<DOC>
[DOCID: f:1910404.wais]
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General
Government, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2004 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.]
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers
The National Association of Railroad Passengers is a non-partisan
organization funded by dues and contributions from approximately 16,000
individual members. We have worked since 1967 to support improvement
and expansion of passenger rail, particularly intercity passenger rail.
We strongly support Amtrak's request for $1.812 billion in fiscal
2004. We recognize the constraints placed on your ability to find
funding for all transportation needs while forced to operate in an
environment dominated by guaranteed spending programs. Nevertheless, we
believe the committee has an obligation to develop a policy that puts
more balance in the nation's transportation system. Minor (or even
major) reductions in Amtrak's route structure would not yield any
meaningful savings for a couple of years but would drain energy--at
Amtrak, on Capitol Hill, and in the executive branch--away from the
productive efforts David Gunn has initiated to ``reform'' Amtrak from
within.
One cannot overstate the importance of his efforts to get Amtrak to
a ``state of good repair'' for the first time ever. This effort--
combined with capital improvements such as recent track work on the
Chicago-St. Louis line and signal improvements on part of the Chicago-
Detroit line--could produce very impressive ridership, even before
there are any results from the much-needed higher speed rail program
that we expect the authorizing committees to approve outside the
regular appropriations process.
We appreciate that the Bush Administration's request for $900
million is 73 percent higher than its $521 million request for fiscal
year 2003, but this would be a 14 percent cut from what Amtrak received
in fiscal year 2003, and is only half of what Amtrak says it needs in
fiscal year 2004. It has been said that $900 million nonetheless
represents an increase over ``average'' funding levels of the past ten
years--but Amtrak's delicate financial situation today is a direct
result of inadequate funding through much of that period, and Amtrak's
2004 request of $1.812 billion is meant to start to make up for those
past deficiencies. Looked at another way, $900 million is 40 percent
below the inflation-adjusted average for 1982-1984.
More recently, between fiscal year 1997 and 2002, Amtrak averaged
$1.1 billion a year in federal funding, with much of that coming
through the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA), which provided Amtrak
with $2.2 billion outside of the appropriations process.
public wants more travel choices, not fewer
Although public support for passenger rail was well established
before September 11, 2001, as reflected in polls discussed near the end
of this statement, the 9/11 catastrophe focused and energized public
interest in having more transportation choices, not fewer, and thus in
retaining and improving our national passenger rail network.
Because of the combined impacts of the ``airport hassle'' factor
and fear of flying, people who formerly flew to avoid four-hour ground
trips now accept ground trips of about eight hours in order to avoid
flying. Ironically, the majority of those trips are by car even though
plane travel remains far safer than driving. Where good train service
is offered in such markets, business is thriving even in the face of a
weak travel and tourism industry. The public--by its purchase of
tickets--has shown that it will ride conventional-speed services in
large numbers in many markets. Such trains need not come anywhere near
the speed of a TGV; they need only be reasonably fast and reasonably
frequent to be attractive to many travelers. This is not to deny the
importance of continuing to work towards world-class high speed rail,
particularly in longer corridors.
During the first seven months of Fiscal 2003 (October-April), the
following services posted travel increases in the face of extraordinary
weakness in the travel and tourism markets. The percentages shown are
increases in passenger-miles compared with the year-earlier period.
(The passenger-mile--one passenger carried one mile--is the standard
measure of intercity travel.)
--Chicago-Grand Rapids, +30.7 percent.
--New York-Pittsburgh Pennsylvanian, +21.1 percent. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Primarily the result of restructuring the train to run at
``passenger-friendly'' rather than ``freight-friendly'' times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Boston-Portland Downeaster service, +12.5 percent.
--Pacific Surfliner (primarily San Diego-Los Angeles-Santa Barbara),
+10.6 percent.
--Chicago-New Orleans City of New Orleans, +9.7 percent.
--San Joaquin Valley Service, +7.6 percent.
--New York-Charlotte Carolinian, +7.2 percent.
--Chicago-Carbondale Illini, +7.1 percent.
--Chicago-Quincy Illinois Zephyr, +6.7 percent.
--Sacramento Area-Bay Area-San Jose, +6.5 percent.
--Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder, +5.9 percent.
--Chicago-St. Louis, +5.8 percent.
Reflecting the relationship between an aging population and
interest in alternatives to driving, the American Association of
Retired Persons in its new ``Public Policies 2003'' states: ``Congress
should support nationwide passenger rail service that is integrated and
coordinated with regional, state and local passenger rail [and should]
establish a dependable funding mechanism that insures continuing
passenger rail service.''
ANALYZING ROUTE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead, in February 27, 2002, testimony
before a House appropriations subcommittee, called operating grants
needed for long-distance trains (what we call national network trains)
``chump change'' compared with ``the annual capital subsidy required to
continue operating'' Northeast Corridor trains. He said national
network operating losses are only about 30 percent of NEC capital
requirements.
We offer the following comments about measurements:
First, the passenger mile--one passenger traveling one mile--is the
standard measure of intercity travel. Trip lengths vary widely and use
of the passenger-mile reflects that. Thus, subsidy per passenger-mile
is a more meaningful way to measure the relative efficiency of Amtrak's
routes. To illustrate how results can differ, the fiscal year 2001 data
in the Amtrak Reform Council final report showed that the Southwest
Chief had the fifth best operating ratio but the fifth worst subsidy
per passenger. (Operating ratio--costs divided by revenues--is another
good way to measure economic performance.)
Second, the absolute numbers that have been widely quoted, though
they exclude depreciation, are based on fully allocated costs
(including, for example, a share of the Amtrak CEO's expenses) and thus
exceed savings that might be realized by discontinuing a specific
route.
Third, the Sunset Ltd. in particular has been hampered by
exceedingly poor on-time performance, much of which is related to heavy
track work on a largely single-track railroad as Union Pacific has
worked to eliminate deferred maintenance on former Southern Pacific
lines. There is hope for improvement. Union Pacific Chairman and CEO
Dick Davidson, Railway Age magazine's ``Railroader of the Year,'' is
quoted in their January issue saying, ``We do want to be a good partner
with Amtrak, and we're doing our best to get our railroad upgraded on
the Amtrak routes and work with them to improve performance.''
Finally, our Association strongly believes that the existing
network is a skeletal foundation, from which the system should grow,
and that all the routes that ``should'' be discontinued--and some that
should not have been--have already been discontinued. Thus, the only
purpose for ranking routes would be to identify where special actions
might be needed to improve performance, not to identify routes for
discontinuance.
We question the relevance of the planning process used to
restructure the Northeast rail freight network in the 1970s. That
network was dense and arguably overbuilt, so that it was easy to take
out many route miles without harming major markets. The Amtrak network
by contrast is skeletal. The ability to take out individual routes
without collapsing the system is limited because of the
interrelationships among the routes in terms of shared revenues
(connecting passengers) and shared costs (common facilities).
EXAMPLES OF IMPROVED EFFICIENCY AT ``GUNN'S AMTRAK''
Gunn and his key people have impressive knowledge specific to
railroading and to budget discipline, which appears to be paying off
already.
One change visible to passengers is the now-consistent, dining-car
requirement that sleeping-car passengers sign their names and room
numbers. Meals are included in the sleeping-car charge, but not in
coach fares. Reinstitution of the signature process--and an audit
(comparing dining car checks with passenger manifests)--aims to
determine more accurately food/beverage revenues and costs and to help
eliminate abuse (e.g., coach passengers getting free meals).
Amtrak is fixing, scrapping or selling equipment that has been out
of use, realizing that there is a cost to the indefinite storage of
such equipment. Elderly, costly-to-maintain coaches have been kept in
service (especially on the New York-Philadelphia ``Clockers'') while
modern equipment that needed only minor repairs was sidelined; Amtrak
is undertaking those minor repairs.
Amtrak is making good use of sizable inventories left over from
previous projects cut short by funding shortages. For example, Amtrak
has found orange upholstery to use when overhauling coaches with ratty
old upholstery of the same color. The end result may not be the color
one would have chosen for the new century, but it will be clean and
new--and did not require any new purchase.
Amtrak is covering a lot of old carpeting with plastic, which is
easier to clean and doesn't hold dirt, odor, or splashed coffee.
A new frequency--the 10th Acela Express on the New York-Boston
run--was added January 27 without increasing crew costs.
Amtrak's organizational structure has been flattened by elimination
of the Eastern and Western general manager positions, so that the seven
divisional general superintendents now report directly to the vice
president of operations.
Amtrak announced January 24 that it would close its Chicago call
center, the smallest of its three centers, at the end of December. Even
if the number of agents added at empty desks in Riverside and
Philadelphia equals the number of agent positions eliminated in
Chicago, Amtrak expects to save $3 million a year in management,
facility and technology costs. Any net reduction of agents--such as
might be possible because of the continuing migration of business to
the internet--would increase the savings.
APPENDIX I.--POLLS INDICATE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PASSENGER RAIL
Polls over the years have consistently shown public support for
faster, more frequent, and reliable passenger trains, including two
national polls last summer. A poll conducted by CNN/Gallup/USA Today
near the height of Amtrak's June, 2002, cash crisis (June 21-23) found
that 70 percent of the public support continued Federal funding for
Amtrak. Similarly, The Washington Post found that 71 percent of
Americans support continued or increased federal funding for Amtrak
(August 5, 2002, article reporting on July 26-30 poll).
An October 27, 1997, nationwide Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN and
USA Today asked whether ``the federal government should continue to
provide funding for the cost of running Amtrak, in order to ensure that
the U.S. has a national train service, or the federal government should
stop funding Amtrak, even if that means the train service could go out
of business if it doesn't operate profitably on their own.'' Favoring
continued funding were 69 percent of respondents, with 26 percent
against (and 6 percent other responses). State-specific polls also have
been positive.
Wisconsin
A poll by Chamberlain Research Consultants of Madison, released by
the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers in June, 2002,
indicated that
--77 percent of Wisconsin residents ``support a nationwide system of
passenger trains with increased routes, frequencies, and
shorter travel time.''
--76.6 percent said they would use the trains if the planned nine-
state Midwest Regional Rail network becomes available to them.
--54.3 percent responded positively to this question: ``If federal
funding is available for improving intercity passenger rail
services, Wisconsin may try to attract these rail improvement
funds by pledging to pay for a portion of the project with
state money as we do now with highway and airport projects. Is
this something you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose
as a way to raise money to develop passenger rail services in
Wisconsin?''
The survey, which was conducted over a week-and-a-half ending in
mid-February, took place as the future of Amtrak and the need for a
nationwide rail passenger service was being debated by Congress, and as
Wisconsin state government wrestled with its most serious financial
crisis ever. More information is available at http://www.wisarp.org.
Ohio
The Ohio State University Center for Survey Research (OSU-CSR)
released a poll (``Tracking Ohio'') on March 8, 2001, which found that
80 percent of Ohioans want the state to develop passenger rail service.
The following question produced a 74 percent positive response: ``If
Ohio had a modern, convenient and efficient passenger rail network, do
you think it would improve the quality of life in Ohio or would it have
no effect?'' About two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents said state
money should be used to attract federal passenger-rail funding to Ohio,
if such federal funding were available. More than half (53 percent)
said the best way to relieve road traffic congestion is to ``improve
all forms of transportation including mass transit and high-speed
rail.'' The statewide poll was conducted by telephone January 2-31,
2001, as part of the OSU-CSR's monthly Buckeye State Poll. The margin
of sampling error was no more than +/-4.3 percent.
New York
In 1998, the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion
(Poughkeepsie) released results of a poll it conducted of New York
State registered voters regarding state investment in intercity rail
passenger service (trips longer than 75 miles one way). Findings: 82
percent believed that having modernized intercity passenger train
service is at least as important as having good highways and airports
(of this figure, 12 percent felt rail service was even more important);
87 percent favored an increase in government spending for intercity
passenger train service. The poll was based on approximately 600
responses with a margin of error of no more than
+/-4 percent. It was commissioned by the Empire State Passengers
Association and the Empire Corridor Rail Task Force.
APPENDIX II.--BENEFITS OF AMTRAK AND PASSENGER TRAINS
In crowded corridors, passenger trains represent vital people-
moving capacity and help relieve air and road congestion. This benefit
will grow over time as travel demand continues to grow while airport
and highway construction face more intense local opposition and ever-
tighter limits on funding and sheer availability of land.
Amtrak is far safer than auto travel.
During inclement weather, Amtrak is safer and usually more reliable
than airplanes and buses. Amtrak was the only thing going in the
Northeast in the recent President's Day storm.
In most cities, Amtrak helps mass transit, downtown areas and
transit-dependent people by serving--and increasing the visibility and
economic viability of--transit-accessible downtown locations. Amtrak
feeds connecting passengers to transit. Amtrak shares costs with
transit at joint-use terminals and on joint-use tracks. Positive
impacts have been observed even in small cities with minimal Amtrak
service. Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Miss., on Amtrak's New
York-Atlanta-New Orleans run (one train per day in each direction),
says property values have tripled in recent years around the railroad
station, site of a relatively new intermodal terminal.
By contrast, new airports intensify energy-inefficient suburban
sprawl and stimulate auto-dependent development. This leads to the
social costs of getting transit-dependent people to work, or the need
to address the consequences of their not working.
Amtrak is important to those who cannot fly due to temporary or
permanent medical problems, and to those for whom physical and
financial considerations rule out driving long distances, for example,
seniors and students. (The editor of Frequent Flier, forced by doctor's
orders to take the train to Florida, wrote a favorable column about the
trip.) Indeed, some of those medical problems have come about as a
result of flying.
Amtrak serves many communities where alternative transportation
does not exist, is not affordable or only serves different
destinations. Trains can make intermediate stops at smaller cities at
minimum cost in energy and time. This is apparent in corridors--where
benefits go to such cities as Jefferson City, Lancaster, Trenton,
Kalamazoo, Wilmington, Bloomington/Normal and Tacoma. It also means,
for example, that the Empire Builder can stop at eight small cities in
Washington (plus Seattle and Spokane), 12 in Montana and seven in North
Dakota without compromising the train's appeal to those riding between
Chicago or Minneapolis and Seattle or Portland. Similarly, the
California Zephyr serves five Colorado points (plus Denver) and five
points each in Iowa and Nebraska. Also, Amtrak serves 14 North Carolina
points.
Here is an example of long-distance travel that I encountered on
the Southwest Chief: a mother and her 14-month-old child rode from
Garden City, Kansas, to Barstow, California. The family was moving to
California; the husband was driving the U-Haul; the wife and child were
on the train ``so the move would not be so traumatic'' for the child.
They did not consider the plane because they felt it would be too
cramped for the child. Also, airfare out of Garden City was
prohibitive.
Amtrak is part carrier (like United and Greyhound) and part
infrastructure. Thus Amtrak provides important passenger-moving
capacity, unlike airlines and bus companies. In much of the Northeast
Corridor and a few other places, Amtrak is the rail equivalent of the
air traffic control system, airport authorities and airlines. (Among
the ``other places'': the Chicago terminal, part of the Chicago-Detroit
line and the track between Albany, New York, and the Massachusetts
state line.) Elsewhere, Amtrak is the only carrier with legal access to
freight railroads' tracks--a quid pro quo for relieving the railroads
of their passenger-train obligations in 1971.
Amtrak's national network trains are transportation ``melting
pots.'' Intercity travelers by all modes had an average annual income
of $70,000. The comparable figure for travelers on Amtrak's national
network trains is $51,000. [This is 1999 data inflated to 2002 and thus
probably good for 2003 as well.] However, the majority of passengers on
these trains ride coach. Surveys available to us six years ago
indicated that, for 30 percent of coach passengers traveling over 12
hours, average income was less than $20,000 (for 11 percent, it is less
than $10,000). Obviously, most standard- and deluxe-room sleeping car
passengers have considerably higher incomes and pay much higher fares.
Nonetheless, anyone who characterizes these trains as land versions of
cruise ships should try walking the coaches, especially at night.
Trains, especially on longer trips, offer a form of social contact
almost lost in this country today--the opportunity to meet and relax
with total strangers that one may or may not ever see again.
Amtrak over much of its network enables one to enjoy gorgeous
scenery in total comfort. Some examples: the Connecticut and California
coastlines, the Hudson River in New York, the Colorado Rockies, the
mountains of Vermont and northern New Mexico, Glacier Park in Montana
and West Virginia's New River Gorge.
Amtrak uses only 79 percent of the energy airlines use to move a
passenger a mile, and only 22 percent of the energy general aviation
uses (to do the same). This statement is based on the following 2000
data from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's annual Transportation
Energy Data Book (Edition 22, published September 2002) and available
on-line: Amtrak--2,902 British thermal units per passenger-mile;
Airlines--3,666; General aviation--12,975. Just two years earlier, in
1998, Amtrak was at 2,441. Amtrak is much less polluting than
airplanes. (Energy efficiency is a good proxy for air pollution.)
Thanks to a growing array of connecting buses available with train
travel in a single ticket transaction, Amtrak puts people on intercity
buses who would not otherwise have considered using them. ``Thruway''
is Amtrak's copyrighted name for connecting buses that can be booked
and ticketed through Amtrak's reservation system. Thruways first
developed in a big way in California, where the state underwrites an
impressive network of dedicated, feeder buses. Elsewhere, depending on
the situation, Amtrak or the private bus companies themselves bears the
financial risks for many Thruway runs themselves.
APPENDIX III.--SUBSIDIES
Virtually all federal spending on highways is generated from user
fees. However,
--Federal policy helps encourage states and local governments to
spend primarily on highways and aviation, where federal funds
cover 50-80 percent of project costs, and not on railroads,
where federal funding generally is zero.
--A total of $34 billion in 2001 highway spending came from non-user
sources in all levels of government (while $10 billion in
highway user payments went to ``nonhighway purposes'' (Table
HF-10, Highway Statistics 2001).
--A mode-specific trust fund system insures massive continued
investment in the modes that are already dominant, regardless
of whether they are the best solution for tomorrow's
transportation problems, and regardless of the needs of the
users paying those taxes. A large proportion of them are soon
to be senior citizens who will place greater value on non-
automobile travel choices.
--User fees clearly do not cover environmental and other external
costs associated with highways and aviation.
The proportion of general funds covering FAA Operations grew by
about $2 billion from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 and now
represents about half of FAA Operations costs. As to airport
construction is done through public rather than private finance. The
savings associated with financing an airport project with tax exempt,
government-backed bonds rather than with commercial loans sought
directly by the airlines is substantial. The various sources available
to fund airports, like the mode-specific trust fund system, fall into
the category of reinforcing the dominance of modes that are already
dominant whether or not they offer the best solution for today's
transportation problems.
______
Prepared Statement of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA)
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
Subcommittee: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the
world's largest animal rights organization, with more than 750,000
members and supporters. We greatly appreciate this opportunity to
submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Department of Transportation (DOT). Our testimony will focus on
chemical tests allowed or required by the DOT to be conducted on
animals.
As you may know, the DOT requires hazardous materials to be
categorized and labeled for shipping. Traditionally, a chemical's
dermal corrosive potential has been estimated by applying the substance
to the shaved, abraded skin of animals. Fortunately, there are non-
animal test methods that are just as effective. Human skin equivalent
tests such as EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP> and EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP> have been
scientifically validated and accepted in Canada, the European Union,
and by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(of which the U.S. is a key member) as total replacements for animal-
based skin corrosion studies. Another non-animal method,
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP>, has been approved by the U.S. Interagency
Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods.
However, the DOT continues to allow the use of animals in many skin
corrosion studies, despite the availability of data from validated,
non-animal tests.
In 2000, PETA discovered that the DOT was using rabbits for
corrosivity tests for which, according to the agency's own guidelines,
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> could have been used instead. In 2001, at
PETA's urging, the DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement
added language to its operation procedures requiring that DOT staff
arranging for testing of materials ``inform the prospective laboratory
that you want testing to be conducted using the Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP>
testing protocol, when testing using animals is not required. Advise
the laboratory that testing using animals is to be conducted only when
absolutely necessary.''
We were glad to see that change in policy. However,
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> is not considered sufficient by the DOT to test
all of the hazardous materials for which the agency requires
corrosivity tests. According to the DOT's policy,
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> can only replace animal tests for organic and
inorganic acids and bases as well as acid derivatives. PETA would like
the agency to require the use of EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP> and
EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP> so that all of the hazardous materials could be
tested for corrosivity with non-animal methods. The cruel rabbit tests
for corrosivity are no longer necessary in any situation.
Secondly, to our knowledge, there is no DOT policy of enforcement
to ensure that only non-animal methods are used. Therefore, we are
requesting that the subcommittee include report language ensuring that
no funds for the DOT (including salaries or expenses of personnel) may
be used for the purpose of assessing data from an animal-based test
method when a non-animal test for the desired endpoint has been
validated and/or accepted by the OECD or its member countries.
ANIMAL TESTS CAUSE IMMENSE SUFFERING
Traditionally, the degree to which corrosive materials are
hazardous has been measured by the very crude and cruel method of
shaving rabbits' backs and applying the test substance to the animals'
abraded skin for a period of hours. As one can imagine, when highly
corrosive substances are applied to the backs of these animals who are
not given any anesthetics or analgesics, the pain is excruciating.
THE RELIABILITY AND RELEVANCE OF ANIMAL TESTS TO HUMAN BEINGS IS
QUESTIONABLE
The assessment of damage to the rabbits' skin is highly subjective
and variable, which limits the reproducibility of the animal test
(which, unlike non-animal tests, has never been scientifically
validated). One study, which compared the results of rabbit tests with
real-world human exposure information for 65 chemicals, found that the
animal test was wrong nearly half (45 percent) of the time in its
prediction of a chemical's skin damaging potential (Food & Chemical
Toxicology, Vol. 40, pp. 573-92, 2002).
VALIDATED METHODS EXIST WHICH DO NOT HARM ANIMALS
Fortunately, non-animal test methods, such as EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP>,
EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP>, and Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP>, have been found to
accurately predict chemical corrosivity without harming animals. In
fact, although the DOT continues to accept data from animal tests, the
agency specifically allows an exemption from animal testing for organic
and inorganic acids and bases as well as acid derivatives if
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> tests are used instead. The DOT has the power
to allow a similar exemption for EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP> and
EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP> so that no animal tests would be required for any
of DOT's skin corrosivity data needs.
EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP> and EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP> are comprised of
human-derived skin cells, which have been cultured to form a multi-
layered model of human skin. The Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> testing system
consists of a glass vial filled with a chemical detection fluid capped
by a membrane, which is designed to mimic the effect of corrosives on
living skin. As soon as the corrosive sample destroys this membrane,
the fluid below changes color or texture. Users simply record the time
it takes for the sample to break through the membrane. Then, depending
on their needs, they can assign the proper U.N. Packing Group
classification for DOT compliance, or use the data to substantiate
marketing claims.
NON-ANIMAL TEST METHODS SAVE TIME
Unlike animal testing that can take two to four weeks,
Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP> testing can provide a Packing Group
determination in as little as three minutes and no longer than four
hours.
THE DOT CONTINUES TO ALLOW THE USE OF ANIMALS
From materials obtained through the Freedom of Information Act,
PETA learned that the DOT itself has used rabbits to test the
corrosivity of products whose labeling accuracy was questioned by a
competitor.
Listed below are some of the products that the DOT has tested on
animals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Product Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoke Wheel Cleaner....................... Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Whitewall Cleaner......................... Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Savage Acid............................... Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Goodbye Graffiti.......................... Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Heavy Duty Spoke Wheel Cleaner............ Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Amazing Rust Stain Remover................ Full-thickness skin
destruction.
Oxalic Acid............................... Tissue necrosis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
The skin corrosivity of all the products listed above could--and
should--have been measured using Corrositex<SUP>TM</SUP>,
EpiDerm<SUP>TM</SUP>, or EpiSkin<SUP>TM</SUP>. There simply is no
excuse for causing this kind of suffering to animals when three fully
validated non-animal tests are available.
We therefore hereby request, on behalf of all Americans who care
about the suffering of animals in toxicity tests, that you please
include language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2004
Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill
stating that no funds for the DOT (including salaries or expenses of
personnel) may be used for the purpose of assessing data from an
animal-based test method when a non-animal test for the desired
endpoint has been validated and/or accepted by the OECD or its member
countries.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Subcommittee begins the fiscal year 2004
transportation appropriations process, the Coalition of Northeastern
Governors (CONEG) is pleased to share with the Subcommittee testimony
on the fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations
bill. The CONEG Governors commend the Subcommittee for its past support
of funding for the nation's highway, transit, and rail systems.
Although we recognize the extensive demands being made upon federal
resources in the coming year, we urge the Subcommittee to continue the
important federal partnership role that is vital to strengthening the
multi-modal transportation system. This system is a critical
underpinning to the productivity of the Nation's economy and the
security and well-being of its communities.
First, the Governors urge the Subcommittee to fund the combined
highway, transit and safety programs at levels that will continue the
progress made over the last several years to improve the condition and
safety of the Nation's highways, bridges and transit systems. In both
urban and rural areas, these infrastructure improvements are not only
necessary for moving people, but are also critical for improving the
projected substantial growth of freight movements along the Nation's
surface transportation system. The U.S. Department of Transportation's
2002 Conditions and Performance Report to Congress documented the
improvements in the physical condition of the nation's highway, bridge
and transit infrastructure as a result of the federal-state investments
made under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
It also found that a combined federal highway and transit program of
$53 billion annually is needed simply to maintain our Nation's highways
and transit systems in the current conditions, and a program level of
$74.8 billion is needed to actually improve our Nation's highways and
transit systems.
Within the Transit program, the Governors strongly urge the
Subcommittee to address the solvency of the mass transit account while
maintaining the basic program structure. Further, the Governors urge
the Subcommittee to continue the traditional 80/20 federal/state match
for the New Start Program and the Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary
Grant Program. These programs have been instrumental in ensuring that
needed funds are invested to improve and extend transit services in
both our urban and rural communities.
Second, the Governors strongly urge the Subcommittee to provide at
least $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for intercity passenger rail.
Intercity passenger rail is an vital part of the Nation's
transportation system, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
region, where it provides essential mobility, enhances capacity of
other modes, and provides much needed redundancy to the Nation's
transportation system. This funding level is critically needed to
maintain services and begin a program of essential investments in
equipment and infrastructure to bring the system back to a state of
good repair for reliable service. The United States Department of
Transportation Inspector General has noted that over $1 billion in
capital funds is needed annually just to sustain the current intercity
passenger rail system, regardless of who operates that system. The
states are already major investors in the current intercity passenger
rail system, with the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states already
investing over $4 billion in intercity passenger rail operations and
infrastructure since 1991. A funding level of $1.8 billion in fiscal
year 2004 will help provide a period of stability for intercity
passenger and commuter rail operations while the Congress,
Administration and states work cooperatively to determine the future of
intercity passenger rail and Amtrak in the Nation's transportation
system.
Third, the Governors urge the Subcommittee to continue funding for
investments in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). It is vital
that the Nation's transportation system maintain and enhance the
capabilities made possible by investments in ITS. The densely populated
Atlantic Coast region relies heavily on ITS to improve operations every
day on both highways and transit. The Northeast's rural areas and
communities also benefit significantly from ITS investments. The
region's ITS systems, including those provided by TRANSCOM and the I-95
Corridor Coalition, have demonstrated their critical role, both in the
emergency management and recovery phases, when security demands put
added pressure on the region's transportation networks.
Fourth, safety on the Nation's highways, transit and rail systems
remains a priority of the Governors. The safety of the aging rail
tunnels along the Northeast Corridor is a particular concern, and we
urge the Subcommittee to fund life safety improvements for the
Baltimore and New York tunnels. The Governors also support maximum
funding for the Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination Program. As
part of the federal-state partnership to correct hazardous conditions
on the Nation's highways, investments in highway-rail crossings can
reduce injuries and death from accidents even as they allow higher
train speeds and increased reliability.
Fifth, the Governors urge the Subcommittee to provide sufficient
funding for border crossing and gateway infrastructure projects,
particularly those transportation projects that are required to meet
new federal security requirements.
Sixth, the Governors also support the President's funding request
of $20 million for the Surface Transportation Board.
Finally, the Governors support continued federal investment in
transportation research and development programs, particularly the
Federal Railroad's Next Generation High Speed Rail program. This
program enhances safety and helps stimulate the development of new
technologies, which will benefit improved intercity rail service across
the Nation.
The CONEG Governors thank you, Ranking Member Murray and the entire
Subcommittee for the opportunity to share these priorities and
appreciate your consideration of these requests.
______
Prepared statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation.
UCAR is a consortium of 66 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional
research, education, training, and research applications programs in
the atmospheric and related sciences. The UCAR mission is to support,
enhance, and extend the research and education capabilities of the
university community, nationally and internationally; to understand the
behavior of the atmosphere and related systems and the global
environment; and to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for
the betterment of life on earth. In addition to its member
universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100
additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and 40
international universities and laboratories. UCAR is supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the FAA should support the
Administration's and the country's commitment to a safe, efficient, and
modern aviation system. Weather research contributes to this
commitment. In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure last month, Charles Keegan, Associate Administrator
for Research and Acquisitions for the FAA, stated, ``weather continues
to be a major safety factor for all types of aircraft. A recent
estimate by the FAA identified weather as being responsible for 70
percent of flight delays and approximately 40 percent of accidents. To
mitigate the effects of weather, the FAA's Aviation Weather Research
Program conducts applied research in partnership with a broad spectrum
of the weather research and user communities with a goal of
transitioning advanced weather detection technologies into operational
use.'' Leveraging the work of the research community, the FAA has made
tremendous strides in understanding and mitigating severe weather on
aviation. Current research on turbulence, thunderstorm forecasting,
oceanic weather, icing, and other areas will result in even more
savings, in lives and dollars.
Regarding the fiscal year 2004 request for the FAA, I would like to
comment on accounts related to aviation weather research that fund the
collaborative work of researchers in universities and federal
laboratories. These accounts are relatively small in dollar amounts,
but the work is potentially life saving for our Nation's pilots and
passengers.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
C. Overall Aviation Safety Improvement
1C01 Advanced Technology Development Prototyping
Within Advanced Technology Development Prototyping of the
Facilities and Equipment section of budget, please add $5.5 million to
continue the development and implementation of a terrain-induced
windshear alert system. This project would be done in the Juneau,
Alaska, area because of the complex terrain surrounding the airport.
The technology developed could lead to a National Terrain-Induced
Windshear and Turbulence Alerting System that would be installed in
airports nation-wide to help prevent crashes like the one that occurred
in 1991 on approach to the Colorado Springs Airport. Work would include
verifying the prototype alert system and transferring the technology to
FAA systems developers. I urge the Committee to provide $2.98 billion
for Facilities and Equipment in fiscal year 2004 (the same level as
last year and a 2 percent increase over the President's request), which
will fund a number of worthy programs, including the development and
implementation of a terrain-induced, windshear alert system.
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT (RE&D)
Those of us involved in aviation weather research are deeply
concerned about the fiscal year 2004 request for the FAA Research,
Engineering and Development (RE&D) budget. The total request for this
budget is $100 million, $48 million less than the final fiscal year
2003 appropriated amount and almost half the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2002. The Administration's inadequate budget request will
reduce research in aviation weather by approximately one-third (over 30
percent), and will result in the termination of a number of critical
and potentially life-saving projects. I urge the Committee to fund the
FAA RE&D at $148 million in fiscal year 2004.
A12. Improve Efficiency of Air Traffic Control System
Eliminated from the RE&D line in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request is line A 12. Improve Efficiency of Air Traffic Control System.
While it is true that airline delays are far less frequent due to the
decrease in commercial airline traffic attributable to the economic
slowdown and terrorist activities, the R&D that is now being described
as relevant only to efficiency clearly has as much to do with safety
issues as with delays. Research in the areas of severe convective
weather, visibility hazards, wake turbulence, and oceanic weather would
be eliminated under the current plan. In order to make this
appropriation, I ask that the Committee not transfer funds from line
A11. Improve Aviation Safety (see below). Moving money from one line to
the other will result simply in the same cuts to important aviation
safety R&D work. I urge the Committee to restore line A12 and fund
Weather Research Efficiency, at the very least, at the fiscal year 2003
appropriated level of $12.1 million.
A11. Improve Aviation Safety
Within line A11. Improve Aviation Safety, the Weather Research
Safety program funds many R&D projects including a focus on turbulence.
Over half of all turbulence-related injuries are caused by turbulence
in the vicinity of thunderstorms, leading to $22 million fatalities,
injuries and aircraft damages annually. Current research is focused on
forecasting the location and duration of thunderstorms, work that will
be reduced or terminated if this budget is cut. The request for Weather
Research Safety is down $1 million from the fiscal year 2003 approved
bill. Within line A11, Improve Aviation Safety, I urge the Committee to
provide Weather Research Safety, at the very least, the fiscal year
2003 appropriated level of $21.9 million.
On behalf of UCAR, as well as all U.S. citizens who take to the
skies, I want to thank the Committee for the important work you do for
this country's scientific research, training, and technology transfer.
We understand and appreciate that the Nation is undergoing significant
budget pressures at this time, but a strong nation in the future
depends on the investments we make in Research and Development today.
We appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
concerning the fiscal year 2004 FAA budget and we appreciate your
concern for safety within the Nation's aviation systems, particularly
during this extraordinary time in our Nation's history.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
APTA is a nonprofit international association of over 1,500 public
and private member organizations including transit systems and commuter
rail operators; planning, design, construction and finance firms;
product and service providers; academic institutions; transit
associations and state departments of transportation. APTA members
serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical
transit services and products. Over 90 percent of persons using public
transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA
members.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you for this
opportunity to address the need for federal investment in public
transportation programs under the Transportation, Treasury and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
ABOUT APTA
APTA's 1,500 public and private member organizations serve the
public by providing safe, efficient, and economical public
transportation service, and by working to ensure that those services
and products support national economic, energy, environmental, and
community goals.
APTA member organizations include public transit systems and
commuter railroads; design, construction and finance firms; product and
service providers; academic institutions; and State associations and
departments of transportation. More than 90 percent of the people who
use public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by
APTA member systems.
OVERVIEW
Mr. Chairman, throughout the United States, public transportation
is undergoing a renaissance. Steady increases in transit investment
have dramatically improved and expanded public transportation services,
attracting record numbers of riders on state-of-the-art systems in
metropolitan, small urban and rural areas.
In a recent five-year period alone, public transportation use has
increased by 22 percent--growing faster than vehicle miles and airline
passenger miles traveled over the same period. In 2001, Americans used
public transportation 9.5 billion times--the highest ridership level in
40 years.
Communities across the country are rehabilitating and expanding
public transportation systems and constructing new ones. More than 550
local public transportation operators currently provide services in 319
urbanized areas; 1,260 organizations provide public transportation in
rural areas; and 3,660 organizations provide services to the aging
population and disabled individuals.
Through improved mobility, safety, security, economic opportunity
and environmental quality, public transportation benefits every segment
of American society--individuals, families, businesses, industries and
communities--and supports important national goals and policies.
At the same time, the growing problem of traffic congestion
continues to choke America's roadways and constrain community and
business development. Polls consistently show that most Americans view
congestion as a serious problem that continues to grow every year. In
April of 2003, APTA and the American Automobile Association (AAA)
released the results of a poll that showed 95 percent of Americans said
traffic congestion, including commutes to and from work, has grown
worse over the last three years. The poll also showed 92 percent of
Americans said it was either very important (71 percent) or somewhat
important (21 percent) for their community to have both good roads and
viable alternatives to driving.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 GOALS
Annual Federal appropriations for the Federal transit program have
increased significantly in each of the last 6 years under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Federal
funding increased from just under $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1997 to
$7.2 billion in fiscal year 2003, a 65 percent increase.
The stable and predictable growth in the Federal investment in TEA-
21 led to impressive results for transit. While service was expanded
and improved, and ridership reached its highest level in 40 years,
public demand for additional capital investment, new transit services,
and improvements to existing systems continued to grow. This demand for
additional service and capital projects comes at a time when many
existing assets are nearing the end of their useful lives and need to
be improved or replaced. Indeed, a 2002 American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials report estimates that $44 billion
is needed annually to meet current transit capital needs for new
projects and improvements to existing systems.
APTA's recommendations for TEA-21 reauthorization have been made
available to committee members and staff and they contain detailed
funding and programmatic recommendations for the next 6 years. Most
critically, APTA's proposal urges Congress to continue to grow the
Federal investment in public transportation to address critical
national transportation needs, and to fund the Federal transit program
at no less than $8.1 billion in fiscal year 2004.
We recognize that the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution assumes
$7.3 billion in funding for public transportation in fiscal year 2004.
However, a provision in the resolution granted authority to increase
funding beyond that amount if Mass Transit Account (MTA) revenues
exceed expected levels. Revenues accruing to the MTA could be increased
in a number of ways. These would include providing interest on the
balance of the MTA, particularly if outlays from the account were
scored as they are from the highway account; or if user fees were
adjusted to account for inflation. Therefore, we urge the committee to
make every effort to set transit funding in excess of the level assumed
in the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution, in order to better address
transit capital investment needs.
FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The results of TEA-21 have been profound--more Americans have
access to efficient, safe, and modern transit options than ever before.
Federal investment in public transportation produces tangible assets in
our communities that citizens can see and use. These assets include
light rail lines, buses for commuting, and transit stations that
attract economic development because of convenient access to
transportation options.
Investment in transit makes sense because it is in demand.
Nationwide, many systems are bursting at the seams, with the highest
ridership in 40 years and a huge backlog of capital improvements
identified. In growing communities where transit has not been a
priority in the past, citizens are demanding new services and capital
projects. Public transportation supports a solid and growing economy by
providing access to labor, decreasing time lost to congestion, and
freeing highway and road space for the movement of goods and people.
Public transportation represents an efficient use of scarce financial
resources, because it helps to mitigate congestion in densely populated
areas and provides a mobility option to millions of Americans. Public
transportation represents an environmentally responsible transportation
option because it uses less fuel and emits far less pollution per
passenger than the automobile. A recent report by economists Robert
Shapiro and Kevin Hassett demonstrates that if Americans used public
transportation for only 10 percent of their daily travel needs, the
United States could significantly reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
INCREASED DEMAND
Growing demand nationwide for transit services shows the
effectiveness of federal investment. In a recent 5 year period, transit
ridership grew 22 percent, greater than the growth rate of highways and
domestic air travel during the same time frame. In that same time
period Chicago's MTA system saw ridership increase from 419 million
trips to 450 million; in Dallas, ridership on the DART system rose from
52 million to 60 million; and in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, from 713,000 to
819,000.
Support for increased transit service remains high. In February
2003, Wirthlin Worldwide Public Opinion Poll showed 81 percent of
Americans support the use of public funds for the expansion and
improvement of public transportation; 56 percent say the need to reduce
traffic congestion has become more important over the last 5 years. The
poll also stated 57 percent agree their community needs more public
transportation options, including 64 percent of urban residents, 59
percent of suburban residents, 51 percent of rural residents, and 55
percent of small-town residents.
This poll demonstrates that support for public transportation has
increased dramatically not only in our biggest cities, but in smaller
urban communities and rural areas as well, where 40 percent of
America's rural residents have no access to public transportation, and
another 28 percent have substandard access. It is estimated that rural
America has 30 million non-drivers, including senior citizens, the
disabled and low-income families who need transportation options.
According to a survey of APTA members, bus trips in areas with
populations less than 100,000 increased from 323 million to 426 million
in a recent 5 year span.
Another focus of the support for transit service is in the area of
security. During the September 11th attacks, hundreds of thousands of
citizens in New York and Washington were able to evacuate those cities
quickly and safely because of transit. As long as security threats
endanger our cities, transit serves an invaluable role as a method of
evacuation that will help get people out of harm's way.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
Investment in public transportation plays a key role in stimulating
local economies and the national economy as a whole. Investment in
transit infrastructure creates jobs. Transit-oriented development
around transit stations stimulates construction, new business and
housing which increases land value and property taxes. Transit service
provides employers with access to workers and workers with a way to get
to jobs.
Investment in transit creates jobs and significant economic growth
outside of the communities in which the systems are located. Optima Bus
Corporation (formerly Chance Coach), located in Wichita, Kansas, built
a 125,000 square foot assembly plant in 2000 and doubled its workforce.
Optima builds buses and trolleys to be used in systems around the
country. The same is true for North American Bus Industries in
Anniston, Alabama; Neoplan USA bus company in Lamar, CO; and MCI Buses
in Pembina, ND. These and many other companies supply goods and
services to the transit industry, employ workers and generate economic
activity in their communities with TEA-21 resources.
Public transportation's role in stimulating local economies is
profound. According to a Cambridge Systematics Inc. study, for every
$10 spent on transit capital projects, $30 in business sales is
generated. Every $10 invested in transit operations results in $32 in
business sales. Each $1 billion in federal transportation invested
creates 47,500 jobs. As States and local governments struggle to find
revenues, public transportation has provided a strong return on
investment. In Dallas the taxable value of properties located near its
DART system increased 25 percent faster than elsewhere in the metro
area. In this area, the state of Virginia will reap $2.1 billion in tax
revenues as a result of transit investment over the next 7 years.
Another benefit of public transportation to a healthy economy is
providing job access and reliability for an expanding labor pool. In
cities large and small, businesses and other service providers are
choosing to locate or relocate in areas convenient to public
transportation. Transit systems are working with local businesses to
provide transit passes and tax benefits to both employees and
employers. Transit continues to provide a reliable, convenient option
for employees who wish to avoid crowded highways or who cannot afford
to travel by car.
Indeed, public transportation plays a very specialized role in this
aspect of economic growth and stability. With the help of public
agencies in local communities, transit helps low income workers who
cannot afford other options stay productively employed and off of
welfare. A project in New Jersey provides passes and tickets to welfare
recipients for work-related travel. In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
the Pee Dee RTA coordinates with the county department of social
services to run a 24 hour commuter service linking rural residents with
jobs in the city. The Albuquerque transit department provides reduced
rate transit service for low income workers.
Further, savings as a result of transit are significant. Atlanta's
MARTA system saved an estimated $2.2 billion over a 14-year period by
providing motorists a public transportation alternative. A study by the
Texas Transportation Institute concludes that a single year's increase
in automobile traffic requires 27 miles of freeway and 37 miles of
principal streets in each city in America just to keep up. This is
significant when considering urban rail systems can provide more
capacity in a 100 foot right-of-way than a 6 lane freeway, which
requires three times as much space.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Public transportation represents an effective way to improve air
quality without imposing new government mandates. According to a report
released last summer by economists Dr. Robert Shapiro of the Brookings
Institution and Dr. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute,
public transportation generates 95 percent less carbon monoxide, 92
percent less volatile organic compounds, and about half as much carbon
dioxide and other pollutants per passenger mile than individuals in
private automobiles. The study also shows that public transportation
already saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline and 45 million
barrels of oil a year. This is equivalent to the energy used to heat,
cool, and operate one quarter of all American homes annually, or half
the energy used to manufacture every computer and piece of electronic
equipment in America every year.
The study also found that if one in ten Americans used public
transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by
more than 40 percent. This is nearly equivalent to the amount of oil
imported from Saudi Arabia annually. It reported that even small
increases in transit use would help most of the 16 major cities that
currently fail to meet EPA standards for carbon monoxide emissions; and
that transit is twice as fuel efficient as private vehicles for each
passenger mile traveled.
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL
In February, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal was
released. It calls for a 6 percent increase in funding for the
Department of Transportation, but no increase in overall investment for
public transportation. Prior to unveiling his budget, the President
identified his priorities for the Nation in the annual State of the
Union Address. These included revitalizing the Nation's economy,
reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy, helping the
environment by investing in hydrogen powered vehicles and applying the
compassion of America to solve disadvantaged American's problems.
Public transportation assists in reaching each of these goals.
Regarding the economy, 47,500 jobs are created by every $1 billion
invested in the public transportation infrastructure. $30 million in
private business sales are generated for every $10 million invested in
transit. Transit provides efficient access to labor and mitigates
congestion so that goods may travel more freely.
With regard to reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy,
public transportation reduces by millions of barrels the amount of oil
that would otherwise be imported every year. In terms of the
environment, public transportation produces less pollution per rider
than the automobile. It reduces the amount of volatile organic
compounds and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog and illnesses
related to polluted air such as asthma.
Public transportation is a compassionate way to address the
mobility needs of millions of Americans. It provides transportation
options to the disabled and those who are unable to drive. It provides
an inexpensive way for lower-income workers to commute to work,
allowing them to save money for their families that would otherwise be
spent on driving expenses. It provides a safe way for the elderly to
visit the doctor or go to the grocery store.
APTA questions the Administration's proposal to restructure a
Federal transit program that has worked so well in recent years. APTA's
recommendations for the reauthorization of the Federal transit program
build on the success of the current program without eliminating any of
the major elements of that program. We do not believe that bus
replacement and facility needs can be addressed by folding the
discretionary bus program into the formula and fixed guideway programs.
We support retention of a distinct fixed guideway modernization program
that helps improve the efficiency of systems that often operate at
capacity and serve large numbers of citizens in communities that depend
on public transportation.
Further, APTA opposes the Administration's proposal to reduce the
Federal share of new fixed guideway transit projects from 80 percent to
50 percent because we believe it would bias decisions on transportation
investments that are made at the local level. APTA believes that such
decisions should be based on project merit and local transportation
needs, and not on the basis of the Federal share of transportation
project costs. Communities that want to build rail and other fixed
guideway projects already make a substantial commitment of local
resources for project construction under existing law. Further, to
receive Federal funding for such projects, the community must
demonstrate to the Federal Transit Administration that it has the local
resources to operate and maintain the system once it is built. The full
funding grant agreement (FFGA) process protects against the funding of
projects that fail to provide good benefits to the community or do not
have adequate local funding for long-term operations. Good rail and
other fixed guideway systems can provide enormous benefits to a
community, including a wide array of economic benefits, and they should
be considered with other transportation investments in the local
transportation planning process on a level playing field.
We strongly believe that growth of the Federal investment in public
transportation can help advance many of the Nation's goals, and that
freezing Federal funding for transit will erode purchasing power and
increase the backlog of unmet transit capital needs. We urge the
committee to fund the Federal transit program in fiscal year 2004 at no
less than $8.1 billion.
CONCLUSION
Public transportation can play a key role in meeting the goals of
the Administration and Congress in providing economic development,
energy dependence, transportation options for Americans who cannot
afford to drive or are not able to, and preserving the environment. To
do so it requires a commitment on the part of the Federal government in
the form of increased predictable investment.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with the Committee as it
advances legislation to invest in national transportation
infrastructure needs.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2004 funding request of $500,000
from the Department of Transportation (DOT) for CCOS as part of a
Federal match for the $9.1 million already contributed by California
State and local agencies and the private sector.
Most of central California does not attain federal health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is
developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the federal ozone
and particulate matter standards in the 2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San
Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their ozone SIP in 2004
based on new technical data. In addition, none of these areas attain
the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard
will be due in the 2007 timeframe--and must include an evaluation of
the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the
Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary
to prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable
central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program was conducted during
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional
PM<INF>10</INF>/PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major
study of the origin, nature, and extent of excessive levels of fine
particles in central California. CCOS includes an ozone field study, a
deposition study, data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, and
a retrospective look at previous SIP modeling. The CCOS study area
extends over central and most of northern California. The goal of the
CCOS is to better understand the nature of the ozone problem across the
region, providing a strong scientific foundation for preparing the next
round of State and Federal attainment plans. The study includes six
main components:
--Developed the design of the field study,
--Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
September 30, 2000,
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling,
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region,
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study, and
--Evaluating emission control strategies for upcoming ozone
attainment plans.
The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well
as private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$9.1 million for the field study. The Federal government has
contributed $3,730,000 to support some data analysis and modeling. In
addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-kind support.
The Policy Committee is seeking Federal co-funding of an additional
$6.25 million to complete the remaining data analysis and modeling and
for a future deposition study. California is an ideal natural
laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the scale and
diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region (crops,
woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of addressing these gaps.
National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate Matter
Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and
private sector funds. Thus, the CCOS was timed to enable leveraging the
efforts of the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel
served dual functions to reduce the net cost. From a technical
standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was a unique
opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and ozone
control efforts. CCOS was also cost-effective since it builds on other
successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study.
Federal assistance is needed to effectively address these issues.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
from DOT through highway research funds. DOT is a key stakeholder
because Federal law requires that transportation plans be in conformity
with SIPs. The motor vehicle emission budgets established in SIPs must
be met and be consistent with the emissions in transportation plans.
Billions of dollars in Federal transportation funds are at risk if
conformity is not demonstrated for new transportation plans. As a
result, transportation and air agencies must be collaborative partners
on SIPs and transportation plans. SIPs and transportation plans are
linked because motor vehicle emissions are a dominant element of SIPs
in California as well as nationwide. Determining the emission and air
quality impacts of motor vehicles is a major part of the CCOS effort.
In addition, the deposition of motor vehicle emissions and the
resulting ozone is a nationwide issue.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Passenger Rail Coalition
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury and General Government, thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for Amtrak and for
rail safety, research and development programs under the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA). 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
businesses.
The American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC) urges the Subcommittee
to appropriate $1.812 billion for Amtrak in fiscal year 2004. This is
the level of funding Amtrak has stated is needed to operate the
existing national passenger rail system and to make crucial capital
investments. Under the leadership of Amtrak President David Gunn and
the Amtrak Board of Directors, Amtrak has been taking critical actions
to stabilize and improve the national passenger rail network, reduce
operating costs and bring a new candor and openness to Amtrak's
accounting and operations. A strong Federal appropriation in fiscal
year 2004 is essential to Amtrak's ability to continue these successful
actions and bring the national passenger rail system into a good state
of repair.
A modern, reliable and efficient national passenger rail system is
in the mobility, economic and national security interests of the
country. In busy metropolitan corridors, intercity passenger rail
offers a safe, cost-effective alternative to congested highways and
airports. For citizens of rural communities, Amtrak trains provide
dependable and affordable mobility that is frequently the only
convenient, all-weather intercity public transportation available.
Government investments in intercity passenger rail enhance national
security as was demonstrated in the days and weeks following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Investments in rail also yield
significant economic and environmental benefits for cities, States and
the Nation. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans
across all regions of the country, income and education levels,
strongly support Federal government investment in the national Amtrak
system.
AMTRAK TRAINS ARE AN ATTRACTIVE TRAVEL CHOICE FOR MANY
Ridership on Amtrak trains rose steadily for 5 years, from fiscal
year 1997-fiscal year 2001, and reached 23.5 million riders in fiscal
year 2001. Over the past 18 months, a weak economy, security concerns
by the public since the September 11th attacks and the war in Iraq and
other factors, have adversely impacted travel on air, rail and other
modes and the travel sector of the economy overall. The fact that
Amtrak ridership dipped only slightly in fiscal year 2002 from the
prior year's ridership is a good indication of the public's support and
comfort with travel by rail. In the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003
(October 2002-February 2003), travelers have continued to select rail
travel for many trips. Amtrak ridership has dipped 1.5 percent
nationwide compared to fiscal year 2002. In the West, Amtrak ridership
has increased 4.3 percent compared to one year ago, with western
corridor trains showing strong gains of 8 percent. California's strong
commitment to and investments in improved passenger rail service over
many years are paying off as growing numbers of people leave their cars
behind and take the train to their destination. Ridership on Amtrak's
Surfliner service that operates between San Diego and Los Angeles is up
21 percent in the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003, compared to one
year ago. Ridership on the state's Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin
trains is also up, 8 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. In March
2003, total Amtrak ridership was up 2.3 percent over March 2002.
Ridership gains have been helped by some travel promotions Amtrak has
run--as have the airlines--to attract travelers who are feeling the
pinch of a weaker economy and anxieties about the possibility of future
terrorist acts. Thus, Amtrak passenger revenues for the first 5 months
of fiscal year 2003 are 12 percent below revenues one year earlier.
AMTRAK'S NEW LEADERSHIP FOCUSED ON STABILIZING THE RAIL NETWORK
Amtrak President David Gunn and the Amtrak Board of Directors have
been taking actions over the past year to stabilize Amtrak's finances,
bring the passenger railroad into a good state of repair, reduce
operating costs and bring greater transparency to Amtrak's finances.
Under Mr. Gunn's leadership, Amtrak's management structure has been
streamlined to reduce costs and be more efficient. Amtrak has largely
exited the express freight business, which was losing money rather than
generating revenues for the railroad. Amtrak has embarked upon a
program to repair wrecked rolling stock that has been out of service.
Nearly 10 percent of Amtrak's equipment was in need of wreck repair
last year. As of the end of April 2003, 22 railcars will have been
repaired to go back into service on routes around the country.
CAPITAL FUNDING NEEDED TO ADDRESS CRITICAL INVESTMENT
Insufficient capital funding and Amtrak's focus in recent years on
achieving operating self-sufficiency, as mandated by Congress, resulted
in deferral of investment in important capital projects. Amtrak's
fiscal year 2004 request of $1.812 billion includes $1.04 billion to
address critical capital needs. These needs include infrastructure
investments on the Northeast Corridor that are crucial to operation of
the high-speed Acela Express service and investments to continue to
repair and return to service rolling stock that has been sidelined. The
remaining $768 million is needed for operation of the national Amtrak
system. Amtrak is pursuing a sound course and APRC urges Congress to
provide this critical funding to enable Amtrak to make needed
investments in the year ahead.
FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Federal investments in transportation infrastructure are vital to
the economic productivity of states and the nation. Every billion
dollars invested in transportation infrastructure projects generates
approximately 42,000 jobs. These investments ripple through the
economy, amplifying the economic benefits of the investment.
Investments in intercity passenger rail will create new jobs, spur
economic development and enhance the economic competitiveness of
regions that invest in improved passenger rail service.
The U.S. government has underinvested in passenger rail for years.
The U.S. government invests only 1 percent of total transportation
spending on intercity passenger rail each year. Other industrialized
nations, with whom the United States competes in the global market, by
contrast, invest over 20 percent of total transportation capital
spending in rail. It is time to reverse this pattern of
underinvestment. The returns to the Nation will be substantial.
RAIL BENEFITS RURAL AMERICA AS WELL AS METROPOLITAN CORRIDORS
The need for intercity passenger rail service in congested
metropolitan corridors is clear to most policy makers. What appears to
be less appreciated is the value intercity passenger rail service
provides to small cities and communities across the country. Yet,
intercity passenger rail service is vital to the economic health of
hundreds of America's small cities and rural communities and the
mobility of their citizens. Airlines have reduced or abandoned air
service to many small cities, making the role of intercity passenger
rail even more important to the mobility of citizens in these
communities. Residents of Tuscaloosa and Anniston, AL, of Marshall and
Gainesville, Texas, of Rugby, Minot and Devils Lake, ND and hundreds of
other communities from coast to coast value and depend upon the
passenger trains that connect their communities to the rest of the
Nation.
RAIL CONTRIBUTES TO OTHER NATIONAL GOALS
Travel by passenger trains is energy-efficient, consuming about 38
percent less energy (BTU's) per passenger-mile than travel by
commercial airline. Transportation is the only sector of the U.S.
economy that consumes more oil today than it did 20 years ago. U.S.
dependence on imported oil has been rising and since 1997, exceeds 50
percent of our daily petroleum use. Last year, the United States spent
$90 billion for imported oil. Investments in improved passenger rail
service are a sensible way to reduce the vulnerability created by the
nation's heavy and costly dependence on imported oil. Lower energy
consumption translates into benefits to air quality. Investments in
passenger rail help reduce harmful air pollutants and contribute to
state and community efforts to achieve healthy air quality.
In conclusion, APRC urges the Subcommittee to fully fund Amtrak's
request for $1.812 billion in fiscal year 2004 to enable Amtrak to
continue down the path it is pursuing to improve the reliability and
quality of passenger rail service nationwide. APRC also supports strong
funding of rail safety and research and development programs under the
Federal Railroad Administration.
Thank you Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf of our rail business
association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Railway Supply Institute, Inc.
On behalf of the Railway Supply Institute (RSI), I offer the
following comments on Amtrak's fiscal year 2004 appropriation request.
RSI is a trade association that represents the domestic railway
supply industry. Our members provide goods and services to the Nation's
freight and passenger railroads as well as to rail rapid transit
systems. We are a $20 billion a year industry employing some 150,000
people nationwide.
RSI supports Amtrak's request of $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2004
to operate the current nationwide route structure and begin the process
of stabilizing our nation's intercity railroad passenger system. In
addition to allowing Amtrak to continue to operate its network of
intercity passenger trains, that amount will allow the railroad to
begin the task of rebuilding wrecked equipment so it can be put back
into revenue service as well as beginning the process of rebuilding the
Northeast Corridor infrastructure. RSI members will provide a
significant portion of material needs for the capital projects outlined
in the Amtrak request. This will provide a much-needed boost to an
industry that has suffered through the recent economic downturn.
As the Department of Transportation's Inspector General has stated
time and again, the real problem with Amtrak is not management
efficiency or the cost of the route system but the burden of funding
its infrastructure. Until Congress develops a way to address these
infrastructure costs, cutting trains or attempting to extract
management efficiencies will not achieve the desired results. RSI
believes David Gunn has demonstrated the ability to manage Amtrak
effectively. He has eliminated waste, reduced management levels, cut
costs, brought fiscal responsibility to the railroad and improved
Amtrak's credibility.
Amtrak's workable five-year capital investment plan is what Amtrak
needs to become a good, solid, reliable passenger railroad. The
railroad's strategic plan will bring Amtrak's capital assets up to a
state of ``good repair'' and maintain current rail operations. To
support the strategic plan, Amtrak proposes, and RSI supports, that
annual federal funding range from $1.8 million in fiscal year 2004 to
under $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the combined capital
investment and operating needs.
RSI does recognize the constraints of the appropriations process.
In response to this, we have developed a proposal that would create a
Rail Finance and Development Corporation (RFDC). RFDC is designed, in
part, to supplement federal appropriations for Amtrak by supporting the
significant infrastructure costs that Amtrak must address in the
Northeast Corridor and other parts of the system. This supplemental
funding source could significantly reduce the burden of the
Appropriations Committee and allow it to use its limited resources to
maintain basic service levels for rail passenger service. RFDC would be
a private, non-profit, federally chartered corporation similar to
Fannie Mae, that would issue up to $50 billion in tax-credit bonds over
a six-year period for rail related infrastructure investments. Eligible
investments would include higher speed intercity rail; rail access to
ports intermodal terminals and airports; increased freight rail
capacity; short line infrastructure needs; and rail line relocation. We
have enclosed a white paper describing the RFDC proposal and I ask that
this statement and the White Paper be included in the record.
Until RFDC, or some other supplemental funding mechanism, becomes
policy, we urge the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
to provide the resources Amtrak needs to survive.
RSI looks forward to working with the Senate to create a long-term
stable source of funding for Amtrak and our nations freight railroad
system.
______
Prepared Statement of the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc.
The Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (``ATCA''), located in
Arlington, Virginia, USA is a professional association of forty-seven
years' standing dedicated to advancement in the science and profession
of air traffic control and aviation safety. Its membership is worldwide
in scope, and represents all aspects of the air traffic control
discipline, from air traffic control specialists and airway facilities
technicians who operate and maintain the air traffic control system, to
those individuals and companies who develop, manufacture and provide
the technology, equipment, and services which support the system, to
the citizens, government agencies, and airlines who use the system.
INTRODUCTION: THE CHANGED AVIATION MARKETPLACE
Immediately after September 11, 2001, most aviation experts
predicted that the market effects of the terrorist attacks on air
transportation would be short lived, and that conditions prevailing
before those events--economic prosperity, increasing demand, congestion
and delay--would recur within 18 months or so. Although temporary
depression in air transportation demand was anticipated, the aviation
community admittedly did not foresee the lingering, intensifying
economic doldrums, global political instability and war to come.
Certainly few, if any prognosticators envisioned air traffic would be
so persistently and profoundly depressed that major airlines and
related aviation enterprises would today be struggling for their very
existence.
Now, with the war against terrorism continuing and military action
in Iraq just winding down, and health concerns heightened, the aviation
community is becoming reconciled to the reality that sluggish air
transportation market conditions likely will prevail for some time.
Airlines, airports and policy makers are adjusting perspectives, plans,
programs, and expectations to suit new financial and operational
realities.
First among these realities is the stressed, and in some cases
desperate financial condition of commercial aviation. Income is down
across the board. Fewer passengers are traveling at lower fares,
meaning less ticket revenue for airlines and concession income for
airports. Fewer flights and smaller capacity aircraft mean reduced tax
and user fee income for government and private air traffic service
providers. And with airlines, airports and air traffic service
providers in difficulty, aviation suppliers including travel agents,
aircraft manufacturers, aviation technology companies and airport
construction firms are also suffering.
To make matters worse, aviation costs have not diminished
proportionately, but rather have remained constant or, like fuel
prices, have increased. Airlines, air traffic service providers, and
airports still must make payments on aircraft and other capital
equipment, pay rent, employee wages and benefits, and meet other
contractual obligations. Moreover, as a result of the terrorist
attacks, airlines, airports, air traffic service providers, and
government organizations must absorb significant additional costs of
intensified and additional security measures. Since September 11, 2001,
the airline industry alone reports having suffered a loss of $18
billion; they expect 2003 losses to exceed $10 billion.
Consequently, virtually all aircraft operators are economizing in
every way possible, reducing or rationalizing services, deferring
capital expenditures, renegotiating labor agreements, freezing hiring,
laying off workers, and selling or mothballing aircraft. Many
organizations, including major airlines, are regrouping, reforming,
reorganizing, realigning, or disappearing entirely through merger or
bankruptcy. Airlines are adjusting schedules, equipage, and even route
structures in an effort to match service to demand. Some carriers are
switching to smaller capacity aircraft and maintaining or increasing
frequency. Others are abandoning hubs in favor of more point-to-point
service. Many high-end and business travelers are abandoning commercial
service altogether, instead electing to use corporate and fractional
ownership aircraft or substituting telecommunications alternatives to
travel.
Air traffic service providers are doing all they can to economize
in their own operations while continuing to provide equal or better
service, and making system enhancements that will improve operating
safety and efficiency. But after years of belt tightening and resource
deprivation, there is precious little room in most air traffic service
organizations for significant additional efficiencies. A significant
point to recognize is that even though the benefits of ATM system and
interfacing aircraft enhancements will outweigh the costs in the long
run, they do not come for free, and there simply is precious little
cash available--either in ATS provider or aircraft operator coffers--to
invest today.
There is another aspect of the U.S. air transportation system that
current events should amplify--that the U.S. National Airspace System,
in contrast to many other national systems, is a ``common'' civil-
military system. Its infrastructure and air traffic controllers support
our National Defense and Homeland Security aircraft as well. This is
but another reason that the ATM system must be sustained and upgraded
to meet the challenge of a new era.
AVIATION SAFETY AND SECURITY IS A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aviation--a critical segment of the Nation's GNP and, even more
important, enabler of U.S. tourism, commerce and industry--clearly is
on the ropes. Now is not the time to retrench and watch the Nation's
air transportation system--jewel of U.S. ingenuity and free
enterprise--disintegrate. Rather, the Federal government must do all it
can to preserve and strengthen U.S. aviation, especially in these
difficult times. To that end, the Air Traffic Control Association urges
the following.
First, it was necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government
to provide financial relief to the Nation's airlines, to help them
weather the aftermaths of the 9/11 attacks and market impacts of the
War on Terrorism and military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although
aviation was the vehicle, the 9/11 attacks were directed against the
United States as a whole. Protecting the Nation against future
terrorism is the Federal Government's responsibility, and the costs--be
they for National Defense or Homeland Security purposes--should be
borne by all Americans. Nevertheless, airline passengers, aircraft
operators, and airports are shouldering the lion's share of the costs
of air transportation system security--from direct fees for security,
to aircraft and terminal modifications, to Airport and Airway Trust
Fund expenditures for security infrastructure improvements. And this at
a time when the entire aviation community is suffering
disproportionately compared with other segments of the economy from the
negative market and financial consequences of public fear and wartime
disruptions to travel and tourism.
Because airport and airline security is an ongoing National and
Homeland Defense function, security fees should be discontinued
permanently, and the costs of TSA screening activities, related
equipment and construction instead paid for with appropriations derived
from the general fund. To use trust fund dollars for this purpose
unfairly assesses passengers and shippers for the costs of safety and
security measures that benefit everyone. Protecting aircraft from
hostile attack and takeover such as we experienced in 2001 benefits the
aircraft operator, the passengers and crew and, no less importantly,
people and property on the ground that could be impacted. Moreover,
using the trust fund in this way mortgages U.S. aviation's future by
depleting the fund without corresponding replenishment. The Association
looks forward to the announced plan of the Transportation Security
Administration to establish a program whereby TSA would issue Letters
of Intent (LOI) to reimburse 75 percent-90 percent of the costs of
federally mandated security upgrades, to be paid with appropriated
funds.
FAA OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION SHOULD BE ``RE-BASELINED''
The Federal Government must rededicate itself to the mission of
modernizing and improving airport and airway infrastructure and
technology. Modernization will enable air carriers and other aircraft
operators to operate efficiently as well as safely and securely during
these difficult times, sustain the National Defense and Homeland
Security mission, and prepare a robust, capable air transportation
system for the future.
The Administration is demonstrating its commitment to U.S. aviation
by proposing to continue the FAA funding profile established by the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21). That landmark legislation boosted Federal spending limits for
air transportation infrastructure improvement, and established
budgetary mechanisms to assure that appropriations matched authorized
levels. The Administration is seeking $7.5 billion per year in fiscal
year 2004 for FAA Operations, increasing over the authorization period
at least at the rate of inflation. For FAA Facilities and Equipment,
the Administration proposes $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2004, gradually
increasing to $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2007. And the Administration
proposes to continue the current funding level of $3.4 billion per year
for Airport Grants. $100 million per year would be available for FAA
Research, Engineering and Development. The Association believes that
this request understates the real needs of the FAA. Although it
represents the Administration's judgment of the proper apportionment of
financial resources, we believe it does so at the sacrifice of
activities and programs that should not be further deferred.
The Air Traffic Control Association agrees with the Administration
that continued robust funding for air transportation operations and
National Airspace System improvements is a national imperative. Public
reliance on air transportation is strong and increasing, and recent
history shows that the occasional market dips coincident with military
action or economic recession tend to be temporary. When conditions
improve, the air transport market recovers rapidly. Immediately prior
to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, aviation was experiencing unprecedented
growth, with overcrowding and congestion clogging many major
facilities. Current projections are that aviation markets will recover
to pre-9/11 conditions--including congestion and delay--sometime in
2005-2006. Even with a brief hiatus in demand, the aviation community
will be hard pressed to progress sufficiently on needed capacity
improvements in time to avoid a repeat of the near gridlock conditions
prevailing during the summer of 2001. Now is not the time to hesitate
about moving on with modernization.
For the following reasons, therefore, the Air Traffic Control
Association urges the Congress to take a more proactive approach to
funding operations and modernization of the National Airspace System
than the Administration proposes. First, the Administration's fiscal
year 2004 funding proposal (3.2 percent increase, less than the rate of
inflation) understates the real resource requirements of FAA's
Operations functions. FAA's air traffic services, airway maintenance,
and regulation and certifications organizations already are debilitated
by years of funding deprivation. Because 95 percent of FAA's Operations
budget is dedicated to personnel and related costs, years of rate-of-
inflation increases have barely covered the costs of mandatory pay
increases for on-board staff and plant maintenance and have not
addressed the backfill overtime costs associated with training
controllers to deal with new situations and systems. Almost no money
has been available for projects and activities necessary to prepare for
future needs. FAA has barely begun the process of hiring and training
significant numbers of air traffic controller and airway facilities
technician candidates to replace the ``bubble'' of employees eligible
and expected to retire. (The Administration is requesting $14 million
to hire 300 controller candidates in fiscal year 2004, but because
training a controller takes years and many ``wash out'' of the process,
there are some who estimate that 1,000 per year is a more realistic
hiring goal.) Schedules for installation, check out, and training of
workers on new equipment and technologies are stretching out, delaying
benefits until the new items can be put into service. Less than maximum
effort can be devoted to development and certification of new
technologies. Efforts to devise capacity, efficiency, and safety
enhancing air traffic procedures and operating techniques are under
resourced. And these chronic shortages are being exacerbated by
diversion of resources to satisfy post-9/11 security activities and
requirements. Before FAA can begin to survive on rate-of-inflation
increases in its operations and maintenance funding the financial base
on which these increases are calculated must be increased
substantially. ATCA therefore urges Congress to authorize and
appropriate Operations funding in fiscal year 2004 at least 15 percent
over and above the Administration's $7.5 billion estimate, or $9
billion.
PROTECT AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM MODERNIZATION!
The Administration's $2.9 billion per year request for FAA
Facilities and Equipment authorization and appropriation falls far
short of what is required to sustain a really robust modernization and
improvement effort. This amount is $100 million less than the amount
enacted in fiscal year 2002, and 2 percent less than the fiscal year
2003 requested amount. But needs for F&E dollars have increased
significantly in since then. FAA must first of all sustain existing
capability, which is becoming ever more costly. Although much has been
replaced, a significant portion of equipment and software in use today
is operating well beyond its intended service life and is therefore
increasingly trouble prone and costly to repair or replace. Moreover,
in the aftermath of 9/11, significantly more of this legacy equipment
will remain in service and must be maintained indefinitely, for
example, primary radars and geographically dispersed navigation aids
and communications systems have renewed value and need to be retained.
Other items, many intended to meet joint security and defense needs of
FAA, DOD, and Homeland Defense, are being added to FAA's shopping cart.
And F&E dollars also pay for the modernization of the Nation's air
traffic control system. Most of these projects are well underway,
requiring large capital outlays. Disruptions due to budget adjustments
are very costly, both in terms of money and foregone operating
benefits. And the F&E account also supports implementation of FAA's
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), a 10 year rolling blueprint for
applying advanced technologies and other improvements to garner near
term safety, capacity and efficiency benefits. The most recent
iteration of the OEP covering fiscal years 2004-2013 is estimated to
cost $12.4 billion over the ten years--up $1 billion over the fiscal
years 2001-2010 version.
In 1998, the FAA estimated that modernization costs alone reflected
in Version 3.0 of the NAS Architecture would be approximately $3
billion per year. Add to this the annual costs of sustaining and
refurbishing equipment in use--much of which is now permanently off the
decommissioning list, new National Defense and Homeland Security
requirements, and the expanding price of the OEP, and it becomes clear
that the real necessary level of FAA funding for F&E in fiscal year
2004 and the foreseeable future is more in the order of $4 billion per
year. This is the amount the Association urges Congress to authorize
and appropriate.
In addition, the Association urges the Administration and Congress
to assure that dollars appropriated for NAS improvements are not
diverted to other purposes. To be specific, because NAS improvement
projects are multi-year endeavors requiring multi-year budgeting and
financial management, annual rescission of unexpended funds wreaks
havoc with overall planning. Often, the ``unexpended funds'' are
associated with worthwhile projects and activities already in motion,
and do not represent overlooked or obsolete requirements. It would be
helpful if this practice were avoided. Or, alternatively, Congress
might consider instituting a mechanism that increases the bottom line
appropriation that compensates for earmarks rather than, as presently
occurs, broader based activities or programs being decreased. Second,
FAA prioritizes projects and activities with the objective of achieving
the best result for the entire air transportation system. Although
legislators understandably are concerned about aviation issues in their
home districts, resisting the temptation to earmark F&E funds for
specific local projects would greatly benefit the entire system. Third,
other aviation priorities such as the Essential Air Service Program
should be funded through the regular budget process, not through
diversion of FAA F&E dollars intended for NAS modernization. Each year
hundreds of millions of FAA F&E dollars redirected through these budget
procedures--dollars that otherwise would have been applied to improving
the safety, capacity and efficiency of the NAS.
THE PROBLEM OF ASYNCHRONOUS IMPROVEMENTS
The promise of air traffic system modernization will not be
realized, regardless of the sufficiency of funding, without
corresponding upgrade of aircraft technologies that interface with the
ATC system. At a recent Air Traffic Control Association symposium, one
speaker estimated that the cost of equipping each commercial aircraft
to take advantage of new ATC technologies and procedures is
approximately $465,000. Avionics for business and general aviation
aircraft are correspondingly expensive. Much of this equipage expense
will be offset by the value to the aircraft operator of efficiencies
and flexibility derived from the new systems (e.g. fuel and time
savings from more direct routings, less holding, reduced delays, more
operationally efficient altitudes.) FAA as the air traffic service
provider also will derive safety, efficiency and capacity benefits from
implementation of modern systems, for example reduced separation
between aircraft thereby increasing airspace capacity, or preventing
collisions and improving traffic flow on the airport surface.
But no one will enjoy the maximum payback from modernization unless
ATC improvements and aircraft upgrades take place contemporaneously,
and all aircraft in given airspace are comparably equipped. If new ATC
system implementation lags behind aircraft equipage, operators will
have made an investment with no immediate payback. If the ATC system is
equipped without corresponding aircraft capability, neither the users
nor FAA will derive full benefits. And if ATC improvements are made but
only some aircraft are equipped for the new environment, airspace must
be segregated to allow those who are equipped to derive benefits while
still permitting those not so capable to continue operating and the
underlying infrastructure must support both.
Universal aircraft equipage can be achieved in three ways. First,
aircraft operators may be encouraged to equip voluntarily if the
operating benefits are sufficient to outweigh the cost. Second,
disincentives may be imposed on operators that fail to equip. For
example, they may be foreclosed entirely from some environments,
subjected to less optimal operating conditions (e.g. sub-optimal
routings, non-preferred altitude), or charged higher fees or taxes. A
third alternative is for the Government to mandate minimum equipage for
everyone.
The first option--voluntary compliance--benefits everyone. But
there are situations in which the cost/benefit ratio of a given
improvement is positive for the entire system, yet negative for a
specific aircraft or fleet. In that case, a rational operator may well
choose not to invest. And cash poor operators--and today many of the
Nation's largest air carriers are in this category--may simply be
unable to invest in improved aircraft systems regardless of the
potential compensating benefits. Using the second option--operating
restrictions--to coerce compliance is not a good choice because such
mechanisms work by degrading the operating environment for those less
advantaged, increasing their costs and as a result perpetuating the
disparity. Moreover, selective restrictions tend to disadvantage those
who are least able to afford it, e.g. smaller commercial operators
providing service to remote and underserved localities, and general
aviation.
The third option, Government mandate, is the only 100 percent
effective approach. But in the current economic environment, with the
equivalent of one-third the U.S. commercial airline fleet in mothballs
and one quarter of commercial airline capacity operating in bankruptcy,
a mandate to equip with expensive new avionics could precipitate or
accelerate liquidation of major aviation companies. For reasons stated
previously in connection with aid to financially distressed airlines,
the Air Traffic Control Association urges the Administration and
Congress to consider making updated aircraft avionics an integral part
of federally funded NAS modernization projects. This approach assures
that necessary technologies will reliably be deployed congruent with
corresponding new FAA systems. And in this way, safety and operating
efficiency of the National air transportation system will be maximized
without risking widespread collapse of the aviation industry. We also
would ask that Members of transportation authorizing and appropriations
committees collaborate with their colleagues to enact legislation that
would enable corresponding equipage of military, homeland security and
government aircraft.
AIRPORTS FUNDING NEEDS A BOOST
The Administration proposes to continue into the future the current
AIR-21 annual amount of $3.4 billion for Airport Grants. This level of
support should be increased.
The Airports Council International--North America estimates that
the actual average annual cost of airport capital development for the
years 2003-2006 has grown to $15 billion. Although Federal AIP is not
intended to pay all the capital costs of airport improvements, since
2000 when AIR-21 was enacted, and especially since the events of 9/11,
airport need for federal funding has increased significantly. On the
one hand, because airport revenues are largely tied to traffic levels,
income is down drastically since the terrorist attacks and initiation
of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand, costs
are way up. Approximately two-thirds of airport capital spending is for
new runways and other facilities to accommodate future growth. Most of
this work already is underway, and contract requirements including
schedules of expenditures are firm. The other one third is used to
preserve existing infrastructure and maintain compliance with
standards--also non-discretionary expenditure. Neither of these
categories of expenses fluctuates downward with traffic counts.
Meanwhile, airports are facing significant new security costs such as
terminal modifications to accommodate large baggage screening machines,
stepped up grounds and terminal security including more personnel, and
enhanced access system technology. And, we foresee that increasing
reliance on point-to-point versus connecting passenger service will
accelerate the need for improvements at airports heretofore not
anticipating significant growth. If Federal funding is continued only
at the AIR-21 level, the national system of airports will continue to
fall behind the power curve. To support recovery of the air transport
industry, the Federal Government must significantly increase--not
merely continue--its contribution toward expansion and improvement of
the Nation's airports.
AVIATION RESEARCH MUST BE REINVIGORATED
Fourth, and perhaps most important for the future of U.S. aviation,
the level of effort of FAA RE&D must be increased four- to five-fold--
that is, $400 to $500 million per year.
The Administration proposes a funding amount of $100 million for
this function. This is $25 million less than the fiscal year 2003
enacted amount, and one half the amount approved in fiscal year 2002.
This funding trend reflects an alarming deterioration in commitment of
the Federal Government to maintaining the United States on the global
forefront of aviation and aeronautical science and industry. The
Administration's fiscal year 2004 proposal is paltry by any standard,
and if approved as requested will sound the death knell for any notion
of an independent FAA R&D capability related to air traffic control.
(ATC efficiency research is ``zeroed out'' in the fiscal year 2004
proposal.) In today's ``bottom line'' business environment, and
especially with the economy in recession, private industry cannot be
counted on to fill the void.
If the United States is going to continue being the world leader in
aviation and aerospace technology, it is long past time to renew the
Nation's financial commitment to the government-sponsored research
programs needed to make that happen. This means multiplying by four or
five times the amount of money now going each year to FAA RE&D. It also
means generously supporting all manner of research being conducted by
NASA as well. Although NASA's activities cannot substitute for a
vigorous, well-funded FAA RE&D capability, in some areas of research it
offers expertise and research resources that increasingly complement
those of FAA and support FAA's mission and objectives. However, the
breadth of appropriate FAA RE&D goes well beyond NASA and DOD's
interests, and should not be dismissed.
DEVELOPING A VISION OF THE FUTURE AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Important for the future will be a Government-wide, interagency
activity to coordinate aviation and aerospace requirements both
existing and for the future, define research needs and applications for
the next generation air traffic management system, and assemble a
unified budget report covering all aviation system funding needs.
Government-wide planning will allow various organizations to share
knowledge and facilities, avoid duplication of effort, and leverage
resources through joint and cooperative activities. The Department of
Transportation should lead the coordination activity, with the
Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security, and FAA and
NASA participating. As part of this effort, FAA should undertake to
define the next generation air traffic management plan for the United
States, with involvement of all private sector aviation stakeholders,
members of the public, and government agencies with relevant missions.
Senate bill S. 788, the ``Second Century of Flight Act'', sponsored
by Senators Hollings, Brownback, Rockefeller, Inouye, Cantwell and
Kerry provides an excellent framework for just such a Government-wide
collaboration to enable the United States to maintain its leadership in
aeronautics and aviation. The bill would establish and fund in DOT an
``Office of Aerospace and Aviation Liaison'' to lead the interagency
coordination activity, and create in the FAA a ``National Air Traffic
Management System Development Office'' responsible for developing a
next generation air traffic system plan for the United States in
collaboration with other organizations having an aviation mission. S.
788 also would authorize for FAA RE&D expenditures $289 million in
fiscal year 2004, $304 million in fiscal year 2005, and $317 million in
fiscal year 2006. These amounts are less than ATCA advocates, but a
good start nonetheless. The Air Traffic Control Association supports
the principles stated in S. 788, and urges Congress to enact the
legislation.
CONCLUSION
Terrorism, war, and economic uncertainty have exacted a significant
toll on air transportation enterprises around the world, especially in
the United States where air carrier aircraft were hijacked to be the
instruments of attack. Among sectors of the Nation's economy, aviation
has paid more than its share of the price of those sad events. The
lasting financial and market impacts are presenting a serious challenge
for the United States in maintaining a leadership role in air
transportation and aerospace technology, working together with other
nations to achieve a safe, secure, efficient, capable, seamless global
air transportation system. With the full support of the Administration
and Congress, however, the United States can retain rather than
relinquish its stature in the world aviation community, and continue to
apply the fruits of its efforts in partnership with other nations
toward the betterment of air transportation around the world.
To that end, the Air Traffic Control Association urges Congress to
assure a robust and reliable funding stream for operations,
maintenance, and modernization of the National Airspace System, and to
initiate under the leadership of the Department of Transportation and
fully fund a government-wide Federal aviation and aerospace research
and development capability to support the air traffic management system
envisioned for the future. Together we must prepare for the future,
rather than react to the past.