recently issued non-coal rate guidelines, and as parties seek
rate relief in accordance with the Board's recent bottleneck decision.
These new cases will be complex and require significant staff attention
as new standards are tested. In addition, the Board will continue to
work on the various pending rate matters previously referenced.
In light of the ongoing major restructuring activity among larger
railroads, other rail restructuring will continue. While rail
abandonment filings continue to decline (as line sales continue at an
increased level, providing an alternative to service abandonment), rail
abandonment decisions are expected to decline in fiscal year 1999 and
then remain stable through fiscal year 2000, because the increased
complexity of abandonment filings may require more than one decision.
The Board continues to handle complex line constructions, which involve
significant environmental review issues, and projects that line
construction proceedings will remain constant through fiscal year 2000.
For example, the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad filed an
application to build over 200 miles of new line and to upgrade 700
miles of existing line into the Powder River Basin as an alternative
for the rail movement of coal out of that region (STB Finance Docket
No. 33407, Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Corporation
Construction into the Powder River Basin). In fiscal year 1999, the
Board issued a decision on the transportation merits of this proposal
and will continue its work on the environmental issues associated with
the project. In addition, Tongue River Railroad has filed a new
application for the proposed construction of an alternative route for a
line already approved for construction (STB Finance Docket No. 30186
(Sub-No.3), Tongue River Railroad Company--Construction and Operation--
Western Alignment). Other line transaction activity is expected to
increase slightly in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 as more
carriers continue to sell unprofitable or marginally profitable lines
as an alternative to service abandonment.
Truck rate undercharge workload is expected to decrease
significantly during fiscal year 1999 from the fiscal year 1998 level,
and then further drop off in fiscal year 2000. The reduction in
undercharge decisions reflects the Board's commitment to resolving its
undercharge docket, and specifically its handling of the docket in a
more efficient way by consolidating cases with common issues. Other
non-rail activities, including intercity bus merger and pooling
proceedings and pipeline rate cases, are expected to continue during
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 at the fiscal year 1998 level. In
accordance with a Board decision issued in early fiscal year 1999,
during late fiscal year 1999 or early fiscal year 2000, the Board
expects to finally resolve the circumstances under which motor carrier
ratemaking antitrust immunity should be continued, taking into account
any expression of Congressional intent during this period.
summary
The Board's budget request would ensure the resources needed for
the Board to continue to implement its responsibilities expeditiously
and effectively as Congress intends. I would be happy to answer any
other questions that the Committee may have about the Board's fiscal
year 2000 budget request.
ATTACHMENT 1--SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------ Difference
1998 1999 2000 from
Actual Enacted Request enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Positions............................................ 129 135 \3\ 140 5
Full-time Equivalents.......................................... 129 135 140 5
================================================
Personnel Compensation and Benefits............................ $11,606 $12,671 $13,210 $539
Former Personnel............................................... 83 20 10 (10)
Travel......................................................... 44 50 55 5
Other Costs.................................................... 4,095 3,259 3,725 466
------------------------------------------------
Total Budget Resources................................... $15,828 $16,000 $17,000 $1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requested increase in FTE will be absorbed within the current level of funding by allowing the Board to
hire entry level staff to replace the tenured, retirement-eligible staff prior to their retirement dates. This
would ensure the required transition for current staff to new staff, who can gain working knowledge and
analytical and legal expertise necessary to process the Board's caseload and prepare decisions for the Board's
adjudication.
Changes in Resources
For personnel compensation and benefits, $13,210,000 is requested
to support the Board's permanent positions. This is an increase of
$539,000 over fiscal year 1999, of which $102,000 is required to fund
the annual cost of the January 1999 pay raise and $390,000 is required
for the January 2000 pay raise estimated at 4.4 percent. The request
also includes $48,000 for lump-sum leave payments to retiring
employees.
Funding for costs for former personnel unemployment payments is
requested at $10,000, which is a decrease of $10,000 from fiscal year
1999. This is due to a decrease in unemployment compensation payments
to former employees who were separated from Federal service.
A travel budget of $55,000 is requested primarily for on-site
visits to railroads to finalize audits and review public accountants'
workpapers, for physical inspection of proposed rail abandonment and
construction sites and verification of environmental data provided by
parties to proceedings, for defense of the Board's decisions in courts
across the country, and for the general presentation upon request of
issues within the Board's jurisdiction.
Funding to cover other costs is requested at $3,725,000, a $466,000
increase over fiscal year 1999. Included in this number is a rental
payment increase directed by the General Services Administration (GSA)
and regular cost increases in telephone service, mail delivery, copier
rental, office supplies, and reimbursable services acquired from other
Federal agencies.
ATTACHMENT 2--FISCAL YEAR 2000 OMB BUDGET JUSTIFICATION WORKLOAD SUMMARY
\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions issued
---------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Workload category ---------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
Actual Estimated \5\ Estimated \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail Carrier Consolidations..... 138 155 155
Rail Rates and Service.......... 77 114 119
Rail Abandonments and 494 473 473
Constructions..................
Other Line Transactions......... 185 199 199
Other Rail Activities........... 75 97 108
Motor Carrier Undercharges...... \6\ 1196 78 52
Non-Rail Activities............. 82 87 87
---------------------------------------
Total Decisions........... \6\ 1,17 \7\ 1,203 \7\ 1,1937
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At this time, the Board believes that the number of decisions
issued is the best measure of workload at the Board. Certain
activities performed at the Board that provide direct and indirect
support to rulemakings and decisions in specific cases are not
reflected in these workload numbers. Such activities not reflected
include: enforcement action; judicial review work; rail audits and
rail carrier reporting oversight; administration of the rail waybill
sample and development of the Uniform Rail Costing System; and case-
related correspondence and informal public assistance.
\5\ Estimated workload for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 are based on
historical information regarding actual filings and best estimates of
probable future filings by parties. Because the Board is principally
an adjudicatory body, it does not directly control the level or Timing
of actual case filings.
\6\ The motor carrier undercharge decisions projected for fiscal year
1998 have decreased from previous estimates. This decrease is a
reflection of the Board's consolidation of several undercharge case
dockets into a single decision. The ``bundling'' of related
undercharge cases into a single decision accounts for the decrease in
the number of overall decisions by the Board.
\7\ The decrease between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 reflects
what the Board expects to be a decrease of the overall undercharge
docket from fiscal year 1998 offset by minor increases in some rail
workload activities. The small percentage of the total FTEs allocated
to undercharge cases will still be needed to ensure continued progress
in resolving the remaining undercharge docket. Thus, the total FTEs
needed in fiscal year 2000 would be the same as that anticipated for
fiscal year 1999 and currently available in FY 1998.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
board members' terms and staffing
Question. What is the current status of the Board membership. How
long has the third Board member position been vacant? Is anyone
nominated for the third Board position? What is the status of that
nomination?
Answer. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) provided that the
term for each Member of the Board shall be 5 years and shall begin when
the term of the predecessor of that Member ends. Also under the ICCTA,
a Board Member can only be reappointed for one additional term and, if
not reappointed, cannot serve more than one year past the expiration of
his or her term. The Board currently consists of three members serving
in various terms. There are no vacancies at the Board at this time.
Question. When do the terms of the current three Board members
expire? Has Ms. Morgan been renominated for another term? What is the
status of that nomination?
Answer. The membership of the Board and the expiration of the Board
members' terms follow: Linda J. Morgan, December 31, 1998; William
Clyburn Jr., December 31, 2000; and Wayne O. Burkes, December 31, 2002.
To date, the White House has not submitted a renomination for
Chairman Morgan.
funding history
Question. Please update the table found on page 835 of Senate
hearing record 105-851, displaying the Board's funding request, the
Administration's request, the enacted funding level, and the end of
year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal year 1995 to that
requested for fiscal year 2000. Please display both appropriated funds
and offsetting collections.
Answer. The following table displays the funding history of the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Board for fiscal years
1995 through 2000.
BUDGET REQUESTS AND ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC STB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 \8\ 1996 \1\ 1997 1998 1999 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
Appropriation....................... $45,069,000 $32,892,000 .............. $12,344,000 $12,753,000 $14,190,000 $15,821,000
Offsetting Collections.............. 7,300,000 8,300,000 .............. 3,000,000 3,100,000 2,000,00 1,200,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................... 52,369,000 41,192,000 .............. 15,344,000 15,853,000 16,190,000 \9\ 17,021,000
===============================================================================================================
President:
Appropriation....................... 44,429,000 33,202,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Offsetting Collections.............. 8,300,000 8,300,000 .............. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................... 52,729,000 41,502,000 .............. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000
===============================================================================================================
Enacted:
Appropriation \10\.................. 33,083,000 13,379,00 $8,414,000 12,244,000 13,850, 000 15,990,000 ..............
Offsetting Collections \11\......... 7,738,000 3,200,000 652,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 \12\ 2,600,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................... 40,821,000 16,579,000 9,066,000 15,244,000 15,850,000 15,990,000 ..............
===============================================================================================================
End of Year:
Staffing Level...................... 402 \13\ 317 132 127 130 135 140
FTE Level........................... 416 \5\ 86 106 131 129 135 140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ During fiscal year 1996, the ICCTA was passed, the ICC was eliminated effective December 31, 1995, and the Board was established effective January
1, 1996. The enacted funding levels for the ICC for fiscal year 1996 reflect ICC operational and termination expenses for one quarter of the fiscal
year and the Board funding levels for fiscal year 1996 reflect Board operational expenses for three-quarters of the fiscal year.
\9\ The Board's fiscal year 2000 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for fiscal year 1999) plus inflationary and
personnel salary increases.
\10\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\11\ Actual offsetting collections. In fiscal year 1997, there was a carryover of $625,031 over the obligational limitation. In fiscal year 1998, there
was a carryover of $315,586 over the obligational limitation.
\12\ The fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriations provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000 shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and that the sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as such offsetting collections are received.
user fees and offsetting collections
Question. Please update the table on page 837 of Senate Hearing
record 105-851, displaying in tabular form the level of anticipated
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000
budget requests. Please also include columns displaying the President's
budget assumptions for user fee income in each of these four fiscal
years. In addition, please display the level of user fee offsets
included in the appropriations legislation for the Board in fiscal
years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Finally, please include columns displaying
the actual amount of offsetting user fees collected in fiscal years
1997 and 1998, and projected through the end of fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of
user fees for fiscal year 1997 through 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fee Anticipated Income in Budget Request... $3,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000
President's Budget Assumptions.................. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000
User Fee Offsets in Appropriations Language..... 3,000,000 2,000,000 \14\ 2,600,000 ..............
Offsetting Collections Actual................... \15\ 3,625,031 \2\ \16\2,315, \17\ 400,895 ..............
586
Projected end of fiscal year.................... .............. .............. 799,105 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriation provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000 shall be credited to
this appropriation as offsetting collections and that the sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for
dollar basis as such offsetting collections are received.
\15\ These figures include $2,360,400 in fiscal year 1997, and $67,050 in fiscal year 1998, in user fees
associated with the Conrail acquisition.
\16\ This figure includes $966,700 in user fees associated with the Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central
merger.
\17\ User Fees collected 10/1/98-03/31/99.
fiscal year 2000 user fee collections
Question. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed that the
Appropriations Committees strike the fiscal year 1999 language
providing that any fees collected by the Board be credited to the
appropriation as offsetting collections. This provision holds the Board
harmless from any shortfall in the collection of user fees. OMB argues
that ``such language reduces the incentive to collect fees'' and that
``the Board has been criticized for not fully collecting the fees
required of it under current law.'' How would you refute these
assertions? Why is this provision necessary?
Answer. The Board prefers the bill language as provided in the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations law that allows the user fees to be
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections and to reduce
the general fund appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees
are received and credited. Since the submission of fee-related filings
is unpredictable and can vary depending of the current business climate
of the country and the rail industry or the business priorities of
individual rail carriers or rail shippers, the Board has no certainty
of collecting a specific level of offsetting collections. Prior to this
provision, the Board was required to spend considerable staff hours
tracking the user fees collected by category and forecasting the user
fee categories monthly to derive an end of year projection to ensure
that there were sufficient resources to supplement the appropriation.
The financial forecasting relating to day-to-day operations hampered
fiscal year planning due to the uncertainty of the total resources
available for the Board's operation.
OMB asserts that ``such language reduces the incentive to collect
fees.'' The Board does not generate its offsetting collections. It only
collects offsetting collections for user fee-related filings, in
accordance with the Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act of 1952 (IOAA), 65 Stat. 290, recodified at 31 U.S.C. 9701, at the
time the applications or other documents are filed with the Board. The
Board annually updates its user fee schedule for changes in the costs
of direct labor, overhead, and other attributable expenses. The Board
has reviewed its user fee collection schedule and found that many of
the services and functions it provides to the public cannot be assessed
a fee because of language contained in the IOAA, which states: ``[a]
user charge will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for
special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received
by the general public.'' Specifically, since the beginning of fiscal
year 1999, the Board has identified 48 activities that it provides to
the public for which no user fee is currently assessed. Many of the 48
services and functions entail activities that are done for the public
good and do not pertain to a specific beneficiary, which is a
prerequisite for assessing a fee (e.g., rulemakings, class I railroad
audits, congressionally mandated industry studies and reports, etc.).
The IOAA does not allow the Board to charge a user fee for these types
of activities because they are for the public good. The Board has,
however, earmarked approximately 20 of the 48 activities noted above
and in the near future will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) to the public for comment, proposing that fees be adopted for the
20 activities. Additionally, for certain activities--including, among
others, rate cases and cases involving Amtrak--the fees that the Board
assesses are far below its costs, because fully cost-based fees would
block access to the regulatory system. Under the current user fee
program (bound by the IOAA) the Board will never be able to fully cover
its budgetary needs through the user fee program.
Question. The budget request forwarded by OMB includes an
assumption of $2,600,000 in user fees (the same level as fiscal year
1999)--your February 9, 1999, budget request from the Board assumes
$1,200,000 from user fees. If you have updated the fee schedule for
1999 and increased some fees, why do you anticipate collecting less
than half the level of fees in fiscal year 2000 that will be collected
in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The budget request forwarded by OMB assumes that the Board
will collect $2,600,000 in offsetting collections for both fiscal years
1999 and 2000. The Board first projected in the summer of 1998 that
offsetting collections in fiscal year 1999 would be about $1,200,000,
with no large dollar fee-relating filings occurring during the fiscal
year. Actual offsetting collection receipts for the six-month period
ending March 31, 1999, are $400,895 and the Board estimates a total
collection of $1,200,000 by September 30, 1999. Consequently, the Board
included in its request for fiscal year 2000 the same figure of
$1,200,000 in offsetting collections. The Board has not been apprised
of the assumptions made by OMB to arrive at the figure of $2,600,000.
The Board's 1999 Update was effective on March 5, 1999, and
increased 40 of the 113 fee items. The increases revised the direct
labor cost to reflect the 1999 Government-wide salary and locality
increase of 3.86 percent and the change in the overhead factors. While
most of the fee increases for fiscal year 1999 are under $1,000,
certain of the higher dollar increases are in fee-item categories for
which the Board does not project to receive any filings during fiscal
year 1999.
fiscal year 1999 user fee collections
Question. What is the current level of assessed user fees in fiscal
year 1999? What is anticipated to be assessed in the remainder of this
fiscal year? Please discuss the reasons for any delta above or below
the enacted level of $2,600,000 in offsetting collections.
Answer. The Board estimates a collection of $1,200,000 by September
30, 1999. The Board revised its projection for fiscal year 1999 user
fee collections to $1,200,000 in the summer of 1998 after the filing of
the Canadian National/Illinois Central rail merger. At that time, the
Board was averaging approximately $100,000 in non-merger related fee
filings per month. In the two previous fiscal years, Class I rail
mergers, with filing fees of approximately $900,000 each, provided the
Board with offsetting collections to attain the respective $3,000,000
and $2,000,000 user fee levels.
The Board has collected $400,895 in user fees through March 31,
1999. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act included the $2,600,000
level with the expectation that a Class I rail merger filing would
occur. However, with only 8 Class I railroads remaining after the
merger activity of the past two fiscal years, the Board does not
envision any Class I merger filings during fiscal year 1999.
Question. What was the amount of carryover user fees from fiscal
year 1998 which was available for obligation after October 1, 1998?
Answer. The Board collected $2,315,586 in fiscal year 1998, of
which $315,586 was available to be carried over for obligation after
October 1, 1998.
user fee schedule
Question. Has the Surface Transportation Board updated its user fee
schedule for 1999? If so, please detail in tabular form the 1999 user
fee update schedule, including all fee items or sub-fee items,
including both the 1998 and 1999 fee amounts, with a column showing the
amount of increase, if any (similar to the table found on pages 838-840
of Senate hearing record 105-851).
Answer. The 1999 User Fee Update was effective on March 5, 1999.
The following table displays the fee amounts in the 1998 and 1999 user
fee schedule and the increased amount of each fee item.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSM.008
staffing increases
Question. The STB has requested an increase of 5 FTEs for fiscal
year 2000, from 135 to 140. Staffing levels have remained stable for
the last two years (fiscal years 1998 and 1999). What workload
increases are anticipated that would necessitate increases in the
Office of the Secretary; the Office of the General Counsel; the Office
of Proceedings; and the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis,
and Administration? (Please discuss each proposed staffing increase
individually.)
Answer. While the number of cases pending at the Board has remained
relatively constant because, as cases are resolved, new cases are
filed, the Board is concerned that a large number of current Board
employees are already eligible to retire under current regulations and
that an even larger number of employees will become retirement eligible
within the next 2-3 years. The requested authorization for 140 FTEs
will provide the Board with the discretion to hire staff in specific
offices to replace tenured, retirement-eligible staff prior to their
anticipated retirement date. This is to ensure the required transition
from current staff, who are becoming retirement-eligible, to new staff,
who can gain working knowledge and analytical and legal expertise
necessary to process the Board's caseload and prepare decisions for the
Board. Between now and September 30, 2002, 38 percent of the Board's
employees will be eligible for voluntary retirement. The following
table reflects the retirement eligibility of Board employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/30
-------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible By............................. 22 29 36 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If the workload will generally be increasing,
necessitating a staff increase, why does the Board anticipate that the
level of offsetting fees it collects will decrease so dramatically?
Answer. While the Board's workload and the number of cases pending
at the Board have remained relatively constant, the requested staff
increase is attributed to the Board's concern that a large number of
current Board employees are already eligible to retire under current
regulations and that an even larger number of employees will become
retirement eligible within the next 2-3 years. With the constant number
of cases being processed by the Board, and the probability that no
major merger will be filed in the near future, the level of offsetting
collections should also remain relatively constant at the estimated
$1,200,000 level.
comparison of fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budgets
Question. The Board's fiscal year 2000 request is for $17,000,000,
$1,000,000 more than the enacted fiscal year 1999 level of $16,000,000.
In the salaries and expenses detail table included with the Board's
February 9, 1999, budget submission, it appears that $529,000 of this
$1,000,000 increase is associated with ``people costs'', this is,
personnel compensation, benefits, and reimbursable obligations. Please
detail how much of this personnel-related increase is associated with:
--the increased fiscal year 1999 pay raise?
--inflation and the 4.4 percent fiscal year 2000 civilian pay raise?
--personnel costs for the five new FTEs that the Board plans to hire?
Answer. The following table provides a crosswalk between the fiscal
year 1999 enacted appropriation of $16,000,000 and the fiscal year 2000
budget request of $17,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOY FTE Funding
changes changes changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Increases:
Annualization of fiscal year 1999 Pay ....... ....... $102
Raise--3.68 percent..................
Fiscal year 2000 Pay Raise--4.4 ....... ....... 390
percent..............................
Fiscal year 2000 Within Grade ....... ....... 47
Increases............................
-----------------------------
Subtotal, Mandatory Pay Adjustments. ....... ....... 539
Staffing Increases to Offset 5 5 ..........
Retirements..........................
Unemployment Compensation to Former ....... ....... (10)
Employees............................
-----------------------------
Subtotal Personnel Compensation and ....... ....... 529
Benefits...........................
Mandatory Increases:
GSA Rental Increase................... ....... ....... 44
Non-Pay Adjustments (Inflation)--1.0 ....... ....... 21
percent..............................
Program Changes:
Equipment Maintenance................. ....... ....... (4)
Guard Service......................... ....... ....... 17
Performance Awards.................... ....... ....... 10
Travel................................ ....... ....... 5
Telephone & Postage................... ....... ....... 26
Copier Rentals........................ ....... ....... 22
Computer Support Services............. ....... ....... 25
Technical Interagency Services........ ....... ....... 270
Periodicals & Supplies................ ....... ....... 15
Software & Equipment.................. ....... ....... 20
-----------------------------
Subtotal, Non-Personnel Increases... ....... ....... 471
=============================
Total Funding Increase.............. ....... ....... 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requested increase in FTEs will be absorbed within the current
level of funding by allowing the Board to hire entry level staff to
replace the tenured, higher-salaried, retirement-eligible staff prior
to their retirement dates. This would ensure the required transition
for current staff to new staff, who can gain working knowledge and
analytical and legal expertise necessary to process the Board's
caseload and prepare decisions for the Board's adjudication.
market dominance
Question. When the Board investigates a rate, the first question is
whether the railroad has market dominance. The Staggers Act declared
that if a rail rate is below 180 percent of the variable cost of
serving a particular shipper, then the railroad does not have market
dominance. There is not a presumption that a railroad charging a rate
above 180 percent of the variable cost has market dominance, but it is
a trigger for an inquiry to determine whether the railroad faces
effective competition. The four types of competition concerned are:
intramodal, intermodal, geographic, and product. Please describe each
of these four types of competition.
Answer. ``Intramodal competition'' refers to competition between
two or more railroads transporting the same commodity between the same
origin and destination. ``Intermodal competition'' refers to
competition between rail carriers and other modes for the
transportation of a particular product between the same origin and
destination.
Whereas intramodal and intermodal competition constitute direct,
point-to-point competition, geographic and product competition are
indirect. ``Geographic competition'' is the availability of the same
product from alternative sources, or the ability to ship the product to
alternative destinations, using different carriers. ``Product
competition'' exists when other products, moving over different
carriers, can be substituted for the product covered by the rail rate
at issue.
As discussed in the response to the next question, in December 1998
the Board decided that it will no longer consider evidence of product
and geographic competition in its market dominance analysis.
Question. Has the Board decided to drop the geographic and product
competition determining factors?
Answer. Yes. In Market Dominance Determinations--Product and
Geographic Competition, STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Dec. 21,
1998), the Board decided that it will no longer consider evidence of
product and/or geographic competition in determining whether a rail
carrier has market dominance over the traffic involved in a rate
complaint. The Board concluded that the consideration of these forms of
competition unduly complicates and prolongs rail rate cases and
discourages captive shippers from pursuing valid rate complaints.
The Association of American Railroads and its member railroads have
filed a petition for reconsideration of that decision, and the Union
Pacific Railroad has filed a separate petition for clarification or
reconsideration. These petitions are currently pending before the
Board.
Question. A bill has been introduced in the Senate, S.621, which
would simplify the standards for determining market dominance. Please
describe how the simplified standard proposed in S.621 differs from the
Board's current practices. Would this simplified process provide an
adequate economic analysis of whether a railroad has market dominance?
Answer. The market dominance provision of S.621 would preclude the
Board from considering product or geographic competition in its market
dominance determination. By codifying the Board's decision in Market
Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic Competition, STB Ex
Parte No. 627 (STB served Dec. 21, 1998), such a statutory provision
would foreclose administrative or court challenges to the Board's
decision. In its December 1998 decision, the Board concluded that an
examination of inter- and intramodal competition provides an adequate
basis for the short, practical analysis expressly called for by
Congress when it enacted the market dominance requirement.
route regulation
Question. The Board can prevent the closure of routes, prevent
abandonment or sale of track, or compel a railroad to open up a new
route. It can also impose arrangements that impel one railroad to let
another use its track and facilities. Please cite any Board decisions
in the last three years to impose such arrangements, and give a brief
description of the circumstances leading to the decision, any appeals
and their results, and the length of time that the Board's decision is
in effect.
Answer. The decisions fall in three general categories: (a) those
involving service orders relating to rail service emergencies; (b)
those associated with railroad merger or control proceedings; and (c)
those involving actions to prevent line abandonments. As reflected in
the question, the following does not include decisions rendered by the
Commission (such as its approval of the merger of the Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe railroads).
A. Service Orders.--During the summer and fall of 1997, prior to
the implementation of the ``Union Pacific/Southern Pacific'' merger in
Texas, many of the lines in and around Houston became severely
congested, leading to a lengthy and damaging service breakdown
dramatically affecting rail transport throughout the West. To address
this crisis, the Board issued a series of unprecedented service order
decisions pursuant to its emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. 11123,
directing temporary changes to the way in which rail service was
provided in the Houston area. Joint Petition for Service Order, Service
Order No. 1518 (STB served Oct. 31 and Dec. 4, 1997, and Feb. 17 and
25, 1998). To help divert traffic off of affected Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) and Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP)
lines and away from Houston, the Board authorized the Texas Mexican
Railway Company (Tex Mex) to provide expanded service in and around
Houston and directed UP to release certain Houston area shippers from
their obligations under their transportation contracts so that they
could use either Tex Mex or The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company (BNSF) in addition to UP. The Board also permitted UP
to modify some of its operations and directed it to cooperate with
other carriers to help route traffic around Houston, and it required UP
to provide, on a weekly basis, extensive data to help it assess the
conditions on its lines, and, ultimately, the success of its service
recovery. UP was also required to submit its plans to address the
region's infrastructure needs.
The Board's remedies under the service order were purposely
measured, designed to help free up traffic in the Houston area without
further aggravating the congestion, inadvertently harming shippers in
other regions in the West, or impeding UP's own efforts (including
cooperative efforts with other carriers in the region) to work through
the emergency and restore adequate service. This approach worked.
Before the end of the service order period, operations in and around
Houston became fluid, and service improved significantly. As a result,
in an order issued in the summer of 1998, the Board allowed the
emergency service order to expire.
In addition to the expansive service orders dealing with the
emergency in the West, the Board has issued a number of more localized
service orders to address rail service cessation caused by financial
problems, safety concerns, or weather problems such as washouts.
B. Merger Decisions. UP/SP Merger.--In the summer of 1996, the
Board approved the merger of the UP and SP systems. Union Pacific
Corp.--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific Rail Corp., Finance Docket
No. 32760 (UP/SP Merger), Decision No. 44 (STB served Aug. 12, 1996)
(Decision No. 44). On March 23, 1999, the Board's decision approving
the merger was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
Decision No. 44 imposed numerous conditions to be met before the
merger could be consummated, including several trackage rights
conditions, that is, conditions that required one railroad to let
another use its track and facilities. Some of these conditions were
agreed to in advance by UP/SP, while some were not. The Board required
the UP/SP applicants to give approximately 4,000 miles of trackage
rights to BNSF, generally to establish BNSF as a competitive
alternative to a unified UP/SP with respect to so-called ``2-to-1''
traffic (i.e., traffic that, prior to the UP/SP merger, had been open
both to UP and to SP, but to no other railroad). It also required
certain BNSF trackage rights over three segments of terminal track
owned by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), in order to
enable BNSF to provide a competitive alternative to a unified UP/SP in
the Houston, TX-Memphis, TN and Houston, TX-New Orleans, LA corridors.
It provided for access by the Utah Railway Company (URC) to additional
coal sources in Utah, in order to preserve the existing level of rail
competition for western coal shippers dependent on originations of
Utah/Colorado coal. The Board imposed trackage rights for the Tex Mex
over UP/SP lines in Texas to ensure that Tex Mex could continue to
provide a competitive option for international traffic moving via the
Laredo, TX gateway. Finally, the Board required a few hundred miles of
UP/SP trackage rights over BNSF lines, which had been agreed to by the
involved carriers. These conditions will continue in effect for the
foreseeable future.
The UP/SP applicants sought, in addition to approval of common
control and merger of the UP/SP rail carriers, authority to abandon two
lines in Colorado, collectively described as the ``Tennessee Pass''
Line. The Board allowed the discontinuance of operations over the
Tennessee Pass Line, but required the carrier to keep the line intact
for the time being in the event it is needed for operations in the
future. The railroad has since indicated that it no longer expects to
seek authority to abandon the line within the next 3 years. Any effort
to abandon the line in the future would require a further request from
the carrier and approval of the Board.
In approving the merger, the Board retained jurisdiction for five
years to impose additional remedial conditions. In 1998, the Board
exercised its retained jurisdiction when it imposed two additional
conditions: (1) an efficiency-enhancing ``clear route'' condition
pursuant to which the Joint Director of the dispatching center operated
jointly by UP and BNSF in Spring, TX, was granted authority to route
traffic through Houston over any available route, even a route over
which the owner of a train does not have trackage rights; and (2) an
Austin trackage rights condition pursuant to which UP was required to
grant BNSF approximately four miles of additional trackage rights in
the Austin, TX area so that BNSF could create a new interchange with a
short-line railroad in the Austin area. Union Pacific Corp.--Control
and Merger--Southern Pacific Rail Corp. [Houston/Gulf Coast Oversight],
STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26), Decision No. 10 (STB served
Dec. 21, 1998).
Conrail Transaction.--In 1997, the railroads controlled by CSX
Corporation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) sought
authority to acquire and then divide the assets of Conrail. The Board
approved the application, with certain conditions that are intended to
continue in effect into the foreseeable future. CSX Corp. and Norfolk
Southern Corp.--Control and Operating Leases/Agreements--Conrail Inc.,
STB Finance Docket No. 33388, Decision No. 89 (STB served July 23,
1998) (Decision No. 89). Control was consummated on August 22, 1998,
and the actual division of assets authorized in Decision No. 89 will
take place on a date that is currently expected to be approximately
June 1, 1999. Petitions for review of Decision No. 89 are presently
pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Decision No. 89 established several relevant conditions, which are
summarized below.
1. It gave each of the acquiring carriers certain trackage rights
over the other in order to maximize CSX vs. NS competitive options
throughout the territory now served by Conrail.
2. To restore some of the intramodal rail competition that was lost
in the financial crisis that led to the formation of Conrail in 1976,
the decision required CSX to allow the Canadian Pacific rail carriers
to participate in handling traffic over the Conrail line running
between Selkirk, NY (near Albany, NY) and Fresh Pond, NY (in Queens,
NY).
3. The decision imposed an agreement reached between the applicants
and The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), which the
Board modified to enhance competition further. Among other things, it
required the acquiring carriers to keep open reciprocal switching (an
arrangement under which a carrier is required to honor certain shipper
requests for access to carriers that cannot serve them directly) for 10
years, and it limited the charges for providing these services for five
years.
4. To enhance competition, it limited reciprocal switching charges
in the Buffalo/Niagara Falls area.
5. To preserve competition existing before the transaction, it
required that CSX's trackage rights over a line of the former Buffalo
Creek Railroad be transferred to NS.
6. To mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from new
routings that would have been instituted after the transaction is
completed, and to preserve essential services and competitive options,
the decision required the applicants to work out alternative routings,
and provide trackage rights and other relief, to various small
railroads, including the Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad
Corporation, New England Central Railroad, Inc., Wheeling & Lake Erie
Railway Company (W&LE), and Ann Arbor Railroad.
7. The decision required certain routing changes or options to
preserve preexisting competitive options available to Indianapolis
Power & Light Company and PSI Energy, Inc.
CN/IC Merger.--In the summer of 1998, the Board received an
application under which the Canadian National Railway Company (CN), and
its affiliated carriers would acquire the Illinois Central Railroad
Company (IC) and its affiliated railroads. In an open voting conference
held March 25, 1999, the Board voted to approve, with certain
conditions that are intended to continue in effect into the foreseeable
future, the acquisition by CN of control of IC, and the integration of
the rail operations of CN and IC. A written decision reflecting that
vote is expected to be served by May 25, 1999. In its voting
conference, the Board voted to impose certain relevant conditions. In
particular, to protect against a reduction in competition, it required
the CN/IC carriers to grant to KCS access to three shippers in Geismar,
LA, in addition to three other Geismar shippers to which CN had already
agreed to give KCS access. Additionally, to ensure that the Chicago
gateway remains open for North Dakota's export commodities, the Board
voted to require the CN/IC applicants to adhere to their representation
that they will keep open and competitive their Chicago gateway with a
Canadian Pacific subsidiary that the North Dakota shippers use to
originate traffic.
C. The following decisions involved Board actions to prevent rail
line abandonments:
1. On July 3, 1996, the Board denied a request by Western Stock
Show Association (WSSA) to abandon 10,400 feet of rail line in the
Denver Stockyards, which have been operated by other railroads under
lease.
2. On August 28, 1996, the Board denied the request of the Denver
and Rio Grande Western Railroad (DRGW) to abandon a 1.55-mile stretch
of track in Salt Lake County, Utah.
3. On September 10, 1996, the Board denied an application by the
Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) to abandon a 3.39-mile rail line in
Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
4. On December 31, 1996, the Board denied a petition by the
Springfield Terminal Railway Company (ST) to discontinue service on and
by the B&M to abandon a 9.5-mile section of B&M line known as the Canal
Branch, which runs through Hartford and New Haven Counties in
Connecticut. After a subsequent proceeding, in April 1998, the Board
allowed the discontinuance of service and abandonment of the line.
5. On May 21, 1997, the Board denied the request of San Joaquin
Valley Railroad (SJVR) to abandon an 18.1-mile line known as the
Hanford Subdivision near Fresno, California.
6. On August 1, 1997, the Board denied a request by Owensville
Terminal Company, Inc. to abandon its 22.5-mile Browns-Poseyville Line
running between Browns, Illinois and Poseyville, Indiana.
7. On May 4, 1998, the Board denied the request of Central Railroad
Company of Indiana (CIND) to abandon its 58-mile Shelbyville Line in
Central Indiana. CIND petitioned for reconsideration, but ultimately, a
new owner acquired the line and withdrew the petition.
8. In two related cases each decided on September 18, 1998, the
Board denied requests by the Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc., to
abandon two contiguous lines, one 43 miles long and the other 9.2 miles
long, near Buffalo, New York.
9. On March 26, 1999, the Board denied the request of the Arkansas
and Missouri Railroad Company (AMR) that it order the discontinuance of
certain trackage rights operated by KCS over a 5.5-mile segment of AMR
track that connects KCS's branch line from Heavener, Oklahoma, to the
KCS yard at Fort Smith, Arkansas.
10. In 10 decisions issued between April 1996 and January 1999, the
Board rejected various proposals for abandonment or discontinuance
authorizations, without considering them on their merits, because they
were procedurally defective. These cases involved lines in Colorado,
Iowa, Texas, Indiana, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
revenue adequacy
Question. What factors does the Board consider in determining
whether a railroad is revenue adequate?
Answer. To assess the adequacy of railroad revenues pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 10704(a)(3), the Board compares a railroad's return on
investment (ROI) to the cost of capital in the rail industry. The ROI
for a railroad is computed by dividing the net railway operating income
(i.e., profits from railroad operations) by the carrier's net
investment base (i.e., the value of the railroad's assets). The cost of
capital (the rate of return that debt and equity investors demand to
supply funds to the rail industry) is measured annually by the Board.
See, e.g., Railroad Cost of Capital--1997, STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-
No. 1) (STB served July 16, 1998) (finding that the 1997 cost of
capital for rail industry was 11.8 percent). If a railroad's ROI is
less than the cost of capital, then that railroad is determined to be
revenue inadequate. This revenue adequacy test has been judicially
approved.
Question. Why is revenue adequacy a meaningful standard? What does
it indicate?
Answer. The statute requires regulatory consideration of revenue
adequacy [49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(2)] so that railroads will not be deprived
of the opportunity to earn the income needed to cover total operating
expenses plus a reasonable return on capital employed in the business.
This opportunity is critical to the long-term viability of the rail
industry. If regulatory policy were to cause railroad operations
continually to lose money or railroad returns to continually
underperform other investments of comparable risk, the industry would
not be able to attract and retain the capital needed for continued and/
or improved operations. Therefore, regulatory policy with respect to
the rail industry must recognize the revenue needs of the industry.
However, regulatory policy does not, nor could it, ensure that
individual railroads are successful in meeting the revenue target
represented by the Board's revenue adequacy standard.
As discussed in response to the next question, while a policy that
affords the railroads the opportunity to be financially healthy is
essential to the long-term viability of the Nation's rail system, an
annual determination of which carriers are ``revenue adequate'' is not
particularly meaningful.
Question. Please cite the pros and cons of repealing the revenue
adequacy test.
Answer. The statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(3) that the
Board make an annual determination of which carriers are achieving the
target revenue level is not particularly necessary because that
determination has no immediate regulatory consequences. A railroad that
has not met the ``revenue adequacy'' target is not entitled to any
special regulatory treatment. Most significantly, no carrier is allowed
to charge unreasonable rates on captive traffic, whether or not its
systemwide revenues are considered adequate. Thus, the requirement for
an annual determination can safely be repealed.
In contrast, Congress should not repeal the revenue adequacy
criteria of 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(2), which articulate in general terms
what the revenue needs of the railroad industry are. To ensure that
regulation does not undermine the long-term viability of the Nation's
rail system, regulatory action must not ignore railroads' revenue
needs. Thus, regardless of whether the current procedures used to
evaluate carriers' revenue needs are modified, the statute should
retain a provision setting out the financial goals for a healthy rail
industry that is capable of meeting shippers' needs.
stand-alone costs
Question. Please cite ICC and STB decisions for the past five years
on whether railroads charge shippers rates that exceed stand-alone
costs. Is there a clear trend in these decisions?
Answer. Since 1994, the ICC/STB has issued final decisions in four
cases where the stand-alone cost (SAC) test was used to evaluate the
reasonableness of railroad rates. In two of these cases--West Texas
Util. Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R., No. 41191 (STB served May 3 and
June 25, 1996), aff'd sub nom. Burlington Northern R.R. v. Surface
Transp. Bd., 114 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1997); and Arizona Public Serv.
Co. v. Atchison T.&S.F. Ry., No. 41185 (STB served July 29, 1997 and
Apr. 17, 1998)--the Board concluded that the railroads rates were
unreasonable and ordered substantial reparations. In the other two
cases--Bituminous Coal-Hiawatha, UT to Moapa, NV, 10 I.C.C.2d 259
(1994); and McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., No. 37809
et al. (STB served Aug. 20, 1997), aff'd sub nom. McCarty Farms, Inc.
v. Surface Transp. Bd., 158 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998)--the agency
found that the challenged rates had not been shown to be unreasonable.
There is no trend in the outcome of these cases. Each proceeding
was distinct and the outcomes were dependent on the specific factual
situation presented in each case. However, the four decisions settled a
wide variety of issues concerning how to apply the SAC test, and the
precedent established has given both the shipper community and the rail
industry guidance in predicting the results of a SAC analysis for other
individual fact situations. This in turn has encouraged more
settlements, rather than litigation, of rate disputes. Indeed, while
the agency has issued only four final decisions in SAC cases, many
other rate challenges have been resolved by negotiated settlements and
the complaints withdrawn. It is, of course, impossible to know how many
other disputes were resolved, based on SAC principles, without a
complaint having been filed with the Board.
competitive access
Question. Several shipper representatives have claimed that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to show evidence of anti-competitive
conduct on the part of a railroad. Is anti-competitive conduct
difficult to prove? Why?
Answer. As described more fully in response to an upcoming
question, the Board has limited authority to compel a railroad to make
its facilities or services available to another railroad. The statute
does not provide for access on demand. Therefore, a party seeking a
``competitive access'' remedy--whether terminal trackage rights or
reciprocal switching under 49 U.S.C. 11102, or alternative through
service under 49 U.S.C. 10705--must show a clear need for such action.
In other words, it must show that the incumbent carrier is not fully
meeting its common carrier obligations, but rather is abusing its
market power--either by extracting unreasonable terms or by failing to
provide adequate service.
Because the Board will consider a broad range of evidence to show
such anticompetitive behavior, this ``anti-competitive conduct''
standard should not be difficult to meet where market abuse is
occurring. As the Board explained in its Bottleneck decisions, it will
be receptive to evidence that an incumbent bottleneck carrier is
foreclosing more innovative, advantageous, and efficient service,
especially where the less intrusive remedy of alternative through
service is sought.
Question. Has the Board made any decisions to impose access to rail
customers within an area served by the tracks of more than one
railroad, based on positive evidence of anti-competitive conduct by the
plaintiff railroad? If yes, please cite the decisions.
Answer. The Board has regularly imposed access conditions in the
merger context to protect shippers that would otherwise lose
competitive rail service as a result of the merger. For example, as a
condition to its approval of the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger,
the Board required the merging railroads to afford trackage rights to
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe over almost 4,000 miles of the merged
system to serve those facilities that could have been served by both UP
and SP prior to the merger but would otherwise have no competitive rail
options remaining after the merger. (These are commonly referred to as
``2-to-1'' facilities.) Evidence of anticompetitive conduct is not
required in the merger context, but only that access is necessary to
offset anticompetitive effects of the merger.
In addition, the Board issued an emergency service order providing
UP shippers temporary access to other carriers (BNSF and the Texas
Mexican Railway) in an around Houston, Texas, for the maximum period
allowed under law (270 days), to address the unprecedented rail
congestion in the West in 1997-98. Again, evidence of anticompetitive
conduct was not required in this context, but rather evidence that
there was a service emergency.
The Board has not, since its inception, considered evidence under
the anticompetitive conduct standard to determine whether any
``competitive access'' relief is warranted. But in its Bottleneck
decisions the agency made clear that such access will be afforded where
innovative, advantageous, and more efficient competitive service is
being precluded.
Question. Is this type of competitive access relief different from
``open access''? If so, how?
Answer. The access that can now be imposed by the Board upon an
appropriate showing--in merger cases, in temporary emergency service
orders, and in ``competitive access'' cases (which include both direct
physical access to another railroad's facilities and indirect access
through switching or through-route arrangements)--represent varying
forms of railroad access. In the ongoing policy debate regarding
railroad access, the term ``open access'' is sometimes used to refer to
one or more of these forms of access. As we understand it, however,
advocates of truly ``open'' access would like for direct physical
access to a second railroad to be available upon demand, so long as
that access is operationally practicable, without requiring a showing
of need for this relief.
Question. Does the Board have the legal authority to impose open
access on any or all of the nation's rail network?
Answer. Because freight rail service in the United States is
provided by private-sector companies operating over privately owned and
maintained rail lines, railroads, like other private businesses, do not
have to make their facilities or services available to competing
railroads on demand. However, the Board can compel such access in
certain limited circumstances: as a condition to its approval of a
railroad merger; in response to a rail service emergency; or when the
existing ``competitive access'' remedies (terminal trackage rights,
reciprocal switching, or alternative through routes) are shown to be
warranted.
More specifically, the Board has the following authority to direct
physical access to another carrier's lines:
--under 49 U.S.C. 11324(c), as a condition to the incumbent's merger
with another railroad, to remedy anticompetitive effects of the
merger;
--under 49 U.S.C. 11123(a), to serve any facilities for a limited
period of time (not more than 270 days) because of the
carrier's inability or failure to provide adequate service; and
--under 49 U.S.C. 11102(a), to serve the incumbent's terminal
facilities, upon an appropriate showing of need, operational
practicability, and that it will not impair the ability of the
incumbent carrier to handle its own business.
In addition, when an appropriate need is shown, the Board may
direct an incumbent railroad to afford access indirectly, either:
--by prescribing through routes under 49 U.S.C. 10705(a) (requiring
the incumbent to interline traffic with another railroad over a
designated interchange and thereby create alternative routes
and rates for a shipper's traffic), or
--by requiring reciprocal switching under 49 U.S.C. 11102(c) (where,
for a fee, the incumbent must switch cars to and from another
railroad so that the latter, even though it cannot physically
reach a shipper, can constructively offer alternative single-
line service).
bottleneck decision
Question. Please explain the ICC's 1995 bottleneck decision. Please
give some examples (using real geographic locations) of how the
bottleneck decision works. Why would shipper representatives claim that
they have been ``disappointed'' by this decision?
Answer. Under longstanding principles of transportation law, rail
rates ordinarily can be challenged only in their entirety from origin
to destination. Thus, regardless of whether a shipper receives single-
line or through (i.e. multi-carrier) service, the shipper can challenge
only whether the total rate it pays from origin to destination is
reasonable.
In the Bottleneck decisions--Central Power & Light Co. v. Southern
Pac. Transp. Co., Nos. 41242 et al. (Dec. 31, 1996), clarified (Apr.
30, 1997), aff'd sub nom. MidAmerican Energy Co. v. STB, Nos. 97-1081
et al. (8th Cir. Feb. 10, 1999)--the Board addressed three cases in
which utility companies sought to avoid this well-established judicial
precedent by treating through movements as if they were a series of
independent movements, with a shipper-designated interchange point as
an end point for each such movement, and demanding a segment rate for
each leg that could be separately challenged. In each of the three
cases, two rail carriers could serve the origin coal mine, but only one
carrier (the ``bottleneck'' carrier) could serve the utility's
destination generating plant. The utilities believed that, if they
could obtain a Board-prescribed rate for the (shorter) destination leg
and combine it with a competitive rate for the (longer) origin leg,
they would be able to reduce (perhaps substantially) their total cost
for the transportation.
After obtaining public comment and hearing oral argument on the
broader legal issues and policy implications, the Board concluded that
the utilities' approach conflicts with the well-settled right of
carriers to determine, at the outset, the rates and routes they will
offer for their services. Specifically, under 49 U.S.C. 10701(c), the
carrier--not the shipper--chooses the type of rates to offer (a single-
line rate or some form of through rate), and the Board may intervene,
under 49 U.S.C. 11101 and 10701(d), only to insure that transportation
is provided and that the rates are reasonable. Moreover, under 49
U.S.C. 10703(a)(1), the carrier--not the shipper--selects the routes
over which through service is offered. While the Board may require
additional through routes to be opened when there is a public need, 49
U.S.C. 10705(a)(1), the Board may not deprive a carrier of its ``long-
haul,'' 49 U.S.C. 10705(a)(2), unless the alternative route would be
more efficient, 49 U.S.C. 10705(a)(2)(D).
Accordingly, the Board determined that the utilities in the three
cases addressed in the Bottleneck decision could not, as a matter of
law, insist that the bottleneck carrier provide separately
challengeable segment rates. Nor could the shippers insist on a route
that would ``short-haul'' the bottleneck carrier (i.e. limit its
participation to less than the full length of haul that it is capable
of providing) without first making the showing required to obtain an
alternative through route under 49 U.S.C. 10705. Accordingly, the Board
dismissed the three utilities' complaints on the grounds that the
relief sought is not available under the statute.
The Board also took the opportunity in its Bottleneck decision to
provide guidance on the availability of bottleneck-segment rates where
(in contrast to the three dismissed cases) a shipper enters into a rail
contract under 49 U.S.C. 10709 for transportation over the non-
bottleneck leg of a through movement. Because the Board may not
regulate transportation provided under such a contract, 49 U.S.C.
10709(c)(1), it can only review the rate applicable to the non-contract
leg of such a through movement. Therefore, a separately challengeable
bottleneck-segment rate would be available for use in conjunction with
a contract rate over a through route involving an origin or destination
not already served by the bottleneck carrier. Moreover, where the
bottleneck carrier can provide origin-to-destination service, the
contract may be used to obtain a new through route in order not to
foreclose innovative, advantageous, and more efficient service.
Subsequently, in FMC Wyo. Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., Finance Docket
No. 33467 (STB Dec. 16, 1997), pet. for review pending sub nom. Union
Pac. R.R. v. STB, No. 98-1058 (D.C. Cir. filed Feb. 9, 1998), the Board
ordered Union Pacific to establish separately challengeable bottleneck-
segment rates for soda ash shipments from Westvaco, WY to interchanges
in Chicago and East St. Louis, IL, from which the shipper had obtained
a rail contract for movements to its ultimate destinations. In FMC Wyo.
Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., STB Docket No. 42022 (complaint filed Oct.
31, 1997), the Board is now considering the reasonableness of the
bottleneck-segment rates set by UP in response to that decision.
Similarly, in Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Consolidate
Rail Corp., STB Docket No. 42027 (complaint filed Mar. 6, 1998), an
electric utility seeks a Board order requiring Conrail to establish a
bottleneck-segment coal rate from an interchange with UP at Momence, IL
to a generating station in Wheatfield, IN that it could use in
conjunction with a contract with UP for transportation from the mine to
Momence. Also, in Minnesota Power, Inc. v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range
Ry., STB Docket No. 42038 (complaint filed Dec. 31, 1998), another
utility challenges the reasonableness of a bottleneck-segment rate from
Keenan to Laskin, MN, to be used with a Burlington Northern contract
for the connecting movement from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming to
the Keenan interchange with DM&I.
Shippers have expressed disappointment that the Board did not
afford them a right to bottleneck-segment rates on demand, even though,
as explained, current law (as confirmed by the reviewing court) does
not permit that result. Also, some shippers, fearing that they will not
be able to obtain such contracts unless the Board first prescribes
bottleneck-segment rates, have suggested that this relief is illusory.
However, shippers clearly benefit from the Board's determination that
separately challengeable bottleneck-segment rates are available where
there is a contract covering the non-bottleneck leg of a through route,
and as the cases cited above indicate, some shippers are pursuing
relief under the Bottleneck decision.
Question. Please analyze the proposed amendment to Section 11101(a)
of title 49, United States Code contained in S. 621, which would
require rail carriers to quote a rate for transportation over a segment
of line upon the request of a shipper, or if the carrier refused to
quote such rate, then the STB shall establish the rate. What are the
pros and cons of this amendment?
Answer. The proposed amendment would give shippers the rights they
sought in the Bottleneckdecision, rights that are not available under
current law. By requiring railroads to provide separately challengeable
rates for any route segment designated by shippers, it could lead to
lower rates for many shippers in the short-term by giving shippers that
are now captive to one railroad a choice among competing railroads.
The long-term impacts, however, are questionable. The resulting
revenue impact of a lower overall rate structure could affect carriers'
ability to cover the costs of, and support reinvestment in, the
existing rail system. This in turn could lead to potentially
significant changes in the shape and condition of the rail system, as
railroads may need to shed financially marginal lines and reduce new
investment in the remainder of their systems. While some shippers might
continue to benefit from lower rates, others could see their rates
increase over the long term to make up for a shrinking traffic base, or
they could lose service altogether unless short-line or regional
railroads were able to step in and provide service. In short, the
potential winners and losers from a regulatory change of the kind
proposed in S. 621 could depend upon geographic location and type of
traffic. It is, of course, for Congress to decide whether the prospect
of a smaller Class I rail system that would serve fewer, and a
different mix of, customers than those that receive rail service today
is desirable or acceptable.
There could also be a potentially significant, more immediate
budgetary impact on the Board from this provision of S.621, as it would
allow shippers to challenge such rates even when they are not ready to
use that rate and in fact may never use the rate. By overriding current
policy that limits rate challenges to rates being used and excludes
hypothetical rate disputes, this provision could increase the workload
of the agency significantly.
Question. This decision was recently upheld in the 8th District
Circuit Court. Please provide a copy of that court decision for the
record.
Answer. A copy of the court's decision in MidAmerican Energy Co. v.
STB, Nos. 97-1081 et al. (8th Cir. Feb. 10, 1999), is attached.
______
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
No. 97-1081
MidAmerican Energy Company, Petitioner, Western Coal Traffic
League, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board, United
States of America, Respondents, Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Union
Pacific Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company;
Consolidated Rail Corporation; Association of American Railroads,
Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-1284
Central Power & Light Company, Petitioner, Western Coal Traffic
League, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board; United
States of America, Respondents, Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Union
Pacific Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company;
Consolidated Rail Corporation; Association of American Railroads,
Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-1331
National Industrial Transportation League, Petitioner, Western Coal
Traffic League, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board;
United States of America, Respondents, Pennsylvania Power & Light
Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Union Pacific Corporation;
Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Consolidated Rail Corporation;
Association of American Railroads, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-1332
Union Pacific Railroad Company; Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, Petitioners, v. Surface Transportation Board; United States of
America, Respondents, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Norfolk
Southern Railway Company; MidAmerican Energy Company; National
Industrial Transportation League; Union Pacific Corporation;
Consolidated Rail Corporation; Association of American Railroads;
Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-1333
Consolidated Rail Corporation, Petitioner, v. Surface
Transportation Board; United States of America, Respondents,
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company;
National Industrial Transportation League; Union Pacific Corporation;
Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Association of American
Railroads; Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-1335
Association of American Railroads, Petitioner, v. Surface
Transportation Board; United States of America, Respondents,
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company;
National Industrial Transportation League; CSX Transportation, Inc.;
Union Pacific Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company;
Consolidated Rail Corporation; Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenors
on Appeal.
No. 97-1583
Western Coal Traffic League, Petitioner, v. Surface Transportation
Board; United States of America, Respondents, Union Pacific
Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Consolidated Rail
Corporation; Association of American Railroads, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2204
Western Resources, Inc., Petitioner, Western Coal Traffic League,
Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board; United States of
America, Respondents, Consolidated Rail Corporation; Union Pacific
Railroad Company; Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Association
of American Railroads; Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Intervenors on
Appeal.
No. 97-2206
Association of American Railroads, Petitioner, v. Surface
Transportation Board; United States of America, Respondents,
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company;
Western Coal Traffic League; National Industrial Transportation League;
MidAmerican Energy Company; Western Resources, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2260
Consolidated Rail Corporation; Petitioner, Association of American
Railroads, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board;
United States of America, Respondents, Pennsylvania Power & Light
Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Western Coal Traffic League;
National Industrial Transportation League; MidAmerican Energy Company,
Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2303
Union Pacific Corporation; Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
Petitioners, Association of American Railroads, Intervenor on Appeal,
v. Surface Transportation Board; United States of America, Respondents,
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company;
Western Coal Traffic League; National Industrial Transportation League;
MidAmerican Energy Company, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2328
Western Coal Traffic League, Petitioner, v. Surface Transportation
Board; United States of America, Respondents, Consolidated Rail
Corporation; Association of American Railroads; Norfolk Southern
Railway Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Southern Pacific
Transportation Company, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2462
National Industrial Transportation League; Petitioner, Western Coal
Traffic League, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board;
United States of America, Respondents, Union Pacific Railroad Company;
Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Association of American
Railroads; Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors on Appeal.
No. 97-2464
MidAmerican Energy Company, Petitioner, Western Coal Traffic
League, Intervenor on Appeal, v. Surface Transportation Board; United
States of America, Respondents, Union Pacific Railroad Company;
Southern Pacific Transportation Company; Association of American
Railroads; Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors on Appeal.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Surface Transportation Board
Submitted: November 18, 1997
Filed: February 10, 1999
Before WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STEVENS,\1\ District
Judge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The HONORABLE JOSEPH E. STEVENS, United States District Judge
for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. Judge
Stevens died on December 18, 1998. This opinion is consistent with the
views he expressed at our post-argument conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a consolidated action involving MidAmerican Energy Company
(MidAmerican), Central Power & Light Company (CP&L), and Pennsylvania
Power & Light Company (PP&L) (collectively the utilities). They
petition for review of two orders of the Surface Transportation Board
(the Board) dismissing their complaints against rail carriers. The
carriers cross-appeal from the portion of the Board's decisions
regarding reasonableness review of contractual shipping rates, arguing
that the issue was not ripe for adjudication. We affirm the dismissal
of the utilities' complaints. We dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
I.
MidAmerican ships coal approximately 750 miles from the Powder
River Basin in Wyoming to its generating facility near Sergeant Bluff,
Iowa. At the time it filed its complaint, MidAmerican was shipping the
coal from origin to destination under contract with the Union Pacific
Railroad (UP). This contract was scheduled to expire at the end of
1997. Anticipating the contract's expiration, MidAmerican began to
compare UP's rates with those of other carriers to obtain the most
favorable shipping rates. The only other carrier offering rail service
originating in the Powder River Basin is the Burlington Northern
Railroad (BN).
BN does not service the final 90 miles of the route, a stretch from
Council Bluffs, Iowa, to the generating station. Such a rail segment is
commonly termed a ``bottleneck'', because it is serviced by only one
carrier. Thus, MidAmerican could not directly compare the rates of BN
and UP, as UP is the only carrier capable of shipping all the way to
the generating station. To obtain a competitive rate for the 660-mile
stretch from Wyoming to Council Bluffs, MidAmerican requested that UP
provide a rate for its service over the bottleneck.
UP refused to provide the rate. Instead, it provided a rate for the
entire route from the Powder River Basin to the generating station.
This precluded MidAmerican from using BN as a carrier from Wyoming to
Council Bluffs, essentially extending the bottleneck over the entire
750-mile route. Consequently, MidAmerican brought an action before the
Board requesting a rate prescription over the 90-mile bottleneck
segment. Although MidAmerican could not challenge a local ``unit-
train'' rate for the bottleneck service, it asked the Board to
prescribe a reasonable rate for the bottleneck if it found the
published ``class'' rate for the 90-mile stretch unreasonable.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A local unit-train rate is a published rate applicable to
transport of a trainload of a specific good between two points on a
carrier's line. A local class rate, on the other hand, is a published
rate applicable to transport of a certain type of good in smaller
quantities between two points on a carrier's line. Railroads must
maintain class rates because of their common carrier obligation to
transport goods to any point on their lines upon request by a shipper.
See Thompson v. United States, 343 U.S. 549, 558 (1952); Westinghouse
Elec. Corp. v. United States, 388 F. Supp. 1309, 1311 (W.D. Pa. 1975)
(citing New York v. United States, 331 U.S. 284, 289-90 (1947)).
Because it is more costly for carriers to offer service for unspecified
quantities of goods, however, class rates are seldom used and are
generally significantly higher over the same stretch of rail. See
Routing Restrictions over Seatrain Lines, Inc., 296 I.C.C. 767, 773
(1955); Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.2d 637, 639
(8th Cir. 1977) (noting that a class rate for coal shipment was more
than double the unit-train rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP&L transports coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to its
Coleto Creek generating station in Texas. Although both BN and UP offer
rail service originating at the coal mines, the Southern Pacific
Railroad (SP) is the only carrier from an interchange point in
Victoria, Texas, to Coleto Creek.\3\ UP's lines run from Wyoming to
Victoria; BN's lines run from Wyoming to Fort Worth, Texas, where SP's
service to Victoria and Coleto Creek begins. Therefore, UP and BN
directly compete on the portion of the route from Wyoming to Forth
Worth. SP and UP directly compete on the portion from Fort Worth to
Victoria. After both BN and UP indicated a willingness to offer
competitive rates for their service, CP&L requested that SP provide it
a local unit-train rate for the segment from Fort Worth to Coleto
Creek, which represented SP's longest haul, or for the bottleneck from
Victoria to Coleto Creek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on stipulations entered into by the parties prior to the
Board's hearing, we will disregard the fact that SP and UP have merged
since the initiation of this action, resulting in UP's ability to offer
unit-train service from Wyoming to Coleto Creek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP refused to provide either rate, offering instead to provide a
joint rate with UP. CP&L chose to obtain a unit-train rate from UP for
service from Wyoming to Victoria, and to ship from Victoria to Coleto
Creek under SP's class rate.\4\ It could thus take advantage of neither
the competition between UP and BN from Wyoming to Fort Worth, nor the
competition between SP and UP from Fort Worth to Victoria.
Subsequently, CP&L brought a complaint before the Board challenging the
class rate as unreasonable and requesting a rate prescription for the
bottleneck segment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SP's class rate for the coal shipment from Victoria to Coleto
Creek was $19.95 per ton. At the Board's hearing, CP&L offered the
testimony of eight expert witnesses that the highest reasonable rate
for this stretch was $0.63 per ton, less than one-thirtieth of the
actual class rate charged.
\5\ Some shippers have eschewed the role of supplicant to the Board
and have constructed connecting lines on their own. See Daniel
Machalaba, Tired of Costs, Delays of Railroads, Firms Lay Their Own
Tracks, Wall St. J., February 6, 1998, at A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP&L can transport its coal from either of two mines in central
Appalachia to its four generating facilities on the eastern seaboard.
One of the mines is serviced by the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS), the
other is serviced by CSX. Neither NS nor CSX offers service all the way
to PP&L's generating stations. NS transfers its shipments to the
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) at an interchange point in
Hagerstown, Maryland; CSX transfers to Conrail in Lurgan, Pennsylvania.
Conrail thus controls a bottleneck that services PP&L's four generating
facilities. To obtain competitive rates for the portion of the route
serviced by NS and CSX, PP&L requested that Conrail provide it local
unit-train rates from the interchange points to the generating
stations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As is by now well known, subsequent to the submission of this
case the Board approved the division of Conrail between NS and CSX. See
Bruce Ingersoll, U.S. Approves Plan to Divide Conrail in Two, Wall St.
J., June 9, 1998, at A-3 (``This transaction, as conditioned, creates
two strong competitors in the East that can handle the transportation
needs of an expanding economy,'' said [Board] Chairwoman Linda Morgan).
See also Norfolk Southern, CSX assume control of Conrail, Railroad
NewsWire (Aug. 27, 1998) <http://www2.trains.com/trains/News/
News.shtml>. What effect the NS's acquisition of Conrail's lines in
Pennsylvania will have on PP&L's transportation needs remains to be
seen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conrail refused to provide such rates. Consequently, PP&L filed a
complaint challenging Conrail's class rates from the interchange points
to the stations and requesting that Conrail be required to provide
local unit-train rates instead.\7\ Conrail maintained that class rates
were inappropriate for the route in question and asked the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) \8\ for an opportunity to provide unit-train
rates. The ICC ordered Conrail to do so in a decision dated January 17,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Although Conrail admits that PP&L sent test shipments from the
interchange points to its generating stations prior to filing the
complaint, it denies that such shipments were sent using a class rate.
\8\ The ICC was subsequently replaced by the Board in the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (Dec. 29,
1995). The Termination Act also substituted the new Interstate
Transportation Act for the earlier Interstate Commerce Act, both
located at Subtitle IV of Title 49 of the United States Code. Pub. L.
No. 104-88 Sec. Sec. 102, 103, and 106. Although most of the provisions
of the Interstate Commerce Act were re-enacted in the Interstate
Transportation Act, the parties have relied, and we will base our
decision, on the provisions of the old act because these cases were
initiated before passage of the Termination Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than providing the rates, however, Conrail negotiated a
joint rate for origin-to-destination service with CSX and a
proportional rate for similar service with NS. As a result, Conrail,
rather than PP&L, took advantage of the competition between NS and CSX
for service from the central Appalachian mines. PP&L then petitioned
the Board for rate prescription on the bottleneck based on a renewed
challenge to the class rates.
Although petitioners' cases involve distinct facts, they were
consolidated by the Board for adjudication on common issues regarding
``the extent to which bottleneck carriers may exert their market power
over the routes and rates made available to shippers for needed rail
service.'' Central Power & Light Co. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., No.
41242, 1996 STB LEXIS 358, at * 8-* 9 (Surface Transp. Bd. Dec. 27,
1996) (Bottleneck I). Before reaching its decision, the Board solicited
commentary on bottleneck regulation from all potentially affected
shipper and carrier organizations. After oral argument and
consideration of the submitted materials, the Board denied the
utilities' requests for bottleneck relief.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The complaints of MidAmerican and CP&L were dismissed in full;
that portion of PP&L's complaint requesting rate prescription over the
bottleneck segments was also dismissed. PP&L had amended its complaint
to also challenge the joint and proportional rates with CSX and NS; the
Board allowed this challenge to proceed, and the parties subsequently
reached a settlement on that issue. We will thus address only the
utilities' requests for rate prescription on the bottleneck segments in
this appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the utilities' requests, the Board grappled with the
tension between two competing policies expressed in the Interstate
Commerce Act (the Act). Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10701a(a) (1995) (now
10701(c)), rail carriers possess broad discretion in setting rates and
routes. This reflects Congress's goal of deregulating the railroad
industry and allowing railroads to achieve revenue adequacy by
competing on a free-market basis. See id. Sec. 10101a(3) (now 10101(3))
(providing for adequate revenues); id. Sec. 10101a(1) (now 10101(1))
(allowing ``the demand for services'' to dictate reasonable rail
rates). Under sections 10101a(6) and 10701a(b) (now 10101(6) and
10701(d)), however, some rate regulation is required when carriers
possess monopoly power over a section of rail. These provisions codify
railroads' common carrier obligations, which require them to provide
service at reasonable rates to all shippers upon request.
The Board resolved this tension in favor of the ``rate freedom'' of
bottleneck carriers. Specifically, it held that bottleneck carriers
satisfy their common carrier duties and thus comply with the Act by
providing origin-to-destination service that includes the bottleneck,
as in MidAmerican's case, or by providing joint or proportional service
with other carriers that includes transportation over the bottleneck,
as in CP&L's and PP&L's cases. In addition, the Board held that
shippers may not challenge class rates as an ``indirect basis for
obtaining prescription of a local unit-train rate'' for bottleneck
segments. Subsequently, the utilities moved for clarification and
reconsideration of the decision. The Board responded by issuing a
second decision, granting in part the motion for clarification and
denying the motion for reconsideration. See Central Power & Light Co.
v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., No. 41242, 1997 STB LEXIS 91, at * 28
(Surface Transp. Bd. Apr. 28, 1997) (Bottleneck II). The utilities
appeal from both rulings.
II.
Before we address the specific issues raised in these cases, we
briefly review the relevant history of railroad regulation. From its
passage in 1887 until the mid-1970s, the Interstate Commerce Act
provided for a strict regulatory framework to govern the federal
railroad industry. This legislative approach resulted in an industry
chronically plagued by capital shortfalls and service inefficiencies.
See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1035, at 33 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3978, 3978; Coal Exporters Ass'n of United States v. United States, 745
F.2d 76, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
To assure railroads greater freedom in establishing routes and
rates, Congress modified the Act with the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act (4R Act), Pub. L. No. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31 (1976),
and the Staggers Rail Act (Staggers Act), Pub. L. No. 96-448, 94 Stat.
1895 (1980). See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-1430, at 79 (1980), reprinted
in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3978, 4110. These acts were intended to end
``decades of ICC control over maximum rates and to permit carriers not
having market dominance to set rates in response to their perception of
market conditions. Midtec Paper Corp. v. United States, 857 F.2d 1487,
1506 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Underlying these reform efforts was the notion that market forces
would operate in the rail industry as they do in other spheres.
Congress believed that free competition for rail services would ensure
that consumer demand dictated the optimal rate level, while
facilitating enough long-term capital investment to maintain adequate
service. Congress was also mindful, however, that the free market would
protect consumers only if there was ``effective'' competition.
Therefore, the new enactments included provisions allowing regulatory
intervention where competition would not control prices. See 4R Act
Sec. 101(b), 90 Stat. 31, 33; Staggers Act Sec. 101(a), 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 10101a(6) (now 10101(6)); Coal Exporters, 745 F.2d at 81 n.6.
Indeed, in bottleneck situations the Staggers Act actually
``increased the ICC's regulatory power ``by authorizing the agency to
require railroads to enter into agreements to `switch' other railroads'
cars to and from shippers located along each other's lines * * *.
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States, 817 F.2d 108, 113 (D.C.
Cir. 1987); see 49 U.S.C. Sec. 11103 (now 11102). After the 4R and
Staggers Acts, the agency (previously the ICC, now the Board) is still
required to use rate prescription and other remedies such as reciprocal
switching arrangements to ensure reasonable shipping rates on
bottlenecks. It is also responsible for ensuring that free competition
is preserved to the greatest extent possible on non-bottleneck
segments.
Congress's decision to deregulate the railroad industry has been
largely successful. Experts for both sides in these cases have
acknowledged that competition has led to more efficient routes,
increased profits, better service, and an enhanced ability to attract
capital investment. See, e.g., Verified Statement of William J. Baumol
& Robert D. Willig at 6-7, J.A. at 1111-12; Verified Statement of
Alfred E. Kahn at 15-16, J.A. at 2931-32. However, the experts dispute
the role of bottleneck rail segments in increasing profits and
facilitating the overall revenue adequacy of the railroad industry.
III.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2321 and 2341 (Supp.
1998), which provide for review of the Board's decisions. Because
Congress has entrusted the Board with interpreting and administering
the Act, in reviewing its decisions we ask only whether they are
``based on a permissible construction of the statute.'' Caddo Antoine &
Little Missouri R.R. Co. v. United States, 95 F.3d 740, 746 (8th Cir.
1996) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)). Notwithstanding this narrow
standard of review, we must thoroughly examine the record and inquire
whether the Board correctly applied the proper legal standards. City of
Cherokee v. ICC, 641 F.2d 1220, 1226-27 (8th Cir. 1981). We are
obligated to overturn the Board's decisions if there are ``compelling
indications that the Board's interpretations were incorrect.'' GS
Roofing Prods. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 143 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir.
1998).
As the utilities and shipper organizations assert, carriers are
bound both at common law and under the Act to``provide * * *
transportation or service on reasonable request'' to any shipper. GS
Roofing, 143 F.3d at 391. This duty not only requires carriers to
provide service on their lines, but also requires rates for such
service to be reasonable. See Thompson, 343 U.S. at 554; 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 10701a(b) (now 10701(d)).
As the Board and the railroads assert, however, there are
significant limitations to the common carrier duties. It is usually at
the discretion of the carrier how it wishes to satisfy its duty to
provide rates and service. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10701a(a) (now 10701(c)).
Consequently, a carrier may in most circumstances provide service in
the form of a joint rate with another railroad, such as Conrail did
with CSX in PP&L's case, or a proportional rate, as Conrail did with
NS. See, e.g., Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Sullivan, 294 U.S. 458, 463
(1935) (holding that a shipper may not recover damages based upon the
carrier's portion of a rate if the carrier chooses to offer only a
joint rate with another carrier, unless the entire joint rate is
unreasonable); Routing Restrictions, 296 I.C.C. at 774 (stating that
nothing in the Act requires carriers to establish routes over all
possible interchanges).
Further, a carrier generally may provide common carrier service in
a manner that protects its ``long hauls.'' See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10705(a)
(now 10705(a)). The Board may order a carrier to provide service over a
shorter haul than it wishes only if the Board first makes specific
findings under the Act. See id. Sec. 10705(a)(2). Thus, a carrier such
as UP may normally choose to provide service to a shipper such as
MidAmerican over a route longer than the 90 miles from Council Bluffs
to Sergeant Bluff, unless the longer route would be ``unreasonably
long'' or inefficient. See Thompson, 343 U.S. at 559-60 (holding that
the ICC was required to make findings regarding the short-hauling
exceptions before compelling a railroad to provide service over a
shorter portion of rail than it wished).
Therefore, the Act protects both shippers and carriers. It
guarantees that shippers will receive rail service at reasonable rates,
and it allows carriers to provide such service in a manner that
achieves revenue adequacy.
The Board has recognized that an important part of achieving
revenue adequacy is differential pricing. See Consolidated Rail Corp.
v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444, 1453-54 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing Coal
Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C.2d 520 (1985)). This is a practice
by which carriers charge a higher mark-up on rail segments where demand
elasticity is low, such as bottlenecks, to compensate for low mark-ups
on competitive segments. See Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 526-
27. Therefore, ``services may be priced above their attributable costs
according to observable market demand, but only to the extent necessary
to cover total costs, including return on investment of an efficient
carrier.'' Id. at 533-34. Accordingly, in reviewing the reasonableness
of bottleneck rates, the Board allows bottleneck carriers to charge up
to stand-alone cost (SAC), a level that is significantly higher than
marginal cost.\10\ See id. at 526-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Stand-alone cost represents the minimum amount that a
hypothetical carrier, or the shipper itself, would have to spend to
build a new rail line to compete over the bottleneck segment. See Coal
Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 528-29. This measure better allows
railroads to achieve true revenue adequacy, because it takes into
account profits and the cost of long-term capital investment, while
marginal cost does not. See id. at 526.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the present case, the Board determined that exploiting
bottlenecks by refusing to provide separately challengeable bottleneck
rates also assists carriers in achieving revenue adequacy.
Specifically, in the MidAmerican case, allowing UP to provide only an
origin-to-destination rate enables it to charge up to SAC over the
entire 750-mile route, rather than just over the 90-mile section from
Council Bluffs to Sergeant Bluff. Were UP required to provide a
separate bottleneck rate, it would be forced to charge lower
competitive rates from the mine to Council Bluffs. Similarly, in the
CP&L and PP&L cases, allowing the bottleneck carriers to negotiate
through rates and joint rates for origin-to-destination service enables
them, rather than the shippers, to take advantage of the competition
between non-bottleneck carriers. After negotiating competitive rates
for the non-bottleneck carriage, the bottleneck carriers will be able
to charge the bottleneck shippers up to SAC for the entire route,
rather than just over the bottleneck. See Western Resources, Inc. v.
Surface Transp. Bd., 109 F.3d 782, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (describing the
behavior of bottleneck carriers).
Based on these economic factors and extensive expert testimony, the
Board concluded that the Act did not require carriers to provide
separate bottleneck rates. Regardless of how we would resolve the
tension in the Act if we were to independently rule on the utilities'
claims, we cannot say that the Board's interpretation was incorrect.
The Board's considerable expertise in the economic underpinnings of the
railroad industry is entitled to a great degree of deference, and its
decision to allow carriers to determine how they wish to fulfill their
duties under the Act is consistent with the current national railroad
policy of maximizing carrier discretion in setting routes and rates.
Because the utilities have not demonstrated that the Board's rulings
were incorrect, we affirm the Board's dismissal of the utilities'
complaints.
We note that the Board's decisions explicitly provide the utilities
three potential avenues of recourse. First, bottleneck shippers may
obtain contracts for service over the competitive segments of rail. See
Bottleneck I, 1996 STB LEXIS 358, at * 30-* 31; Bottleneck II, 1997 STB
LEXIS 91, at * 22. Once a contract is secured, the bottleneck carrier
will be required to provide local service over the bottleneck in light
of its common carrier obligations. Bottleneck II, at * 22. Because such
service will be actually ``held out'' to bottleneck shippers,\11\ the
Board will be required to review the bottleneck rate for
reasonableness. See Bottleneck I, at * 12-* 14 (refusing to review
class rates over the bottlenecks in these cases because the carriers
did not hold out such rates for bulk coal shipments). For an example of
the Board's willingness to review bottleneck rates that are held out to
shippers, see Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Surface
Transportation Board, 114 F.3d 206, 215 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (West Texas
II) (engaging in reasonableness review of a bottleneck rate, and
finding a rate of $19.36 per ton for coal unreasonable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Historically, a shipper could not challenge a rate unless the
carrier held out service at that rate. See Routing Restrictions, 296
I.C.C. at 774-75 (stating that shippers cannot force carriers to ship
over shorter rail segments than they wish unless carriers hold out such
service to the public). If a carrier denied holding out service for a
given rail segment, however, a shipper could show that the carrier
implicitly held out service. Shippers did this by showing either that
the carrier was required to provide such service under its common
carrier obligations, or by demonstrating an ``established interchange''
for such service with another carrier. See id. at 774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, as soon as a bottleneck shipper obtains a contract for non-
bottleneck carriage, bottleneck carriers would have no incentive to
refuse to provide a local rate for bottleneck service. The Board's
regulations clearly allow bottleneck carriers to charge up to SAC for
bottleneck service, and carriers would not attempt to charge more than
SAC because they would immediately be subject to rate reasonableness
review by the Board. See Western Resources, Inc. v. Surface Transp.
Bd., 109 F.3d at 789-90 (noting that bottleneck carriers will likely
negotiate reasonable rates with bottleneck shippers to avoid Board
review of bottleneck rates).
Second, if the utilities can adequately demonstrate an absence of
effective competition \12\ over the entire origin-to-destination route,
they may challenge the origin-to-destination rate provided by the
carrier. See Bottleneck I, at * 38-* 39 (noting that PP&L properly
challenged the joint and proportional rates that Conrail negotiated
with CSX and NS); Bottleneck II, at * 9 (same). Although this would not
allow the utilities to take advantage of the competition over the non-
bottleneck segments, it would ensure that carriers will exploit
bottleneck segments only to the extent needed to achieve revenue
adequacy. For the Board's rate review authority was meant to ensure
that ``rail rate flexibility would not result in [captive] shippers
bearing a disproportionate share of responsibility for the needed
improvements in the railroads' financial position.'' Midtec, 857 F.2d
at 1506 (quoting Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. ICC, 725 F.2d 716, 719
(D.C. Cir. 1984)). See also Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 523-24
(stating that a bottleneck shipper must not be forced to ``subsidize
long-term excess capacity'' and pay for ``facilities or services from
which it derives no benefit'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Under the Act, effective competition exists if the complaining
shipper cannot establish the existence of market dominance under the
criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10709(d) (now 10707(d)). Under
that provision, a carrier has market dominance if its revenue to
variable cost percentage for the rail segment in question is greater
than 180 percent. See 10709(d)(2); Midtec, 857 F.2d at 1504. If the
shipper can make this showing, the carrier must respond by
demonstrating adequate ``competitive alternatives'' that provide
effective competition. See Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Conrail, 5
I.C.C.2d 385, 410-16 (1989) (discussing and dismissing carriers'
argument that intermodal, geographic, and product competition prevented
it from having market dominance).
There is substantial evidence that bottleneck carriers possess
market dominance. See, e.g., West Texas II, 114 F.3d at 211 (summarily
affirming the Board's holding that there was an absence of effective
competition over a bottleneck). Conrail was found to be market dominant
over its bottleneck in a proceeding by PP&L nearly fifteen years ago.
See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., No.
38186S (ALJ July 24, 1984). Numerous scholars have declared that
consistent price discrimination is a strong indication that there is no
effective competition in the market reaping higher returns, in this
case, the bottleneck segments. See Coal Exporters, 745 F.2d at 91
(citing 2 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law 342; R. Bork, The
Antitrust Paradox 395 (1978); R. Posner, Antitrust Law 63 (1976); and
L. Sullivan, Handbook of the Law of Antitrust 89 (1977)). Indeed, the
Board appeared to acknowledge that the bottleneck segments lack
effective competition when it stated that its task in these cases was
to ascertain the extent to which bottleneck carriers may ``exert their
market power * * * Bottleneck I, at * 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the utilities could request relief under the competitive
access rules, 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1144.5 (1997), over the entire origin-to-
destination route. See Bottleneck I, at * 20-* 26; Bottleneck II, at *
6. To invoke these rules, the utilities would be required to show that
the carrier engaged in ``anticompetitive'' conduct. See Bottleneck I,
at * 26; Midtec, 857 F.2d at 1507; 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1144.5(a)(1).
Potential relief under the competitive access rules would include
ordering the bottleneck carrier to enter into a switching arrangement
with another carrier or prescribing a new through route over the
bottleneck. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1144.5(a). Admittedly, invoking these rules
has proved difficult for shippers, but the Board has indicated an
intent to enforce the rules to their fullest extent in the future. See
Bottleneck I, at * 22, * 26.
The utilities rely on San Antonio v. Burlington Northern, 355
I.C.C. 405 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United
States, 555 F.2d 637 (8th Cir. 1977), for the argument that they should
be allowed to challenge class rates for the bottleneck segments. In
that case, however, a utility brought an action to the Commission
requesting rate prescription over a complete origin-to-destination
shipment. See 555 F.2d at 639. Like the D.C. Circuit's recent decision
in West Texas II, 114 F.3d 206 (1997), San Antonio simply demonstrates
that the Act allows shippers to challenge origin-to-destination rates,
regardless of how carriers choose to provide such service. In the
present cases, the shippers did not challenge complete origin-to-
destination rates, but challenged class rates over a segment of the
route as an indirect means of preventing the carriers from exploiting
bottleneck profits. That `` creative rate reduction strategy''
undermined the national railroad policy of deferring to carrier
discretion in setting routes and rates.
Nothing in the Act explicitly requires carriers to provide separate
local rates for bottleneck service. Furthermore, requiring carriers to
provide separately challengeable rates on bottlenecks would prevent
them from exploiting bottlenecks and charging rates up to SAC for
complete origin-to-destination service. In the Board's view, this would
impede the industry's efforts to achieve revenue adequacy, which is
necessary for long-term capital investment and, ultimately, for a safe
and efficient rail system. The Board therefore properly reconciled the
competing policies of the Act when it deferred to carrier discretion in
setting routes and rates and held that carriers are not required to
provide separately challengeable bottleneck rates.
The Board's dismissal of the utilities' complaints is affirmed.
IV.
The railroads cross-appeal the Board's determination that it may
assess the reasonableness of bottleneck rates as soon as the utilities
obtain contract rates over the non-bottleneck segments. Under Article
III of the Constitution, we may only rule on existing cases or
controversies. Because none of the utilities possesses a contract rate
for non-bottleneck service, none has an existing claim for bottleneck
rate review on this basis. As the railroads themselves point out, the
Board's ruling on the contract issue presents no live controversy for
adjudication. Thus, we dismiss the cross-appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
______
streamlining of rate complaint process for certain agricultural
shippers
Question. Please provide a brief analysis of section 6 of S. 621,
``Simplified Relief Process for Certain Agricultural Shippers.''
Answer. Section 6 of S.621 contains various special provisions that
would apply only to grain facilities that are served by a single
railroad, use rail for more than 60 percent of their traffic (inbound
or outbound), ship no more than 4,000 carloads of grain or grain
products per year, and pay rail rates (excluding any premium for
special services) that yield revenues to the railroad of at least 180
percent of the railroad's variable costs of handling that facility's
traffic. Based on the traffic volume criteria, most rail-using grain
facilities in the country would appear to qualify for these provisions.
The first provision is that a railroad would not be allowed to
charge such grain facilities rates higher than the 180 percent revenue-
to-variable cost level. This 180 percent cap would be the same as the
general regulatory floor (below which regulatory intervention is not
permitted for the rail rates charged to any shipper for any commodity).
The impact of such a rate cap would vary among individual facilities
and grain-carrying railroads; for railroads with fewer grain
operations, the revenue impact could be minimal, while, for those with
more substantial grain operations, it could be substantial.
The second provision is that a railroad could not deny any requests
by such grain facilities for service up to 110 percent of the
facility's rail carloadings for the prior year. (Presumably, this would
force railroads to allocate capital resources to increase their grain
car fleets by up to 10 percent above the prior year's levels in order
to be prepared to meet this requirement.) The railroad, however, could
assess reasonable penalties for canceled service requests, provided
that the railroad is not more than 15 days late delivering the car(s).
Under the third provision, if, in the majority of instances over a
45-day period, the railroad is more than 30 days late in providing cars
that have been ordered or initiating service that has been requested,
such grain facilities would be entitled to obtain the services of an
alternate railroad. The alternate railroad would have to compensate the
original carrier for use of the track, on a pro-rata usage basis. If
the two railroads could not agree on that compensation within 15 days
of the shipper's request for the alternate service, the dispute could
be submitted to the Surface Transportation Board, and the Board would
set the compensation within 45 days.
Whether an alternate railroad would be available, of course, would
depend upon the capacity constraints of the alternate carrier, how
close the facility is to another railroad, and whether there is enough
traffic to justify the additional operations. If an alternate railroad
were not available, the shipper would be entitled, under a fourth
provision, to recover damages (including lost profits and other
consequential damages), as well as attorney's fees. No finding of fault
appears to be required, which suggests that a railroad could be fully
liable for both damages and attorney's fees even where its failure to
provide timely service was due to circumstances beyond its control.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies for
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses,
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for
nondepartmental witnesses.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline
Association
funding for the federal aviation administration
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important issue of
funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Cargo Airline Association is the nationwide organization
representing all-cargo air carriers providing expedited, time-definite,
transportation services to businesses and individuals throughout the
United States and the world. A copy of the current Association
Membership List is attached hereto as Appendix A. Over the past twenty-
five years, the all-cargo component of the air transportation industry
has grown explosively in response to the needs of American business and
individual shippers. Today, industry members have annual revenues in
excess of $25 billion, employ upwards of half a million full-time
equivalent individuals and operate over 800 large jet aircraft. To a
very large extent, our operations and growth are dependent on the day-
to-day activities of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Moreover, future industry growth is contingent upon the ability of the
FAA to continue to modernize the Nation's aviation infrastructure.
Although we are concerned with the entirety of FAA operations and
budget requests, our comments today are limited to a single program--
Safe Flight 21--which has the potential to significantly accelerate
airspace modernization and thereby enhance aviation safety and
operational efficiency. We not only fully support the FAA's requested
$16 million for the Safe Flight 21 program in fiscal year 2000, we
believe that this amount should be increased to $21 million to allow
for added initiatives in the area of Conflict Detection and Resolution
which will increase situational awareness in aircraft cockpits as we
move toward Free Flight in the early years of the 21st Century. A
portion of this additional funding could also be used to further
address the issue of groundside safety--specifically the identified
safety issue of runway incursions.
These programs are not a fantasy. They involve the practical
application of existing technologies, some of which can be made
operational before the sitting of the 107th Congress in 2001. The
evolution of these projects is unique and a short history of their
development will help put both the FAA Safe Flight 21 and Cargo Airline
Association budget requests in context.
Several years ago, air cargo industry members began a major
initiative to increase airline safety by modernizing surveillance
tools. This project was designed to use an existing technology called
ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast) to provide pilots
in ADS-B-equipped aircraft with enhanced ``see and avoid'' capabilities
in the short term, and with enhanced conflict detection and resolution
tools by the end of 2002. When this program was described in
Congressional testimony before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure's Aviation Subcommittee in February 1997, skeptics said
that the Cargo Airline Association initiative was ``interesting'', but
not possible before the year 2010--at the earliest. We believe that we
have proved these skeptics wrong. ``As advertised'' in that testimony,
by the Fall of 1998 we were flying test aircraft equipped with ADS-B in
the Pacific Northwest and had cooperated with FAA aircraft in tests of
the technology in the crowded Los Angeles basin. We are now in the
final stages of obtaining our first FAA Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) for installation of the equipment on large cargo aircraft. Within
the next month we expect to began an In Service Evaluation of the first
phase of this system--involving up to 12 aircraft drawn from the fleets
of Airborne Express, Federal Express and UPS. We will then sponsor an
Operational Evaluation in mid-July at which all equipped aircraft will
operate at Airborne's hub in Wilmington, Ohio, to test various
applications of the ADS-B technology. We hope and expect to begin
permanent installation of this technology on the entire cargo fleet in
early 2000. This progress could not have been made without the
cooperation of the members of the Cargo Airline Association and the
FAA. In addition, the support you provided in the form of $5 million
for the installation of ground stations and the testing of several data
links in the Ohio Valley has allowed us to move toward certification
even more quickly.
To date, the Cargo Airline Association though its members, have
made significant contributions by making aircraft available,
retrofitting existing cockpit displays and ``donating'' management
personnel, engineers, and pilots' time. It is roughly estimated that to
date the private sector has contributed over $10 million to advance
this valuable program. This commitment, both in terms of personnel and
funding will continue well into the next century.
Significantly, the Cargo Airline Association project has expanded
well beyond the original purpose of enhanced airborne surveillance. All
possible uses of ADS-B technology are now ``on the table''. Perhaps
more importantly, cargo carriers are no longer alone in this effort. A
partial list of other participants (and their interests) are:
--1. The General Aviation community which is interested in affordable
surveillance technology and the ability to uplink weather and
traffic data to small aircraft;
--2. United Air Lines which intends to use ADS-B in tests of closely
spaced parallel approaches at San Francisco International
Airport;
--3. A consortium of Harris Corporation, Lockheed Martin and Sensis
Corporation which is installing an air traffic management
system which will fuse radar and ADS-B data for presentation to
air traffic controllers at the Operational Evaluation at
Wilmington, Ohio;
--4. MITRE Corporation which serves on the Association Steering
Committee and which is installing Ground Stations, under
contract with the FAA, in the Ohio Valley;
--5. SITA which will provide a telecommunications link between the
various Ground Stations; and
--6. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) which
has been invited to work with us and serve on our Steering
Committee.
Perhaps even more significantly, the FAA itself, through the Safe
Flight 21 office, is a major partner in our activities. Using the $5
million appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1999, the FAA has
contracted for the installation of Ground Stations in the Ohio Valley;
has arranged for an independent evaluation of three separate data link
technologies by Johns Hopkins University; and is outfitting a number of
FAA aircraft with ADS-B technology to participate fully in the various
tests to be conducted this year. Much of the funding requested by the
FAA for Fiscal 2000 is for a continuation of this work. The results
thus far have been more than promising and we fully expect that the
ultimate result of this initiative will be to jumpstart airspace
modernization and to accelerate the timetable for Free Flight
implementation.
If Free Flight is the ``end game'' of the airspace modernization
effort (and we believe it is), we urge Congress to provide an
additional $5 million for the FAA's budget request for fiscal year
2000. Additional funding would be used to begin developing ADS-B
technology to provide real-time conflict detection and resolution
capabilities, a necessary component of any Free Flight scenario. A
portion of this funding could also be used to test ADS-B on ground
situations as a means of avoiding runway incursions.
By using ADS-B as a conflict detection and resolution tool, pilots
will be able to track aircraft over 100 miles away and will be able to
make early, minor adjustments in their flight plans to avoid conflicts
with other aircraft. This technology will also permit the pilot to
``see'' exactly what the controller sees, thereby eliminating any
misunderstandings. These functions are vital components of any new
generation collision avoidance system. As we move toward Free Flight,
these capabilities become crucial and a relatively small investment by
Congress now will accelerate this entire process.
We appreciate the opportunity to brief the Committee on our
progress and our funding needs for fiscal year 2000. We would be happy
to answer any questions or to provide any further data the Committee
deems necessary.
Thank you very much for your past support. We look forward to
working with you in the coming year.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Foote, Chief of Staff, Office of Mayor
Welling Web, City and County of Denver, CO
i. introduction and summary
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mayor Wellington Webb of the City and
County of Denver, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit
this testimony and to be able to tell you that on February 28, 1999,
Denver International Airport successfully completed its fourth full
year of operations.
Mr. Chairman, if you or any of your colleagues on this Subcommittee
have not seen DIA, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit
the airport and have Mayor Webb give you a personal tour of this state-
of-the-art airport. With several major airports being built elsewhere
around the world, they all come to Denver to see how to do it and we
are very proud to display America's high level of expertise in airport
technology.
DIA would not have been possible without funding appropriated by
this Subcommittee for the Airport Improvement Program, which enabled
the FAA to provide grants, and for FAA equipment and facilities for
this nationally-important project. DIA was the first major airport
built in the United States in over 20 years. It is a critical component
of our national aviation system and our transportation infrastructure
that you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow Members are working so hard to
improve. Without Congress, DOT, the FAA and the City of Denver, all
working together closely, DIA would not have happened.
I also want to thank you for supporting the elimination of the
statutory prohibition concerning DIA's sixth runway. The sixth runway
was part of the original plan for DIA that was approved by the Federal
Aviation Administration. This runway will give us a balanced airfield
and, since it will be 16,000 feet long, it will be able to accommodate
larger aircraft and enable us to expand our transatlantic and
transpacific service. We had started the site preparation work several
years ago, before the prohibition was imposed, and have finished this
first phase of the runway. We greatly appreciate the lifting of the
prohibition so that we can now proceed with completing this important
airfield project.
There are three main reasons why DIA was built.
One was to provide a more efficient, cost-effective and user-
friendly facility for the citizens of the City of Denver, the State of
Colorado and the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions, and the
millions of visitors who are so important to our economy. For them, DIA
is the gateway to the rest of the country and the world.
The second, closely tied to the first, was to provide a more cost-
effective and efficient hub by reducing the delays at the old Stapleton
Airport that were severely and negatively impacting the nation's air
transportation system and were keeping Denver from taking full
advantage of its central geographic location.
Third, Stapleton was the source of serious noise problems that
needed to be solved. Stapleton was located only seven miles from
downtown Denver and was surrounded on three sides by residential
communities. About 14,000 people lived within the 65 dB DNL contour--
the noise level which the FAA has determined is unsuitable for homes.
I can report to you today that DIA continues to exceed expectations
as to each of these three goals. The Airport's revenues have exceeded
its expenses in each of its four years of existence; it is highly
efficient and one of the world's most user-friendly airports; it had
the lowest percentage of delays among the nation's 20 busiest airports
in 1998, which was good news not only for Denver but for the national
system; and we have dramatically reduced the number of people within
the 65 db DNL noise contour from about 14,000 to less than 200.
In sum, DIA has made a major contribution to the efficiency of the
carriers operating at the Airport and to the national air
transportation system through reduced flight delays and fuel savings
and has dramatically improved the impact of noise on those who were
most heavily affected.
Let me now turn to more specifics about the results of DIA's first
four years of operation.
ii. dia is financially sound
DIA's record of performance reflects the fact that the Airport is
well-managed by the City and financially sound. For 1998, we handled
36.8 million passengers, a 5.3 percent increase over 1997 and the
highest ever for Denver. This solid traffic level is evidence of
Denver's strong origin and destination market and its central
geographic location for east-west hubbing operations. For 1998, our net
revenues, i.e., revenues less operating expenses and debt payments, are
projected to exceed $28 million. Under our agreement with the airlines,
80 percent of these net revenues are provided to the carriers, which
reduces their costs at DIA.
We have carefully managed our revenue sources, such as concessions
and parking, as well as our costs, particularly through successful
refinancing of our debt obligations, which has created important
savings that are shared with the air carriers. Our strong financial
performance has enabled us to reduce our costs per enplanement, which
were projected to be $18.02 when we opened in 1995, to about $15.12 for
1998, a 16 percent reduction. In recognition of our solid financial
condition, Standard & Poor's upgraded its rating on our senior airport
bonds from BBB to BBB+. As we enter our fifth year of operations, we
expect that DIA will continue to have an excellent financial record.
iii. dia has substantially reduced delays
Our second major goal was to reduce delays. We have been
tremendously successful in achieving this goal and we are proud to
report that, for 1998, we had only 1.7 delays per thousand operations,
the best percentage among the top 20 U.S. airports. In contrast, we
suffered 14 delays per thousand operations at Stapleton, one of the
worst records in the United States. Stapleton, a major connecting
airport for travelers flying between the eastern and western parts of
the country, was a terrible bottleneck during bad weather. While
Stapleton could handle 88 air carrier jet arrivals per hour on two
runways in good weather, it would be down to only one runway and barely
32 arrivals per hour in a storm, causing tremendous backups throughout
our national system. That was one of the major reasons for then-
Secretary of Transportation Skinner's strong support without which DIA
would never have been built.
Since DIA opened, its benefits to the national system are
dramatically reflected in the on-time statistics I just cited. In fact,
on the day we opened, Denver was hit by a snowstorm that would have
crippled Stapleton, leaving it with only one runway capable of handling
32 operations per hour. Yet, DIA had three runways operating
simultaneously with a capacity to handle up to 120 flights per hour.
iv. dia has substantially reduced aircraft noise impacts
Our third major goal in building DIA was to reduce the impact of
aircraft noise on the people of our communities. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Subcommittee, we have probably achieved more in reducing airport
noise significantly for our citizens than any large airport in the
nation. We did that by moving the airport from seven miles from
downtown to 23 miles from downtown. That took us from a very high
population density area to one with very low population density. We
also acquired 53 square miles (34,000 acres)--twice the size of
Manhattan--to give us a large buffer zone around the airport. As a
result, the number of people who now live within an area defined as the
65dB noise contour, which Congress has deemed to be unsuitable for
homes, is down from 14,000 at Stapleton to less than 200 at DIA, one of
the best records of any major airport in the world.
v. conclusion
In summary, Mr. Chairman, Denver International Airport has proven
to be a tremendous success and has become an important component of our
nation's infrastructure. We greatly appreciate the lifting of the
prohibition on federal funding for our sixth runway so that we can
complete DIA's airfield, as originally designed, and prepare the
airport to meet the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of Edward M. Bolen, President, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, and members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Edward M. Bolen and I am President of the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA). GAMA represents 53 General Aviation
aircraft, engine, avionics and component parts manufactured throughout
the United States.
As everyone on this Subcommittee well knows, General Aviation is
technically defined as all aviation other than commercial or military
aviation. General Aviation aircraft range from small, single engine
aircraft to intercontinental business jets.
These aircraft are used for everything from flight training to
emergency medical evacuations to border patrols to fire fighting. They
are also used by individuals, companies, state governments,
universities and other interests to quickly and efficiently reach the
more than 5000 small and rural communities in the United States that
are not served by commercial airlines.
General Aviation is the backbone of our national air transportation
system and the primary training ground for the commercial airline
industry. It is also one of the segments of our aviation industry that
helps drive our economy and contributes positively to our nation's
balance of trade.
funding the federal aviation administration
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to comment on FAA
funding for fiscal year 2000.
Because the public demands and the law requires the FAA to be
deeply involved in all aspects of aviation, the overall quality,
strength and efficiency of the U.S. aviation industry is inextricably
linked to the quality, strength and efficiency of the FAA.
Given the tremendous impact aviation has on our nation's economy,
our balance of trade and our quality of life, it is very much in our
national interest to have an FAA that is adequately funded.
Before discussing the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, I would like
to take a minute to recognize the subcommittee for the excellent job it
has done making sure that the FAA has the resources it needs to retain
its position as the world's preeminent aviation authority. Since fiscal
year 1995,the FAA has received 99.8 percent of its budget request. Its
appropriation has grown by 17.6 percent over the past three years
alone.
In providing funding to the FAA, Congress has consistently utilized
a combination of aviation revenues and general taxpayer funds. Given
the public benefit inherent in a strong air transportation system, GAMA
believes this combination of funding sources is entirely appropriate
and should be continued.
GAMA would also like to recognize the subcommittee for its strong
opposition to aviation user fees. As the members of the subcommittee
well know, user fees have been very detrimental to general aviation in
countries where they have been adopted. Rather than switch to harmful
fees, we believe that general aviation should continue to contribute to
the Airport and Airways Trust Fund by paying the federal tax on
aviation gasoline and jet fuel. We are grateful this subcommittee has
supported our view.
general aviation industry
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that after a long period of
decline, the General Aviation industry has experienced tremendous
growth since Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act
(GARA) in 1994. Since passage of the Act, sales of General Aviation
aircraft have more than doubled, exports have increased significantly,
production lines have opened and tens of thousands of high-tech, well-
paying manufacturing jobs have been created.
Helping fuel the growth in General Aviation have been significant
innovations in aircraft designs, propulsion systems, avionics, and
materials. These innovations are serving to make General Aviation even
safer, more affordable and more environmentally friendly.
Because U.S. General Aviation manufacturers are investing heavily
in research and development, we expect the current pace of innovation
to continue well into the future. However, the ability of manufacturers
to bring exciting, safe and environmentally friendly new products to
the market is dependent upon whether or not the FAA can certify these
new products in a timely manner.
certification of aviation products for the public benefit
Since 1926, the federal government has required manufacturers to
have all of their products ``certified'' by the Federal Aviation
Administration before they are allowed to enter the stream of commerce.
The FAA becomes, in essence, a gatekeeper between manufacturers and the
marketplace.
The government's legal authority to require private manufacturers
to certify their products is a direct result of the public's interest
in having aviation products not pose an unreasonable safety risk to
people in the air and on the ground. Were it not for this significant
public safety interest in aviation products, the FAA would not have the
legal authority to require private manufacturers to undergo the
certification process.
office of regulation and certification should be fully funded
Over the years, the FAA has performed its certification duties
exceptionally well. However, during fiscal year 1999, funds that were
earmarked for the Office of Regulation and Certification were
redirected to other FAA programs. As a result, over 200 certification
jobs have gone unfilled. This redirection of certification resources is
beginning to have an impact on our manufacturers' ability to get their
products certified and to the marketplace in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, the consequences of U.S. manufacturers not being able
to get their products to the marketplace in a timely manner are
serious. It may mean that consumers are unable to enjoy the safety and
environmental benefits of new products. It may mean that foreign
competitors are given an opportunity to capture the market before the
U.S. companies have an opportunity to enter it. It may mean that
investment dollars stop flowing into research and development because
the time needed to achieve a return on that investment becomes too long
for investors. None of these outcomes is acceptable.
GAMA views the Administration's request for the FAA's Office of
Regulation and Certification as the absolute minimum amount necessary
for the FAA to perform its certification duties. Frankly, we believe a
10 percent increase over the requested amount would be more in line
with the actual needs of the Office of Regulation and Certification. We
urge the subcommittee to at least fund this important function at the
requested amount. We also urge the subcommittee to include language in
the appropriations bill which will prevent resources earmarked for
certification from being redirected to other FAA programs.
In making this funding request to Congress, GAMA acknowledges that
the subcommittee is operating in an era of declining budgets and
increasing demands. It is for that reason that we want to make Congress
aware that industry and the FAA are working together to improve the
certification process in a manner that will both improve safety and
reduce costs.
I believe it is also important for Congress to understand that
manufacturers currently assume approximately 90 percent of the costs
associated with certification through the use of Designated Engineering
Representatives. This means that the government investment in
certification is well leveraged and concentrates on major safety issues
and oversight. The resulting benefit to the public in terms of
technological advancement is substantial.
waas
GAMA supports continued full funding for the Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS). This program is the cornerstone of the NAS modernization
effort and has the potential to provide tremendous benefits to general
aviation. The recently completed Johns Hopkins study confirmed the
validity of the FAA's WAAS program, and has given the industry
confidence that this program should be pursued.
The WAAS system of satellites and ground stations can increase the
margin of safety for all of aviation by providing instrument approaches
with vertical guidance to over 1,500 airports that do not currently
have this capability. GAMA realizes that the WAAS program has had its
share of controversy. However, we believe the FAA has already made
adequate allowances for risk reduction and every major user
organization now supports completion of WAAS Phase I. In fact, we
encourage the FAA to rapidly refine its plan for WAAS Phase II, as
recommended by Johns Hopkins. The WAAS program is an essential part of
the FAA modernization effort, and GAMA urges that the program move
forward.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, GAMA would like to again thank the subcommittee for
its efforts to ensure that the FAA is adequately funded. Your efforts
over the years are recognized and appreciated.
As we prepare for the next century it is important that the FAA
continues to have the resources it needs to remain the leading aviation
authority in the world. As part of that effort, GAMA urges Congress to
fully fund the FAA's Office of Regulation and Certification and the
Wide Area Augmentation System.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the
subcommittee and look forward to answering any questions you may have
regarding our comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
Chairman Shelby and distinguished members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, The
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (the ``Authority'') is very grateful
for the past support of your committee and will strive to maintain your
trust and confidence.
The Authority is extremely pleased to submit written testimony
regarding the following three points:
--1. The funding requirements Orlando International Airport faces in
constructing critical capacity improvement projects, such as,
Runway 17L/35R and the South Terminal Complex;
--2. the nature of the market that Orlando International Airport
(``OIA'') services; and,
--3. the importance of a well funded Airport Improvement Program
(``AIP'').
1. critical capacity improvement projects for orlando international
airport
Past aggressive development efforts have enabled OIA to respond to
a phenomenal growth rate over the last sixteen years. In August 1997,
the Authority and its airline partners approved a $1.2 billion capital
improvement program for the design and construction of a new airside
building, expanded public parking facilities, existing and new terminal
development, wetland removal for Runway 17L/35R, as well as a new Air
Traffic Control Tower. Revenue bonds, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
and local funding sources were identified and approved for
approximately 80 percent of the required funding.
OIA served approximately 28 million passengers and handled 363,285
flight operations in 1998. Forecasts indicate OIA will experience
annual growth of 4-6 percent during the next five years. In order for
OIA to meet future growth trends and to ensure the National Aviation
Systems continued efficiency, federal participation is required to
provide funding for Runway 17L/35R and the South Terminal Complex.
A. Runway 17L/35R
In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration's ``Airport Capacity
Design Study'' recommended that a fourth runway with the capability of
triple flow approaches should be operational when OIA reached 400,000
annual operations.
Between 1990 and 1998 the Federal Aviation Administration
(``FAA''), the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Authority
committed $86,954,271 towards constructing Runway 17L/35R of which the
Federal Aviation Administration contributed $52,486,012. This amount
included the cost of land acquisition, mitigation requirements, initial
site preparation, relocation of a high voltage power line, and 30
percent completion of design. Since the FAA issued the first grant for
Runway 17L/35R in 1990, airline passenger traffic at OIA increased 54
percent and airline operations increased 32 percent.
The OIA Master Plan forecasts indicate aircraft operations at OIA
in the year 2000 will exceed 400,000 and in 2002 will exceed 481,900.
Runway 17L/35R is needed to avoid excessive local and system-wide
delays.
On February 12, 1999 the Authority submitted a formal ``Letter of
Intent'' to the FAA to complete construction of Runway 17L/35R at OIA.
The estimated cost to complete the runway is approximately $115
million. The ``Letter of Intent'' is for a five-year period and commits
entitlement funds and requests discretionary grant. The amount of the
federal share is approximately $87 million.
The earliest Runway 17L/35R can be operational is March 2003.
Completing Runway 17L/35R will avoid significant delays and will permit
the National Aviation System to realize systemwide cost savings
estimated at $75 million by the year 2009 and even more significant
savings by the year 2020. Federal participation will allow the
Authority to complete Runway 17L/35R; thereby, greatly enhancing the
efficiency of OIA and generating substantial savings locally as well as
through the National Aviation System. The Authority would like the
support of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for
this project and respectfully request you to direct the FAA to give
this funding request priority consideration.
B. South Terminal Complex
The North Terminal Complex at OIA is reaching full capacity.
Recently, with Airline commitment the Authority has commenced the
design and construction of the first phase of the South Terminal
Complex. The first phase of the South Terminal is planned for
international and domestic passengers and will have 12 gates. The
Authority will maintain and operate approximately 6 gates to facilitate
airline competition and competitive fares. When the South Terminal
Complex is fully developed OIA will have the capacity to serve 70
million domestic and international passengers annually.
The first phase of the South Terminal Complex is expected to open
in December 2002. The Authority anticipates that Phase 1 will cost $570
million. Approximately 87 percent of funding will be a combination of
state grants, revenue bonds, PFCs, and local funds. FAA discretionary
grant funds of approximately $56 million (13 percent) are needed for
high priority apron and taxiway elements of this project. The Authority
respectfully requests that the Senate Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee supports and directs the FAA to give funding priority to
the critical airside elements of the South Terminal Complex.
2. the market that orlando international airport services
Florida is the world's fourth largest market based on Gross
Domestic Products. It is the Country's fourth largest state by
population, home to almost 15 million residents, and considered the
fastest growing state in the U.S. More than 7.4 million residents, or
50 percent of the population of Florida, lives within 125 miles of
Orlando.
More than 1.4 million people live in Metro Orlando. Forecasts
indicate that by 2005 the population will exceed 1.8 million. As the
world's most popular tourist destination, Central Florida's economy
requires affordable, convenient, and safe air transportation. The
future growth of OIA is directly related to the expansion and
development of theme parks and support services. Attractions account
for 6 of the top 10 U.S. theme parks (Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, Disney-MGM
Studios, Universal Studios Florida, Sea World of Florida, and Busch
Gardens Tampa). Orlando's area attraction attendance is anticipated to
exceed 70,000,000 per year by 2002.
Orlando also has become the most popular convention market in the
world. In 1997, 4.17 million business travelers attended conventions,
meetings, seminars, and trade shows in Central Florida. The Orange
County Convention Center in Orlando is currently the second largest
convention facility in the U.S.
Since 1996 Orlando International Airport has ranked among the
World's fastest growing airports. Forecasts indicate Orlando
International Airport will experience annual growth of 4-8 percent
during the next five-years. OIA has scheduled non-stop service to 75
domestic and 23 international destinations, promoting increased airline
service and competitive fares. By the year 2000, OIA will serve more
than 30 million passengers and handle over 400,000 flight operations.
OIA shares a unique relationship with the regional economy. A recently
completed economic impact study determined OIA generates a $14 billion
annual economic impact and is responsible for 54,000 direct and
indirect jobs.
3. well funded airport improvement program
The future ability of the National Aviation System to ensure safe
and secure air transportation depends on a well funded Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) which provides the Federal Aviation
Administration the financial resources needed to underwrite critical
capacity improvement projects. The Authority respectfully requests the
Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to fully fund AIP at
no less than the current year's appropriation of $1.95 billion.
Airfield improvements are intended to increase needed capacity, provide
increased flight operation safety, and enhance the efficiency of the
National Aviation System. The AIP is an essential component of the
financial strategy to ensure airports have the resources necessary to
design and construct basic airfield improvements.
conclusion
Central Florida is extremely proud of Orlando International Airport
and believes it represents a model for economic development. The
success of maintaining this status requires federal participation in
new airfield improvements. The timely completion of Runway 17L/35R and
the South Terminal Complex is needed. As part of the National Aviation
System, OIA has the potential to positively influence air traffic and
limit future operational delays nationwide. AIP is an essential part of
the airport's funding strategy and provides the Authority the ability
to leverage local financial resources for maximum benefit to the
National Aviation System. The full funding of this most important
program will enable OIA to receive the federal assistance needed to
complete the projects on time without unnecessary costs or delays.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony and for
your Committee's past support.
______
Prepared Statement of Sergio Magistri, President and CEO, InVision
Technologies
funding for aviation security
The certified explosive detection system (EDS) industry began after
the tragedy of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988. At that time, viable EDS
technology had not yet been developed and we lacked a clear
understanding of what is required to effectively operate security
equipment within airport environments. Today, there are over 400
security systems operational worldwide, including 150 Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) certified EDS systems that are screening higher
quantities of luggage every day. The bootstrapping of the EDS industry
from ground zero--from the development of EDS certification criteria
and FAA-certified technology to the operational deployment of EDS
systems--is an example of a successful partnership between private
industry, airlines, airports and regulators and has resulted in
increased security for the traveling public.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.001
Ten years after the Pan Am 103 disaster, we now face several
questions. How will the utilization and development of EDS technology
evolve over the coming years? What are the constraints and what
performance levels can we expect in the next millennium?
Outlook of Existing Technologies
Today, dual-energy x-ray and Computed Tomography (CT) systems, such
as Invisions's CTX 5500, each have specific operational detection
capabilities. We expect the same split of operational applications for
these two technologies as has evolved during the past 20 years in the
medical field. Currently, hospital x-ray systems are used to assess
massive injuries such as a broken bone, while CT is used for more
demanding diagnoses such as locating small tumors. We expect the role
of CT as the primary screening and threat resolution technology to
expand, due to its comprehensive imaging capabilities. Dual-energy x-
ray technology will not be more widely deployed until it can
demonstrate higher performance (i.e., higher detection rates and FAA
certification).
CT systems will likely follow the evolution of medical CT, with its
wider deployment dependent upon the cost of the detectors and of its
computational power. Over the coming years, we should expect a moderate
decrease in the cost of the detector technology and other hardware,
combined with a sustained decrease in the cost of the computational
power. (This statement is based on Moore's law: ``the cost of
computational power drops by a factor of two every two years.'') For
example the CTX 9000 DSi, currently undergoing FAA certification, is
expected to provide up to 3 times the operational performance of the
CTX 5500 and has been designed for integration with the airport
conveyor system. The main objective of this development was to design
an EDS capable of performing in a 100 percent screening scenario in
which all passenger luggage is screened, rather than using a
combination of passenger profiling and EDS screening as is done today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.002
The limiting factor in the development of second- and especially
third-generation EDS is the understanding of the operational
requirements. The design for an EDS that screens 100 percent of
passenger luggage is substantially different from the design for an EDS
that screens only a small percentage of baggage after automated
passenger profiling is performed. Once operational requirements are
determined, we expect later-generation designs to be driven by
improvements to the software, made possible by decreasing costs in
computational power. Declining hardware costs will have only a minor
impact on the total cost of the system. Specific software improvements
will result in reduced false alarm rates, including operator and system
performance monitoring via Threat Image Projection (TIP) and Field Data
Report (FDR) software, and enhancements to increase operator
efficiency.
New Technologies
The beginning of the next century should bring additional
``orthogonal'' technologies, capable of improving x-ray and CT-based
EDS. ``Orthogonal'' technologies use different physical principles to
detect explosives and devices, for example radio waves versus x-rays.
Examples of the technologies in development for these applications are
Quadrupole Resonance (QR) and some of the newest vapor detectors. Over
the coming years, QR and possibly vapor detection may be integrated
with certified EDS systems with the purpose of reducing false alarm
rates and increasing the overall performance of the systems. The
benefit of these additions will be particularly significant for the
screening of carry-on luggage, where size and cost of the screening
equipment are very important. The addition of orthogonal technologies
like QR will also allow for better detection of components of explosive
devices and distributed charges, one of the additional requirements for
carry-on screening.
Operational Performance Issues
Developments of EDS for aviation security over the past 10 years
have been driven by technology. Vendors have learned how to master the
technological side of the business. Now is the time for the industry to
work with the FAA, the airlines and airports to resolve some of the
operational issues. This includes the funding and management of
security operators, as well as their continued training. During the
coming years, the industry will recognize that these operational issues
are not ``technology driven'' but rather human and management issues.
Are the operators being trained properly? Are the operators properly
managed with adequate incentives and rewards? How do we reduce high
operator turnover? What are the prerequisites for becoming an EDS
operator? Will we be able to develop certification standards for
operators? These are just a few of the questions that must be addressed
in order to increase the effectiveness of the security systems being
deployed.
For these issues, technology can help but will not be the only
solution. As the Gore Commission stated, ``There is no silver bullet''
for ensuring passenger security. InVision has recognized this challenge
and has begun to devote a substantial amount of resources, in
collaboration with the FAA, to support the training and monitoring of
operators via software add-ons like TIP and FDR.
Substantial progress has been made but EDS technology still remains
underutilized. From a recent IG report on security and EDS technology,
it was reported that 2 years after initiating deployment of FAA
certified systems, U.S. carriers are still under-utilizing these
systems. For example, in Q4 98 the average system was screening only
1559 bags per week compared to a conservative estimate nominal capacity
of 5250 bags per week, data from the IG report dated March 3, 1999.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.003
Business Constraints of the EDS Industry
In general, most of the companies in this sector are well
capitalized, and continue to invest in new technology and products. The
industry's total gross research and development investment in EDS
(including government grants) reaches $20-30 million dollars per year
with a revenue stream of $150-200 million dollars. Competition for the
second generation of FAA-certified systems is growing and will, over
time, provide better and less expensive EDS systems to the air
transportation industry.
However, a major concern in this area arises from business
uncertainty. Government purchases are made with a one-year planning
cycle and this short time horizon causes major management problems to
small companies in the EDS arena. This uncertainty may start to limit
the investments of private companies in the development of new EDS
products and in the refinement of the existing ones.
To solve this problem, it is imperative that the regulators develop
medium-term plans and commitments to correct the reactive nature of the
security business. Currently, EDS equipment is purchased only after a
tragedy occurs. Future plans should detail the EDS systems needed to
prevent tragedies and regulators should make medium-term commitments to
this magnitude of deployment (conditional upon meeting performance
criteria). Without this approach, the progress of the EDS industry
could be crippled over time and the US government could lose this very
important industrial base.
Ten years ago we didn't have a high-performance EDS machine; we
didn't have certification standards; we didn't have an EDS industry.
Today, we have 150 FAA-certified EDS systems in operation worldwide and
a viable industry operating under the leadership of the regulators.
Tomorrow, we will have better EDS systems that are faster, less
expensive, and easier to use with lower false alarm rates; dedicated
EDS systems for both checked and carry-on baggage; and better
operational utilization of the EDS technology. What will make the
difference in the security of air transportation during the next
century? A cohesive security plan containing performance requirements,
budgets and operational commitments from the airports, the airlines and
governments, developed in partnership with the EDS industry. This is
the condition for a viable EDS industry that is focused on improving
the core technology to the advantage of the travelling public.
Administration's Funding Request
InVision supports the Administration's budget request for aviation
security funding in fiscal year 2000. However, for real success in this
program which means increased security coverage, more efficiency and a
viable, healthy security industry, Congress must take a leadership role
by acknowledging that the $100 million funding level should be
increased. If the industry is going to increase utilization to approach
the capabilities of current and future technology, it can only do so by
integrating the technology into baggage handling systems. This can be
an expensive proposition but it will have truly significant benefits.
This integration provides the infrastructure for a comprehensive EDS
security system.
For a true industry to develop, consistent, appropriate funding
levels must be maintained, if not increased, so that the traveling
public can benefit from the industry's substantial potential. The
worthwhile goal of creating competition will never materialize if the
realities of integration costs and appropriate, recurrent funding
levels are not sustained and institutionalized.
Only when the creative and competitive efforts of the industry are
unleashed on the aviation security challenge, will the expectations of
the traveling public be met. Industrial development, however, requires
opportunity. That opportunity must come in the form of significant
markets for our industrial output and increased federal funding is the
key to creating those markets. Our aviation system is critical to the
economy, pursuit of freedom and quality of the American experience. We
must protect it with total resolve.
We appreciate the opportunity to brief the Committee on our
progress and our funding needs for fiscal year 2000. We would be happy
to answer any questions or to provide any further data the Committee
deems necessary.
Thank you very much for your past support. We look forward to
working with you in the coming year.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Alex Penelas, Miami-Dade County, Florida
aviation excerpts
Fourth Runway, Miami International Airport
Miami International Airport is one of Miami-Dade County's most
important economic assets, generating $13 billion each year in economic
activity and accounting for one out of every six jobs. MIA is the
nation's busiest international cargo and second busiest international
passenger airport, handling nearly 2 million tons of cargo and 34
million passengers annually. Our airport was ranked the seventh-busiest
airport in total operations for 1997. Aircraft operations have been on
the rise, increasing more than 57 percent between 1983 and 1998.
Passenger enplanements at MIA have increased more than 177 percent
during this same time period. According to FAA projections, this growth
at MIA will keep it on the list of airports experiencing over 20,000
hours of annual delay if no airfield capacity enhancements are made.
According to FAA's 1998 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan (ACE),
MIA is projected to increase 97.3 percent in departing passengers and
42.5 percent in aircraft movements by the year 2012, placing MIA among
the nation's fastest growing airports. Currently during peak hours the
design capacity of the three existing runways is exceeded.
In 1989 and again in 1997, an FAA led Airport Capacity Design Team
for MIA published recommendations for increasing capacity and reducing
delays. The Design Team's analysis shows that delay costs and annual
delays will continue to grow at a substantial rate as demand increases
if no improvements in airfield capacity are made. The Team's
recommendation, outlined in its 1997 Capacity Enhancement Plan Update,
identified the need for a fourth air-carrier runway to provide ``the
greatest savings in average annual delays and delay costs.'' The
proposed fourth runway will be a new, non-precision air carrier runway
8-26, parallel to and 800 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R.
Airfield and airspace delays currently cost the airlines over $153
million a year. Without a new runway, these delay costs will escalate
to $373 million annually by the year 2005, and Miami runs the risk of
losing passengers and cargo to competing airports. By providing
adequate capacity at MIA, the National Airspace System (NAS) benefits,
as reducing congestion and delays at MIA also reduces delays at other
key NIPIAS airports such as DWF, JFK, and LAX.
The proposed runway is part of MIA's $4.7 billion capital
development program to modernize facilities and add new capacity. A
fourth runway will extend MIA's airfield capacity to the year 2015 and
possibly beyond with the implementation of operational and demand
management techniques. As required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS), managed by the
FAA, was conducted. On December 18, 1998, the FAA issued a positive
Record of Decision, identifying no significant adverse environmental
impacts.
The Miami-Dade Aviation Department has submitted to the FAA an
application for a Letter of Intent (LOI), for the runway program,
including the required cost/benefit analysis. The analysis clearly
demonstrates the runway's merits for FAA funding. A minimum Benefit/
Cost Ratio of 9:1 is obtained for the runway on the basis of aircraft
operating cost savings alone and assuming that demand growth is limited
at relatively modest levels. The total program including associated
taxiways is currently estimated to cost $200 million. The Miami-Dade
Aviation Department is seeking a Letter of Intent for $104.3 million
over a five-year period from the Airport Improvement Program (75
percent of the cost of the eligible portion of the runway program).
Miami-Dade County has awarded a contract for the design of the runway.
The design is expected to be completed by summer of 2000, allowing for
immediate bidding and award of a contract for the construction of the
runway. The requested multi-year funding commitment is needed to assure
the timely implementation of the program.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I urge you to support
Miami-Dade County's LOI request and ask that you direct the FAA to give
our application priority consideration.
South Florida depends on the economic benefits of a thriving
international airport and cannot afford to have its competitive
position compromised by inadequate airfield capacity. Further, the
national airspace system urgently requires the additional capacity that
relieving congestion at MIA--one of the nation's 20 most congested
airports--will provide.
Of course, I would be remiss to conclude my remarks before
discussing appropriations for the Airport Improvement Program. The
nation's airports have capital development investments needs exceeding
$10 billion annually. We know the Subcommittee is aware of these needs
and supports funding airport infrastructure. We also recognize that the
Subcommittee has to make difficult choices between many worthwhile
transportation programs. As Mayor of Miami-Dade County, I can well
understand the difficulty of the Subcommittee's task in having to
choose between so many worthwhile programs. We too are faced with
shrinking budgets and increasing needs and have to make difficult
choices in allocating scarce resources.
We were very appreciative last year of the Subcommittee's inclusion
of a $1.9 billion funding level for the AIP. This funding level
represented a significant increase over prior years and was very
welcome by airport operators throughout the nation. Unfortunately, AIP
was only reauthorized for six months, effectively cutting the
appropriated level in half unless Congress takes immediate action to
continue the program until the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR-21) is enacted.
As you begin your deliberations for fiscal year 1999
Appropriations, we ask that you once again make every effort to fully-
fund AIP at the authorized level. Finally, we would like to associate
ourselves with the testimony presented to this Committee by the
Airports Council International--North America and the American
Association of Airport Executives. We are in full support of the
positions presented to you by our national airport associations.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you once again for
the opportunity to discuss our public mobility needs and our aviation
infrastructure needs. We look forward to your favorable consideration
of our request and would be glad to respond to any questions from the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor George Pettygrove, City of Fairfield, CA
fiscal year 2000 military construction appropriations travis air force
base
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to speak before you today in support of military
construction projects at Travis Air Force Base. The Travis Air Force
Base, located at the City of Fairfield, is in my congressional. I
request that the committee view favorably the projects I will outline.
First, I request that the committee provide a $7.6 million earmark
to construct a new Medical War Reserve Material (WRM) Warehouse at
Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California. It is my understanding
that this project is included in the Department of Defense fiscal year
2000 Military Construction Appropriations request.
Travis Air Force Base is the preeminent U.S. Air Force airlift base
on the West Coast, and arguably, in the world. Travis personnel,
aircraft, and facilities are an integral part of the Department of
Defense's force projection capability. One of the first needs of our
men and women in uniform upon deployment is ready access to war reserve
materials, such as bandages and drugs.
Travis must be ready to accommodate rapid surges in airlift of
these materials, but current facilities at the base are entirely
inadequate. In sum, existing facilities are not centralized, do not
provide adequate protection for the WRMs, and negatively impact
Travis's ability to successfully undertake this vital mission. This new
facility will provide a central warehousing and mobilization facility,
allowing Travis personnel to rapidly deploy essential WRMs to our
soldiers in the field.
Second, I request the committee's support for a $7.5 million
earmark to construct additions to physical fitness facilities at Travis
Air Force Base located in Fairfield. It is my understanding that this
project is also included in the Department of Defense fiscal year 2000
Military Construction Appropriations request.
As the members of the committee are aware, modern, adequately sized
fitness center facilities are required to support the Air Force
emphasis on mandatory fitness for all personnel. Physical well being
and good morale, resulting in part from adequate fitness facilities,
are essential to the development and retention of Air Force personnel.
There are three existing fitness facilities at Travis. One is a
modern facility but is critically undersized. The other two facilities
are substandard and cannot be economically upgraded. Without the new
addition, physical conditioning will continue to be limited due to
inadequate space. This will adversely affect the morale and well being
of base personnel, and will adversely impact readiness as service
members will not be able to maintain proper physical fitness.
The project funded by this earmark will radically improve fitness
facilities at Travis and will pay dividends for many years to come in
terms of both readiness and morale.
The City of Fairfield appreciates your assistance on these
projects. As the committee members are aware, the strength of Travis
Air Force Base is vital not only to the City of Fairfield, but also
regionally and nationally. Your assistance is greatly appreciated on
all of these projects. Thank you.
______
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern
County, Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr.,
President, NISEI Farmers League; Les Clark, Vice President, Independent
Oil Producers Agency; Catherine H. Reheis, Managing Coordinator,
Western States Petroleum Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 2000 funding request of $100,000 for the California
Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
by December 31, 2001, and the proposed PM-2.5 standards by mid-2003.
Attainment of these standards requires effective and equitable
distribution of pollution controls that cannot be determined without a
major study of this issue.
According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
for a soundly researched solution.
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, unpaved shoulders and
dirt loosened and carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural
land. Soil erosion through wind and other agents also leads to
aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5 air pollution problems. Chemical
transformations of gaseous precursors are also a significant
contributor to PM-2.5, as are combustion sources.
The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
attainment plain and control measures.
This research has direct applications to the Department of
Transportation. Specifically, Federal Highway Administration research
funds are available through Caltrans for a number of targeted proposals
under discussion by officials of both Caltrans and the California Air
Resources Board. Included among the priority research topics are:
1. Analysis of methodologies for estimating emissions of PM-10/PM-
2.5 from California roadways; Significant emphasis on characterizing
emissions from unpaved shoulders due to large amounts of heavy duty
vehicle traffic through Central California, which is necessary to
support California's economy;
2. Characterization of the sources and composition of PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions from roadway construction;
3. Tunnel study; and
4. Characterization of heavy duty truck activity.
These studies will explore the effects of roadway construction and
use on ambient PM-10/PM-2.5 levels. Other proposals under review would
address problems with unpaved road shoulders, roadway dust mitigation
strategies and assessment of heavy duty truck travel patterns.
Currently available data and other PM-10/PM-2.5 research efforts do not
adequately address transportation concerns, so DOT support of this
targeted research is essential.
Our Coalition is working diligently to be a part of the effort to
solve this major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to
support research and efforts to deal effectively with what is
essentially an unfunded federal mandate.
Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come
to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
federal share of financial support for this important research effort.
In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to
the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control
measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique
cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government,
as well as private industry, has raised more than $24 million to date
to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air
quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our
hope is that private industry, federal, state and local governments
will be able to raise the final $4.6 million needed to complete the
funding for this important study.
To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
through the United States Department of Agriculture's, the Department
of Transportation's, the Department of Defense's, the Department of the
Interior's and the Environmental Protection Agency's budgets--a total
of $13.3 million in federal funding, including the $200,000 the
Subcommittee provided in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 bills. State and
industry funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
With the planning phase of the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air
Quality Study complete, a number of significant accomplishments have
been achieved. These interim products have not only provided guidance
for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial information
for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced preliminary
findings which are significant to the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) interests.
The Study is significant to DOT interests for a number of reasons.
The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes
in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is
essential for development of sound and cost-effective control plans.
Both directly emitted particulate matter and gaseous precursor
emissions from transportation sources play a significant role in
contributing to PM exceedances. Direct PM emissions include
contributions from on- and off-road tailpipe exhaust, brake- and tire-
wear, and re-entrained dust from paved and unpaved roads. Gaseous
exhaust and evaporative emissions from mobile sources also contribute
to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate, sulfate, and organic
carbon. Without a sound understanding of the role that transportation
sources play in PM exceedances, these sources could be subjected to
unnecessary or ineffective controls. Control plans for the San Joaquin
Valley, based upon the results of the PM study, will help address the
potential impacts of emissions from transportation sources and ensure
an equitable and effective distribution of controls.
To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to
provide an improved understanding of emission sources within the San
Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions and to define the impacts of
these sources on ambient PM. A preliminary field monitoring program was
conducted during the fall and winter of 1995/1996. Extensive air
quality and meteorological measurements were collected. This database
is being analyzed to address a number of questions including: (1) the
sources contributing to elevated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, (2) the
zone of influence of specific sources, and (3) wind flow patterns and
transport routes between the Valley and surrounding areas. Additional
research has addressed emissions from unpaved roads and evaluated the
effectiveness of dust suppression methods. The results of this study
suggest that current emissions factors are too low, and that emissions
from unpaved roads are dependent upon road silt loading rather than on
soil silt content. The study also identified polymer emulsion and non-
hazardous crude oil products as the most effective for long-term dust
suppression.
The results of these studies are being used to design large scale
field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field
programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5
standards. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology,
fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million.
Final plans for these field studies are being developed, which will be
carried out by numerous contractors over a broad area encompassing
Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert.
Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved
emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be
completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings
available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide
information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM10/
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards.
The Department of Transportation's prior funding and participation
have enabled these projects to occur. Continued support by DOT is
essential to implement a full scope of emissions assessment and control
method demonstration projects for transportation related sources, and
to ensure that DOT concerns are met.
For fiscal year 2000, our Coalition is seeking $100,000 in federal
funding through the U.S. Department of Transportation to support
continuation of this vital study in California. We respectfully request
that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation provide this
additional amount in the DOT appropriation for fiscal year 2000, and
that report language be included directing the full amount for
California. This will represent the final year of funding requested
from DOT.
The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 air quality study will not
only provide vital information for a region identified as having
particularly acute PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model
for other regions of the country that are experiencing similar
problems. The results of this study will provide improved methods and
tools for air quality monitoring, emission estimations, and effective
control strategies nationwide.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
request for a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100,000 for DOT to
support the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study. DOT's
past contributions have helped ensure the success of the study. The
coalition thanks you for your support of this important program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) would like to thank
Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Lautenberg for the opportunity to
provide this testimony regarding the fiscal year 2000 U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Appropriations. We recognize the critical
role the subcommittee plays in providing investments in the nation's
vital intermodal transportation system. The Governors commend the
subcommittee's efforts to provide increased levels of funding for
highways and transit in the fiscal year 1999 U.S. DOT appropriations,
and urge you to continue support in fiscal year 2000 to the levels
authorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21). We also urge the subcommittee to continue the important federal
role in strengthening the nation's passenger and freight rail systems
through continued investments in rail safety and capital investment in
Amtrak and other critical rail projects. Continued federal investment
in transportation research and development is an essential element of
public and private efforts to enhance the safety and capacity of the
nation's transportation system.
An integrated, fully-funded national surface transportation system
is a critical component in the economic, social, and environmental
well-being of the Northeast region and the nation as a whole. The
Northeast is a region that is at once the most densely populated area
in the nation as well as the most rural; that has the oldest
transportation infrastructure as well as some of the newest, fastest,
and most innovative. Its transportation facilities are among the most
heavily used, and are subject to the widest variation of seasonal
changes. It is a region that makes the greatest use of public transit,
that is the most dependent in the country on trucks for delivery of its
freight, and that makes the shortest trips. As a consequence, the
Northeast's transportation needs are unique.
The safety, preservation, and efficiency of the region's
transportation assets are primary concerns of the Coalition of
Northeastern Governors. As the subcommittee considers the fiscal year
2000 appropriations for the Department, the Governors call for the
subcommittee's support of specific transportation investments which
have national and regional significance. In addition, the Governors are
pleased to provide examples from the Northeast states where state-
federal partnerships and federal investments have contributed to a
vibrant economy and improved quality of life for the region and the
nation.
invest in safety
Safety has always been, and remains, of the utmost concern to the
Governors. The tragic loss of 11 lives in the recent highway-rail
crossing accident in Bourbonnais, Illinois, clearly demonstrates why
safety continues to be the top priority for the CONEG Governors.
Preliminary data shows that in 1998 there were 3,446 highway-rail
crossing incidents resulting in 422 fatalities.\1\ The Governors have
exhibited a strong commitment to rail safety through their support for
grade crossing improvements and education programs such as Operation
Lifesaver. The Governors specifically and strongly support full funding
for advanced development of high speed rail corridors by eliminating
highway grade crossing hazards, as provided in Section 1103(c) of TEA-
21. These are all excellent examples of successful programs that are
working to reduce the number of highway-rail crossing fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety
Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Remains the Primary Concern of the Governors
An at-grade crossing in West Mystic (Groton), Connecticut is the
site of a Federal Railroad Administration/Connecticut Department of
Transportation demonstration project of the nation's first quad-gates,
where a system of four gates is used rather than the usual two,
preventing waiting vehicles from starting to cross the tracks while
permitting vehicles on the tracks to clear. A special crossing sensor
system collects and transmits information about the operation of the
grade crossing warning devices to the cab of an approaching train at a
point where the train will have time to stop before reaching the
crossing. In the event a vehicle is disabled or stopped between the
gates, the advanced warning system will activate signals in the train
cab and bring the train to a halt. Exit gates are left in a vertical
position until the vehicle is off the crossing. The system will be
monitored for approximately one year to demonstrate its reliability and
effectiveness. If successful, the technology may be used at other rail
crossings elsewhere in the country.
full funding of the highway and transit programs
As traffic volume continues to increase on the region's highways,
the Governors recommend funding of highway programs to the levels
authorized in TEA-21. The Northeast places unique demands on the
highway system due to weather conditions, age of the system, and truck
traffic. Increased funding for our highway system will help the region
remain competitive in the international marketplace by facilitating the
seamless flow of people and commerce through the gateways to the global
marketplace.
The Governors also recommend full funding for the transit programs
at the levels authorized in TEA-21. Transit plays a vital role in the
lives of millions of residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas of
the Northeast. It significantly decreases congestion on roads in
metropolitan and suburban areas, mitigates isolation in the region's
more rural cities and towns, and brings environmental benefits to the
entire region by saving fuel and reducing air pollution. Transit is
also the critical link in the region's welfare to work and reverse
commute programs. In 1997, 8.6 billion passengers used public transit
services, a 7.7 percent increase over the preceding year. Preliminary
figures for 1998 show that transit ridership is up by an additional
four percent to 8.9 billion riders--this is the highest level in the
history of the federal transit program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Source: American Public Transit Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit projects in the Northeast are uniquely large because the
need to keep facilities open and operating during improvement and
redevelopment contributes to high project costs. One example is the
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East Side Access Project identified as a
priority in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget. This project--on
the busiest commuter rail system in North America--will use an unused
level of the existing 63rd Street Tunnel to bring LIRR passengers
directly into Grand Central Station. It will allow 50,000 riders to
save over 30 minutes in their daily commute and reduce crowding at Penn
Station while also increasing LIRR commuter ridership by an estimated
109,000 weekday passengers. The Governors are pleased that Congress has
recognized the importance of the project, provided an authorization of
a minimum of $353 million in TEA-21, and recommended that the project
be given priority for funding under the Federal Transit
Administration's New Start program. The Governors request $159 million
for the project in fiscal year 2000.
Another proposed New Start program that merits prompt and close
consideration is the extension of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) commuter service line which currently terminates in
Lowell, Massachusetts, to Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire. The
extension into New Hampshire will offer an alternative to single
occupancy vehicles, providing air quality improvements and needed
congestion relief on the region's roads and highways.
In the Northeast, as well as across the country, transportation is
a vital tool for economic development: creating and preserving jobs,
linking to North American trade, and invigorating local businesses.
Throughout the Northeast, transportation investments are contributing
to economic development and enhanced global competitiveness, improved
air quality, innovative intermodal means to alleviate congestion, and
improved quality of life.
Global Gateways.--An important example of needed investments in
highways as global gateways is found in northern New England. The
States of Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire have applied for federal
funding for the construction of an East-West Highway corridor through
this tri-state region, and improvement of border crossings with Canada
which will serve this highway. Funding is being requested under the
National Corridor Planning and Development Program and the Coordinated
Border Infrastructure Program under TEA-21. The Northern New England
Border Corridor is a vital trade route between the U.S. and Canada,
linking five Canadian Provinces and three New England States, and
serving as the global gateway to the entire U.S., by providing access
and connections to the nation's major highways, railroads and ports.
This project offers an excellent opportunity to fundamentally change
the economic outlook for the struggling regions of Northern New England
and Atlantic Canada. The region's existing border crossings are
currently strained with increased freight and passenger traffic. At the
Calais, Maine/St. Stephen, New Brunswick crossing alone, truck traffic
has increased ten percent per year for the past several years. The
project's goal is to accommodate existing traffic and stimulate further
trade by creating corridors and crossings designed for the coming
millennium. By facilitating cross border cargo and vehicle movement and
contributing to the Nation's ability to compete in a global economy,
the project has profound national and international significance.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is also requesting funding under
the National Corridor Planning and Development Program for double stack
rail service across Massachusetts between the New York border and the
Port of Boston. This project will allow for uninterrupted double stack
service across most of the United States providing for the more
efficient distribution of goods throughout the rest of the nation. The
project's benefits are numerous and far reaching: shippers and
receivers in Massachusetts, as well as the Port of Boston, will benefit
from the competitiveness afforded by double stack service and the
decrease in truck traffic will improve air quality, reduce highway
wear, and alleviate highway congestion. These objectives--economic
competitiveness, intermodal modernization, improved air quality and
extended highway life--will benefit the Commonwealth, as well as the
entire nation when the project is complete.
Intermodal Connections Provide Economic Opportunity.--The region
has developed numerous innovative intermodal projects to alleviate
congestion on its heavily traveled interstate system and spur local and
regional development.
In Springfield, Massachusetts, the Union Station Intermodal
Redevelopment Project is revitalizing the regional transportation
connections for rail and transit. Funded with TEA-21 federal funds,
matching state grants and additional private sector funds, the
redevelopment of downtown Springfield's historic Union Station as a
major intermodal facility will closely link rail and transit serving
the entire Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts. The ``Historical
Union Station'' will house regional and local bus facilities, including
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority and Peter Pan Bus Lines, as well as
Amtrak. The project will preserve Springfield's architectural and
social history by saving and reusing the Baggage Building as a
transportation center and revitalizing the historic passageway as a
convenient and active connector between Amtrak, the Station's
concourse, and the transportation center.
In Connecticut, a recent Major Investment Study (MIS) investigated
congestion on Interstate 84 from Hartford west to New Britain. Several
advisory committees worked together to define the transportation
problems and screen alternatives. Six strategies were evaluated to
determine their effectiveness. The result was a hybrid package that
combines the best features of the strategies and addresses the goals
that were developed--Modal Choices, Congestion Reduction, Public Health
and Safety, Economic Development, and Community Livability and Quality
of Life. The cornerstone of this package is the recommendation of a
busway on an abandoned rail line between Hartford and New Britain. The
busway represents a new direction for the state in providing for
intermodal use and development potential along the I-84 corridor.
The Rhode Island Department of Transportation has initiated an
environmental assessment and conceptual design for a new Amtrak/
commuter rail station on the Northeast Corridor, and automated people
mover connection to the successful T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode
Island located just 1,500 feet from the Corridor. Simultaneously, the
city of Warwick has taken first steps toward an ambitious 70-acre
economic redevelopment project that links the airport and the new rail
station. The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation and the
Airport Corporation are also active partners in the project. The
project offers numerous transportation and economic development
benefits. The proposed rail station with facilities for Amtrak and
commuter rail, will provide an important additional means of travel for
area residents who work in Providence and Boston. The proposed people
mover element will make the train station an intermodal facility. By
offering airport users the option of shifting from single occupancy
vehicles to using the rail station and people mover, the new intermodal
station can help preserve capacity on local roads and streets and
enhance air quality.
Rails-to-Trails Enhance Quality of Life.--Vermont, Rhode Island and
Connecticut offer examples of transportation public-private
partnerships which result in significant economic and quality of life
improvements. The Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail in northwest Vermont has
proven to be a model federal-state-local-private sector partnership.
Funded with $1 million of Federal Highway Administration and Vermont
Agency of Transportation funding, the trail serves as the centerpiece
of economic development, outdoor recreation, and health and fitness for
Franklin County. Although open for less than six months, the 26-mile
multi-use trail is credited with significant economic benefits to local
retail business, the lodging and restaurant industries, and the service
sector. The trail is cooperatively managed by state agencies, a council
of local municipalities, and a non-profit association. Local community
partners and businesses have contributed time, money, and materials for
maintenance and enhancements. The rail trail is also viewed as the
centerpiece for a new county-wide health initiative ``Fit for the
Millennium.''
A gubernatorial ``challenge'' resulted in unique teamwork among
Rhode Island, Connecticut and the National Guard to turn an abandoned
right-of-way linking Hartford, Connecticut and Providence, Rhode Island
into a rails-to-trails project. Responding to a friendly challenge
between Governor Rowland and Governor Almond, the states worked with
local citizens and officials to obtain local support and full access to
the trail before having National Guard troops clear and grade the
trail. The new segment spanning the Rhode Island and Connecticut border
is a major link in the East Coast Greenway which, when completed, will
stretch 2,000 miles without break from Maine to Florida. This trail,
which has been designated by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy as the
1,000th trail in the national rails-to-trails system and the 10,000th
rail-trail mile in the nation, is an example of effective rail-trail
development for the entire nation.
continue capital investment in intercity passenger rail
The Northeast region's passenger and freight rail networks are
unique assets critical to the economic life of the region. The
Governors wish to thank the subcommittee for the funding provided for
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999, and urge that Amtrak be provided with the
$571 million capital grant requested in the Administration's budget.
With these capital funds, Amtrak can continue its progress on the
glidepath to operating self-sufficiency.
The Governors also wish to thank the subcommittee for its continued
support of the Rhode Island Rail Development project. This project,
matched dollar-for-dollar by the state, will construct a third track
between Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island, thus preventing the
mixing of freight and high-speed passenger trains, and providing
sufficient clearance for double stack freight cars. The Governors
recommend funding at a $15 million level.
As the subcommittee considers funding for passenger rail, the
Northeast offers numerous examples of rail investments which strengthen
the transportation system and the economy.
Northeast Corridor Fuels Passenger Rail Development.--The
Northeast Corridor is the financial linchpin in the national intercity
passenger rail network. The Governors look forward to the timely
completion of the electrification of the Northeast Corridor from New
York City to Boston, and remain optimistic that the timetable for the
introduction of high speed rail service on the Corridor will be met.
This high speed rail service is expected to bring in net incremental
revenues of $180 million annually by the end of 2002--money that will
be used for the entire intercity passenger rail system. The increased
speeds will make Amtrak a competitive alternative to air and road
travel in this nationally significant corridor and help alleviate
congestion in the nation's highways and airports. The progress toward
high speed rail has also spurred economic growth across the country,
creating jobs in towns where trainsets are being manufactured and
assembled.
Growth of Passenger Corridors.--The Governors recognize the
importance of this passenger rail asset off the Corridor, and support
intercity passenger rail as part of a broader Atlantic Coast Corridor
from Maine to North Carolina. In addition to capital funding for
Amtrak, CONEG supports actions such as new service from Maine to Boston
via New Hampshire. When the Surface Transportation Board issued a
decision to set the terms and conditions for Amtrak's use of certain
rail facilities owned by the Guilford Rail Systems, it cleared the way
for the use of more than $40 million in federal funds provided for the
rehabilitation of Guilford's lines between Plaistow, New Hampshire and
Portland, Maine. Amtrak, Guilford, and the Northern New England
Passenger Rail Authority have signed the necessary operating and
rehabilitation agreements that will allow the restoration of Amtrak
passenger service between Portland and Boston by mid-2000. This has
rekindled interest in passenger rail service in southeastern New
Hampshire. Passengers will be able to board Amtrak at new facilities in
Exeter, Dover and the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Local
station committees, regional planning agencies, and state
transportation officials are working together to ensure that these
facilities are ready for service in 2000.
The region's rail system supports important passenger and freight
service to communities and businesses. The Northeast states are looking
forward to the arrival of our new corporate citizens--CSX and Norfolk
Southern. These two freight rail corporations will play a significant
role in the region's complex transportation mix.
Partnerships for Transportation Services and Economic
Development.--The CONEG states, under gubernatorial leadership, have
created successful partnerships through agreements to support intercity
passenger rail service. An innovative agreement between New York and
Amtrak marries improved service with economic development and job
creation, and offers a model for state-Amtrak relations. New York
Governor George E. Pataki and Amtrak recently announced an historic
high speed rail program that will invest up to $185 million into the
state's rail system over five years and provide faster, more convenient
passenger train service in New York. The initiative, part of a larger
New York State High Speed Rail Plan, will allow passengers to travel
from Albany to New York City in less than two hours and reduce the
travel time between New York City and Buffalo. The five year agreement
provides a dollar-for-dollar match to rebuild five Turboliner trains
and make various infrastructure improvements along the Empire Corridor.
New York is also pursuing high speed rail improvements outside the
Amtrak agreement which will further improve service within the Empire
Corridor. The Governors urge you to support federal funding for these
broader state initiatives.
Vermont is in its fourth year of operating partnerships with
Amtrak. Operations have grown from a single service, the Vermonter, to
include the Ethan Allen Express, which travels north from Albany, New
York to Rutland, Vermont. Both trains are extensions of the existing
Northeast Corridor services from Springfield, Massachusetts and Albany,
New York. Ridership has been growing steadily, with over 165,000
passengers boarding at Vermont stations between January 1997 and June
1998.
invest in research and development
In many congested areas of the country, expanding existing or
building new infrastructure is not an option. Technology can greatly
enhance the safety and capacity of the existing highway and transit
systems. The federal government must continue its investment in
transportation research and development. The Governors support full
funding for research and development, specifically the Federal Railroad
Administration's Next Generation of High-Speed Rail programs which
continue to make a valuable contribution to the development of the next
generation non-electric locomotive. Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) research and deployment, particularly through institutions such
as the I-95 Corridor Coalition, can effectively increase the safety and
mobility of the transportation system in the region and across the
nation.
The CONEG Governors thank Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member
Lautenberg, and the entire subcommittee for the opportunity to present
this testimony. We appreciate your dedication and support for the
Nation's transportation investments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Advanced Transportation Technology Consortia
The Advanced Transportation Technology Consortia appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee. This testimony is
submitted in support of the Department of Transportation's Advanced
Vehicle Program and is offered on behalf of the seven Consortium
Leaders:
Sheila Lynch, Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium (NAVC),
Boston, MA
Robert Swanson, Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced
Vehicles (MARCAV), Johnstown, PA
John Wilson, Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation (SCAT),
Atlanta, GA
Ellen Engleman, Electricore, Indianapolis, IN
Michael Gage, CALSTART--WestStart, Pasadena, CA
Michael Wirsch, Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium
(SETC), Sacramento, CA
Thomas Quinn, Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project
(HEVDP), Honolulu, HI
In the landmark TEA-21 legislation approved in 1999, Congress
authorized $50 million in funding per year for the Advanced Vehicle
Program (AVP) of the Department of Transportation (DOT). The goals of
the AVP are to build a globally competitive transportation industry
while lessening the environmental impact from the transportation
sector. In passing this legislation, Congress recognized that while the
Federal Government has provided significant funding for light-duty
vehicle development through its Department of Energy (DOE) managed
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) with the Big Three
Automakers, there remains a strong need to fund similar developments in
the area of medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, which is the key focus
of the DOT AVP effort.
The AVP began with a vision: that private talent and public goals
could come together to make America a leader in advanced
transportation. Originally launched from the 1992 ISTEA legislation as
the Advanced Transportation Technology Consortium (ATTC) program, that
vision is now a national reality and a recognized success. This
partnership--based on collaboration, innovation and cost-
effectiveness--has worked to develop advanced transportation
technologies to reduce vehicle emissions, enhance U.S. competitiveness,
and decrease the nation's reliance on foreign oil. Now, this vital
model--partnering private companies, research agencies and the public
sector in shared risk and shared cost technology development--is
entering a new phase.
During the past six years, the ATTC effort has been augmented
through six consecutive years of funding from the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of Defense.
DARPA tapped the program as an effective, fast-tracked way to develop
the next generation of combat vehicles using hybrid-electric
drivetrains. The seven consortia funded under this program launched
over 300 separate technology development projects with over 450
companies, ranging from large defense contractors to small, innovative
businesses. All now stand ready to expand their efforts in a fully
funded AVP.
The original reasons for launching the ATTC program remain today
for supporting the AVP: reducing air pollution from transportation,
cutting dependence on foreign oil, and promoting and maintaining
American leadership in new technologies and the highly competitive
global transportation industry. Vehicle emissions--the bulk of air
pollution causing smog--continue to seriously threaten public health,
as well as create unfair and anti-competitive pressures on stationary
sources of pollution such as manufacturing plants. Transportation is
using 50 percent of America's energy, playing a growing role in the
nation's economy and affecting its ability to compete with other
countries. And, the nation's dependence on foreign oil, largely driven
by vehicle fuel consumption, is at an all time high, a serious concern
for national security and the economy. Environmental pollution is a
concern that is clearly not going away, and transportation accounts for
one-third of all emissions.
A wide array of solutions are being sought to resolve these
transportation problems. The nation's advanced transportation consortia
are the backbone making the AVP work. They help cost-effectively tap
the talent and energy of America's technology community. Aerospace
firms, high technology corporations, and start-up businesses are now
recognizing that they can and must play a substantive role in solving
our nation's transportation problems. The consortia link together these
firms, not only creating leading-edge technology programs, but also
helping companies find partners, share information, improve their
technology, and find market opportunities. Through the ATTC these
organizations are speeding the pace of technology development to
compete in the rapidly growing, global, multi-billion dollar advanced
transportation industry.
This novel program makes optimal use of the Other Transactions
Agreement Authority, which provides for expeditious contracting that is
milestone driven. If a project is not successful, it can be terminated
early, unlike other government contracts. This authority contributes to
a high level of success. The program retains the bottom-up, public-
private partnership structure of the DARPA Program. Federal funding is
awarded on a competitive basis to seven geographically dispersed,
regional consortia representing private industry and other nonfederal
government organizations, with a minimum 50 percent cost share by the
consortia. That means for every federal dollar invested in the advanced
transportation technology programs, there is at least one dollar
invested by private companies and their partners.
Fiscal year 1999 was the transition year from DARPA to DOT.
Proposal submissions totaling $120 million for fiscal year 1999 were
competitively down-selected to $35 million of eligible, viable
projects, with a matching contribution of $47 million from the private
sector. However, the funding appropriation dropped to $14 million,
leaving many valuable projects unfunded. DARPA funding for this program
previously peaked at $46.5 million. Congress realized that a viable
program requires a $50 million annual commitment, which is reflected in
TEA-21. The ATTC respectfully requests your support for an
appropriation for the full authorized amount of $50 million in fiscal
year 2000.
success stories
Following are a sampling of some of the many successful
accomplishments by the ATTC through this public/private partnership
program:
Composite Hybrid Bus
A Rhode Island company famous for its manufacture of sailboats has
entered the bus market with a lightweight composite bus chassis and
body. TPI Composites used a unique composite construction to develop a
30-foot transit bus that is 30 percent lighter than standard buses in
use today; the significant weight reduction means greater fuel
efficiency and reduced emissions. The composite material is also non-
corrosive, so it won't rust. The prototype bus--powered with a hybrid
electric drive system--was recently unveiled and will enter into
demonstration service at Boston's Logan Airport. North American Bus
Industries (NABI) signed an agreement with TPI to develop the composite
body and chassis for commercial sale in the near future.
Hybrid Propulsion System in Medium and Heavy-Duty Platforms
Lockheed Martin Control Systems and Navistar International teamed
up to convert three medium and heavy-duty platforms to hybrid
propulsion systems. A package delivery truck, a cargo van, and a school
bus are each being equipped with Lockheed Martin's HybriDriveTM system
and placed into demonstration. UPS is evaluating the package delivery
truck; Eby Brown will evaluate the cargo truck; and Laidlaw will
evaluate the school bus. The evaluation will consider system
reliability, fuel efficiency, emissions, and driveline performance,
with the results being used to improve and refine Lockheed's hybrid
propulsion system for medium and heavy-duty applications. Lockheed is
the first company to bring hybrid propulsion to market in medium and
heavy-duty applications.
Solectria Motors and Controllers
NAVC played a key role in the success of a technology leader in the
EV industry, Solectria Corporation. Solectria is one of the primary EV
component suppliers worldwide for many applications with approximately
1000 vehicles powered with Solectria components and with diverse
partners including Advanced Vehicle Systems, GPE Batteries and
Singapore Technologies. Over 350 Solectria vehicles have been delivered
to customers in the U.S. and abroad, including electric utilities,
government organizations, private corporations, universities and
individual consumers. Solectria's success has lead to the creation of
high-tech jobs in the Northeast, has helped seed the EV market by
providing a source for reliable EV componentry, and has advanced the
state of EV technology.
EV Commuter Programs
Electric vehicle commuter programs are designed to encourage public
transit ridership, reduce congestion and pollution, and increase public
awareness of electric vehicles. NAVC launched highly successful
commuter programs in the Northeast, bringing together EV manufacturers
and suppliers, utility companies, mass transit agencies and commuters.
In Massachusetts, commuters leased an EV and used the car to travel
from the train stations to their homes, or from the train stations to
their offices. In Connecticut, commuters drove EVs as part of a
Rideshare program. And, in Vermont, the program helped advance the
technology through experimentation with advanced batteries in cold
weather conditions. Altogether, over 200,000 miles were logged by
commuters in these programs.
Inverters with Polymer Metal Layer Capacitors
Recent advances in Polymer/metal Multi-Layer (PML) technology,
being developed by Sigma Technologies International, Inc., are
advancing high performance battery and capacitor developments
applicable to electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs). The PML capacitors will now be tested in EV and HEV inverters
that are used to convert the DC bus power to AC power to drive the
electric motors. The PML technology will enable inverters that are
smaller, more efficient, lighter, and require less cooling than current
inverters. Both commercial and military applications will benefit from
the advanced technology.
Utility Electric Vehicle (UEV)
The Keystone Team has developed a composite, electric powered pick-
up style truck. The composite structure is a toughened epoxy matrix
with continuous glass fiber reinforcement. The vehicle is front wheel
drive and incorporates standard automotive safety features in a styled
body with a comfortable interior. The vehicle was first unveiled at the
Environmental Vehicles 1997 Conference and Exposition in Detroit, MI on
April 7-10, 1997. Under a project continuation, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation will design and test a unique composite crash energy
absorbing system for this vehicle. This energy absorbing system is
based on patented NASA technology.
Integrated Simulation and Field Testing of Electric Vehicle Batteries
Advanced analytical techniques are being developed by the
Pennsylvania State University to simulate the chemical processes in
batteries. These modeling approaches have been used to identify design
factors that limit battery performance, allowing battery manufacturers
to improve their products. In addition, a new methodology to determine
the state of charge for all battery chemistries will be developed. This
methodology promises to provide an accurate vehicle state of charge
meter.
Hybrid-Electric Bradley Fighting Vehicle
A hybrid electric propulsion system is being designed and installed
into a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) by United Defense. The project
objective is to demonstrate the automotive and operational advantages
of hybrid-electric drive for tracked combat vehicles and to develop
high power density electric drive components for heavy-duty
applications, such as Class 8 vehicles.
Advanced Locomotive
The Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System (ALPS), funded by the
Federal Railroad Administration and a team of rail industry/university
partners, is designed to replace an existing dual locomotive diesel
with a locomotive powered by an advanced turbine and flywheel battery.
The combined system will provide up to 6000 HP in a locomotive capable
of 125 mph passenger rail operation. The unit is expected to produce
less than one fourth the emissions of current trainsets for the same
amount of tractive work and is being designed for a new Bombardier
locomotive under development for the Federal Railroad Administration.
The project is being led by the University of Texas Center for
Electromechanics and includes the American Association of Railroads,
AlliedSignal, the Volpe Center, Argonne National Laboratory, and the
State of Texas.
Hybrid Electric High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
SCAT has delivered a hybrid electric HMMWV to the U. S. Army's Tank
Automotive and Armaments Command that exceeds the performance of the
existing ``stock'' HMMWV used by the military. The vehicle, developed
by PEI Electronics, McKee Engineering, Electrosource, and Unique
Mobility, features four individual wheel drives with 280 HP (at the
wheels) in the all-electric mode and 360 HP in the hybrid mode. The
hybrid electric vehicle delivers twice the acceleration, 38 percent
more range and 20 percent higher top speed than the standard internal
combustion vehicle for half the fuel and one-quarter the emissions.
Flywheel Containment
A Flywheel Battery Safety Containment project is linking top
flywheel development teams nationwide, including a state-of-the-art
spin testing facility at Test Devices, Inc., which has been fully
instrumented for flywheel burst testing. More that 30 ``burst'' tests
have been completed for composite and metal flywheel designs destined
for commercial production. NASA and the Air Force have recently
initiated work with this group to explore certification procedures for
flywheel rotors destined for space applications such as the space
station, work that will proceed jointly with the group exploring
``terrestrial'' applications.
Electric Buses
Electric Bus efforts at SCAT include drive train development,
auxiliary systems and complete vehicle demonstrations. Early projects
led to the decision by Blue Bird to enter commercial production on
electric school buses and transit buses. Other projects have helped
Advanced Vehicle Systems improve on the reliability and performance of
their lightweight transit buses, leading to shuttle systems from Maine
to Miami Beach. Current projects are exploring improving battery
performance, rapid charging, and testing alternative propulsion
systems. Many of these buses were part of the FTA demonstration fleet
in the all-electric transportation system in the Olympic Village during
the Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta.
Hybrid Propulsion Systems for Heavy Vehicles
Allison transmission, Division of General Motors, has successfully
designed a series hybrid conversion of a 40 foot transit bus for New
York City. Working in partnership with the New York City Transit
Authority, Detroit Diesel, and TDM, the bus will be unveiled at the New
York City Auto Show on March 30th. Allison is also working on
developing its parallel hybrid propulsion system designed for heavy
vehicles such as Class 7 and 8 trucks as well as military vehicles.
Using an electric variable transmission, this propulsion system will
revolutionize the heavy vehicle marketplace.
EVs Ready for Fast Charging
Electric trolleys, capable of rapid re-charge, are being delivered
for transit application to Evansville, IN. Electricore is working with
Ford Motor Company to provide near term, fast-charging electric pick up
trucks for application in utility and commercial fleets.
Hybrid Trucks and Buses for Military Use
Electricore and TDM are successfully delivering the first hybrid
electric trucks and buses for use at Robins Air Force base. Robins is
home for the Alternative Fueled Vehicles Special Programs Office, which
has oversight for vehicle purchases throughout the Air Force. This
effort is a major step in assisting the military in meeting the EPAct
guidelines
Electric Trams for National Parks
Electricore has developed electric trams to support clean
transportation within the fragile environment of our National Parks.
Electric trams are being used to transport thousands of annual visitors
at Cape Cod National Seashore and Patuxent Wildlife Refuge. Other
electric vehicles are being introduced at Channel Islands National Park
and other National Park Service /Department of Interior sites.
High Efficiency Turbogenerator
The high-efficiency turbogenerator from Capstone Turbines is the
key element in the successful AVS hybrid electric bus, operating in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The turbine generator uses compressed natural
gas fuel to generate electrical power. This popular, clean and quiet
system has been dubbed by riders as the ``hummingbird'' for the silent
hum it produces, and is leading to a new product line of capable,
transit-quality hybrid buses.
CyberTran
A new generation of transit flexibility and mobility is being
demonstrated by the CyberTran project--a technology developed at the
Idaho National Engineering and Environment Lab (INEEL) and now being
tested at a CALSTART/WestStart business incubator. The lightweight,
demand-responsive automated vehicles can carry between 8 and 32
passengers along a high-speed network of stations that promise far
lower cost to construct and support than conventional light rail. Next
phase: a transit support test, such as an airport link.
Hybrid Electric Prototype Truck
ISE Research has developed the nation's first Class 8 hybrid
electric truck, pushing the limits on technology for more efficient and
cleaner heavy-duty drive systems. The project has replaced a diesel
engine with a hybrid drive train consisting of a clean natural gas
engine-generator, batteries and an electric drive system. Kenworth, a
major truck manufacturer, will test the vehicle at its Washington state
facilities.
Flywheels
Rapid recharging and more efficient transit and heavy-duty vehicles
are some of the key benefits of the Trinity Flywheel energy storage
system--one of six CALSTART/WestStart flywheel projects. Flywheels can
quickly store and release tremendous amounts of power, allowing highly
efficient recapturing of braking energy on large vehicles. It also will
allow storage of electrical energy ``off-line'' so rapid charging does
not cause havoc with electric utility system operations.
Fuel Cells
H Powers Systems' proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, and
Hydrogen Burner Technologies' multi-fuel reformer, are being readied
for demonstration on an electric shuttle bus by the end of 1999. This
system can use gasoline, diesel or other fuels, yet operates at near-
zero emission levels.
Advanced Fleet Vehicles
SETC companies are developing innovative and improved energy-saving
structural composite components and subsystems for mass transit and
over-the-road truck platforms, and demonstrating the resulting products
in revenue service applications.
Electric Bus Development
Bus Manufacturing USA, Inc. (BMI) is designing its new generation
of highly reliable electric and hybrid electric advanced transit and
shuttle platforms at its factory in Sacramento. With over 18 years in
the business, BMI is a leader in building state-of-the-art prototype
and proof of concept fuel cell and battery-powered electric buses.
Battery Dominant Hybrid Electric Vehicle Systems Development and
Evaluation
General Motors, SMUD and UC Davis are developing power train and
CVT transmission systems for grid connected hybrid electric versions of
the Chevrolet S-10 and Suburban, to help meet the growing demand for
cleaner, more efficient sport utility vehicles Americans love to drive.
Rapid Charging System
HEVDP initiated a project to make Hawaii the first State to be EV
Ready with rapid charging infrastructure. A joint venture involving the
Hawaiian Electric Company and Hawaii Electric Vehicles, Inc., is
installing the AeroVironment PosiCharge Rapid Charging System
throughout the entire State of Hawaii. These systems set the industry
standard for rapid chargers and are state-of-the-art, UL approved. This
rapid charging infrastructure will allow motorists anywhere in the
State to charge their electric vehicle in less than ten minutes. Hawaii
will serve as the model EV Ready State. Under a parallel program these
rapid chargers will also be installed in California.
Panther Drive System
U.S. Electricar has developed a family of drive systems to meet the
needs of all vehicle manufacturers. Through the support of HEVDP they
are operating 60 kW systems in pick-up trucks and 120 kW systems in
buses. They have also developed a 90 kW drive system that has been
selected as the electric drive system for a major automobile
manufacturer. Additionally, there is a 240 kW system under development
for heavy vehicle application in either an all-electric or hybrid
electric mode. This program has enabled US Electricar to partner with
vehicle chassis manufacturers and serve as the drive system integrator
for advanced transportation systems.
Plastic Lithium-Ion (PLI) Battery
PLI battery technology is being developed under HEVDP for use in
electric vehicles. Utilizing the Bellcore technology, High Energy
Technology, Inc., is applying their experience and high volume
production capability in computer and cell phone batteries to develop
PLI battery cells for vehicles with a minimum of 130 Whr/kg of energy
storage. This will be integrated into a full vehicle pack with a 128
AHr capacity. Of the existing battery candidates, PLI offers the
lightest, most electropositive metal, provides the largest energy
content, is safe, and allows low cost production. PLI technology will
triple the range of vehicles currently using lead-acid batteries.
Electric Trolley
Classic Trolleys, Inc. and Motorized Manufacturing, Inc. built an
all-electric trolley powered by a heavy-duty 120kW drive system. This
initial classic style trolley is operated by E Noa Tours and Travel and
features an advanced battery pack that can be changed in less than five
minutes. The successful demonstration of this technology has led to
purchase decisions by transportation providers in tour and
entertainment activities.
participating organizations in the attc
Although regionally located, the ATTC collaborate in a national
effort that touches on nearly every state in the country. The
Consortium Leaders represent these organizations throughout the
country, which participate in, benefit from, and provide matching
contributions for the AVP.
navc participants
State of Connecticut
State of Massachusetts
State of Maine
State of New Hampshire
State of New Jersey
State of New York
State of Rhode Island
State of Vermont
City of New York
Advance U.S.A.
Advanced DC Motors
Advanced Product Development
Advanced Vehicle Systems
Arthur D. Little
Atlantic Center for the Environment (QLF)
Bangor Hydro-Electric
Black Emerald Group
Boston Edison
Boston Gas Company
Brooklyn Union
Cart-A-Ways
Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative (CMEEC)
Connecticut Department of Administrative Services
Connecticut Department of Transportation
DC Transformation
Design Evolution 4
Distrigas
Dow-UT
Dynapower Corporation
Electric Vehicles of America
ETS, Inc.
EVermont
Federal Fabrics-Fibers
Ford Motor Company
Green Mountain Power
H-Power
IBIS Associates
International Fuel Cell
Kaman Electromagnetics Corporation
Lightbody Technology, Inc.
Lockheed Martin Control Systems
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)
Mack Trucks Inc.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (DOER)
Massport, Logan International Airport
M.J. Bradley Associates
Modine Manufacturing Co.
Montague Corporation
Natural Resources Defense Council of Maine
Navistar
New England Gas Association
New England Governors Conference
New Hampshire Governors Office of Energy & Community Services
New Hampshire Technical Institute
New Jersey Office of Sustainability
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Department of Transportation
New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority
New York Power Authority (NYPA)
Northeast Clean Power Campaign
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)
Northeast Utilities
Pepin Associates
Precision Magnetic Bearing Systems
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
The Rideshare Company
Sanden International
Solectria Corporation
TASC, Inc.
Textron Automotive Company
Thermal Wave Imaging, Inc.
TPI Composites
Tufts University Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy
Union City Body Company
United Illuminating Company
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Army Research Laboratory Electronics & Power Sources Directorate
U.S. Air Force Base, Hanscom Field
U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center
United Technologies
University of Connecticut
University of Massachusetts
University of Vermont
Vermont Public Power
Vermont Department of Public Service
West Virginia University
Williams International
marcav participants
Advanced DC Motors
Advanced Composite Products, Inc.
Advanced Composite Products and Technology, Inc.
Advanced Materials Corporation
Advanced Modular Power Systems, Inc.
Aluminum Company of America
AMP Incorporated
Arbin Instruments
California Air Resources Board
Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority
City of Wilkes-Barre, PA
Clever Fellows Innovation Consortium, Inc.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Drake Associates, Inc.
Duquesene Light
Econd/Tavrima
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute
Ergenics, Inc.
General Electric--Corporate Research & Development
Hercules Incorporated
International Fuel Cells
Kaman Electromagnetics, Inc.
Lockheed Martin
Maxwell Advanced Energy Products
MagneTek Corporation
Mechanical Technology, Inc.
Michigan State University/AMEES
Moltech Corporation
MTA New York City Transit
Navistar International
New York City Transit
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Northrop Grumman ESSD
ONSI Corporation
PACCAR Inc.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Energy Office
Pennsylvania Power and Light
Pennsylvania State University
Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
Peterbilt Motors Company
Sigma Technologies International, Inc.
Solectria Corporation
Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority
Southwest Research Laboratories
Synkinetics, Inc.
Transportation Design and Manufacturing Co.
Tribology Systems, Inc.
TRS Ceramics
Unique Mobility, Inc.
United Defense LP
Washington D.C. Department of Public Works
Westinghouse Electric Corporation--Electronic Systems Group
Westinghouse Electric Corporation--Naval Systems Division
West Virginia University
scat participants
Aberdeen Test Center
Advanced Charger Technology
Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium
Advanced Vehicle Systems
AeroVironment
Alabama Power Company
AlliedSignal Aerospace Systems & Equipment
American Association of Railroads
American Maglev Technology
Anniston Army Depot
Arbin Instruments
Argonne National Laboratory
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
Austin Power & Light
Blue Bird Body Company
Bombardier Recreational Products
Central & Southwest Services
Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority
Clemson University
Dax Industries
Deere & Company
Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems
East Penn Manufacturing Company
Electric Auto Corporation
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute
Electric Vehicles International
Electrosource
Energy Partners
Ferro Magnetics Corporation
Fisher Electric Technology
Florida Alliance for Clean Technologies
Florida Power & Light Company
Florida Solar Energy Center
Georgia Power Company
Georgia Institute of Technology
GM Advanced Technology Vehicles
Gulf Power Company
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority
IXYS Corporation
John Eriksen and Associates Research
Johnson Research & Development Company
McKee Engineering
Maryland Department of the Environment
MEAG Power
MESA
Miami Beach Transportation Management Association
Neocon Technologies
New Generation Motors Corporation
North American Bus Industries
Northrop Grumman
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PEI Electronics
PEZIC
Robins Air Force Base
Rockwell Automation
SAFT America
SK International
Solectria Corporation
Space Marketing
Tennessee Valley Authority
Test Devices
Trojan Battery Company
TUG Manufacturing
Unique Mobility
University of Texas
Virginia Power
Virginia Power Technologies
York Tech
Yuasa
electricore participants
Advanced Bus Industries, LLC
Advanced Vehicle Systems, Inc.
Advanced Vehicle Technology Center at Griffiss Business Park
Advanced Vehicle Technology Institute
AeroVironment, Inc.
Allied Signal
Allison Engine Company
Allison Transmission, Division of GMC
Baker Electromotive
Battery M.D.
Cape Cod National Seashore
Channel Islands National Park
Chattanooga Area Rural Transit Authority
CINergy Corporation, PSI Energy
City of Indianapolis
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)
Delco Remy America
Delco Remy International
Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.
Electric Power Research Institute
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute
Electric Vehicles International, Inc.
Ford Motor Company
General Dynamics
GLobal Electric Auto Association
Hudson Institute
Hughes Technical Services Corporation
Indiana-Michigan Power
Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis
Indianapolis Power & Light
Nartron Corporation
NASA Lewis Research Center
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division
Navistar International
NeoCon Technology Corporation
Lockheed Martin
New York City Transit Authority
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Northwest Diversified Services
Oak Ridge National Labs
Patuxent Wildlife Refuge
Premium Power Systems
Purdue University at West Lafayette
Russell Energy Corporation
Rutgers University
SatCon Technology Corporation
Shape Energy Resources, Inc.
Solectria Corporation
South Bend Public Trnasportation Corporation
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company
Southwest Research Institute
State of Indiana
Storage Battery Systems
TDM, Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Transportation Research Center, Inc.
U.S. Army TACOM
University of Iowa
University of Missouri-Rolla
University of Wisconsin
calstart/weststart participants
ACT Battery Company
ABL, Inc.
AC Propulsion
AC Transit
A-Z Bus Sales
Advanced Projects Research, Inc.
Advanced Technology Group
Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
AeroVironment, Inc.
Air-O-Matic Power Steering
Alameda Chamber of Commerce
AlliedSignal Power Systems
Altamont Technologies, Inc.
Alternative Dual Fuels, Inc.
Alternative Electric
Alturdyne
Amerigon, Inc.
Analogy, Inc.
Ang'elil Graham Architecture
Ansaldo Ricerche SRL
APS Systems
ARA, Inc.
Ariel Technologies
Ashman Technologies
Avcon
Bank of America
Bay Area AQMD
Battery M.D., Inc.
Bachmon Engineering
Battery Powered Electric
Bell Vehicles Company
BMI
BOLDER Technologies Corporation
Bowles Langley Tech.
Bridgepoint Systems
Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
California Energy Commission
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Institute of Technology
California State University Institute
Calnetix
Capital Group Companies, Inc., The
Capstone Turbine Corporation
Clean Air Products Technology
Cruising Equipment Company
CCL & Associates, Inc.
Central EV Coalition
ChemTEK, N.A.
City of Alameda, Bureau of Electricity
City of Anaheim
City of Lancaster
CM International
Clean Air Vehicle Tech. Center, Inc.
CNGVC--California Natural Gas Vehicle
Coalition
Collmer Semicondutor
Coriolis Corporation
CyroFuel Systems
CSLA School of Engineering & Technology
CTJ Corporation
Currie Technologies, Inc.
CyberTran International
Diversified Technical Services
DivTech
EBCRC--Workers to Business Owners Project
Edison EV
Electric Fuel Corporation
Electric Vehicle Information Service
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Inc.
El Dorado National
Electric Auto Association
Electric Auto Corporation
Elliott Energy Systems
Emfree Motors
Energy Conversion
Energy Research Corp.
Engine Corporation of America
ETAK, Inc.
FAS Engineering
FEV Engine Technology
Ford Motor Company
Freightliner Corporation
Gas Research Institute
Gillig Corporation
Glacier Bay, Inc.
Global Green Cars
Global Tech Services
General Motors ATV
Ginler Technologies, Inc.
Ginter Vast Corporation
Green Motorworks
Graphic Systems
Hattori & Associates
Helios International
HomeStead Enterprises
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & HR Moore Consultant
Hewlett Packard
HUB Engineering
Intelligent Measurement, Inc.
International Rectifier Corp.
ISE Research
It's Electric
IXYS Corporation
IMPCO Technologies
Integrated Micromachines, Inc.
Intertrade SRL
IWON Motronics Corporation
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Jinriksha
Jenkins Machinery Company
Kassabian Motors
Kilovac Corp
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Kaylor Energy Products
Kitsap Transit
Kummerow Corp of North America
Lafayette County Car Co., LLC
Litton Industries, Inc.
Lockheed Martin IMS
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
Lone Star Energy
Maxdem, Inc.
Metallic Power, Inc.
Modular Electrical Vehicles
Montgomery Securities
Mosaic Industries
Motorola
Maintenance Technologies, Inc.
Marinco Holdings SDN BHD
Moller International
Nevada Automotive Test Center
NEVCO
Next Century Power, Inc.
NAPTech Pressure Systems
NASA Technology Transfer Center
Natural Fuels Corporation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Next Century Energy
NGV USA, Inc.
Nova BUS
NRG Technologies, Inc.
Nth Power Technologies
Optima Batteries
Opus Technology
Oregon Office of Energy
Ovonics Battery/ECD
ODU-USA, Inc.
Pacific Electric Vehicles, LLC
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PCI
Phasor Corporation
PIVCO
Positive Impact
Powers Design International
Pro Electric Vehicles, Inc.
Procyon Power Systems
Paccar
Pacific Enterprises
Panatec Associates
Pinnacle Mining N.L.
PolyStor Corporation
Port of Los Angeles
Possibilities Tech
Port of Los Angeles
PROE Power Systems
Raychem Corporation
REBAC
Rechargeable Battery Corporation
RLA Power & Electronics Group
Rockwell International
Rocky Research
REXXAR Corporation
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Rod Millen Special Vehicles
Sacramento City College
SAFT America--Advanced Technologies Division
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Signal Processing Systems
Swanson Electric Vehicle Enterprise
Santa Barbara MTD
SAO Paulo Group
Scotland Group, The
SEQUEL
S-LEMNA, Inc.
SOLO Energy Corporation
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
SRI International
Steve Duscha Advisories
Stuart Energy USA
Sturman Industries
SunLine Transit Agency
Taylor-Dunn
Terranomics/Metrovation
Toyota Motor Sales, USA
Trinity Flywheel Power, Inc.
Trojan Battery Company
Thermo Technology Ventures, Inc.
Thiokol Corporation
TNO Road-Vehicles Research Institute
Toucan Capital Corporation, LLC
Traffic Assist
TransCorp
ULTRAMET
Union of Concerned Scientists
Unique Mobility, Inc.
UCLA School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
UC Institute of Transportation Studies--PATH
University of California, Davis
University of California, Riverside
University of Colorado
University of Idaho
Union Motor Company
US Flywheel Systems, Inc.
Vairex Corporation
Ventura County APCD
Venture Management, Inc.
VOLTEK, Inc.
VoltAge, Inc.
Waste Energy Integrated Systems, LLC
Westport Innovations, Inc.
Whittaker Controls, Inc.
XCORP
ZAP Power Systems
Zebra Motors, Inc.
setc participants
AC Propulsion
Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium
AeroVironment, Inc.
AZ Bus Sales, Inc.
Battery M.D., Inc.
Bluebird Body Company
Bus Manufacturing USA, Inc.
California Energy Commission
California EPA--Air Resources Board
City of Chule Vista
Concept Development Group
Davis Electric Vehicle
Desert Research Institute
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Inc.
Electrosource, Inc.
Elk Grove Unified School District
EXtend Computer and Instruments
Fuel Cells for Transportation
Gear Chain Inc.
General Motors Advanced Technology Vehicles
H Power Corporation
Hawker Energy Products, Inc.
Hydrogen Burner Technologies, Inc.
Hexcel Structures
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Next Century Power
North American Power Products
Ovonic Battery Company
ProEV
Rio Linda School District
Sacramento County--Division of Airports
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southwest Research Institute
UC Davis Hybrid Electric Vehicle Center
United Defense LP
US Fuel Cell Council
Yosemite National Park
hevdp participants
Advanced Charger Technology, Inc.
AeroVironment, Inc.
Aloha State Tours and Transportation, Inc.
Battery Automated Transportation, Inc.
California Air Resources Board
City and County of Honolulu
Classic Trolleys, Inc.
Compact Power, RLLP
Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (State of
Hawaii)
Department of Transportation (State of Hawaii)
Detection Limit Technology, Inc.
E Noa Corporation
Electric Island International, LLC.
Electrosource, Inc.
Florida Power and Light Company
Hawaii Electric Light Company
Hawaii Electric Vehicle, Inc.
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.
Hawker Energy Products
High Energy Technology, Inc.
High Power Research Laboratory
High Technology Development Corporation
Honolulu Public Transit Division
Hyundai Motor Co.
Kaman Electromagnetics Corporation
Kauai Community College
Kauai County
Kauai Electric Division
Kyung Won Battery Co.
Maui Electric Company, Inc.
Maxwell Technologies Energy Products, Inc.
Motorized Manufacturing, Inc.
Oahu Transit Services
On-Line Power, Inc.
Ovonic Battery Company, Inc.
Pacific Marine & Supply Company, Inc.
Pennsylvania State University
Pinnacle Research Institute, Inc.
PowerCell Corporation
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Taylor-Dunn, Inc.
TransMotive Technologies, Inc.
Trojan Battery Company
U.S. Air Force, Hickam AFB
U.S. Electricar, Inc.
U.S. Navy, Pacific Missile Range Facility
U.S. Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Station
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Wyland Enterprises, Inc.
In conclusion, this program helped jump start the zero-emission
vehicle industry, but the reduction in funding has slowed the pace and
allowed foreign competition to catch up with US Industry in development
and deployment of advanced vehicle technology. Funding the AVP at the
authorized level will allow US Industry to resume the leadership role
in this rapidly expanding arena. We must maintain our competitive edge;
we must improve the transportation sector's devastating effect on our
environment; and we must eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Harry Harris, Chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition,
Executive Board Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Transportation, Newington, CT
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony to
the record of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate regarding fiscal year 2000
U.S. Department of Transportation appropriations.
On behalf of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, I also want to thank the
Subcommittee for its continuing support of the Coalition and its
programs.
the i-95 corridor coalition
In 1993, pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the I-95 Northeast Corridor was named a
Priority Corridor by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Subsequently, the I-95 Corridor Coalition was established to enhance
mobility, safety, and efficiency across all modes and transportation
facilities that serve the region. Last year the I-95 Northeast Corridor
Program was reauthorized as part of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century.
The Coalition is a partnership of the major public and private
transportation agencies serving the Northeast Corridor of the United
States from Maine to Virginia. Built on the foundation of cooperation
and coordination, the Coalition serves as a unifying force for the
members in our common mission to use technology to provide seamless
transportation services in our Corridor. The transportation services on
which we focus include all modes and facilities of movement for people
and goods.
background
With more than 50 million residents, the Northeast Corridor is the
most heavily burdened transportation network in the United States. The
region has 13 major airports, more than two dozen major rail stations,
11 major seaports, and 30,000 miles of Interstate and primary highways.
As these components become increasingly stressed, coordinated
management and regional implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) across multi-jurisdictional lines become ever more
important. The vision of a ``seamless'' transportation system in the
Northeast is not an idle speculation; it is a necessity.
The greatest obstacles to widespread realization of ITS' benefits
are institutional barriers. Given this, regional collaboration is key
to effective implementation.
The Coalition, with its partnership of 27 transportation agencies,
provides the formal opportunities for such collaboration. It does this
to enhance ITS implementation and help create a seamless system by
bringing its diverse members together to cooperatively address the
transportation problems that affect the entire region. We strive to add
value to the activities of our many member organizations by leveraging
resources, sharing information, and coordinating programs.
recent activities
In the year that has passed since we last presented testimony to
this Subcommittee, the Coalition has experienced some exciting
developments. We have:
--seen dramatic results of our efforts to coordinate management of
traffic incidents;
--refocused our efforts on our primary areas of need--coordinated
incident management, inter-regional multimodal traveler
information and commercial vehicle operations; and,
--worked to develop new programs in the areas of intermodal passenger
and freight movement, electronic payment services, and
improving member access to education and information.
chester, pa tank truck explosion--an example of effective traveler
information and incident management
Advanced technologies and increased interagency communications are
the foundation of the I-95 Corridor Coalition's efforts. We have
developed a shared information network that supports a regional
intermodal traveler information and incident management system. The
cooperative efforts of members mean ITS technologies deployed locally
can be used to benefit agencies, and more importantly travelers, from
Maine to Virginia.
The Coalition's Traveler Information and Incident Management
program was truly put to the test on Saturday, May 23, 1998 when a tank
truck exploded into flames in the wake of an accident on southbound I-
95 in Chester, PA. This incident created enormous challenges for the
transportation officials involved. Local officials had to scramble to
reroute thousands of vehicles while work started immediately to repair
a portion of the elevated roadway. Severe structural damage resulted in
the complete closing of the highway in both directions for more than a
day while alternate routing plans were put into place.
At the same time, this event presented a critical trial of our
transportation management system and of the work the Coalition has done
to enhance that system. We are proud to report to you that the system
works and works well. Incident management activities kicked-in
immediately through the I-95 Corridor Coalition's Information Exchange
Network (IEN). Within minutes, TRANSCOM, an independent group of
agencies in the New York City metropolitan area that provides
communication services for the Coalition, flashed the news of the
accident up and down the eastern seaboard using the 52 work stations
that make up the IEN. Coalition members were immediately notified of
the incident's location, estimated duration, and the impact on traffic.
Every available Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) installation, Variable
Message Sign (VMS) and Information Service Provider throughout the
Corridor was utilized to take the burden off PennDOT and those
traveling in the Northeast. This real-time information exchange
contributed immensely to timely response throughout the entire region.
For the better part of two months, while repairs were made, the
Coalition's IEN system allowed transportation officials to reroute
traffic and prevent more severe delays.
The quick and effective reaction to the Chester incident provides
one of the best possible examples of the return on investment to the
public from Congress's wisdom in continuing funding for the I-95
Corridor program. It is through this program that the inter-
jurisdictional relationships have developed that allowed for our
success in coping with the Chester incident and others. Continual
improvement of our incident management and traveler information systems
is a central focus of Coalition activities and is reflected in a number
of projects throughout the Corridor. This is one of the most important
means in which the Coalition serves to help its members help each other
when ``things go wrong''.
commercial vehicle operations
No region in the country is as dependent on truck traffic for
freight movement as is the I-95 Corridor. The motor carrier industry
plays a vital role in the economic life of our region. At the same
time, ensuring truck safety is a primary concern of the Coalition's
member agencies. For these reasons, the Coalition has placed renewed
emphasis on improving both the safety and the efficiency of motor
carriers operating in the Corridor. Through the Coalition's Commercial
Vehicle Operations (CVO) program we are:
--Implementing a system that will provide commercial vehicle
dispatchers and drivers with information on congestion,
incidents, weather and routing that is necessary to meet the
demands of businesses and consumers for fast, timely and
reliable delivery of goods and services.
--Computerizing roadside communications, using automatic vehicle
identification, mobile inspection cameras, and a national Motor
Carrier Safety Program prototype that will help improve safety
and streamline inspections.
--Developing a partnership of transportation, registration, toll, law
and motor carrier groups designed to help implement an array of
practical products and services.
--Creating a ``credentials administration'' initiative designed to
reduce costs and red tape by streamlining the credential
administration process.
intermodal transfer of people and goods
As noted above, the Coalition has adopted a new focus on the
intermodal transfer of people and goods. This issue was highlighted at
an Intermodal Forum for Passenger and Freight Transportation sponsored
by the Coalition last fall. The purpose of the Forum was to identify
and examine intermodal transportation challenges in the Northeast, and
begin to look at solutions. Following this event, the Coalition held
the first meeting of its Intermodal Program Track Committee on January
19, 1999. The Committee will advise the Coalition on how it can best
work to facilitate safe and efficient intermodal traffic in the region.
electronic payment services
The Coalition and its member-agencies are making significant
strides toward our goal of achieving electronic toll compatibility
throughout the Northeast. We believe that the next several months will
bring us closer to enabling users to have one tag per vehicle, one
account per customer, and one set of credentials per commercial vehicle
to permit seamless travel through toll facilities.
travelers alert map
One of the Coalition's most widely used services is the Travelers
Alert Map. The map identifies major construction activity, upcoming
events and typical holiday weekend bottlenecks. We have recently made
major improvements in this service by providing greater detail in a
more accessible and user-friendly format. The map is distributed to
welcome centers, rest areas and truck stops along the Corridor, and is
just one of the ways in which we help travelers get to where they need
to go. The map is also available on the Coalition's web page at
www.I95coalition.org.
improving member access to education, information and training
One of the key functions of the Coalition is to help members help
each other in areas of education, information and training. The
Coalition has initiated several programs intended to enhance this
service.
--Consortium for ITS Training and Education (CITE): The Coalition is
partnering with the University of Maryland, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, ITS America
and others in this effort to encourage and facilitate the
creation of new ITS courseware using distance learning. CITE is
focused on providing comprehensive ITS training and education
to mid-career professionals who wish to enhance their knowledge
and skills, and to graduate level engineering students pursuing
a focus in ITS. The initial course, ``Introduction to ITS''
will begin in the spring of 2000. The Coalition is assisting in
identifying needs throughout the Corridor and development of
course content; and will help make the course materials
accessible to our members.
--Information clearinghouse: The Coalition is developing a web-based
clearinghouse designed to improve member access to the
Coalition's own technical and policy resources as well as
provide links to other sources.
--Information Exchange Forums: Another initiative involves the use of
Information Exchange Forums to provide an opportunity for
senior and mid-level managers to share experiences and ``best
practices'' in development of ITS services and programs.
These efforts to improve member access to education, information
and training are an important way in which the Coalition meets its
central obligation to remove institutional barriers and facilitate
regional collaboration.
conclusion
Support by this Subcommittee and Congress for the I-95 Corridor
Program has been instrumental to our success. Continued support for
fiscal year 2000 and beyond will allow us to build on this success, and
continue the work outlined above, particularly in the areas of incident
management, traveler information, commercial vehicle operations,
intermodal transportation, electronic payment services, and education
and training. In this way we will continue to provide the means for the
regional cooperation and coordinated efforts needed to achieve an
integrated and seamless transportation system.
In closing, let me thank the Subcommittee again for its valued
support.
______
Prepared Statement of Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois Department of
Transportation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony concerning fiscal year 2000 US DOT
appropriations on behalf of the Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies. We thank Subcommittee Chairman Shelby and the members
of the Subcommittee for their past support for a strong federal
transportation program and for taking into consideration Illinois'
unique needs. Our recommendations for overall funding priorities and
our requests for transportation funding for projects of special
interest to Illinois are described below.
highway funding
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set fiscal year 2000 obligation
limitations for highway and highway safety programs that will allow
full use of the anticipated Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues as per
the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provision in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). As you are
aware, TEA-21 set guaranteed obligation limitations for highway and
highway safety programs based on estimated HTF revenues. The RABA
provision automatically adjusts highway obligation limitations for
fiscal years 2000-2003 according to estimates of HTF revenue. The new
HTF estimates require an increase of $1.5 billion above the TEA-21
guaranteed funding. The appropriations bill should honor this TEA-21
adjustment. This additional funding should be fully utilized for
greater highway and highway safety program spending.
In addition, IDOT is requesting specific earmarks for six highway
construction projects.
The first of those earmarks is for the Stevenson Expressway
reconstruction in Chicago. IDOT is seeking an earmark of $55 million in
the fiscal year 2000 US DOT Appropriations bill to assist in financing
the $567 million Stevenson Expressway reconstruction project. IDOT
believes that this earmark is warranted because of the extraordinary
cost of this project, because of the need to complete the project
quickly and because the Stevenson Expressway is of national and
international importance in the movement of people and freight. A
special earmark of $55 million from general funds will aid in financing
the work programmed for fiscal year 2000, the second year of major
reconstruction.
The second earmark request is for the Wacker Drive reconstruction.
IDOT and the city of Chicago are seeking an earmark of $50 million in
the fiscal year 2000 US DOT Appropriations bill to assist in financing
the $310 million reconstruction of Wacker Drive, located in downtown
Chicago. IDOT and the city believe that this earmark is warranted
because of the extraordinary cost of the project and because Wacker
Drive is critically important to the city's transportation system. A
special earmark of $50 million from general funds will aid in financing
the Wacker Drive reconstruction project and completing it more quickly.
The other four earmarks which total $106 million are: $45 million
for improvements to Illinois 64 in DuPage County; $22 million for
improvements to Illinois 59 in Will County; $28 million to continue the
extension of IL 336 and US 136 from Quincy to Macomb in western
Illinois; and $11 million to assist in the completion of the Alton
Bypass in the St. Louis Metro East area. This $106 million request from
general funds will help fund these needed projects.
IDOT is also requesting an earmark of $7.4 million in fiscal year
2000 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment funds for key
projects in the Chicago metropolitan area, the St. Louis Metro East
area and several other metropolitan areas. IDOT believes that this
earmark is warranted because it will aid in implementing high priority
projects that enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the
transportation system and improve mobility and safety for all highway
users. The fiscal year 2000 earmark of ITS formula funding is
especially important to IDOT because the department did not receive any
ITS funding in either the fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 US DOT
Appropriations bills.
transit major capital investment
Bus Capital
IDOT, the Regional Transportation Authority (which oversees the
planning and financing of transit in the six-county northeastern
Illinois area), the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Pace (which
operates suburban bus service) jointly request an earmark of $26.7
million in fiscal year 2000 Section 5309 bus capital funds for
Illinois. This joint request is a demonstration of our mutual interest
in securing funding for essential bus capital needs throughout the
state.
The joint request is for funds for four downstate facilities and to
purchase 116 buses in order to replace overage vehicles and to comply
with federal mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act. All of
the vehicles scheduled for replacement are at or well beyond their
design life. Illinois operators have a total of 628 such buses--CTA has
263, Pace has 106, downstate urbanized areas have 194 and small urban
and rural areas have 65. Illinois transit systems need discretionary
bus capital funds since regular formula funding is inadequate to meet
all bus capital needs.
New Systems and Extensions--MetroLink
IDOT supports the Bi-State Development Agency's (the bus and light
rail service operating agency for the St. Louis region) request for an
earmark of $50 million in fiscal year 2000 New Starts funding for the
MetroLink light rail system which serves the St. Louis region. This
amount is for ongoing construction of the eastward extension in St.
Clair County, Illinois from East St. Louis to Belleville Area College.
MetroLink service has been a tremendous success and ridership has far
exceeded projections. The Administration entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement for this extension in 1996 and construction began in
1998.
IDOT also supports an earmark of $32 million for funding the 8.6-
mile MetroLink segment from Belleville Area College to the MidAmerica
Airport. Bi-State Development Agency is seeking a revised Full Funding
Grant Agreement from the FTA to incorporate the costs of this
extension. Final design and construction of this extension is
authorized in TEA-21.
New Systems and Extensions--Metra Commuter Rail
IDOT supports Metra's (the commuter rail operating agency serving
the six-county northeastern Illinois region) request for an earmark of
$75 million in fiscal year 2000 to continue New Starts funding for
upgrading service on the North Central and SouthWest Lines and
extending service on the SouthWest and Union Pacific-West Lines. These
planned improvements are in areas where significant population and
development increases have already been experienced and are projected
to continue well into the 21st century. The projects will improve and
extend commuter rail service which will in turn reduce highway
congestion and contribute to attaining clean air objectives. TEA-21
authorized final design and construction of these three projects.
New Systems and Extensions--Chicago Transit Authority
IDOT supports the Chicago Transit Authority's request for an
earmark of $95 million for rehabilitation of the Douglas Branch of the
Blue Line and upgrading of the Ravenswood Line. The $77 million
requested for the Douglas Branch rehabilitation project will begin
construction to completely rehabilitate or replace track, structure,
and ancillary systems to restore this 6-mile branch of the Blue Line to
an acceptable level of service and to ensure its viability for the next
30 to 40 years. This rehabilitation is essential for preserving service
on the line and reducing inordinately high maintenance expenses. The
Douglas Branch serves an economically depressed area and provides
transit service important to support welfare-to-work transportation
needs. If the deterioration due to lack of adequate renewal funds is
not addressed, the CTA will eventually be forced to close the branch.
TEA-21 authorized $315 million for the Douglas Branch.
The $18 million requested for the Ravenswood Line project would
begin construction to extend station platforms to handle longer trains
that are needed to serve the increasing demand along this line. The
line's market area continues to redevelop and potential riders are
being discouraged due to crowded conditions. Lengthening all platforms
to handle longer 8-car trains, straightening tight S-curves which slow
operations and selected yard improvements will increase capacity by 25
to 30 percent. TEA-21 authorized final design and construction of the
Ravenswood upgrade.
transit formula grants
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set appropriations for formula
grants programs at least at the guaranteed levels set in TEA-21. IDOT
also supports funding the transit programs beyond the TEA-21 guaranteed
levels, but we advocate that general funds, not HTF revenue, be the
source for the additional funding.
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Funds
The Section 5307 formula grants program for urbanized areas
provides vital capital and operating assistance for public
transportation. In Illinois, these formula funds are distributed to 18
urbanized areas which provide approximately 560 million passenger trips
a year. IDOT supports the continuation of operating assistance to the
smaller urbanized areas under 200,000 population. Strong federal
funding support for transit service in urbanized areas is necessary to
enable transit to continue the vital role it plays in providing urban
transportation service.
Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Formula Funds
The Section 5311 program plays a vital role in meeting mobility
needs in the nation's small cities and rural areas. Adequate federal
funding assistance for this program is very important to transit
systems in Illinois. The needs in these areas are growing yet their
local revenue sources continue to be very limited. In Illinois, such
systems operate in 45 counties and 7 small cities, carrying
approximately 2.6 million passengers annually.
next generation high speed rail
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to earmark $15 million in Next
Generation High Speed Rail appropriations for a grade separation
project to replace the at-grade Engelwood Interlocking near 63rd and
State in Chicago. Two Metra tracks and three Norfolk Southern and
Amtrak tracks cross at this high traffic grade crossing. Currently 131
trains cross each day (68 Metra trains cross 18 Amtrak and 45 Norfolk
trains). Metra controls the crossing so the Amtrak and Norfolk trains
must stop for or wait for the Metra trains. This causes large
cumulative delays for both Amtrak and freight trains and is a potential
safety hazard, particularly since the Metra trains are fast-moving
commuter trains. More than 30 additional daily trains are expected to
be rerouted through this crossing due to a related St. Charles Airline
project south of the Chicago downtown area. The track involved is part
of the corridor identified for high speed rail service from Chicago to
Detroit, and removing the repetitive delay caused by this crossing is
needed to achieve future high speed service. The total cost of the
overpass is estimated at around $35 million. IDOT supports an
appropriation of the full $25 million authorized in TEA-21 for high
speed rail technology improvements.
amtrak appropriation
IDOT supports a fiscal year 2000 appropriation at least at the
President's budget request of $571 million to support the nation's
passenger rail system's capital improvements and equipment maintenance.
IDOT also urges the Subcommittee to incorporate bill language similar
to the President's proposal which allows capital funds to be used for
the same range of purposes as transit capital funds.
Amtrak operates 50 trains throughout Illinois as part of the
nation's passenger rail system, serving approximately 3 million
passengers annually. Of the total, Illinois subsidizes 18 state-
sponsored trains which provide service in four corridors (Chicago to
Milwaukee, Quincy, St. Louis, and Carbondale) transporting nearly
652,000 passengers in fiscal year 1998. Amtrak service in key travel
corridors is an important component of Illinois' multimodal
transportation network, and continued federal capital and operating
support is needed.
airport improvement program (aip) obligation limitation
IDOT supports an fiscal year 2000 Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
obligation limitation as close as possible to the authorization level
to be set in the reauthorization bill for aviation programs which will
be developed by the House and Senate authorizing committees (the Senate
version authorizes $2.47 billion, the House bill $5 billion).
The AIP program provides federal funding support for airport
preservation and improvements needed at general aviation and commercial
airports--which served 630 million people flying on the nation's air
carriers in 1997. Enplanements are expected to grow annually at 3.3 to
3.7 percent to nearly 1 billion by 2009, and airports must make
improvements to safely and efficiently serve this rapidly growing
demand.
Adequate AIP funding is especially important for general aviation,
reliever, commercial service and small primary airports. Larger primary
airports have been able to raise substantial amounts of funding with
Passenger Facility Charges, but the smaller airports are very dependent
on the federal AIP program.
This concludes my testimony. I understand the difficulty you face
trying to provide needed increases in transportation funding given
spending constraints in the balanced budget agreement. However, an
adequate and well-maintained transportation system is critical to the
nation's economic prosperity and future growth. Your ongoing
recognition of that and your support for the nation's transportation
needs are much appreciated. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss Illinois' federal transportation funding concerns.
______
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND AMTRAK
Prepared Statement of Harriet Parcells, Executive Director, American
Passenger Rail Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Harriet
Parcells and I am the Executive Director of the American Passenger Rail
Coalition (APRC), a national association of railroad equipment
suppliers and rail-related businesses. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on fiscal year 2000 appropriations for Amtrak and
funding to advance high speed rail in key corridors of the nation. APRC
members include companies that manufacture passenger rail cars and
locomotives, rail engineering and planning firms, manufacturers of rail
brakes and rail cable, companies that provide information and
communications services and companies that build and repair railroad
track. APRC member companies have manufacturing and service facilities
in states and communities around the country and employ thousands of
U.S. workers.
Amtrak is an essential part of the country's transportation system,
providing efficient and affordable transportation for millions of
Americans. In fiscal year 1998, 21.1 million people rode Amtrak trains
for intercity travel; another 54 million relied on Amtrak trains
operated under contract to regional transit authorities to commute to
and from work.
amtrak is moving in the right direction
All indications are that Amtrak is moving in the right direction.
Under the direction of the Amtrak Board of Directors and President and
CEO George Warrington, Amtrak is taking strategic actions to reduce
operating costs, improve the quality of service to its customers and
generate increased revenues by entering into new partnerships and
commercial business ventures. In October 1998, Amtrak's Board of
Directors released a revised four-year Strategic Business Plan (SBP)
that provides the vision and plan of action to guide Amtrak to improved
financial health, increased nationwide ridership and improved service
quality. The SBP identifies over $390 million in cost-cutting and
revenue enhancing actions to be undertaken by Amtrak from fiscal year
1998-fiscal year 2003. The investments and actions Amtrak has been
taking are yielding positive results. Some key indicators of this
success in fiscal year 1998 include:
--Amtrak ridership increased by 4.5 percent--the largest ridership
increase in a decade;
--Amtrak passenger revenues surpassed $1 billion for the first time
in the corporation's history;
--Amtrak finished the fiscal year $4 million better than planned;
--On-time performance improved and is at the highest level in 13
years;
--Employee injuries decreased by 14 percent;
After reviewing these positive year-end results, Amtrak Board
Chairman, Governor Tommy Thompson stated, ``Amtrak's record-breaking
achievements are further proof that Amtrak has turned the corner to
become a more commercially-oriented, customer-focused corporation--As
outlined in our new Strategic Business Plan (SBP), we're on the path to
creating a more modern and financially sound national rail system.''
fiscal year 2000 appropriations for amtrak
President Clinton presented his fiscal year 2000 budget to Congress
on February 1. The budget includes $571 million in capital funding for
Amtrak. The $571 million for Amtrak is consistent with the President's
budget request of last year, which set forth specific out-year capital
funding commitments to Amtrak.
Our association strongly supports $571 million in capital
appropriations for Amtrak in fiscal year 2000 and urges the
Subcommittee to fully fund the President's budget request. APRC also
supports an expanded definition of capital, as provided in the
President's budget request, that would provide Amtrak with the same
definition of capital as applies to the nation's urban mass transit
systems and other transportation modes. Amtrak has stated that full
funding of the President's request and adoption of this definition of
capital would allow Amtrak to achieve its Strategic Business Plan goals
and stay on the path to operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002.
Guided by its Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak is making great
strides in cutting costs, expanding revenues, increasing rail ridership
and improving other key performance indicators. Strong capital
investment by Congress in fiscal year 2000 is essential to keeping
Amtrak on the path to improved economic health and success.
The nation's investment in Amtrak is not merely the provision of
capital to the railroad, but a source of economic activity that will
filter throughout the nation's economy. The railroad equipment supply
industry generates approximately $12-14 billion in annual sales and
employs over 150,000 people. Products manufactured by APRC member
companies and their subcontractors are produced in states and
communities from New York to California. Utilizing the U.S. Commerce
Department's analysis of economic multiples for the rail equipment
industry, the $2.2 billion approved by Congress in 1997 for Amtrak
strategic capital investments over the next several years will have a
net economic impact of $3.3 billion. Investments to improve rail
service and restore passenger rail stations are bringing new vitality
and stimulating economic development in the downtowns of cities and
communities nationwide.
amtrak's new business partnerships are key to improved financial health
Amtrak is entering into new business and commercial partnerships
that are central to its plans to improve the economics of its long-
distance trains and the corporation's overall financial health. After
receiving the go-ahead from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in
May 1998, Amtrak's mail and express freight service is showing strong
signs of growth. In fiscal year 1998, total revenues from Amtrak's mail
and express business totaled $83 million, up 19 percent over fiscal
year 1997. In the current fiscal year, Amtrak hopes to boost mail and
express revenues to $107 million. While the bulk of the revenue comes
from shipment of mail, revenue from express freight is showing strong
growth. As it moves forward with its mail and express service, Amtrak
is developing partnerships with freight railroads, such as shortline
railroad Dallas, Garland & Northeastern (DGNO) in Texas and others.
Amtrak is entering into other business partnerships to speed the
corporation's financial improvement. On January 20, 1999, Amtrak
announced five new business partnerships that are initially expected to
generate more than $20 million in added revenue annually and $28
million in long-term savings,with the potential for substantial future
growth. Under a new partnership with Dobbs International Services, a
leading transportation caterer, Amtrak expects to realize savings of
$28 million. Dobbs International Services will take over operation of
Amtrak's 11 food commissaries beginning in April which will not only
improve Amtrak's finances but the quality of food service on trains
nationwide. Other partnerships that Amtrak announced will expand
Amtrak's mail and express services, with the U.S. Postal Service,
United Parcel Service and other partners. Announcing the new ventures,
Amtrak President George Warrington stated, ``These partnerships [also]
demonstrate that there is a tremendous untapped value embedded in our
national rail system that can be leveraged to accelerate Amtrak's
financial turnaround.''
ridership is increasing on amtrak trains nationwide
Ridership is increasing on Amtrak trains nationwide. In heavily
populated metropolitan corridors, travelers rely on Amtrak for
efficient city center to city center intercity transportation and a
relaxing alternative to congested highways and airports. Ridership on
Amtrak's Metroliner trains between Washington D.C. and New York
achieved a record level of 2.1 million riders in fiscal year 1998.
Across the country, in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor between
Portland, OR, Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC, Amtrak ridership also
reached an all-time high: 550,000 passengers in fiscal year 1998, up 13
percent over fiscal year 1997. Ridership in the Pacific Northwest has
increased 137 percent since 1993. And, in the Midwest, on corridor
routes radiating out of Chicago, 1.6 million trips were taken in fiscal
year 1998, up 4 percent over fiscal year 1997. Some routes showed
substantially higher gains: Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha ridership was up
12.5 percent; St. Louis-Kansas City ridership, up 14.5 percent and
Chicago-Carbondale Illinois ridership, up 15.3 percent.
For residents of smaller cities and rural areas, Amtrak is often
the only convenient, affordable and all weather means of intercity
travel. A recent article in the ``Toledo Blade'' (11/26/98), ``Iron
road still acts as lifeline for many''-the first in a series of three
articles on intercity rail travel-discussed the critical role that
Amtrak's Empire Builder, which travels across the northern U.S. between
Chicago and Seattle and Portland, plays in the lives of citizens and
communities along its route.
``In places like Devil's Lake, Minot and Cut Bank, MT-cities
that have little if any airline service and are hundreds of
miles from population centers-the train continues to fill a
vital transportation role--And officials say Amtrak's value to
their communities extends beyond transporting local residents
to distant destinations or bringing relatives home to visit.
The train is also a development tool--``It's one more selling
point for economic development. It's something we have that
some much larger cities don't,'' stated Paul Tuss [director of
a local non-profit economic development agency].''
Underscoring the Empire Builder's value to communities along its
route, the train carried 422,174 rail passengers in fiscal year 1998, a
22 percent increase over the prior year. Ridership on other long-
distance and corridor trains such as the Chicago-New Orleans Crescent
(+8 percent), the New York-Miami Silver Palm (+17 percent), the
Charlotte-Raleigh Piedmont (+10.5 percent) and other trains also
exhibited strong gains in fiscal year 1998.
states looking to improved intercity rail passenger service to help
assure future mobility
In regions around the country, states are working together and with
Amtrak and the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop plans and
make investments to achieve higher rail speeds and improve the quality
of service in key corridors. State studies have found that investments
to improve intercity rail passenger service in key corridors are cost-
effective investments compared to alternatives such expanded highway
capacity. And, there is strong public support for investments to
improve Amtrak service, as demonstrated through polls, letters to the
editor and, most significantly, through growing ridership on Amtrak
trains. Newspapers around the country have expressed support for these
investments as well. Attachment 1 of our testimony presents excerpts
from newspaper editorials over the past year in support of improvements
that have taken place and/or are planned for Amtrak intercity passenger
rail service.
A new generation of high-speed rail service will begin operating
along the Northeast Corridor, starting in November of this year, and
yield substantial mobility and economic benefits for the entire
Northeast and the nation. The introduction of Amtrak's new 150-mph high
speed rail service between Washington D.C. and Boston is expected to
attract over 2.6 million new riders annually to Amtrak and help relieve
congestion at regional airports and on the highways. The new rail
service will generate up to $180 million in net annual revenue for
Amtrak by 20002 and is a pivotal part of Amtrak's strategy to improve
its financial health. The high-speed rail service will create thousands
of jobs and promote economic development throughout the region.
In the Pacific Northwest, new European-style passive tilt trains
began revenue service on January 11, 1999 along the 466-mile rail
corridor extending from Eugene, OR to Portland to Seattle, WA to
Vancouver, BC, bringing a new quality of intercity rail passenger
service to this region of the country. The new trains were purchased by
Washington State and by Amtrak and have met with enthusiastic public
support. Rail ridership in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor reached
a record level in 1998 and is expected to continue to grow.
In the Midwest, nine state Departments of Transportation (WI, IL,
MI, MN, MO, OH, IN, NB and IA), Amtrak and the FRA are developing a
plan to improve Midwest intercity rail passenger service. The Midwest
Regional Rail Initiative (MRRI) features more frequent rail service,
utilizing new rail equipment operating at speeds up to 110 miles per
hour (mph) on a 3,000 mile network. At a press conference in Chicago on
January 28, Amtrak Board Chairman Governor Tommy Thompson announced
Amtrak's commitment of $25 million to improve Midwest intercity rail
passenger service and Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater
announced DOT funding to test rail equipment in the Midwest and
announced an extension of the Midwest High Speed Rail service to
Cincinnati.
Other regions of the country are also moving ahead with plans for
improved intercity rail passenger service. In September 1998, New York
State and Amtrak reached agreement on a five-year $185 million rail
improvement plan that includes track improvements, rebuilding of five
Turboliner trains and other improvements. When all work is completed,
trains will be able to travel at top speeds of 125 mph between New York
City, Albany and Buffalo. The improvements come as rail ridership in
New York is achieving record levels.
On November 18, 1998, the Gulf Coast High Speed Rail Corridor was
formally designated at a conference in New Orleans. The rail corridor
extends from Florida along the Gulf Coast to New Orleans and Houston
and north from New Orleans to Meridian, MS and Birmingham, AL. A rail
connection to the New Orleans International Airport is part of the
planning process. And, in the Southeast, the states of North Carolina,
Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia are working together to greatly
improve passenger rail service within and between their states and to
connect to the Northeast Corridor in Washington D.C. At a conference on
December 1, 1998 in Charlotte, two extensions to the Southeast High
Speed Rail Corridor were announced by DOT Secretary Slater. The states
of Vermont and California have committed substantial state funding to
improve intercity rail passenger service and view rail as an integral
part of their future. Oklahoma will see the start-up of Amtrak service
this spring and Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas have formed a multi-state
task force to examine rail improvements in their region.
Improvements to intercity rail passenger service in these and other
key corridors are an integral part of Amtrak's plans to attract a
growing national ridership and a greater share of the intercity travel
market.
funding to advance high speed rail and rail safety
In addition to $571 million for Amtrak in fiscal year 2000, APRC
asks the Subcommittee to appropriate funding to advance high-speed rail
in key corridors of the country and funding to promote rail safety
through FRA's programs and Operation Lifesaver. The Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized $10 million per
year for high-speed rail corridor planning activities and $25 million
per year for high-speed rail research and development (the Next
Generation High Speed Rail Program). As mentioned in our testimony,
states in the Midwest, Southeast, Pacific Northwest, Northeast and Gulf
Coast are looking to increasing rail speeds and quality of service as a
fundamental part of their strategies to assure future mobility and
economic prosperity. They are working together on rail investments that
will yield substantial benefits for their regions.
Our examination of the President's budget request indicates that
the Administration is requesting $12 million in General Fund
appropriations for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. An
additional $35 million to advance high speed rail is requested in funds
that would come from a portion of increased gas tax revenues above
those assumed in the budget baseline. The Next Generation High Speed
Rail Program provides valuable research and development work on
positive train control, non-electric high-speed locomotives, highway-
rail grade crossing hazard elimination and other R&D. We are
disappointed in the reduced general fund appropriation requested by the
Administration and that a significant portion of the funding requested
for high-speed rail activities is expected to come from revenues on
which agreement with Congress may or may not be reached. We ask the
Subcommittee to provide strong funding for these activities to advance
high-speed rail in key corridors.
Funding for highway-railroad grade crossing hazard elimination
programs serves to maximize the safety of the nation's passenger and
freight rail systems and is crucial to the development of high-speed
rail. Federal Railroad Administrator Jolene Molitoris has made railroad
safety a top priority at FRA. Our association applauds Administrator
Molitoris for her leadership in the area of rail safety. On March 25,
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the
Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
held a hearing on safety at highway-rail grade crossings. APRC commends
Senator Hutchison for her long record of leadership on safety at
highway-railroad grade crossings. We urge the Subcommittee to provide
strong funding for highway-railroad grade crossing elimination programs
in fiscal year 2000. Finally, APRC also strongly supports funding for
Operation Lifesaver's work with states to educate the public on safety
at highway-railroad grade crossings.
APRC thanks the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for the
strong support it has given to Amtrak, to programs to improve the
safety of the nation's railroad system and to activities to advance
high-speed rail in key corridors. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Sharpe James, City of Newark, NJ
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to submit testimony to you about projects under your
jurisdiction which are critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey and
the surrounding region. The support of this Committee has been critical
in the past, and I wholeheartedly thank you for your aid to projects
that have truly impacted on the people of Newark and our economy. Your
help on a range of projects has enabled direct Interstate access to
Newark's Emergency Medical/Trauma Care Center, our university campuses,
and the emerging University Heights Science Park. Highway funding has
improved access to the Newark Airport/Port Newark complex and our
downtown business and arts district.
Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the
problems of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
vitality and sense of optimism in Newark. As the physical crossroads of
the Northeast Corridor, the future economic viability of Newark is
inextricably dependent upon the continued modernization and expansion
of our intermodal transportation system. Improvements to our roadway
network, our rail system, and our port and airport facilities will
directly translate into jobs and economic prosperity for our City,
State and Region. Newark's transportation project needs are critical to
enabling us to maintain our position as a regional center for commerce,
education, government and entertainment.
Major downtown facilities have recently been completed or are under
construction. The New Jersey Performing Arts Center, now in its second
season, has been phenomenally successful. Our minor league baseball
stadium--which will open this summer, and the Joseph G. Minish Passaic
Riverfront Park and Historic Area--on which the Army Corps of Engineers
will soon begin their construction phase, are exciting developments for
our city. All of these activities are directly related to the proximity
and effectiveness of our transportation network. The repopulation of
older office buildings, and construction of new ones, is occurring in
large part due to the ease of access for commuters. We are working to
further capitalize on the existing transportation infrastructure by
connecting these major facilities with a light rail line, the Newark
Elizabeth Rail Link.
The first segment of the Newark Elizabeth Rail Link (NERL) will
soon be under construction, thanks to your previous support. It is a
planned 8.8 mile, fifteen station light rail transit line linking
downtown Newark with Newark International Airport and the City of
Elizabeth. The first operable segment will link downtown Newark's two
train and bus transportation nodes. It will be a 0.94 mile connection
between the Broad Street Station, where trains from the western suburbs
enter the City, and Newark Penn Station, on the Northeast corridor line
and the central hub for New Jersey Transit trains and buses. There will
be three new stations--Broad Street Station, Washington Park/
Sportsplex, and NJ Performing Arts Center/Center Street--which connect
sites mentioned above, as well as our renowned Newark Museum and Newark
Public Library, that are crucial to Newark's economic and cultural
growth. The line then will enter a tunnel portal where it will connect
with the existing City Subway tunnel to access Penn Station.
The NERL is an important and central component of our overall
transportation plan. We are proud that just last month, a full funding
agreement for this first leg of the Newark Elizabeth Rail Link was
signed, and the Administration has included funding for it in its
budget. I respectfully ask this Committee to add its support to this
$12 Million allocation.
An additional transportation issue has recently emerged which I
would like to bring to your attention at this time. A central feature
of Newark's downtown/riverfront area is the presence of AMTRAK
facilities at Newark Penn Station. This station is the last northbound
stop on the Northeast Corridor before New York City, and provides rail
and bus linkages to the rest of New Jersey, and the region beyond. New
Jersey Transit is doing an admirable job of renovating and modernizing
the facility to accommodate increases in demand at the station, but the
portion of the overall rail infrastructure that is owned and operated
by AMTRAK is in great need of attention.
The renovation and upgrading of AMTRAK property to better serve the
City of Newark, its residents and visitors is a key factor in the
City's economic development and transportation initiatives. This
property is at each end of Penn Station, and improvements to it will be
a worthy investment.
The extension of the platforms at the southern end of Penn Station
will enable passengers to exit the rail facility without having to exit
through the station itself. This will enable the connection of a
pedestrian walkway to a planned economic development project, the new
downtown sports and entertainment complex. With this extension, an old
abandoned railroad bridge and right of way will be transformed into a
productive corridor, and help to revitalize the southern portion of
Broad Street (Newark's main street), just as other transportation
projects have facilitated the renaissance of the upper Broad Street
area.
The AMTRAK bridge over the Passaic River, on the northern end of
Penn Station, is the most prominent feature of the Minish Riverfront
project area. In fact, it dominates the skyline view of the City, and
is recognized as an architectural symbol of Newark's rich industrial
heritage. However, it is sorely in need of restoration and enhancement.
Currently, lead paint is dropping from the bridge, adding to river
contamination. Over the past few years, a great deal of progress has
been made in cleaning the waters of the Passaic River, and the
encapsulation or removal of the paint must be accomplished to eliminate
this very real threat to public health. In addition, we have embarked
on a program to light the bridges across the river, and would like to
light the AMTRAK Bridge to highlight its significant structural
elements. We would also respectfully request that the bridge be renamed
in honor of retiring Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has been a strong
advocate for transportation issues nationally, as well as for the City
of Newark. The estimated cost for the platform extension and bridge
restoration is $30 million.
The assistance of this committee in funding these projects is
vital. The Newark Elizabeth Rail Link and the AMTRAK facilities
improvements are critical links in Newark's transportation network, and
your support for them is crucial to our continued economic development.
Your attention and consideration of the needs of Newark, New Jersey are
deeply appreciated.
______
Letter From Bruce Beam
Consumers United for Rail Equity,
Washington, DC, March 31, 1999.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are submitting this letter with the request
that it be included in the hearing record of your March 4th hearing
regarding appropriations to the Department of Transportation.
Consumers United for Rail Equity (C.U.R.E.) is a coalition of
captive rail customers, which are those customers that have no option
other than shipping with a single rail carrier. Because captive rail
customers do not have access to competitive rail transportation, we
must rely on the protections embodied in federal law that are
implemented by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). As we have in
the past, C.U.R.E. continues to advocate full funding for the STB from
appropriated funds. C.U.R.E. also supports a requirement that the Board
charge only nominal fees for the filing of a complaint, protest, or
other request for relief.
Captive rail customers are concerned that if the STB does not have
adequate funding, it may seek additional revenue through increased
filing fees. Further cuts in STB funding will only increase the
pressure on the STB to raise user fees--a scenario that is intolerable
to captive rail customers.
In fact, on February 3, 1999, the STB increased its filing fees
separate and apart from the fiscal year 2000 user fee proposal.
According to the STB's announcement, the fees were increased to offset
the government wide salary increase and higher Federal Register
publication costs. Under the STB's new fee structure, the fee for a
formal complaint filed under the coal rate guidelines will increase
from $27,000 to $54,500. For small rail customers, the fee for a formal
rate complaint will increase from $2,600 to $5,400. Increasing user
fees will deny captive rail customers access to the only forum in which
they can seek rate relief.
Rail customers already are hesitant to file formal complaints due
to the extreme expense associated with such complaints, the amount of
time it takes for the STB to issue a final decision, and the low
probability of success. A GAO Report, released on March 2, 1999, finds
that a rate case at the STB can cost between $500,000 and $3 million,
requiring from two to 16 years to complete.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we urge your Subcommittee to provide full
funding for the STB from appropriated funds. We are disturbed that the
President's Budget again this year requested zero funding for the STB.
We hope that Congress will, as in past years, fully fund the Board.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of importance to the many
captive rail customers nationwide.
Sincerely,
Bruce Beam,
Chairman, Consumers United for Rail Equity.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark R. Dysart, President, High Speed Ground
Transportation Association
I am pleased and honored to submit the testimony of the High Speed
Ground Transportation Association on the Administration's fiscal year
2000 proposed budget. HSGTA is an international membership organization
comprised of Federal, State and Local governments and agencies, railway
equipment manufacturers and suppliers, labor unions, engineering and
construction firms and citizen activists. These organizations represent
over 2.1 million working Americans.
Auto and air congestion plague our daily lives. Gridlock is
estimated to cost the United States economy some $40 billion each year
in lost productivity. High-speed ground transportation offers a viable
alternative that can greatly reduce congestion. High-speed ground
transport would also decrease airborne pollutants, decrease our
dependence on imported oil, increase productivity and increase
mobility. This reality has been recognized by governments throughout
the world where high-speed intercity passenger services are being
inaugurated and expanded, in countries like France, Italy, Spain,
Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, China, Korea,
Russia, and Great Britain.
The realization that high-speed intercity rail systems make sense
as an alternative mode is not confined to the world outside our
borders. States and regions throughout the Nation clamor for intercity
surface transportation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 and its successor the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century both allowed promising high-speed rail corridors
to be designated as suitable for Federal assistance. ISTEA designated
five corridors. TEA-21 added six with three named in the legislation
and three set to be selected by the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation. These corridors now include the Northeast, Florida,
Midwest, Northwest, Empire, Keystone, California, Gulf Coast, and
Southeast. Together these encompass over half the states in our nation.
Those with programs in place outside the Northeast Corridor include
Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa,
Oregon, Washington and California.
The High Speed Ground Transportation Association's recommendations
encompass four specific areas:
Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program
There are 158,782 public at-grade crossings and 100,769 private at-
grade crossings in the United States. Section 1103(c) of the TEA-21
allows for the number of designated high-speed rail corridors to more
than double. Current funding is woefully inadequate for grade crossing
elimination which is both a cornerstone of rail safety and a critical
component in the development of high-speed rail service. HSGTA urges
the committee to increase funding for grade crossing hazard
elimination. We propose the committee appropriate $20.25 for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 of which TEA-21 provides $5.25 million in contract
authority and an authorization of $15 million for grade crossing hazard
elimination.
The unfortunate truck/rail accident in Illinois last month clearly
illustrates the need to eliminate hazardous crossings. Freight and
passenger rail employees and customers as well as the general public
are increasingly at-risk as rail traffic increases and greater demands
are placed on the current rail-highway infrastructure interface. To
maximize limited funds the HSGTA recommends the Committee explore
opportunities for better coordination of grade crossing activities
between the Federal Railroad and Federal Highway Administrations.
Maglev Deployment
The HSGTA strongly supports funding the full $20 million for the
Maglev Technology Deployment Program in fiscal year 2000 as authorized
by TEA-21. This is an essential element of the long-term government
effort to implement a full range of high-speed ground transportation
alternatives in the United States.
Section 1218 of TEA-21 provides a balanced and efficient program
for states and localities to identify corridors that could implement
this exciting new technology. The pre-construction planning activities
that will begin this year will provide the technical and economic basis
for Maglev deployment in the United States.
The Federal Railroad Administration has received applications for
Maglev projects from several states around the country, including
Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia. We urge the Committee to allow the
Maglev Infrastructure Deployment Program to go forward as intended by
Congress in TEA-21.
Next Generation and Corridor Pre-construction Funds
Congress authorized $25 million per year in TEA-21 for the Next
Generation program (also known as the Swift Act) and $10 million per
year for corridor planning. The HSGTA strongly urges the Committee to
support full funding of the Next Generation planning program as
intended by Congress. Further, we would take this opportunity to point
out that Next Generation program planning funds authorized for fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 were not appropriated.
TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation to increase the
number of designated high-speed rail corridors from 5 to 11. While the
designations have been made, no funds are available to accomplish
critically necessary pre-construction analyses. The HSGTA requests that
this Committee support reinstatement of the $20 million not
appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and 1999 in addition to fiscal year
2000 authorization for $10 million in planning funds for a total of $30
million. These funds are crucial to the success of corridor development
in the United States.
Amtrak
The HSGTA supports funding Amtrak at the highest possible levels.
We view Amtrak as the foundation from which future high-speed rail will
be launched. Amtrak's introduction of new high-speed trainsets in the
Northeast corridor will herald the beginning of a new era in passenger
rail travel. The HSGTA supports Amtrak's request for $571 million and
also recommends the Committee support a revision of the ``capital
funds'' definition so that Amtrak has the flexibility to use a portion
of these funds for maintenance of way and maintenance of equipment.
Summary
The High Speed Ground Transportation Association asks that this
Sub-committee support the following:
--$20.25 million each for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for hazard
elimination and grade crossing improvements for a total request
of $40.5 million.
--Full funding of the Maglev Technology Deployment Program at $20
million for fiscal year 2000.
--$25 million for fiscal year 2000 under the Next Generation Program
and $30 million for fiscal year 2000 for pre-construction
corridor activities.
--$571 million for Amtrak plus revision of the definition of capital
expenditures.
Again, I thank the committee for allowing HSGTA to present the
views of its 250 corporate and institutional members and their 2.1
million working families. The High Speed Ground Transportation
Association will be pleased to respond to any questions and offers the
Committee the HSGTA's resources whenever needed.
______
Prepared Statement of Phyllis M. Wilkins, Executive Director, Maglev
Maryland
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Committee, I respectfully submit
testimony regarding the funding for the Maglev Deployment Program. For
eight years, the efforts by City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland
to be the first site for Maglev in America have been represented by
Maglev Maryland. Baltimore Development Corporation is the economic
development agency of Baltimore City. The city government of
Washington, DC is now actively participating in this effort. As a board
member of the High Speed Ground Transportation Association, I would
like to echo the Association's testimony to strongly support full
funding of the Maglev Technology Deployment Program in fiscal year
2000. This program is an essential element of the long-term government
effort to implement a full range of high speed ground transportation
alternatives in the United States.
Those interested in the development of truly high speed ground
transportation applauded the excellent blue print for the deployment of
Maglev laid out in Section 1218 of TEA 21. This section provides a
balanced and efficient program for states and localities to identify
corridors that could implement Maglev technology. The funds that were
allocated for preconstruction planning activities will provide the
technical and economic basis for Maglev deployment in the United
States. The legislators responsible for Section 1218 provided
sufficient funds to allow for the further study of already identified
corridors that demonstrate commercial feasibility.
I emphatically disagree with the Administration proposal to
reallocate $20 million from the Maglev preconstruction activities to
other purposes. The role of the Federal government in transportation
has always been to provide the foundation for emerging modes.
The National Highway System Bill directed the Secretary of
Transportation to select an eight-person committee to study near term
applications of Maglev. In 1997 the Maglev Study Advisory Committee
(MSAC) was impaneled with the charge to make a recommendation to the
Secretary of Transportation based on their findings. After studying the
issue, the Maglev Study Advisory Committee strongly recommended to
Secretary Slater that he support funding for a Maglev deployment
program.
In their research, the Committee found that every major mode has
had significant support from the federal government. I would like to
quote from their letter to Secretary Slater:
``Transportation in American has always been essentially
privatized, much more so than in other nations of the world. Yet the
national government has been the facilitator or builder of the
infrastructure for every major mode:
--``construction and maintenance of the inland waterways,
--``eminent domain power and land grants for railroads, federal aid
highway program (with federal shares of 75 percent, 80 percent
and finally, for the Interstate program, 90 percent),
--``airport improvement program and provision of the airways created
by the air traffic control system.
``Though these programs have each supported a different mode, and
though they are different in many respects, they bear several important
similarities. In each instance:
--``The federal program was a response to transportation needs unmet
by existing transportation modes.
--``The federal program catalyzed--in fact, was the sine qua non
for--development of a new mode.
--``The new mode, in addition to improving the nation's
transportation system, was itself a source of major economic
development and job creation.
--``The federal program was designed to allow for substantial private
participation, generally private operation of the means of
conveyance.
``Over and over again, the combination of federal leadership and
private sector energy and creativity has produced efficient and
technologically advanced transportation systems. That superior level of
transportation has been a critical underpinning of the vigorous
American economy.''
The Maglev Study Advisory Committee hit upon several key items this
Appropriations Committee should particularly note: (1) all other modes
have received federal support; and (2) the federal government has
always taken it as a responsibility to step in when transportation
needs are not met by existing modes.
Despite the huge investment in roads, rail and air transportation,
congestion nationally is at an all time high and increasing. Looking at
only at highway congestion, the cost is $74 billion annually in lost
time. Add to that the cost of six billion gallons of fuel wasted. The
Maglev Study Advisory Committee advised Secretary Slater it is time for
the introduction of a new transportation mode. Only a truly intermodal
system that includes Maglev can deal with the congestion problem. The
introduction of Maglev must be accompanied with the same type of
federal investment accorded all the other modes.
To ignore the Committee's recommendation raises serious questions.
Can our country afford not to invest in Maglev? Can we afford to
continue the drain on our resources caused by congestion? Can we afford
to lose the billions of gallons of gas each year from cars stuck in
traffic while we are increasing the amount of oil imported? Can we
afford to become excessively dependent on foreign fuel?
Many states like Maryland are looking seriously at issues caused by
sprawl. Sprawl is creating livability issues that are now forcing local
governments to rethink how the local transportation budget is
allocated. Can the federal government afford to ignore the
environmental and fiscal cost attributed to sprawl?
Maryland has many reasons for supporting the development of a
regional Maglev system. One is the reduction of traffic congestion and
air pollution. The entire Northeast corridor is faced with a great
challenge in meeting air quality standards. With the population density
in this area, it is mandatory that a new, safe, efficient, very fast
system be implemented. That system, however, must also help to reduce
pollution and improve air quality by removing autos from the road.
Released in 1994, the ``Baltimore-Washington Corridor Magnetic
Levitation Feasibility Study'' predicted 9,000 cars would be removed
from the daily traffic flow. It is anticipated that with Maglev
preconstruction planning funds, we will be able to perform a more
thorough analysis of the economic and societal benefits of a Maglev
serving the Baltimore to Washington, DC market.
Maglev Maryland represents just one project among a field of
projects competing for the preconstruction planning funds in the Maglev
Deployment Program. In response to the call for proposals, the Federal
Railroad Administration received applications from Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Nevada, California, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia,
Virginia, and Colorado. The specific proposals came from:
--Maryland DOT for 40-mile system linking Baltimore to Washington, DC
--Port Authority of Allegheny County for 45-mile line linking
Pittsburgh Airport with the City of Pittsburgh and eastern
suburbs
--California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission for 42 mile system
that would eventually span 269 miles to link Las Vegas to
Anaheim
--Southern California Association of Governments for 70 to 75-mile
system connecting Los Angeles International Airport to March
Air Force Base
--Florida DOT for 20 mile route connecting Port Canaveral to the
Space Coast Regional Airport in Titusville
--City of Birmingham, Alabama for 160 mile corridor between
Birmingham and Atlanta, Georgia
--University of Alabama, Huntsville for initial state of Huntsville
and Decatur
--Atlanta Regional Commission for 40 mile portion of the 110 mile I-
75 corridor between Atlanta and Chattanooga
--Commonwealth of Virginia for a system connection Hampton Roads and
Richmond
--Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority for initial stage
of 160 mile system between Denver Airport and Eagle County
Regional Airport along I-70 corridor
Across the country there is a growing number of regions that have
seen the potential for Maglev as a transportation mode that can reduce
congestion, pollution and dependence on foreign oil. At the same time,
Maglev can be a great tool for economic development and job creation.
It should also be noted that proposed Maglev projects have taken
very seriously the notion of a public/private partnership. Speaking
only for the Maryland project, it represents a significant local
investment. Maryland received federal funds for the initial feasibility
study through ISTEA that were matched locally. Since then, other
studies have been funded entirely with local funds. Today, the local
public and private investment in the Maryland project is over 12 times
the federal investment and totals millions of dollars. One-half of the
total comes from private sources. It is not only the promise of
improved transportation, but also the economic development potential of
Maglev that has spurred private support for Maglev projects.
Now is not the time to short circuit this program. Two federal
studies have recommended our country proceed with Maglev. TEA 21
provides an excellent framework for the Maglev Deployment Program. Very
shortly, the Federal Railroad Administration will announce the projects
selected for further funding. To assess the true costs and benefits
associated with the Maglev projects, we must have the full funding
outlined in Section 1218. It is not possible for either the federal or
local government to make an informed decision without the next level of
study. More precise analysis of specific projects is the only way to
provide everyone with the information necessary to make important
transportation investment decisions. I urge you to preserve the $20
million included in the Maglev Deployment Plan for fiscal year 200.
______
Prepared Statement of Ross B. Capon, Executive Director, National
Association of Railroad Passengers
amtrak and high speed rail appropriations for fiscal year 2000
Thank you for the opportunity to file this statement. Our non-
partisan Association-whose members are individuals-has worked since
1967 towards development of a modern rail passenger network in the U.S.
summary
We support the $571 million request President Clinton has submitted
for the Amtrak account. This is consistent with Amtrak's business plan
and is what Administrator Molitoris promised in testimony a year ago.
We support full funding of high speed rail authorizations,
including a total of $44 million authorized for fiscal year 1998 and
1999 but never appropriated.
We support giving states the right to use their flexible gasoline-
tax funds for intercity passenger rail, consistent with the Senate-
passed versions of both ISTEA (1991) and TEA-21 (1998), and with what
Vermont alone was given last year (omnibus bill).
Usage of Amtrak trains is growing for the third straight year and
revenues for the fourth straight year.
1. The ``Consensus'' Amtrak Budget Request: $571 Million
This is $38 million (6 percent) below the current level. We
appreciate that Congress, responding to the Administration's premature
declaration of an end to operating grants, gave Amtrak the flexibility
to spend its ``capital'' appropriation on maintenance of equipment. We
join with the Administration in supporting Amtrak's request that this
flexibility be extended to maintenance of way and continued for
maintenance of equipment, both at least through fiscal year 2002,
consistent with the allowed use of Federal Transit Administration
capital funds.
2. Developing Air-competitive High Speed Corridors
Nationwide corridor investments improve the economics of Amtrak
trains using these corridors, and help Amtrak improve its bottom line.
These improvements increase the abilities of the affected services to:
--expand transportation capacity where parallel road and air
facilities are at or approaching capacity;
--give travelers an attractive way to avoid congested road and air
facilities;
--realize ``synergistic'' benefits by feeding passengers to local
transit;
--help revitalize urban downtown areas around stations; and
--provide environmental benefits.
Corridor work also benefits long-distance trains by giving them
better connections (and by speeding up those long-distance trains that
use corridor tracks). Last but by no means least, much corridor work
improves safety at railroad/highway grade crossings, in some cases by
eliminating the crossing. This improves safety and reliability for
trains (including commuter and freight trains) and for motor vehicles.
Indeed, as the table on page three shows, TEA-21 authorized $15 million
a year in ``non-guaranteed'' funds for hazard elimination work on
designated high-speed corridors, now including Mobile-New Orleans-
Houston and Birmingham-Meridian-New Orleans. The recent Illinois
tragedy underlines the importance of fully funding the hazard
elimination appropriation.
Amtrak Funds.--Amtrak has earmarked a significant portion of its
Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) capital funds to upgrade air-competitive
corridors. Some examples of funds already committed outside the
Northeast Corridor are shown below.
On January 28, 1999, Amtrak announced a $25 million commitment to
projects aimed at improving speeds and facilities for Midwest corridor
trains, including:
--$5 million for a demonstration next year of ``modern, premium
trains and technology,'' involving equipment capable of 110
mph.
--$5 million towards the ``Grand Crossing'' connection on Chicago's
south side that would significantly improve running-times on
links both to Indianapolis-Cincinnati and Champaign-Carbondale-
Memphis-Jackson-New Orleans. [Chicago-Cincinnati and Chicago-
Carbondale both are part of the Midwest Regional Rail
Initiative; also, Secretary Slater has designated the former as
a high speed corridor.]
--$2 million towards the St. Louis intermodal terminal, which also
will serve the successful light rail line. We eagerly await the
Amtrak ridership increase that should result from replacement
of the isolated, 20+ year-old ``temporary'' Amtrak station.
--$2 million towards returning Amtrak to the impressive Kansas City
Union Station from today's low-profile facility that Amtrak
President Tom Downs said made Amtrak the proverbial ``troll
under the bridge.''
--$1.5 million for Chicago-Detroit preliminary design and
engineering.
--$1 million towards modernizing the Milwaukee station, which the
January 15 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel termed ``shabby'' and
``outdated.''
Earlier, on February 18, 1998, Amtrak announced an order for eight
new San Diegan train-sets of five cars each. This $100-million order is
the largest-ever investment by Amtrak in California. The cars will be
financed, but Amtrak is avoiding interest costs during construction by
temporarily using TRA funds.
Federal ``High speed rail'' funds.--Continued federal high speed
rail funding will be vital if we are to fully realize the benefits of
Amtrak's investments in new rolling stock, stations and connections.
There are substantial needs for improving tracks, signals and grade-
crossings to permit increased track speeds.
The high-speed program has--or should have--three parts (see also
table below):
(1) Planning is authorized at $10 million a year fiscal year 1998-
2001. We favor $30 million for fiscal year 2000 ($10 million each
authorized for fiscal year 1998, 1999 and 2000).
(2) Hazard elimination, which TEA-21 authorizes at $15 million a
year fiscal year 1999-2001. We support $30 million for fiscal year
2000, including $15 million authorized for fiscal year 1999. [This is
in addition to $5.25 million a year in ``guaranteed'' trust fund
dollars.]
(3) Next Generation (technology improvements) are authorized at $25
million a year fiscal year 1998-2001. We support $34 million for fiscal
year 2000, including a total of $9 million authorized for fiscal 1998
and 1999.
The result: total request for fiscal year 2000 of $94 million in
appropriated funds ($44 million in prior-year authorizations as yet not
appropriated).
HIGH SPEED PROGRAM--CURRENT, CLINTON BUDGET, OUR REQUEST
[In millions of dollars] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- NARP request
1999 Actual 2000 Clinton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning........................................................ [zero] [zero] 30.000
Hazard-Elimination.............................................. [zero] 15.000 (RABA) 30.000
``Guaranteed'' Hazard-Elimination............................... 5.250 5.250 5.250
Next Generation................................................. 24.000 32.000 (20.000 34.000
RABA)
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 29.250 52.250 99.250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also page 4: first paragraph, and note after table.]
In general, federal funding encourages states to invest in highways
and aviation and discourages rail investments. Federal passenger-rail
planning money keyed to state matches might be particularly effective
in correcting this problem.
We would strongly support any request you receive for funding [not
at Amtrak's expense] to continue work on the North Station-South
Station Rail Link in Boston. This link is needed to dramatically
improve the efficiency and usefulness of the local commuter-rail
network, the planned Boston-New Hampshire-Maine Amtrak service and all
Amtrak service to Boston including the forthcoming high-speed
trainsets.
3. ``Excess'' Gasoline Tax Revenues, a.k.a. ``Revenue-Aligned Budget
Authority'' (RABA), and the Aviation Investment Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR-21)
We strongly support the Administration's proposal to devote a
significant proportion of RABA to rail projects, transit and the
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program. Except for $12 million in
``Next Generation'' work, the Administration's entire high-speed rail
request is RABA. We think this is good policy, but we know it is
controversial in Congress, even though the hazard-elimination program
certainly benefits highways. We also strongly oppose the sharp cut in
general funds going to intercity passenger rail (table below).
GENERAL FUNDS FOR PASSENGER RAIL: CURRENT AND PROPOSED
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton fiscal
Fiscal 1999 year 2000
budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak.................................. 609.000 571.000
High Speed Rail......................... 24.000 12.000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 633.000 583.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: [This is an 8 percent ($50 million) reduction from 1999 to 2000.
In both tables, we show the Fiscal 1999 high speed level as $24
million, the number shown in the Administration's budget. This number
actually includes related FRA salaries and $3 million for the Alaska
Railroad. The technically correct number thus is lower: $20.494
million.]
Particularly in the face of escalating federal investments in
highways and aviation, and the DOT Inspector General's analysis of
Amtrak's capital needs, we think there is strong public support for the
investment levels we are requesting. Our belief also rests on public
opinion polls commissioned by NARP and others which we have cited in
previous years' testimony and which were taken when rail travel seemed
to be in less favor than it is now.
We appreciate Chairman Shelby's initiative in educating colleagues
and the public on the budgetary impact of AIR-21, both at the
subcommittee's Amtrak hearing and in amendment #225 to the Senate
Budget Resolution. This amendment notes that AIR-21 would result in
firewalled transportation spending (aviation, highways, transit)
exceeding total function 400 spending called for in the Senate's
resolution.
AIR-21 contemplates increasing airport improvement funding from $2
billion to $5 billion a year and tripling air traffic control funding
(to $3 billion a year). Outside the trust fund, AIR-21 contemplates
continuation of the practice of funding 30 percent of the air traffic
control system from general revenues. We do not believe AIR-21 serves
the cause of balanced transportation. We consistently have argued
against mode-specific trust funds, which work to insure that
investments continue primarily in the already-dominant modes, and
inhibit implementation of any analysis showing that rail could do a job
more efficiently.
4. Flexibility for Intercity Passenger Rail
Arguably the most serious flaw in TEA-21 was Congress's failure
once again to include intercity passenger rail as an eligible use for
flexible gasoline-tax funds (for any state except Vermont!), even
though the Senate voted for and the Administration endorsed this
flexibility last year. On February 23, the National Governors
Association approved a policy statement endorsing flexibility. We
appreciate this subcommittee's support of flexibility. We urge Congress
to fix this serious flaw in U.S. transportation law.
5. Amtrak in the Marketplace
Travel (passenger-miles) on Amtrak was up 2 percent in Fiscal 1997,
3 percent in Fiscal 1998 and 3 percent in the first five months of
Fiscal 1999. (A passenger-mile is one passenger carried one mile.)
Passenger revenues have risen more sharply and for a longer time: up 3
percent in Fiscal 1996; up 7 percent in fiscal year 1997; up 4 percent
in fiscal year 1998; and up 8 percent in the first five months of
Fiscal 1999. [These statistics reflect only the intercity business, not
Amtrak's contract commuter operations.]
There is an interaction between travel volume and revenues.
Consistent with Congressional and Administration pressure to achieve
``operating self-sufficiency'' by the end of Fiscal 2002, sharp fare
increases in 1995 and 1996 helped the bottom-line but priced some
potential riders out of the market.
In the Amtrak travel declines of fiscal year 1994-96, the passenger
did not abandon Amtrak, Amtrak abandoned the passenger-by reacting to
the Administration and Congressional mandate. Some services were
withdrawn and others made more confusing, and fares increased sharply.
The fact that these problems are--for now-behind us helps explain
recent, positive trends. Growth would be even more impressive if there
were expansion-minded capital investments not limited by the quest for
operating self-sufficiency.
Thank you for an excellent Amtrak hearing, and for the opportunity
to submit these comments.
______
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of William W. Millar, President, American Public
Transit Association
introduction
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) appreciates the
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year (FY) 2000 Transportation
Appropriations bill. On behalf of our 1,200 member organizations we
commend the Transportation and Related Agencies Subcommittee for its
outstanding work on the fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations
bill, which increased the federal transit program to $5.4 billion, $25
million more than the level ``guaranteed'' for transit in fiscal year
1999 under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21).
Growing investment in our surface transportation infrastructure is
critical to the economic well being of the nation as we move into the
21st Century. This principle was affirmed last year with the strong
bipartisan support for TEA 21, which calls for significant increases in
transit and highway spending. TEA 21 authorizes $6.8 billion for
transit in fiscal year 2000 and specifies that the program be funded at
no less than $5.8 billion in that year.
APTA urges the Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2000 Transportation
Appropriations Act to fund the federal transit program at the $6.8
billion level authorized in TEA 21. We strongly support the
Administration's proposal to provide an additional $291 million in
transit funding above the $5.8 billion guaranteed in TEA 21, but
suggest that it be done within the existing TEA 21 budgetary framework.
An assured level of federal funding is critical to the transit
program. It enables transit agencies to develop realistic multi-year
capital programs, it fosters innovative financing for major
construction projects, and it helps to maintain equity between highway
and transit funding. In addition, the budgetary provision supports
distribution of transit funding in a way that maintains balance between
the formula and discretionary components of the program.
investment is being put to use
Across America transit systems are using the additional funding
provided in last year's appropriations bill productively. Transit
properties are wisely performing asset management and maintenance work
on existing capital facilities. Older cities are reinvesting in aging
bus stations and rail systems, making them safer and more efficient.
Agencies are also investing in new transit projects, bus and bus
facilities, and intelligent transportation systems. Projects under
construction include 166 miles of bus fixed guideways, 106 miles of
commuter rail, 63 miles of light rail, 43 miles of heavy rail, 8 miles
for trolley bus service and 9 miles of automated guideway transit. All
of this activity is happening in an environment that involves strong
state and local support.
across the nation transit is making a difference
Transit Ridership at Record Levels
The increased investment in transit is reaping significant returns
and helping transit make a difference in the lives of people across the
nation. The additional funding is helping to fuel increases in transit
ridership. Some 8.6 billion passengers used public transit services in
1997, a 7.7 percent increase over the preceding year. Preliminary
figures for 1998 show transit ridership up again--an additional 4
percent to 8.9 billion riders, the highest in the history of the
federal transit program.
Ridership increases were led by bus systems serving populations
less than 50,000--up 8.5 percent; light rail--up 5.4 percent; and bus
systems serving areas with more than 2 million people and demand
response services--up 4.8 percent. Commuter rail ridership grew by 4.0
percent, and heavy rail showed an increase of 4.5 percent.
This growth in ridership occurred throughout the country. In
Houston, transit ridership is up 9 percent and this is largely due to
the addition of new park and ride lots in suburban Houston. In Kansas
City, transit ridership is growing for the first time in 15 years. By
taking advantage of the flexibility and additional funding provided in
TEA 21 and the fiscal year 1999 transportation funding bill, the Kansas
City Area Transit Authority was able to add 12 new routes and create
two new innovative demand responsive services. These services have
produced ridership increases of 3,000 to 4,000 daily. In San Diego,
ridership is up 13 percent. In the New York City region, ridership is
up 9 percent and in Minneapolis transit ridership is up 6 percent.
These new riders are evidence that the public wants a transit option
and appreciates the federal investment in more and better transit
service.
Transit is Helping to Relieve Traffic Congestion
Transit is also making a difference by helping to relieve traffic
congestion and reduce accidents. According to the 1997 Dollars and
Cents report, 5 million more cars would be on the nation's roads
without transit; 200,000 more auto fatalities, injuries, and accidents
would occur annually; and Americans would spend another 365 million
hours every year sitting in traffic, at a cost to them and the economy
of $19 billion.
Transit is Moving People to Jobs
The additional investment also helps to move thousands of people
from welfare to work. The nation's public transit systems already
provide access to jobs for millions of commuters. Transit providers are
now responding with innovative ways to provide job access for welfare
recipients, including special reverse commute and suburb-to-suburb bus
and van services to match center city residents with suburban jobs.
Nationally, 3 million people have moved off welfare and into productive
jobs, and transit played a big role in that regard since over 90
percent of welfare recipients who must move into the workforce do not
own cars and must rely on public transit to get to work.
--In Hartford, Connecticut, The Greater Hartford Transit District has
added several supplemental transit services to provide former
welfare recipients with access to jobs. These services include
new bus routes, additional late evening and early morning bus
service, vans for small groups and guaranteed rides home in
emergencies.
--In South Carolina, the Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority
has begun operating very long distance trips to an employment
area in another county. The bus trips are offered at unusual
times so that workers can arrive and depart at times that fit
the schedule of entry-level service jobs. The transit system
estimates that the return on every public dollar invested in
their long-distance to work-travel service is 20 to 1.
In Lafayette, Indiana the Greater Lafayette Public Transportation
Corporation provides work-related transportation services for welfare
clients between any points in their county. The bus comes directly to
the travelers' homes and will take them to any employment site in the
country.
Transit and Economic Development
Transit is a $27 billion-a-year industry that employs more than
300,000 people. The additional investment is also helping to create
jobs and spur economic development. Transit investment is a significant
source of job creation. According to a soon to be released Cambridge
Systematics Inc. report, 316 to 570 jobs are created for each $10
million invested in transit. Transit also attracts and focuses new
development by providing needed capacity in congested corridors,
enhancing property values and providing access to labor markets for
both central city and suburban employers.
Transit is Making a Difference in Rural America
Not only is transit helping in metropolitan areas, but it is also
making a difference in small towns and rural communities. A 1997
Transportation Research Board Report found that investment in transit
creates significant benefits in rural areas. According to the 1997
study, a $375 million investment in rural transit by federal, state and
local government produced national annual economic benefits equal to
$1.26 billion--a three-to-one benefit cost ratio. The greatest benefits
generated by transit in rural areas are transportation to employment
and services that enable rural community residents to live
independently.
more investment is needed
While last year's funding increase was very helpful, transit users
from across the country would reap the benefits of additional transit
investment through improved and augmented services. Increased demand
for transit is reflected in increased ridership numbers and the growing
demand for transit services generally. Nationwide, transit investment
needs far exceed the $6.8 billion authorized for fiscal year 2000 by
TEA 21. The Department of Transportation finds that $14 billion needs
to be invested each year just to maintain and improve transit
conditions and performance.\1\ A recent APTA survey indicates needs
equal to $15 billion annually over a ten-year period, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1997 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System:
Condition and Performance; U.S. DOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$38 billion for new vehicles, including 67,800 buses and 51,400
vans;
--$25 billion for new bus facilities including parking lots for bus
passengers;
--$13 billion to modernize bus facilities and equipment;
--$23 billion to modernize and rehabilitate existing fixed guideway
rail and bus facilities, stations, and maintenance facilities;
--$46 billion for additional fixed guideway services that respond to
new customer demands; and
--$5 billion to rehabilitate more than 14,900 buses, rail cars, and
other vehicles to extend their useful lives.
infrastructure needs in response to congestion
We cannot afford simply to maintain existing systems because we
cannot afford to lose ground to traffic congestion. Congestion is
exacting an enormous toll on the U.S. economy. Recent Texas
Transportation Institute research indicates that we lose $74 billion
each year in lost productivity due to traffic congestion.
Look at any metropolitan region around the nation and it is clear
that we can no longer build our way out of congestion. Investment in
critical transit infrastructure needed not just to build new systems,
but also to complete planned networks.
--Right here in our own backyard, the Washington region loses $3.6
billion annually due to congestion. Plans are in place to
expand Metro bus service along the Dulles corridor to link the
Dulles Airport with Washington Metro. Such express bus service
is badly needed because the Dulles corridor is choking in
congestion. We also note that there are plans to extend
Metrorail service to Tysons Corner. However these solutions
will not come cheap and they are only two examples of the
strong demand for additional transit services in the Washington
region.
--In Atlanta, the new Governor, Roy Barnes has drawn up plans to put
in place a regional transportation authority. The metropolitan
area is out of compliance with air quality standards and cannot
build any more roads. In order to tackle air quality and
congestion problems Governor Barnes has pledged to extend bus
and rail services to Atlanta's northern suburbs. Needless to
say, additional local, state and federal funding will be needed
in order to help Atlanta get out of its traffic tangle.
--In Salt Lake City, Utah, officials are working to finish
preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympic games. Yet these
preparations would be incomplete without transit. Salt Lake
officials know that transit goes hand in hand with successful
sporting events. They are working to complete the North-South
line that will open next year and plans are in place to build
an East-West extension that would connect the airport, downtown
Salt Lake City, and the University of Utah before the games
begin.
--In San Diego, California, there is a pressing need to extend the
trolley to serve neighborhoods east of San Diego, a major
medical center and San Diego State University. The extension
would link these communities to rail service going east and
west.
Funds are Needed for ADA Compliance
Additional funding is also needed to help meet compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although transit agencies met
the January 27, 1997 compliance deadline to make paratransit service
comparable to fixed-route service, their ADA compliance capital and
operating costs are as much as $1.4 billion annually for the next
several years. Transit systems need increased formula capital funding
to meet paratransit mandates, meet growing service demands, and
continue their effort to make vehicles, transit stations and facilities
meet federally mandated standards.
Access to Jobs
Funding is also needed to help transit agencies provide access to
jobs. While our customers rely on many services, the fact of the matter
is that most former welfare recipients depend on public transit to get
to jobs. The task is not easy because many potential jobs are located
in areas or during times not easily served by public transit.
In October 1998, APTA released a Welfare to Work Survey Summary
Report that found the addition of new transit services is very
important to the success of welfare to work programs. Frequently
described new services include: new routes to employment locations
outside the existing service area; more direct service to reduce very
long trip times where current service is indirect; service later at
night and earlier in the morning to meet extended hours of entry-level
service jobs; increased service in the opposite direction of existing
peak service; and shuttles from rail stations and the ends of bus
routes to dispersed employment locations.
However, the survey noted that the biggest difficulty for most
systems in implementing these services is funding. The systems have
proposals that would greatly improve welfare-to-work transportation
services but cannot implement them until funding is available.
apta supports funding program components consistent with tea 21
APTA supports funding the respective components of the federal
transit program consistent with the authorization levels of TEA 21.
Program funding levels specified in TEA 21 maintain an appropriate
balance between bus and rail, rail construction and modernization, and
urban and rural transit needs. We also support funding of the Federal
Transit Administration's administrative needs and funding for all of
the research components of the federal transit program including the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).
Through the TCRP program modest federal investments are leveraging
significant contributions from the private sector and paying big
dividends to the transit industry. For example, in a research project
on electric rail vehicles, the federal investment serves as seed money
for involvement by transit professionals and organizations to
cooperatively develop vehicle system and subsystem standards. Over the
18-month life of the project, direct contributions by transit industry
participants will total over $1.5 million--a leverage of $7.60 for
every federal dollar. The standards will benefit taxpayers by lowering
the cost for transit rail cars and replacement parts, and reducing
inventory requirements. The research team has estimated that these
improvements will produce a $119 million benefit from the $232 thousand
federal investment made in the research.
the administration's proposal
APTA applauds the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal to
increase federal transit funding by 14 percent to $6.1 billion in
fiscal year 2000. The proposed increase in transit funding is an
important step forward in fulfilling the promise of TEA 21 and is
recognition of the contribution that transit makes to improving the
social and economic quality of life in communities throughout the
country.
While we support the increase in funding, we urge that this be
accomplished within the existing budgetary framework. APTA does not
support revisiting TEA 21 to change the structure of the transit and
highway funding guarantees. We believe that room should be found within
the discretionary budget category to fully fund the Administration's
request.
Lease Transactions
The Administration budget contains a proposal that would have the
effect of prohibiting public transit agencies from entering into so-
called lease/leaseback or ``Pickle'' lease transactions. The U.S.
Treasury Department has also issued a ruling that would prohibit such
transactions. These transactions typically involve the lease and
leaseback, or sale and leaseback, of assets belonging to transit
agencies, which are tax-exempt public bodies that cannot otherwise
benefit from depreciation on their capital assets (i.e., vehicles or
facilities). The Federal Transit Administration (ETA) reviews such
transactions to ensure that they are tax positive over the life of the
lease, and further requires that the transit system retain effective
control of the leased asset. These transactions have been used by
almost all major transit agencies around the nation to raise revenues
that supplement federal, state, and local funding for much needed
transit capital investments.
We are concerned that the Administration's action could have a
negative impact on transit operations nationwide by precluding the use
of an innovative funding technique that has been used frequently in
recent years. We believe that the proposal would, at a minimum, prevent
investors from taking any tax deductions in connection with transit
assets until the end of the lease term, which would effectively
eliminate the benefit to the investor. It is important to note that
transit transactions represent only a small portion of all such lease
transactions; in our view, their benefits well exceed their costs.
Therefore, we ask the Subcommittee to reject any proposal that would
limit a transit system's ability to enter into such lease transactions.
conclusion
APTA appreciates the opportunity to testify on the development of
the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Act. We urge the
Subcommittee to fund the federal program at the $6.8 billion level
authorized by TEA 21 and no less than the $6.1 billion requested by the
Administration.
______
Prepared Statement of Scott Lansing, Executive Director, Chatham Area
Transit (CAT), Savannah, GA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
submit this statement for the fiscal year 2000 outside witness hearing
record on behalf of Chatham Area Transit. This brief statement
identifies CAT's specific funding needs for fiscal year 2000.
CAT is committed to quality service: We have restructured fares and
routes that have resulted in increased ridership; we are serving the
needs of the disabled community; and we have maintained a fleet of
aging buses beyond their designed service life.
For fiscal year 2000, CAT respectfully requests $8 million for
urgent system needs.
completion of the downtown transfer facility
CAT is most appreciative to this Subcommittee for Federal funding
provided in the fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations Act. The
funds you provided will assist CAT in moving along substantially in the
development and construction of Savannah's Downtown Transfer Facility.
The project is underway, but we lack the final portion for completion.
CAT requests an appropriation of $1 million to complete this facility.
This facility will assist CAT's public transportation responsibilities
in a number of ways important to Savannah. The transfer facility will
aid the commuting public, assist in our substantial tourist
transportation needs, and encourage economic recovery and development
in our downtown urban area.
bus replacement
CAT operates 63 vehicles. Almost 50 percent of these will have
reached their useful life by fiscal year 2000. Although ridership is
increasing, we do not seek funding for vehicle expansion. However, we
need to replace vehicles that have mileage that exceed their designed
service life. These vehicles are becoming too expensive to repair and
maintain. CAT is unable to purchase the new vehicles. As maintenance
costs escalate, we will be unable to maintain service routes essential
to CAT's riding customers. (2) CAT's needs are for at least 33 new
buses, but we believe we can phase in the replacement through careful
marshaling of resources and the conscientious maintenance of our
existing fleet. None of the 33 buses that need replacement are ADA
compliant. Therefore, CAT is requesting $7 million for bus replacement,
which will allow us to purchase 20 new buses with fiscal year 2000
funds. All of the replacement buses will meet ADA accessibility
standards and criteria.
CAT appreciates your careful consideration of this relatively
modest funding proposal.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present the
case for CAT's request of $8 million for Bus and Bus Related Facilities
for fiscal year 2000.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor George Pettygrove, City of Fairfield, CA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this
opportunity to speak before you today in support of the City of
Fairfield's transportation projects. Fairfield appreciates the support
this committee has provided in past years, and we look forward to
working with you in the future to ensure safe and efficient
transportation systems and infrastructure in our City and our region.
First, the City requests an earmark of $1.2 million in the Bus and
Bus Facilities funding category for purposes of purchasing of four
fixed route buses. Fairfield/Suisun Transit operates bus services
throughout Solano County, California, and provides connections to the
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. Over the last five years
ridership has increased more than 20 percent due in part to the
tremendous and sustained population growth in the county. Funding
constraints prevent Fairfield/Suisun Transit from obtaining a
sufficient number of new buses to increase the fleet size and meet this
demand. Buses are overcrowded during peak usage and potential users are
not accommodated, thus missing an opportunity to decrease traffic on
the heavily congested I-80 corridor. Federal bus acquisition funding
would allow Fairfield/Suisun to obtain four additional buses to provide
fixed route service and help alleviate strain on the overburdened
system. Additionally, new buses would help mitigate the negative
impacts of breakdowns due in large part to the age of the existing
fleet.
Second, the City of Fairfield requests a $750,000 earmark in the
fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill (Intelligent
Transportation Systems) to fund the acquisition of an Emergency Vehicle
Preemption System (EVP). The City of Fairfield's increase in population
also is reflected in the significant increase in emergency calls placed
to police, fire, and other emergency response entities. For example,
medical calls alone increased over 58 percent from 1993 to 1998. Signal
preemption is a technology that can recognize an approaching fire or
other safety vehicle, and change the signal to ``green.'' This insures
emergency vehicles always have priority, allows cars blocking the
intersection to be cleared safely using the same green light direction,
and makes all other directions go to a ``red'' signal. Because a
typical call will require the safety vehicle to go through several
signals, total travel time will be reduced significantly. This project
would equip at least 50 of Fairfield's 56 signals, and would equip all
of the City's safety vehicles with the signal preemption technology.
Third, Fairfield requests an earmark of $5.1 to fund safety
improvements to Air Base Parkway in Fairfield. Air Base Parkway is part
of the National Highway System (NHS) network. Air Base Parkway is a
high volume (42,000 Average Daily Traffic) arterial, and the primary
connection between Travis Air Force Base and I-80. It also has the
highest accident rate in the City of Fairfield. This rate (3.3
accidents/million vehicle miles) is more than double the State average
(1.27 accidents/million miles), and over the past three years more than
5 persons have been killed and another 16 sustained serious injuries
from vehicle accidents. The accident rate and severity of the accidents
can be reduced by installing a number of safety related automobile,
pedestrian, and bike traffic controls, improving the street lighting,
and redesigning the intersections including acceleration and
deceleration lanes. Federal funding will be used to these ends.
Fourth, the City requests an earmark of $3 million to improve
access for disabled citizens as mandated by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Since 1990 when the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) was enacted into law by Congress, Fairfield has struggled to
implement its requirements. This struggle is due in part to the heavy
strain on the City's transportation budget in light of the recent and
dramatic increase in the county's population. Many of the ADA
requirements are related to providing basic access to public facilities
and services, including sidewalk and handicapped ramp improvements for
wheelchair users. Although Fairfield has a goal of 100 percent
accessibility for all wheelchair and mobility impaired persons, and has
an on-going program for improvements, many of the more than 1,500
intersections and their approaches remain incomplete. These
inadequacies represent significant barriers to the wheelchair user and
often force disabled citizens to travel in the street and in traffic.
Federal funding at the requested level would speed compliance work
significantly and likely allow the City to complete its work in five
years.
Finally, the City requests an earmark of $3 million to fund
critical links in the City's Linear Park Pedestrian/Bike Path Project.
Over the past several years Fairfield has been developing an extensive
network of bike lanes and bike paths. The ``backbone'' of this system
is the Linear Park Pedestrian/Bike Path. The project is located along
an abandoned railroad right-of-way that extends the entire east/west
width of the City. The planned western terminus is the Red Top Park-
and-Ride Lot at the junction of I-80 and Red Top Road, and the eastern
terminus at the Fairfield/Vacaville train station. Located at the
midpoint is the main transfer point for Fairfield/Suisun Transit (FST).
The requested funds would provide improvements needed for critical
links between North Texas Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. In addition,
because FST's main transfer point will be located on N. Texas Street at
the east end of this project, pedestrians and bicyclists will have
direct access to all bus routes.
Mr. Chairman, the City of Fairfield appreciates your assistance on
these projects. As you know, our city is one of the fastest growing
communities in California. Fairfield's population continues to grow
rapidly, and we continue to attract major corporate and industrial
development. Fairfield faces new and difficult challenges in the areas
of transportation and other infrastructure and flood control associated
with this rapid growth. Your assistance is greatly appreciated on all
of these projects. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Mayor Steve Miklos, City of Folsom, CA
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my name is
Steve Miklos and I am Mayor of the City of Folsom, California. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the City of
Folsom's request for an earmark in the fiscal year 2000 Transportation
Appropriations Bill in the amount of $5.5 million to complete funding
for the Railroad Block Project.
Last year, the Transportation Appropriations legislation earmarked
$1 million for the Folsom Railroad Block Project. This earmark brought
the total federal funding level for the project to $2.5 million. The
Folsom Railroad Block Project is a multi-use, transmodal hub, vital to
the rapidly increasing public transportation needs of the City of
Folsom. The two block area project links commuter rail, tourist rail,
local inter-city and tourist bus, pedestrian, and bicycle movements via
a central plaza featuring an historic interpretive site and the non-
profit Folsom Children's Museum. The project provides a critical link
to the region's light rail system and will serve as eastern terminus
for Sacramento's light rail system on the Highway 50 corridor. The
project encompasses the best components of community planning by
linking together multiple forms of transportation with a high profile
commercial, retail, and tourist center.
The project area consists of a two city-block area in the Historic
District of Folsom consisting of approximately 6.7 acres. Several
points included in the Railroad Block, including the Folsom Depot, the
turntable site, and several pieces of rolling stock on-site are listed
on the National Register of Historic Places for site and structure
status. This project is part of the City of Folsom's broad planning
process to help relieve local and regional transportation pressures
from existing infrastructure and is designed to work in tandem with
other infrastructure improvements. Additional infrastructure
improvements include the new American River Bridge currently under
construction with non-Federal funds, as well as the proposed Highway
50/Folsom Boulevard Project and the Light Rail Extension Project, both
of which are currently under consideration as part of the ISTEA
reauthorization process.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the City of Folsom, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify regarding the City of Folsom Railroad Block
Project. Our community and our region continue to appreciate the
assistance your committee has provided in the past, and we hope the
committee will view favorably our request to complete the funding for
the project.
______
Prepared Statements of Mayor Paula Delaney, City of Gainesville, FL
The Depot Avenue Project includes the reconstruction of
approximately two (2) miles of Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US 441. The
project includes the construction of two travel lanes, turn lanes,
curbs, sidewalks and landscaped medians. Depot Avenue is located
adjacent to the existing Depot Avenue Rail-Trail, which is an 8 ft.
wide asphalt trail. It alternately connects residential areas,
commercial areas, and industrial land uses along its length. The
redesign of the road will address these varying conditions and also the
involvement of the neighborhood residents it serves.
Depot Avenue traverses Gainesville from west to east, approximately
2 mile south of, and parallel to, SR 26 (University Avenue). Its
western terminus is at the eastern edge of the campus of the University
of Florida and its associated student housing development, and its
eastern terminus is at SR 331 in Southeast Gainesville. It skirts the
southern edge of downtown Gainesville at its mid-point, and its
intersection with SR 329 (Main Street) is considered to be the southern
``gateway'' to Downtown.
The Depot Avenue project provides linkages to the Depot Avenue
Rail-Trail that links with the Waldo Road Rail-Trail, the proposed
Downtown Connector Rail-Trail that links with the Gainesville Hawthorne
Rail-Trail, and the proposed 6th Street Rail-Trail. It provides access
to the Gainesville Regional Transit System (RTS) Transportation Center
as well as the proposed Depot Avenue Stormwater Restoration Park, which
is in the planning stages as the centerpiece of a US EPA and Florida
DEP-funded Brownfields pilot project.
The City of Gainesville's RTS Transportation Center is located on
the north side of Depot Avenue directly south of the core of Downtown
Gainesville. The Transportation Center is a multi-modal transportation
hub for the Regional Transit System, Greyhound, Amtrak and the Bicycle
Commuter Facility. On the south side of Depot Avenue across from the
RTS Center is the Old Gainesville Depot, which has been recently
acquired by the City for restoration. The Old Gainesville Depot was
built in 1907, and was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1996. The City of Gainesville was founded as a rail hub
linking Fernandina Beach on the east coast of Florida to Cedar Key on
the west coast in the mid-1800's and uses a train symbol as its
official seal. The restoration of this building in conjunction with the
restoration of the 22-acre Depot Park is expected to provide a major
community destination and regional ``eco-tourism'' attraction for the
community.
The City's proposed 22-acre Stormwater Wetlands Restoration Park
will serve as the stormwater management facility for the Depot Avenue
Project as well as the Central City District portion of the watershed
that is located upstream of the facility. The Old Gainesville Depot
will be located within the park area and will provide for activities
associated with redevelopment in the Depot Area, the Depot Park, the
rail-trail system, and the RTS Transportation Center. The enhancement
of Depot Avenue will encourage increased utilization of mass transit,
bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel and increase accessibility to a
major public heritage and recreation destination for the community.
The enhancement of Depot Avenue will also provide infrastructure
and improved access from downtown and the University of Florida area to
the Porters Community, just west of SR 329 (South Main Street) and
Southeast Gainesville. The Porters Community lies within Census Tract
2, which extends north of University Avenue, and Southeast Gainesville
lies within Census Tract 7. Census Tract 2 is approximately 37.7
percent African American and Census Tract 7 is approximately 75.6
percent African American (Census, 1990). Approximately 35.1 percent of
all families in Census Tract 2 are in poverty and approximately 31.6
percent of all families in Census Tract 7 are in poverty (Census,
1990). The socio-economic conditions of these areas include high crime
rates, sub-standard housing, and lack of services and investment. The
enhancement of Depot Avenue provides the potential for increasing
access to the higher employment areas of Gainesville, including
downtown and the University of Florida, improving physical
infrastructure, including drainage improvements, lighting and
streetscaping, and providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
connect both east and west Gainesville to Downtown.
Along with the improvement of South Main Street, the Depot Avenue
Project will provide for beautification, and encourage redevelopment
and infill in the urban core of Gainesville and its adjacent areas.
This enhancement will provide a region-based incentive for reducing
sprawl development in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area by providing an
alternative east-west corridor to SR 26 that allows for maximum use of
alternative transportation. As a consequence, this project will
increase mobility while minimizing pollution and congestion associated
with the use of single occupant vehicles.
The City's Electric Utility is in the process of designing a
repowering plan for the historic Kelly Power Plant located adjacent to
the Transportation Center, Depot Historic Structure and the Stormwater
Wetlands Restoration Park. The planning firm of Dover, Kohl and
Partners has recently completed a community-planning process held in
conjunction with the repowering project. This community-planning
process included the entire Depot Avenue area adjacent to Downtown. The
City encourages citizen participation in the community-planning process
and actively provides opportunities for participation in the planning
of public infrastructure such as the Depot Avenue Project.
The Depot Avenue Project will include property and right-of-way
acquisition, design and construction activities at a cost of
approximately $18.8 million. The Stormwater Wetlands Restoration Park
includes property acquisition, design, remediation and construction
activities at a cost of approximately $10.0 million.
The consideration of this Subcommittee is greatly appreciated. The
City of Gainesville looks forward to working with you further on this
vital economic development initiative.
ems critical care initiative project
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2000 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for
an advanced body-worn computer system for the field paramedic to use in
patient care, decision-support, communications and record keeping. The
impact for the entire region is considerable, since this county serves
as the regional center for much of rural north Florida's medical care,
disaster management, and criminal justice services. The estimated cost
of the system is $1,000,000, to be spread out over the three years it
will take to complete the project.
The provision of emergency medical services has been highly
developed over the past two decades through research and assistance
from the federal government. Through these developments there are many
advanced life support systems in place, which are staffed with
paramedics. The paramedics operate at the front line of every type of
emergency in which people are at risk. These include vehicle accidents,
fires, chemical hazards, explosions, and terrorist events, up to and
including weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The complexity of
knowledge required of paramedics to perform effectively in this wide
variety of circumstances continues to rise exponentially. Yet,
throughout the federal government there are tools being developed which
have immediate application to overcome the complexity facing the modern
emergency medical system. What is needed is an integration of hardware,
information technology, decision-support programming and advanced
communications technology to support the paramedic in this wide variety
of lifesaving interventions. Although there are various components of
this project in development for other purposes, there is no known
research that would provide a similar system with national application
to emergency field services. There will be applications of this system
for a number of national priorities, including anti-terrorist
operations, trauma treatment, and enhanced rural medical care.
Paramedics in the field normally operate under direction of
physicians at the emergency department. Caring for critical patients
requires attempting to communicate a true picture of events to the
physician. The paramedic must currently rely on a remote physician who
is receiving limited information, to make an appropriate diagnosis and
provide the correct treatment protocol. Yet, within the literature of
emergency medicine there are hundreds of algorithms, akin to artificial
intelligence, designed to correctly diagnose when complete information
is provided in a specific sequence. These heuristic decision-support
algorithms are complex and interact with each other. Computers are the
only effective means to integrate the many complexities these
interactions produce.
Computers could be used with great success in the field except for
two primary shortcomings:
First of these is that the paramedic literally has his or her hands
full with providing emergency care. (S)he cannot stop administering
lifesaving care to enter data into a computer with a conventional
keyboard, nor is the physician who is contacted by radio likely to
either ask the questions in proper sequence or use the computer systems
to furnish proper instructions. Handling hardware demands of a computer
in this environment; outside, in all weather conditions, with poor
lighting and dynamic events occurring, simply adds too much complexity
to using this vital tool. Fortunately there have been recent
developments in wearable computers. These are lightweight modules
designed to fit in a belt-worn pack, which are then connected to a
headset which has an eyepiece video display (which can also be equipped
with a forward-looking video camera to record the wearer's eye view).
The other components of the headpiece are a throat voice-activated
microphone and earphone that allow two-way voice communication either
with the computer or a radio system.
The second shortcoming is similar. Until recently there have not
been speech recognition systems that could reliably accept voice input
for decision-support or recording of vital information. Today, however,
there are several inexpensive speech-to-text and text-to-speech engines
for computers, which enabling direct communication with databases and
artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
For the paramedic there is no transcriptionist. All records have to
be reconstructed after the fact, from memory or from incomplete remote
records from dispatcher reports and third parties. Sometimes a patient
may be under the care of more than one service provider may. This can
happen when a rural facility initiates care and the patient must be
treated by first responders, followed by advanced providers and finally
moved to a higher care level by a third caregiver, such as a helicopter
flight crew. In this environment, the continuity of care may be
maintained, but the records often become scattered, never reaching the
final link in the chain. Incomplete or fragmented records mar most
research into what works effectively in the field with paramedics. The
use of a wearable computer, which is voice-activated, provides the
ideal mechanism to review individual patient care to improve treatment
proficiency, quality and training. The addition of a video cameral to
that recording provides, literally, the complete picture.
There is the another problem for emergency care systems, probably
the most difficult to solve and most in need of solution. When
confronted with ambiguous data, indicative of a number of patient
conditions, the paramedic must rapidly gather and sort volumes of
information, develop a treatment plan and, with guidance from a
physician, attempt to restore stability. There are certain situations
that are high criticality and low frequency. This means that the
paramedic is unlikely to see the condition often, so it is unfamiliar.
Simultaneously, the patient condition requires immediate and effective
treatment for a survivable outcome. A few of these events include toxic
exposures, multiple system trauma, complex rescue situations, and any
other accidental or intentional event which leads to rare but lethal
injuries.
This is a request for $1,000,000 in project development money to
demonstrate a wearable computer system for field medical personnel. It
will integrate available civilian and military technologies. Its goal
is effective information management, field diagnosis--especially for
rare and complex disorders such as chemical toxin exposures or
biohazard exposures--and finally a real-time record of the events. This
prototype will provide the model for expert systems to be placed in
every field medical environment in the nation. In rural regions it will
provide access to the sophisticated support of trauma centers and
specialty physicians. In the urban environment it will simplify and
improve proper management of mass casualty events. These may be rare,
but they require high readiness and complex handling. Such events could
include biological terrorism, chemical weapons, or even significant
accidental exposures to these agents. They also include medically
challenging cases such as thermal burns, poison exposures, and quick-
acting illnesses, which threaten vital organ systems. The federal
government has already funded the research that created the
technologies to be used. There are military educational applications of
this technology in use for aircraft maintenance. There are other
applications in commercial development for inventory and maintenance
applications, which are primarily data gathering or information recall
systems. There have not been applications to the field practice of
emergency medical care--a discipline that can produce an impressive
return on development funding.
The Gainesville Fire Rescue Department (GFRD) is the primary
applicant. The department is a Florida licensed advanced life-support
(ALS) provider for the municipality of Gainesville and a wide urban
area surrounding the city. The total population served is approximately
145,000 with an annual emergency call load of 20,000 emergency
incidents, 15,000 of which are for emergency medical services (EMS).
The department has a Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team
providing training and emergency response to an eleven county area of
North Florida. Except for its home county of Alachua, these counties
are primarily rural with limited critical incident response capability.
In addition, the department provides direct medical response services
for the Gainesville Police Department's Special Response Team and the
Alachua County Sheriff's Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT).
Paramedics who have completed the Department of Defense CONTOMS course
are utilized in this role for support of high risk warrants and
arrests, along with hostage or explosive device crises.
The project will be a partnership with a research team from the
University of Florida's Shands Teaching Hospital, Department of
Anesthesiology. The project consists of hardware (wearable computer,
micro-video camera, digital radio interface); and software (speech-to-
text, text-to speech, heuristic decision support). These will be
integrated into a body ensemble to be worn by field paramedics. Current
medical and operational plans will be programmed into the computer to
begin experiments with field use. This is a demonstration project to
produce one limited use version of the device for continued
experimental development. Results of the work will be shared as
published research papers in medical journals, federal technology
sharing publications, and journals common to emergency service
providers.
This system is expected to greatly enhance the quality of treatment
for critical trauma patients, mass casualties from all causes,
including exposures to biological or chemical weapons, and complex
medical illnesses. The potential for development of future uses is
immense, following demonstration of successful integration. The
benefits will be of national significance by making available a
developed system that can be replicated at reasonable cost. It will
create a standard platform for innovation and development among other
users. The development team will make use of existing civilian and
military technologies wherever possible.
The project will be divided into four phases. Phase one will
involve research into existing technologies and development of a
specification. Phase one will last 6 months and culminate in a document
containing a detailed specification of the device to be developed and
tested. Phase two will be development of a prototype system. Phase two
will last 18 months. Phase three will be implementation and testing of
the prototype and will last 9 months. Phase four will involve
preparation of a final report and recommendations for further
development and integration into EMS. It is quite possible that
industry partners or further Federal funding will be obtained prior to
completion of the project and that further development can continue
uninterrupted.
The total cost of $1,000,000 will be spread over a three-year
period, as follows: Year 1: $338,000, Year 2: $332,120, and Year 3:
$329,880. The results (deliverables) will be:
--A prototype handheld or wearable computer with heads up display
(HUD) with additional components containing communications
software and capable of gathering vital signs information from
monitoring devices, and/or controlling therapeutic devices.
--Medical algorithms for treating a variety of life threatening
conditions and an advisory system as part of a user friendly
intuitive interactive display with therapeutic options.
--Systems to bi-directionally communicate medical information and
allow medical command to and from a remote location.
The system will be evaluated in actual emergency events and the
results published in research journals along with emergency medical
magazines.
Thank you for the opportunity of presenting a unique opportunity
for the design of a nationally significant tool for crisis intervention
and successful lifesaving care. In fact, this innovation will have
international impact as its full potential is realized.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf and the members of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for earmarking $1.5 million
of bus capital funds for Gainesville for fiscal year 1999. To
accelerate delivery of the buses we are cooperating with Hartline in
Tampa to purchase low-floor, hybrid-electric buses with the earmarked
funds.
Second, I would like to bring you up to date on our efforts to
improve transit in the Gainesville area. Our Regional Transit System
gas just completed its best year ever; ridership on city bus routes
increase by 1 million passengers in 1998 to 2.3 million passengers, up
from 1.3 million in 1997. Total ridership, including the University of
Florida Campus shuttle routes was 3.3 million passengers.
To meet the increased demand for transit in Gainesville, we had to
acquire 10 used buses from Lynx in Orlando and 11 Used busses from PSTA
in St. Petersburg this past year. The average age of our fleet of 62
buses is now 10 years old.
This year we are seeking the balance of the funds we requested last
year or $6 million to purchase 20 ADA accessible, alternatively fueled
buses.
We are continuing our efforts with our partners: Alachua County,
the Florida Department of Transportation, The University of Florida,
and the UF Student Government, to enhance bus service in the
Gainesville metropolitan area. The UF Student Government has approved a
doubling of the student transit fee, so that more transit service can
be provided from the off campus student housing areas. Since UF
students are now paying a transit fee, we are honoring UF student IDs
as unlimited use bus passes. The program began in August, and we have
already carried well over 1 million UF student passengers on our
transit system.
Our weekday ridership on all routes on all routes is now in excess
of 21,500 passengers, compared to 12,400 a year ago, and 11,238 two
years ago. Gainesville is making transit work in an urbanized area of
only 140,000 in population.
Your allocation of bus discretionary capital funds to Gainesville
to replace overage buses will help us enhance the quality of life for
our community. We also hope to show that public transit can play an
important role in a sustainable transportation system, even in a
medium-sized city, like Gainesville, Florida.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, FL
the electrowave shuttle
Mr. Chairman and members of the transportation subcommittee: The
City respectfully submits a transportation related program for a
discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration,
within the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill. The
City proposed earmark of seven million dollars will be used toward the
construction of an intermodal transit area that will support the
existing electric shuttle service known as the ``electrowave''. This
innovative and environmentally friendly local circulator has carried
over 1.5 million passengers in the first year of service, operating
only five (5) 22-passenger vehicles at any given time. Its success,
popularity, and charm are unquestionable and unprecedented.
The ``electrowaves'' existing route operates in South Beach, a
congested, urban-commercial and residential area, and national historic
district of Miami Beach, which contains a convention center and is an
international tourist destination. This intermodal, transit project
will provide vital transportation collectors for the area, where
commuters and visitors will have access to parking, information
centers, local and regional, transit services, as well as a usable park
and ride program. The first and largest of these centers will include a
full scale facility for the ``electrowave'' service and its vehicles.
We see several advantages to adopting a multiple transit-site
approach to the intermodal area.
1. These transit sites will be located on existing on public land.
2. They will fit the scale and character of the intermodal area.
3. The transit sites will act as hubs for hurricane evacuation
activities, since Miami Beach is a barrier island; and
4. Multiple transit sites will serve a larger area and more people
than one single intermodal center.
Looking into the future, one or more of these transit sites will
also serve as a terminus of an east-west multi modal corridor--a
regional transportation project which proposes to connect the mainland
expressways with the Miami International Airport, downtown Miami, the
seaport and Miami Beach.
The electrowave program is included in the five year transportation
improvement program of Miami-Dade County and has the financial support
of the City of Miami Beach, the Florida Power & Light Company, and
other clean air and energy agencies.
A fiscal year 2000 discretionary FTA fund earmark toward these
multiple transit sites is critical to the long-term effectiveness of
the electrowave service and its park and ride component, as well as to
a Miami Beach interconnection with a 21st-century east-west multi modal
corridor.
Your consideration is sincerely appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Norma Stanton, Chairman, Dallas Area Rapid
Transit Authority
My name is Norma Stanton and I am Chairman of the Dallas Area Rapid
Transit (DART) Board of Directors. It is indeed a pleasure to submit to
the Subcommittee DART's fiscal year 2000 appropriation request of $70
million for the North Central Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension. The
request is for inclusion in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
portion of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies budget.
The $70 million of New Start funds will be dedicated to the North
Central LRT Extension of the 20-mile DART LRT Starter System. (See the
attached map.) The funds will be used totally for construction
elements, light rail vehicles, and real estate. Completion of the 12-
mile North Central LRT Extension and the companion 12-mile Northeast
LRT Extension (100 percent local funds) will more than double light
rail coverage, to 44 miles, and penetrate the DART suburban cities of
Richardson, Plano, and Garland.
why the subcommittee should appropriate $70 million to dart
Full Funding Grant Agreement approval is imminent.
--DART will likely be the first agreement executed under TEA 21.
--DART and FTA are in the final stage of negotiations.
--It is expected these negotiations will be completed very shortly.
--FTA will then notify Congress of its intent to execute the
agreement.
The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
--The $70 million is needed immediately to meet cash flow
requirements for contracts authorized under a FTA Letter of No
Prejudice (LONP).
--DART has already awarded contracts totaling more than $200 million
for the NC-3 Line Section, 21 new light rail vehicles, real
estate, welded rail and fasteners, special trackwork, the
vehicle maintenance facility, and yard expansion.
--By the end of fiscal year 1999, virtually all the contracts, valued
at close to $1 billion for both the North Central and Northeast
(100 percent local funds) LRT Extensions will have been
awarded.
DART can initiate construction before executing the Full Funding
Grant Agreement because of a citizen-approved sales tax.
--The citizens of the DART service area in 1983 voted to impose a 1
percent sales tax dedicated to DART for public transit.
--A total of $3.18 billion has been collected through December 31,
1998, with $314 million received in fiscal year 1998.
--DART uses sales tax receipts and short-term borrowing to finance
the initiation of construction; but,
--The timely receipt of federal funds is critical to repaying these
short-term notes and minimizing the additional expenses
associated with borrowing funds before receipt of the federal
funds.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.004
DART continues to overmatch.
--The $860 million LRT Starter system was financed with 19 percent
($160 million) federal and 81 percent ($700 million) local DART
funds.
--The combined $992 million construction cost of the two LRT
extensions continues DART's philosophy of providing a
substantial local overmatch, as was done on the LRT Starter
System.
--DART local funds of $659 million represent 66 percent of the total
project cost, with federal discretionary new start funds
accounting for just $333 million, or 34 percent.
Solid elected official and business support.
--Richardson Mayor Gary Slagel, Plano Mayor John Longstreet, and
several business executives from the North Central Corridor
have met with most of the Delegation Members to voice their
strong support for the investment DART is making to bring major
mobility improvements to the corridor.
--DART member cities and service area chambers of commerce have shown
their support by writing letters and passing supporting
resolutions.
--DART, the City of Richardson, Hunt Petroleum, and Northern Telecom
are incorporating a rail transit plaza in the Galatyn Park
expansion of the Telecom Corridor.
DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the state.
--DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state
economies, with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7
billion and more than 32,000 jobs through 2003.
--The new study prepared by the Center for Economic Development and
Research at the University of North Texas looks at three
separate DART economic engines: the current $1 billion light
rail expansion, other capital projects, and ongoing DART
operations.
DART has already demonstrated it can build on time and within
budget.
--DART has shown that it can capably manage a large, multi-million
dollar project, keep it on schedule and within budget through
strong project management and strict cost control.
--DART has proven to be a cost-effective manager of both local and
limited federal funds through conservative financial policies
instituted and approved by the DART Board.
supporting information
Milestones
Two very important milestones were achieved during the first week
of February that significantly impact the status of the North Central
LRT Extension. First, on February 1, the Administration's fiscal year
2000 budget proposal was released and recommended $70 million for the
North Central LRT Extension of the 20-mile DART LRT Starter System. The
$70 million is the largest funding recommendation of the seven new Full
Funding Grant Agreement projects and the fourth highest among the 21
projects recommended for funding.
On February 2, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Transportation
Rodney Slater, and Federal Transit Administrator Gordon Linton informed
Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and DART's President/Executive Director Roger
Snoble of FTA's intent to enter into negotiations for a Full Funding
Grant Agreement for DART's North Central LRT Extension. On February 5,
Administrator Linton was in Dallas commemorating this important
announcement. DART is currently in the final stage of negotiations with
FTA on the Agreement.
Major Accomplishments
DART operates a highly successful 20-mile light rail transit system
within Dallas, and a 10-mile commuter rail line between Dallas and
Irving. In addition to the rail services, DART operates a variety of
transportation alternatives including high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, 130 bus routes, paratransit services for the mobility impaired,
rideshare programs and corporate trip-reduction programs. (See the DART
Capital Projects map.) These multi-modal systems are the result of
thorough corridor planning and implementing the right mode to match the
corridor characteristic and ridership. As seen on the Capital Project
maps, a mix of high capacity systems is being implemented and operated
in the Dallas area. This mix includes HOV lanes that are planned,
designed, built, and operated in partnership with the Texas Department
of Transportation.
The introduction of rail and expanded HOV services, coupled with
bus ridership gains, boosted total annual ridership by 22.5 percent to
85.7 million in fiscal year 1998, from 69.9 million in fiscal year
1997. Weekday ridership in fiscal year 1998 rose to 283,700, with peak
days exceeding 310,000.
Exceeding Expectations
DART's new LRT and commuter rail services are generating ridership
well beyond initial projections, with more than 41,000 passengers per
day. DART rail is generating extensive economic development around
stations and along rail corridors as it increases mobility choices for
workers. Consequently, business and community leaders are actively
supporting efforts to expand the rail system in a timely manner, in
accordance with the DART Transit System Plan. The citizens of North
Texas are eager for DART to complete these major transportation
projects in a timely and fiscally responsible fashion.
Miles to Go
DART's Transit System Plan calls for the development of 58 miles of
light rail, 37 miles of commuter rail, and 98 miles of HOV lanes. The
Financial Plan portion of the fiscal year 1999 Business Plan projects
the sources and uses of funds for DART's projects through the next 20
years. The Financial Plan projects $7.3 billion in locally funded
operating expenses and a total of $4.6 billion in capital costs.
Because of DART's one-cent sales tax, it has been Board policy to use
the local funds for transit operations and DART has never sought or
received Federal operating assistance. Therefore, federal funding
accounts for only 19 percent of capital investments and 9 percent of
overall expenditures. This significant local financial commitment by
DART is shown graphically following the Capital Projects map.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.005
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT 20-YEAR SUMMARY OF LOCAL AND FEDERAL FUNDING
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Amount of
total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local funds........................................... $10.8 90.6
Federal funds......................................... 1.1 9.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DART fiscal year 1999 Business Plan.
Future Vision
With Subcommittee support, DART will be able to improve the
transportation options for North Texas and help the region to remain a
vibrant area to live and work. You may rest assured that the Delegation
Members will continue to work closely with DART to get these projects
funded, built within budget, and in operation on schedule.
As previously stated, the North Central and Northeast LRT lines are
under construction. DART is also looking to the future and is currently
undertaking Northwest and Southeast Corridor Major Investment Studies.
The table below highlights the status and implementation schedule.
PROGRAM OF RAIL PROJECTS--IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open for
Line MIS PE/EIS or EA Final Design Start Revenue
Construction Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central............... Completed...... Completed...... April 1997-.... Jan. 1999 2002/2003
June 1994...... April 1997..... Jan. 2000 (Staged).
(Staged).
Northeast................... Completed...... Completed...... Feb. 1997-..... August 1998 2001/2002
Nov. 1995...... Dec. 1996 (EA). June 1999 (Staged).
(Staged).
Southeast................... Feb. 1998-Late 2000-2001...... 2001-2004 2003 (Staged).. 2005/2008
1999. (Staged).
Northwest................... Feb. 1998-Late 2000-2002...... 2002-2005 2004 (Staged).. 2006/2007
1999. (Staged).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas.
According to a February 1999 study prepared by the Center for
Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas,
DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state economies,
with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7 billion and more than
32,000 jobs through 2003. The study looks at three separate DART
economic engines: the current $1 billion light rail expansion, other
capital projects, and ongoing DART operations. Quoting from the study,
``By any measure, DART is a key economic engine for the North Texas
region, generating jobs and economic activity just in the amount of
money it spends on building new facilities and operating activities. If
we factored in the benefits DART brings by providing inexpensive
transportation to work and improved traffic and air quality, the number
would be even higher.'' The charts below graphically illustrate the
economic and job impacts to the North Texas region.
Five-Year Economic Impact of Dallas Area Rapid Transit's Capital
Projects and Continued Operations Through 2003
[Dollars in billions]
North Texas Regional Economic Activity:
LRT....................................................... $2.3
Other..................................................... $.25
Operations................................................ $1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... $3.7
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Number of Jobs Created in North Texas:
LRT....................................................... 27,558
Other..................................................... 563
Operations................................................ 4,088
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 32,209
Source: University of North Texas Center for Economic Development and
Research, February 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Mobility
DART plays a significant role in meeting the challenging regional
mobility needs. DART's Transit System Plan is contained in the approved
North Central Texas Council of Governments' ``Mobility 2020: The
Metropolitan Transportation Plan'' and is also programmed in the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Discretionary funding.
DART's rail projects relate directly to one of the more important
Mobility 2020 Goals: ``Develop a balanced, efficient and dependable
multimodal transportation system which reduces demand for single
occupant vehicle travel.''
DART's rail program is an integral part of the regional, multimodal
transportation system of light rail, commuter rail, HOV, and roadway
improvements. Elements of the LRT Starter System are also a
Transportation Control Measure for meeting air quality standards in
this ozone non-attainment area.
conclusion
The citizens of the DART service area have invested their sales tax
dollars to implement the Transit System Plan. The $70 million request
is realistic based on the Board-approved DART fiscal year 1999 Business
Plan, which also has been examined by many of the finance directors of
DART's member cities.
As the Subcommittee deliberates the hundreds of funding requests,
remember:
--The Full Funding Grant Agreement is imminent.
--The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
--$200 million in contracts have been awarded.
--DART can initiate construction before executing the Full Funding
Grant Agreement, because of sales tax revenues.
--DART continues to overmatch (66 percent local, 34 percent federal).
--There is solid elected official and business support. DART is an
economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas.
--DART has demonstrated it can build on time and within budget.
These are very compelling reasons to honor DART's $70 million
request that has our complete support. An appropriation less than $70
million could lengthen the project, delay the openings in the very
cities that are strongly supporting this project, and undoubtedly
increase overall costs to the taxpayers.
We urge your endorsement of DART's fiscal year 2000 funding request
of $70 million in order to keep the momentum we have collectively
gained. DART is planning, building, and operating transportation
services now for the future mobility of the region.
______
Prepared Statement of J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit
Authority of River City (TARC)
Mr. Chairman, I am Barry Barker, Executive Director of the Transit
Authority of River City in Louisville, Kentucky. I am pleased to submit
this statement on behalf of Easter Seals in support of Project ACTION.
I currently serve as the Chairman of the Project ACTION National
Steering Committee. The National Steering Committee is comprised of
members of both the transit and disability communities who support
Project ACTION and are grateful for the Senate Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee's ongoing support for this vital resource.
As the Subcommittee is well aware, without access to
transportation, people with disabilities cannot benefit from the
promise of full participation in society that Congress envisioned when
you passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Yet, achieving
the worthwhile goals of the ADA has not always been an easy process,
particularly in light of the tight fiscal constraints under which many
transit properties operate.
Those of us who provide transit services are earnestly working
toward compliance with the ADA and providing the best quality service
to all Americans--those with disabilities and those without. Our need
for assistance and guidance on transportation accessibility issues is
ongoing. This is where Project ACTION plays a vital role. With the
support of this subcommittee in recent years, Project ACTION has become
the principal resource of tools, training and procedures to make the
ADA work. Since this subcommittee established Project ACTION, it has
sponsored innovative research, funded demonstration projects, provided
technical assistance to hundred of transit providers, and developed an
impressive resource center with information on the most cost-effective
ways to achieve accessibility.
Let me briefly describe some major initiatives that the Project
will launch in the coming months. In June 1999, Project ACTION will
host two National Technical Assistance Conferences, one in Dallas and
the other in Portland, Oregon. These conferences are designed to
provide transit operators with every available resource to implement
cost effective ADA compliance strategies. Conference topics include:
--Reducing Paratransit costs by transitioning riders from paratransit
to fixed route service.
--Solving Rural Transportation Issues.
--Ferry and other Water Vessel Accessibility.
--Issues involving Senior Citizens.
--Serving Passengers that use seeing eye dogs and other service
animals.
--Training transit operators to make stop announcements.
--Dispute resolution principles.
This brief overview of these topics demonstrates that accessible
transportation encompasses so much more than just bus lift operations
for passengers in wheelchairs. Project ACTION has developed tools and
resources in all areas of accessibility. These conferences will go a
long way to getting these tools directly in the hands of the transit
operators that need them.
The demand for Project ACTION information is strong and continues
to grow. In the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, Project ACTION:
--Handled orders for 1713 documents.
--Responded to over 1032 calls for assistance of various kinds.
--Produced and distributed the Project ACTION Update to over 10,000
individuals and transit agencies.
--Received 35,942 visits to the Project ACTION Webpage.
In January, Easter Seals submitted its fiscal year 1999 federal
application to the Federal Transit Administration. This document
outlines how Project ACTION will spend the $3.0 million in support that
this subcommittee approved in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation bill.
The increased funding that you provided will enable us to greatly
expand our activities. One new major area that Project ACTION will
undertake is providing assistance to Over-the-Road Bus (OTRB)
operators. Transportation Secretary Slater recently issued OTRB
regulations to bring this industry into compliance with the ADA.
Project ACTION will devote $200,000 to help this industry meet these
ADA requirements, and in doing so, help open up cross-country and tour
and charter travel to people with disabilities. In the near future we
envision some start up problems because of the large number of private
Over-the-Road-Bus operators who are coming under the ADA's reach. We
plan to work with the American Bus Association and a core group of
operators to conduct a needs assessment and to develop educational and
training materials specifically tailored to the unique needs of the
cross country and tour and charter bus operators.
As we approach the ADA's tenth anniversary in 2000, we should take
note of the tremendous progress we have made in recent years in terms
of transit access. The 1998 Survey conducted by Louis Harris &
Associates polling firm for the National Organization on Disability
demonstrated some of this progress. In 1986, 31 percent of people with
disabilities who were unemployed stated that lack of access to
accessible transportation prevented them from working. In 1998 this
percentage dropped to 24. While it is too early to declare victory with
one quarter of the affected individuals defining lack of access to
transportation as an important reason they were not working, we are
clearly headed in the right direction.
Accessibility is increasing all across America: bus fleet
accessibility has grown; rail station access has increased; and most
importantly the disability and transit communities have learned to work
together instead of meeting only in street protests and in costly
courtroom battles. Project ACTION is the singular, most positive force
bringing the transit and disability communities together.
On behalf of the millions of people with disabilities who rely on
public transit and the transit operators working to serve them, Easter
Seals thanks this subcommittee for its past support of Project ACTION.
As we look toward the future, Project ACTION's main focus will be to
continue to find and implement creative and cost-effective methods to
promote ADA compliance and to reduce the rising costs of paratransit.
As the Executive Director of a transit authority, I want to emphasize
how much my colleagues and I have come to rely on Project ACTION for
help in this regard and on all aspects of accessibility. For example,
at TARC we participated in developing Teamwork in Transportation, an
interactive computer-based sensitivity training program funded by a
$50,000 grant from Project ACTION which has since been shared with more
than twenty transit authorities.
On behalf of Easter Seals, I respectfully request this subcommittee
to provide $3.0 million dollars to fund Project ACTION in fiscal year
2000. This funding level will ensure that Project ACTION can continue
to develop and disseminate workable solutions to the most critical
issues facing transit operators as they implement the ADA. We
understand the fiscal constraints under which this subcommittee
operates. However, Project ACTION is a credible, cost-effective, and
creative program that has strong support in both the disability and
provider communities and with the Federal Transit Administration. The
spirit of cooperation would not be possible without the leadership of
this Subcommittee. Easter Seals is grateful for your support and we
look forward to continued collaboration.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas
introduction
This testimony is presented on behalf of the Electric Vehicle
Association of the Americas (EVAA), a national non-profit organization
of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, state and local
governments and other entities that have joined together to advocate
greater use of electricity as a transportation fuel. Recently, the EVAA
consolidated with the Electric Transportation Coalition (ETC), and our
new organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C. is now the single,
united voice for the use of electricity in the transportation sector. A
membership list of the newly combined EVAA and ETC is attached.
the role of electricity in the national transportation system
The Association believes that utilization of electricity as a fuel
source can be an important factor in the national transportation
system. Electricity offers significant advantages in transportation
applications. From an energy security standpoint, electric
transportation presents our nation with an important means for reducing
our dependency on foreign petroleum and increasing the diversity of
fuels relied upon in the transportation sector. A wide variety of
transportation modes--individual passenger and light-duty vehicles;
heavy-duty vehicles, like buses and trolleys; light rail; commuter
rail; high speed rail; and heavy rail services--can be powered by an
abundant, domestically produced energy resource generated from a
variety of sources. That domestically produced energy resource is
electricity.
In addition to diversifying sources of transportation ``fuels,''
air quality considerations are requiring municipal transit operators to
consider the use of alternative fuel technologies as a means to reduce
emissions and achieve air quality goals. For many urban areas, electric
transportation may be a particularly important means to substantially
reduce emissions of mobile source pollutants, including volatile
organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, that are the precursors of
smog. Electric vehicles (EVs) and electric buses, for example, are
truly ``zero emission'' vehicles in operation. They produce no tailpipe
emissions and generate insignificant operation emissions. Also, unlike
other vehicles, EVs are not subject to emission system deterioration
over time and there is no danger of tampering with emissions controls.
The Association urges the Subcommittee to consider support for the
following two initiatives:
1. Electric and Hybrid-Electric Bus Information Sharing and Technology
Transfer Initiative
In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
Congress authorized a $60 million electric and hybrid-electric bus
deployment program as part of the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA) Clean Fuels Formula Grants program. During the fiscal year 1999
appropriations process, funding for the Clean Fuels Formula Grants
program was merged with funding for the bus and bus-related facilities
program. Combining these programs allowed Congress to substantially
increase the pool of authorized funds available to spend on specific
projects. Indeed, Congress decided to appropriate funds to specific
projects and, as a consequence, a sought-after benefit of the electric-
bus deployment program may not be realized. That benefit is information
sharing and technology transfer. Electric and hybrid-electric bus
technology, including fuel cell bus technology, is in the early stages
of deployment and evaluation. Early experiences with some of these
buses have evidenced the need for the technology to mature. Much could
be learned about these cutting edge technologies if transit operators
receiving federal funds to procure and operate these buses were to
participate in a program specifically designed to disseminate and
transfer information.
The Association believes it is important for the Federal Transit
Administration to issue guidance on the implementation of the Clean
Fuels Formula Grant as it pertains to electric and hybrid electric
buses. The FTA guidance would define a set of common criteria to guide
project sponsors who will seek to use these funds. The issuance of
guidance documents for the Clean Fuels Formula Grant program and the
electric bus sub-program would help to focus attention on the jeopardy
to technology development if projects are designated and then
implemented without consideration to standards, common goals or
technology transfer. The Association is concerned that without
attention to information sharing, the value of the program for the
development and widespread use of electrified mass transit will be
significantly diminished.
We have urged Administrator Linton to issue guidance regarding the
electric bus program to insure that some uniformity in bus design and
application is achieved as this infant technology matures. In addition,
to insure technology transfer and information sharing, the Association
urges Congress to provide up to $1.0 million to fund an Electric and
Hybrid-Electric Bus Information Sharing and Technology Transfer
Initiative. Sharing information about operational know-how, mistakes,
and the state of technology could help all entities interested in this
mode of transportation. This knowledge, gained through experience,
should be available to other potential operators and provided to those
public and private entities interested in using these technologies. The
information sharing and technology transfer program should include
those transit operators actually using electric buses as well as other
parties interested in this new form of transportation. The proposed
Electric and Hybrid-Electric Bus Information Sharing and Technology
Transfer Initiative would facilitate ongoing data collection and
dissemination of technical information relating to operations and
performance and maintenance of buses, in addition to providing for
information exchange meetings and potential site visits.
2. Electrification of Airports
Airports are often one of the major sources of air pollution and
noise in urban areas. The frequent idling and accelerating of diesel
and gasoline-powered off-road, airport and airline service vehicles
contribute to the airport pollution problem. Airport electrification
could provide for the replacement of conventional, fossil-fueled
vehicles now used for air-side baggage handling and airplane service,
as well as a majority of the land-side shuttle vehicles, with electric,
zero emission counterparts. The characteristics of airport vehicle use
are well suited to electric transportation technology. The Association
is supportive of efforts to bring the benefits of electric vehicles to
our nation's airport facilities. The Committee is urged to support
funding of projects and programs that specifically address use of
electric vehicles or other low emissions vehicles at our nation's
busiest airports.
The Association believes it is vitally important to fund transit
programs which encourage innovative technological development with
regard to electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, as well as other forms
of electric transportation systems. Therefore, the Association urges
funding--to the fullest extent authorized under TEA-21--of public
transit programs. In particular, the Association encourages funding for
the following:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).--
The CMAQ program provides money, through a TEA-21 formula, to the
states to fund projects and programs that reduce transportation-related
emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. An important, new
dimension to the CMAQ program is the Public/Private Partnership Program
that provides a mechanism through which the private sector may access
CMAQ funding. The Association is supportive of full funding for the
CMAQ program.
MAGLEV Program.--The Magnetic Leviation Transportation Technology
Deployment Program (MAGLEV) encourages the development and construction
of a high-speed rail system employing magnetic leviation technology.
The Association supports continued funding of this important
transportation technology program.
Joint Partnership Program.--Created by TEA-21, the Joint
Partnership Program authorizes public/private partnerships to
cooperatively implement innovative mass transportation projects. The
Joint Partnership program would give private entities the potential to
participate in Department of Transportation programs generally
available exclusively to the public sector. The Association encourages
the Committee to fund this program in fiscal year 2000.
Intelligent Transportation Systems.--TEA-21 created a new program
which provides for the research, development, and operational testing
of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The purpose of ITS is to
solve congestion and safety problems, improve operating efficiencies in
transit and commercial vehicles, and reduce the environmental impact of
travel growth. The ITS also encourages public/private partnerships and
private sector development. The Association supports continued funding
for ITS deployment.
conclusion
The Association appreciates this opportunity to make its concerns
known to the Subcommittee and to submit for the record its funding
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. We look forward to working
with the Subcommittee and the Congress to achieve these worthwhile
goals.
______
Prepared Statement of Julie M. Austin, Executive Director, Foothill
Transit
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Julie Austin,
and I am the Executive Director of Foothill Transit (Foothill) in West
Covina, California. Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit
testimony to this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficult tasks before this
Subcommittee and commend your leadership in determining the allocation
of available transportation resources during this congressional budget
period. We are very appreciative of the overwhelming support provided
to Foothill by this committee over the past four years toward the
construction of our two operating and maintenance facilities.
why this bus capital request?
Thanks to the support of our strong Congressional delegation,
Foothill Transit has been extremely successful in achieving its capital
goals. As Foothill celebrates its tenth anniversary, the majority of
our buses have reached the end of their useful life. Many of our 40-
foot, heavy-duty transit buses will have accumulated one million miles
or more--well beyond the 500,000-mile FTA threshold for replacement.
Our superior maintenance programs are designed to ensure that a twelve
year-old bus is indistinguishable from a four year-old bus. The process
of replacing Foothill's aging bus fleet needs to begin this year in
order to continue this outstanding record which earned Foothill the
designation of a ``national model'' in recent Congressional report
language.
Foothill's new funding request for $10.32 million in Section 3 bus
capital discretionary funding, to be applied toward 66 replacement
buses, will ensure our ability to meet the demands of increased
ridership while maintaining our commitment to quality customer service.
Foothill Transit has put aside sufficient funds from other sources to
purchase 20 advanced diesel buses for service expansion (our total
order will be 86 buses). The remaining 66 replacement buses (including
two hybrid electric vehicles) will require additional funding. Should
the committee give favorable consideration to our funding request for
fiscal year 2000, we will match these funds with an additional $9
million in local funds. This results in a 47 percent local match for
the replacement buses. In addition, Foothill will obligate the funds
immediately, and the procurement process has already been set in
motion.
about the hybrid electric vehicles
Undertaking a pilot project in which two HEV buses will be used in
revenue service will allow Foothill Transit the opportunity to prove
out this alternative fuel technology as a prudent step prior to any
large-scale procurement of alternative fuel buses. A hybrid technology
is desired to reduce engine wear, maintenance costs, and harmful
emissions. Testing a hybrid drive train will also give us a platform
for the advent of the fuel cell in a few years.
Due to the limited ability of manufacturers to produce hybrid
electric/compressed natural gas buses, Foothill Transit's Executive
Board adopted an interim step of ordering new, lower-emissions advanced
diesel buses and two hybrid electric/diesel buses. Foothill's decision
was made after an exhaustive evaluation of commercially viable
alternative fuels. The purchase of advanced diesel buses will allow us
to buy more buses, provide more service, significantly reduce emissions
from the buses currently in service, and meet our goal of continuing to
provide outstanding customer service.
about foothill transit
Foothill Transit started as an experiment and has evolved into a
national model for public/private partnerships, providing cost
effective, high quality transit service. This request for bus capital
discretionary funds is the first request Foothill has made for revenue
vehicle replacement. Our existing fleet of 259 buses has been financed
with Certificates of Participation or paid for in cash. We believe you
will agree from the audited information attached that Foothill Transit
is one of the best investments of taxpayer dollars in these times of
limited funds.
Foothill has established a reputation of providing outstanding
customer service. In five separate customer surveys, Foothill Transit
drivers have consistently received ratings above average or greater by
more than 80 percent of our customers. Customers also rate Foothill
Transit buses very highly on their cleanliness, comfort and graffiti-
free appearance.
history of foothill transit
The Foothill Transit Zone was created in 1987 as a public/private
partnership. It is governed by an elected board comprised of mayors and
council members representing the 21 cities and three appointees from
the County of Los Angeles who are members of a Joint Exercise of Powers
Authority. It provides public transit services over a 327 square-mile
service area. Foothill Transit was initially established as a three-
year experiment to operate 20 bus lines at least 25 percent cheaper
than the Southern California Rapid Transit District (now MTA), with
those savings to be passed on to the community through more service
and/or lower fares. A three-year evaluation conducted by Ernst & Young
showed that Foothill's public/private arrangement resulted in cost
savings of 43 percent per revenue hour over the previous provider.
Providing top quality, cost-effective service to its customers,
Foothill charged only 85 cents as a base fare until July 1, 1997--the
same fare charged by the RTD in 1986. The fare schedule was
restructured in 1997 to raise the base fare by a nickel, reduce the
complicated zone structure, and actually reduce fares for Metrocard
users. Rather than discouraging customers, this restructuring resulted
in a ten percent increase in ridership during the first six months of
implementation. Forty percent of Foothill's operating costs are covered
by farebox revenues (state law only requires a 20 percent ratio of fare
revenues to operating costs).
Foothill has no employees. All management and operation of Foothill
Transit service is provided through competitive procurement practices.
The Foothill Executive Board has retained my employer, Forsythe &
Associates, Inc., to provide the day-to-day management and
administration of the agency. The management contractor oversees the
maintenance and operation contractors to ensure adherence to Foothill
Transit's strict quality standards.
Using this new approach to delivering transit services, Foothill
Transit has been able to:
--Keep operating costs low while putting 96 percent more buses on the
street;
--Increase revenue generated from the farebox by 58 percent;
--Increase service hours by 119 percent; and
--Increase ridership by 110 percent.
All of Foothill's operating funds were provided through bus fares
and local sales tax until July 1, 1996, when Foothill Transit finally
became eligible for state operating subsidies allocated to other
transit operators. Proposition A and Proposition C are each a one half
cent sales tax levied in Los Angeles County to support public transit.
When the Foothill ``experiment'' began, no capital funds were made
available to purchase buses. Therefore, buses were financed using
innovative long-term financing over the 12-year life of the vehicles.
Until recently, Foothill has paid for all of its buses out of its
operating funds. Since fiscal year 1989, Foothill Transit has paid over
$27 million in bus lease payments out of local operating dollars.
Foothill did not receive any Section 9 capital funds to pay a portion
of its annual bus lease payments until fiscal year 1995.
Appropriation of funds for this critical procurement will allow
Foothill Transit to meet its commitment to our customers as outlined in
our Strategic Master Plan. Also, service will continue to be expanded
and enhanced to meet the demand for increased mobility throughout the
rapidly growing San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys.
These funds will provide a significant contribution to continue the
national model that has already been established to maximize the use of
public funds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Please note the attached
charts and tables that illustrate Foothill Transit's success. Thank you
for this opportunity and your consideration of our request. Please feel
free to contact me if we can be of any assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, County of Los Angeles,
First Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA)
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Board of
Directors, as the Vice Chair of the MTA Board of Directors and a member
of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, I am pleased to request
fiscal year 2000 funding for the County's regional surface
transportation projects. I commend you and the Members of this
Committee for its federal investment in the MTA's transit programs and
continued leadership in our efforts to support our multi-modal
integrated transportation network. The Federal Government's investment
in the County's transportation system is critical to the nation and
California economy as we enter the 21st Century.
Over 9.6 million people reside in the County of Los Angeles. That
makes Los Angeles County the nations most populous county and
equivalent to the ninth largest state in the country. We have
approximately 29 percent of all California's residents living in Los
Angeles County. Geographically, the County remains one of the nation's
largest, with 4,752 square miles--800 square miles larger than the
combined area of the states of Delaware and Rhode Island. Los Angeles
County is home to two of the most successful ports in the nation, the
Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. It is also the home of
one of the nation's busiest airports, Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX).
International trade is a major contributor to the area's economy.
The $1.9 billion investment in the Alameda Corridor project represents
a fraction of the investment being made in the region's ports and
transportation facilities. The region looks forward to the completion
of both the Alameda Corridor and Alameda Corridor East projects. Both
projects will significantly increase the efficient and economic
mobility of people and goods.
The federal investment in the region's transportation system has
resulted in an extensive freeway system and wide array of transit
options such as Metro Rail, Metro Bus and Metrolink. This investment
supports the MTA's efforts in providing a transit system that offers
multi-modal transit options for its residents and visitors.
fiscal year 2000 appropriations request
On behalf of the MTA, I respectfully submit the MTA's fiscal year
2000 Transportation Appropriations funding requests:
Metro Rail Red Line Segment 3 North Hollywood Extension.--The MTA
is requesting $50 million of Section 5309 Fixed Guideway-Discretionary
Funding for the construction of North Hollywood. This is the amount
scheduled for fiscal year 2000 in the North Hollywood Full Funding
Grant Agreement between the MTA and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) and is also the amount recommended by the Administration's budget
request for the New Starts Program.
East Side and Mid-City Corridors.--The MTA requests $9 million of
Section 5309 Fixed Guideway-Discretionary Funding for preliminary
engineering, design and environmental work for fixed guideway projects
in the East Side and Mid-City corridors. These funds will permit the
MTA to complete the environmental work commenced with last year's
earmark of $8 million for development of transportation alternatives in
these corridors and should also fund a portion of the preliminary
engineering work on any revised locally preferred alternatives selected
by the MTA Board.
Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Funding.--$15 million of Section
5309 Bus and Bus Related Facilities Program Discretionary Funding will
assist the MTA in complying with the Bus Consent Decree and
implementing the MTA's Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan. These funds
will help the MTA address the significant maintenance and fleet
reliability problems created by the age of the existing fleet which
includes approximately 1,100 vehicles, or 40 percent of the entire
fleet, that exceed FTA replacement/retirement guidelines.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facilities and Bus Technology
Improvements.--$10 million in funding from the Section 5308 Clean Fuels
Bus Program Funding will help the MTA fund the construction of
additional CNG fueling facilities and bus technology improvements. The
MTA's planned bus purchases are all CNG fueled buses. The MTA's fueling
capacity will not meet the needs of the increased size of the CNG bus
fleet. The MTA must therefore, construct several new CNG fueling
facilities to meet this increased demand. In addition, the MTA is
seeking funding for several important bus technology improvements.
the mta's on track
1998 marked a year of accomplishments for the MTA. The Metro Rail
Red Line projects to Hollywood and North Hollywood continued to move
closer to completion. The MTA began implementation of bus system
improvements to ensure that our Metro Bus system is more reliable.
The MTA Board voted to suspend three rail construction projects,
the Board approved its second balanced budget under CEO Julian Burke's
leadership, the MTA's Restructuring Plan was approved by federal
agencies, Congress allocated additional funds for construction of the
North Hollywood Extension, East Side and Mid-City corridors and Metro
Bus purchases, and the agency strengthened its partnership with
Federal, State and local elected officials.
In November, 1998 the MTA Board approved the CEO's recommendations
from the Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis. The plan included $7.9
billion for bus operations and purchases, $3.8 billion for rail/transit
programs and $5.2 billion for highway-related projects through 2004.
And in December 1998, the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
voted to allocate $134 million to the MTA to complete the Metro Rail
Red Line to North Hollywood. The CTC also programmed $151.1 million to
accelerate replacement of aging MTA buses and designated $279.7 million
for the construction of the Metro Blue Line to Pasadena once the new
independent agency develops its own financial plan for the project.
This year, the MTA is successfully implementing its Restructuring
Plan and ensuring that adequate resources are available to meet its
transportation demands. The MTA is also implementing its Accelerated
Bus Procurement Plan to increase the size and reliability of its bus
fleet and enhance the quality of bus service. We are exploring fixed
guideway options to meet the transportation challenges of the East Side
and Mid-City corridors; corridors in which subway projects were
suspended and transportation remains a significant problem.
On June 12, 1999 the MTA will celebrate the opening of Metro Rail
Red Line Segment 2B to Hollywood. This will add five more stations and
4.6 miles of subway to the operating Metro Rail System. The Vermont/
Hollywood Segment will connect the areas of Wilshire Center and
Downtown Los Angeles to the communities along the Long Beach Blue Line
and Green Line corridors. This segment also enables Metro Bus
passengers to connect with the Metro Rail System and the Metrolink
commuter rail system.
metro bus system improvements
The MTA Board of Directors and CEO Julian Burke have made bus
system improvements our number one priority. MTA Board and MTA
management continue to make improvements to our Metro Bus System while
attempting to comply with the Federal Bus Consent Decree.
We are taking the following three steps to ensure that we do a
better job at delivering bus service to our customers:
--we are improving bus fleet reliability through new bus purchases
and better maintenance practices on our existing fleet;
--we are relieving overcrowding by improving and adding service to
countywide educational, employment and health care centers; and
--we are ensuring that our buses run on time through technology
improvements and better monitoring of our service operations.
The MTA has committed over half of its resources to improving our
service. Our fiscal year 1999-2000 annual bus operating budget is
projected to be $670 million. Our plan for replacing more than half of
the aging bus fleet is aggressive. Between 1998-2004, we will purchase
2095 buses, 782 buses or a 60 percent increase. This purchase will
replace over 1,200 buses between fiscal year 2000-2002. The MTA's bus
purchases are second only to New York in terms of the number of new
buses ordered and are 15 percent of the total amount of buses scheduled
for manufacturing nationally over the next five years.
The MTA is also converting 333 unreliable alcohol fuel buses to
clean diesel. A decision verified by a state audit that concluded that
this is both cost effective and environmentally sound. By December
1999, these buses will be providing more reliable service on the road.
By 2004, the MTA will have added 454 buses, 1.5 million service
hours and spent over $630 million to improve service. These additions
are larger than the San Diego Regional Bus System.
In addition to improve fleet reliability, the MTA has increased the
amount of bus service on Los Angeles County streets. The MTA added 9
new lines with over 200,000 hours of new service hours that provides
transportation to schools, hospitals and employment centers. Next year,
an additional 200,000 hours will be added.
As part of the Regional Transportation Alternative Analysis (RTAA),
the MTA looked at the ``rapid bus program'' to operate countywide. The
proposal includes a 16 line ``rapid bus'' plan to improve travel speed
utilizing signal prioritization, low floor buses and limited stops. The
three line demonstration program is scheduled for operation in 2000 and
will serve the communities in the East Side, Mid-City and San Fernando
Valley corridors.
To ensure quicker boardings and transfers, the MTA is developing a
``universal fare system'' throughout Los Angeles County. The MTA has
significantly increased its security coverage by dedicating Los Angeles
Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Departments on Metro buses.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, we thank you for your continued
support and your leadership in resolving the significant transportation
issues in our County. The federal investment in our vast array of
transportation programs enhances economic competitiveness, promotes
regional growth and moves thousands to work, educational, recreational
and health centers.
Support from Congress this year will move us closer to the
development of a balanced world class transportation system for the
21st Century. We urge the Subcommittee to fund the transportation
appropriations bill at the TEA-21 levels. Again, we thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the MTA.
______
Prepared Statement of Patrick R. Judge, President, Louisiana Public
Transit Association
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement to the
subcommittee on behalf of the transit providers represented by the
Louisiana Public Transit Association (LPTA). The LPTA is grateful for
this committee's past support of projects and programs that help
Louisiana's transit riders.
The Louisiana Public Transit Association (LPTA) represents over 120
transit providers in Louisiana including rural providers, specialized
transit services, and the state's urban and suburban systems. The LPTA
is requesting funding for a number of vital transit projects across
Louisiana.
The LPTA is coordinating this statewide effort to assist Louisiana
transit systems in meeting their need for basic capital equipment, such
as replacement buses and facilities. Due to the difficulty in obtaining
section 5309 funding (formerly section 3) for bus and bus related
facilities through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) application
process, the LPTA presents its statement to this committee in an effort
to meet the state's long-standing transit needs.
Before explaining our project requests, the LPTA wishes to thank
the subcommittee for its role in appropriating $11,000,000 for the
$53.4 million fiscal year 1999 request made by Louisiana's transit
providers. That funding will go a long way in helping the Louisiana
transit providers.
The total Louisiana request for fiscal year 2000 under FTA section
5309 bus and bus related funding is $35,700,000. The request is for 9
projects of varying size and cost from eight transit agencies.
Briefly, those requests are for:
The City of Baton Rouge, Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC),
is requesting a total of $2,100,000 for ten (10) thirty-five foot
buses. The new vehicles will allow CTC to begin to replace some of its
fleet originally purchased in 1988. Most importantly, the new buses
will allow CTC to begin to expand its service to seven days a week and
until 11:00 p.m.
Baton Rouge has been designated a non-attainment area under the
Clean Air Act standards. The buses are critical to control costs, and
are necessary to reduce the need for capacity intensive infrastructure
projects in the Baton Rouge ozone non-attainment area. The service
expansion program will also be utilizing congestion mitigation/air
quality (CMAQ) funding.
Jefferson Parish, which funds and oversees two private transit
systems on each side of the Mississippi River, Louisiana transit on the
east and Westside transit on the west, is seeking funding of $240,000
for surveillance equipment. The installation of the video equipment is
expected to prevent vandalism, and help the parish in defense of
personal injury suits. While vandalism and crime is relatively low in
the suburban systems, Jefferson transit recently experienced an
increase in vandalism and personal injury suits.
The City of Lafayette, through the City of Lafayette Transit System
(COLTS) is seeking the remaining $1,000,000 of federal funds needed to
reconstruct and reconfigure a site currently operating as a postal
facility adjacent to an Amtrak station. The Lafayette multimodal
transportation center will serve as the terminal for the COLTS system,
a Greyhound station, and as an enhanced Amtrak stop for the Sunset
Limited. The postal service will also continue to use a portion of the
site. Further, the transportation center will be connected to the
airport via a presently operating COLTS line. The $3,500,000 project
already has been designated with a positive environmental impact
statement and is in the design phase with architectural plans being
over 75 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in March
of 1999.
The fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1997
transportation appropriations bills designated $425,000, $750,000 and
$752,000, respectively, towards the Lafayette Intermodal Terminal
Project.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development,
specifically the Office of Public Transportation, is in extreme need of
another $2,500,000 of federal funding to allow the replacement of 62
vans for both rural and specialized transit providers across Louisiana.
The application for this funding has been pending before the FTA for
nearly four years. All the vans to be replaced are inaccessible under
ADA, exceed the useful life standard of 5 years by 2-4 years, and are
far beyond the 100,000 miles cited as the mileage standard. Obviously,
safety and dependability problems with vehicles of this size is a
growing concern for the rural, elderly and disabled community across
Louisiana. Additional demands for vans are expected to meet the demands
of welfare reform.
In order to meet the increasing demand for transit service in
Louisiana's rural areas, the LPTA is requesting another $1,200,000 of
section 5309 funding for expansion of the state's rural transit systems
by 35 vehicles.
Currently, many of the state's rural parishes do not have rural
transit providers due to the LA DOTD's backlog of replacement needs for
existing operators. In addition, many current rural operators need to
expand to meet the demands of welfare-to-work and other basic
transportation needs as the population expands and ages in those rural
areas. The program would be administered through the existing rural
transit program of the Louisiana Department of Transportation &
Development.
The City of Monroe, through the Monroe Transit System (MTS), is
requesting funding to renovate, expand, and update their aging
maintenance facility in the amount of $2,000,000 for the $2,500,000
project. MTS will renovate the 15 year old facility by adding bays to
be dedicated to conduct cost saving preventative maintenance checks and
to equip the facility with modern and safer equipment. In addition, MTS
is planning to reconfigure the facility to allow for drive-through
capability and space for added inventory. The facility is MTS's only
maintenance garage and the work proposed will make it much more
efficient and economical to operate.
The City of New Orleans, through the Regional Transit Authority
(RTA), is requesting $24,000,000, which represents three years of
payments under its innovative lease/maintenance program approved by the
Federal Transit Administration in 1998. This program allowed the RTA to
enter into a lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing
company for the lease and maintenance of 75 new buses. The agreement
also allows the RTA to benefit from the recent changes that allow for
the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an eligible capital
expense. Penske truck leasing, through the RTA's RFP selection process,
is the lessor of the buses as well as provides for the maintenance of
the buses. The financing is by ABN-AMRO.
With 451 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to
provide dependable service.
In addition, as you are probably aware, the RTA has pending two new
start rail requests, one for the Canal Street corridor project (about
to begin final design) for $91,000,000 and another $39,600,000 for the
reconstruction of the fabled Desire streetcar line (MIS expected to be
complete by July of 1999). Extensive detail of those projects will be
provided by the RTA in separate testimony.
The next request is on behalf of the City of Shreveport and its
Sportran Transit System. Funding is requested in the amount of
$2,300,000 to replace ten (10) transit buses that have exceeded their
useful life of twelve years and are not accessible under ADA
requirements. The new vehicles will lower maintenance costs and provide
better passenger comfort. They will also allow Sportran to expand
capacity to deal with welfare-to-work initiatives for evening service
for late shift workers.
The last request is on behalf of St. Tammany parish which is
requesting $360,000 for a park and ride facility to be located in
Mandeville, a city located within western portion of the parish. St.
Tammany parish is located directly north and northeast of the city of
New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain. It is the fastest growing area
of the region.
The park & ride facility is to be located near the Lake
Pontchartrain causeway and is expected to draw local residents which
should help limit the expansive growth of traffic on the causeway. This
project will be the second park & ride facility for the residents of
St. Tammany parish.
Finally, the Louisiana Public Transit Association urges and
requests that Congress appropriates to the highest levels possible
under the terms authorized under tea 21. The administration's proposal
to increase funding for transit, even beyond the guaranteed levels, is
very much supported by the LPTA. The increases are sorely needed by all
of transit. The LPTA sincerely hopes that Congress follows through on
that promise made within TEA 21 by appropriating to the levels
authorized.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of Louisiana's transit systems.
For your reference, attached you will find additional information
on the transit systems of Louisiana.
summary
New Start Rail, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (formerly section 3)
Appropriations
New Orleans Canal Street corridor project............... $91,000,000
New Orleans Desire Street streetcar..................... 39,600,000
Bus and bus related facilities, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (formerly
section 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal \1\ Local Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge: Ten (10) thirty-five foot buses.................... $2,100,000 $525,000 $2,625,000
Jefferson parish: Surveillance equipment........................ 240,000 60,000 300,000
Lafayette: Multimodal transportation center..................... 1,000,000 250,000 1,250,000
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, public
transportation:
Replace 62 vans (rural & E&H)............................... 2,500,000 400,000 2,900,000
Rural transit expansion (vans).............................. 1,200,000 300,000 1,500,000
Monroe: Renovate maintenance facility........................... 2,000,000 500,000 2,500,000
New Orleans: Lease maintenance program (3 years)................ 24,000,000 6,000,000 30,000,000
Shreveport:; Replace 10 buses................................... 2,300,000 470,000 2,770,000
St. Tammany parish: Mandeville park and ride facility........... 360,000 90,000 450,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 35,700,000 8,595,000 44,295,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts to be prorated should full funding not be realized.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert D. Miller, Chairman, Metropolitan Transit
Authority, Harris County, Tx
introduction
My name is Robert D. Miller. I am Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas, more commonly known as Houston METRO. Last year I made my
initial presentation to you on behalf of METRO and I am pleased to
return this year to submit METRO's fiscal year 2000 appropriations
request.
1998 was a year of continued accomplishments for Houston METRO--
METRO posted record ridership, rolled out a fleet of extremely popular
rubber-tired trolleys circulating throughout Houston's burgeoning
downtown area, undertook a Major Investment Study of transit options
along one of the most heavily traveled corridors in the service area,
and accelerated construction of our Regional Bus Plan projects.
1999, our twentieth anniversary as the Houston region's public
transit agency, promises further additions to the list of successes and
positive changes in the organization's management and programs.
One of METRO's most significant changes was occasioned by the
retirement last December of our long-time General Manager, Robert
MacLennan. Bob was well known to many of you and well respected in the
industry for his knowledge, integrity and pioneering efforts in the
application of intelligent vehicle technology to transit. Replacing Bob
MacLennan was no easy task but I am pleased to report to you that we
were able to entice the person I consider the premiere transit
executive in the nation to assume our chief executive position--Ms.
Shirley A. DeLibero. Ms. DeLibero brings many years of hands-on transit
experience to our agency and a businesslike approach to its management.
In fact, Ms. DeLibero has assumed the title of President & Chief
Executive Officer, which reflects her view that transit agencies should
be run like businesses. Ms. DeLibero is no stranger to the halls of
Congress. She has worked in the transit industry for over twenty years,
most recently as head of New Jersey Transit. This year she also assumed
the role of chair of the American Public Transit Association. As METRO
continues its growth as a multi-dimensional regional transportation
provider, Ms. DeLibero brings a steady, experienced and energetic work
ethic to meeting the challenges of serving the transit needs of the
Houston region as we move into the next millennium.
Let me now address the reason for my presentation and that is to
bring forward METRO's two-part request for fiscal year 2000 funding for
our Regional Bus Plan and our Advanced Transit Program.
Regional Bus Plan--$62.5 million
The Regional Bus Plan, initially adopted by METRO's Board of
Directors in 1992 as the comprehensive public transportation program
for the region, continues toward its objective of implementing
approximately 40 individual projects whose independent utility provide
incremental improvements in facilities and services as projects are
completed.
The success of this approach is illustrated by the continuing
escalation in regional transit ridership and high occupancy vehicle
lane usage. For example, in 1998 METRO experienced its second
consecutive year of record ridership with 111.5 million total system
passenger boardings (96.3 million passengers on buses and 15.2 million
trips via carpools, vanpools and non-METRO buses on our high occupancy
vehicle lane network). Further, METRO continues to provide high quality
service to its patrons with special needs. The METRO Board of Directors
this year authorized expansion of the area served by our paratransit
service from 571 square miles to 780 square miles and the addition of
26 paratransit vehicles to the current fleet of 110 vehicles. When
fully implemented, this will increase METRO's paratransit capacity from
its current 1 million to 1.7 million annual trips.
The Full Funding Grant Agreement executed by METRO with the Federal
Transit Administration for the Regional Bus Plan contemplates a $1
billion program with $500 million in federal funding and a matching
$500 million provided by METRO from local resources. The
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget provides $62.5 million for the
Regional Bus Plan. This amount will fully satisfy the $500 million
federal commitment included in the Full Funding Grant Agreement. METRO
remains committed to its full $500 million share.
Overall, construction of the Regional Bus Plan has been a success.
We have worked efficiently and have tried to minimize service
disruption during construction. We are getting largely positive
responses from our customers regarding road improvement, HOV lanes and
bus facilities. It cannot be avoided, however, that a project this
extensive, consisting of so many individual projects constructed over
more than a decade, would require certain adjustments. These
adjustments are required to accommodate changes in regional development
resulting in a small number of individual project schedules and budgets
being altered. An example of these changed circumstances is the
approval by area voters and the subsequent construction of a new major
league baseball stadium in the Houston central business district. Along
with a City of Houston project to promote central business district
retail and residential redevelopment, the new stadium has required
METRO to adjust a portion of its Downtown Transit Streets project, an
element of the Regional Bus Plan. The relocation of Continental
Airlines' corporate headquarters to downtown Houston and other
corporate and residential development has also resulted in revised
transit service requirements and a corresponding rearrangement of
transit street reconstruction. These are positive changes for transit
and demonstrate the flexibility of the Regional Bus Plan to accommodate
them. METRO has responded to these changes by proposing an amendment to
the Regional Bus Plan Full Funding Grant Agreement to the Federal
Transit Administration--adding, deleting and adjusting individual
projects to meet these increased needs. Approval of the proposed
amendment is pending.
While most of the changes to the Regional Bus Plan have been
positive, METRO has incurred some increases in projects costs due to
design and construction delays resulting from the lawsuit challenging
METRO's federally required and approved Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) program. This lawsuit was completely beyond METRO's
control. When a Houston Federal District Court enjoined METRO from
utilizing its DBE program in 1996, a suspension of federal grant
funding by the Federal Transit Administration resulted. A seventeen-
month stalemate existed until the Federal Transit Administrator issued
a DBE program waiver. During this period, METRO devised a replacement
Small Business Program with a 35 percent annual small business
utilization goal, with the approval of the Federal Transit
Administration. In fiscal year 1998, its first year of operation, the
METRO Small Business Program achieved a 34 percent small business
participation rate, with $39.1 million in contracts awarded. Congress
then provided long-term relief through a specific provision in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) exempting
agencies such as Houston METRO, which are subject to court order
prohibiting compliance with the DBE requirement from having to comply
as a condition of receiving federal transit or highway funds. In the
meantime, however, METRO's design and construction efforts were halted
while design and construction costs in Houston escalated rapidly due to
the vigorous economy, which produced a very active local construction
market. As a result, some project budgets have had to be increased and
construction schedules extended to overcome the delay.
Overall, the total cost of the Regional Bus Plan remains a $1
billion undertaking with equal funding to be provided by the federal
government and METRO. Some projects have been adjusted in scope or
deleted and others substituted to meet the changed conditions.
Projected transit benefits from the changes are equal to or greater
than for the original projects. We look forward to a speedy and
positive response from the Federal Transit Administration on these
proposed changes.
Because the Regional Bus Plan is a dynamic undertaking capable of
positively responding to opportunities for improvement as it is
developed, future events may dictate additional changes as we
transition to the next phase of our transit system development. I can
assure this Committee, and our record will support my assertion, that
METRO will continue to effectively manage these projects to implement
them on schedule and within budget while making appropriate adjustments
as differing needs arise.
My first of two requests of you today is to appropriate $62.5
million for fiscal year 2000 to complete METRO's Regional Bus Plan.
Advanced Transit Program--$20 million
With our Regional Bus Plan almost complete, METRO has begun to
focus its energies on the future transportation needs of the greater
Houston region. METRO's planning to meet the transit needs of the
Houston region beyond the 2010 horizon included in the Regional Bus
Plan is embodied in what we have designated our ``Advanced Transit
Program.'' The needs are great. The Advanced Transit Program positions
METRO to serve a region that is projected to grow in population from
approximately 3 million in 1990 to 3.8 million in 2020, with employment
projected to increase from 1.5 million to 2.5 million and the number of
households to increase from 1 million to 1.5 million. While existing
major employment centers are projected to show modest growth, the
suburban areas are projected to show substantial growth--most in
multiples of their current level. These projections pose challenges to
mass transit that METRO, with the support of this Committee, stands
ready to address.
In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, METRO received approximately $3
million in appropriations for the Advanced Transit Program. These funds
have been applied toward a Major Investment Study which is currently
being concluded. Under evaluation in this Major Investment Study are
various transit alternatives, including a starter light rail line and
high capacity buses, to provide more efficient service in a seven mile,
Downtown-Museum District-Texas Medical Center-Astrodomain corridor
currently containing a number of METRO's most heavily utilized bus
routes. A second ongoing Major Investment Study in a different corridor
is being locally funded. We will continue to work closely with this
Committee to update you on the results of the Downtown-to-Dome Major
Investment Study and our locally-preferred alternative. As with the
Regional Bus Plan, the Advanced Transit Program will incorporate
multiple projects, each with independent utility, which will enhance
METRO's ability to meet the region's varied transit needs.
METRO was disappointed that the Administration's budget did not
provide any Advanced Transit Program funding, however, this Committee
and the Congress have given METRO a solid vote of confidence the past
two years by funding the initial stages of the Advanced Transit
Program. We expect that funding to continue for Advanced Transit
Program development as we move from Major Investment Studies into
preliminary engineering and design of the high priority Advanced
Transit Program projects. I cannot over estimate the importance of the
Advanced Transit Program projects to the continued economic vitality of
the greater Houston area. As many of you have seen first-hand,
Houston's growth as a major business center has necessitated new
transportation solutions to address projected transportation needs.
My second request of you today is to appropriate $20 million in
fiscal year 2000 for continuation of METRO's Advanced Transit Program.
conclusion
As I related to you last year and am pleased to be able to
reiterate this year, METRO's transit program is an increasingly
significant component in meeting the region's mobility needs. The
substantial ridership increases we are experiencing in virtually every
element of our service pose challenges we are most happy to address.
The flexibility of our program permits us to adapt quickly to these
challenges. The federal investment in the Houston region's mass transit
system continues to yield large dividends by effectively and
efficiently improving public transit services. METRO remains on a sound
financial footing and is committed to fulfilling its obligations to pay
the local share of its federally funded projects and any additional
operating costs created by the service increases.
METRO, thanks in large part to this Committee's continued support,
is capable of and poised to move the greater Houston region into the
next century with a first class mass transportation system.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these remarks. METRO is
prepared and looks forward to responding to any questions the Committee
may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Department of Transportation
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year
2000 Transportation appropriations. New York has a truly intermodal
transportation system. NYSDOT has responsibility for a $1.7 billion
annual highway construction program, and a $1.6 billion annual transit
operating and capital assistance program. NYSDOT is currently
implementing balanced multi-year highway and mass transportation
capital programs valued at $24 billion, with each receiving nearly $12
billion in federal and State funds. In addition, NYSDOT carries out
planning, financing and oversight of rail passenger and freight,
aviation and water borne transportation in the State.
New York State has made a strong commitment to its transportation
systems. Federal funds comprise about 40 percent of the State's highway
funding and 25 percent of transit capital spending, making New York one
of the highest self-help states in the nation. Further, New York State
has made a strong commitment to utilizing all transportation modes
efficiently. As an example, Governor Pataki recently announced an
historic agreement with Amtrak to invest up to $185 million in the
State's passenger rail system over five years. This agreement, part of
a larger plan to invest in high speed rail in New York State, will make
investments to upgrade service to 125 mph and increase service
frequency.
Despite these investments, however, New York's infrastructure,
typical of the Northeast, is older than most, very heavily utilized and
in need of modernization to attain the standards of other regions in
the nation. The State needs your continued support in securing federal
assistance, which is so vital to its ability to meet its transportation
needs.
Please consider the following views:
full funding for transportation programs at the levels authorized in
tea-21
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
provides for historic levels of investment in surface transportation
systems, recognizing the critical role that infrastructure plays in the
nation's economic health and growth. Yet even with these significant
investments, vast needs will remain unmet. The United States Department
of Transportation has estimated that annual investments of $46.1
billion in capital projects are needed just to maintain the nation's
highways and bridges and $9.7 billion is needed to maintain the current
conditions of transit systems. To improve these systems to satisfactory
conditions is estimated to cost annually $79.6 billion for highways and
bridges and $14.2 billion for transit systems.
TEA-21 struck a delicate balance between the needs of highways and
transit, guaranteeing that money paid into the Highway Trust Fund will
be used for surface transportation improvements. New York is pleased
that Congress has made this commitment to the nation's infrastructure,
and asks that you preserve the funding structure established in TEA-21,
and fully appropriate funds for transportation programs at the maximum
levels authorized in TEA-21.
full funding for tea-21's transit projects & programs
New York is pleased that Congress recognized the critical
importance of transit to the nation by providing significant increases
in transit funding in TEA-21. Transit provides a lifeline to millions
of riders nationwide each day. Public transportation in New York State
accounts for nearly one-third of all transit trips in the nation. Each
day, more than 25 percent of New Yorkers across the State use public
transportation to travel to work--the highest transit ridership in the
nation. Transit provides mobility to New York's citizens, from the very
urban areas like New York City, to the smallest upstate communities.
Transit is also a significant employer in New York State, providing
employment to more than 70,000 residents across the state.
New York State has an historic and continued commitment to public
transportation funding. New York State provides over $1.5 billion
dollars each year in operating assistance to its transit agencies. New
York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has one of the
most stable funding packages in the country, with capital financing
plans dating back to 1982. The most recent and still current capital
program provides for over $12 billion in capital investments. More than
70 percent of this investment is from non-federal sources. Even with
this commitment, however, New York State will be unable to advance
critical New Start and bus initiatives without Federal support, as
provided in TEA-21.
New Starts
New York is pleased that Congress recognized the importance of New
York's MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East Side Access project in TEA
21 by authorizing a minimum of $353 million for the project. In
addition, TEA-21 designates that this project be given priority
consideration for funds made available under the FTA New Start program.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Station is the busiest train station in
North America, accommodating a train every minute during rush hour, and
handling approximately 140,000 Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road and New
Jersey Transit passengers every weekday morning. Currently, there is
significant crowding at Pennsylvania station, and nearly 50,000
commuters are forced to take two additional subway trips to back track
from the west side to the east side of Manhattan to get to work, adding
more than 30 minutes to their daily commute.
The LIRR East side access project will dramatically reduce crowding
in Pennsylvania Station by providing one seat service from points on
Long Island to East Midtown. This project will increase ridership by an
estimated 109,000 weekday passengers, while saving 5.3 million hours of
travel time annually for commuters. Further, the project will allow
full utilization of the significant federal investment already made in
the 63rd Street Tunnel, and provide a stimulus for economic growth and
development.
This year, New York is requesting $159 million to progress this
project. New York urges you to support this critical project.
Bus & Bus-Related Requests
TEA-21 provides nearly $40 million to support New York State bus
and bus-related projects in fiscal year 2000. These projects will
provide valuable assistance in replacing overage buses, upgrading to
clean fuel fleet equipment, and improving and expanding transit
facilities. In addition to the funds provided in TEA-21, New York is
requesting additional funds to support these initiatives. New York
seeks your support for these transit requests.
Other Transit Programs
TEA-21 created several new programs including a $1.0 billion Clean
Fuels program to assist transit operators in the purchase of low-
emission buses in air-quality non-attainment areas, and the $750
million Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to develop
transportation services to connect welfare recipients and low income
individuals to employment and support services. New York asks that you
provide full funding for these programs, and allow for competitive
selection of grant recipients as provided in TEA-21.
support intercity passenger rail and full funding for high speed rail
programs in tea-21
Intercity passenger rail is a unique asset critical to the mobility
and economic well being of New York State and the nation. New York
commends the subcommittee for its past support of Amtrak and high speed
rail investment, and urges your continued support of Amtrak in fiscal
year 2000 at a level consistent with the Administration's proposed $571
million capital grant. This assistance will help Amtrak continue its
progress on the glidepath to operating self-sufficiency by 2002.
Intercity passenger rail service investments beyond Amtrak capital
assistance are also important. TEA-21 continues several programs that
provide funding for high speed rail projects, including the Next
Generation High Speed Rail program, and the program to eliminate
highway-railroad grade crossing hazards in designated high-speed rail
corridors, which includes the Empire Corridor in New York. New York
urges your support of these programs.
New York is committed to improving passenger rail service within
the State and implementing high speed rail service in an incremental
and achievable manner. As part of NYSDOT's larger high speed rail plan,
in September 1998, Governor Pataki announced an historic agreement with
Amtrak to invest up to $185 million in the State's rail system over
five years to provide faster, more convenient passenger train service
in New York. This partnership initiative will allow passengers to
travel from Albany to New York City in less than two hours, and will
reduce travel times between New York City and Buffalo through
investment in five Turboliner trains and various infrastructure
improvements along the Empire Corridor. Though this Memorandum of
Understanding (MOW) represents a significant investment on the part of
New York State and Amtrak, it is only part of a larger high speed rail
plan. New York is actively pursuing several important rail projects
pursuant to its larger high speed rail plan that are not funded within
the Amtrak MOU.
New York State is seeking support for a comprehensive grade
crossing risk reduction program along the high speed Hudson Line of the
Empire Corridor between Schenectady and New York's Pennsylvania
Station. This program includes grade crossing eliminations, separations
and high technology improvement projects to assist in bringing speeds
to 125 mph and to improve safety. New York State is also seeking
funding for two rail-related studies to further progress work in the
Corridor. These important projects will complement the State's historic
funding agreement with Amtrak, increase safety in the corridor and
improve its ability to implement high-speed rail service.
New York State seeks your support in securing $6.25 million in
funding for these important initiatives.
The New York State Department of Transportation thanks you for this
opportunity to present testimony. NYSDOT appreciates your dedication to
and support of the nation's transportation systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Marc V. Shaw, Executive Director, New York State
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Marc Shaw,
executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New
York. Thank you for having me here today to speak about fiscal year
2000 transportation appropriations and the MTA's needs.
I'd like to set the stage for my remarks by telling you a bit about
the MTA.
The MTA is the largest and most complex intermodal transit provider
in the country, serving a 14 million person, 4,000 square mile service
area that covers two states, 14 counties and dozens of cities, villages
and towns.
Between our MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) and MTA Long Island
Bus (LIB) subsidiaries, we operate 6,000 subway cars and over 4,500
buses. In addition, we operate nearly 2,000 rail cars on the nation's
first and second largest commuter railroads, MTA Long Island Rail Road
(LIRR) and MTA Metro-North Railroad (MNR).
We are also the steward of Robert Moses' legendary triborough
bridge and tunnel authority, now MTA bridges and tunnels, operating 9
bridge and tunnel facilities whose toll revenues from 800,000 cars a
day, help provide stable local support for the operation of our far
reaching transit system.
All told, we carry a quarter to one third of all transit riders in
the country--over 6.2 million people a day--many of whom use more than
one of our modes in their daily journey.
Our annual operating budget is approximately $5.5 billion and we
are currently reinvesting in our systems' capital infrastructure at a
historic rate of over $2.2 billion a year.
Without MTA services, congestion would paralyze the most densely
populated region in the country; another 1.3 billion gallons of
imported gas would have to find its way to our shores each year; the
L.I. Expressway would need 15 more lanes to handle the additional
traffic; the air would be a lot dirtier and regional commerce would
grind to a halt. Given the significant presence of national and
international finance, insurance and general business in Manhattan
alone, there is little question the national economy would feel the
pain.
As you know, that nightmare almost happened at the end of the
1970s. New York's transit system became the national symbol of urban
decay. But subway cars covered in graffiti were just the outward
manifestation of deeper problems that faced a system on the verge of
collapse.
The problems stemmed from a lack of investment--and commitment--on
the part of all levels of government. And while that sobering nightmare
has by and large been erased over the past decade and a half, a happy
ending to the story still lies ahead.
The success began in 1982 when the MTA began work on a five year
strategic capital rebuilding program--the largest non-federal public
works renewal project in the country. Its goal was to rebuild the
critical parts of our system to a state-of-good-repair. It was clear
from the outset that this would take several decades. We are barely
half of the way along the journey.
Four successive five year plans have replaced or overhauled over 97
percent of our subway cars and hundreds of commuter rail cars. We
rebuilt 93 percent of our 700 miles of subway track and dozens of our
468 subway stations. We rebuilt fan plants, pumps, signals and switches
that in many cases hadn't been touched since their once private owners
built them in the early part of the 20th century.
The results are tangible for the millions who use our system daily.
Subway cars now average over 80,000 miles between breakdowns--13 times
that in 1982. Red flag track areas that once limited trains to less
than 5 miles an hour are faint memories. Derailments, which averaged
more than one a month in 1980 are almost non-existant. Three or four
fires a week are now three or four a year.
Rails and ties along the 595 miles of LIRR track that are part of
the nation's oldest commuter railroad have been replaced. And from the
ashes of the old Penn Central railroad's 744 miles of decrepit rail
lines and exhausted equipment, we created the nation's second largest
commuter railroad, Metro North.
We have thus far invested a total of over $30 billion. And while
that may sound like a tremendous amount of money--and it is--with an
infrastructure base estimated as being worth as much as $375 billion,
it is a relatively modest reinvestment.
Despite our many visible successes, the job is nowhere near
complete. We still have a huge agenda of unfinished capital needs to
return our system to a state of good repair--needs estimated at another
$30 billion between now and 2011.
While some of those needs will be addressed with state and local
dollars, we will continue to rely on federal participation similar to
that we've had over the past two decades--roughly 28 percent of our
investment. Let me tell you where we hope to employ federal dollars in
the future.
Thousands of the cars we rebuilt in the early 1980s have reached
the end of their extended lives. Between now and 2011, over $5.2
billion will be needed simply to replace this rolling stock.
We currently have nearly 1,300 subway cars on order for New York
City transit and over 200 rail cars for Long Island rail road and Metro
North railroad.
Stations, one of the most visible parts of our system, require $2.3
billion in restorative construction by 2009.
Shops, car-maintenance barns and depots, many of which are ill-
equipped to care for modern rolling stock must be brought up to current
standards at an estimated cost of $1.8 billion by 2011.
signals that are in many cases more than 50 years old need to be
replaced at a cost of $2.9 billion between now and 2009.
Other parts of our infrastructure, such as the superstructures that
support the subway's tunnels and ELS; viaducts that carry LIRR and MNR
commuter trains; fans that remove smoke in emergencies; pumps that keep
tunnels from flooding; outdated electrical, tunnel lighting and
communications systems, are all expected to cost another $5.6 billion
by 2011.
These are investments critical to greater efficiency, safety and
reliability, and ones that will pay dividends for years to come.
My testimony thus far has concentrated on the investments we've
made and need to make to maintain or restore existing facilities. But
we are also very sensitive to emerging transit needs that make sense
for our service area. The 63rd Street tunnel, a major joint NYCT and
LIRR system expansion, has been progressing in a methodical fashion for
the better part of the last two decades. It is about to begin
delivering on its original promise.
With the 63rd Street-Queens connector, a $612 million ISTEA
authorized ``new start'' project that connects the tunnel to the Queens
Boulevard ``E'' and ``F'' lines nearing completion in 2001, we will
dramatically reduce pressure on the most crowded subway line in the
country. The project, which the MTA overmatched with a 50 percent local
share, is on time and on budget.
The next step is to connect the lower level of the 63rd St. tunnel
to Grand Central Terminal on the west and the LIRR main line on the
east. The MTA's ``LIRR east side access'' (ESA) project, a TEA-21
authorized ``new start'' project for which Congress appropriated $20
million in fiscal year 1998 and $24 million in fiscal year 1999, is
that next step.
For fiscal year 2000 we are seeking $159 million to allow us to
complete ESA final design and move into the active construction phase.
On day one, ESA will benefit more riders than any other new start
project in the nation, saving some 50,000 riders who now backtrack to
the east side of Manhattan from Penn Station on the west side, an
average of 36 minutes of travel time each day. That's about three hours
per week. ESA will also ultimately allow for 172,000 trips per day into
and out of the east side of Manhattan, the nation's largest central
business district.
We are painfully aware that despite significant increases in the
new start funding pot, the number of projects competing for those
dollars has never been greater. We fully believe, however, that even
given the worthy competition that exists, the ESA project will produce
immediate tangible benefits that make it arguably the most attractive.
Based on our past and current record in terms of ridership growth,
strong project management and substantial and stable local commitment,
any federal dollars you could provide would be an extremely cost
effective investment.
There is another MTA system expansion issue authorized in TEA-21--
the preliminary study and design of a solution to the overcrowded
Lexington Avenue line. The MTA has studied a number of alternatives
over the last few years as part of its ``Manhattan east side
alternatives'' (MESA) major investment study.
MESA proposed an alternative that would require new subway
construction along Second Avenue. The next step is to further study the
alternative, including the completion of a final environmental impact
statement (FEIS). In accordance with a $5 million TEA-21 authorization,
we are requesting the full amount so we can move forward with this
effort.
The MTA is also a leader in the industry's efforts to develop new
clean fuel equipment and technology. With your help in providing $10.8
million from sec. 3007, the clean fuels for transit portion of TEA-21,
MTA Long Island bus will purchase an additional 38 buses, making it the
largest CNG fleet east of the Mississippi. We also ask that $9.9
million from the same pot be provided to complete the conversion of MTA
New York City transit's coliseum depot in the Bronx to be clean fuels
compatible. This depot is in a severe non-attainment area and its
conversion is a critical element in improving regional air quality.
In conclusion, we commend Congress for having the forsight last
year to take the steps it did to address the nation's transportation
needs through the thoughtful passage of TEA-21. As this subcommittee
reviews appropriation levels for TEA-21's transit title, we ask that
you work toward finding the resources to fund it at the fully
authorized $6.8 billion level.
We hope that this subcommittee's actions will allow us to continue
to provide a vital contribution to attaining national energy, economic,
environmental goals, and most of all--the goal of efficiently moving
people!
We need your help. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
(NFTA)
introduction
The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) appreciates
the opportunity afforded by the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations to present its requests for
transportation appropriations in federal fiscal year 2000.
The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) is a regional
multi-modal transportation authority responsible for air, water and
surface transportation in Erie and Niagara Counties. NFTA businesses
include a bus and rail system, a paratransit system, two international
airports, a small boat harbor and transportation centers in Buffalo and
Niagara Falls. We take pride in the role that we play in making our
community comfortably accessible and in fostering a vital economic and
job climate.
The NFTA owns and operates the Buffalo Niagara and Niagara Falls
International Airports. These airports are used by 10,000 passengers
each day. The NFTA bus and rail system carries 95,000 riders daily
throughout our service area. NFTA transportation centers in Buffalo and
Niagara Falls serve as the cores of regional and inter-city bus
service. Additionally, NFTA manages various properties in Erie and
Niagara counties which generate financial resources to support our core
transportation businesses.
As the principal transportation resource in the community, the
mission of the NFTA is to serve our customers and the general public by
optimizing mobility through cost effective, quality transportation
services and facilities.
In support of the NFTA transportation mission, NFTA respectfully
requests Committee consideration of the following Requests for
Provisions in Federal Fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations.
project appropriations requested
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program
Continue to provide priority for discretionary fund applications
related to the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center
for safety improvements.
Assign priority to discretionary funding applications including:
expansion of the east concourse of the terminal building, construction
of apron associated with the terminal expansion; and completion of the
circulatory road system at Buffalo Niagara International Airport.
Continue to provide priority for discretionary funding applications
related to taxiway ``D'' at Niagara Falls International Airport.
Federal Transit Administration Bus Capital
Appropriate $6 million under Section 5309 for the purchase of 28
new transit buses. The requested provisions are described in the
following text.
Buffalo Niagara International Airport
NFTA requests continued priority for discretionary fund
applications related to the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo
Airport Center (BAC) for safety improvements. In 1999, the Committee
provided priority to these projects. As background, an application in
the amount of $24,585,837 for acquisition and demolition of the BAC was
submitted to the FAA on February 26, 1999. NFTA requires $13.5 million
from fiscal year 1999 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) appropriations.
Phase I funding in the amount of $7.6 million was awarded from the
Airport Improvement Program on March 22, 1999. NFTA appreciates the
priority provided by the Committee that led to this grant award. As AIP
authorization is extended beyond March 31, 1999, NFTA will pursue the
remaining $5.9 million in 1999. Continuing this background discussion,
NFTA needs $11,085,837 under the Airport Improvement Program in fiscal
year 2000 to complete the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo
Airport Center.
NFTA requests priority for discretionary funding applications
including: expansion of the east concourse of the terminal building by
a minimum of four (4) gates, construction of apron associated with the
terminal expansion; and completion of the circulatory road system at
Buffalo Niagara International Airport. These infrastructure investments
will permit NFTA to continue its efforts to attract low cost air
carriers to the Buffalo Niagara metropolitan region. As background,
individual project requirements and fiscal year needs are as follows:
1. Expansion of the east concourse of the terminal building Federal
fiscal year 2000, $10,368,000.
2. Construction of apron associated with the terminal expansion
Federal fiscal year 2000, $4,320,000.
3. Circulatory road system completion Federal fiscal year 2000,
$2,160,000.
Niagara Falls International Airport
NFTA requests continued priority for discretionary funding
applications related to taxiway ``D'' at Niagara Falls International
Airport. As background, in 1998 the Committee provided such priority
and $1.8 million was awarded from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
for the construction of an extension to the taxiway. Additionally,
$675,000 was awarded from the 1999 AIP on March 22, 1999 to complete
funding for the taxiway extension project. NFTA appreciates the
priority provided by the Committee that led to this grant award. In
support of this infrastructure investment, NFTA needs $832,500 from the
fiscal year 2000 AIP appropriation to rehabilitate the existing taxiway
segment.
Purchase 28 Replacement Transit Buses
NFTA requests $6 million for the purchase of 28 replacement transit
buses. The vehicles will replace buses placed in service in 1986 and
will be used to provide core transit system service in conjunction with
Hublink system infrastructure.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, Chief Executive Officer, Port
Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
submit testimony on behalf of Port Authority of Allegheny County, the
principal public transportation provider in the Pittsburgh urbanized
area. Port Authority carries 75 million public transportation riders
annually within a 730 square mile area through a variety of services
including bus, busway, light rail, incline, and the nation's largest
specialized paratransit system.
As Chief Executive Officer of Port Authority of Allegheny County,
it is my privilege to present this testimony regarding Port Authority's
request for fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations earmarks for
the North Shore Connector and the stage II light rail transit projects,
which are major components of Port Authority's ``Rail 21'' program, and
for the purchase of buses.
For fiscal year 2000, Port Authority is requesting $40 million of
section 5309 ``new start'' funds for the stage II project and $24
million for the North Shore Connector. Port Authority is also
requesting a section 5309 ``bus/bus facility'' earmark of $20 million
to be used to acquire approximately 83 buses in fiscal year 2000.
Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority to continue
modernizing its fleet and ensure the continuation of quality transit
service to its customers.
rail ``21'' program north shore connector
The heart of the Pittsburgh metropolitan region is its golden
triangle, the center of business, cultural and sporting events,
tourism, and government services. In order to accommodate and
facilitate its continued growth and vitality, there is pressing need to
better integrate the North Shore area with the golden triangle by
providing much improved transit service along the downtown's Allegheny
River corridor. This corridor encompasses the North Shore, cultural
district and strip district areas of downtown and is the region's
premiere tourist destination with Three Rivers Stadium (the home of the
Pittsburgh Steelers and Pirates), the Carnegie Science Center and
International Andy Warhol Museum, the David L. Lawrence Convention
Center, three performing arts theaters, and the Senator John Heinz
Pittsburgh Regional History Center all located within this one square
mile corridor.
Within this corridor, there are also significant levels of downtown
commuter parking and private and public development projects. During
the day, a large reservoir of parking on the North Shore provides much
needed fringe parking for the golden triangle. In turn, the golden
triangle provides a significant amount of needed parking for North
Shore events. Providing a better connection between the two areas will
fortify and enhance this relationship.
Development projects in the corridor include Alcoa's new corporate
headquarters and a 240 unit apartment complex, a new baseball park, and
a new football stadium, an expanded convention center and hotel, an
office building, a new theater and parking garage, and accompanying
retail and entertainment complex.
Absent in this corridor are pedestrian friendly and efficient
transportation connections tying together these various attractions and
development projects and linking the corridor with the region's
transportation infrastructure. Overall, improved linkages between the
North Shore and central business district will help ensure the
continued vitality and accessibility of the region's core and enhance
and support the private and public development currently underway in
the Allegheny River Corridor.
The program proposed here is designed to enhance North Shore and
Golden Triangle development activities by coordinating the downtown
area's transit systems with pedestrian, parking, highway and HOV
facilities. A fixed guideway transit connection to Port Authority's
existing light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transit
service to the North Shore area and better integrate Golden Triangle
and North Shore activities including the regional attractions.
A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is currently underway
to evaluate alternatives and recommend a mode/technology and alignment
for the project. The current projected cost of the project developed
during the major investment study (MIS) phase is $240 million.
light rail transit stage ii system
Port Authority's Light Rail Transit System, also known as the
``T'', is a twenty-five mile light rail transit system serving the City
of Pittsburgh and the South Hills communities of Allegheny County.
The South Hills light rail system, part of an extensive trolley
network formerly operated by the Pittsburgh Railways Company and its
predecessors, was acquired by Port Authority in 1964. Between 1980 and
1987, Port Authority completely reconstructed 10.5 miles of the system,
a project referred to as stage I.
Stage I entailed construction of the downtown Pittsburgh subway and
rehabilitation of Port Authority's Panhandle Bridge over the
Monongahela River, modernization of the old trolley line through
Allegheny County's South Hills via Beechview and Mount Lebanon,
construction of a New Mount Lebanon transit tunnel, construction of a
new rail car maintenance facility and operations control center and
purchase of fifty-five articulated and air-conditioned light rail cars.
Also included in stage I was the completion of the 2.5 mile Allentown
line in 1992.
The stage II light rail transit system which was designated a ``new
start'' project in the intermodal surface transportation assistance act
of 1991 (ISTEA) involves the reconstruction of twelve and one-half
miles of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines to modern
light rail standards. Preliminary engineering was completed for the
project in spring 1998. Rebuilding the three lines on their existing
alignments includes double-tracking the Overbrook line, replacing
bridges, stabilizing slopes, adding retaining walls, constructing new
stops and stations, and installing signal, communications and
electrical power systems. All three lines are also to be built to light
rail standards. The project includes the acquisition of twenty-eight
new light rail vehicles, and approximately 2,400 new park and ride
spaces. The current project is estimated at a total of $512.5 million
or $410 million federal share.
bus purchase
Port Authority is also requesting $20 million of section 5309 bus/
bus facility funds in the fiscal year 2000 transportation
appropriations bill to be used toward the procurement of approximately
83 buses. The new buses will replace buses which have completed their
useful service lives and are eligible for retirement by virtue of age
or mileage standards. The buses will be used in Port Authority's
overall route network, which serves 260,000 riders each day, or about
75 million annually.
It is our fervent desire that your subcommittee will continue
increasing the overall level of investment in transportation
infrastructure, which is of national importance. Your subcommittee has
enabled public transportation systems in our great cities, suburban
communities, and rural areas to be rejuvenated. Further, this
subcommittee has helped create an interstate highway system and airport
network that is the envy of the world. Now, it is imperative that all
levels of government continue to develop our transit and surface
transportation networks.
Finally, I want to thank you for your leadership and also the
subcommittee for its past support and commitment to surface
transportation programs, particularly, for those that affect public
transportation.
I look forward to an active and ongoing dialogue with the
subcommittee in the coming years. I would be pleased to submit any
additional information at this time as would be useful to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert H. Tucker, Jr., Chairman, Regional Transit
Authority
Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement to the
subcommittee on behalf of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of New
Orleans and Jefferson Parish. The Regional Transit Authority is
requesting funds to continue the progress of three major transit
projects.
Before explaining the requests, the Regional Transit Authority
extends its sincerest appreciation to the members of this subcommittee
for the support demonstrated towards our requests for the last fiscal
year. As you may recall, upon enactment, the fiscal year 1999
transportation appropriations bill included $8,075,000 for RTA's buses
and facilities from Louisiana's $11,000,000 statewide bus
appropriation, $22 million for the Canal streetcar project and $2
million for the Desire streetcar project. We are very grateful to the
subcommittee for its role in providing that critical funding.
In summary, for fiscal year 2000, the regional transit authority is
requesting federal funding for the following projects:
--$91,000,000 for the Canal streetcar project
--$24,000,000 for RTA's lease/maintenance program
--$39,600,000 for the return of the Desire streetcar
canal streetcar project
The Canal Street corridor project will restore light rail transit
service to the city's most important transit corridor. For fiscal year
2000, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting $91,000,000 of FTA
section 5309 (formerly section 3) new start rail funding to construct
the project.
The project completed the major investment analysis phase in the
fall of 1995 and the environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed
in August of 1997. The FTA issued the favorable ``record of decision''
on August 28, 1997. Currently, the project is in final design. The
prototype streetcar is over 50 percent complete. Construction is
expected to begin in the mid-late 2000.
The total value of the Canal streetcar project, including the
proposed city park spur, is approximately $181 million. To date,
Congress has appropriated $54.5 million towards the project.
The Canal Street corridor connects with 70 percent of the Regional
Transit Authority's 59 transit lines and seven suburban routes. In the
future, the route could connect with Amtrak and the local Greyhound bus
terminal at the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal.
The streetcar's track will be placed primarily within existing
medians which will allow the RTA to remove buses from the currently
congested traffic stream. The EIS analysis predicts 20 percent growth
of ridership over the 18,000 per day currently utilizing the bus
service within the corridor.
In a major effort to reduce the overall cost and scope of the
project, the RTA has implemented two strategies, both during
construction and operation:
First, the Canal streetcar track will match the recently regauged
track of the riverfront streetcar which now matches that of the
historic St. Charles streetcar line. The common gauge will allow the
RTA to use the existing Carrollton streetcar facility of the St.
Charles streetcar as a heavy duty maintenance facility for all three
lines as well as the proposed Desire line. Thus, the RTA will avoid the
cost of duplicating a similar facility. However, a separate storage and
inspection facility for daily maintenance and cleaning of the
streetcars will be built due to capacity constraints at Carrollton.
The second part of the strategy will be to assemble the streetcars
in New Orleans by the RTA technicians and craftsmen whom recently built
seven streetcars for the revamped riverfront streetcar line. The RTA
will be able to save approximately $400,000-$600,000 per vehicle by
taking this approach. Estimates are that for an outside firm to bid on
the streetcars, which are a one-of-a-kind design, it would cost the
taxpayer anywhere from $1.6 to $1.8 per vehicle. RTA approximates its
cost at $1 million to $1.2 million.
As well as building the seven riverfront cars, the Carrollton shop
recently overhauled the entire 36 car St. Charles fleet. This facility
and its workers are uniquely suited to construct the Canal streetcars
competently and economically. Furthermore, with RTA employees
assembling the new streetcars, the quality of the cars will be ensured
by drawing from their expertise maintaining the existing fleet.
The streetcars will be basically replicas of the venerable, and no
longer available, Perley Thomas type that now traverses the St. Charles
line. However, the Canal cars will be ADA accessible and air
conditioned.
lease/maintenance program
As its highest priority request under the RTA bus and bus facility
program, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), is seeking $24,000,000
representing three years of payments under its innovative lease/
maintenance program recently approved in-concept by the Federal Transit
Administration. This new program has allowed the RTA to enter into a
lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing company for
the lease and maintenance of 75 new buses and 100 near new buses. The
agreement will also allow the RTA to benefit from the recent changes
that allow for the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an
eligible capital expense. Penske truck leasing, through the RTA's RFP
selection process, is the lessor of the buses as well as provide for
the maintenance of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
With 446 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to
provide dependable service.
This request will once again be a part of the fiscal year 2000
Louisiana statewide request for FTA bus program funding. That effort is
led by RTA staff and is coordinated through the Louisiana Public
Transit Association. We hope our cooperative attempt will yield
additional support once more to benefit the state's other transit
systems as well as the RTA.
desire streetcar line
The RTA is requesting $39,600,000 of FTA section 5309 new start
funds for the corridor once occupied by the fabled ``Streetcar Named
Desire'' through some of New Orleans oldest and historic neighborhoods.
The major investment study phase began in May of 1998. To date,
Congress has appropriated $6 million of FTA new start funding to the
project.
The proposed Desire streetcar line will allow the RTA to
consolidate a number of bus routes away from the historically and
structurally sensitive French Quarter. The line is expected to improve
the overall efficiency of the RTA system by allowing for higher
operating speeds and shorter travel time for buses now forced to use
congested French Quarter streets. The Desire streetcar will provide
direct service to the French Quarter, Faubourg Marigny and Bywater
neighborhoods which are otherwise inaccessible to regular transit
service. In addition, the line will serve two major defense facilities;
the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center and the Navy's F. Edward Hebert
Defense Complex.
The MIS is expected to be completed in June of 1999.
transit program appropriations
The Regional Transit Authority urges and requests that Congress
appropriate to the highest levels possible under the terms authorized
in TEA 21. TEA 21 includes increased levels of funding for transit--
increases that are sorely needed. The RTA sincerely hopes that Congress
follows through on that promise by appropriating to the levels
authorized.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of the Regional Transit Authority.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Transportation Commission, Clark
County, NV
i. introduction
The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada
(RTC) is pleased to have the opportunity to present this testimony to
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in support of our fiscal
year 2000 funding requests.
The RTC is a public entity created under the laws of the State of
Nevada with the authority to operate a public transit system and
administer a motor fuels tax to finance regional street and highway
improvements. In addition, the RTC is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. As the public transit
provider, the RTC operates Citizens Area Transit (CAT), a mass transit
system that now moves more than 4.0 million passengers per month and
recovers nearly 50 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from
the farebox.
The RTC, acting as the public transit authority, requests that the
Subcommittee give positive consideration to the four projects described
in this testimony. Specifically, the RTC requests funding from Section
5309 (formerly Section 3) in the amount of $23 million for final design
elements and Right of Way and land acquisition components for a 5.2
mile initial operating segment of a fixed guideway system; $2.96
million for transit bus fleet expansion; $5 million for Bus Passenger
Facilities; and $10 million for a CNG refueling facility. As shown in
this testimony, these four projects are essential to the comprehensive
development of an integrated intermodal transportation system capable
of meeting the needs of the fastest growing city in the United States.
ii. community
Las Vegas Growth and Development.--The Las Vegas community is
currently home to over 1.3 million permanent residents. With 17 of the
world's largest resort hotels adding over 32 million annual visitors,
the actual population of Las Vegas on any given day exceeds 1.5 million
persons.
Meanwhile, the Las Vegas metropolitan area continues to experience
explosive growth. The economy of the Las Vegas Valley is characterized
by a favorable business environment, a strong job market, an absence of
a business and personal income tax, and a comparatively low property
tax by national standards. This environment has fostered an era of
extraordinary growth that, since 1990, has fueled the creation of over
175,000 new jobs and has witnessed the influx of over 500,000 new
residents to the valley. Current projections indicate that population
and employment will continue to increase, exceeding 2.1 million
residents and over 1 million jobs by the year 2020. Ensuring adequate
mobility is essential to maintaining a superior quality of life for
residents and a pleasant visitor experience.
The Resort Corridor of Las Vegas is, however, more than world
renowned resorts. As well as a wide variety of recreational and
entertainment opportunities and unparalleled convention and meeting
facilities, it also contains a broad array of land uses that are not
typically associated with the public image of Las Vegas. For example,
the northern boundary of the Resort Corridor includes a substantial
section designated by the City of Las Vegas as a redevelopment area to
which public investments are targeted for urban revitalization. In
contrast, the southern area of the Resort Corridor includes office
uses, health care, shopping and educational facilities (including UNLV
and several elementary and middle schools).
The Resort Corridor covers only 10 percent of the land area of Las
Vegas and it contains over 50 percent of the total regional employment.
In contrast, 93 percent of the area residents live outside the
corridor. Current job densities in the Resort Corridor approximate 56
jobs per acre. This is similar to the job densities that exist in the
central business districts of Portland (OR), Sacramento, San Diego, St.
Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Baltimore. In 1996, of the
4.0 million daily person trips made in the Las Vegas Valley, 63 percent
were commuter trips focused on destinations in the Resort Corridor. The
mixing of land uses coupled with the ever increasing scale of the
community also contributes to the high levels of transit ridership
experienced by CAT. More importantly, the continued rapid growth
reinforces the attractiveness of a fixed guideway system as part of the
transportation infrastructure and service fabric.
Major Investment Study.--The extensive and sustained growth in the
Las Vegas valley has created significant transportation challenges. In
October of 1997, the RTC adopted a Major Investment Study (MIS) that
identified four strategies designed to ensure that traffic congestion
will not worsen over the next 20 years from levels currently
experienced. The four strategies include: (1) construction of an 18
mile fixed guideway system serving the Resort Corridor; (2) expansion
of CAT fixed route service to 500 peak service buses; (3) initiation of
a TDM/TSM program designed to incentivize transit in all of its forms
and fund low cost traffic management projects, respectively; (4)
completion of the Resort Corridor street and highway system by
finishing nine roadway projects, including the construction of Resort
Boulevard--a new collector-distributor parallel to Las Vegas Boulevard.
Completion of all of these projects will ensure that Las Vegas
taxpayers will continue to have timely access to their jobs, avoid the
disruptive affects of continual road construction, reduce reliance on
the Single Occupant Vehicle and foster the on-going efforts of the Las
Vegas Valley to meet the mandates of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
In light of the RTC's adopted MIS and the documented and ongoing
success of the CAT system, the RTC has four initiatives it has
prioritized for transit discretionary funding in its Regional
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program adopted
in January of 1998. These priorities include acquisition of rolling
stock for CAT, construction of Bus Passenger Facilities throughout the
valley, construction of a Compressed Natural Gas refueling station and
continued funding of Fixed Guideway preliminary engineering/final
design. Each of these projects as documented in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) reflect the RTC's long term commitment to
advance the usage of mass transit technologies as a means to
effectively address growing commuter travel demands. In fact, with 63
percent of all valley wide trips either beginning, ending or traveling
through the Resort Corridor, the RTC cannot continue to rely solely on
roads or buses, but instead must act now to begin implementing all
elements of the MIS.
iii. citizens area transit--bus fleet expansion
Citizens Area Transit (CAT) began service on December 5, 1992. At
that time, CAT represented the largest single start-up of new bus
service in North America. Annual CAT ridership has grown from 14.9
million riders in 1993 to over 46.6 million riders in 1998; a growth
rate of over 211 percent in only 6 short years, catapulting CAT to the
28th largest bus system in the nation. Las Vegas is the fastest growing
city in the United States, but the CAT system is growing at a rate
faster than any other local economic indicators, including population,
employment, hotel rooms, visitor volumes, airport passengers, vehicle
miles traveled, and auto registrations.
With 42 routes operating throughout the greater Las Vegas Valley,
as well as routes in the rural communities of Laughlin and Mesquite,
Nevada, CAT is now servicing over 4 million passengers per month. While
the CAT routes operating along the high-profile Las Vegas Boulevard
provide service to up to 900,000 passengers per month, these routes
account for only 25 percent of the total monthly ridership. Clearly,
many Las Vegas residents rely heavily on the CAT system to get to work,
school, shopping, medical services and recreational facilities.
Providing mass transit services throughout the Las Vegas Valley, CAT
has become essential to the fabric of the Las Vegas community.
To address the ever increasing demand for transit services, the RTC
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual
hours of revenue service have almost doubled, from 585,134 hours in
1993 to over 1 million hours in 1998. Similarly, annual vehicle miles
have also doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to 14,253,589 miles in
1998. The CAT system has continued to successfully increase ridership
while remaining operationally efficient. Costs per passenger have
dropped consistently since startup, to approximately $1.29 per
passenger. In 1997, CAT was recognized by the American Public Transit
Association (APTA) as the winner of the Outstanding Achievement Award--
Bus System of the Year for the 151-600 bus category. In 1998, APTA
again recognized the CAT system by awarding it the William T. Coleman
Silver Safety Award for outstanding performance in traffic and
passenger safety. Also in 1998, the annual University of North
Carolina, Charlotte Comparative Performance Report also recognized CAT
as one of the nation's top bus systems in terms of system performance.
Although the CAT system has doubled service availability since
startup, the demands for even more service continue to escalate. The
urban boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley continue to push in all
directions, creating new areas of growth and transit demand. In
addition to under served areas, the frequency of service on most
existing routes serving the residential base of the valley is
substantially less then desired. The single largest constraint faced by
the RTC to providing more service continues to be fleet availability.
When compared to other peer cities, CAT transports up to 3 times the
number of passengers per vehicle. This passenger load factor is not
sustainable over the long term in terms of the enormous demands placed
on existing rolling stock, and makes expansion of the fleet size an
absolute necessity.
In addition to the regular fixed route service provided by the CAT
system, the City of Las Vegas furnishes a neighborhood circulator
service that complements CAT. The Las Vegas City Trolley system
consists of 6 themed Trolley vehicles, providing access between Senior
and low-income housing centers and major activity centers and shopping.
The average age of the Trolley vehicles is 11 years old; operating and
maintenance costs have risen dramatically over the past few years. As
the Trolley vehicles approach the end of their useful lifespan,
replacement vehicles are necessary.
To continue to expand existing transit services, the RTC requests
$2.96 million in Section 5309 bus discretionary funds to purchase
additional vehicles to enhance the transit fleet. Consistent with past
appropriations requests, the RTC will provide a substantial overmatch
of 30 percent in local funding for these equipment purchases.
iv. bus passenger facilities
South Strip Intermodal Facility.--With over 46 million annual
passengers using the CAT system, passenger comfort and convenience are
rapidly becoming issues of note. To enhance customer amenities and
facilitate transfers between routes, the RTC plans to build a network
of terminal/transfer facilities throughout the Las Vegas Valley.
Terminal/transfer facilities support the transit system by providing
areas of comfort, security, and information to transit patrons waiting
to transfer to another bus route or to the next mode of transportation.
These facilities will provide locations where passengers have the
opportunity to easily transfer between routes, passengers have shelter
from the elements, and coach operators have access to necessary
amenities. In addition, terminal/transfer facilities will provide
opportunities for a reasonable interface between fixed route and
paratransit services. At this time, the CAT system currently has only
one terminal/transfer facility in the downtown area, known as the
Downtown Transportation Center (DTC), which was built in 1987 prior to
the initiation of the CAT system. The DTC is currently undergoing
reconstruction to expand and enhance that facilities' ability to
accommodate CAT operations. With the ever-increasing demands for
additional services, there is a critical need for additional terminal/
transfer facilities.
The CAT service in the south Resort Corridor, as well as several
residential routes in the southern part of the Las Vegas valley,
currently utilize a temporary passenger facility located on private
property at the Vacation Village Casino at the southern end of the Las
Vegas Strip. This site has been provided at no cost to the public
through the community spirit of the property owners, however there are
no conveniences or amenities dedicated to the riding public of the CAT
system. The increased CAT service frequency and ridership make it clear
that something more permanent is needed. To that end, the RTC has
conducted an alternatives analysis and Environmental Assessment for a
South Strip Intermodal Facility. Once the Environmental Assessment is
complete, this project will move into final design and land
acquisition. In order to expediently move to construction of the
facility, the sum of $5.0 million is requested in Section 5309 bus
discretionary funds for the land acquisition of the identified
property.
v. cng fueling facility
The dramatic growth in population and employment in Las Vegas has
resulted in a tremendous increase in traffic congestion and a
significant deterioration in regional air quality. Pursuant to the
Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency
has designated the Las Vegas airshed as a serious non-attainment area
for carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 (inhalable particulate matter; 10
microns or less). Transit is an essential element in the region's
overall strategy to reduce traffic congestion and improve regional air
quality. In its role as the MPO and transit operator, the RTC is
constantly promoting additional methods to help improve air quality.
When CAT paratransit services were initiated in December 1994, the RTC
mandated the entire paratransit fleet use an alternative fuel. The
paratransit fleet consists of 120 vehicles which all use compressed
natural gas (CNG) to help the RTC promote air quality standards. With
this paratransit fleet, the RTC is currently the largest single sponsor
of an alternative fuel fleet in the State of Nevada. The RTC directly
contracts with a CNG wholesaler for the purchase of CNG fuel at the
lowest possible costs, however, the RTC owns only 2 facilities
throughout the Valley where these vehicles are fueled. As shown on the
attached Exhibit A, both existing facilities are located in the western
portion of the Las Vegas Valley. Due to the somewhat limited range of
this fuel type, the RTC intends to build an additional fueling facility
in the southeastern portion of the valley to support the daily
operations of this unique fleet. Building this facility will allow the
RTC to continue to promote the air quality benefits of alternative
fuels throughout the Las Vegas valley. In addition, the RTC fueling
facility will be made available to all other local government entities,
promoting the usage of alternative fuels throughout the Las Vegas
valley. To fund this program, the RTC requests $10.0 million in Clean
Fuels program funds for construction of this important facility.
vi. fixed guideway system--final design and construction
The CAT bus system represents a significant commitment by the RTC
to address the travel needs of residents and visitors alike. However,
as documented in the Resort Corridor MIS, a higher level of mass
transit is clearly necessary in a city of 1.3 million. Despite the
dramatic growth and expansion of CAT, the Las Vegas Valley continues to
experience rising congestion levels, especially in the area known as
the Resort Corridor. The expansion of the bus system can address some
of these needs in the short term, but there is a limit to the number of
buses that can be put on the streets and, in fact, in the number of
streets and highways that can be built. The MIS illustrated that
projected travel demands, if addressed only through road construction,
would require the construction of 18 north-south and 20 east-west and
arterial lanes through the Resort Corridor.
The objective of the proposed fixed guideway system is to provide
residents and visitors with environmentally clean, cost effective
public transportation services that will meet the dramatically
increasing transportation needs of the Las Vegas Valley. The proposed
fixed guideway system (depicted in Exhibit B) contains 18.4 miles of
double track, elevated, automated guideway; providing service to 28
stations and three major terminal stations. The system includes a core
system and an extension to McCarran International Airport. The core
system consists of 15.6 miles of guideway, 25 stations and two major
terminals. The cost for the full system is approximately $1.14 billion.
The RTC received an authorization of $155 million for Phase 1
activities in the TEA 21 legislation and FTA has given formal approval
to commence PE activities.
The RTC has commenced initial preliminary engineering activity for
a 5.2 mile initial operating segment referred to as Phase I (depicted
in Exhibit C). To facilitate the design, construction, and operation of
this project, the RTC anticipates utilizing the turnkey procurement
method. RTC has initiated the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Scoping was conducted in the Fall of 1998 to define the DEIS
alternatives. As the DEIS progresses, RTC will continue to refine and
adopt the technology requirements for the system, and will continue
with final design efforts on the Phase 1 alignment. Consistent with the
Phase 1 activities and concomitant with receipt of the Record of
Decision in the 4th quarter of 2000, RTC will also identify an
appropriate location for the Phase 1 Maintenance and Operation Facility
and begin acquisition of necessary Right of Way. Based on the size and
function of the facility, it is anticipated that this facility may also
represent the northern terminus for daily operations, and provide an
opportunity for the northern passenger terminal, complete with a bus
interface, passenger amenities, and a Park and Ride location. Once an
appropriate site is identified and all appropriate environmental
analyses complete, RTC will acquire the land and any contingent Right
of Way.
To ensure the continued progress of this important project, the RTC
requests the sum of $23.0 million in Section 5309 new start funding for
the commencement of Final Design on Phase 1, final design of the
Maintenance and Operations facility, and Right of Way and land
acquisition for that facility.
vii. conclusion
In conclusion, the RTC is requesting the total sum of $17.96
million in Section 5309 bus discretionary funds for the CAT fixed route
system and related facilities; and $23 million in Section 5309 new
start funds for continued project design, Right of Way acquisition and
activities related to the Maintenance and Operation facility. The RTC
sincerely appreciates the Federal assistance it has received to date.
With the assistance and support of this subcommittee and the Congress,
we have built an award winning public transit system that provides
essential services to a rapidly growing city. We look forward to
continuing to work together on these important projects.
______
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of John H. Seigel, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.C.C.M., Wesley
J. Howe, Professor, Trauma Surgery, Chairman, Department of Anatomy,
Cell Biology and Injury Science, New Jersey Medical School, University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Mr Chairman, I respectfully present testimony on behalf of the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey--New Jersey Medical
School. The University of Medicine and Dentistry (UMDNJ) is the largest
public health sciences university in the nation. Its New Jersey Medical
School (NJMS) is the academic medical facility for all of Northern New
Jersey and its University Hospital serves as the Level I Trauma Center
to coordinate the entire Northern region of the State.
This testimony requests your continued support for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Trauma Network composed
of seven university trauma systems functioning together in a consortia
known as the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury Project''. In addition to the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School in Newark, N.J., the consortium
includes the Charles McMathias, Jr. National Study Center for Trauma
and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of the University of Maryland in
Baltimore, the William Lehman Injury Research Center of the University
of Miami in Florida, the Children's National Medical Center of
Washington, D.C., the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, the University of California Medical School of San
Diego, California and the Harborview Medical Center of the University
of Washington in Seattle, Washington. These seven centers have been
working together in the study of motor vehicle crash injury which
affects both adults, as well as children. Individually and
collectively, these studies have resulted in new knowledge which has
enabled the identification of the patterns of specific injuries
resulting from real motor vehicle crashes. They have pointed the way
towards the deployment of the newer safety devices and enabled the
evaluation of their impact in reducing the severity of these injuries
or preventing their occurrence. In the proposed NHTSA Trauma Network
which will support the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury Project''.
Important information concerning the effect of motor vehicle
crashes on car structural integrity has been learned from
experimentally-staged motor vehicle crashes and from the use of inert
motor vehicle crash-dummies. However, it is necessary to go beyond the
behavior of crash-dummies back to the scene of the accident, in order
to determine the real mechanisms of injury and to understand the
variability of the impact on different types of real people. For
instance, the sixty year old woman who has some degree of osteoporosis
will likely have a different pattern and magnitude of lower extremity
and pelvic fracture injuries for the same impact velocity of crash
compared to a twenty-five year old male.
The studies carried out so far, at the New Jersey Medical School
have enabled the identification of different patterns of organ and
extremities injury related to specific sites of passenger compartment
intrusion and shown that these patterns are significantly different as
a function of the direction of crash and its impact velocity.
Collaborative studies in Baltimore and New Jersey have identified,
subtle but important, aspects of sex and body habitus related driver
behavior which can result in more, or less severe injuries to the lower
extremities resulting from the same crash forces. The New Jersey and
the Miami studies have allowed recognition of the motor vehicle crash
patterns which provide clues to occult injuries which would otherwise
be missed by the emergency medical services team in triaging patients
from severe motor vehicle crashes. Research from four of the centers,
New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and Washington State, will demonstrate
the shift in the pattern of injuries associated with sport utility
vehicles and make suggestions for design changes that can improve car
occupant safety in SUV versus sedan crashes. These factors have
important implications for safety design and creation of biomechanical
test instruments to ensure driver and passenger protection. Also,
studies carried out by the Children's Medical Center in Washington,
D.C. have focused on the precautions necessary in designing and
locating children's safety seats to prevent infant injuries in motor
vehicle crashes.
Most important, the net result of these studies has been to focus
on the development of motor vehicle safety measures which reduce the
chance of injury rather than solely on the prevention of death. For it
is injury which is the most costly aspect of the motor vehicle crash,
raising health-care costs and forcing insurance premiums upward, not to
mention the personal catastrophes which occur daily when a family
member is severely injured.
The studies carried out by the New Jersey Medical School and
Maryland components of the CIREN Human Crash Injury Group have already
identified important characteristics of injury which were not
previously recognized. These studies have focused on the importance of
lower extremity injuries and pelvic fractures as major causes of
disability and cost, and have focused on the importance of the air-bag
in reducing the severity of brain injuries in high impact frontal motor
crashes. In regard to this last observation, investigations carried out
jointly at the New Jersey Medical School and the Charles McMathias
National Study Center have shown that air-bag deployment in frontal
motor vehicle crashes significantly (p<0.01) reduced the incidence of
severe brain injury (GCS<12) from 67 percent to 29 percent even though
the total incidence of brain injuries remained unmodified. Air-bags in
these types of major force car crashes also reduced the incidence of
shock, face fractures, and lower extremity fractures and as a
consequence lowered the resulting need to extricate the patient from
the motor vehicle, thus speeding the time to treatment. These types of
data lend credence to the move to install side airbags in all new cars
to reduce the incidence of severe brain injuries in side-impact
crashes. This type of study emphasizes how the ``Human Crash Injury
Project'' (CIREN) and the NHTSA Trauma Network can develop information
about the effect of protective devices that cannot be obtained from
crash-dummy research, since crash-dummies have no brains and the crash
impact on a crash-dummy's skull produces no discernable change in the
dummy's intellect or problem solving ability.
The prospective detailed medical:crash injury research
investigations carried out under the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury
Project'' supplement and enhance the retrospective statistical studies
now carried out by NHTSA under the NASS Program. It is a measure of the
importance with which this project is viewed nationally that the
present Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D., has indicated that NHTSA
wishes to integrate these research efforts into a national Trauma
Network to include New Jersey Medical School:UMDNJ, The Lehman Center
at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, the McMathias National Study
Center in Baltimore, and the Children's Medical Center in the District
of Columbia, and to link these four existing centers to the three new
centers in Michigan, Washington State and California.
Finally, there is a major new initiative occurring in the
Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration), which is
the development of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). As part
of the ITS the Automobile Crash Notification System (ACN) program is in
the process of developing an automatic crash notification micro-chip
which could be inserted into motor vehicles so as to identify the
location and nature of the crash. This new technology has the potential
to enable the crash forces which are producing specific injuries and
injury patterns to be identified and quantified so that improved safety
measures including motor vehicle structural modifications and the
deployment of additional air-bags can be developed. The proper
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the ACN and the rate at
which this new technology can be integrated with Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) systems nation-wide could be most effectively determined
by integration of the testing aspects of the ACN Program with the
Trauma Network and its CIREN:Human Crash Injury Project. Not only can
this combined program more rapidly evaluate the ACN system, but it will
also result in its being implemented immediately in the six states of
the Trauma Network, plus the District of Columbia, as a first phase
effort.
This effort could solve a very serious problem identified by
studies of the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). This is that
while the death rate of trauma victims brought to Trauma System
Hospitals is decreasing, there has been an increase in on-scene
fatalities. This is due in part to delays in notification of EMS team
to find and retrieve these injured patient especially in rural areas.
The NHTSA supported by Trauma Network could also provide a mechanism
for translation of this technology into true state-wide safety
programs, since all of the regions mentioned and all of the
participating trauma centers have excellent EMS systems which are
closely linked to their network of trauma centers. The ACN technology
has the potential to be an order of magnitude increment in motor
vehicle safety. Its technical development and independent field testing
should become integrated at an early phase, so that its value can be
determined and a feedback relationship with the Department of
Transportation's Highway Traffic Safety Programs and the state-wide EMS
Trauma Services can be more rapidly accelerated. The value of allowing
the Trauma Research Centers which form the CIREN:Human Crash Injury
Project to provide this interactive feedback is that all of the
principal investigators are not only experienced trauma surgeons, but
are also recognized as trauma investigators with extensive experience
in studying the mechanisms of motor vehicle crash injury.
Speaking for myself, with the concurrence of the other directors of
these affiliated programs, we request that the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies designate funding
at the level of $500,000 per center to each of the seven present NHTSA-
funded trauma research centers participating in the Human Crash Injury
Project for a total of 3.5 million dollars. We also request that this
appropriation be established on a multi-year basis to extend over a
five-year period at the same annual rate adjusted for inflation, so
that continuing evaluation and feedback can be provided by the Trauma
Network. Also, we request that these Trauma Research Centers be used to
evaluate the role of the Intelligent Transportation System's Automobile
Crash Notification System in reducing excessive field mortality and
injury exacerbation of motor vehicle crashes due to the prolongation of
crash recognition by the present EMS system. This will take additional
support to implement and test.
This latter additional support should allow approximately 5000 cars
per core center to be instrumented with appropriate communications
equipment. This level of support would enable the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the ACN Program in identifying potential serious
injuries and in facilitating the rapidity with which Emergency Medical
Services Advance Life Support Teams could be deployed to the scene of
the crash. It is felt that this type of immediate crash notification
and localization technology when fully developed and integrated with
all of the Nation's regional Trauma Centers could have a major impact
in reducing the mortality and injury complications resulting from rural
motor vehicle crashes and from serious crashes occurring in urban areas
at times when there are few bystanders to request EMS 911 services.
In closing, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the
past support of the House and its Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation and Related Agencies of our group's collective research
which, by identifying the mechanisms of human crash injury, has already
resulted in improved safety and in a reduction in the incidence and
severity of motor vehicle crash injuries. Motor vehicle crashes place
all of us at risk, both personally as well as financially, and
negatively impact on major segments of our economy. The development of
safer motor vehicles and the invention of new and imaginative state-of-
the-art motor vehicle crash safety devices and notification systems has
spawned a new industry with enormous growth potential, which has
already begun to integrate the telecommunications and motor vehicle
industries. The small amount of national resources directed into this
type of research will pay enormous dividends, not only by the reduction
of motor vehicle crash injury costs, but also by the creation of new
technologies and new businesses which can stimulate employment and
national growth.
______
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of Michael Carney, Chairman, Association of Waste
Hazardous Materials Transportation, Alexandria, VA
On behalf of the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials
Transporters (AWHMT), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the
Subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2000
budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
interest of the awhmt
The AWHMT represents companies that transport, by truck and rail,
waste hazardous materials, including industrial, radioactive and
hazardous wastes, in North America. The Association is a not-for-profit
organization that promotes professionalism and performance standards
that minimize risks to the environment, public health and safety;
develops educational programs to expand public awareness about the
industry; and contributes to the development of effective laws and
regulations governing the industry.
As a community of taxpayers dependent on the effective
administration and enforcement of federal hazardous materials
transportation laws and regulations, we feel compelled to file these
views and concerns about how DOT's Office of Hazardous materials Safety
(OHMS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have carried out their
respective so-called ``hazmat'' responsibilities.
background
The transportation of hazardous materials involves producers and
distributor of chemical and petroleum products and waste, transporters
in all modes, and manufacturers of containers. DOT estimates that
upwards of 800,000 shipments and as many as 1.2 million regulated
movements of hazardous materials occur each day. The production and
distribution of hazardous materials is a trillion-dollar industry that
employs millions of Americans. As a major export, the transportation of
these materials contributes positively to our trade balance. These
products are pervasive in the transportation stream and in our society
as a whole.
While these materials contribute to America's quality of life,
unless handled safety personal injury or death, property damage, and
environmental consequences can result. To protect against these
outcomes, the Secretary of Transportation is charged to ``provide
adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in
the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by improving''
regulation and enforcement.\1\ The Secretary's authority to accomplish
this mission is embodied in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(HMTA).\2\ In 1990, the HMTA was significantly amended for the first
time. Subsequently, amendments, albeit less significant, were added in
1992 and 1994. As a consequence of these amendments, Congress directed
DOT to accomplish a number of tasks. How DOT has handled these
responsibilities and how it proposes to handle them in the future in
the focus of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 5101.
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of hazardous materials safety (ohms)
The commerce of hazardous materials demands that OHMS have
intermodal, as well as international, expertise. It regulates a diverse
community of interests and must constantly manage the tension between
safety and efficiency in the transport of these materials in order to
fulfill its mission to protect the public and the environment.
In comments submitted to the Subcommittee last year, we were
concerned that the Administration had proposed nothing more than a
cost-of-living increase for the OHMS. While we are pleased that this
year the Administration has not proposed a flat programmatic budget, we
are nevertheless opposed to the method by which the Administration has
proposed to finance OHMS' work.
``User Fees''
The Administration has proposed to fund the entire OHMS program,
beginning with the forth quarter of fiscal year 2000, with fees
collected through the HazMat Registration program (Registration
program).\3\ Although the HMTA allows OHMS to require all shippers,
carriers and package manufacturers and reconditioners to pay fees
through this registration program to support the HazMat Planning and
Training Grants program (Grants program), OHMS has only imposed these
registration fees on a subset of the hazmat transportation industry.
During the last collection cycle OHMS collected approximately $9.4
million from 22,600 shippers and carriers.\4\ To fully fund the Grants
program and the OHMS program, fees would have to increase four-fold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 54.
\4\ Fiscal year 1998 Summary, Hazardous Materials Registration
Program, Office of Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, OHMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registration program's fees were an outcome of the 1990 HMTA
reauthorization. Industry did not ``want'' these fees, but such fees
were demanded by states in exchange for clearer authority for DOT is
preempt non-federal requirements that impede the safe and efficient
transportation of hazardous materials. We believe then, as we do now,
that it is not possible to fairly assess fees on this industry and at
the same time ensure credible enforcement without making the program so
administratively top-heavy as to undermine the purpose for the fee. The
portion of the hazmat industry subject to these fees has tolerated them
because OHMS has kept the fee at the minimum allowed by Congress.
As noted above, the OHMS program exists to protect the Nation from
risks to life, property and the environment inherent in the
transportation of hazardous materials. To carry out its mission, OHMS
develops safety regulations, conducts research and analysis to identify
safety problems, and operates a system of exemptions and approvals to
facilitate the implementation of new technologies. Additionally, OHMS
pursues international and national uniformity in technical
requirements. OHMS conducts inspections and enforcement actions to
ensure compliance with the regulations as well as provides broad
training and educational services, emergency response support, and
administration of the Registration and Grants programs.
The Administration's proposal cannot and should not be
characterized as a user fee. User fees imply that those who pay receive
direct benefit from their fees. However, the OHMS so broadly effects
the general safety of all citizens that it would not be possible to
fairly administer a fee of the magnitude contemplated in the
Administration's proposal. At the same time, other government programs
with broad public benefit similar to the OHMS program such as the
services of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and National Traffic
Safety Administration's auto safety research are funded from general
revenues, not through industry-based taxes disguised as ``user fees.''
Even if it could be rationalized that the fee apply only to the
``industry'', the hazardous materials transportation industry is not
like, for example, the pipeline industry where user fees have worked.
Fees have worked in the pipeline industry because they are perceived as
``fair.'' The universe of potential payers in known and there exists a
common denominator on which to base the fee. Conversely, segments of
the hazardous materials transportation market are so porous that the
determination of who should pay becomes as much as issue as what should
be the amount of the fee.
On the other hand, if the Administration attempted to implement a
true ``fee-for-service'' system, additional concerns exist. If fees
were charge for each request for regulatory interpretation,
administrative petition, training aid, data, and the like, the fees may
deter companies from using the very services OHMS offers to foster
compliance and ensure safe transport. Fees are likely to unfairly
burden smaller businesses that need to rely on the services of OHMS
because they lack the resources to maintain a full-time hazmat staff--
an anomaly given the current concern OHMS has about the level of
compliance among small businesses. (See below.) User fees could also
result in a substantial drop in the amount and type of interaction
between OHMS and the regulated community. Both groups benefit from such
contact. OHMS receives a great deal of useful information regarding
trends in commercial transportation and feedback on rulemaking
proposals. Conversely, industry benefits by having a vital resource for
compliance information, including official views and interpretations of
rules. This cross-sharing of information helps to improve the overall
performance of industry and the general rate of compliance. Finally,
fees are not likely to apply to one of OHMS's most active users--local,
state, and federal agencies. The Federal Government, alone, is the
single largest shipper of hazardous materials in the United States.
Thus, the largest user of OHMS service will pay nothing and the costs
will be transferred to the private sector.
As with the current Grants program, we do not believe OHMS could
shoulder the administrative responsibilities associated with
implementing and maintaining a fair user fee system. We believe this
activity would detract significantly from the more important safety-
related responsibilities of the Office.
We strongly oppose the Administration's proposal to raise $18.2
million from user fees and urge the Subcommittee to reject this
proposal.
Staff Resources
The Administration is proposing to increase OHMS' staff by 4.5 FTE
to be filled by 9 staff members.\5\ When compared to other modal
administrations and considering the breadth of responsibilities, the
OHMS staff is small. Six of these new positions would be used to target
``high-risk portions of the industry'' (small shippers of carriers and
explosives manufacturers) for compliance initiatives. One other
position will be assigned to the Office of Hazardous Materials
Initiatives and Training to develop compliance materials. We believe
these resources are well placed if in fact it means that other
resources are now freed up to work on OHMS's regulatory backlog. (See
below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last two requested staff positions would be assigned to
``initiate a proactive monitoring and liaison function with the [US]
Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS]--and the US Department
of Agriculture [DA]'' to engage in certain activities related to the
Sanitary Food Transportation Act (SFSA). Congress enacted the SFSA in
1990. Since that time, the Administration has attempted to repeal the
Act or, most recently, to reassign responsibilities for the Act from
OHMS to DHHS and DA. While none of these efforts have succeeded, it
underscores OHMS's view that it does not have much that it can
contribute to enhance food safety. In fact, our experience supports the
Office's frustration. While OHMS' rules allow for the clear
identification of hazardous materials in transportation, there are not
corresponding rules to identify foods, or foodstuffs. Until Congress
better sorts out which federal agencies have the expertise to develop
food standards, OHMS' SFSA efforts should remain of relatively low
priority. We believe these last two requested staff positions should be
assigned instead to work on OHMS's regulatory backlog.
In all, OHMS staff should be commended for the excellent job
accomplished in light of an increasingly complex workload.
Regulatory Backlog
While we want to commend OHMS for its many accomplishments, we are
nevertheless concerned about a backlog of critical rulemakings, letters
of interpretation, exemption and approval requests, and preemption
determinations. OHMS' budget submission does not provide indicators of
the extent of these backlogs. Without an understanding of these
backlogs, the Subcommittee is handicapped in its fiduciary duty to
ensure that OHMS fulfills its statutory responsibilities.
OHMS announced as part of its fiscal year 1999 budget submission
that it had 13 high priority rulemakings in progress. For fiscal year
2000, the number is 16.\6\ The rulemaking identified in fiscal year
1999 as OHMS' highest priority has yet to be proposed. These
rulemakings do not take into account rulemaking petitions, which OHMS
has accepted but not yet assigned to a specific rulemaking action. In
December, OHMS identified 30 such rulemaking petitions. The oldest
dates to 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While OHMS expects to process over 2000 exemptions \7\--a
commendable effort--it does not discuss the fact that historically it
fails to process exemption applications within the 180 days set by
statute.\8\ During the last quarter, OHMS failed to process 48
applications within the statutory deadline, and gives as a
justification for the delay in 47 that ``staff review [was] delayed by
other priority issues or volume of exemption applications.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 64 and 65.
\8\ 49 US.C. 5117(c).
\9\ 64 FR 2701 (January 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 13 petitions for preemption determinations still pending,
six were filed in the last twelve months. While the oldest four have
been deferred pending the finalization of an OHMS rulemaking, seven of
the pending petitions were not processed within the Congressionally
mandated 180-day turnaround.\10\ The last two are still within the 180-
day filing period. During 1998, OHMS issued determinations in two of
the seven petitions. Both have been appealed. OHMS's ability to swiftly
deal with petitions for preemption is essential to the purpose Congress
hoped to achieve in granting administrative preemption to DOT, namely
that the preemption determination process would be an alternative to
litigation.\11\ A priority of the HMTA is to achieve greater regulatory
uniformity. Essential to that objective is the ability to respond
through the preemption determination process to inconsistent non-
federal requirements that ``creat[e] the potential for unreasonable
hazards in other jurisdictions and confound shippers and carriers which
attempt to comply with multiple and conflicting registration,
permitting, routing, notification, and other regulatory requirements.''
\12\ Clearly, OHMS's ability to stay on top of its preemption
obligations is being undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
\11\ In authorizing the preemption determination process, Congress
found that ``the current inconsistency ruling process has failed to
provide a satisfactory resolution of preemption issues, thus
encouraging delay, litigation, and confusion.'' H.Rept. 101-44, Part 1,
page 21.
\12\ Public Law 101-615, Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazmat Registration and Fees
As mentioned above, the fees associated with the federal HazMat
Registration program were a compromise reached with states during the
1990 reauthorization to fund the HazMat Grants program in exchange for
clearer authority for DOT to preempt non-federal requirements that
impede the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous materials.
The HMTA allows OHMS to require the registration, and thus fees, of
hazardous materials shippers, carriers, and container
manufacturers.\13\ Instead, the Office has chosen to register only
those categorizes of shippers and carriers mandated by Congress.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2).
\14\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the consequences of this narrow implementation is that the
Grants program has never been fully funded. OHMS has stated for the
last two fiscal years that full funding of this program is a priority.
However, a rulemaking has yet to be proposed. While we remain committed
to assist OHMS to fully-fund through fees the Grants program as long as
the ceiling on the total amount to be collected is not raised, we
continue to believe that the fee must be fair, that OHMS must show that
it can be enforced, and that these goals can be accomplished without
adding administrative bureaucracy. We have made recommended to OHMS
that we believe will go a long way to reach these objectives.
In the meantime, we believe it important and possible to make
administrative savings that can be passed on to states through the
Grants program. OHMS assesses $50 per registrant for administrative
costs. This assessment--fully 20 percent of the total fee paid--is
excessive. We had hoped that making the registration number permanent
and/or allowing multi-year registration would reduce these
administrative costs. However, we find in OHMS' fiscal year 2000 budget
request that no such administrative savings are being recommended.
Furthermore, OHMS is announcing that it must take an additional
$320,000 from the fees for a total of $1.07 million to pay the banks
which service the Registration program.\15\ We are incredulous that no
bank can be found that would perform these services free of charge for
the opportunity to handle the millions of dollars that flow through the
Registration program. The Grants program, and by extension, the states
suffer for each dollar that is diverted for administrative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, we have made a commitment to help OHMS meet its
Registration revenue goal in recognition of agreements reached during
the 1990 amendments to the HMTA. At the same time, we want reasonable
assurance that the new fee scheme will not over fund the program
inasmuch as OHMS is not required to refund excess collections.\16\ We
would prefer a fee scheme that does not vary from year to year. Of
particular concern is the financing of the North American Emergency
Response Guide (NAERG). For good reason, OHMS publishes the NAERG every
three years. The last two publications of the NAERG, as well as the one
planned for fiscal year 2000, have been paid for out of Registration
fees. In fiscal year 2000, $600,000 is requested from the Grants
portion (as opposed to the ``user fee'' portion) of the Registration
program fee for the NAERG initiative.\17\ In fiscal year 1999, $700,000
was requested for this purpose while no funds were requested in fiscal
year 1998. Rather than spiking the revenue demand on the Registration
program every few years, we recommend that the funds for this activity
be averaged and carried over the three-year period between NAERG
publications so as not to disrupt either the Registration fee schedule
or the amount of Grants available to states and Indian tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)(2)(B).
\17\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Planning and Training Grants
The Emergency Planning and Training Grants funded by industry fees
have been since 1990 dedicated to cover the ``unfunded'' federal
mandate that states develop emergency response plans and to contribute
toward the training of emergency responders. Industry has contributed
approximately $58 million over the life of the grants program.\18\
Nevertheless, states continue to request assistance for hazmat
emergency planning and training initiatives. OHMS acknowledges that
upwards of 3.2 million emergency responders still need training.\19\ In
spite of this continuing need, DOT has proposed, as it did in fiscal
year 1999, to allow up to 25 percent of grant funds to be used to
provide regulatory compliance training to small businesses.\20\ We
oppose any efforts to divert grant funds for purposes not originally
intended by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Registraion Years 1992-1998.
\19\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 163.
\20\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, we find the Administration's proposal to impose user fees
incongruous with its proposition with these same fees should revert to
at least the small business segment of the industry to aid compliance.
A far better way to met the needs of small business, in our opinion, is
for OHMS to continue to sponsor its training conferences, publications,
and outreach efforts such as its information hotline. In addition, a
panoply of private sector training and consulting services is available
to this community.
Enforcement
For virtually all program initiatives, OHMS states that the measure
of its success will be ``the number of serious reportable hazardous
materials transportation incidents.'' We believe OHMS has erred in
setting this as the sole programmatic success measure for its
inspection and enforcement initiatives.\21\ Such a goal seems
unrealistic given the fact that the universe subject to OHMS'
requirements has greatly expanded with the finalization of rules to
cover the intrastate shipment of hazardous materials. Now OHMS believes
that the number of hazmat shipments approaches 800,000 and 1.2
movements a day. Moreover, accidents and incidents can befall even
those in full regulatory compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe a valid success goal would be to fail to find evidence
of non-compliance. OHMS estimates that the number of cases opened and
closed have been and will continue to be static. A commendable
statistic given the increase in OHMS' regulatory universe. However,
over time OHMS appears to be shouldering a larger and larger
enforcement backlog. OHMS statistics reveal that there were 69 open
cases going into fiscal year 1999 and as estimated 169 going into
fiscal year 2001.\22\ It appears that OHMS' enforcement budget is not
keeping pace with its workload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Assistance
One of the greatest successes of the OHMS program is the technical
and training resources given to the regulated community.\23\ These
resources include a hotline for responding to technical compliance or
more general matters of regulatory interpretation, the NAERG, the
COHMED (cooperative hazardous materials enforcement development)
program, the OHMS web site, and a CD-ROM modular training series. These
services and products are either provided free or at comparatively
nominal cost. Hazardous materials transportation is a highly regulated,
complex enterprise. As noted above in the section on user fees, small
businesses--clearly, a focus of OHMS concern--are likely to be the
greatest beneficiaries of these services because they may not have the
resources to hire full-time compliance staff. OHMS' compliance
assistance initiatives also provide the Office with valuable
information about issues and concerns of the regulated community. It is
a beneficial interface that should be praised and encouraged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 76-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Activities
AWHMT has international, albeit North American, membership. Many
members, domestic and foreign, conduct business across international
borders. Hazardous materials transportation is a global enterprise.
Domestic movements are inevitably affected by international agreements.
We support RSPA's continued and vigorous participation in international
forums where hazmat transportation policy is set.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 80-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Collection
We want to underscore the importance and necessity of the hazardous
materials information system (HMIS).\25\ The data collected and
maintained in the database is not available from other sources. Not
only does the HMIS allow OHMS to identify and analyze safety risks for
regulatory purposes, it also (1) assists non-federal governments to
identify problematic routes; (2) can be used to focus enforcement
efforts; (3) is used by industry in its risk management initiatives,
and (4) can be used to defuse public concern about hazardous materials
transportation by validating the extraordinary safety record of this
industry, considering the potential of these materials to cause serious
harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ RSPA fiscal year 2000 Budget Submission, page 91-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHMS is considering refinements to the system that would allow,
among other things, electronic filing of reports. These refinements
should be supported.
federal highway administration
Since 1990, several delegations from the HMTA have been made to the
FHWA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Reference \26\ Provision deadline Accomplished
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5105(e)....................................... Inspection vehicles RAM......... 11/16/91 NA
5109.......................................... Motor Carrier Permits........... 11/16/91 NA
5112.......................................... HazMat Routing.................. NA \27\ 10/12/94
5113.......................................... Unsatisfactory safety rating.... NA 8/16/91
5119.......................................... Uniform Program................. \28\ 11/16/96 NA
112 \29\...................................... Grade crossing safety........... 2/26/95 ???
121 \30\...................................... Study of hazmat near prisons.... 8/26/95 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ All references to 49 U.S.C. unless otherwise indicated.
\27\ Among the requirements of this provision is one that requires FHWA to annually publish state route
designations and restrictions. Since the rule has been published, such a list has been published once--June 9,
1998. The list contained so many errors that it is unusable.
\28\ This is the earliest date by which FHWA could issue this rule absence 26 states adopting the Program.
\29\ Public Law 103-311. (Sec. Sec. 113 and 118 were also delegated to FHWA. However, these sections are not
hazmat specific and are, therefore, not included in this analysis.)
\30\ Public Law 103-311.
It should be telling that of the relatively few hazmat delegations
given FHWA, only 2 have been accomplished.\31\ In no case where a
statutory deadline was set has FHWA met that deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ All remaing delegations are pending in FHWA's Office of Motor
Carriers and Highway Safety. This Office was newly created and new
leadership has been assigned. It is unknown at this time what priority
the new leadership may put on accomplishing these hazardous materials
delegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against this background, the hazmat motor carrier community has
been active in the development of the so-called ``Uniform Program'' and
anxious for the implementation of Sec. 5119. In 1990, we were only
aware of 30-40 state-based, non-reciprocal hazmat registration/
permitting programs. This compliance burden led Congress to enact the
Uniform Program compromise wherein the right of states to issue hazmat
registrations and permits would be recognized but only if the forms and
procedures for the registrations and/or permits were uniform and
reciprocal. A working group of state and local officials convened to
make recommendations on how to achieve this task has accomplished all
that was required by the law, including the forwarding of
recommendations to FHWA on November 17, 1993.
Not knowing what the working group would recommend, Congress
provided that DOT would retain oversight of the Program, issuing rules
to implement only those recommendations ``with which the Secretary
agrees.'' \32\ When Congress enacted Sec. 5119, it had no idea how
quickly the states would move to adopt the Program or how quickly DOT
would issue implementing rules. Assuming that either DOT or the states
would rush to implement this Program, a two-part effective date for
rules implementing the Uniform Program was enacted. DOT was told it
could not issue rules sooner that 3 years after receiving the working
group's recommendations. However, DOT was told that if 26 states join
the Program, the Department would have at least 90 days to issue rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 49 U.S.C. 5119(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it turned out, neither DOT nor the states rushed to implement
this Program. The 3-year prohibition on issuing rules passed on
November 17, 1996. To date, 6 states have voluntarily joined the
Program. Many states say they are reluctant to come on board because
DOT has never disclosed which of the working group recommendations it
agrees with, and before they invest resources to implement the Program,
the States want to know what the final Program will look like. In the
meantime, we have now identified 64 non-uniform, non-reciprocal state-
based registrations and/or permits imposed on motor carriers
transporting hazardous materials or subsets thereof.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Since 1990, we are also aware of 10 local permits. Three of
those permits were voluntarily repealed by the issuing authority when
confronted by industry. Once was never implemented. Six remain in
effect. The Uniform Program vests registration/permitting rights with
states. Only in rare instances would localities have any such rights
under the Program, and even when they would have such rights, the
locality would have to implement the same Uniform Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are mystified why FHWA has not embraced this Program. We worked
very hard to ensure that the conditions to receive a permit were based
on federal requirements.\34\ At the same time, FHWA's failure to
implement this Program has left motor carriers faced with diverse non-
uniform, non-reciprocal requirements only one remedy--to request DOT or
the courts to preempt these requirements. Of the 23 petitions for
preemption filed with DOT since 1990, 13 stem from non-federal permit
requirements and associated fees. In one case, a court cited FHWA's
failure to proceed with the Uniform program rulemaking as one reason to
overturn RSPA's preemption of a state permit requirement.\35\ Had the
Uniform Program been in place, none of these proceedings would have
been necessary. These filings have resulted in an unnecessary
expenditure of time, energy and other resources by RSPA and all other
concerned parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ This is true except for the so-called ``Part III.'' The Part
III disclosure is an optional permit condition that states may impose
on motor carriers transporting hazardous or radioactive waste. Two of
the six participating states have implemented Part III. Although these
more stringent, additional requirements directly impact the industry
represented by the AWHMT, we nevertheless still endorse the Program
because the benefits of uniformity and reciprocity outweigh the
additional requirements (as presently constituted) in Part III.
\35\ Massachusetts v. U.D. department of Transportation, 93 F.3d
890 (1996), reversing PD-1(R), 57 FR 58848 (December 11, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the haphazard approach to addressing the question
of state and local registration and permitting programs has exacerbated
the very ``patchwork'' of state and local regulations which the HMTA,
and Sec. 5119 specifically, were enacted to address. To the chagrin of
many, FHWA has proposed to revisit the Congressional registration/
permitting directives currently found at 49 U.S.C. 5109, 5119, and
5105(e) through further study.\36\ No matter the excuse, we find it
insupportable that FHWA has failed to achieve these Congressional
goals. We recommend that Congress urge the Secretary to redelegate and
reallocate funding from FHWA to OHMS to accomplish these objectives.
OHMS has proved competent and capable of responding to the necessary
demands of Congress to ensure that hazardous materials are and continue
to be transported with an extraordinary high degree of safety and
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ DOT HMTA reauthorization proposal to add Sec. 5128 to 49
U.S.C. Chapter 51, dated February 16, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The transport of hazardous materials is a multi-billion dollar
industry that employs millions of Americans. It has been accomplish
with a remarkable degree of safety in large part because of the uniform
regulatory framework authorized and demanded by the HMTA. Within the
Federal Government, OHMS is the competent authority for matters
concerning the transportation of these materials. Its role is this
regard should be strengthened. Despite productivity that averages 40
administrative actions a day, however, this small agency has a backlog
of correspondence, rulemaking petitions, and technical applications for
exemptions and approvals. We have recommended that more, not less,
responsibility be delegated to OHMS. We have made this recommendation
because the Office has proven over time to be approachable, determined
to give fair hearing to all, and capable of making a decision, though
we may not always agree. We know OHMS will make the most of any
resources given.
Thank you for your attention to these issues. Please contact
Cynthia Hilton, AWHMT, or me if additional information is needed on
these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony for the record regarding the fiscal year 2000
funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) at the Department
of Transportation (DOT).
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America is the trade
association that represents virtually all of the interstate natural gas
transmission companies operating in the United States, as well as
natural gas transmission companies in Canada and Mexico. INGAA's member
companies transport over 90 percent of the natural gas consumed in the
United States through over 280,000 miles of interstate pipeline.
``The Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996''
(Public Law 104-304) reauthorized the pipeline safety program. This
law, which was agreed to by both the industry and the Office of
Pipeline Safety set authorization amounts for fiscal year 2000.
$30,000,000 is to be funded from pipeline user fees while an additional
$7,718,000 would come from other revenue sources such as the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund for a total budget of $37,718,000.
Once again the Administration budget breaks both caps. The
Administration is proposing $38,187,000 of which $33,939,000 is to come
from pipeline user fees and $4,248,000 from the Oil Spill Liability
Fund. INGAA continues to supports the caps of $30,000,000 and
$7,718,000 respectively that we agreed to in Public Law 104-304.
As we have stated and continue to state, pipeline safety is a top
priority for all of our member companies. While natural gas pipelines
have a good safety record, we are continuously seeking ways to improve
our record (see enclosed chart). Currently, we are working with the
Office of Pipeline Safety on developing more sophisticated ways to
manage risk. A number of our member companies have applied to
participate in the risk demonstration program that was approved as part
of Public Law 104-304. One company (Natural Gas Pipeline which is part
of KN Energy) has been approved. We anticipate two other natural gas
pipeline projects will receive approval in the near future. This
demonstration program will permit companies to tailor their safety
programs to focus more accurately on addressing the actual risks that
challenge various segments of their pipelines.
Third party damage is a significant cause of pipeline accidents and
the primary cause of public injuries and fatalities. INGAA supports the
Administration's proposal that $1,400,000 be drawn down from the
previously collected funds held in the Pipeline Safety Reserve to
provide grants to states for one-call notification and public education
activities.
INGAA also strongly supports, over and above the budget request for
OPS, that an additional $1,000,000 be taken from general funds to
provide grants to states that improve their one-call systems as a
result of passage of ``Comprehensive One-Call Notification'' which was
part of ``The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
(Public Law 105-178). This legislation encourages states to improve
their underground damage prevention efforts while giving them the
flexibility to address their individual concerns. Underground
facilities that benefit from this legislation include natural gas
facilities, oil facilities, telecommunications facilities, electric
facilities, water and sewer facilities, and cable lines. Congress
specifically stated its desire to use general revenues for this program
because improvements in one-call systems benefit a wide variety of
underground facilities, excavators and the general public--not just
interstate pipelines.
INGAA supports an increase in the amount of funds OPS obtains from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. OPS is increasingly focusing a
number of its resources on environmental policy, ground water
protection, oil spill response, and coordination with states regarding
hazardous liquid pipelines. The Oil Spill Liability Trust fund was
established for the purpose of funding these activities. OPS has a
number of responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and it
is appropriate that these activities be funded directly from that trust
fund.
In the R&D area, INGAA supports funding for non-destructive
evaluation of $400,000 from pipeline user fees. We also support an
additional amount up to $400,000 from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund for this program. Continued technological improvement of these
``smart pigs'' to improve their detection of corrosion, mechanical
damage and cracks will be a significant factor in decreasing accidents.
We also can support providing $400,000 from user fees and a similar
amount of money from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for mapping as
this project will include mapping environmentally sensitive areas that
are more susceptible to damage from liquid spills.
State pipeline safety representatives have been involved in the
development of the risk management demonstration program. They want to
be involved in evaluating risk management as a safety strategy and to
play an active role in reviewing projects as they develop. As currently
only interstate facilities have applied for this demonstration program,
INGAA can support continued funding of state grants of $500,000 to
allow participation by the states until the report on the demonstration
program is submitted to Congress. We also recommend that a portion of
these grants ($250,000) comes from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
as five petroleum companies have plans approved by OPS. These plans
should assist these companies in further reducing any leaks or spills.
Once this program is established, it should be appropriate to consider
reducing or sunsetting these state grants as the need for meetings to
develop and educate states should diminish.
INGAA wants to work with the Subcommittee and OPS to use our
resources efficiently to continue to develop risk assessment and risk
management techniques and improve technology to make moving natural gas
by pipeline ever safer. We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to submit this testimony on the Office of Pipeline Safety budget for
fiscal year 2000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TNDPT.006
______
U.S. COAST GUARD
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: The
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) thanks you for the opportunity to
present its position on the fiscal year 2000 U.S. Coast Guard Budget.
In addition, the Association appreciates the Subcommittee's support in
securing increased Coast Guard funding via last year's Omnibus
Appropriations Act.
The FRA was established in 1924 and now represents 155,000 active
duty, reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine
Corps--collectively known as the Sea Services. The association was
granted a Federal Charter by Congress in 1996 in recognition of its
work on personnel issues. FRA is a founding member and the leading
enlisted association in The Military Coalition (TMC), a consortium of
30 military and veterans organizations collectively representing over
five million members. With that in mind, personnel and quality of life
issues are the focus of this statement.
the coast guard's importance
Although often operating out of the public spotlight, the United
States Coast Guard is integral to our nation's well being and the
safety of its citizens who rely upon search and rescue support and the
safety and security the service maintains along our coastal areas and
waterways.
In 1998, the men and women of the Coast Guard were responsible for
saving 3,800 lives and ensuring the safe passage of over one million
commercial vessels through U.S. harbors. The service performed 54,000
merchant vessel inspections, 141,000 pleasure craft examinations,
boarded over 14,000 fishing vessels and completed 900 inspections of
offshore drilling units. In addition, successful drug interdiction
efforts resulted in the confiscation of nearly 83,000 pounds of cocaine
and 31,000 pounds of marijuana. Beyond these efforts, the Coast Guard
ensured compliance with environmental and safety laws and responded to
water pollution and hazardous material releases, maintained nearly
50,000 aids to navigation, and interdicted 3,600 illegal migrants. This
overview illustrates the Coast Guard's immense mission requirements and
broad range of essential services.
Because of its vital importance to our nation, the Coast Guard
deserves a more stable and consistent annual budget. The patchwork
approach to funding last year resulted in heavy reliance on
supplemental funding authorized as part of the massive Omnibus
Appropriations bill. Funds allocated in supplemental legislation are
not considered in calculating subsequent budget requests which
compounds the challenge of planning and executing the next year's
mission requirements.
FRA believes the Coast Guard deserves better and asks you to help
ensure the allocation of adequate resources during each budget cycle--
especially for pay and other important quality of life programs to
ensure parity with the Department of Defense. Another option is
shifting to a two-year budget cycle.
FRA strongly supports increased Coast Guard funding for fiscal year
2000. There is a disconnect between the Administration's budget which
will only enable the Coast Guard to maintain basic services, and the
increasing importance of drug interdiction work and growing mission
requirements. Increased budget allocations are required to support
these efforts, ensure readiness and fund important personnel programs.
Also supporting this is speculation that the Council on Roles and
Missions of the U.S. Coast Guard will likely include a thorough
examination of new threats to the U.S. and expand future Coast Guard
mission requirements.
As FRA noted last year and referenced above, parity with DOD
regarding funds to underwrite pay hikes and pay table reform, access to
quality health care, equitable retirement benefits, and retiree cost of
living adjustments (COLAs) are especially important. Without adequate
funds for these programs, the Coast Guard must dip into already tight
operations accounts--a practice which adversely affects its ability to
fulfill growing mission requirements.
Key areas of concern are detailed in the following sections.
compensation
Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) active duty pay adjustments remain
a top priority for FRA and The Military Coalition. The Administration
request for a 4.4 percent active duty pay increase in fiscal year 2000
is enthusiastically welcomed followed by full Employment Cost Index
(ECI) adjustments in subsequent years. If en acted, this will help
reverse the 13.5 percent pay gap between military and civilian pay
levels which is the result of capped active duty pay adjustments in 12
of the past 17 years.
Pay table reform is also part of the Administration's budget with
targeted pay hikes set to become effective on 1 July 2000. FRA
appreciates the inclusion of funds in the Coast Guard budget to cover
these important changes, however additional funding may be required for
targeted bonuses in critical rates. Members of the Subcommittee are
also cautioned to be alert to the possibility of Congress enacting
higher pay increases and targeted pay rates. Fast track legislation (S.
4) has been approved by the Senate which includes higher pay
adjustments and other benefit improvements. If enacted, the higher 4.8
percent pay hike alone will cost the Coast Guard approximately $5
million more than currently budgeted for the 4.4 percent pay raise.
FRA is encouraged that Congress is responding to the over riding
need to close the military pay gap, reform the pay tables and repeal
the Military Retirement Reform Act (MRRA), of 1986, known as REDUX. And
after years of declining defense budgets, the Administration is
proposing increased funding for fiscal year 2000. This is in
recognition of serious retention, recruiting and morale problems and
the fear of returning to the ``hollow forces'' experienced in the early
1970's.
This is especially important to maintaining military personnel
readiness which is dependent upon adequate manning levels and the
achievement of recruiting goals to ensure the flow of highly trained
and motivated personnel into the career force.
Realizing the pending retention crisis and responding to concerns
expressed by its members, FRA took the lead in urging the introduction
of legislation in the 105th Congress to repeal the MRRA. In conjunction
with this initiative, the Association developed a survey to ascertain
the impact of MRRA on career decisions. A significant number of U.S.
Coast Guard personnel responded to the seven-part questionnaire
distributed to senior enlisted leaders and posted on FRA's web site. A
total of 3,403 active duty personnel answered the survey and of that
total 2,175 (64 percent) answered yes when asked, ``Is the REDUX plan a
significant issue in evaluating your career plans?''
FRA's call for a total repeal of REDUX is endorsed by all member
organizations of The Military Coalition.
Although this distinguished subcommittee does not have jurisdiction
over this issue, it is important to understand that the Administration
is proposing a partial repeal of the MRRA. This partial repeal will
retain limited retired pay cost of living adjustments for both the
Department of Defense and the Coast Guard.
Congressional action on these key compensation issues sends a
powerful message to active duty personnel, many of whom are frustrated
with the pay gap, three increasingly diminished retired pay programs,
and the demanding pace of operations which requires Coast Guard
personnel to work an average of 14 to 16 hours per day. These
challenges coupled with the demands to complete mission requirements
without adequate equipment, maintenance or complete personnel support
have prompted many mid-career personnel to seek separation from active
duty.
Also contributing to this scenario is the diminishing propensity of
young people to even consider a military career.
health care
The first and foremost concern for Coast Guard personnel
anticipating a new duty assignment is access to health care for both
the member and his/her dependents. Duty assignments range from Coast
Guard Stations near large coastal metropolitan and resort areas to
those in remote areas supported by only a few personnel.
These remote assignments are also far removed from military health
care treatment facilities (MTFs). Only about half of Coast Guard
families within the U.S. can participate in DOD's TRICARE Prime managed
care program which results in many having to utilize the more costly
TRICARE Standard program which covers only 80 percent of allowable
medical charges. Compounding this is the fact that allowable charges
can be less than what the care facility charges placing what often is a
significant financial burden on personnel and their families.
FRA is encouraged that Congress enacted as part of the Fiscal Year
1998 Defense Authorization Act, a new program known as TRICARE Prime
Remote to help correct this situation. The Association urges your
support in calling for timely implementation of this important program.
Please also note the challenge Coast Guard personnel and their families
face with claims processing procedures which require them to deal with
a civilian contractor hired by DOD to administer TRICARE. They question
who is their advocate and why they are caught in the middle of this new
system.
TRICARE also requires retirees to pay annual enrollment fees for
care but Medicare-eligible retirees are forced out of the TRICARE
system and onto Medicare at age 65. This is an affront to the
government's commitment to provide health care for life to career
military personnel and their families. Thanks to strong support from
you and other members of Congress, a demonstration project allowing
Medicare-eligible uniformed services retirees the option of
participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) is
beginning next January. FRA appreciates your support for this
demonstration and alerts you to the need to permanently authorize this
option along with Medicare subvention. A demonstration of the latter
was authorized in 1997 and continues at various locations throughout
the United States.
recruiting challenges
The Coast Guard is currently short 700 enlisted personnel and 400
reservists. These may appear to be small numbers, but when weighed
against the total size of the Coast Guard and the increasing
operational requirements, it is a significant short age. Manpower
losses cause increased workloads and often result in temporary
personnel assignments from one command to another to cover the gaps.
Accordingly, FRA strongly supports increased end strength
authorizations to ease the growing strain on the force to accomplish
mission requirements.
A major challenge for Coast Guard recruiting is effectively
competing with high profile, expensive ad campaigns by its DOD sister
services. Additionally, as noted last year, recruiters must contact an
average of 100 leads for each recruit brought into the Coast Guard.
FRA appreciates the authorization of funds for additional
recruiters and a heightened Coast Guard recruiting program. In
addition, FRA strongly supports the addition of 50 recruiters and
expanded recruiting efforts in the Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget. The strong economy coupled with issues addressed above are
formidable factors in meeting this challenge.
Noteworthy in the fiscal year 2000 authorization request, is the
objective of maintaining the Coast Guard Selected Reserve end strength
at 8,000. However, an examination of the proposed budget finds an
appropriation request to support only 7,600 reservists. FRA requests
your approval of an appropriation of $77 million vice $72 million to
achieve the end strength goal with necessary resources for training and
full support. The increase is more than justified by the increased
reliance on reserve support in filling the gaps resulting from the
heightened operational commitments and manpower shortage.
FRA asks for the Subcommittee's support for enhanced tuition
assistance benefits--something important to attracting more recruits.
The DOD annual tuition cap is $3,500 while the Coast Guard must
maintain a $1,000 cap due to limited funding. This is another example
of the importance of Coast Guard parity with the other services.
housing
Only about one quarter of Coast Guard personnel live in government
housing units with the others living in local communities and drawing
the basic allowance for housing (BAH). Unfortunately, many personnel
must supplement the cost of housing because BAH fails to cover all
costs. Compounding this is the fact that many Coast Guard personnel are
assigned near pricey resort areas and are often required to live some
distance from their duty station to secure lower cost housing. In
addition, there is limited rental housing in some areas.
To help remedy the situation, the Coast Guard has developed a
subsidy for leased housing to augment BAH rates. FRA urges adequate
funding to sustain this program so not to further limit its
availability.
FRA continues to hear concerns from Coast Guard personnel about the
accuracy of housing cost data in remote locations--duty sites for
thousands of Coast Guard enlisted personnel. Once fully implemented,
the new BAH survey data may provide a more accurate cost data in all
areas of the country. This data is the basis for calculating BAH rates
and its collection is under the purview of the Department of Defense
which places a much higher priority on data from larger metropolitan
areas. With most of its stations along our coasts, the Coast Guard does
not have the latitude to reallocate freed resources from less costly
areas to augment the more expensive locales.
Congress must appropriate adequate funds to underwrite BAH to cover
actual costs. Covering these expenses is especially challenging for
junior enlisted personnel. This burden coupled with potentially high
health care costs noted earlier, provides a major disincentive for
continuing on active duty.
It's hard to believe Administration pronouncements about the
importance of taking care of active duty personnel when it does not
propose adequate funding for these and other important quality of life
programs.
Finally, FRA must mention the importance of child care. Although
the Coast Guard has adopted DOD standards, it does not have parity with
regard to the cost of care. DOD cost shares with personnel on a one to
one ratio while the Coast Guard has no such provision which results in
higher costs to parents utilizing Coast Guard centers. These along with
physical fitness centers and other facilities are very important to the
quality of life for Coast Guard personnel and their families.
dole commission recommendations
FRA calls your attention to the recommendations included in the
Dole Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance.
The panel recently released its findings after 18 months of evaluation.
Over 100 recommendations for improving personnel benefits are included
and, if enacted, some may impact upon the Coast Guard's budget. Space
does not permit a complete listing of the recommendations, however they
address education, the need for a military thrift savings plan,
healthcare improvements and enhanced employment and training programs.
Should your distinguished panel require details of specific
recommendations, please contact FRA.
conclusion
The Association appreciates the strong commitment of this
distinguished panel to maintain a strong and highly effective Coast
Guard. The basis for achieving this goal is a well trained, highly
motivated force dedicated to its mission. Today the people who comprise
this force are enduring expanded mission requirements, overlapping duty
assignments, and often frequent moves. These increasing demands often
result in minimal family or off-duty time.
The dedicated personnel of the Coast Guard deserve increased pay
and other benefits in recognition for exceptional service. FRA asks for
your support of enhanced quality of life programs, to ease the
important recruiting and retention challenges, to improve readiness and
meet the increasing mission requirements as our Coast Guard men and
women look to the new millennium.
Thanks again for your outstanding support and I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Captain Fred R. Becker, Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.),
Director, Naval Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United
States
The Reserve Officers Association is a private, member-supported,
congressionally chartered organization. It receives no federal other
public funds.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: It is my pleasure to
address this committee concerning the fiscal year 2000 budget request
for the United States Coast Guard.
First and foremost, the Reserve Officers Association would like to
express its profound gratitude to this committee, and to the Congress,
for their strong and vigorous support of the Coast Guard and Coast
Guard Reserve during the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 authorization and
appropriations process. ROA's testimony during the 105th Congress
addressed a number of concerns regarding the Coast Guard Reserve,
particularly with regard to funding and recruiting. In recognition of
the vital support provided to the nation by today's Coast Guard
Reserve, this subcommittee and the Congress responded. Specific
examples of your support in fiscal year 1999 included:
--A letter from the House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee expressing concern about the Coast Guard's
inability to recruit to authorized and appropriated end-
strength and setting forth the belief that, ``the Coast Guard
Reserve must maintain an authorized and appropriated end-
strength of at least 8,000 to remain a functional component of
the Coast Guard.''
--This subcommittee's work with the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation to increase the level of funding, in the
fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act, for Reserve training, from
the $67 million requested by the administration, to $69
million;
--This subcommittee's work with the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation to limit, in the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act, the amount of Reserve training funds that
can be transferred to operating expenses of the Coast Guard, to
$20 million, thereby providing an additional $2.5 million for
Reserve training;
--This subcommittee's work with the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation to add, in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental
Appropriations Act, $5 million for Coast Guard Reserve
operating, maintenance, and training expenses, with the highest
priority for use of the $5 million in enhancing drug
interdiction activities.
On behalf of Coast Guard Reservists serving around the globe we
thank you for this vital support!
To begin, let me say that we recognize that providing the critical
resources to the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard Reserve, continues to
be a distinct challenge. In this regard, we thank you for your
continued innovation and flexibility in supporting the Coast Guard's
daily life-saving operations, including recognizing the Coast Guard's
national defense function through the provision of funding from
Department of Defense appropriations.
coast guard budget request
The Coast Guard has streamlined and reduced resource requirements
to the breaking point. At the same time, responsibilities and work of
the Coast Guard have continued to increase. Consequently, appropriate
funding is required for the Coast Guard to remain ``Semper Paratus.''
Today's Coast Guard is an extremely cost-effective, flexible, and
responsive organization. It makes a daily difference in the quality of
life for Americans by saving lives, enforcing the nation's laws,
guarding our nation's maritime borders, and protecting our environment
and natural resources, as well as providing a readily available
augmentation force to the Department of Defense in times of national
emergency. Each and every day, the Coast Guard, augmented by the Coast
Guard Reserve provides an extraordinary return on investment to the
American People. In fiscal year 1998 alone, the Coast Guard:
--Saved more than 3,800 lives, and assisted another 50,000 people in
distress;
--Saved more than $2 billion in property;
--Interdicted shipments of over 82,000 pounds of cocaine and 31,000
pounds of marijuana;
--Responded to more than 12,500 reports of water pollution;
--Intercepted more than 3,600 illegal migrants before they reached
U.S. shores;
--Maintained more than 49,000 aids to navigation that helped ensure
the safe navigation of ships that carry 95 percent of the
nation's imports and exports;
--Performed more than 54,000 inspections on merchant ships;
--Inspected more than 14,000 fishing vessels at sea to verify
compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and,
--Conducted more than 141,000 courtesy marine examinations of
recreational vessels.
As the Coast Guard continues to streamline, funding less than that
required--to absorb increases from pay raises and other required cost
of living adjustments, as well as to recapitalize, replacing vessels
and aircraft that are nearly worn-out--will result in the reduction of
vital public services. Accordingly, to avoid any adverse impact on
future service, any further cost reductions must be achieved through
investment in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology and
increased use of the Reserves.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget request would allow the
Coast Guard to sustain basic services. Budget data has not yet been
released with regard to the Acquisitions, Construction and Improvements
(AC&I) account, apparently because of issues surrounding the funding of
the Deepwater program. Notwithstanding, we believe that the AC&I
account, which provides for the vital acquisition, construction and
improvement of vessels, aircraft, information management resources,
shore facilities and aids to navigation required to execute the Coast
Guard's mission and achieve its performance goals, must be fully
funded. Simply stated, the Coast Guard will not be able to function
efficiently in the future without the modern equipment provided through
the adequate funding of this account. Future cost reductions in the
Coast Guard will have to depend on efficiencies derived from
investments in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology and
increased use of the Reserves. In this regard, we believe that the
fiscal year 2000 funding required for Deepwater program is at least $34
million, comprised of $15 million in funding for three conceptual
design teams ($5 million per team) and $19 million to fund Coast Guard
projects.
Funding of at least $34 million for the Deepwater Program is
required because, at present the Coast Guard operates ships with high
personnel and maintenance costs. The average age of the Coast Guard's
deepwater cutters is 25 years. The Coast Guard's fleet of high and
medium endurance cutters is older than 37 of the 41 naval fleets
worldwide. Some of the Coast Guard's vessels have been in service for
more than 50 years. Seven of the Coast Guard's 9 classes of deepwater
assets reach their planned service life in the next 15 years and a
major acquisition project typically takes at least 10 years from
inception to the fielding of the first new asset.
Simply stated, the continued protection of the public, at a lower
cost, requires appropriate investment in the AC&I account--to enable
the Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships
and aircraft. In this respect, existing Coast Guard deepwater assets
lack fundamental capabilities necessary for efficient and effective
mission performance. These shortfalls include:
--Inadequate ship speed (to interdict go-fast boats);
--Poor sensors (the ever-increasing demand for nighttime operations
degrades target detection and hampers surveillance);
--Limited asset interoperability (some medium endurance cutters lack
flight decks and the Coast Guard's H-60 Jayhawk helicopters
cannot safely deploy on cutters);
--Inadequate communications (the Coast Guard's ships and aircraft are
linked only by voice, deployed ships and aircraft lack real-
time or near-time access to essential mission databases, and
ships and aircraft have limited ability to share either
tactical information or situational awareness).
In addition to the foregoing, because the Coast Guard's cutters are
based on technology that is 30 years old, today's crew sizes are larger
than would be than would be required with more modern technology.
Furthermore, as the Coast Guard's assets continue to age, they place
greater demands on the Coast Guard's logistics infrastructure as
manufacturers cancel production and support costs for outdated parts,
equipment, and maintenance increase, degrading operational
availability. Therefore, without the necessary investment in the AC&I
account, pressure will continue to build on the operational account, as
anticipated lower personnel and maintenance costs that can only be
achieved through investment, become unachievable.
In summary, investment in the AC&I account provides the requisite
funding for the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program, the Coast Guard's plan
to modernize its major cutters, aircraft, and command, control,
communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C\4\I) systems. The Deepwater Program is an absolute
requirement--to sustain the Coast Guard's capability for providing
services critical to America's public safety, environmental protection,
and national security for the future--through the replacement of assets
that are at, or fast approaching, the end of their service lives.
It should also be noted that the Coast Guard's medium and high
endurance cutters, acquired through the Deepwater Program, would be
readily available to support critical Department of Defense operations.
These operations would include maritime surveillance and interception,
convoy escort, search and rescue, and enforcement of maritime
sanctions, as was the case during Operation Desert Storm. The
employment of the Coast Guard in this capacity is extremely cost
effective as it permits Navy ``high end'' ships to be more effectively
employed in higher threat/combat operations. In addition, as the Navy
surface combatant fleet grows smaller, the future cutter provides an
extremely cost-effective ``dual capability.'' In this respect, the
Coast Guard is not only able to perform its peacetime missions, but
also provide the vital operational capabilities required by the Navy
and the Department of Defense in the 21st century.
In short, we believe that the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program,
while forging new ground for federal acquisitions, is critical to the
nation. The program's systems approach is truly unique and ambitious in
the realm of government acquisitions and the Coast Guard is to be
congratulated for embracing it.
selected reserve strength
The fiscal year 2000 administration request is to maintain the
Coast Guard Selected Reserve's authorized end-strength at the 8,000-
level, whereas the appropriation's request is for 7,600. As the Coast
Guard Reserve's appropriated end-strength for fiscal year 1999 is 8,000
and the Coast Guard Reserve end-strength continues to increase to meet
the Congress' mandate of 8,000 Coast Guard Reservists, we have very
serious concerns regarding the administration's proposal for an
appropriated end-strength of only 7,600. We also have concerns
regarding an authorized end-strength of only 8,000, in view of the fact
that the commandant has conducted an in-depth study that clearly
indicates and justifies a requirement nearly 12,300 Coast Guard
Reservists. In this regard, we are extremely grateful that the House
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee has, by letter
dated December 17, 1998, requested a copy of this report.
In recent years, the Congress, the administration, and Coast Guard
leadership have increasingly recognized the unique capabilities of the
Coast Guard Reserve. It is now well recognized that the Coast Guard
Reserve has clearly become a value-added resource for peacetime day-to-
day operations, as well as a highly cost-effective source of needed,
trained personnel to meet military contingency and other surge
requirements. For example, as noted by this subcommittee, Coast Guard
Reservists provided 25 percent of the total surge needed for the very
successful anti-drug initiative Frontier Shield.
In view of the foregoing, a request to fund only 7,600 Reservists
simply makes no sense at a time when the Coast Guard is making
significant strides in correcting the end-strength shortfall that has
existed over the past several years. The Coast Guard has increased its
recruiting capabilities and put into place a multi-year plan to get the
Coast Guard Reserve back to strength. As of January 25, 1999 Coast
Guard Reserve end-strength was at 7,579, having increased from a 2-year
low of 7,243 in April 1998. Of further note, as of January 25, 1999,
there were 176 Reservists, on extended active duty and long-term active
duty for special work, filling active duty shortfalls. The number of
Reservists on active duty is the direct result of the Coast Guard's
solicitation of volunteers from the Selected Reserve to serve on
extended active duty to fill full-time active duty billets for periods
of 2 to 4 years.
In addition, it must be noted that the Coast Guard has made
significant headway in intensifying its Reserve recruiting over the
past year. Such efforts have included the designation of at least 38
recruiters to access Reservists. In addition, there has been heightened
attention to Reserve recruiting. Rear Admiral Fred L. Ames, Assistant
Commandant for Human Resources, has directly addressed the problem in
two separate issue of Flag Voice. Of particular note, Admiral Ames'
Flag Voice 5, dated September 4, 1998, states,
Reservists aren't just a part time resource. More than 130
Reservists are answering the call to extended active duty
during our current shortage of `regulars.' More than 187
reservists are currently on * * * (active duty) assisting units
in various special projects. Still more Reservists perform
their annual two-week duty during peak operational periods. We
benefit daily from these members' availability.
In addition, Rear Admiral Thomas J. Barrett, Director, Reserve and
Training, has sent letters to the Atlantic and Pacific Maintenance
Logistic Commanders and to every drilling Reservist regarding the
recruiting problem. Admiral Barrett's letters, dated August 5, 1998,
provide additional direction and background, stating:
Reserve personnel shortages coupled with active-duty
shortfalls have deeply impacted Coast Guard missions * * *. The
absence of these personnel (Reservists) hampers the Coast
Guard's ability to execute our missions and leaves a greater
burden on those already in service. Despite our best efforts,
personnel shortages in both the Reserve and active components
are deeply impacting Coast Guard missions. This year, we were
unable to fully staff the Ninth District's Operation
Summerstock (Great Lakes) from the Coast Guard Reserve alone.
More and more calls for Reserve support are coming up short for
the simple reason that there are not enough of us to go around.
In summary, the Congress and the Coast Guard have made the
substantial financial and manpower commitment to rectify the Reserve
end-strength problem. As a result, significant progress has been, and
will continue to me made. In addition, the Coast Guard is now making it
easier for active duty commands to ascertain Reservists' skills and
availability for active duty through the newly established Reserve
Availability Pool website (http://www.uscg.mil/reserve/respool/
respool.htm). As a result, the demand for Reservists to fill fleet
requirements in a Coast Guard that is short of personnel can only be
expected to increase. It, therefore, makes little sense at this
juncture to reverse course and force the Coast Guard Reserve end-
strength downward.
reserve funding
The administration has requested $72 million for the Reserve
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 2000, with $24.427 million
in reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures
for reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments by the
Coast Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a full training
program for 7,600 personnel. Even at this minimal funding level, Coast
Guard Reservists would continue to receive only 12 days of annual
training (AT) each year (all the other armed services are entitled to
14 days' AT by departmental regulation).
The funding required to support the full 8,000-level authorized is
approximately $78 million. It should, however, be noted that the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations bill, in appropriating $69 million for the
Coast Guard Reserve, limited the amount of Reserve training funds that
may be transferred to operating expenses to $20M. The House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation report notes that this
limitation is included because,
Given the small size of the reserve training appropriation,
and the declining size of the selected reserve, the Committee
wants to ensure that reserves are not assessed excessive
charge-backs to the Coast Guard operating budget. The Committee
continues to believe that, absent this provision, the proposed
level of reimbursement would be too high, especially given the
substantial amount of reserve augmentation workhours provided
by the reserves in direct support of Coast Guard missions.
The House report also specifically prohibits the Coast Guard from
instituting any ``direct charges'' that were not in effect during
fiscal year 1997.
ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the support provided
by the Coast Guard Reserve and the provision of this additional funding
through the limitation in reimbursement for operating expenses. In this
regard, the Coast Guard is the only component among all the armed
services that reimburses the operating expenses to the Active account.
The Coast Guard is reviewing its procedures for reimbursement with
a view toward modification in fiscal year 2000 and we have only just
been briefed on their proposal. Accordingly, we are unable at this time
to give an opinion on this change in procedures. We would, however,
note, that the bottom line is that the Coast Guard Reserve must have
sufficient funding for 8,000 Reservists and that the reimbursement cap
has over the past 2 years provided approximately $2.5 million of this
much needed funding. Accordingly, we would ask that any proposed change
in procedures be closely examined and meticulously monitored--to ensure
that the Coast Guard Reserve is fully funded at a level of 8,000 ($77
million). This would have a positive, morale-building effect on
Reservists by ensuring that the significant progress made over the past
several years in providing the additional funding requisite to
increasing Reserve end-strength will not be again jeopardized.
team coast guard
We continue to support the goals and objectives of Team Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard Reserve has become the ``bench-strength'' of the
active duty force. In this regard, a strength of 8,000 Coast Guard
Reservists equates to only 506 full-time equivalent positions. Of
further note, the Coast Guard Reserve provides the ability to surge the
Coast Guard by an additional 23 percent, at a cost of just 2 percent of
the Coast Guard's total budget. In this respect, the Coast Guard
Reserve is extremely cost-effective. Furthermore, the Reserve component
provides double benefit because Reservists are only paid when on duty
and because Reservists obtain their training for emergency response by
assisting the Coast Guard in its peacetime functions.
Simply stated, and as noted in the quotations of Admirals Ames and
Barrett cited above, the Reserve leverages the entire organization and
stands ready to go in response to both domestic and national
emergencies. As a result, the Coast Guard is readily able to surge its
forces to meet domestic emergencies in an extremely cost-effective
manner, as well as to respond to national emergencies, including vital
harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard
Reserve Port Security Units. At the same time, as also noted by Rear
Admirals Ames and Barrett, the failure to meet Reserve end-strength
requirements adversely affects the Coast Guard and therefore adversely
affects the safety of those operating on the nation's rivers and
waterways and off the shoreline of the United States.
In an effort to assess the progress of Team Coast Guard and its
impact on Reservists, we canvassed our membership in December 1999,
asking for their views. Of the many responses we received, several
issues emerged. These issues are as follows:
Travel reimbursement.--Many Reservists, including enlisted
Reservists, must travel long distances to drill. The following
quotations from drilling Reservists provide additional insight into
this issue.
In many instances drilling Reservists have to travel upwards
of 330 miles one-way to reach their duty sites. This issue of
auto-travel-reimbursement is particularly problematic for
junior enlisted personnel whose drill pay is already relatively
small.
We currently have a number of enlisted traveling in excess of
350 miles one-way to drill. One (junior officer) is traveling
650 miles one-way to drill.
I have an E-3 who pays more for his transportation to monthly
drill than he gets paid. In other words, he is paying cash in
order to be able to drill.
Meaningful billets and lack of flexibility upon advancement. This
issue was addressed in the 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report
that was approved by the Secretary of Transportation on December 1999.
The report states,
When most Reserve command cadre billets were eliminated by
integration, senior Reserve officers and senior enlisted lost
their traditional management roles * * *. The force structure
and roles for senior Reserve personnel need to be reviewed as
program requirements are established. [This issue] * * * is
about appropriately using personnel in whom taxpayers have
invested heavily. Furthermore, it is about ensuring that
Reserve personnel perceive they can engage in fully satisfying
and challenging work throughout a full career in the Reserve
Component.
The following quotations from drilling Reservists provide
additional insight into this issue.
I am still concerned that senior Coast Guard officers and
enlisted reserve personnel may not have much to aspire to * *
*.
A major issue still unresolved is how the Coast Guard will
more effectively utilize its senior officers and enlisted
Reservists consistent with their rank.
Due to many active command structures, there don't seen to be
as many opportunities as in the past. There certainly do not
seem to be as many opportunities for command or senior
executive staff positions. * * * With the noted exception of
port security units, career paths for Reserve officers are not
as clear as previously.
With very few senior billets and minimum flexibility
(allowing senior people to fill lower ranking billets), many
see no real career path. We have seen at least two first class
petty officers that have refused to take the examination for
chief petty officer because there is not a chief's billet
available. In their cases, they had well in excess of 10 years
of service and were concerned that they would not be able to
maintain a billet long enough to finish 20 years if they were
selected as chief petty officers. The same situation applies to
lieutenants and to lieutenant commanders. There are many who
are seriously concerned about achieving 20 years' service.
The 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report, approved by the
Secretary of Transportation on December 9, 1999, also provides further
insight into this issue. It states as follows:
Reserve force employment is not consistent throughout the
Coast Guard. It has evolved over the years based upon the
personalities and interests of commands, and the personalities
and capabilities of individual Reservists. The current Reserve
Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) was developed in 1996-97
largely upon then-existing Reserve assignments. As a result,
one unit may have a dozen RPAL billets while a similar unit may
have no billets. Even when Reserve billet structures are
consistent between or among similar commands, units often have
different philosophies on employing Reservists. Some commands
use Reservists interchangeably with Active duty personnel.
Other commands use Reservists primarily to replace Active duty
personnel when billets are vacant during the transfer season or
leave periods. Some assign Reservists to work independently on
special projects. We recognize that field units need
flexibility in employing Reserve forces. Yet headquarters,
areas, and districts need to identify program requirements for
Reserve employment, and to provide guidance to field units on
employing Reserves. Based on these program requirements and
guidance, the RPAL then can be revised to better reflect
service needs. When the workforce structure has been redefined
by a revised RPAL, Reserve personnel can be recruited, trained,
and assigned to meet established requirements. * * * Reserve
personnel will have more meaningful assignments; they will not
have to create their own niches at each command.
Difficulty in meeting Reserve-unique administrative and training
needs. The following quotation from a drilling Reservist provides
additional insight into this issue.
* * * for enlisted reservists * * * many of their Reserve-
unique administrative and training needs are not being as
adequately addressed as * * * in the past. * * * Ultimately,
junior enlisted personnel do not seem to be receiving the same
level of attention and direction needed for retention and
advancement.
legislative issues
Prior to concluding, there are three legislative issues that we
would appreciate the Congress examining. The first legislative issue
relates to the Director of the Coast Guard Reserve. Presently, the
flag, or general rank, of the Reserve Chiefs of all the armed services,
except for the Coast Guard is codified into law. In this regard, Title
10,section 10203, subsection (d) states that, ``The Secretary of
Transportation may designate a flag officer of the Coast Guard to be
directly responsible for reserve affairs to the Commandant of the Coast
Guard.'' There is, however, no parallel provision establishing an
office, and Director of Coast Guard Reserve, as exists for the other
services (see Title 10, section 3038 in the case of the Army Reserve,
Title 10, section 5143 in the case of the Naval Reserve, Title 10,
section 5144 in the case of the Marine Corps Reserve, Title 10, section
8038 in the case of the Air force Reserve, and Title 10, section 10506
in the case of the Army National Guard). We believe that a provision
establishing a Director of the Coast Guard Reserve, headed by an
officer in the grade above captain, should be placed into Title 10. At
the same time, we also believe that the Office of the Coast Guard
Reserve and the Director of Coast Guard Reserve may have such other
functions as may be determined by the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
The primary responsibility of the Director of Coast Guard Reserve
should, however, be to oversee the functions and activities of the
Coast Guards' Reserve component. Accordingly, to clarify the intent of
Congress, establish consistency with the provisions of the other armed
services, and to conform to current Coast Guard practice, it is
recommended that a new section be added to Chapter 1007 of Title 10, to
read as follows:
Sec. 10203a. Office of Director, Coast Guard Reserve: appointment of
Chief
(a) Establishment of Office Director of Coast Guard Reserve.--There
is in the executive part of the Coast Guard an Office of the Coast
Guard Reserve, which is headed by the Director of the Coast Guard
Reserve, who may have such other functions as determined by the
Commandant. The Director of the Coast Guard Reserve is the principal
adviser to the Commandant on Coast Guard Reserve matters.
(b) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, shall appoint the Director of the Coast Guard Reserve,
from officers of the Coast Guard on active duty, or on active duty
under section 10211 of this title, who-- (1) have had at least 10 years
of commissioned service, (2) are in a grade above captain, and (3)is
recommended by the Secretary of Transportation.
(c) Term.--(1) The Director of the Coast Guard Reserve holds office
for a term determined by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, normally
two years, but may be removed for cause at any time. This officer may
be allowed to serve a maximum term of up to four years.
(2) The Director of Coast Guard Reserve, while so serving, has a
grade above captain, without vacating the officer's permanent grade.
(d) Budget.--The Director of Coast Guard Reserve is the official
within the executive part of the Coast Guard who, subject to the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Transportation
and Commandant of the Coast Guard, is responsible for preparation,
justification, and execution of the personnel, operation and
maintenance, and construction budgets for the Coast Guard Reserve. As
such, the Director of Coast Guard Reserve is the director and
functional manager of appropriations made for the Coast Guard Reserve
in those areas.
(e) Annual Report.--The Director of Coast Guard Reserve shall
submit to the Secretary of Defense an annual report on the state of the
Coast Guard Reserve and the ability of the Coast Guard Reserve to meet
its missions. The report shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Commandant of the Coast Guard and may be submitted in classified and
unclassified versions.
The table of section for such chapter 1007 is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 10203 the following new item:
Sec. 10203a. Office of Director, Coast Guard Reserve: appointment of
Chief
The second legislative issue is with regard to special pay. Title
37 USC, section 308d, subsection (a), currently authorizes up to $10.00
of special pay, per period of appropriate duty, for members of the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve at high priority units for
service on inactive duty training. The authority to prescribe
regulations to implement this section is, however, limited to the
Secretary of Defense, effectively excluding the Coast Guard Reserve
from exercising this authority. We would advocate providing such
authority to the Secretary of Transportation. In this regard during the
1994 to 1998 recruiting years, the Coast Guard had significant
difficulty in reaching its Reserve recruiting goals. This personnel
shortage has a particularly negative effect on high priority units,
such as port security units, where there have been chronic difficulties
filling positions. Providing such authority to the Secretary of
Transportation would provide a highly effective discretionary
accession/retention tool to Coast Guard Reserve managers, enabling them
to more effectively manage force readiness requirements for high
priority units.
The third legislative issue is with regard to the repayment of
education loans. Title 10 USC, section 16301, permits the Secretary of
Defense to repay education loans of enlisted members of the Selected
Reserve with critical specialties. This authority is not provided to
the Secretary of Transportation. We would ask that such authority be
provided to the Secretary of Transportation. As is the case with the
special pay authority previously addressed, providing such authority to
the Secretary of Transportation would provide a highly effective
discretionary accession/retention tool to Coast Guard Reserve managers,
enabling them to more effectively manage force readiness requirements
for high priority units.
conclusion
In conclusion, this committee's support of the Coast Guard has been
vital to maintaining its military capability. Your continued support is
essential. Thank you for this opportunity to present the position of
the Reserve Officers Association to this committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S. Coast
Guard.
Though perhaps best known for its important work in coastal waters
and on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard also provides essential
services on the nation's inland rivers. Nowhere are these services more
important than on the Upper Mississippi River System, which Congress
has designated as a nationally significant commercial navigation system
and a nationally significant ecosystem. The Coast Guard helps to ensure
that the river can continue to serve both of these important functions.
Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for the Coast Guard's
Operating Expenses account. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
proposal includes $2.941 billion for this account, an increase of 9.0
percent from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Operating Expenses
account funds activities that are critical to the safe, efficient
operation of the Upper Mississippi River and the rest of the inland
river system, including aids to navigation, marine safety, and marine
environmental protection. Through these missions, the Coast Guard
maintains navigation channel markers, regulates a wide range of
commercial vessels in the interest of crew and public safety, and
responds to spills and other incidents. The beneficiaries include not
only commercial vessel operators, but also recreational boaters;
farmers and others who ship materials by barge; and the region's
citizens, who benefit enormously from the river as a nationally
significant economic and environmental resource.
Recent years have brought a number of changes to the way the Coast
Guard operates on the inland river system, including elimination of the
Second District; the pending closure of the Director of Western Rivers
Office; and the decision to decommission the Sumac, the largest buoy
tender on the Upper Mississippi River. The states understand that these
decisions have been driven by the need for the Coast Guard to operate
as efficiently as possible, and the states support that goal. However,
such changes must be carefully considered and their effects monitored.
It is essential for the Coast Guard to retain the capacity to perform
its traditional missions on the Upper Mississippi River. Toward that
end, the UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request
for the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses account.
Several other Coast Guard missions and programs are also important
to the Upper Mississippi River states. Unfortunately, this region's
devastating floods over the last several years have given many of its
citizens direct personal experience with the importance of the Coast
Guard's reservists. Reserve forces are a critical part of the Coast
Guard's ability to respond effectively to natural disasters and other
large-scale events. In addition, reservists perform key staff functions
at many of the marine safety detachments on the inland rivers. The
UMRBA supports the President's request of $72 million for Coast Guard
Reserve, an amount intended to support 7,600 reservists nationwide.
In addition, the Coast Guard's boating safety grants to the states
have a proven record of success. The Upper Mississippi is a river where
all types of recreational craft routinely operate in the vicinity of
15-barge tows, making boating safety all the more important. The UMRBA
asks Congress to appropriate the full authorized amount of $70 million
to support the states in this important mission.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Advanced Transportation Technology Consortia, prepared statement. 714
Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association,
prepared statement............................................. 693
Anderson, John H., Jr., Director, Transportation Issues, General
Accounting Office.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Austin, Julie M., Executive Director, Foothill Transit, prepared
statement...................................................... 763
Barker, J. Barry, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River
City (TARC), prepared statement................................ 759
Basso, Peter J., Assistant Secretary, Budget and Programs,
Department of Transportation................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Beam, Bruce, Chairman, Consumers United for Rail Equity, letter
from........................................................... 735
Becker, Captain Fred R., Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.), Director, Naval
Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
prepared statement............................................. 800
Bolen, Edward M., President, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, prepared statement................................ 697
Brown, Kirk, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation,
prepared statement............................................. 727
Burke, Yvonne Brathwaite, County of Los Angeles, First Vice
Chair, Board of Directors, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), prepared statement............. 764
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted by................................................... 156
Capon, Ross B., Executive Director, National Association of
Railroad Passengers, prepared statement........................ 740
Carney, Michael, Chairman, Association of Waste Hazardous
Materials Transportation, Alexandria, VA, prepared statement... 787
City of Miami Beach, FL, prepared statement...................... 753
Clark, Les, Vice President, Independent Oil Producers Agency,
prepared statement............................................. 707
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement.......... 709
Cunha, Manuel, Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League, prepared
statement...................................................... 707
Delaney, Mayor Paula, City of Gainesville, FL, prepared statement 749
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by................................................... 147
Dysart, Mark R., President, High Speed Ground Transportation
Association, prepared statement................................ 736
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement. 761
Fleet Reserve Association, prepared statement.................... 796
Foote, Stephanie, Chief of Staff, Office of Mayor Welling Web,
City and County of Denver, CO, prepared statement.............. 695
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 249
Prepared statement........................................... 253
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
submitted by.................................................240, 244
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, prepared statement........... 699
Harris, Harry, Chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Executive Board
Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation,
Newington, CT, prepared statement.............................. 724
Howe, Wesley J., Professor, Trauma Surgery, Chairman, Department
of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Injury Science, New Jersey Medical
School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey,
prepared statement............................................. 785
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, prepared statement 794
James, Mayor Sharpe, City of Newark, NJ, prepared statement...... 734
Judge, Patrick R., President, Louisiana Public Transit
Association, prepared statement................................ 767
Kenny, Michael P., Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, prepared statement...................................... 707
Lansing, Scott, Executive Director, Chatham Area Transit (CAT),
Savannah, GA, prepared statement............................... 747
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
Prepared statements........................................168, 265
Questions submitted by.........92, 99, 103, 152, 240, 245, 310, 357
Loy, Admiral James M., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of Transportation.............................................. 315
Prepared statement........................................... 324
Magistri, Sergio, President and CEO, InVision Technologies,
prepared statement............................................. 701
Mead, Kenneth, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General,
Department of Transportation...................................1, 161
Prepared statement..........................................14, 192
Miklos, Mayor Steve, City of Folsom, CA, prepared statement...... 749
Millar, William W., President, American Public Transit
Association, prepared statement................................ 743
Miller, Robert D., Chairman, Metropolitan Transit Authority,
Harris County, TX, prepared statement.......................... 769
Morgan, Linda J., Chairman, Surface Transportation Board,
prepared statement............................................. 657
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
submitted by................................................... 159
New York State Department of Transportation, prepared statement.. 772
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA), prepared
statement...................................................... 776
Parcells, Harriet, Executive Director, American Passenger Rail
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 730
Patrick, Barbara, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern County,
Member, California Air Resources Board, prepared statement..... 707
Penelas, Mayor Alex, Miami-Dade County, Florida, prepared
statement...................................................... 705
Pettygrove, Mayor George, City of Fairfield, CA, prepared
statement....................................................706, 747
Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, NV, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 781
Reheis, Catherine H., Managing Coordinator, Western States
Petroleum Association, prepared statement...................... 707
Seigel, John H., M.D., F.A.C.S, F.C.C.M., University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared statement................ 785
Shaw, Marc V., Executive Director, New York State Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, prepared statement................... 774
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:
Prepared statements...................................108, 164, 316
Questi91, 97, 143, 215, 243, 283, 337, 367, 374, 474, 568, 598, 662
Skoutelas, Paul P., Chief Executive Officer, Port Authority of
Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement........... 777
Slater, Hon. Rodney, Secretary of Transportation, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Transportation........................ 107
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Stanton, Norma, Chairman, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority,
prepared statement............................................. 754
Steven, Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared
statement...................................................... 109
Thompson, Hon. Tommy, Governor of Wisconsin, Chairman, Amtrak
Board of Directors, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)....................................................... 161
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Tucker, Robert H., Jr., Chairman, Regional Transit Authority,
prepared statement............................................. 779
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 806
Warrington, George, President, National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak)........................................... 161
Prepared statement........................................... 186
Wilkins, Phyllis M., Executive Director, Maglev Maryland,
prepared statement............................................. 738
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
AMTRAK FINANCE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
Page
Amtrak:
Reform and welfare reform, parallels between................. 213
Route system................................................. 199
Capital spending plan............................................ 210
Contracting improprieties and general failures................... 209
Farley building.................................................. 213
Independent assessment........................................... 198
Infrastructure condition......................................... 203
Las Vegas to Los Angeles service................................. 206
Northeast corrdior:
High-speed rail introduction................................. 201
Safety of.................................................... 204
Service outside the.......................................... 208
Operating subsidy................................................ 207
Partnership opportunities........................................ 204
Rail service, high-speed......................................... 198
Railroad support, increase in.................................... 205
Trans-Hudson Tunnel, need for.................................... 214
COAST GUARD BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
Adriatic, vessels in the......................................... 334
Air-21 funding constraints....................................... 326
Coast Guard's primary responsibility............................. 318
Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard...................................... 334
Deepwater:
Replacement project.......................................... 328
System....................................................... 322
Drug interdiction activities..................................... 333
Exxon Valdez anniversary......................................... 333
Fiscal year 2000 budget submission............................... 322
Health care program.............................................. 335
Navy, partnership with the....................................... 330
1999 accomplishments............................................. 320
Personnel requirements........................................... 327
Readiness issues...............................................323, 331
User fee proposal................................................ 331
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
Age 60 rule...................................................... 268
Air service, commuter..........................................271, 272
Air traffic controllers, hiring of............................... 281
Airline passengers, legislation for.............................. 260
Airport improvement program...................................... 268
Augmentation system, wide area.................................260, 261
Aviation:
Safety.....................................................252, 257
Security..................................................... 252
Budgetary firewalls.............................................. 257
Centennial Airport............................................... 273
Noise study at............................................... 274
Colorado airspace initiative..................................... 275
Contract tower cost sharing program.............................. 282
Cost accounting system........................................... 258
Denver International Airport..................................... 272
Explosive detection equipment.................................... 282
Mitchell Airport................................................. 274
Wisconsin.................................................... 274
NAS modernization................................................ 281
NATCA contract................................................... 279
Organization, performance based.................................. 259
Outagamie County Airport air traffic control tower............... 275
Salt Lake City International Airport ASR......................... 276
Standard terminal automation replacement system.................. 270
System efficiency..............................................252, 255
Transportation budget............................................ 267
User fees........................................................ 259
Impact of, no................................................ 258
Year 2000.................................................253, 257, 262
International efforts........................................ 262
FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUDGET OVERVIEW
Airline competition.............................................. 129
Airline Deregulation and Disclosure Act of 1999.................. 108
Airport improvement program...................................... 115
Alaska Volcano Observatory....................................... 109
Black box technology............................................. 130
Border and corridor.............................................. 134
Budget authority, revenue aligned................................ 127
Corridors........................................................ 142
Drunk driving laws............................................... 126
Economic:
Expansion.................................................... 111
Growth and trade............................................. 118
FAA:
Management advisory council.................................. 132
User fees.................................................... 133
Gas taxes, use of................................................ 128
Great Lakes...................................................... 115
Highway:
Apportionments............................................... 115
Funding guarantee............................................ 113
Human and natural environment.................................... 118
Loran radio navigation........................................... 131
Management challenges............................................ 112
Mobility......................................................... 117
Motor carrier safety............................................. 135
National security................................................ 118
National speed limits............................................ 125
NHTSA funding.................................................... 136
Olympics:
Controversy over the......................................... 140
Selection process............................................ 141
OMC location..................................................... 136
President's budget proposal...................................... 108
Safety and security.............................................. 116
Salt Lake City:
Authorization for............................................ 138
Projects..................................................... 138
Sound transit..................................................133, 134
Spending caps, discretionary..................................... 113
SUV's, crashes involving......................................... 127
TEA-21........................................................... 112
User fees......................................................113, 114
Y2K.............................................................. 118
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Air traffic control modernization................................ 82
Amtrak........................................................... 75
Analysis, proposed........................................... 76
Bus safety....................................................... 78
Challenges:
Aviation..................................................... 6
Coast Guard.................................................. 7
Department-wide.............................................. 7
Surface transportation....................................... 7
Common threads................................................... 73
Deepwater procurement............................................ 86
DOT and the year 2000 problem.................................... 80
FAA's organizational culture, changing........................... 83
Grant programs, discretionary.................................... 85
Infrastructure megaprojects...................................... 87
Management:
Issues, DOT's top 10......................................... 12
Problems, most-common........................................ 88
NAFTA and trucking............................................... 89
NATCA agreement.................................................. 89
Oversight:
Input........................................................ 79
Role of...................................................... 84
Rail as an airline alternative................................... 80
Year 2000 and FAA: worst-case.................................... 82
-