[Senate Hearing 109-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109 1010
EVALUATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET FOR
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOR THE
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /congress /senate/
senate05sh.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-559 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JACK REED, Rhode Island
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky EVAN BAYH, Indiana
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kathleen L. Casey, Staff Director and Counsel
Steven B. Harris, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sherry E. Little, Senior Professional Staff Member
John East, Legislative Assistant
Tewana Wilkerson, Legislative Assistant
Sarah Kline, Democratic Counsel
Aaron D. Klein, Economist
Joseph R. Kolinski, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator
George E. Whittle, Editor
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Shelby............................. 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Allard............................................... 2
Senator Carper............................................... 3
Senator Bunning.............................................. 5
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 13
Senator Menendez............................................. 16
Prepared statement....................................... 25
WITNESSES
Sandra Bushue, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Response to written questions of:
Senator Bunning.......................................... 35
Senator Sarbanes......................................... 40
Senator Carper........................................... 43
Patrick L. McCrory, Mayor, City of Charlotte, North Carolina on
Behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors............... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 30
William Millar, President, American Public Transportation
Association.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Response to a written question of Senator Bunning............ 45
(iii)
EVALUATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET FOR
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10:42 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of
the Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY
Chairman Shelby. The hearing will come to order.
Today, we are meeting to consider the Administration's 2007
budget for the Federal Transit Administration. We will have two
panels testifying. Our first witness is Sandra Bushue, Deputy
Administrator of the FTA. Our second panel is comprised of
William Millar, President of the American Public Transportation
Association, and testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors is the Patrick McCrory, Mayor of Charlotte North
Carolina.
Let me just begin by saying that both Senator Sarbanes and
I are pleased that the SAFETEA reauthorization process is over.
It was important for us to have a well thought out piece of
legislation that fosters investment in public transportation,
because it builds better communities, provides transportation
opportunities for elderly and low-income people, and relieves
congestion on our roadways.
We stuck to our guns and fought to see that transit got
increased funding in SAFETEA. I am proud to say that the new
authorization levels provide for a 46 percent increase over T-
21 levels. So I am pleased that the Administration, with one
exception, has funded FTA at the level that we authorized for
2007. There is a dire need for more transit investment in this
country, and this budget will help fund many of the priorities
this Committee cares deeply about.
I am concerned about two elements of the budget, however;
first, the $100 million shortfall in the Small Starts program,
a new program we created in SAFETEA. We created this program
for a good reason. There is a nationwide demand for Small
Starts projects, as evidenced by the 50-plus requests submitted
to us during the drafting of the bill.
The shortfall is peculiar to us, as we worked closely with
the Administration to develop a flexible program to fund small
but vital transit projects, like bus rapid transit, which is
not cost-effective or efficient to subject to the lengthy and
expensive approval process necessary for larger endeavors.
This budget raises an additional concern: The
Administration chose to fully fund the Federal highway program,
which I strongly support, but by not fully funding transit, the
budget undermines the historic 80/20 split between highways and
transit that was a hallmark of this reauthorization.
Let me note, with these exceptions, the Administration
chose to follow the framework of SAFETEA. The budget request
respects the creation of new programs. It gives priority to the
rulemakings that the law mandates and generally tracks closely
with the law. I am pleased to see that. I think this is a
testament to the hard work of this Committee and the great need
that is out there.
I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues, and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
holding these hearings to examine the Federal Transit
Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2007, and as
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I
appreciate the opportunity to work with you on issues affecting
our Nation's public transportation network.
Chairman Shelby. Closely.
Senator Allard. Last year's enactment of SAFETEA brought
with it a host of changes for public transportation, and I
particularly supported creation of a new Growing States formula
and a stronger emphasis on the bus program, since most
Americans rely on bus service for their bus transportation
service.
I have been pleased to the Administration moving forward
with the implementation of these new provisions. While I am
pleased that the Administration's budget proposal primarily
follows the outline written by Congress in SAFETEA, I am very
concerned with the deviation from the funding level for the new
Small Starts program. This was referred to in the Chairman's
opening remarks. And having worked with many Members of the
Senate, I can tell you unequivocally that it is very popular in
the Senate, and I think every State has a number of projects
that fall under the Small Starts program, so I want to
associate my remarks with the Chairman's concerns that he
expressed in his opening statement.
This program was important to many of us, which is why it
was written into the law. Many of us have projects in our
States that will fit very well into the new category rather
than being placed inappropriately with bus projects or
competing against traditional New Starts projects. We are all
familiar with the tremendous demand for this program;
therefore, I am quite puzzled as to why the FTA proposes
funding it at only half the level specified by Congress.
I am also concerned that this proposed funding cut violates
the long-held understanding that funding for highways and
transit will be treated equally; that is to say that if one is
proposed for a cut, the other program would also be proposed
for a proportional reduction. Yet, the highway programs are not
proposed for any cuts, and no one benefits when transit are
pitted against one another, which is why we worked so hard to
resolve such issues when writing SAFETEA.
It is disturbing that the Administration seems to so
casually suggest undoing that careful balance. In light of
these facts, I expect that FTA will be able to provide a very
clear justification for this proposal.
Beyond this concern, the budget proposal mirrors the
outline from SAFETEA. Obviously, a number of these regulations
are still being promulgated, and a number of programs are still
being created. As Subcommittee Chairman, I intend to be
actively involved in implementation and plan on working very
closely with Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Reed to conduct the necessary
oversight, perhaps through additional hearings.
Mr. Chairman, I also take this opportunity to note that the
Committee is currently reviewing the nomination of the new
Federal Transit Administrator, and you were nominated, you were
put up here just a few weeks ago, I guess.
Ms. Bushue. Thirty-seven days, to be exact.
Senator Allard. Thirty-seven days.
Ms. Bushue. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allard. And I want to take this opportunity to
congratulate you on that.
This is an important position, particularly in light of
SAFETEA implementation, leadership at the agency is more
critical than ever, and I look forward to working with you at
the appropriate time as we move forward.
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allard. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this
opportunity to review FTA's budget request. This hearing will
be an important part of the Committee's ongoing efforts to see
that Americans have access to effective, efficient public
transportation services.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. You say
37 days?
Ms. Bushue. Yes.
Senator Carper. How many hours?
[Laughter.]
Thank you for joining us today and good luck in your
nomination.
As our highways are clogged with gridlock and our skies
filled with, among other things, smog, the critical need for
our transit service across this country, I think, becomes
clearer and clearer. I believe we must work diligently to
promote new and strengthen transit operations in both rural and
urban areas, and we are seeking to do that in my little State
of Delaware.
In recent years, there has been tremendous growth and
interest in transit across my State and across the Delaware
Valley and the Delmarva Peninsula, where we live, but also
across the country. And according to some statistics that were
collected from transit agencies Nationwide by the American
Public Transportation Association, transit ridership nearly
doubled from 1990 to 2000, and my guess is that some of the
increases in gasoline prices we have seen in recent months will
add to that.
In Delaware, we are adding the capacity to the commuter
rail line between Wilmington and Newark, Delaware, and that
happens to be the Northeast Corridor, and SEPTA, which is the
Southeast Pennsylvania Transit operation that uses that rail
corridor, but riding capacity in our State to the commuter rail
line between those two towns.
We are also designing an extension of a commuter rail line
from Newark down to Middletown, which is off the Northeast
Corridor and heading south. I like to describe it as a
downpayment, if you will, on eventual rail transit service to
Dover from Wilmington and Newark and the northern part of our
State.
And in the Transportation Reauthorization Bill that passed
last summer, I believe the Congress authorized close to 400 new
transit projects. This increased investment in transit has been
possible because of the Federal-State-local partnership that
was created in 1991 in ISTEA and has continued in subsequent
reauthorizations. Creating a dependable and a consistent stream
of funds supported investment in this very important
transportation option as increased gas prices and traffic are
fostering new demands, and the aging of America is increasing
the need.
I believe we must continue to bolster this relationship
with a renewed commitment that keeps pace with the growing
demand. I do not want to disappoint--my colleagues here both
talked about the Small Starts transit program, so we are going
to make this bipartisan. But I was disappointed by the fact
that the Administration's 2007 budget requests, as you have
heard, about half of that which was authorized in the Small
Starts transit program. The program was all created, as we all
know, in SAFETEA-LU, to provide funding and an expedited
approval process for streetcars, for light rail, for bus rapid
transit, and commuter rail projects; I think projects that have
a Federal share of less than $75 million.
Small Starts, as we know, encourages the development of
smaller scale transit projects that can be built more quickly
and push State and local governments to take on a greater
portion of the costs, which we need to do. Cutting these funds
could lead, as my colleagues have suggested, to smaller and
less expensive projects being delayed or abandoned altogether,
and communities could lose what I believe or what we believe is
an important tool to reduce congestion and improve air quality.
A second concern I want to share with you, and then, I will
stop, but I have a concern about the fact that the Federal
Transit Administration has inserted itself into the Amtrak
funding debate. A provision was slipped into the fiscal year
2006 Transportation Appropriations Conference Report certainly
unbeknownst to me at the last minute directing the USDOT to
reevaluate the fees paid by commuter railroads that operate in
the Northeast Corridor to support the maintenance and capital
costs of the Northeast Corridor.
On February 10, I am told, of this year, the Federal
Transit Administration put a notice in the Federal Register
stating that they might withhold transit funding from commuter
rail systems to cover the newly assessed Northeast Corridor
maintenance fees.
I might be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like this is
nothing but a transfer of funds from the mass transit account
to Amtrak, which results in the underfunding of both. State and
local governments understand and are willing to contribute more
to support Amtrak. However, the question of how to allocate the
costs of maintaining the Northeast Corridor should be answered
in an Amtrak reauthorization bill, not an appropriations
conference report, and it certainly should not be done by
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Thank you.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Bunning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
very important hearing today. I recognize that we have several
witnesses who will each provide us with a different perspective
on the public transportation industry.
We are fortunate that we will be hearing from the Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, from the
American Public Transportation Association, representing the
private sector, and from a leader of a local community, the
Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. Thank you all for being
here today.
Our public transportation system is vital to communities of
all sizes, in populated cities and very much so in rural
communities. For many, it is the only source of transportation
allowing them to go to work and to reach their community. It is
important that we provide the necessary resources to carry out
effective and efficient transportation for those who need it in
all communities.
For this reason among many, I look forward to learning more
about the Administration's proposed funding levels and how we
can better implement new and existing FTA programs.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
and I want to thank the witnesses again for their
participation.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you, Senator. Your written testimony
will be made part of the record in its entirety; if you will
sum up briefly your high points. Thank you, welcome to the
Committee.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA BUSHUE
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Bushue. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today on the Federal Transit Administration's fiscal year 2007
budget. And as new to the FTA, I would like to say that I am
really honored and humbled to be with you today. We appreciate,
Mr. Chairman, your continued interest and your Committee's
strong commitment to public transportation as embodied in the
SAFETEA-LU Act enacted by Congress and signed by the President
on August 10, 2005.
I am pleased to report to the Committee that the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget for transit is a record
$8.9 billion. This is significant given the overall context of
the President's 2007 budget. At a time when most nonsecurity
related Government programs are experiencing reductions in
funding levels and when the Department of Transportation's
total budget is holding steady, funding in this budget grows by
more than 4 percent, or $370 million, compared to the fiscal
year 2006 level. This shows the high priority this
Administration puts on funding public transportation among many
competing national priorities.
Since my recent arrival 37 days ago, I have been impressed
with the energy and dedication of the FTA staff. Thus, I would
like to take an opportunity to focus on a few of FTA's
priorities. They include the effective and timely
implementation of SAFETEA-LU; the effective management and
oversight of almost $9 billion in formula and capital
investment grants, especially New Start's full funding grant
agreements; and the need to attract and retain the best
workforce with the skill set to meet the challenges facing the
agency.
Since the President signed SAFETEA-LU in August 2005, FTA
has worked diligently to implement the new changes and new
requirements. To name a few, we have already signed a
Memorandum of Understanding Annex with the Department of
Homeland Security and published in the Federal Register for
public comment New Starts Policy Guidance, an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Small Starts program, and a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking for Buy America.
We have also held numerous outreach meetings and listening
sessions with the transit industry to discuss the changes in
SAFETEA-LU and to solicit comments. While I am proud of these
accomplishments to date, there is still much to do, and we
remain committed to the aggressive schedule we have set for
ourselves to implement all the requirements of SAFETEA-LU in a
timely manner.
Now, I would like to touch on some of the highlights of the
President's 2007 budget for the FTA. As I stated earlier, the
budget reflects the Administration's commitment to public
transportation as envisioned in SAFETEA-LU. In fiscal year
2007, $7.3 billion is requested in a solely trust fund account
for our urban formula and Fixed Guideway Modernization programs
and for bus and bus-related capital projects. Also included in
this account are several transit programs administered
primarily by the States.
As the capital investment program commonly known as New
Starts the budget requests almost $1.5 billion. The $1.5
billion level fully funds the Federal commitment included in 16
existing full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) with transit
agencies. We are again requesting funding for two projects, one
in Pittsburgh and one in New York, that we expect to sign a
full funding grant agreement before the end of fiscal year
2006.
I am also pleased to announce that five new projects have
made it to the New Starts finish line and we believe are ready
for full funding grant agreements. These projects include three
light rail projects: Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; and
Dallas, Texas; in addition, two commuter rail projects, in
Washington County, Oregon, and Salt Lake City, Utah, are also
ready for full funding grant agreements.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to share with you and the Members
of the Committee our plans for implementing the Small Starts
program in fiscal year 2007. This program will provide, as you
know, Federal Small Starts funding up to $75 million for
projects under $250 million in total cost. We are very excited
about this program, and we note that this Committee shares this
enthusiasm, as I just heard.
It is a program we originally recommended to Congress
because it levels the playing field for medium and small
communities. For example, this program will ensure that
Birmingham, Alabama, does not have to compete with a big New
York project for Federal transit funds. We know from several
listening sessions we have held that communities across the
country are interested in this program and how it will work.
Last month, we published in the Federal Register for public
comment an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the
evaluation criteria and other requirements. Final regulations
are not expected until June 2007. Given all the work ahead of
us and the strong interest by communities to help us develop
the program requirements, we believe that $100 million is a
great place to start with this new program. It is a good, sound
first investment for a program we are committed to implement
during fiscal year 2007.
And finally, in the budget, we are requesting $85 million
in administrative expenses to help ensure we can effectively
and efficiently fulfill our mission. This request supports 14
additional full time equivalent personnel, for a total of 531
FTEs and other administrative needs.
Mr. Chairman, sincerely, I look forward to working with
this Committee and with you in support of public transportation
in our great country. Thank you again for this opportunity to
testify on the fiscal year 2007 budget and other issues, and I
look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, my colleagues and I
were anticipating that the Administration would fully fund the
transit program consistent with the authorization in SAFETEA.
To develop more effective solutions to transit issues, like bus
rapid transit, was a top priority for us in the authorization.
Can you provide the Committee today with the Administration's
rationale for cutting the Small Starts program in half, and if
there was concern about the regulatory structure not being in
place for the Small Starts program, why fund this new program
at half its authorized level at all and instead wait until 2007
to fund it fully?
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to say that we are really excited about
this new program, and with the advance proposed rulemaking that
we have out, we are working to ensure and want to ensure, that
all our stakeholders and the industry are invested in this
program and can help us to make it the dynamic program we think
it will become. As mentioned, optimistically, we believe that
we will be ready to go forward with this program by June 2007.
This would leave only 3 months in the fiscal year 2007, so we
believe $100 million at this time is the appropriate
investment.
Chairman Shelby. The Banking Committee has spent a
considerable amount of time trying to evaluate the needs of
victims of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. I understand that the
Administration has yet to submit a request for supplemental
appropriations that address transit needs. Would you provide
the Committee with an update on what the Federal Transit
Administration is doing in this area?
Ms. Bushue. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to do that. I
would like to say that since I have been in FTA, I have had the
opportunity to travel down to Baton Rouge and to see the
wonderful work that Bill Neville, the head of the New Orleans
Transportation Authority, has done. It has just been really
fantastic to see his good work.
Chairman Shelby. Have you also been to New Orleans?
Ms. Bushue. Unfortunately, I did not make it down there. I
was in Baton Rouge. I did not go and tour the disaster site.
Chairman Shelby. Well, you should.
Ms. Bushue. Actually, I know I am going to be back there
again, and that will be a top priority, but thank you.
In the supplemental that was sent to Congress, three
requests were made for Federal funding from three different
modes. It was to replace or repair Federal property that had
been lost in Katrina: For the FAA, an air traffic control
tower, for MARAD, a port facility; and for the Federal Highway
Administration, to repair an interstate highway.
FTA has received around $68 million through FEMA on a
mission assignment for the services and operations for transit
down in the Gulf Coast area. We currently have a consultant
reviewing the capital costs that are required to repair the
damage. We will be looking at those costs, and working with the
private insurance companies and the FEMA public assistance
programs, to see how we can help that region.
Chairman Shelby. While we certainly support the
Administration's choice to fully fund the important highway
program at SAFETEA levels, I am confused as to why, if cuts
were necessary, transit and highways were not cut back
equivalent amounts. The conferees on the conference committee
for SAFETEA made a conscious effort to treat highways and
transit similarly. What is the rationale?
Ms. Bushue. First, I would like to compliment the Committee
for the funding of transit in SAFETEA-LU. The cut that you are
referencing is the reduction in the Small Starts program.
Outside of that, transit is funded at the SAFETEA-LU authorized
level. Again, it goes back to Small Starts being a new program.
We do not believe we will have it up and ready to go until June
2007. That is why we requested $100 million, and that is the
$100 million reduction from the authorized level.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Welcome, and I, as you know, in your
testimony, the FTA is proposing a clean fuels and electric
drive bus deployment program to encourage and provide
incentives to transit agencies to procure low emissions
technology buses, including hybrid electric buses. I also have
an interest in renewable energy.
Ms. Bushue. Yes.
Senator Allard. In fact, I am Chairman or Co-Chairman of
the Energy Efficient Caucus, so I am very pleased with your
efforts in this regard.
Ms. Bushue. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Could you please elaborate on this proposal
and indicate to me whether you intend to forward a legislative
proposal to Congress, and if so, when?
Ms. Bushue. Since I am relatively new, I think if you do
not mind, I am not as familiar with that program as I should
be, and I would like to be able to get back to you at a later
date.
Senator Allard. That would be fine.
Ms. Bushue. Would that be okay? Thank you, sir.
Senator Allard. The other question I wanted to bring up is
I have worked personally with the Colorado projects that we
have to stress the importance of staying on time and on budget,
and a couple of really large projects we have in Colorado that
I think are worth noting is Rocky Flats for cleanup was a
nuclear trigger manufacturing facilities. We cleaned it up
ahead of schedule by over a year and saved many millions of
dollars in doing that.
Right now, I understand that our Southwest rail line, I
have been working with them, and they understand the importance
of staying on time and on budget, that it is close to being on
time and on budget. And so, I would like to have you discuss
the budget and schedule status for the New Starts projects
currently under construction, if you would, please.
Ms. Bushue. As you know, there are around 18. We monitor
these projects very carefully, and I share your concern,
Senator, that these projects are on time and under budget.
We do have one recent concern. As you all know,
construction prices have increased due to the increase in steel
and fuel prices. FTA staff is very sensitive to this and we are
working very closely with our clients, if I may use that term,
to ensure that we can work out these issues. We are making
every effort to make sure that these projects, again, stay
definitely on time and within the budget.
Senator Allard. I have always told my constituents and
agencies I work with back in Colorado that if you will stay on
time and budget, it is okay for everybody.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
Senator Allard. I think it instills confidence in the
projects that we have in the State of Colorado and also, I
think, instills projects at the National level in your
programs, and in that way, I think we all benefit.
Ms. Bushue. I totally agree with you, sir.
Senator Allard. And so, we try and push that as much as we
possibly can.
I was also pleased to see that Denver's west corridor was
included in the list of proposed full funding grant agreements.
This light rail corridor will be an important component of
Denver's growing transit network, and RTD has worked diligently
to move it forward through the process. The recommended funding
amounts for the FFGA is obviously based on the scheduled amount
from the FFGA, but how were the funding recommendations
determined for the proposed FFGAs?
Ms. Bushue. I am sorry; would you restate that for me?
Senator Allard. How were the funding recommendations
determined for the proposed full funding grant agreements?
Ms. Bushue. And you are talking specifically about
Colorado?
Senator Allard. No, just in general.
Ms. Bushue. That is a good question. In only my second week
in the job, I did the rollout of the New Starts program for
fiscal year 2006. There is a series of technical criteria that
are used to determine which projects are worthy. We focus on
ridership, and even more important, on the financing,
especially as it relates to the State and local commitment.
It is very important that the States and the locality are
invested in the project and really want the infrastructure
improvements. So we evaluate what sort of commitment comes from
the State and the locality.
Senator Allard. That is very helpful, and the people of
Colorado and Denver actually voted a tax increase to help pay
for these projects. So there is a very solid commitment there.
Ms. Bushue. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I do not think I am going to ask any more questions about
the Small Starts projects. You have heard from us, and I
appreciate the fact that you say that $100 million is going to
be enough to fund for the year a program that will start a year
and a half from now. I just wish it did not take a year and a
half to start. Why does it take so long to get up and running.
Ms. Bushue. That is a good question, Senator.
Senator Carper. It is not a year and a half. It is another
15 months, though.
Ms. Bushue. Largely, it is due to really two reasons:
First, it is a new program, and we are really reaching out to
the stakeholders to ensure that they are invested in the
program and that the program is designed to meet their needs.
Second, the overall review process for a new program through
some statutory requirements does take some time to complete.
I must stress that we are really reaching out to the
industry on this program. We, again, put out an advance notice
for rulemaking, which we did not need to do. However, we wanted
to get formal comments from the industry. We are also hosting
listening sessions, around the country which is a little bit
new. This will allow us more detail to the industry and collect
their comments to help us pull together the proper guidance for
this program.
Senator Carper. As you do all that listening, just listen
to us as well.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, Senator, we will.
Senator Carper. I think from the time we actually passed
the legislation, the President signed it, until this program
will be ready to roll is about 2 years.
Ms. Bushue. Yes.
Senator Carper. That seems like a long time.
I want to come back to another issue that I mentioned in my
opening statement, and that deals with the burden that we are
prepared to place on States and local transit authorities to
increase the fees that they are paying for the maintenance of
the Northeast Corridor.
Tell me, what is your understanding of how the system
currently operates with respect to determining the magnitude of
the fees, the fee schedule, if you will, that transit agencies
have to pay to Amtrak in order to use the Northeast Corridor,
which Amtrak owns from Boston to Washington? What is the
current arrangement?
Ms. Bushue. As you know, that language was put in the
fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill in the FRA title. Right
now, this program is still being evaluated. We at DOT are
looking at it. FRA is on point of this program. FTA is
facilitating. The commuter rail operators are our customers, as
you know.
Senator Carper. No, no, what was my question? My question
was how----
Ms. Bushue. Excuse me.
Senator Carper. What is the status quo? How do transit
agencies, how do we currently determine, how is it determined
what fees transit agencies from Boston to Washington are going
to pay to Amtrak? How does it currently work?
Ms. Bushue. It is a new program, and that is being
determined. We do not know what formula we are going to use. We
are not sure yet what fees each State will have to pay. That is
still being determined. As a matter of fact, as we speak, there
is a group of DOT----
Senator Carper. I do not mean to be rude, but let me just
make sure we stay on point here. Currently, transit agencies
pay fees to Amtrak. This is not a new thing. How are those fees
determined?
Ms. Bushue. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that. I
really do not know at this point know how the commuter rails
pay Amtrak for the use of the track.
Senator Carper. You have been around 37 days, and you do
not know that yet?
[Laughter.]
I say that with tongue in cheek.
Ms. Bushue. I know, sir, but----
Senator Carper. Maybe on the 38th day, you can get your
arms around that one, too.
But currently, I believe the transit agencies, SEPTA in our
region but up and down the corridor, they actually negotiate
with Amtrak, and they reach between the two parties, the
transit agencies saying this is how often we use the corridor;
Amtrak, knowing what kind of wear and tear there is on the
corridor from the utilization by the transit rail operations,
they reach an agreement on what the transit authorities will
pay.
As I understand it, what this language does, and let me
just say, some of the fee schedules have been agreed to not
just for this year and not just for next year, but I understand
from a member of my staff that there is actually a schedule
that goes up through maybe 2010, 2011 with respect to SEPTA and
Amtrak.
And for us to step in and say that while these fee
schedules have been negotiated I think in good faith that we
are going to come in after the fact and tell them now, you have
to set that aside, and we are going to tell you what fees to
schedule, seems wrongheaded.
I yield to you.
Ms. Bushue. Thank you.
Again, this was new language in the fiscal year 2006
appropriations bill that we are currently reviewing, and we
have not really made any formal or final decisions on how we
are going to implement this new rule.
Senator Carper. I have a series of questions I am going to
submit. Maybe you should turn your attention to this issue in
the days ahead. If you would be good enough to respond to me,
but this is--we just see something that just says, kind of
shouts out at me, this is not right. And when I heard about
this, I just said this is not right. And my hope is that you
will not just take a close look at it but try to figure out
what is the right thing to do, because I do not believe this
is.
Ms. Bushue. I understand, sir, and thank you.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Bunning.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The New Freedoms program provides funds for public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, to assist persons
with disabilities. Some communities have already exceeded the
minimum ADA requirements. The question then becomes what will
happen in communities where existing services already exceed
the ADA minimum requirements?
For example, will communities that provide door-to-door
service rather than curb-to-curb service be able to use the New
Freedoms program to fund the incremental cost difference?
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Senator.
As you know, the New Freedom program is in SAFETEA-LU. We
are working on implementing it. The Federal Register notice
that will be put out will request comment on the issue of
funding existing services where they exceed. So that is
something that we will definitely be looking at in the New
Freedoms program.
Senator Bunning. In other words, you do not have an answer.
Ms. Bushue. At this time, as you know, it is a new program,
and we are at the beginning of the rulemaking for it.
Senator Bunning. But was it not in last year's bill?
Ms. Bushue. I believe it was in the SAFETEA-LU
reauthorization bill that was signed in August, right. Excuse
me.
Senator Bunning. Yes, last August; you are right.
Ms. Bushue. As a result, we are drafting a circular to
provide more guidelines on the provisions of this new program,
but it was in the SAFETEA-LU bill that was signed in August.
Senator Bunning. So we have no proposal or even proposed
rule changes or how you are going to implement that?
Ms. Bushue. We are in the middle of that process right now.
Regarding your specific issues, we will be asking questions
about them. But we are right now beginning to put together that
new program.
Senator Bunning. I would submit to you that I would like a
written response, then, when you decide how you are going to do
that.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. We will be happy to provide that
for you, sir.
Senator Bunning. The same program, the New Freedoms and the
Job Access Reverse Commuter program before it required
coordinated public transportation and human services plans. How
do you envision implementing this requirement? Will it be
phased in? What will the expectation be for the coming Federal
fiscal year?
Ms. Bushue. Because, again, this is a new program. and I
guess because of my newness in this position, I would like to
get back to you as well in writing.
Senator Bunning. Well, since the rest of my questions are
about the Small Starts program, I will submit them also for the
record and ask for your written response to them.
Ms. Bushue. Okay, that would be great. Thank you.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bushue, did I get it correct?
Ms. Bushue. You did absolutely great, yes, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. You know, we worked very hard on this
legislation. It took a long time to get this SAFETEA bill
passed. I want to commend the very skillful work of Chairman
Shelby in that regard. He really was tireless in trying to move
through the transit portion of this, which is what we have
jurisdiction over, and also, the Subcommittee Chair and Ranking
Members, Senator Allard and Senator Reed.
Now, recognizing the importance of transit, the legislation
authorizes almost a 50 percent increase in funding. So we were
hopeful we would get this legislation finally in place after a
delay of, you know, we had these temporary reauthorizations,
and then, we finally passed it. The President signed it.
Everyone was happy and excited, and we thought we would really
get moving on this thing. Well, I am going to focus on, you
know, we are losing momentum.
First of all, the request in the budget is below the
authorized amount for transit. It is at the authorized amount
for highways. That is always a big issue, and one of the things
that we worked very hard here on was the balance between the
two and so forth and so on. That is a very delicate bargaining
problem, I guess, would be the way to put it.
But we put something out, and it was acceptable and so
forth. Then, right out of the box, the budget request, the
funding falls off of the agreement. That is very upsetting.
Then, we had these Small Starts program cuts, which I gather
the Chairman has asked about, but the demand is far in excess
of the $200 million, let alone the $100 million. It is not as
though there is a dearth of prospects for this Small Starts.
So, you know, that kind of gives the knock to Small Starts.
So you knock the balance between highway and transit; you knock
the Small Starts. I am really concerned that--it is like a
race. If you do not get out of the blocks at the beginning at a
pretty good clip, you are going to end up last in the race, not
first.
So having said all of that, and you may want to address
those items, I want to put a very specific question to you.
There is a provision in SAFETEA which requires the FTA to amend
the full funding grant agreement for Largo to provide $100
million in Federal funds for the Washington Metro system. WMATA
will be providing local funds for the remainder of the rail car
purchases.
This is very important, because we have the system in
place. We have the platforms; we have the stations. We do not
have enough cars. I mean, it pains me to see this
infrastructure developed at considerable cost over the years
and then to see our failure to maximize the use of the
infrastructure when we have passengers who want to ride these
trains.
And if we can just get these extra cars, we can run longer
trains more frequently. So the incremental costs in enhancing
the capacity of the system are quite reasonable. We do not have
to build more stations. We do not need to lengthen the
platforms. We just need more cars, you will need a little more
personnel, and so forth. And the FTA staff has not been
responsive to trying to get this amendment to the FFGA, the
full funding grant agreement. WMATA is desperate to get this
going. The need is apparent. It makes sense. And there is a
specific Congressional intent.
What is the problem? What can we do about this?
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, sir. As to your first question
regarding the funding for fiscal year 2007, the President's
budget, would fund it at a SAFETEA-authorized level with the
exception of the Small Starts program. And as stated earlier,
Small Starts is a new program, and we expect to have the
guidance and the program ready to go by spring 2007.
Therefore, we believe that the $100 million investment that
we have proposed for that program for fiscal year 2007 is
satisfactory.
Senator Sarbanes. Why do you believe that?
Ms. Bushue. Because----
Senator Sarbanes. If there are a lot of programs which add
up not to $100 million or $200 million but a significant
multiple of that number, of Small Starts, why do you believe
$100 million is enough? Where does that figure come from?
Ms. Bushue. Actually, we are just looking at exactly when
we will have the program up and running. And we hope to do so
by June 2007, to be precise regarding the month. And that only
would give us 3 months remaining in fiscal year 2007. So by the
time we get it up and running, accept grants and so forth, we
believe $100 million will be enough for fiscal year 2007.
It is hoped, and it is a possibility that we can recapture
that $100 million in the out years, but right now, for fiscal
year 2007, we believe that the $100 million would be enough.
As for your other issue regarding the rail cars for WMATA,
they are in the President's budget. We are in talks with WMATA
to determine what would be the amount of funding involved. At
this time, we are still talking to them, and we hope to have a
decision by April.
Senator Sarbanes. The amount needed was decided in the
legislation. That represents a Congressional decision at $100
million. It was not left to the discretion of the FTA. That was
decided in the Congressional legislation, and we obviously
expect you to follow the Congressional legislation. The need
for this is obviously apparent I guess would be the way to put
it.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Sarbanes, can I interject? I want
to associate myself with Senator Sarbanes' remarks. We felt
this was so clear, and we, on this side of the aisle, we wonder
why you have not followed the language. We support him on this.
Ms. Bushue. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is why we have included
this project that in the budget. At this point, we are just,
again, in discussions with WMATA to determine what the amount
should be. But we absolutely do have it in the President's
budget, and again, will be working with WMATA and the Committee
staff to have the full funding agreement amendment up here by
this spring.
Senator Sarbanes. I do not think it is a question of what
the amount should be. It is just a question of working out the
process by which the amount will be provided so WMATA can move
ahead with these rail cars.
Do you use the DC Metro yourself ?
Ms. Bushue. I do, not as much as what I used to, but I do.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, then, you will serve your own
purposes.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely right, Senator, and by the way, I
just want to let you know that I went to the Hunt Valley ribbon
cutting ceremony in Timonium, Maryland, yesterday.
Senator Sarbanes. Yes, I could not make that, because I was
at a ceremony for the Silver Spring transit center.
Ms. Bushue. But you were well-represented. And by the way,
I would like to add, it was, as you know, a pretty cold day
yesterday. I bet there were about 150 to 200 people there,
hardy souls. I thought if there were 30 people there, I would
have been impressed, but they were all there. We were out there
for about 45 minutes to an hour, and that was really
gratifying.
It gets back to what I said earlier about the criteria for
selecting full funding grant agreement recipients. It is really
that local kind of ownership. It was very impressive, and I had
a very nice time.
Senator Sarbanes. That is another example of the point I
was making about taking a capability and doing some incremental
additions and significantly enhancing its capacity, because
that line was not double-tracked throughout the length of it,
and the double tracking now will mean cars will come every 10
minutes instead of every 18 minutes.
Ms. Bushue. That is right.
Senator Sarbanes. So it is going to make a big difference.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but we are following
this WMATA situation very closely, and I think the FTA needs to
move to provide the $100 million so they can get on with the
project.
Chairman Shelby. Again, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of Senator Sarbanes. I think the legislative language
is clear. We hope you are going to get that done. It seems to
be very cost-effective, too.
Ms. Bushue. Yes.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be on the first hearing
on public transportation since I joined the Committee. This is
the jurisdiction that I had in the Transportation Committee
when I served in the other body, and it has been very
important. We have the second highest percentage of transit
riders in the Nation in New Jersey, and I want to thank you and
the Ranking Member for ensuring that transit got record levels
in this reauthorization as well as thank both of you.
I know that when my predecessor, now our Governor, Senator
Corzine, was here, you worked with him on some language that
was very critical to us, and we appreciate it in New Jersey.
So Administrator Bushue, I have two sets of questions, and
hopefully, you can shed some light on it for me. One is are you
familiar with the Trans-Hudson Midtown corridor project that is
in the reauthorization?
Ms. Bushue. Yes, I am, sir.
Senator Menendez. We included some language in the
transportation bill to help advance and project some
preliminary engineering in that effort, and I was hoping you
could let us know where we stand on that.
Ms. Bushue. Certainly; absolutely. That is a very exciting
and very ambitious project, if I may say.
The language that was put into the bill asks for the
project to be put into preliminary engineering within 120 days.
However, the language did not include any waivers of the other
statutory requirements which the FTA is under. So, therefore,
because it is such a complex and large project, we are really
focusing on the due diligence that is required to ensure that
the project does become eligible for Federal assistance. We are
working very closely with the people in your district on the
project, and we hope to make some progress.
But again, I think it is really at the pretty early stages
at this point in time, and I am not sure; it does not seem like
it is ready at this point to probably go into preliminary
engineering. But we are working closely with the project
sponsors.
Senator Menendez. Do we have any sense of a timeframe?
Ms. Bushue. I think it is really hard to say. We just
recently, as I understand it, received some of the documents
such as the environment impact study. We got the documents, in
November, and we are still reviewing them. And so, at this
point, I clearly cannot say when will be the appropriate time
for the----
Senator Menendez. We will be following up with your office.
Ms. Bushue. That would be great. We would love to work with
you on it. It is a great project.
Senator Menendez. It is incredibly important to the
region's future economic prosperity.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. On behalf of not just the region but the
Nation, but also, it has a very significant, in my view, in a
post-September 11 world, a security element of having another
access in and out of the region. So there are many dimensions
to it.
Let me turn to, since I talked about a post-September 11
world, to transit security. I see, and I understand there is
$42.5 million in the FTA budget for transit security; is that
correct?
Ms. Bushue. That is correct, sir.
Senator Menendez. Now, I also see there is about $600
million elsewhere in the budget for security grants to cover
all critical infrastructure, including ports and transit from
the Department of Homeland Security. Do you have any sense of
whether, out of that budget, transit is getting anything more,
or is your figure the figure for transit security?
Ms. Bushue. As you know, Department of Homeland Security
has jurisdiction for transit security. The $42.5 million that
you see in the FTA's budget is the 1 percent setaside of
urbanized area formula funds required by SAFETEA-LU. The rest
of the funding comes from the Department of Homeland Security.
As I mentioned, our number one act after SAFETEA-LU was enacted
was to sign an MOU with the Department of Homeland Security to
work with them as an adviser, as a consultant, on transit
security issues.
As I understand, the funding for transit security at DHS is
$150 million.
Senator Menendez. $150 million out of that $600 million?
Ms. Bushue. I would assume that is correct.
Senator Menendez. That would be in addition to your $42.5
million?
Ms. Bushue. That is correct.
Senator Menendez. Now, your $42.5 million, how do you
intend to spend that, and is this in coordination with other
grants or----
Ms. Bushue. Actually, it is a requirement that our grant
recipients spend the 1 percent as they see fit. We do not
really dictate to them how they should spend it, but we do
review how they spend it.
And I would like to also say, Senator, that our grant
recipients are very much aware of the need to protect their
property, and security is their number one priority. In my
short tenure at the FTA, I have had the privilege to travel to
New York City to see what is going on there. At every meeting I
had with them transit security was truly the number one topic.
Senator Menendez. I ask that question because under the DOT
budget, it says that FTA will emphasize security training in
these following areas: Training for transit system employees,
emergency preparedness and response, and public awareness
efforts, all which are welcomed, but it does nothing about
application of technology in terms of creating security.
So is that, is your understanding of how you are going to
use the budget in accordance with what DOT has listed in their
budget?
Ms. Bushue. Our grantees will be using the $43 million for
those three areas. And again, the Department of Homeland
Security does have jurisdiction, and we will be working with
them as a consultant to see how they use those additional
monies.
Senator Menendez. Now, the $150 million that you mentioned
before, is that fiscal year 2006 or fiscal year 2007?
Ms. Bushue. It is fiscal year 2006.
Senator Menendez. What about 2007? Do we know?
Ms. Bushue. I am not----
Senator Menendez. If you could get back to us through the
Committee, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Bushue. Yes, we will absolutely get back to you.
Senator Menendez. Last, let me just say that our challenge
is very significant. We have 100,000 New Jersey Transit riders
every day; we have a huge number of PATH riders between New
York and New Jersey. We spend $9 for everybody who flies in an
airplane, like I did coming in here; we spent a cent in terms
of transit riders.
And when we look at that $600 million that is overall in
terms of security grants to cover all the critical
infrastructure, and we hear what the Coast Guard is saying is
necessary just for the security of our ports, I look at it, and
I say after Madrid, after London, how much of a wakeup call do
we need?
That is a concern that we have. I know that we are
constrained, but there are certain questions of priorities and
values, security being the number one thing the Federal
Government does on behalf of its citizens. So, I hope we are
going to have a more robust effort in the days ahead. Clearly,
the $42.5 million is nowhere near what we need to do to protect
the Nation's public transportation system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Administrator. We look forward to working
with you. They have propounded, the Members have a number of
questions to you, and I hope you will be diligent in answering
those.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, sir, I will.
Chairman Shelby. And I hope you will also follow up on
Senator Sarbanes' request to get those cars.
Ms. Bushue. Will do, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you very much.
Chairman Shelby. Our second panel is Patrick McCrory, the
Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. He is testifying on behalf
of the United States Conference of Mayors; William Millar,
President, American Public Transportation System. Gentlemen?
Thank you, Mayor, Mr. Millar. Senator Sarbanes has to go to
another Committee. He wants to make a statement.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, yes, I regret very much
that I am not going to be able to stay for this panel. I have,
as so often happens here, competing obligations. But I did want
to welcome both of our witnesses. Mayor McCrory has been here
before. I particularly recall some very helpful testimony he
gave to the Committee a few years ago on the importance of
integrating transit into a community's long-term planning
process. I want you to know, Mayor, that was extremely helpful.
We referred back to that testimony from time to time.
Mr. McCrory. Thank you very much.
Senator Sarbanes. So thank you very much.
And Bill Millar, I do not know that there is a more
articulate or effective advocate for transit in the country,
and he was with us all through that reauthorization process,
and we are extremely appreciative to him for his very positive
contributions, and I apologize to both of our witnesses that--I
mean, I have your statements, and I obviously will read them
very carefully.
Mr. Millar. Thank you.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
Mayor, you and Mr. Millar's testimony will be made part of
the record. If you will just briefly sum up your remarks.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK L. McCRORY
MAYOR, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. McCrory. That would be fine. In fact, I am going to,
instead of reading the statement, I am going to talk from the
heart.
Chairman Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. McCrory. I have some comments I wrote on the envelope
on the way here in the airplane.
Let me first thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your past work
and the Committee's recommendations. I would also like to thank
FTA. They have been a good partner in working with them and
their staff, especially the previous Administrator Dorn, and I
look forward to working with the new administrator also. Also,
it is an honor to be Mayor of the City of Charlotte, a great
suburb of Shelby, North Carolina.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Shelby. A little larger than Shelby, I think.
Mr. McCrory. Just a tad. We follow your lead all the time,
though.
Let me first say I also speak on behalf of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, where I have been Chairman of the
Environmental Committee for the past 6 to 7 years, and on
behalf of all the mayors, I just want to stress to you the
importance of mass transit in all of our cities. Our employers
are demanding it as they look at their long-term plans for
whatever city they are going to invest in the future.
And their primary concern is how am I going to get people
to and from work and around the congestion? And if I cannot get
them to and from work in a reasonable amount of time with many
choices, we are going to move elsewhere. And so, it is
extremely important for not only cities in North Carolina, and
I am glad to see Senator Dole's staff here also; it is great to
see you all here, but also cities throughout the United States.
I also want to say it is very important to us from an
environmental standpoint, from an economic development
standpoint, and just preparing not just plans for transit but
housing, brownfields, economic development; it has to be part
of a comprehensive plan, which I appreciate the Senator
mentioning earlier.
In Charlotte, by the way, we do have, we continue the
implementation of our 25-year plan. We appreciate your full
funding grant agreement. We hope to implement our 10-mile line
in the fall of next year. We are on budget; we are on time,
although we are having to make some major adjustments due to
the cost escalations, but we just have to adjust, and we are
doing the best job we can.
I do want to get quickly to the issues in the limited
amount of time that we have. I would like to speak on behalf of
the Mayors and for the City of Charlotte. We totally agree with
you regarding the Small Starts programs. In fact, if anything,
I anticipate cities and towns throughout the United States
wanting more of the Small Starts programs, not less.
In fact, there is already becoming a backlog of these
programs. And what is happening right now is we are seeing the
Small Starts programs are going to be more effective. It has
the potential to just be an excellent program, because it is
more flexible; you can finish in a timely manner; you can show
the results, and we also think they cost less money.
And we are also seeing the more larger New Start projects
dealing with major budget implications because of the inflation
we are seeing in construction costs, cement and steel and other
matters. Also, I compare it to highway funding, where a lot of
times, my highway funding, road funding, I want to improve an
intersection before building a new highway. And this is very
similar to intersection improvement or right-of-way
improvement, which will try to increase the flow of traffic and
reduce congestion, and that is our goal.
The second thing I want to state is that we really want to
emphasize for the Small Starts program is that the bureaucracy
has to be lessened. You cannot treat it as New Start lite. If
we treat this where you have to go through so many bureaucratic
steps to get it implemented, it is just going to add to the
cost and the time, and it is going to become like a New Start
program. The advantage of the Small Start is to save money. It
is the flexibility; it is the implementation, and it is getting
it on time.
So, I would like us to review the process in which we
implement those, and maybe that would then help implement
getting the money that you originally budgeted, too, if we cut
out some of the bureaucratic steps.
I also want to state, as a Mayor, and I think all Mayors
agree with me, in Charlotte, we are only going to recommend,
whether it be a New Start program or a Small Start program,
programs that make sense financially, make sense to ridership,
make sense to economic development. We are not going to submit
programs that are pie in the sky, because in the long run, I
have to pay for it; you have to pay for it; and it makes no
sense, and I make that commitment on behalf of all mayors.
The last thing I want to talk about is this, is that we
cannot deemphasize land use and economic development. You have
in your bill and in statute right now an emphasis on economic
development and land use, and right now, we want to emphasize
the need to make sure that FTA also emphasizes that as a
priority, not as a subset, because I am convinced--I am a
Republican mayor. If you do not have the right land use; if you
do not have economic development as part of the plan, we are
wasting our money.
It has to be implemented as part of a total package, and in
the long-run, Mr. Chairman, that will save us money in
infrastructure costs and water and sewer, infrastructure costs
in roads, and infrastructure costs in future transit monies.
And my time is up, and I would love to spend more time with
you, but I am here to answer any questions you might have.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you, Mayor McCrory.
Mr. McCrory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Mr. Millar, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Millar. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, sir, and it
is a pleasure to be back in front of the Committee, and I
appreciate your and Senator Sarbanes' kind comments. We always
get a good welcome here, and we appreciate that very much.
Again, I want to thank you as I have on so many other
occasions. You have been and are a great leader of this
Committee. We are so appreciative of the way you have worked
through all of the issues in SAFETEA-LU, and we are now moving
to play our part in implementing that program. And on behalf of
my 1,600 members all across the country, we really do
appreciate it.
It is also a great pleasure to be here with one of the
great urban leaders in America, Mayor McCrory, and we have been
to Charlotte and seen the great work that he and his colleagues
are doing there.
Mr. Menendez, I am so pleased to be with you on this side
of the Hill, and we appreciate particularly your concern for
transit and the terrorism issue, which I will be discussing
momentarily.
I really have three issues that I want to address briefly
here. The first is the Small Starts program. I think I will
shorten up my comments there, because I think the Committee has
a good understanding of our concerns. The second relates to
security issues; and then, finally, I want to pick up on some
issues that Mr. Carper raised relating to commuter rail fees in
the Northeast Corridor.
With regard to Small Starts, I certainly agree with all the
statements that the Senators made and you made, in particular,
Mr. Chairman; It is incomprehensible that the President could
sign a law 6 months ago with tremendous need and then turn
around and cut the program in half as we get started. I am sure
the Committee is aware this is not the first Small Starts
program. There used to be a smaller New Starts program, but it
had a $25 million cap, and there are many projects lined up
that were already in line for the old program that could easily
be funded by the new program, could quite properly use at least
$200 million worth of investment, and we would certainly
encourage the Administration to consider that as well.
Also, we very much appreciate the Committee's concern about
the careful balance between highways and transit. As I have
testified, we certainly understand the importance of highways,
as we do transit, but that was a carefully crafted bill, and
the effect of the Administration, whether they intended it or
not, was to thwart the Congressional intent in that regard. So
we certainly hope that the Administration will listen carefully
to what you all told them, and we certainly stand ready to work
with you and the Committee in that regard.
The other irony of cutting Small Starts is that critics of
the public transit program for decades have said we need to
learn to do things cheaper and quicker, and this program is
designed to do both that, and yet, it is the one program they
choose to cut.
With regard to transit security, and perhaps I can
embellish on some of the answers that were given to you
previously, Senator, we continue to be concerned about the lack
of attention on transit security by the Administration. We are
most appreciative of the work of this Committee in acting on
Senate Bill 2032 that would establish a 3-year, $3.5 billion
program. We are very hopeful that the full Senate will take
that up, and we are very hopeful that the House will have
companion legislation as well.
We particularly appreciate your leadership and that of Mr.
Sarbanes last summer during the appropriations and budget
fights where you tried to raise dramatically the amount of
investment in public transit security. As you know from
personal experience in London, as I understand it, these
terrorist acts can occur anywhere, anytime and we need to take
reasonable steps to move forward to secure our transit systems.
The Deputy Administrator is correct. The primary
responsibility is over at the Department of Homeland Security,
and we do appreciate that FTA has been as supportive as they
can be given where the primary responsibility lies, but Mr.
Menendez, you are quite correct: $600 million to do transit, to
do ports, to do all the other infrastructures that are intended
is nowhere near enough.
In the current fiscal year, the Department of Homeland
Security is yet to decide how they will divide up between
transit and the other infrastructures. In the 2005 year, they
provided about $130 million of the $150 million for public
transit. So we continue to be concerned that not only when
Congress has acted, the Administration is slow to allocate the
money, and that is a very important concern for us.
A final issue I wish to discuss very briefly is the one
that Senator Carper raised, and that relates to the taxation is
the word I will use of commuter rail users in the Northeast
Corridor to help fund Amtrak. We certainly all understand the
importance of having good intercity rail transit, but commuter
rail properties in the Northeast Corridor have negotiated with
Amtrak over the years the proper balance between what costs
those commuter rail operators impose in the corridor and what
they should pay, and now, to come along and just out of the
blue say that they should pay at least $59 million more makes
no sense.
Over 800,000 commuters a day use the Northeast Corridor for
commuter rail. Only a few thousand use Amtrak. There has to be
a better way. The Congress called for an open process to
determine this. So far, we have not seen any evidence of that
open process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to expand on
these points as you might wish.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
My first question is to Mayor McCrory. In June of last
year, Mayor, you will recall the U.S. Conference of Mayors
Working Group on Transportation sent a letter to the House and
the Senate conferees of the transportation bill urging us to
maintain an 80/20 highway and transit split. Why is this parity
important to mayors?
Mr. McCrory. Well, it shows a commitment to a dual
transportation system. And if you visit any city, you cannot
live on one transportation mode alone. And if you do not
reserve a certain percentage for one versus another and have
that guaranteed percentage, you know it will constantly dwindle
away.
And I think there is a very strong feeling among mayors,
you have to have choice among transportation. You have to have
both highways, but you also have to have mass transit. And that
seems to be a very fair and consistent formula that has stayed
in place for a pretty long time, and we need to continue that.
Chairman Shelby. Mayor, you are the mayor of a fast growing
city, the second largest financial center in the United States
is my understanding from being here on the Banking Committee.
Mr. McCrory. That is correct.
Chairman Shelby. You have drawn on Federal funds to address
growing congestion in the Charlotte area. If the $100 million
cut in the Small Starts program were to stand, how would
smaller communities wishing to build smaller, cost-effective
projects be impacted?
Mr. McCrory. I think you are going to first of all have
very few projects using $100 million. I mean, that could be 5
or 6 at most projects, 7 projects.
Chairman Shelby. It would wipe out most of the----
Mr. McCrory. Yes; in fact, Charlotte alone has two projects
that they would like to submit, which are excellent projects.
So just looking at ourselves is one, 17th largest city; we
would take two of the projects if we got what we wanted.
And again, in the long-run, I think these projects are the
types of projects that cities and towns throughout the United
States are going to direct a lot of the resources to, because
you see immediate results, and the cost-effectiveness is very
good.
Chairman Shelby. What is the approximate population of the
metropolitan area now in Charlotte?
Mr. McCrory. It is about 1.5 million now, and our city
population is 615,000 people.
Chairman Shelby. So 1.5 million in the metropolitan----
Mr. McCrory. That is correct.
Chairman Shelby. And growing, right?
Mr. McCrory. And it is one of the fastest growing areas in
the Nation. And, you know, we have a choice. We can either
prepare for that growth or react to it 20 years from now, and
we will find out reacting to it is much more expensive.
Chairman Shelby. Very much.
Mr. Millar, you spent a lot of time in your written
testimony and in your comments sharing APTA's concerns about
the Administration's effort to have commuter rail authorities
pay additional costs for their usage of Amtrak-owned Northeast
Corridor. I understand that among other issues, that your
association is concerned about how the costs are to be
calculated and how existing contracts for usage in the
Northeast Corridor would be treated.
Are you also concerned that Amtrak may wish to assuage
their own serious financial woes by tapping into the limited
funds made available in the mass transit account at some time
in the future?
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir, that is a concern. My association has
a longstanding policy. We are in favor of intercity rail
transportation, but we do not believe that the limited amount
of funding that is available for public transit use in the Mass
Transit Account, which it does not even cover those costs of,
let alone trying to expand the Mass Transit Account to cover
intercity rail and bus as well.
So it is very much a concern, as is the concern that
somehow, the Federal Transit Administration can just routinely
deduct money from grants that are going to be used for other
purposes and redirect it in different ways. We think that is
wrong as well, sir.
Chairman Shelby. What should the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security be doing
to address the transit security needs in this country that we
have worked together on?
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir. First and foremost, DHS needs to
admit that there is a big problem and that it takes resources,
Federal resources in partnership with State and local
resources, to improve the situation with regard to security on
our public transit systems. As I have testified here before, we
have spent over $18 billion on the aviation system; about $250
million on the public transit system. Yet, every day, 16 times
more people use local public transit than use the air network.
Now, we do not begrudge the air network. They need to be
secure. But we need to get serious. We need money for planned
drilling, for training, for new equipment, for the application
of new technology that could make our systems that much safer,
for new communications systems; the list goes on and on and on,
and I do not understand why that is so difficult for the
Department of Homeland Security to understand.
Chairman Shelby. I share a lot of views on that, as you
know.
Mr. Millar. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Shelby. Gentlemen, I appreciate your patience here
this morning in waiting and your views here before the
Committee. The Committee will take those into consideration as
we always do and work together.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and response to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to start off by
saying how pleased I am to be here for the first hearing on public
transportation since I joined the Committee. As you may know, I served
for 13 years in the House on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and I represent a densely packed state that has the second
highest percentage of transit ridership in the country, so this is an
issue that is very close to New Jersey's heart, and to my own.
Just last weekend, I had the honor of helping to open two new
stations on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system, including one in my
old home of Union City, where, as mayor, I helped to start the planning
process for this project many years ago. This light rail system has
been a textbook example of the power of public transportation to
revitalize communities. It has been an economic engine that fueled new
businesses, created new jobs, and brought people back to our
waterfront. It helps to clean our air and make commutes easier for
people in Hudson County and around the region, allowing them to spend
more quality time at home with their families and less stuck in
traffic. There are few things we do in government that can bring all of
these things together, and I am tremendously proud at having helped to
make the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail a reality.
I am also very proud of the work that we did last year on the
transportation bill, which I helped to negotiate as part of the House
delegation of the conference committee. In particular, I am proud of
the large increases in transit funding that the bill contained, and I
know that much of that was due to the hard work of this committee, and
I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their leadership in
ensuring that transit will see record levels of funding in the coming
years. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to them for
working with Senator Corzine to make sure that we got a number of
provisions in the bill that are very important for New Jersey,
including some language that will help facilitate the construction of a
new trans-Hudson tunnel.
We have already reached the practical capacity of the existing 2-
track tunnel, with well over 42,000 people arriving on 186 trains
between 6 and 10 AM. Meanwhile, more and more people are moving from
New York to New Jersey to live, while maintaining jobs in Manhattan.
The last Census found that the New York to New Jersey net migration was
the third highest State-to-State migration in the country. In order to
keep up with this influx of new residents, and to make sure that people
can get to jobs on both sides of the river, we desperately need to
build a new tunnel under the Hudson River, and we need to do it
quickly. In SAFETEA-LU, there is language expediting the entry of the
project into the Preliminary Engineering portion of the New Starts
process, and I hope to hear from the Deputy Administrator about FTA's
timetable for getting this project to that next step.
In general, I am very pleased with this transit budget, although I
join many of my colleagues on the Committee in expressing some concern
about the fact that the Small Starts program was cut by $100 million.
As I mentioned, I know how important these types of projects can be for
communities, and I think it is unfortunate that we are seeing these
cuts proposed before this program even has a chance to get off the
ground.
There are other transit issues in the overall budget that I am also
very concerned about, even though not all fall under FTA's
jurisdiction. First of all, the Administration has proposed to once
again slash Amtrak's budget below the level that would allow it to
avoid bankruptcy. If Amtrak were to go bankrupt, nearly 100,000 New
Jersey commuters would be stranded each day because they depend on New
Jersey Transit trains that use the Northeast Corridor. So, I can not
let that happen. Also, there is a provision in the fiscal year 2006
appropriations for the Federal Railroad Administration that could
result in commuter agencies having to pay Amtrak considerably higher
fees for use of the Northeast Corridor. New Jersey Transit already pays
Amtrak $120 million each year, and a very murky process is just
beginning where they could end up being forced to pay an extra $10 to
$20 million, and it is not clear that they will be fully informed about
how those fees are calculated. Nor is it clear if their existing
contributions will be fully credited. And, in the end, the real loser
in this process will be the commuters of New Jersey, who would probably
be forced to endure service cuts as a result of the higher fees.
I am also very concerned about the level of funding in the budget
for transit security. This is, unfortunately, part of a pattern from
this Administration. As I have known for a long time, but is now
becoming clear to the rest of the country through the recent debate
over port security, the Administration has simply not taken substantial
enough steps to protect the security of our critical infrastructure
assets, whether we are talking about ports, chemical plants, or public
transit passengers. We have plenty of all of those in New Jersey, and
it is extremely important to me to make sure this country commits the
necessary resources to protect them. And yet, it appears that once
again transit security will get neglected, despite the lessons of
Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. The Federal Government spends over
$9 in security for each flying passenger, but less than one cent for
the security of each person on a transit bus or train. If we do not
take serious action now, I am afraid that we will be doing it in the
aftermath of another deadly attack on our own soil.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA BUSHUE
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
February 28, 2006
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on
the Federal Transit Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request.
We appreciate your continued interest and strong commitment to public
transportation as embodied in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
enacted by Congress and signed by the President on August 10, 2005.
I am pleased to report to the Committee that the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget for transit is a record $8.9 billion. This is a
significant commitment given the overall context of the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget. At a time when most non-security related
domestic programs are experiencing reductions in their funding levels
and when the Department of Transportation's total budget is holding
steady, funding for transit in this budget grows by more than 4 percent
or $370 million above the fiscal year 2006 level. This shows the high
priority this Administration puts on funding public transportation
among many competing national priorities.
Top Fiscal Year 2007 Priorities
Since my recent arrival, I have been impressed with the energy and
dedication of FTA's staff. Thus I want to take this opportunity to
focus on FTA's top priorities. They include:
Effective and timely implementation of SAFETEA-LU;
Effective management and oversight of almost $8.9 billion in
formula and capital investment grants, especially New Starts full
funding grant agreements;
Improved coordination of human services transportation for
disabled persons, older adults and individuals with lower incomes;
Continued work with the Department of Homeland Security to
strengthen transit security, including training, emergency
preparedness, and public awareness;
Use of performance information and program assessments to
better manage risk and drive agency results; and
Attracting and retaining the best workforce with the skill-set
to meet the challenges facing the agency.
SAFETEA-LU Implementation
SAFETEA-LU authorizes a total of $45.3 billion in guaranteed
funding for Federal transit programs over the 5-year period fiscal
years 2005-2009, an increase of 46 percent over TEA-21 funding. In
addition to historic funding levels, SAFETEA-LU added new programs such
as New Freedom and Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public
Lands that began in fiscal year 2006, and modified other programs.
SAFETEA-LU also required that FTA promulgate about a dozen new
regulations for joint planning requirements, New Starts (including the
Small Starts program), Buy America, Charter Bus, and a joint rulemaking
on security with the Department of Homeland Security.
Since the President signed SAFETEA-LU in August 2005, FTA has
worked diligently to implement the many changes and requirements. FTA
has demonstrated progress with an aggressive schedule to meet the
requirements in SAFETEA-LU and facilitate program implementation. In
the early months following enactment, FTA signed the Memorandum of
Understanding Annex with the Department of Homeland Security, published
interim fiscal year 2006 transit program guidance for public comment,
and initiated a communications and outreach strategy that included
publishing informational materials on its website and hosting several
dozen listening sessions to solicit public and industry input on its
program proposals.
Since January, FTA has worked to publish for public comment in the
Federal Register New Starts Policy Guidance, an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on the Small Starts program, and a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Buy America. FTA will continue its aggressive
implementation of SAFETEA-LU and will hold additional listening and
outreach sessions to obtain public input for agency consideration as it
develops circulars and guidance for official comment.
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
Now, I would like to touch on some of the highlights of the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the FTA. The budget reflects
the Administration's commitment to public transportation as envisioned
in SAFETEA-LU.
Urbanized Area Programs
In fiscal year 2007, $7.3 billion is requested in a solely trust-
funded account for Formula and Bus Grants. This includes $3.9 billion
for the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program, including Growing States
and High Density States and $1.4 billion for the Fixed Guideway
Modernization Program to ensure that the Nation's older fixed guideway
systems continue to meet the transportation needs of the communities
they serve.
Formula Grants funding can be used for all capital transit purposes
and, in areas under 200,000 in population, for operating assistance.
Eligible capital expenses include: Planning, bus, van, railcar,
intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and equipment purchases;
facility repair and construction, new technology introduction, and
preventive maintenance. These funds help public transit agencies reduce
congestion, ensure basic mobility, promote economically vital
communities, and meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Bus and Bus-Facilities
FTA requests $856 million for bus and bus-related capital projects
that enhance the efficiency and safety of the Nation's bus systems. In
fiscal year 2007, FTA is proposing a clean fuels and electric drive bus
deployment (hybrid-electric) program to encourage and provide
incentives to transit agencies to procure low emission technology
buses, including hybrid electric buses. The FTA hybrid-electric program
will develop a comprehensive approach to addressing existing barriers
and challenges to the adoption and deployment of new low emission
technology by a greater number of the Nation's transit agencies.
State Administered Grants
The important goal of improving mobility for the elderly, persons
with disabilities, and individuals with low incomes requires more
flexibility and fewer funding constraints on communities. FTA's budget
requests $809 million for several transit programs administered
primarily by States. For the Nonurbanized Area Formula program, $467
million may be used to support intercity bus service as well as to help
meet rural and small urban areas' transit needs and includes funding
for the new Growing States program. A total of $117 million in formula
grants for the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities program will
be apportioned to each State according to a legislatively required
formula to assist in providing transportation to the elderly and
individuals with disabilities. The budget includes $144 million for the
Job Access and Reverse Commute program apportioned to States by formula
for grants to nonprofit organizations and local transit agencies to
support transportation services for welfare recipients and low-income
individuals. Funding for the New Freedom program totals $81 million and
will provide additional support to overcome the significant
transportation barriers facing millions of Americans with disabilities
seeking access to jobs and integration into the workforce.
Metropolitan and Statewide Planning
In fiscal year 2007, FTA requests a total of $99 million for
Metropolitan and Statewide Planning. Funding will support
implementation of the expanded analytic, environmental, transportation
air-quality conformity, and evaluative work necessary to ensure that
Federal and other transportation investments are cost-effective.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State departments of
transportation use these funds for planning activities that support
over $8 billion in annual capital transit projects located in all 50
States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. These funds also
support planning activities for FTA capital grants that will be made to
rural transit operators and tribal governments. Both the FTA and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carry out statutory planning
requirements through Metropolitan Planning Organizations, State DOTs,
and transit operators as a condition of Federal assistance for most
mass transportation and highway projects.
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands
For fiscal year 2007, $23 million is requested to enhance the
protection of America's national parks and public lands by improving
the experience of those visiting our national parks, while ensuring
transportation access and mobility for all visitors, including
individuals with disabilities. FTA is working with the Department of
the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to implement this new program.
Investment in alternative transportation solutions in our national
parks and public lands has many benefits, such as relieving traffic
congestion and parking shortages, enhancing visitor mobility,
accessibility, and safety, enhancing mobility and safety for local
residents, conserving sensitive natural, cultural, and historic
resources, and reducing pollution.
Clean Fuels Grant Program
The Clean Fuels Grant program is requested at $45 million to
provide financing for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses and
facilities and the improvement of existing facilities to accommodate
these buses. This includes buses powered by compressed natural gas,
biodiesel fuels, batteries, alcohol-based fuels, hybrid electric
technology, fuel cell and certain clean diesel fuels (up to 2 percent
of grants annually), and other low or zero emissions technology.
Major Capital Investments
The budget requests almost $1.5 billion for the New Starts program.
New Starts projects help improve mobility, reduce congestion and
pollution, and promote new economic activity throughout the Nation. The
$1.5 billion fully funds the Federal commitment included in 16 existing
full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) with transit agencies. Funding
also supports two FFGAs that we expect to sign before the end of fiscal
year 2006, one in Pittsburgh and one in New York City.
I am also pleased that five new projects have made it to the New
Starts finish line and are ready for FFGAs. These projects include
three light rail transit projects in Denver, Portland, and Dallas. In
addition, commuter rail projects in Washington County, Oregon, and Salt
Lake City, Utah, are also ready for FFGAs.
I want to share with the committee our plans for implementing the
new ``Small Starts'' program in fiscal year 2007. This program will
provide Federal Small Starts funding up to $75 million for projects
under $250 million in total cost. We are very excited about this new
program. It is a program we recommended to Congress because it levels
the playing field for medium and small communities.
We know from several listening sessions we have held that
communities across the country are interested in this new program and
how it will work. Last month, we published in the Federal Register, for
public comment, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the
evaluation criteria and other requirements. Final regulations are not
expected until June 2007. Given all the work ahead of us and the strong
interest by communities to help develop the program requirements, we
believe that $100 million will provide a sound first investment for a
program we are committed to implement during fiscal year 2007.
Project Oversight
FTA remains committed to ensuring the completion of New Starts
projects on time and on budget. Our successful oversight program works
with transit agencies to identify potential problems before they grow
into major crises. The DOT Inspector General has reported that FTA's
oversight program is ``essentially a sound approach that can provide
early warnings of cost, schedule, and quality problems.''
One tool we use to help ensure that projects meet their cost,
schedule, and transportation benefit expectations is a quantitative
risk assessment. These risk assessments help project sponsors identify
the issues that could affect schedule or cost, as well as the
probability that they will do so. Utilizing the risk assessment tool,
every project sponsor is required to: Identify the project's key cost
drivers; identify, quantify, and prioritize based on impact and
probability the risks associated with potential cost increases and
schedule delays; and develop contingency levels and risk mitigation
plans sufficient to assure confidence in the project cost estimates.
Research and University Research Centers
In 2007, $61 million is requested for the National Research and
Technology program, Transit Cooperative Research Program, the National
Transit Institute and University Research Centers. Of this amount, $40
million is requested for the National Research and Technology program.
These funds support the goals of FTA's Strategic Transit Research Plan
developed in consultation with the transit industry. The budget
includes $9.3 million for the Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP), which focuses on issues significant to the transit industry.
The budget requests $4.3 million for the National Transit Institute
(NTI) and $7 million for University Research Centers that provide
continued support for research, education, and technology transfer
activities aimed at addressing regional and national transportation
problems.
Administrative Expenses
FTA is requesting $85 million in administrative expenses to help
ensure it can effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission. This
request supports 14 additional full time equivalent (FTE) personnel for
a total of 531 FTEs, information technology, space management, travel,
training, and other related administrative expenses.
New requirements and program changes must be supported with higher
staffing levels if FTA is to be effective and timely in implementing
SAFETEA-LU. The law creates a number of new programs such as Small
Starts, Transit in the Parks, and New Freedom, and requires that
regulations be developed and published in the Federal Register for New
Starts, Buy America, security, and Charter Bus. In addition,
significant outreach efforts are needed in order to provide other
Federal and State agencies, public transit agencies, the transit
industry and the transit riding public with information on changes in
statute, policies and procedures, guidance, and technical assistance.
Transit Security
The security of our public transportation system remains a high
priority of this Administration and the Department and our budget
includes $42 million to support security, within which is the 1 percent
set aside from urban formula grants to fund public transportation
security projects. Transit agencies across America have strengthened
their security systems and enhanced their emergency response plans, and
FTA has placed a high priority on increasing the security of our public
transportation systems and ensuring that they are prepared for security
threats and emergency situations.
Working with the Department of Homeland Security, FTA has
identified three priority areas with regard to security: (1) Training
transit employees to deter, detect, mitigate, and respond to a variety
of emergency scenarios; (2) ensuring local agencies have emergency
plans in place and routinely practice them; and, (3) increasing public
awareness, so that passengers can identify suspicious or unusual
behavior, communicate with transit officials, and exit safely in the
event of an emergency.
Enhanced Coordination of Human Service Transportation
In response to the recommendations of the President's Council on
Access and Mobility, and in accordance with the President's Executive
Order 13330, FTA implemented United We Ride, a five-part nationwide
initiative to improve transportation services for people with
disabilities, individuals with low incomes, and older adults. The
initiative to improve the coordination of human services transportation
includes: (1) Publication of ``A Framework for Action''--a self-
assessment tool that States and communities can use to identify areas
of success and the actions still needed to improve the coordination of
human service transportation; (2) recognition of leadership--in
February 2004, Secretary Mineta recognized five States--Ohio, North
Carolina, Washington, Florida, and Maryland that are leading the way in
building and implementing infrastructures, policies and programs that
facilitate human service transportation coordination; (3) holding a
national Leadership Forum--Governor-appointed senior leadership teams
from 47 States and U.S. territories met to raise the visibility of the
need to improve human service transportation coordination among State
leaders, provide technical assistance, and secure commitments to
action; (4) providing grants--$1.5 million to address gaps and needs
related to human service transportation in their geographic regions;
and (5) providing technical assistance--``Help Along the Way'' was
launched that built on the work of the Community Transportation
Assistance Program, the Rural Transportation Assistance Program, and
Easter Seals Project ACTION.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with this Committee in
support of public transportation in our great country. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2007 budget request
and other issues important to us. I would be happy to respond to
questions from the Committee.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK L. McCRORY
Mayor, City of Charlotte, North Carolina
on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
February 28, 2006
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Committee. My name is Patrick
McCrory and I am pleased to speak with you today as the Mayor of the
City of Charlotte, North Carolina and to share with you my perspective
of the President's fiscal year 2006 budget, as it relates to the
Federal Transit Administration.
I would also like to extend greetings to you from The U.S.
Conference of Mayors, as I serve on that organization's Executive
Committee through my role as the Chair of the Conference's Environment
Committee.
I would like to begin my remarks today by commending Congress for
reauthorizing the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Your
demonstrated commitment to invest in America's transportation
infrastructure is invaluable and will continue to promote economic
prosperity and will go a long way to address our overburdened
transportation system. Most importantly, the act will live up to its
name and truly leave a positive transportation legacy for users
throughout America.
I, like Mayors across the country, certainly welcome the Federal
Government's partnership in transit and transportation issues. North
Carolina is a donor State when it comes to gas tax usage for transit
and transportation funding. Given this situation, I am pleased to know
that President Bush has identified the importance of investing nearly
$3 billion in ``New Starts'' and ``Small Starts'' in the Federal
Transit Administration's budget for transit projects. These ``New
Starts'' and ``Small Starts'' programs will go a long way to direct
more money toward the Nation's rapid transit needs, such as light rail,
street cars, and busways.
In 1998, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County voters approved a half-
cent sales tax increase to establish a dedicated revenue stream to
support the Charlotte-region's 2025 transit and land-use plan. This was
a big leap of faith and a strong demonstration of support by Charlotte-
Mecklenburg voters, as this additional sales tax gave Mecklenburg
County the distinction of having the highest sales tax rate in the
State--and this is a city and region that faces stiff competition for
commerce from our adjacent neighbor, the State of South Carolina.
The pitch for establishing the dedicated transit revenue stream in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg was an easy sell because of three factors--we
presented a compelling vision in the 2025 transit and land-use plan,
the State government agreed to be a funding partner and the Federal
Government was identified as a partner through the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998.
Today, I am proud to sit before you and highlight that the first
leg of a light rail line is under construction in the South Corridor,
our first of five corridors to be developed under the 2025 plan. The
10-mile South Corridor light rail line is slated to open in fall 2007
and when it does, I will be able to cut that ribbon and proudly say it
was all possible thanks to the Federal Government's commitment to pay
nearly half of the project costs through our Full Funding Grant
Agreement and through our partnership with the State of North Carolina
and with the foresight of those voters who helped to pass the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg transit half-cent sales tax.
As the 19th largest city in the country by population, Charlotte is
considered a tier-two city. Tier-two cities are those that have just
begun to plan and implement transit projects in our communities as
compared to the many U.S. cities that have had light rail, commuter
rail, and other transit projects for decades.
The importance of transit investment in the life of a city,
particularly a tier-two city like Charlotte cannot be underestimated.
This first generation development of transit in Charlotte is having a
profound impact in attracting new investment to blighted areas such as
the more than $400 million that has been invested in Charlotte's South
End area in the way of new condominiums, mixed-use development,
apartments, townhomes, and even hotels. And all of this is linked and
generated by the anticipated opening of the South Corridor light rail
line.
Our transit development has not only galvanized our way of thinking
about planning and transit-oriented development issues, but it has
helped us to consider how we address commute patterns, environmental
impact, pedestrian accessibility to even looking at even bigger
concepts of livability, sustainability, and quality of life.
Charlotte's transit and land-use plan is first and foremost a
transportation plan that will address long-term congestion and air
quality issues. Charlotte was ranked by the Texas Transportation
Institute as the second-most congested second-tier city in the country.
We view transit as a way to address our congestion and provide
solutions to reduce vehicle miles traveled and redevelop brownfields
instead of encouraging more urban sprawl to greenfields. We are
developing mixed-use facilities and promoting transit-oriented
development projects with high-density housing in conjunction with our
park and ride lots and even putting a school playground and green space
on top of a park and ride lot. The paradigm has changed in Charlotte on
how we will grow and evolve as a dynamic sun-belt City.
I am pleased to say the Federal Government and particularly the
President's budget have played a large role in this positive shift in
Charlotte and many other communities across the Nation. I must give a
personal note of appreciation to Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta,
past FTA Administrator Jenna Dorn, and FTA Deputy Administrator Sandra
Bushue for their efforts to invest in Charlotte's 2025 Transit and
Land-Use Plan. Their willingness to be flexible in addressing local
needs while adhering to the standards and spirit of Congressional and
Presidential funding directives is to be commended. The Federal
Government's support of transit programs throughout the country is
helping to develop a more balanced transportation system for America.
While I am pleased with the funding level authorized for the FTA
and its many programs, particularly the ``New Starts'' and ``Small
Starts'' programs, I do want to offer some concerns and a cautionary
note. The development of the ``Small Starts'' program for projects that
will cost less than $250 million (or up to $75 million in Federal
funds) is tremendously exciting and attractive for cities like
Charlotte--and the ``Small Starts'' program is one I hope we can tap
into. I worry that the reduction in the total level of funding to only
$100 million nationally among all the Small Starts proposals will make
it harder for the Federal Government to be a catalyst to help cities
like Charlotte get transit programs established.
While I think the ``Small Starts'' program is extremely positive
and visionary, I would hate to see this innovative approach stymied by
low funding and the pending rulemaking process that would squelch the
flexibility and innovation designed in the ``Small Starts'' program. I
am concerned that the FTA is considering requirements that will
undermine Congressional intent to create a simplified and streamlined
program that recognizes the lower risk associated with smaller transit
projects. We need to make sure that the process of developing and
evaluating Small Starts projects does not unnecessarily add time and
costs.
In addition, I am concerned about the approach that the FTA is
proposing to take in ranking land-use and economic development issues
when evaluating Small Starts projects. Cost effectiveness is important
but it is only one aspect of what needs to be looked at. Land-use and
economic development are very important to cities, particularly cities
like Charlotte that are trying to change how they are developing and
see the investment in transit as a critical tool in accomplishing this
change. The FTA's proposal to treat land-use as a risk factor
trivializes the importance of land-use impacts when evaluating transit
investments. I would like to see the FTA treat land-use and economic
development as factors equal in importance to cost effectiveness when
evaluating both Small Starts and New Starts projects. I urge that the
FTA create a process which allows this to occur.
Finally, I would like to see the FTA strive to stabilize the
requirements it expects transit project sponsors to adhere to in the
development of fixed guideway transit projects. Over the past few
years, we have seen a stream of new and revised requirements that
project sponsors must comply with. When these requirements are
continually changed the result is added time and increased project
costs which can cause good projects to lose some of their
attractiveness.
In conclusion, I am pleased with the work that we have done in
Charlotte to implement our 2025 Transit and Land-Use Plan and the
partnership we have established with the Federal Government to make our
plan a reality. I would like to offer you all an early invitation to
join us for the ribbon cutting of our first light rail line in August
2007.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for allowing
me to address the Committee today and I thank you for your continued
interest and support of the necessary funding to ensure America's
transportation and transit programs continue to address our needs.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR
President, American Public Transportation Association
February 28, 2006
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for
this opportunity to testify on the need for and benefits of investment
in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs for fiscal year 2007.
About APTA
APTA's more than 1,600 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 conservation,
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 public transportation systems.
Overview
Mr. Chairman, APTA's members deeply appreciate the work of this
Committee throughout the development of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) which was enacted into law only last August 10. SAFETEA-LU
incorporates the major goals that APTA set for the reauthorization
process: grow the Federal transit program, preserve the funding
guarantees and improve provisions that affect the program delivery.
SAFETEA-LU provides a record level of Federal transit investment, $52.6
billion over 6 years, an increase of 46 percent over the amount
guaranteed in TEA 21. Again, our members very much appreciate and thank
this Committee for its hard work and commitment to this important
legislation. Now that the reauthorization process is behind us, APTA
also appreciates this Committee's efforts to monitor the implementation
of the law.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend FTA for acting
expeditiously in implementing rulemakings and other activities required
by SAFETEA-LU. The new law calls for FTA to implement a significant
number of programs, rulemakings, notices, and other measures, some with
very short deadlines, and the agency has made every effort to do this
in an open and transparent way. We very much appreciate the FTA's
efforts in this regard, and look forward to continuing the good working
relationship we have with the agency and its new leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I want to focus today on three concerns we have with
the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal.
While we appreciate that the Administration's budget proposal
adheres to the SAFETEA-LU transit program in most respects, it proposes
to fund only $100 million of the $200 million authorized in fiscal year
2007 for the Small Starts program that is meant to assist the
development and construction of smaller fixed guideway projects such as
streetcars, trolleys, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems.
Mr. Chairman, we are also concerned that the Administration's
budget fails to adequately fund transit security and efforts by transit
agencies to better protect transit riders from terrorism.
Finally, the President's budget proposal for the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) proposes, as it did last year, that commuter
railroad riders will assume a higher portion of maintenance and capital
expenses on the Amtrak-owned portions of the Northeast Corridor. We are
concerned that the unilateral imposition of these fees by the Federal
Government will increase operating costs for these commuter railroads
and will result in higher costs for commuter rail users and the State
and local taxpayers who fund these systems.
New Starts/Small Starts
Mr. Chairman, APTA is disappointed that the Administration has
proposed to fund transit below the level so recently authorized and
guaranteed by Congress. The Administration requested $100 million less
than the amount authorized from the general fund for the New Starts
program, proposing only half of the funding authorized for the new
Small Starts program, a program to fund less costly fixed guideway
projects such as light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit
systems.
As this Committee knows, there is overwhelming demand for New
Starts projects, and SAFETEA-LU authorized 387 projects. These new
fixed guideway projects are an important part of meeting transit needs,
but they each take a long time to develop and require a predictable
funding commitment. Once appropriated for a fiscal year, New Starts
program funding remains available for the two subsequent fiscal years.
The effect of a funding cut will be felt disproportionately in future
years by causing transit providers to fall further behind in the
development of new less expensive projects due to the cuts that would
be implemented under the Administration proposal, robbing communities
of the congestion relief and environmental benefits associated with the
projects.
We want to make another point, Mr. Chairman. SAFETEA-LU
restructured the general fund and Mass Transit Account (MTA) funding
sources so that MTA outlays are now scored when they are actually spent
rather than when they are appropriated. The good news is that MTA
balances now are significantly higher than they would have been under
the old scoring system. But it also means that the New Starts program
is now funded exclusively from the general fund. Mr. Chairman, it is
important to emphasize that this was done to improve the overall
financing of the Federal transit program, and was not meant to create
an opportunity for program cuts. That is why we fought so hard in
support of the guarantees in SAFETEA-LU, and why this Committee worked
so hard to retain them. We look forward to working with this Committee
and others in support of fully funding the fiscal year 2007 Federal
transit program.
Public Transportation and Energy Independence
APTA is pleased that President Bush highlighted the need to focus
on energy independence in his recent State of the Union address. The
President said that ``keeping America competitive requires affordable
energy . . . . America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from
unstable parts of the world.'' He further stated that ``the best way to
break this addiction is through technology.''
We agree, Mr. President! We cannot think of a more important
technology in that regard than fixed-guideway transit, including heavy
and light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. This technology
is readily available and many communities already have systems which
can be expanded with more investment.
The value of public transportation in this regard was quantified by
economists Dr. Robert Shapiro and Dr. Kevin Hassett in their report:
Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public
Transportation. Among their findings:
Public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of
gasoline a year, or 45 million barrels of oil. These savings equal
about 1 month's oil imports from Saudi Arabia. In 2004, 9.6 billion
trips were taken on public transportation.
If Americans used public transportation at the same rate as
Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--the
United States would reduce its dependence on imported oil by more
than 40 percent or nearly the amount of oil we import from Saudi
Arabia each year.
Moreover, transit agencies are increasingly investing in
alternative fuel buses to reduce dependence on oil. Almost 17 percent
of fixed route buses now use alternative fuels and 20 percent of buses
on order will use alternative fuels. Public transportation is clearly
doing its part to promote energy independence through innovative
technologies, and that is why we urge Congress to honor SAFETEA-LU and
fully fund the transit program in fiscal year 2007.
Transit Security
APTA commends and thanks this Committee for advancing legislation
that would authorize $3.5 billion for transit security: The Public
Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 2032). We particularly
thank this Committee and its leadership for leading the effort last
summer to increase transit security funding to $1.2 billion in the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill. Funding
transit security is a clear Federal responsibility, and APTA is
committed to working with the Bush Administration, this Committee and
others to increase the level of funding for transit security. We look
forward to working with the Committee in this critically important
area.
Mr. Chairman, APTA is concerned that the President's proposed
fiscal year 2007 DHS budget for the Targeted Infrastructure Protection
program, a security infrastructure program that includes public
transportation, fails to provide sufficient investment for public
transportation security.
Like last year's proposal, the proposed $600 million funding for
the Targeted Infrastructure Protection program, is for the protection
of several critical infrastructures, including transit and ports. This
amount of funding is insufficient to meet transit security needs, which
are in excess of $6 billion, let alone other infrastructure needs. We
are concerned not only about the level of funding, but also the
uncertainty of how much will be allocated to transit security given
that the program would fund a variety of security efforts in nontransit
areas.
APTA continues to press DHS and Congress for increased resources
for public transportation security. While DHS has provided well over
$18 billion for aviation security since September 11, to date only $250
million has been allocated to transit. There are 32 million trips a day
on transit compared to 2 million on aviation; terrorists have struck
transit rail systems in Madrid and London. APTA has surveyed its
membership and has identified some $6 billion in security needs--beyond
basic infrastructure needs funded under SAFETEA-LU. Since September 11,
transit systems have spent more than $2 billion of their own resources
on transit security.
Considering the attacks on the London Underground last summer, the
time for limited investment in transit security has passed. Now is the
time to propose transit security funding sufficient to protect the
millions of people who use public transportation systems in the United
States every day and to help strengthen the security of our Nation's
transit infrastructure.
Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Issues
Turning to another issue in the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget,
the Administration proposes that commuter railroads will assume a
higher portion of capital and maintenance expenses on the Amtrak-owned
portion of the Northeast Corridor. An amount of $59 million in fees on
commuter railroads is assumed in each of fiscal year 2006 and 2007 to
support Amtrak spending, even though we have seen little evidence of
the ``open and transparent process'' which Congress called for in the
fiscal year 2006 Transportation Appropriations to address this issue.
The Northeast Corridor commuter railroads already reimburse Amtrak
for capital and maintenance costs based on contracts negotiated before
the new legislation was enacted. The riders and State and local
taxpayers that fund these commuter railroads should not be asked to pay
more than has been negotiated. Mr. Chairman, while this Committee does
not have direct jurisdiction over Amtrak, these increased expenses
could directly affect the health of the Northeast Corridor's commuter
rail systems and the hundreds of thousands of riders who use those
systems every day. Furthermore, in a recent Federal Register Notice,
FTA has raised the possibility of conditioning Federal transit grants
on the payment of these increased expenses. We want to emphasize that
the solution to Amtrak's funding problems cannot come from transit
funding sources--including the Mass Transit Account of the Highway
Trust Fund--which are not adequate to sustain the commuter rail and
other transit programs our Nation requires. APTA has developed a
comprehensive set of principles to guide us in this area which
establish that existing contractual obligations must be respected; that
ongoing support for intercity rail must remain separate from the
Highway Trust Fund, and that the Northeast Corridor and other Amtrak-
owned assets should remain under public ownership and control.
Conclusion
Public transportation plays a key role in meeting the goals of the
Administration and Congress in providing energy independence,
congestion relief, and transportation mobility options for Americans.
APTA strongly believes that the Federal Government should invest no
less than the level authorized and guaranteed by Congress for fiscal
year 2007 in SAFETEA-LU if we are to advance these goals. APTA also
believes that Congress must pass legislation that will dramatically
increase funding for transit security, and we look forward to working
with Committee to reach that goal.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of APTA's member organizations, I thank you
for this opportunity to express our views and would be pleased to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
______
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BUNNING
FROM SANDRA BUSHUE
Q.1. The New Freedom Program provides funds for public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act ``ADA'' to assist persons with
disabilities. Some communities have already exceeded the
minimum ``ADA'' requirements.
What will happen in communities where existing services
already exceed ``ADA'' minimum requirements? For example, will
communities that provide door-to-door service rather than curb-
to-curb service be able to use the new Freedom Program to fund
the incremental cost difference?
A.1. FTA published a notice in the Federal Register on March
15, 2006, (71 Fed. Reg. 13456) seeking comments on the types of
projects that should be eligible for New Freedom funding. FTA
has not yet made the policy decision as to whether or not New
Freedom funds will be available for existing services that
exceed ADA requirements.
With regards to door-to-door and curb-to-curb paratransit
service, FTA notes that under 49 CFR Sec. 37.129, ADA
complementary paratransit service is defined as ``origin-to-
destination'' service, which may be defined by local
communities as either door-to-door or curb-to-curb. When this
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation was first
promulgated, the preamble language stated, ``it is reasonable
to think that service for some individuals or locations might
be better if it is door-to-door, while curb-to-curb might be
better in other instances. This is exactly the sort of detailed
operational decision best left to the development of
paratransit plans at the local level.'' (56 Fed. Reg. 45604;
September 6, 1991). In guidance issued on September 1, 2005,
DOT provided further clarification of the nature of origin-to-
destination service, stating, ``where the local planning
process establishes curb-to-curb service as the basic
paratransit service mode, however, provision should still be
made to ensure that the service available to each passenger
actually gets the passenger from his or her point of origin to
his or her destination point. To meet this origin-to-
destination requirement, service may need to be provided to
some individuals, or at some locations, in a way that goes
beyond curb-to-curb service.'' It would appear, then, that
door-to-door service, whether provided across a community or
only in circumstances in which a particular passenger needs
additional assistance, is not beyond the ADA. Therefore, FTA
proposed in the March 15, 2006, notice that the incremental
cost of door-to-door service in a community that provides curb-
to-curb service would not be eligible for New Freedom funds.
FTA is seeking public comment on this proposal.
ADA complementary paratransit service is provided to
origins and destinations within corridors with a width of \3/4\
mile on each side of each fixed route, including, within the
core service area, those small areas not inside any corridors
but surrounded by corridors. 49 CFR Sec. 37.131. FTA
acknowledged in the March 15, 2006, notice that some
paratransit operators already provide service outside of the
\3/4\ mile corridor. FTA proposes in the March 15, 2006, notice
to permit New Freedom funds be used to fund this existing
service, so long as it is part of a coordinated plan and is
competitively selected pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5317. FTA is
seeking public comment on this proposal.
Other areas where providers may be exceeding the ADA would
be paratransit hours of operation that exceed the hours of the
fixed route and same day service. In the notice, FTA proposes
that these services would be beyond the ADA and eligible for
funding, but did not contemplate whether these services would
be eligible for funding if they are currently being provided.
If public comment supports the use of New Freedom funds for
existing paratransit service beyond the \3/4\ mile fixed route
corridor, FTA will consider permitting these funds to be used
for additional, existing paratransit service that is beyond the
ADA.
Q.2. The new Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute Programs
both require coordinated public transportation and human
services plans.
How do you envision implementing this requirement? Will it
be phased in? What will the expectation be for the coming
Federal fiscal year?
A.2. FTA published a notice for comment in the Federal Register
on March 15, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 13456), in which we made
several suggestions regarding implementation of the coordinated
planning process. Specifically, FTA suggested States and
communities utilize tools developed through the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and
United We Ride to facilitate the coordinated planning process.
One specific tool includes the Framework for Action, a self
assessment instrument that provides concrete decision points
for stakeholders to discuss as they are moving forward with
assessment and planning. In addition, FTA is providing
extensive technical assistance to State Department of
Transportation offices through the United We Ride Ambassador
program. This includes funding for experts who are assigned to
assist States with implementing the provisions of SAFETEA-LU
related to human services transportation coordination. FTA is
also working with the Technical Assistance Centers funded
through SAFETEA-LU (for example, Project ACTION, JobLinks) to
provide a greater level of assistance in this area.
Through the March 15, 2006, Federal Register notice, we are
seeking public comment on the coordinated planning requirements
of the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom
programs. We expect to publish final guidance in the form of
circulars later this year. In the notice, FTA acknowledged that
the New Freedom program does not require projects to be derived
from a locally developed, public transit-human services
transportation plan until fiscal year 2007; however, there is
no delay for the JARC program. We recognize that local public
transit-human services transportation plans will require
ongoing attention and are dynamic documents. Therefore, we also
recognize that plans will change over time. Pursuant to the
statute, FTA will require recipients to certify that projects
were derived from a locally developed, public transit-human
services transportation plan for fiscal year 2007.
The March 15, 2006, notice included guidance for fiscal
year 2006, as follows:
For the New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) programs, the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that
projects selected be derived from a coordinated plan
beginning in fiscal year 2007. This requirement allows time
for the development of a coordinated plan and permits
projects to be funded in fiscal year 2006 even if a
coordinated plan is not yet in place. FTA encourages
designated recipients to conduct coordinated planning
activities and consultation with planning partners before
the selection of fiscal year 2006 projects, but it is not
required in fiscal year 2006 that the projects selected be
derived from a completed coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan.
For JARC programs, there is no delay in the
requirement that projects be derived from a coordinated
plan since a similar requirement was in place for JARC
under TEA-21. For areas that previously received JARC
discretionary funding, the previously required JARC plan
may satisfy the coordinated planning requirement for fiscal
year 2006. In areas with no current JARC plan, for fiscal
year 2006, the planning partners should, at a minimum, be
consulted about projects and where possible expressions of
support should be obtained and documented. Each grant
application must describe activities undertaken to reach
out to stakeholders, including providers and users of
service, to identify community-wide needs and to begin to
catalog available resources.
If FTA subsequently establishes more specific criteria
for the coordinated planning or competitive selection
process, or for project eligibility that were not met by
early applicants for fiscal year 2006 funds, the
requirements will not be applied retroactively to grants
awarded prior to the issuance of the guidance.
Q.3. I am sure you are hearing concerns over the $100 million
cut proposed to the Small Starts program. This program was
intended to fund smaller transportation projects that require a
Federal share less than $75 million and have a total project
cost of less than $250 million. The idea of including this
authorization in the highway bill was to get some of these
small projects moving in a program with reduced criteria and
procedures.
Given that Congress supported the idea of a Small Starts
program to expedite projects at a lower cost, why can't your
agency utilize some creative steps to implement this program
and get things moving?
A.3. We believe we have made significant progress this year to
implement the Small Starts program. FTA published an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on
January 30, 2006, to solicit comment on the new ``Small
Starts'' program. In addition, FTA wants to ensure that the
industry helps to develop this new program. Thus, FTA has been
meeting with transit agencies, industry representatives, and
other stakeholders to solicit comments.
In order to advance projects before the formal Federal
rulemaking process is completed, FTA will issue interim
guidance this summer for project sponsors to use in submitting
information that FTA can use to rate and evaluate projects
under the Small Starts program. The interim guidance will
specify a simplified evaluation and rating process for Small
Starts reflecting the requirements specified in SAFETEA-LU.
Q.4. According to GAO, billions of dollars are spent on
transportation under federally funded human service agencies,
and are often not coordinated well with transportation
departments and agencies. Improvements in coordination have
been supported through the President's transportation
coordination executive order and also through provisions of the
highway bill.
What will the Federal Transit Administration and the
Department of Transportation be doing next on the
transportation coordination issue? What can you recommend to
Congress and this Committee to make continuing progress on
transportation coordination issues?
A.4. Congress has noted in other human services areas the
importance of systems change initiatives to enhance interagency
collaboration, such as the Medicaid Systems Change Grants, the
Special Education State Improvement Grants, and others.
Research shows that the implementation of systems change
requires a sustained level of effort in the areas of leadership
and partnership development in order to effectively enhance
changes in policy, resources, and behavior. In the case of
human services transportation, the complexities of addressing
systems change at the Federal, State, and local levels, for
people with disabilities, older adults, and families with lower
incomes, across a multitude of services (for example, health,
employment, education, rehabilitation, etc.) adds to the
difficulty of creating a simplified and seamless coordinated
human services transportation system.
The Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility (CCAM) established by Executive Order 13330 includes
11 Federal Departments, representing over 62 Federal programs
supporting human services transportation. In order to address
the requirements of the Order, the CCAM outlined five key
recommendations that create coordinated Federal policy in
coordinated planning, vehicle sharing, cost sharing, and
performance outcomes. Through the United We Ride initiative,
the Council has also provided small grants to States to enhance
their efforts in coordinating human services transportation.
The Council has also developed several tools and strategies to
assist communities.
FTA will continue to provide an active leadership role and
work at the Federal, State, and regional levels to enhance
coordinated human services transportation planning. FTA has
dedicated staff resources to work specifically on coordination
of human services transportation. Staff supports the work of
the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility (CCAM), including participation in five active
workgroups addressing policy, technical assistance, education/
outreach, research and development, and emergency preparedness.
FTA is also working to implement the provisions of SAFETEA-
LU regarding human services transportation. This includes
utilizing the tools and strategies developed through United We
Ride and making these tools widely available for FTA grantees.
Examples include the Framework for Action, a self assessment
tool for communities and states; the Useful Practice Database;
and a Community Action Guide, currently in development.
SAFETEA-LU established several human services coordination
provisions that are enormously helpful in establishing more
fully human services coordinated transportation systems. These
included: (1) Creating a locally developed coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan with transportation
and human services partnerships and consumer involvement; (2)
the ability to utilize and match Federal funds across Federal
transportation programs for coordinated transportation
services; and (3) creating, as an eligible expense, funding for
mobility management that provides communities the resources to
support coordination activities. To implement these provisions,
FTA is actively providing technical assistance to States and
communities and providing the tools developed through United We
Ride to facilitate implementation.
Similar support for human services transportation
coordination needs to be created in other Federal programs
supporting transportation. In particular, Federal programs that
establish or contract for transportation services should
require grantees engaged in sponsoring transportation services
to participate in locally developed, public transit-human
services coordinated transportation planning processes.
Through United We Ride, FTA and partner agencies have
offered small grants (between $35,000-$75,000) to States to
enhance transportation planning between State agencies. It
appears that even these small dollars have provided great
incentives for moving the coordination activities forward. In
less than 2 years, the number of States with a coordinated
human services transportation plan has increased from 5 to 32.
The remaining States are in the process of developing plans.
It would likely be equally beneficial to provide similar
types of financial incentives for communities that create
coordinated planning processes involving multiple human
services transportation programs that create a single point of
access for customers to access transportation services and
establish a comprehensive, coordinated family of transportation
services to meet the transportation needs of disadvantaged
populations (low-income persons, including children, older
adults, and persons with disabilities). Currently,
uncoordinated programs force customers into a confusing maze of
individual stove pipe programs to receive rides and often leave
important service gaps. Incentives might include additional
funding or more favorable matching requirements.
Q.5. The highway bill was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
There is a need in Kentucky and elsewhere to get these dollars
into the economy to meet transportation needs.
What is the Department of Transportation doing to
streamline the delivery of funding and projects?
A.5. FTA has worked earnestly to improve program delivery and
customer service. For several years, FTA has met or exceeded
its goal of awarding at least 80 percent of grants within 60
days of receipt of a complete application. We also exceeded our
goal to reduce the average grant processing time to 36 days or
less, even given the increase in the grant processing workload
related to the multiple incremental extensions of funding
during the reauthorization process.
FTA has worked with Congressional committees to clarify the
intended recipients of earmarked projects when it was not
apparent in bill or report language, and we have reached out to
local communities, particularly new grantees, to help them
develop applications for earmarked projects.
FTA summarized the new provisions and programs of SAFETEA-
LU in a Federal Register Notice issued November 30, 2005, and
conducted multiple listening sessions for communities
throughout the country. We established the new codes and grant
processing procedures necessary to award grants in fiscal year
2006 and issued interim guidance where necessary to allow
grantees to apply for funding even while final program guidance
is still being developed with opportunity for public comment.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SARBANES
FROM SANDRA BUSHUE
Q.1. During consideration of SAFETEA-LU, the Banking Committee
and the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee in the House
received project requests totaling more than seven times the
amount available for discretionary programs. After careful
consideration, we determined that these requests justified a
Small Starts program level of $200 million per year.
What is the specific basis for FTA's conclusion that $100
million is the maximum amount that can be distributed in fiscal
year 2007? Once your program rules are in place, which you have
estimated will occur in June 2007, why would there be a limit
(other than the limit provided in SAFETEA-LU) on the amount of
funds that could be distributed?
A.1. SAFETEA-LU requires regulations to implement the new Small
Starts program, including the evaluation criteria for selecting
projects and a new funding grant agreement. FTA expects that
new regulations will not be finalized until the latter part of
fiscal year 2007. While we plan to issue interim guidance this
summer which will allow us to rate and evaluate Small Starts
projects, we expect that a majority of the initial projects
will only be ready to enter the project development process,
not to receive Project Construction Grant Agreements. Given the
long lead time needed to implement the new program, $100
million is more in line with the level of effort for awarding
grants in the first year of this program.
Q.2. I appreciate the fact that the President's budget requests
the full $23 million authorized for the new Transit in the
Parks program. This program stems from legislation I introduced
a number of years ago after a visit to some of our Western
parks, in which I saw how congested park roads and parking lots
can be, especially during heavy visitation seasons. This
program is intended to help alleviate that congestion by
providing resources to help parks develop transit systems and
other transportation alternatives. When does the FTA expect to
begin making grants under this program?
A.2. FTA plans to award funds in the summer of 2006 to projects
under the new Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public
Lands program. FTA has been working closely with
representatives from Federal land management agencies to
develop this new program. On March 23, 2006, FTA published a
Federal Register ``Notice of Funding Availability; Solicitation
of Proposals for Funding through the Alternative Transportation
in Parks and Public Lands Program,'' requesting project
proposals for fiscal year 2006 funding. Proposals are due May
5, 2006, and will be evaluated according to the criteria in the
law by an interagency team which includes FTA, each of the
Federal land management agencies and the Department of the
Interior. The team will provide recommendations to the
Secretary of Interior who, following consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall determine the final
selection and amount of funding for each project. The
Department of the Interior plans to announce the projects
selected by summer of 2006. FTA will publish the list of all
selected projects and funding levels in the Federal Register.
Funds will be awarded in summer and fall 2006, and administered
according to Federal requirements as well as the appropriate
policies, guidelines, and rules of the pertinent agencies.
Q.3. Before Hurricane Katrina, both New Orleans and the Gulf
Coast of Mississippi had vibrant public transit systems. In New
Orleans, the transit system carried 124,000 people every day,
with a fleet of 372 buses and 64 streetcars, while
Mississippi's Coast Transportation Authority provided over
2,000 trips per day to residents of Biloxi and Gulfport. Those
systems are now struggling to get up and running again, so that
the residents of those areas who do not own a car or who lost
their cars as a result of the hurricane can access their jobs,
doctors, and other needed services.
From all accounts, it will take many more months before the
affected areas are restored to anything approaching their
former size and level of activity. And yet, I understand that
FEMA's authority to pay for operating subsidies to these
systems is scheduled to expire on June 30 of this year. With
little to no local tax base, these systems will be forced to
cut service, stranding thousands of people and hampering the
efforts of these areas to resume their normal life.
What is the FTA doing to help these systems make public
transit available for as long as it takes these areas to
recover from this devastating storm?
A.3. Since very early in the disaster response and recovery
effort, FTA has worked closely with local and State officials
to support public transit. In the early fall of 2005, FTA
worked with FEMA to secure Mission Assignments and contracts to
continue operating local transit services damaged by the
hurricane in Louisiana and Mississippi. FEMA Mission
Assignments totaled $66 million for provision of transit
service in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, as well as rural and other
urban services in Louisiana. In Mississippi, FEMA Mission
Assignments totaled $3.35 million for provision of transit
service in Gulfport-Biloxi and surrounding counties, as well as
emergency transportation services in rural Mississippi. These
Mission Assignments have or are expected to expire as of June
30, 2006.
As these communities move forward in recovery efforts, FTA
has been and will continue to help local transit authority and
metropolitan planning officials undertake both short-term and
long-term planning projects. FTA has found that there is a
correlation between the erosion of the tax base and the transit
service requirements. FTA has supported planning efforts in
both Mississippi and Louisiana designed to help local officials
better understand and identify future revenues to support
transit. Although, under the Stafford Act, FEMA has
responsibility for funding and implementing long-term recovery
in these areas, FTA's grantees will continue to receive formula
funds, which in areas over 200,000 in population can be used
for preventive maintenance costs and in areas under 200,000 in
population can be used for operating assistance. In addition,
FTA has deferred the local match for grants to transit agencies
in the gulf area to help alleviate the burden on local funding
while the tax base is rebuilt.
In Louisiana, FTA is working with State and local officials
and long term recovery planning for New Orleans is currently
underway through numerous organizations, including the
Governor's Louisiana Recovery Authority, the Mayor's Bring Back
New Orleans Commission, and FEMA's ESF-14 Long Term Recovery
teams. In New Orleans, FTA is working with FEMA on the
availability of FTA capital funds and FEMA public assistance
funds for transit equipment replacement and transit facility
reconstruction and to ensure that priority capital projects in
the New Orleans area can proceed in the near future. In
addition, FTA has deferred the local share for existing and
future grants for the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority
(NORTA). FTA will work with both FEMA and NORTA officials to
help process contract modifications that will ensure that the
$47 million FEMA Mission Assignment for emergency transit
services in New Orleans and Baton Rouge is utilized to the
maximum extent feasible for priority transit services. FTA has
provided in-house staff expertise and has funded contractors to
support New Orleans planning by continued coordination with
various Federal, State, and local long-term recovery efforts,
and will support NORTA and the Regional Planning Commission
(RPC) as they prepare their Five Year Strategic Plan for
Recovery. In Baton Rouge, FTA has provided in-house staff
expertise and has funded contractors to support the Capital
Area Transit System and the Capital Region Planning Commission
(CRPC) to prepare transit in Baton Rouge for expanded service
needs.
In Mississippi, FTA provided direct, on-site technical
support for several months beginning in September 2005 for
Coast Transit Authority (CTA) to operate initial and interim
disaster response and recovery transit services in the
Gulfport-Biloxi area. FTA utilized in-house staff expertise and
provided support to provide direct operational planning
technical support to CTA. The Governor's Commission on
Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal is undertaking long-term
planning activities, coordinated with other local and county
efforts. FTA is providing additional technical support for an
Intermodal Transportation Working Group that has been
established and, specifically for CTA and the Gulf Regional
Planning Commission (GRPC) in short-term and long-term planning
activities. FTA, CTA, CRPC, and the Mississippi Department of
Transportation are initiating a transit development plan, to be
completed in coordination with the regional transportation plan
and recovery efforts.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CARPER
FROM SANDRA BUSHUE
The Federal Transit Administration placed a notice in the
Federal Register earlier this month stating that your agency
will withhold transit funds from agencies that fail to pay any
additional fees assessed by the Federal Railroad Administration
for the maintenance of the Northeast Corridor.
Q.1. What was your involvement in the development of this
policy?
A.1. The development of the policy occurred prior to my
becoming Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration. Therefore, I did not participate personally in
its development.
Q.2. What legal authority are you relying on?
A.2. FTA respectfully notes that the opening comment in
question #1 above misstates the substance of FTA's publication
in the Federal Register on February 10, 2006. FTA's notice did
not state that FTA would withhold transit funds from agencies
that fail to pay any additional fees assessed by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for the maintenance of the
Northeast Corridor. Instead, FTA's notice identified 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 5334(a)(9) as the authority of the Secretary to include in
an agreement or instrument a covenant or term the Secretary
considers necessary to carryout the transit law or to enforce
the requirements of the Appropriation for ``Capital and Debt
Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation''
set forth in Division A of Title I of the Transportation,
Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act of 2006 (the Appropriations Act). The distinction between
stating the basis of the Secretary's authority to enforce the
Appropriations Act, on the one hand, and declaring FTA's intent
to exercise that authority, on the other, is significant. As
the Committee may know, FTA stated at a meeting with commuter
rail agencies located in the Northeast Corridor on February 28,
2006, that the Department has no reason to believe that it
needs to resort to the Secretary's powers under Section
5334(a)(9) (or the terms and conditions for grants already
established thereunder) in order to enforce the Appropriations
Act, since there is an open and inclusive process underway
between such agencies and the Department to implement that law.
The legal basis for FTA's right to withhold funds from
grantees for violation of the Appropriations Act rests on
certain covenants and terms in the Master Agreement (to which
each FTA grantee is subject) which are within the authority of
the Secretary to include in the Master Agreement pursuant to 49
U.S.C. Sec. 5334(a)(9). Please note, in particular, that
Section 2(d) of the Master Agreement provides that a grantee
shall comply with Federal law: ``[t]he Recipient agrees that it
. . . is ultimately responsible for compliance with all
applicable Federal laws, regulations, and directives, this
Master Agreement, and the underlying Grant Agreement or
Cooperative Agreement for the Project, except to the extent
that FTA determines otherwise in writing.'' (See Sec. 2(d),
Master Agreement (MA-12), October, 2005).\1\ Separately,
Section 11 of the Master Agreement provides FTA with the right
to suspend or terminate all or any part of the Federal
assistance provided by FTA to a grantee as a remedy for any
violation by the grantee of its covenant in Section 2(d):
``[t]he Recipient agrees that the Federal Government may
suspend or terminate all or any part of the Federal assistance
to be provided if the Recipient has violated the terms of the
Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement for the Project,
including this Master Agreement. . . .'' (See Sec. 11, Master
Agreement (MA-12), October, 2005). In the event that a transit
agency violated the Appropriations Act, it would thereby (a)
violate its covenant in the Master Agreement to comply with
Federal law and (b) trigger FTA's remedies set forth in Section
11 of the Master Agreement, including the remedy to suspend or
terminate all or any part of the Federal assistance payable to
the grantee. The Master Agreement, which each FTA grantee
agrees to enter in connection with the disbursement of FTA
funds, has long included Sections 2(d) and 11.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of the Master
Agreement, each FTA grantee also ``agrees that all Federal laws and
regulations control Project award and implementation.'' Section 2(c)(1)
of the Master Agreement also states that the grantee ``agrees that the
most recent of such Federal laws, regulations, and directives will
govern the Administration of the Project at any particular time . . .
.''
\2\ Please note that, notwithstanding what the Master Agreement
currently provides, the Secretary has the authority under 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 5334(a)(9) to include in any future Master Agreement a covenant or
term that expressly requires payment of assessments made by the
Secretary in accordance with law, provided the Secretary considered
such term or covenant necessary to carry out Chapter 53 of Title 49.
Q.3. How long will transit agencies and States be given to
budget for increased Northeast Corridor maintenance fees before
the Federal Transit Administration starts withholding transit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
funds?
A.3. The FRA, rather than FTA, is responsible for all aspects
of calculating and assessing the fees contemplated by the
Appropriations Act, including the terms and conditions relating
to the enforcement of the obligations of commuter rail agencies
thereunder. FTA has therefore asked the Office of Chief Counsel
of FRA to answer this question by separate letter to the
Committee.
Q.4. Will you expect States to come up with this additional
funding outside of their regular budget cycle?
A.4. FRA, rather than FTA, is responsible for all aspects of
calculating and assessing the fees contemplated by the
Appropriations Act, including the terms and conditions, if any,
that would bear on the source of funds utilized by commuter
rail agencies or States to satisfy their obligations
thereunder. FTA has therefore asked the Office of Chief Counsel
of FRA to answer this question by separate letter to the
Committee.
Q.5. Since most additional fees owed for Northeast Corridor
maintenance will be paid by States, why did the Administration
decide to threaten to withhold transit funds instead of highway
funds or other transportation funds?
A.5. The Secretary takes seriously his obligation faithfully to
execute the laws of the United States, including the directives
applicable to the Secretary under the Appropriations Act with
respect to the assessment and collection of fees for capital
and maintenance costs attributable to commuter rail operations
over the Northeast Corridor. It is a requirement of the
Appropriations Act that ``revenues from [the assessments] shall
be merged with this appropriation and be available for
obligation and expenditure consistent with the terms and
conditions of this paragraph.'' By implication, therefore, the
Secretary is obliged, at a minimum, to act with a view to
collecting a portion of such assessments prior to the end of
fiscal year 2006. However, the Appropriations Act itself
provides the Secretary no means of enforcing the payment of the
assessments that he is required by law to collect. For that
reason, and given the shortness of time the Secretary has to
implement the law, the Department needed to identify a flexible
enforcement mechanism. Among the mechanisms available to the
Department, the arrangements governing FTA's grants afforded
the Secretary the most flexible and effective means to ensure
compliance with the law. The Department, however, believes that
such enforcement mechanism is strictly one of last resort, and,
again, has no reason to believe that the Department would need
to resort to it.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BUNNING
FROM WILLIAM MILLAR
Q.1. Mr. Millar, during the delay over the reauthorization of
the program, many of the businesses that are involved in
transportation planning, design, and construction were
concerned about the impact that the delays were having on their
businesses.
What can you tell this Committee about the condition of the
business side of the transit industry? How are the
manufacturers and suppliers and consultants doing now that we
have a new law?
A.1. The business side of the transit industry was particularly
concerned about the 2-year delay in getting SAFETEA-LU enacted
into law. That delay created uncertainty and limited the
ability of transit agencies to make long-term planning and
investment decisions--which curtailed business activity and
thus had an obvious negative impact on transit businesses. All
of our members, and particularly our business members, were
pleased that reauthorization legislation became a reality with
the enactment of SAFETEA-LU on August 10, 2005. While it took a
few months longer for the fiscal year 2006 transportation
appropriations to become law, and while it takes time for that
law to be translated into the apportionment and then allocation
of Federal transit funds by the Federal Transit Administration,
there is a clear sense now on the part of both our public and
private sector members, with a long-range reauthorization law
in place with guaranteed funding, that the transit industry
business climate is greatly improved going forward. On behalf
of our more than 1,600 member organizations, we thank the
Senate Banking Committee for its key role in getting SAFETEA-LU
enacted into law with significant increases for public
transportation.