[Senate Hearing 108-103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-103
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET FOR
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE DETAILS OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
__________
MARCH 25, 2004
__________
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
23-760 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, 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 ZELL MILLER, Georgia
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kathleen L. Casey, Staff Director and Counsel
Steven B. Harris, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Peggy R. Kuhn, Senior Financial Economist
Sherry E. Little, Democratic Legislative Assistant
Sarah A. Kline, Democratic Counsel
Aaron D. Klein, Democratic Economist
Joseph R. Kolinski, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator
George E. Whittle, Editor
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Shelby............................. 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Dole................................................. 2
Senator Reed................................................. 3
Senator Allard............................................... 4
Senator Crapo................................................ 5
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 14
Senator Dodd................................................. 32
Senator Corzine.............................................. 32
WITNESSES
Jennifer L. Dorn, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Response to written questions of Senator Dodd................ 57
William Millar, President, American Public Transportation
Association.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Dale J. Marsico, Executive Director, Community Transportation
Association
of America..................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Timothy Martin, Chairman, Standing Committee on Public
Transportation
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation............... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Rolf Th. Lundberg, Jr., Senior Vice President, Congressional and
Public
Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.............................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 54
(iii)
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET FOR
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Richard Shelby (Chairman of the
Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY
Chairman Shelby. The hearing will come to order. I am very
pleased to welcome Federal Transit Administrator Jennifer Dorn,
from the Department of Transportation. Ms. Dorn, it is good to
see you here, and I know Senator Dole is always glad to see you
here because of the background you have shared. I asked
Administrator Dorn to come before the Committee today to share
the details of the Administration's 2005 proposed budget for
FTA, and I appreciate her willingness to respond to the
Committee's request for her time.
We have also assembled a distinguished panel of witnesses
from the public transportation industry who are particularly
well qualified to comment on the Administration's proposal. The
Committee also values the time and effort you too have made to
be with us this afternoon.
On February 12 of this year, the Senate passed S. 1072, a
bill to reauthorize the surface transportation programs. The
Banking Committee produced the public transportation title of
that legislation. It is a product that I, along with Ranking
Member Sarbanes, Senators Allard, Reed, and others have worked
diligently on in order to strike the balance between meeting
the existing needs of established transit systems and
continuing to provide resources for the growth of new systems.
I do not speak exclusively for myself when I say that it is a
bill of which we are proud. Our bill advances many new ideas,
increases the role of the private sector in service provision,
improves accountability, and creates funding flexibility for
rural communities nationwide.
The House of Representatives has yet to produce a companion
bill. Time constraints have been crucial, the Senate passed an
extension to TEA-21, which extends the authorization of this
and other programs until April 30 of this year. I am hopeful
that the House will move expeditiously to pass a bill that
provides for the kind of record program growth that our
transportation infrastructure requires.
It is with interest today that we hear from the
Administration about their budget proposal for 2005. I must say
that I am disappointed to see that there is no additional
funding provided for public transportation from the fiscal year
2004 enacted level. It will come as no surprise that I believe
this level is inadequate to address our transportation needs. I
view this as a current services budget. Certainly I would
prefer to see better numbers for the surface transportation
programs overall than what the Administration has proposed.
In terms of the policy initiatives accompanying this
proposal, I am chagrined to see that, once again, the
Administration proposes elimination of the bus program.
Additionally, I noted with interest that the Administration
would divert dollars from the elimination of the bus program
into New Starts and would distribute the Jobs Access and
Reverse Commute Program funds by formula.
Not only from the perspective of the authorizing committee,
but also in my capacity on another committee as Chairman of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I fail to see how
sending out grant funds based on formula creates accountability
within the program or allows flexibility on a year-to-year
basis.
Having said that, I can say that one of the bright spots
that I found in your testimony, Administrator Dorn, is your
Agency's focus on the coordination amongst human service
transportation providers. This is an area that I have been
interested in for some time and have made great efforts to
address in the reauthorization bill. It is encouraging that
this issue is finally garnering the interest it deserves.
Administrator Dorn, I think Executive Order 13330 is a great
first step, and I pledge my support to you as you work toward
establishing the Interagency Transportation Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility.
Now, let us hear the other opening statements of our other
Members. We will start with Senator Dole.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our transportation
system is obviously the backbone of our communities and one
which we must continually maintain and improve upon so that our
communities can properly function and grow. This budget
contains a number of new initiatives which seek to assist
communities not traditionally served by Federal transit funds.
I especially note the higher priority the Administration has
placed on rural public transportation, and area which I believe
has been too long overlooked. Our rural populations have long
been challenged by a real lack of public transportation. In
fact, 40 percent of rural counties, especially in southern and
western States, have no public transit today. This is an area
which deserves our attention, and I applaud the Administration
for taking steps to address this problem.
In addition, I want to again compliment you, Administrator
Dorn, and the Administration for proposing the Small Start
Program in last year's budget. I was very pleased when this
proposal became part of the Senate-passed SAFETEA. This bill
recognizes that there is a difference between large and small
transit projects, by creating an option for smaller projects
which may suit a community's needs better. The less-complicated
rating process that has been proposed would go a long way
toward correcting this problem.
North Carolina is truly an up-and-coming State with respect
to our ambitious public transportation goals. I am pleased to
say that the Administration has recognized North Carolina's
growing transit needs and efforts in this budget submission by
creating a special category for the two North Carolina transit
projects currently in final design.
This special designation, while appreciated, has raised
questions in these communities due to the novelty of the
special category created for the projects. My constituents need
to know that this designation provides them with the
opportunity to receive a full-funding grant agreement under FTA
guidelines. Because the timely completion of the Charlotte-area
rapid transit South Corridor light rail project and the
Triangle Transit Authority are so critical, I look forward to
discussing this issue with Administrator Dorn and to working
with all my colleagues as we continue to pursue enactment of
SAFETEA.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing on the budget request for the Federal
Transit Administration. I thank Administrator Dorn for coming
here and thank her for her great work over several years. Put
simply, the President's proposed flat-line budget falls short
of our Nation's needs and the $8.6 billion level this Committee
and the entire Senate have strongly endorsed in our
reauthorization bill. Mr. Chairman, you know from your
leadership here on the Committee and at your Appropriations
Subcommittee that the very real need for transit funding far
exceeds $7.2 billion. The U.S. Department of Transportation's
2002 Conditions and Performance Report found that just to
maintain our existing transit system, total transit spending by
all levels of the Government should be $14.8 billion annually.
Unfortunately, the President's advisors have recommended
that he veto the modest reauthorization bill this Committee
produced under your leadership along with Senator Sarbanes. The
tragic incident in Madrid is a reminder that public
transportation remains a prime target for terrorists. This
flat-line budget is all the more disconcerting when one
considers the anemic level of funding in the Department of
Homeland Security's budget for transit security.
My greatest concern continues to be that it will take a
transit September 11 for there to be the collective will to
start meeting the known need, a need well identified by
Administrator Dorn, the Department of Homeland Security, the
General Accounting Office, APTA, and others, the need for
greater investment in transit security to protect the millions
of hard-working Americans who take public transportation every
single day.
I look forward to today's testimony and to getting the
witnesses' views on the budget proposal, particularly its lack
of significant funding for transit security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for holding this hearing. You have made public
transportation a top priority for the Committee this year, and
I appreciate your dedication to improving American mobility.
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, Senator Reed, and
I have spent a great deal of time on reauthorization during
recent months. I am pleased that the Senate was able to pass a
bill that included many positive changes. It is my hope that
our House colleagues will follow our lead and move quickly to
get the surface transportation programs reauthorized. It is
obvious that the Administration shares the desire to move
forward toward a full reauthorization, as the budget proposal
was primarily a restatement of their SAFETEA proposal. But we
will have extensive discussion as to the amount of funding
proposed for fiscal year 2005 over the life of reauthorization.
I prefer to keep focused on the progress that the Senate
bill makes in a number of areas. I believe that the Senate bill
provides a good framework for distributing money and running
programs, whatever the specific amounts may eventually be
determined.
First, I would like to point out the Growing States
formula. During the last authorization cycle, I worked to
achieve a fair distribution of money to the rapidly growing
western and southern States. And I am pleased that the new bill
continues that effort. States like Colorado are experiencing
tremendous population booms and they must have been access to
the resources necessary to meet their burgeoning transportation
needs.
Second, I believe that the bill finally places a more
proper emphasis on rural transit. During past reauthorizations,
Members have been seized by an inside-the-Beltway mentality,
with little understanding of the transportation needs of more
rural areas. In fact, many would have considered ``rural
transit'' to be an oxymoron. However, the rural citizens'
public transportation may be the only way they are able to
access jobs, health care, and other vital services. Yet 40
percent of American counties have no transportation service. I
am pleased that the Senate decided to prioritize the needs of
rural citizens by growing the rural and bus programs.
I would also like to point out the expansion of the transit
programs to encompass the Bus Rapid Transit. In appropriate
circumstances, the BRT can offer capacity similar to rail at a
fraction of the cost. This will provide additional flexibility
to States and counties as they consider the options best suited
to their circumstances. This is an especially attractive option
in constrained areas, such as Colorado's mountain valleys.
The Senate bill makes critical progress enhancing the role
of the private sector. The private sector plays a key role in
improving mobility and our bill will ensure that they continue
to have a seat at the table. I was also especially pleased we
were able to make common-sense reforms to the existing labor
protectionist provisions.
I share the Administration's regret that the Senate bill
had to drop some of the proposed incentive programs. Incentives
are a powerful inducement to improve programs. Fortunately,
though, we were able to retain some initiatives to encourage
projects to remain on time and on budget. I am hopeful that as
the process moves forward we may be able to further utilize
performance incentives.
Finally, I would like to thank you, Administrator Dorn, and
all the other witnesses for their help as we worked on
reauthorization. As we continue those efforts and move through
the fiscal year 2005 appropriations process, I am certain we
will continue that close working relationship. Your comments
here today will be helpful, and I appreciate your testimony.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to apologize
in advance to Ms. Dorn because I am going to have to leave at
2:30, since I have another Committee that I have to chair.
Thank you for helping us.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you. Senator Crapo.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Dorn, I appreciate you being here with us today.
I will be brief.
There has been reference here already today about the
difficulty we are facing budget-wise in terms of getting the
resources necessary for urban transit and the many difficult
pressures that we face. I believe that I speak for all of us in
the Senate and the Administration when we say we are going to
be doing our very best to get the maximum amount of resources
into this area in the difficult budget climate which we face.
As Senator Allard indicated, having said that, I believe
that we should recognize the strong effort that the
Administration is making and that this Committee made to focus
our resources as effectively as they can be made.
I just want to comment on one other thing, and it is
frankly a thank you to our Chairman for the good work that he
and his staff have put in to building the Senate's
reauthorization bill. As Senator Allard and Senator Dole have
indicated, a needed emphasis exists in this country for the
transit needs in our rural States. In reality, many people have
thought in the past that we just did not have those needs in
rural States. But we have them every bit as much as the urban
areas do. And the bill that was crafted under your leadership,
Mr. Chairman, recognized that in very important ways. And I
just wanted to, again, commend you for that and to indicate to
you my strong support as we move this process forward to
protect and preserve the direction that we have developed in
the Senate bill, both in terms of the resources we are seeking
to allocate and in terms of the new formula directions and the
new focus on meeting the needs of our Nation's rural areas in
transit.
Thank you.
Chairman Shelby. Administrator Dorn, your written statement
will be made part of the record in its entirety. You may
proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Administrator Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and other
Committee Members on the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
for the Federal Transit Administration. The President, as you
know, has proposed $7.27 billion for transit programs,
sustaining the record Federal investment proposed by the
President and enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2004.
I would like spend the next few minutes, if I may, briefly
discussing three of our most important priorities, one of which
you mentioned, the coordination of human service
transportation, Mr. Chairman, as well as the New Starts piece
and our continued improvements there, and our emphasis on
helping transit agencies protect their passengers, employees,
and assets that was brought up by Senator Reed.
First, a wholehearted thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership and your support of our efforts to bring more
common-sense solutions to a very frustrating problem that you
identified in terms of the coordination of human service
transportation. Your leadership has been critical in convincing
others to come to the table to help us figure this out.
Over the last decade or more, the good news is that there
has been a growing awareness of the needs of older adults,
persons with disabilities, and people with low incomes, and
that has led to the creation of numerous new programs
throughout the Government, many of them with critical
transportation components. Ironically, the impressive
investment of money, time, and energy devoted to this issue has
not solved the transportation problems of the people it is
intended to help.
So over the past year and a half, FTA has reached out to
other departments and to stakeholders and to committees like
this to develop a focused, action-oriented plan to deal with
administrative, legislative, logistical, and ``people
barriers,'' if you will.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, on February 24, President
Bush signaled the importance of this effort to the
Administration by signing Executive Order 13330, bringing 10
Federal agencies together on the Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. He charged us with
the tasks of eliminating duplication and overlapping Federal
programs and improving the coordination of Federally supported
transportation services at all levels. It is the kind of
activity that we had been working on; he solidified the support
with this Executive Order and brought a number of the agencies
to the table that had not already been there.
The Executive Order was announced at the First National
Leadership Forum on Human Service Transportation Coordination,
before an audience that included governor-appointed senior
leadership teams from 47 States and U.S. territories. The
significance of this was that these representatives could only
attend if it was a multidisciplinary team. So we had
secretaries of cabinet departments at the State level, from
human services, labor, and transportation, because we wanted to
have that kind of dialogue.
At the forum, Secretary Mineta honored 5 States--two of
those are represented on this Committee, North Carolina and
Maryland; as well as Ohio, Washington, and Florida--with State
Leadership Awards. These States have made significant progress
toward building a coordinated human service transportation
system and, very frankly, we wanted to get the competition
going among governors. And it has already begun to work.
The National Leadership Forum and State Leadership Awards
are 2 components of our 5-part United We Ride initiative. The
initiative, very briefly, also includes the creation and
distribution of a Framework for Action, which is a practical
and comprehensive self-assessment tool for States and
communities to be able to move forward in this complex arena;
and at least $1 million for a series of grants from FTA for
State coordination, to help address the gaps in human service
transportation.
In addition, we have a technical assistance program that
will build on the work of CTAA, Project Action, and other
stakeholder groups to provide hands-on assistance among and
between all of these programs to States and communities in
coordinating their human service transportation program.
The FTA 2005 budget request and the Administration's
SAFETEA proposal for reauthorization of surface transportation
programs include some important elements. I want to thank you
and the Committee for endorsing those very strongly and placing
them in the Senate-passed bill. We are very grateful for that.
I believe these steps, among the many others with respect to
our action plan, will help make coordinated human service
transportation a reality.
The second important area I would like to highlight is New
Starts. The proposed $1.5 billion budget for New Starts is a
reflection of the Administration's strong commitment to
continued Federal investment in major transit projects. In
addition to funding the 26 existing and 1 pending full-funding
grant agreement, the budget funds seven additional projects,
five that are expected to be ready for a new FFGA before the
end of fiscal year 2005, and 2 meritorious projects. These 7
projects were among the 29 that were evaluated and rated in the
comprehensive 2005 Annual New Starts Report.
For this rating process, FTA made no changes in measures,
break points for ratings, or weightings among measures in the
determination of ratings. However, we continue to focus on
helping project sponsors develop projects that are cost
effective, locally supported, delivered on time and within
budget, and achieve their promised transportation benefits.
Over the last year, as we increased our focus on ensuring a
good return on investment, FTA's attention to proactive project
cost management resulted in some significant total savings. We
sent in project management teams to assist a number of our
proposed New Starts projects, and we were able to save $673
million for 7 proposed investments in order to improve the
cost-effectiveness and to improve the already good credibility
of our transit investments. We believe that every transit
investment must be worth its salt, and that will yield better
results for a continued interest in improving and increasing
investments in public transportation at all levels of
Government.
One new tool we are now using is a quantitative risk
assessment that helps project sponsors identify the issues that
could affect schedule or cost, as well as the probability that
they will do so. This tool was originally developed to help
manage the Federal Government's risk with regard to the 100
percent Federally funded Lower Manhattan Recovery Project as a
result of September 11. It has given both FTA and project
sponsors a new quantitative means to manage risk more
explicitly and reduce the likelihood of cost and schedule
overruns.
We are currently conducting these risk assessments for
those projects that are further along in project development,
but will eventually use this important management tool to
assist sponsors with projects in alternatives analysis and
preliminary engineering. We know that the earlier in the
project that sponsors identify and understand the ramifications
of all the decisions they make with respect to alignment,
design, engineering, and other aspects of the project, the
better our projects will be and the fewer undesirable surprises
communities will face in later stages of development.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you are very aware of a couple of
those projects, at least one where we faced those surprises
because, earlier, sponsors failed to identify these risks. We
believe this tool will be particularly useful as FTA responds
to Congress's request that we become more involved in project
assessment during earlier stages of the project.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, in light of recent events in
Madrid, I would like to take a few moments to update the
Committee on our transit security activities.
As, of course, you and other Committee Members are aware,
transit is obviously designed and operated as an open
environment. Not all individuals understand that and appreciate
its significance with respect to the important imposition of
targeted metrics and abilities to make sure that we improve the
safety and security of our systems.
Transit is potentially a high-visibility, high-consequence
target that, if attacked, could have a significant economic
impact on a community and the Nation. Rail transit alone
carries 11 million passengers each day. In 1 week, transit
moves more passengers than Amtrak carries in a year. In 1
month, transit moves more passengers than U.S. airlines
transport in a year. And the majority of transit riders are in
dense urban environments that run under or near major
employment centers, Government operations, or cultural icons.
Prior to September 11, most transit agencies focused their
security programs primarily on routine crime and vandalism.
That situation has changed dramatically. The industry has
responded. FTA began conducting counterterrorism threat and
vulnerability assessments at 37 of the Nation's largest transit
systems within 60 days of September 11, and I continue to be
appreciative of the strong role that this Committee and Senator
Reed, particularly, have played in bringing attention to this.
It has been very helpful to us.
We deployed an aggressive nationwide security program with
the full cooperation and support of every transit agency. In
addition to the counterterrorism readiness assessments, FTA has
undertaken a number of actions. I just want to briefly tick off
those to show the scope and the depth of the work that FTA has
done in partnership with our transit agencies.
We have awarded 83 grants for emergency drills conducted by
transit agencies in conjunction with fire, police, and other
emergency responders. We wanted to make sure that transit had a
seat at the table when these people were planning emergency
response and that the drills included transit.
We provided on-site counterterrorism technical assistance,
and continue to do so, to 29 agencies as a follow-up to our
threat and vulnerability assessments, with plans to reach all
of the top 50 transit agencies over the next year.
We have conducted 18 regional emergency preparedness
forums. We have completed 4 regional transit terrorism war
games in conjunction with our partners at APTA, and we
consulted with international experts who have, unfortunately,
faced terrorism in transit for many years.
We provided employee awareness training to more than 46,000
transit employees. We have developed and distributed standard
protocols and guidelines for responding the chemical and
biological incidents in rail, tunnel, and transit vehicle
environments.
We have championed transit agency participation in the
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, so that every major transit
agency has a connection locally with the FBI's Joint Terrorism
Task Force. One of the key issues is, obviously, intelligence.
We have funded and worked on a daily basis with the
Intelligence Sharing and Analysis Center, which FTA has funded
under the leadership of APTA, and in which 160 transit agencies
now participate. They have real-time information about transit
security.
We have launched a Transit Watch program, a nationwide
emergency response passenger awareness program, and many, many
transit agencies are very aggressively getting the message out
to the public so that they can be the eyes and ears in this
environment.
We have provided and actively monitored the largest 50
transit agencies' actions with respect to FTA's top-20 security
action items.
We have funded research to identify and adapt security
technologies, such as chemical weapon detection, to a transit
environment, and we have developed and issued to transit
agencies specific recommended action steps to take at each
Homeland Security Advisory Threat Level.
We recognize, as I mentioned, that intelligence is our
Nation's first line of defense in transit environments, and we
rely on the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for
such information. We also know that we must continue to pursue
technology solutions.
But there is no technological quick fix for security
concerns, nor is there a substitute for an alert and well
prepared transit work force and passenger community. Therefore,
FTA continues to focus its primary efforts on the three key
priorities I have mentioned to this Committee in previous
testimony--employee training, public awareness, and emergency
preparedness. FTA's top action items have helped to
institutionalize these security programs by focusing on
management and accountability, security problem identification,
employee selection, employee training, security audits, and
emergency response drills, document control and access control.
The 30 largest transit agencies accomplished at least 80
percent of these action items in fiscal year 2003, and in
fiscal year 2004 FTA is focused on maintaining success among
these 30 and expanding it to the next 20 largest agencies. And
we have increased the level of attention to this, and our
senior executive performance rating depends on whether or not
we meet this goal.
Mr. Chairman, keeping our communities safe and moving is
FTA's most important priority. We are working hard to maintain
the critical balance among security demands, mobility needs,
and the economic viability that transit provides to every
community it serves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you. It should not be a surprise to
you that I am not in favor of increasing the Federal transit
funds that disbursed by formula. I alluded to that earlier. I
find it contradictory that you contend that increasing
accountability is an important goal of the Agency, but yet the
Administration proposes sending funds out on autopilot without
year-to-year oversight or an
annual assessment of individual needs.
Can you, Administrator Dorn, explain how you reconcile the
Agency's desire for accountability with the hands-off approach
to increasing formula spending that you advocate in your budget
proposal? It certainly seems contradictory to me.
Administrator Dorn. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are right. I get
the message about this Committee's concern about Congressional
discretionary funding with respect to the bus discretionary
funding. Fundamentally, the Administration believes that the
predictability and the flexibility of the formula program
funding helps communities plan for and meet their
transportation needs. But we understand that we need to agree
to disagree on that point. Certainly, just in response to your
oversight issue, all of our Federal programs have a significant
amount of oversight in terms of triennial reviews and
procurement reviews, et cetera, but certainly this is a point
about which we disagree, and we understand that it is the
Committee's will to award the program funding in a different
way.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, could I just suggest to Ms.
Dorn----
Chairman Shelby. Certainly.
Senator Sarbanes. We do not really like to agree to
disagree; we like to agree to agree.
[Laughter.]
Administrator Dorn. So do I. So do I.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Ms. Dorn, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am
supportive of your efforts to coordinate human service
transportation. What are next steps, now that an Executive
Order has been issued?
Administrator Dorn. We have a very serious set of action
plans to move forward to help reconcile differences in
eligibility, in funding, and in other respects that seem to
thwart the ability to have common-sense transit solutions. We
have found that it is far more effective to take these problems
agency-by-agency and develop memorandums of agreement, so that
we can focus on an action plan rather than having a ``group
grope.'' So we have very specific action plans, and I believe
we are making a lot of progress, with many thanks to this
Committee for its support.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to commend the administrator again for the vigor and the
seriousness with which she has pursued all these issues with
respect to transit security.
As you are probably aware, Administrator, within the
pending reauthorization bill, there is a requirement for a
memorandum of understanding between the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Transportation with respect to
responsibilities for transit security. This bill is still
pending. But in anticipation of the law and, I would argue,
good common sense, do you have a memorandum of responsibility
between the two Departments outlining various responsibilities?
Administrator Dorn. First of all, Senator, we appreciate
your keeping this issue of the MOA or MOU at the forefront of
the national transportation security agenda. And I know that it
is not something we have taken lightly or set aside. Early on,
we did not know the entire scope of what needed to be done
between and among agencies, or even independently, in order to
define a memorandum of understanding that would be useful in
the long-term. Both of our agencies have made a good faith
effort. Our collaboration gets better day-by-day, and we have
further defined those issues, so that now we are, I believe,
productively able to define the long-term relationship. And I
hope and expect that you will see a memorandum of agreement. I
know that our two Deputy Secretaries have talked about that
most recently, and we are on the path to fulfill that request.
Senator Reed. I get the impression the Department of
Homeland Security and the Transportation Security
Administration, at least up to this point, have refused to
formally accept responsibility. And the point I would make is
that if something catastrophic happens, everyone is
responsible. And so at this juncture, worrying about getting
all the information and getting it perfect will defeat the
obvious need for some even rudimentary and preliminary division
of responsibilities.
Administrator Dorn. Oh, absolutely. And I would want to
make it clear that we are working together on a day-to-day
basis and even in a more concerted way since Madrid. So the
lack of a specific, defined memorandum has not impeded our work
together. But I do take your point. For the long-term, that
document could be important.
Senator Reed. Well, also for the long-term, Administrator,
there are some who would feel that legislative authority would
be the final way to settle disputes between the agencies about
who should do what. And if we were to proceed with transit
security legislation separate and apart from our overall
reauthorization bill, what major operational improvements and
capital improvements would you recommend we improve in terms of
transit security?
Administrator Dorn. In terms of what we have learned from
the threat and vulnerability assessments, I would certainly go
back to the very real importance of focusing, particularly at
the FTA level, on three specific things: The training of
personnel, emergency preparedness, and public awareness. Those
are the three items that we believe have the biggest bang for
the buck, and fundamentally are so important to enhancing
security.
In terms of other capital assets that may be required, I
think that our threat and vulnerability assessments lay the
foundation, which we have provided to the Department of
Homeland Security, so that they can prioritize the risks and
the threats, not only among and between transit agencies, but
also among and between transportation modes and even other
aspects of the world in which we live.
So it is not our desire to have an increased role at the
FTA, other than the role that we now have in safety and
security. I think that we are well-served by having a
Department of Homeland Security that can help us prioritize the
risks. And from the beginning, FTA has been very serious about
approaching the problem from a risk-based assessment, and that
is precisely what the Department of Homeland Security has
suggested that we continue to do and is, of course, the
foundation of all of their work. So, I believe that we have the
appropriate foundation laid to make progress.
Senator Reed. Again, let me commend you because of your
active pursuit of issue of transit security, your assessments
of security in our major systems throughout the country. My
sense, though, is today we still do not have clearly defined
areas of responsibility between Homeland Security and the
Department of Transportation, and Federal Transit
Administration. We have these huge fissures between the two
Departments, or maybe narrowing fissures. And our enemies
exploit these types of divisions. And we have enough, I think,
evidence in other areas that unless we move expeditiously we
could have problems.
And a final point I will make, because the time has
expired, is that I think if you could share with us the results
of your surveys, it would indicate a multibillion-dollar
national demand for improved transportation security measures
and this budget does not reflect even a small fraction of that.
Administrator Dorn. Senator, may I just respond to one
piece of this. I would not want to leave this hearing with the
understanding that there is a lack of clarity about authority
for transit security. It is very clearly in the hands of the
Department of Homeland Security. We can, as partners, continue
to do our work in the Transit Administration in helping to
ensure safety and security, and we are eager to do that. But it
is very clear that decisions are made at the Department of
Homeland Security.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, may I just follow up with one
point?
Chairman Shelby. Yes.
Senator Reed. As I understand, the Department of Homeland
Security budget for transit security is $50 million?
Administrator Dorn. I believe that they have made available
$115 million specifically for transit security, but there is
significantly broader eligibility for transit beyond that.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Dorn, for your testimony and for the tremendous
job that you are doing at FTA. Of course, that is no surprise
since I personally know of your outstanding record in every
position of public service in which you have been involved over
the years.
Now, as you are aware, the Charlotte Area Transit System,
CATS, and the Triangle Transit Authority, TTA, projects were
given a special designation in the Administration's fiscal year
2005 budget. I need to understand what this special designation
means to CATS and TTA. If CATS and TTA address the specific
concerns raised by your staff about each project, please tell
me whether you expect the projects to advance in the New Starts
process in this or the next fiscal year.
Administrator Dorn. Thank you, Senator Dole. Both of the
New Starts projects to which you refer, the Charlotte project
and the Raleigh project, are good projects. They received a
recommended rating in our New Starts rating process. And the
question is not one of worthiness, but of readiness. Both of
these projects have undertaken some design changes in order to
improve ridership, and they are working through those. And so
neither project, although both in final design, has completed
those steps. We want to make sure that we know exactly the
costs and exactly the benefits before we could move forward.
The category that we have placed these projects under, in
which they get $30 million and $20 million, respectively,
between Charlotte and Raleigh, signals from the
Administration's point of view that both of these projects are
worthy. We have committed through annual appropriations a
fairly significant portion of the New Starts project funding.
We want to make sure, however, before we come to Congress
for its review of a full-funding grant agreement, that we are
ready behind all of the dollar figures, that all of the i's are
dotted and the t's are crossed. I believe we have been very
thorough--and that is appropriate. And we have worked very
vigilantly with both of the transit agencies to provide
technical assistance. We are really conscious that any delay in
a project can mean money. And so we are eager to move forward
as prudently as possible. At this point, I could not make a
firm commitment as to when we would be ready to present to the
Administration and to Congress a full-funding grant agreement,
but I certainly see no show-stoppers.
Senator Dole. Now, just to be clear, you are telling me
that the door is still open to CATS and to TTA to get their
FFGA's if they can meet all your requirements?
Administrator Dorn. In the fiscal year 2005 time period, we
indicated to the Administration in November that we did not see
it as likely that either of those projects would be ready for
an FFGA recommendation. However, I have said to both of them
that if we find that they are able to move forward with the
requirements in that fiscal year 2005 period, I would be very
eager and willing to go to the Secretary and to the Office of
Management and Budget and say these projects are ready, we did
not expect them to be ready so quickly, but we believe it is
time to move forward.
Senator Dole. Thank you. Now, can you tell us how the
continuing lack of a long-term reauthorization bill might
affect the FTA's willingness to make long-term financial
commitments to meritorious transit projects like CATS and TTA,
if at all?
Administrator Dorn. Certainly. In fact, it has a very
significant impact and that is why this Administration is so
eager for Congress to move forward with the 6-year
reauthorization bill. We are almost out of commitment
authority, and so without a reauthorization, many, many
projects would not be able to move forward in the major capital
infrastructure account. So we need a 6-year reauthorization
bill.
Senator Dole. For some time now, both Congress and the
executive branch have been working to ensure that the human
service transportation activities funded in various Federal
programs become better coordinated, as we have been discussing
today. And, of course, we are very pleased the President
recently signed the Executive Order on human service
transportation that calls for the 10 Federal agencies to work
together. Now, based on my years of dealing with this
challenge, both as Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of
Labor, we have long known that this type of coordination has
been a very difficult nut to crack.
Please tell us why it has taken so long to make progress on
this human service transportation coordination problem.
Administrator Dorn. It is not due primarily to lack of good
will. It is a risk-averse attitude, I think. When you have
programs as different as Medicaid and training programs in the
Labor Department, each of which have different eligibility
requirements, different funding requirements, you have
stakeholders who are eager to get their van for their own
stakeholders and not necessarily willing to share the ride.
There are so many issues, that sorting out and focusing on
those issues, some of which are real and some of which are not,
at all levels, is really important.
What this Committee has done in terms of a first step, or
the next step, really, is to help make this an easier problem
to solve by requiring all of the community stakeholders to sit
down at a table together. So, whether it is the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, or the Diabetes Association, or the
elderly and disabled programs funded by DOT programs, they all
sit down together and say what makes sense for this community
and are able to use flexible funding to fund transportation
needs in a more coordinated way. I think we have made
significant progress with a lot of good will. And States have
provided some very important leadership--including North
Carolina. They have done a terrific job, and they are very
eager to improve even on that effort, as well as helping other
States to initiate best practices, as they have done.
I feel optimistic. This is a problem that was decades in
the making. It is not going to be solved overnight, but we are
already seeing significant improvements. I appreciate your
interest.
Senator Dole. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Dorn, welcome back before the Committee.
Administrator Dorn. Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes. I am interested, first, in this issue of
transit security. In your statement, you say in fiscal year
2005 we request $37.8 million for security initiatives, which
remain a high priority. Is that correct?
Administrator Dorn. Yes.
Senator Sarbanes. It is my understanding that it is not new
money for security but simply the 1 percent take-down of the
urbanized formula grant program for all passenger safety and
security needs, actually a program that has been in effect for
many, many years. So that does not represent a response to a
perceived transit security threat, is that correct?
Administrator Dorn. That is essentially correct. If I might
just mention, we have tried very systematically to refocus the
monies that we do have in terms of educating the transit
agencies and informing them, really many of whom already know,
about how to make the best investments.
I would also mention that in the Department of Defense
supplemental bill of 2 years ago, there was approximately $23
million for transit security investments, and so we have
undertaken to do the various things that we talked about in the
testimony with that money. And there is still a very small
portion of that that we are targeting to a training program.
Senator Sarbanes. Later in your testimony you mentioned $50
million for grants from the Department of Homeland Security. Is
that correct? To go to 30 different transit agencies?
Administrator Dorn. That is my understanding of the
proposal for the fiscal year 2005 budget.
Senator Sarbanes. And then I think, in response to Senator
Reed, you said there was $115 million worth of money for
security. Is that right?
Administrator Dorn. I believe that part of that is from an
earlier year appropriation. So, I believe it is $50 million and
$60 million over 2 years. One is proposed, and one is actual.
Senator Sarbanes. As I understand it, there are no specific
funds--those were for 2003 and 2004, as I understand it--$65
million for 2003, and $50 million for 2004. Is that correct?
Administrator Dorn. That is correct.
Senator Sarbanes. As I understand it, there are no specific
funds for fiscal year 2005.
Administrator Dorn. To my knowledge, no.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, why is that? I mean, I think these
monies are inadequate and I am going to go to that point in a
minute. But how, under any scenario, could you have no specific
funds for fiscal year 2005 for this purpose, given--I mean, in
other words, you have 65, 50, and zero.
Administrator Dorn. It is my understanding.
Senator Sarbanes. ``You'' being the Administration.
Administrator Dorn. I understand.
Senator Sarbanes. I understand it is not in your budget, it
is in the Homeland Security budget, right?
Administrator Dorn. That is correct. It is my understanding
there is a well over $600 million grant program for which
transit is eligible, the Urban Area Grant Program. So there is
eligibility. It is not specifically targeted at transit.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, WMATA has done a detailed analysis
of their security needs, which I assume you are familiar with.
Administrator Dorn. I have not seen it, but I have been
told, yes.
Senator Sarbanes. When they estimate they need $70 million
to implement their security proposals, that is for one transit
system. Seventy million. And as I understand it, the Department
of Homeland Security is giving out $50 million for 30 systems.
Now, that does not strike me as being a high-priority item.
Administrator Dorn. Certainly one point, or a couple of
points, if I may, Senator. I have been impressed with the way
the industry has responded from day one here. They have taken
every step feasible within existing resources, and I can
certainly understand that in a survey of funding needs you
might garner such an assessment. I do think it is important
that Department of Homeland Security's purpose is really to
prioritize the risk both among and between transit agencies and
broader risks, so that we can make sure that we are allocating
scarce resources, or allocating resources at all, based on the
highest threat and vulnerability. While I respect the
professionalism of WMATA in defining its security needs, I
think the value of Homeland Security assessing from a broader
perspective where are the vulnerabilities is really important.
And that is what we found in our threat and vulnerability
assessments. These had to be done locally and then they had to
be factored into a broader portfolio.
Senator Sarbanes. Let me pursue that for a moment, because
Senators Warner, Allen and Mikulski and I have written to
Secretary Ridge about urgent emergency preparedness in the
National Capital Region, which is to follow up on the WMATA
request in particular, pressing them to make more money
available. Now, should we have sent that letter to you as well,
or are you completely out of the loop on transit security?
Administrator Dorn. Certainly, we----
Senator Sarbanes. And I am looking here and I realize that
we did not send it to you, and I think maybe we overlooked a
fruitful target. But the answer you just gave me would imply
that you are not an advocate for transit, that it has all been
bounced over to the Homeland Security Department.
Administrator Dorn. I would not want to give that
impression.
Senator Sarbanes. You were very explicit in responding to
Senator Reed that it was not your bailiwick. I was very struck
by that.
Administrator Dorn. The ultimate decision-making authority
about how we prioritize risks and resources is in the hands of
the Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you think the Department of Homeland
Security is under-prioritizing the risk and need that exists in
the area of transit security?
Administrator Dorn. If I might just say the second half to
the first question is that, from our perspective, we continue
to be actively engaged with the Department of Homeland
Security, providing them information as we have it and
continuing our training, emergency response, and public
awareness programs. We are not getting out of the
responsibility.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you think that the information you
have provided, then, would lead a reasoned, objective
decisionmaker to conclude that more money is needed than what
is currently being provided for transit security?
Administrator Dorn. I am not in a position to know whether
transit is more or less at risk than port security or aviation
or the banking industry.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I am not asking you to do the
balance. Let me just ask you this question----
Administrator Dorn. But I think that is the key issue,
Senator.
Senator Sarbanes. Within the realm of transit security, do
you think sufficient resources are being devoted to that
purpose?
Administrator Dorn. Within the realm of transit security, I
believe that we understand well at FTA what the priorities
should be in terms of the kinds of things to fund. But I do not
think we are in a position for the entire Government to be able
to assess where----
Senator Sarbanes. I am not asking you to make that----
Administrator Dorn. Well, I would like to answer the
question, but I could not answer it clearly and objectively,
because I think that the risk assessment has to be done by
experts who see the whole picture.
Senator Sarbanes. Let me concede that point to you at the
moment.
Administrator Dorn. Okay.
Senator Sarbanes. From your perspective, from your end of
the telescope, do you think enough resources are being devoted
to transit security?
Administrator Dorn. I respect the decisions of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Sarbanes. No, no, no. No, you cannot get away with
that.
Administrator Dorn. That is what I want----
Senator Sarbanes. Look, what do you think----
Administrator Dorn. Can I not tell you what I really think?
I think it----
Senator Sarbanes. What do you tell the Department? Are you
telling the Department of Homeland Security that you need more
money for transit security?
Administrator Dorn. We tell them that, whatever you think
is appropriate to invest based on your look at the total
picture, we think that the priorities for investment should be,
one, based on the risk and vulnerability assessments, and two,
on the most effective means of protecting transit--public
awareness, emergency response, and training.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, you have just gone way out on the
transit line, because if something happens, this response is
going to come back to haunt you. I just observe that. And it
seems to me totally unnecessary, indeed erroneous, for you to
make this response given the challenges that you confront in
transit security. We need to know whether, as a transit
administrator, you think enough resources are being put into
transit security. Now, the Department of Homeland Security may
say, well, that administrator, she was looking for a lot more
money but we just did not have it, and we had a balance--
transit and port and air and all the rest of it--and this is a
balance we took. But you are telling me that you are doing that
balance yourself.
Administrator Dorn. No.
Senator Sarbanes. Who is the advocate for transit security
of this Administration?
Administrator Dorn. The FTA has been an aggressive advocate
toward meeting the needs of transit security. And as an
appointee of the Administration, I would feel equally as guilty
if, after aggressively advocating a dollar amount, the next day
the target was instead another target, in port security or
whatever. Because I have one point of view. And I think that is
why this Congress and the Administration agreed it was
imperative to have a Department of Homeland Security to assess
the risks. And I will not back away from the perspective of
being an aggressive advocate for meeting the needs of transit
security to the degree that those risks and vulnerabilities
have to be taken into account.
Senator Sarbanes. So you think that enough money is being
put into transit security?
Administrator Dorn. I am not in a position to judge that.
That has to be done by the Department.
Senator Sarbanes. You are the transit administrator. From
the point of view of the transit administrator----
Administrator Dorn. But I am not the port administrator, or
the FAA administrator.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you think enough money is being put
into transit security?
Administrator Dorn. I think I have answered the question.
Senator Sarbanes. In other words, you think enough money is
being put in.
Administrator Dorn. Senator, I am not in a position to know
that.
Chairman Shelby. Ms. Dorn, do you not head up the Transit
Security Administration.
Administrator Dorn. No.
Chairman Shelby. That is the point. Two different agencies,
are they not?
Administrator Dorn. Yes. That is correct.
Chairman Shelby. One is tasked with security.
Administrator Dorn. Correct.
Chairman Shelby. You are concerned with security, as we all
are, but that is somebody else's bailiwick. Is that correct?
Administrator Dorn. That is correct. We want to provide as
much information as possible and we want to make sure that we
have a seat at the table, so that the needs and concerns of
transit are factored into the very rigorous assessment that the
Department of Homeland Security undertakes. And that, I
believe, is my job.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I sharply disagree with you. I
think you have a responsibility to indicate to us what you
think the needs for transit security are and whether adequate
resources are being devoted to it.
Administrator Dorn. Well, certainly, with the discretionary
money that we have at our----
Senator Sarbanes. Secretary Ridge would come in here and he
would have to say, well, look, I have these competing claims. I
have this amount of money and this is what I am trying to do.
But that is not your situation.
Administrator Dorn. It has to be based on intelligence. And
I see a significant amount of intelligence, but I do not see
the whole panoply, and I am not in a position to make that
judgment.
Senator Sarbanes. What does the intelligence you see tell
you about the need for transit security?
Administrator Dorn. That certainly transit can be a target.
That is why we have aggressively pursued the mechanisms that I
have described, and that is why we are insistent that we have a
seat at the table, as those decisionmakers make the decision.
Chairman Shelby. Senator Reed, do you have another
question? We have a vote on the floor.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Senator Sarbanes.
I have great respect for the Administrator, but I think you
have to be an advocate at the table for transit, and that, I
think, implies a knowledge of the demand for additional
resources. And I would just conclude that it is insufficient.
We recognize that there are port security issues, et cetera,
but as Senator Sarbanes said, Governor Ridge could make the
case that he is prioritizing, but I think you are the expert in
transit in this Administration, not just in the commercial
aspects but the security aspects. But to simply say, I have no
opinion on this, I think, leaves us without information we need
to do our job.
That is an observation, not a question. Thank you.
Chairman Shelby. Ms. Dorn, you did not say you had no
opinion on this, as I understood it, did you? Did you say you
have no opinion? You are the Administrator for transit, but you
are not the head of TSA, right?
Administrator Dorn. Correct.
Chairman Shelby. Is that not what you are trying to say?
Administrator Dorn. Yes, but apparently I have not said it
very well.
Chairman Shelby. And you do have some input and you should
have a voice, at least to speak with Secretary Ridge about your
transit concerns, which are also our concerns.
Administrator Dorn. And we have done that.
Chairman Shelby. We all believe that transit is vulnerable,
do we not?
Administrator Dorn. Yes.
Chairman Shelby. We have believed that a long time.
Administrator Dorn. Correct.
Chairman Shelby. Transit move millions of people in
transportation systems every day. We do not want to give
anybody any ideas they have not thought of, but you are not
saying that is not a part of your responsibilities, but that is
not your primary area of expertise. Although you will try to
address secutiry concerns, will you not?
Administrator Dorn. I need to bring to the table everything
I know about the threats and vulnerabilities, and I take that
responsibility very seriously.
Chairman Shelby. You are concerned with security.
Administrator Dorn. Absolutely. But in terms of trying to
decide where the resources go among and between competitive
needs and threats, that happens in a different department at a
higher level. And my job is to make sure that my Secretary----
Chairman Shelby. You are speaking of Secretary Ridge?
Administrator Dorn. Pardon me?
Chairman Shelby. You are referring to Secretary Ridge, who
is the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Administrator Dorn. Exactly.
Chairman Shelby. Which is a cabinet position.
Administrator Dorn. Yes.
Senator Reed. Is that your reference?
Administrator Dorn. Yes.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Administrator Dorn. And we do not hesitate to make our
viewpoint known and provide every piece of information, and we
will continue to do that, because we know there are competing
priorities there. We want to make sure the information is
analyzed, so that they can make a judicious judgment. And I
believe that----
Chairman Shelby. In due respect, security of our transit
system has to be--especially in today's environment--one of our
highest priorities.
Administrator Dorn. It is for me.
Chairman Shelby. So you agree?
Administrator Dorn. Yes, absolutely.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Ms. Dorn, we have a vote on the floor. We appreciate your
appearance here and we appreciate the job you are doing. Please
continue your good work.
Administrator Dorn. Thank you very much.
Chairman Shelby. If we can have the second panel take their
seats at the table, we can begin with William Millar, President
of the American Public Transportation Association; Dale
Marsico, with the Community Transportation Association of
America; Timothy Martin, who in addition to being the Secretary
of Transportation for the Illinois Department of
Transportation, represents the American Association of State
Highways and Transportation Officials. Finally, Rolf Lundberg,
Jr., Senior Vice President of Congressional and Public Affairs
for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
We look forward to hearing from you. The hearing will
continue after the vote. Thank you.
We will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Shelby. Gentlemen, thank you for waiting. The
hearing will come back to order. Mr. Millar.
Mr. Millar. Nice to see you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you. All of your written testimony
will be made part of the Committee record. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir, I will be glad to. First, let me
thank you on behalf of the 1,500 members of the American Public
Transportation Association for holding this hearing today, and
for your continued interest and support in public
transportation. I believe this is the first time I have been
able to appear before the Committee since you passed the
landmark SAFETEA Act that you referred to in your opening
statement. We are just very pleased about it.
Chairman Shelby. We passed.
Mr. Millar. That is what I say you, the Committee, passed.
Chairman Shelby. You cannot do anything by yourself up
here.
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir. We appreciate the bipartisan approach
that was used in that bill and hope that your friends across
the Hill will see fit to likewise move ahead. In fact, Mr.
Chairman, when my board of directors met on March 7, they
passed a resolution both endorsing the SAFETEA legislation and
in praise of the hard work of the Committee here.
We believe that having done that, we support for the fiscal
year 2005 budget at least the funding levels that this
Committee had included in the SAFETEA bill. So we urge the
Congress to approve a fiscal year 2005 appropriation for public
transit that is not less than $8.655 billion. We think that
investment of that level helps advance key national goals of
producing jobs, improving mobility, expanding public
transportation options across the country, reducing the
dependence on foreign oil, and that there is a solid return on
investment that the Government makes.
Now in contrast with the good work of the Committee we do
not think that the Administration's proposal of some $7.266
billion, a freeze budget, is good policy. In fact, we think it
is bad policy. If you factor in inflation, it is not even a
freeze budget, it is actually a cut in funding. We support what
the Committee has done and the position that several Senators
on the Committee today have expressed, and we are very
disappointed in the Administration's budget.
We think that over the last several years, particularly
under TEA-21, we have seen under this Committee's leadership,
the funding for public transit grow from some $4.4 billion per
year back in 1997 to $7.2 billion in 2003, and I think
impressive results have come back from that investment. We have
seen ridership at the highest levels in years, the numbers of
new transit systems in both urban and rural areas growing at
dramatic levels, improvements to existing systems, et cetera.
So we think that it has been a very good investment; and that
more investment is necessary.
In fact our friends at the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials in their Bottom Line
report conclude that we really should be investing as much as
$44 billion a year to both maintain adequate public
transportation and expand it across the country. So we
certainly need increased investment.
The President's budget also is troubling in that it makes
changes to their reauthorization proposal that they announced
last spring. That proposal was modest enough and we have
expressed our concern about that to the Committee on other
occasions. But their budget would even cut $2 billion for
transit from their earlier proposal. So we just think that is
not the way to go on that.
We find it somewhat troubling and really do not understand
it, because certainly the Administration, like all of us, are
concerned about improving the economy, creating jobs, and doing
all the other things that are important for our Nation. We know
that the Department of Transportation tells us that for every
$1 billion invested in transit some 47,500 jobs are created and
sustained. So we do wonder about that.
We also know that the kind of investment that this
Committee has advocated is not only good for our public-sector
members but is also good for our private-sector members too. We
know it is not just the big cities that benefit from this
investment. Beyond the obvious expansion needs of rural
transportation that you have already spoken of, sir, we know
that buses, for example, are built in places like Anniston,
Alabama and Lamar, Colorado, and Greensboro, North Carolina and
a number of other cities around the country. It is not only the
service that accrues to the American public from these kind of
investments, but it is also the jobs, it is the economic
benefit that results as well.
We know from studies that every $10 invested in transit
capital projects generates some $30 in private-sector business
sales; every $10 in transit operations generates some $32 in
private sales. So we know these things are true.
We also know that the American public supports increased
investment. A recent survey by the firm of Wirthlin Worldwide
showed a number of interesting factors. The survey was
completed in late February. Eighty percent of Americans saw
quality of life benefits and understood that increased
investment in public transportation was good for them and good
for communities. Seventy-six percent supported public funding
for the expansion and improvement of public transportation, and
more than two-thirds would be more inclined to support
candidates for Congress who support investment in public
transit.
The interesting thing, we have been doing these polls for a
series of years and we have seen an interesting phenomenon.
These kind of positive results we often got in urban areas, but
in recent years and particularly this year, we see these polls
cut across all lines, whether it is large urban, small urban,
rural areas, suburban areas, all parts of the country. There is
now less than, I think it is six points difference between
urban and rural answers on those questions. I think the country
as a whole is understanding this and we certainly want to work
with you in this regard.
Before I close, and given the focus earlier in the meeting
on security, perhaps I could say a few words about transit
security. First, after the horrific events of September 11,
2001, Senators Reed and Allard convened an oversight meeting of
the Transportation Subcommittee and I was privileged at that
time to bring them up to date on what some of the plans were of
how transit was starting to deal with the tragedies. Now, two
and-a-half years later, I can show you solid results.
I want to give credit where credit is due. We have had a
very good partnership with the Federal Transit Administration
and we have been very pleased with their cooperation in many
areas, particularly in research, in threat assessments,
vulnerability assessments, and those type of things. We have
worked very closely with the Federal Transit Administration.
Although, as the Committee probed this morning, as
responsibilities have been shifted to the Department of
Homeland Security, attention has not necessarily focused on
transit the way we believe that it should have.
Nonetheless, we have pursued strengthening our resolve as
far as security issues go. A recent survey that we completed of
our members showed a number of interesting results. We asked
our members, for example, how much have you been investing in
homeland security since September 11, 2001 and it came back
that we have spent and invested over $1.7 billion. That money
has come almost exclusively out of their budgets. In other
words, the fare box, local taxes, State taxes, however it is
that they might be funded in their community. Yes, there has
been some small amount of Federal money made available in some
communities, but largely it has been a response from State and
local resources.
We asked our members, now that you have been at this issue
of security for a few years, you have experience, you know what
works--I think Ms. Dorn correctly pointed out the different
strategies that seem to work best--what kind of funding is
necessary? From that survey we were able to produce an analysis
that shows we need both capital money, one-time money, as well
as operating money over and above what State and local
governments are already spending. The overall number that we
have derived is about $6 billion, some $5.2 billion of that
being additional capital and other one-time costs, about $800
million being for increased operating costs, continuing
research needs, things of that sort.
I will be happy to supply the Committee with a more
complete list. We expect the study to be----
Chairman Shelby. You can submit that for the record.
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir, I would be glad to, and we expect the
study to be fully analyzed within the next 2 weeks and I would
like to submit that to you. That will also have our funding
priorities in these areas.
We would ask the Committee's help. We have been talking
with the Department of Homeland Security. We are very
disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
proposal does not include a line item for transit security. As
was mentioned earlier, in the 2004 and 2003 budgets, the
Department of Homeland Security did set aside small amounts of
money. But in the 2005 budget we are told to compete with every
other need that is in the country. I certainly understand the
point about the need to prioritize, but our experience is, the
way the urban system money in that Department gets divided up,
transit has yet to receive its first dollar that was not
earmarked for it.
So Mr. Chairman, we certainly want to work with you and the
Members of the Committee to see if transit needs can be
correctly identified, and then if steps can be taken to amend
the President's budget or whatever the proper procedure is in
the Senate to see if we cannot make some funding available to
improve security in our systems.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this
hearing. We fully support the Banking Committee's efforts to
get a good long-term reauthorization bill. We would hope that
the appropriation for public transit investment in the coming
year is not less than the Committee included in the SAFETEA
legislation, and we would ask your help in getting more focus
and more funding put into transit security needs.
At the proper time I would be pleased to answer your
questions, sir.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Marsico.
Mr. Marsico. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DALE J. MARSICO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Marsico. I would like to begin be thanking you for
inviting me to be here today. There are many things in my
written testimony that are very supportive of the work the
Committee has done over the last several years, and especially
in its efforts to reauthorize the transportation programs.
I think it is very interesting that almost exactly 2 years
ago this week in this very room that the process on
transportation reauthorization began in the first hearings that
were held by the Banking Committee taking a look at our
investments in America's transportation future. Two years of
the solid research, 2 years of hearings, 2 years of testimony
have resulted in your landmark legislation that you passed
which is significant progress for all parts of America's
transportation systems. As you know, we have traditionally been
very supportive advocates of expanding transportation options
in the public sector for people who live in rural communities
and for our seniors. Over the last 10 years, public
transportation has reached out to provide greater levels of
service to all of those people, and your bill and your
legislation recognizes that and rewards that work.
We feel that people that live in communities, regardless of
size, all have a stake in what public transportation can do for
them. And as our country ages and as we have more older people
living in rural communities, it is essential that we expand
rural transportation options for all of those people, and your
bill does that.
When you look at what we heard here in this room 2 years
ago about all the good things that transit could do, all the
returns on investment that transit can provide to communities
regardless of size, it is almost like that line from the T.S.
Eliot poem where we return to the place we started and it is
still the same. Everything we knew then is true today, and
everything that we said we needed to do for transit, we needed
to do.
Unfortunately, the Administration does not share our views.
Their proposals and their hold-harmless funding for transit, as
Mr. Millar so well stated, the inflation in key transit areas
in terms of cost has continued over the last 2 years so even a
hold-harmless budget is nothing more than a reduction, because
the cost of meeting our current obligations will not leave us
with sufficient resources to expand programs to benefit more
seniors or more rural communities, which is why we support what
you did. When we look at the proposals from the Administration,
when we look at the work of S. 1072, there is no other choice
for us than to say that Federal funding for fiscal 2005 and
2006 should be based on your work and not on the
Administration's projections.
In the work that lies ahead, I know that inevitably there
is going to be a House bill and sooner or later there will be a
conference. I am here to urge you to take the values that are
in S. 1072 and taken them into that conference and to take them
into the fight with the Administration, because if we do not
have those numbers we will not advance to fill unmet needs; we
will lose ground. I think as we learned when we talk about
September 11, or we talk about natural disasters, we talk about
what happened last year when we had the energy blackout, in all
of these cases transit played a critical role in moving
Americans to safety. And last summer it played a critical role
in sheltering our seniors in high-rise buildings who were then
in transit buses because it was the only air-conditioning they
could find in very hot weather. These are all the good things
that transit does that do not necessarily get factored into the
statistical formulas that people like to use when they describe
our industry.
Our testimony talks a lot about people, individual stories
about individuals that transit makes an important difference in
their lives. They live in every community, big and small, and
they are the people that we should be most concerned about.
Last, on the issue of security, we did mention in our
testimony that we thought that one of the overlooked areas in
transit security remains the fact that we do not have any
national reserve of buses or rail cars for a national disaster
or for a terrorist attack. We also think that there needs to be
sufficient stockpiles for fuel and other vital resources that
keep transit moving should there be a natural disaster or a
terrorist attack. We think that area does need to have a
significant review.
Last, I just want to say this. When we look at the work
that you did, I think it is very significant to note that the
first transportation bill to pass in America by any House of
Congress in the 21st century is your bill, and it is a mighty
good place to start for all parts of the transportation
community. But for the rural parts of the community, for people
who are interested in seniors, for people who have unmet needs,
your bill is better than that. Your bill is the way forward for
all Americans, and I want to thank you on behalf of our 7,000
members and the people who use our transportation services and
theirs. Without your work we would not have the kind of future
that we need, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Martin.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MARTIN
CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
SECRETARY, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to
be here representing both the State of Illinois and the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. On behalf of that organization we would like to
thank you for your leadership in passing Senate bill 1072. We
believe the $318 billion that you passed serves as a wonderful
floor for transportation funding as we go forward.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, we are midway through our second
short-term extension of TEA-21. We are also entering the summer
construction season. We need to get going and we ask that
everyone involved work quickly to get a bill passed and get a
bill signed so that projects can go forward.
The Administration's request has been documented here today
as well below all transit needs. It threatens a serious setback
in funding and it threatens a serious setback in transit
throughout the country. The work of TEA-21 led to a 22 percent
increase in transit ridership throughout the country. This
brings the number of rides to a 40-year high. This is something
significant and something which should be built upon rather
than taken down from.
What does transit provide? Transit provides a reduction in
traffic congestion and enhances the efficiency of the highway
transportation system. It also provides access to jobs to
people who do not have access to automobiles. As has been said
here, it also provides access to the young, to the old, and
those who are disabled. And most importantly, it conserves
energy and reduces air pollution.
The Administration's budget proposal would basically freeze
transit funding at the 2004 levels bringing $7.3 billion, $6
billion from the highway trust fund drawdown and $1.3 billion
from general funds. The U.S. DOT's most recent conditions and
performance report says that it requires an annual investment
of $20 billion simply to maintain. Now we understand that in
these tough times it is difficult to get everything that we
need. But we are not even funding at half the level of the
stated needs of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
AASHTO's own bottom line analysis says that we need $19
billion, and as Mr. Millar said, $44 billion to improve
service. We are not even scratching the surface of those needs
to improve transit funding.
In my own home State of Illinois TEA-21 made significant
strides in improving transportation. Between the rural program
that was started, we support the common sense changes that you
have talked about here today. We support those in Illinois
because only have two-thirds of our counties have access to
rural transportation. One-third does not. That is something
that we need to change.
Illinois FIRST, in combination with TEA-21, allowed us five
New Start projects. That is significant. But we will not
continue to make the gains at the current funding levels that
we have proposed today. We are talking about jobs in Illinois.
Our Governor has started jobs programs, construction programs,
to provide much-needed jobs throughout the State. The funding
levels brought here today by the Administration do not increase
jobs anywhere.
State transportation officials believe that the transit
program provisions of TEA-21 have stood the test of time and
should be maintained. While guaranteeing funds from the mass
transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, the Administration
would not guarantee the General Fund. That is troubling to us.
States and transit agencies need stable funding commitments to
plan major infrastructure projects throughout the country. The
Administration calls for reducing Federal funding for New
Starts from 80 percent to 50 percent. Given everybody's well-
known funding problems throughout the States, this will not
help improve transit throughout the country.
The Administration proposes to restructure a program so
that 80 percent of the New Starts come from general revenue
funds. These same general revenue funds which they do not
propose to guarantee. This will cause even more issues with
starting New Start project throughout the country.
Giving the States flexibility to fund some of the security
activities out of highway trust funds is a positive. But as has
been demonstrated here today, there are not enough funds for
security issues.
Continuing the ability to allow States to flexibly transfer
funds between highway and transit is a good thing. Doubling
Federal rural transit assistance is also a good thing.
In summary, the Administration's proposed flat-line funding
for transit in fiscal year 2005 is inadequate to address job
access, job creation, needs for transportation for elderly and
disabled. We support the $8.65 billion you have voted on and we
will do whatever we can to help support passage of a bill in
conference committee.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Lundberg.
STATEMENT OF ROLF TH. LUNDBERG, JR.
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESSIONAL
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Lundberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My
name is Rolf Lundberg. I am Senior Vice President for
Congressional and Public Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. I am here today representing the Chamber's 3 million
businesses as the world's largest business federation. I would
like to address the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2005
budget for public transportation and the importance of public
transit in our multimodal transportation network.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is, to echo your
words, very disappointed that the Administration's proposed
fiscal year 2005 budget which indeed freezes public transit
funding at last year's investment levels. Our Nation's public
transportation system is critical to our future economic
growth, to our international competitiveness, quality of life,
and national security. The Chamber of Commerce has urged
Congress to increase public transportation funding. It is a
proven investment that creates jobs and generates economic
growth.
We are happy that this Committee and you, Mr. Chairman,
have worked so hard to significantly increase investment in
public transportation in the transit title of S. 1072. The
Chamber applauds this Committee's effort to remain firm in its
commitment to increase funding for transit. With a short-term
extension of TEA-21 that is set to expire at the end of next
month and infrastructure requirements continuing to grow, now
is certainly not the time to flat line investment in our public
transportation system.
Public transportation is taking on an increasingly
important role in America's multimodal transportation network.
Over the last 6 years, transit use has grown faster than
population growth. These ridership gains are directly
attributable to the significant Federal investments in public
transportation. In 2001, each American traveling during peak
periods wasted an average of 60 hours a year, nearly 8 full
working days, simply in traffic congestion. In that same year,
congestion cost America nearly $70 billion in wasted time and
fuel.
Across America, investment in public transportation is
paying off. Transportation accounts for approximately 17
percent of our GDP, and for American families transportation
represents about 18 percent of household spending, the second-
largest household expenditure after housing.
Without the option of providing strong investment in public
transportation to State and local governments, we will feel the
consequences of a subpar system, congestion, decreased
productivity, more accidents, and a diminished quality of life.
The U.S. Department of Transportation data show that a minimum
of $60 billion per year of Federal investment is needed to
improve and maintain the current physical conditions of the
Nation's highways and bridges. DOT estimates that $20.6 billion
in capital investment is needed annually just to maintain and
improve current public transit services. We currently spend
about $7 billion a year. To meet these current challenges we
must invest more of our limited resources in a better and more
efficient manner.
Mr. Chairman, we applaud the work of this Committee for
developing a package that significantly increases Federal
transit authorizations with appropriate budgetary protections.
We firmly believe that S. 1072's authorizations of $255 billion
for highways and $56.5 billion for public transportation and
guaranteed funding levels are the bar minimum that should be
accepted for any 6-year TEA-21 reauthorization bill. Therefore,
we believe any legislation below the Senate investment number
for a 6-year bill would be unacceptable. As the House prepares
or is debating or will be debating a $275 billion bill, we urge
this Committee and the Senate to continue to insist on a $318
billion level in conference.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will
continue to advocate for increased investment in transportation
infrastructure. The impact of freezing public transit funding
at current levels will increase congestion, decrease safety on
our roads, and set back our ability to improve air quality.
Public transportation is a critical component in a national
transportation system. Increasing capacity on modes of
transportation is needed to meet the growing passenger and
cargo demands.
The U.S. Chamber, and for that matter chambers of commerce
throughout the Nation at the State and local levels and the
business community, look forward to working with you and this
Committee and the President to support funding the Nation's
surface transportation needs, and at a minimum to support the
authorized and guaranteed investment levels in S. 1072. This
investment in transit will ensure that we provide a quality of
life that all Americans deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy answer any
questions you or any other Member may have.
Chairman Shelby. Mr. Lundberg, if you have the information
with you, could you tell me, what the impact would be on
transportation-related businesses nationwide if we were to
enact into law a comprehensive surface transportation bill that
is funded at $318 billion? What would be the impact, first on
transportation-related businesses and second, on the economy as
a whole?
Mr. Lundberg. Mr. Chairman, the business community is, of
course, very concerned about the impact on the economy. The
short answer is it would be extremely favorable. What we do
know is that Government investment in infrastructure stimulates
the economy more than just about any other form of fiscal
policy.
Chairman Shelby. It would mean significant job creation,
would it not?
Mr. Lundberg. It would be a heck of a lot of jobs, and has
been noted at this panel, that number is approximately 47,500
jobs per billion dollars spent. It is an extraordinary return
on investment in transportation, and it would have an
extraordinarily positive impact on the economy and on
businesses in this sector, yes.
Chairman Shelby. Mr. Millar, in addition to the funding,
there are several new initiatives, S. 1072, that I, Senator
Allard, and others felt were important steps towards advancing
the role of the private sector in providing public
transportation services. Specifically, we adopted the
Administration's proposal to allow private operators of public
transportation to qualify as sub-recipients of grant funds.
Would APTA, like the Committee and the Administration, agree
these changes present an opportunity for positive reform?
Mr. Millar. Yes, sir, we do. We think that the steps you
have taken, which is really a continuation of policy directions
you have taken over the years, are very good policy directions
indeed. Ours is an industry that if we were speaking 30 years
ago, people did not see much role for the private sector. But
for a variety of reasons, including the investment in our
industry that this Committee has overseen over those decades,
it is now a much more attractive place for many businesses to
do business. We think the provisions you put in your bill, that
we hope will become law, are a great step in that direction,
sir.
Chairman Shelby. In your opinion, what would be the impact
on the industry and on transit riders nationwide if the
Congress were to flat-line transit spending?
Mr. Millar. Less service, higher fares, less ability for
people to travel, fewer people able to get to jobs, less people
able to get to job training, fewer people able to get to
school, less opportunity, more disparity in our economy. The
list goes on and on.
Chairman Shelby. Increasing rural connectivity and
providing opportunities for service in small communities
nationwide was an important goal in crafting S. 1072, as you
may know. If those provisions become law, can you tell the
Committee what you believe the impact will be on the
communities you represent, specifically rural communities?
Mr. Marsico. I am think, as we said in our testimony and
have said at many times before this Committee, the dynamics
have changed in rural America, are such that we have greater
numbers of older Americans who live in rural communities, and
we also live at a time when their basic health services, their
basic way of doing business in the world has moved further from
them, especially since in health care more outpatient
medication is usually located in more distant urban areas.
Consequently, rural transportation becomes much more of a
priority for them. Any lack of investment or addressing the
fact that that population in rural communities, as you know in
your own State, continues to grow older.
We have to have investment to have more flexible programs
that can be developed in the local communities and in rural
States that can meet those needs. I think if we look around the
country we will see that these programs return huge investments
in terms of the quality of life for our older citizens in rural
communities for very small dollar investments.
I think the other thing that is very clear if you look at
America's network of rural transportation, some of it is faith-
based, some of it is nonprofit, some of it is publicly based.
When you look at that quilt of services you also find a high
degree of volunteers and community people involved at all
levels as part of that process. The special thing about rural
transit is, it spans all of those organizations in a way that
helps make communities stay viable. So anything that
contributes to that obviously makes that quality of life
better, and anything that we do in that area is going to cost
us a lot less for the returns that we are going to get.
Chairman Shelby. Is there a nexus between public transit
and access to health care?
Mr. Marsico. I think in the studies that we did when we
tried to interest the Senate in taking a look at this as part
of the Medicare issue, that we find that based on studies done
by the General Accounting Office, especially in rural
communities, it cost the Government somewhere between $700 and
$800 for an ambulance trip for a senior to a medical facility
when there is no access to public transit. Compare $700 or $800
to the average public transit cost for that trip was between $8
and maybe $18 at the highest level. So, I think in terms of
that it is an obvious mix, it is an obvious issue that we tried
to address in the Medicare bill, and I appreciate your work,
and that of Senator Dodd, in trying to make that a priority in
terms of programs for senior citizens in rural communities,
that we get medical transportation out front.
If we really want to make improvements in lowering the cost
of Medicare and other entitlements, it is always in outpatient
medicine. But outpatient medicine without public or community
transportation, that is not ambulance-based, is not going to be
an effective way to deal with that. Again, if we maintain and
improve the network of transportation then people can stay in
their home communities and stay out of institution, which no
one would choose for themselves.
Anything that we do in that situation makes it better. The
numbers are there. The GAO says it is a good idea, and your
bill, your work, the work of Senator Dodd, is exactly where we
need to take this issue.
Chairman Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Martin, in your testimony I
was struck by a reference you made to some 37 counties in your
home State of Illinois that are devoid of any public
transportation services. That is probably true of many areas
across the country. Has AASHTO done an analysis of particular
provisions in S. 1072 which would have an impact on the
unserved and underserved communities that you reference, in
Illinois but also in other States across the country?
Mr. Martin. I think the gains in TEA-21 are continued with
Senate bill 1072 and I think that is very important. The
difference, when you look at Administration's bill, while they
talk about combining things, that is very good but it is the
funding that the needs to be presented to make these things
work.
Chairman Shelby. How many counties do you have in Illinois?
Mr. Martin. We have 102 counties.
Chairman Shelby. So a third of them, more or less.
Mr. Martin. Yes, so a little more than a third are not
served by any transit. We believe that by combining some of
these programs, taking some common sense measures, we can make
the same dollars or more dollars go farther. I think that is
true of many States. In urban areas, I think as has been said,
it is a little easier to get there. But we have some counties
that have no medical service so you have to cross county to
county to get to a doctor, and that is not fair for people who
cannot drive a car or cannot afford a car.
Chairman Shelby. Gentlemen, we thank you for your
testimony, and your patience in letting us go vote but more
than that, for your substantive input in helping us craft a
good Senate bill. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and response to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
I want to commend Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes for
convening this hearing on the fiscal year 2005 budget for the Federal
Transit Administration.
I also want to thank Administrator Dorn for being here this
afternoon. Although I will not be able to stay for the entire hearing,
it is nevertheless very important for the Members of this Committee to
hear about the Administration's transit priorities for the upcoming
fiscal year.
It has been nearly 2 months since the Banking Committee
unanimously approved legislation reauthorizing the Nation's transit
programs. Thanks to the outstanding leadership of Chairman Shelby and
Senator Sarbanes, we were able to forge consensus on a $56.5 billion
measure for mass transit over the next 6 years.
This amount, I believe, represents a significant investment for
the future. It is especially important for States and regions like my
own that rely heavily on mass transit but whose aging infrastructure
needs repair and modernization.
It is therefore troubling that the Administration's budget
proposal would flatline transit spending at last year's level, without
even an increase for inflation or ridership growth. In addition, I am
deeply concerned that the transit measure approved by the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday is $5 billion
less than the Senate level. I am well aware of the fiscal constraints
that the Nation is facing, but it makes little sense to underinvest in
an area where there are so many unmet needs.
After all, transit ridership continues to grow each year. Why then
is the Administration not recommending more resources to address this
need?
In addition, highway congestion continues to worsen, especially
along the Northeast Corridor. Why then is the Federal Transit
Administration proposing to take away one of our most effective
congestion mitigation tools?
Finally, investments in mass transit create jobs and serves as a
catalyst for economic development. In fact, every one dollar invested
in transit returns eight dollars to the economy. Why then is the
Administration not proposing new transit funds to spur the economy?
If anybody were to argue that there is no need for additional
transit spending, I would urge them to look at Connecticut. This
winter, we had severe problems on the Metro-North Railroad New Haven
Line. A combination of cold weather and aging railcars knocked nearly a
third of the fleet out of service for several weeks. And it was not
just the passengers who were left out in the cold. The economy suffered
as well. People could not travel to and from work. Students could not
commute to and from school. Everything was at a standstill.
Connecticut is not the only State experiencing such hardships
though. Other States, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest that
rely heavily on transit, require increased investments in mass transit
to ensure that their systems run efficiently. For that reason, we ca
not be satisfied with the Administration's budget proposal.
With that, let me again thank Administrator Dorn and express my
sincere desire to work with her to build on the successes transit has
enjoyed over the years.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to discuss the
Administration's proposed budget for the Nation's mass transit needs in
the next fiscal year. I welcome Federal Transit Administrator Dorn
today and look forward to her testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I have strong doubts that the budget that the
Administration has proposed will be sufficient to meet the needs of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure. The challenges posed by
increased traffic congestion, poor air quality, and an aging road, rail
and bridge network require a strong level of financial commitment from
the Federal Government. Unfortunately, I cannot find that level of
commitment in this proposal.
With regards to the Administration's fiscal year 2005 transit
proposal, I am equally disturbed by the levels, Mr. Chairman. The
Administration has proposed a fiscal year 2005 mass transit budget that
is $7.2 billion. That is the same as the Administration's Fiscal Year
2004 Budget request and the same as the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus
Spending bill that was signed into law by the President. This is
clearly inadequate.
I would also like to address transit security. In light of the
tragic bombing in Madrid on March 11 that took 190 lives, I am
concerned that we are not doing enough to prevent a similar attack in
the United States. The Administration has only requested $37.8 million
for Federal transit safety funding for fiscal year 2005. This is also
inadequate.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to address TEA-21
reauthorization. For the past 6 months, Congress has struggled to enact
a reauthorization bill that would help fund highway and mass transit
needs. The Senate passed a bill in February that I consider a good
start: We have set aside $311 billion. But the Administration has
opposed this amount and has threatened a veto. As a result, the House
of Representatives is considering a bill that only provides $275
billion. I find it disturbing that instead of working with Congress to
try to increase the funding for highways and mass transit, the
Administration is instead trying to decrease funding.
I understand that the Administration's fiscal year 2005 proposal
is subject to change. Congress will establish different and hopefully
higher highway and mass transit levels for fiscal year 2005 and the
next 6 years. I look forward to this as a Member of the Banking
Committee. Thank you.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
March 25, 2004
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of the President's Fiscal Year
2005 Budget for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). We are
looking forward to working with this Committee and with Congress to
achieve the goals outlined in our budget request. This budget request
reiterates a number of important elements of the Administration's
surface transportation reauthorization proposal, including predictable
funding through the formularization of most transit programs; an
increased focus on results through a ridership-based performance
incentive program; and increased attention to the needs of people who
are most dependent on public transportation as a lifeline to jobs and
community resources.
The President has proposed spending $7.27 billion on transit
programs in fiscal year 2005, sustaining the record level of Federal
investment in transit proposed by the President and enacted by Congress
for fiscal year 2004. Reflecting the President's desire to make transit
funding more reliable and more predictable, this budget proposes to
redirect funding to reflect an increased priority on funding for rural
communities and programs that serve people with disabilities, older
adults, and low-income individuals who need better access to jobs and
training opportunities in their communities. In addition, the President
has proposed spending $1.5 billion, a 16 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2004 enacted level, for the New Starts program. As American
cities continue to grow, we believe that building and expanding transit
systems through the New Starts program will be an important element of
our Nation's efforts to grow our economy, promote energy independence,
address congestion, improve emergency preparedness, and protect our
environment.
Common Sense Transit Solutions
The hallmark of this Administration has been the pursuit of common
sense transit solutions for all Americans. Over the last decade or
more, a growing awareness of the needs of older adults, persons with
disabilities, and people with low incomes has led to the creation of
new programs throughout Government--some are transportation programs,
but many are human service programs that fund transportation services
for their clients. As you know, in June 2003, the General Accounting
Office identified 62 programs run by eight different Federal agencies
that fund transportation services for individuals in these groups.
Local governments, community groups, and nonprofit agencies have also
stepped in to help address these important transportation needs. This
growing and complex web of transportation services is, without
question, a positive reflection of the increasing attention that
community stakeholders, the Federal Government, and Congress have
placed on meeting the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
Ironically, this impressive investment of money, time, and energy
in public transportation has not solved the transportation problems of
the people they are intended to help. Our communities have adopted a
myriad of human service transportation networks, which to varying
degrees involve transit agencies that provide fixed route or demand-
responsive public transportation and paratransit services, nonprofit
agencies that operate transportation exclusively for use by their own
clients, and human service agencies that provide funds to individual
clients to purchase transportation services. Unfortunately, in most
communities, making sense of these complicated networks is a difficult
task that is still left to the customer. Typically, each agency that
provides transportation has its own rules, billing practices, customer
entry points, destinations, and routes. In some communities, two or
more agencies run essentially the same route each day; but they may be
permitted to serve only older adults or people with disabilities, not
both, so they cannot pool their resources. Sometimes, one agency
duplicates another group's service simply because it does not know what
the other agency is doing. In still other cases, common sense transit
solutions, such as the sharing and coordination of transit resources,
are foiled by conflicting grant restrictions and requirements. In these
situations, more can become less for the people who need public
transportation and must navigate a dizzying array of agencies and
requirements to access work, medical care, and community events.
Improving the coordination of human service transportation is one
of the top priorities for the President, Department of Transportation
Secretary Mineta and for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). On
February 24, President Bush signed Executive Order 13330 bringing 10
Federal agencies together on the Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and charging them with the
tasks of eliminating duplication and overlapping Federal programs and
improving the coordination of Federally supported transportation
services at all levels.
The Executive Order was announced at the first National Leadership
Forum on Human Service Transportation Coordination, convened by
Secretary Mineta and his counterparts in the U.S. Departments of Labor
(DOL), Education (ED) and Health and Human Services (HHS)--Secretaries
Chao, Paige, and Thompson--to provide technical assistance to States
and recognize those States that have already taken significant steps to
improve human service transportation. Before an audience that included
Governor-appointed senior leadership teams from 47 States and U.S.
Territories, Secretary Mineta honored five States--Florida, North
Carolina, Maryland, Ohio, and Washington--that have made significant
progress toward building a coordinated human service transportation
system.
Improving human service transportation coordination is also a key
component of FTA's Strategic Business Plan, and I have assembled a team
to work on it full-time with our partners in agencies across the
Federal Government. Already, we have launched United We Ride, a five-
part initiative that encourages the coordination of transportation
services for people to access health care, employment and employment-
related services, and other community resources. In addition to the
National Leadership Forum and State Leadership Awards, the United We
Ride initiative includes:
A Framework for Action. Created by a panel of experts that
convened in August 2003, this self-assessment tool will help States
and communities identify areas of success and areas where they
still need to take action to improve the coordination of
transportation provided through human service programs, as well as
traditional public transportation.
State Coordination Grants. Grants will be made available to
States to help address gaps in their human service transportation
coordination efforts. FTA has identified $1 million for these
grants in fiscal year 2004.
Help Along the Way. A technical assistance program that will
build on the work of the Community Transportation Association of
America (CTAA), Project ACTION, and other stakeholder groups to
provide hands-on assistance to States and communities in
coordinating their human service transportation programs.
The United We Ride initiative is but the latest in our efforts to
make real progress toward improving the coordination of human service
transportation programs. For some time now, the Department of
Transportation has been working with its Federal partners at HHS, DOL,
and ED to ease the Federal barriers to effective coordination. We have
made progress. Under the leadership of the DOT/HHS Coordinating Council
on Access and Mobility, for example, we opened the door for Medicaid
funds to be used to purchase public transportation passes. Further,
working with our colleagues at DOL, funding relationships have been
forged between employment-related transportation programs operated by
the two Departments.
The DOT/HHS Coordinating Council has also been vigorous in
sponsoring technical assistance for States and communities that seek to
improve coordination of their human service transportation systems. HHS
and DOT jointly fund the National Transit Resource Center that make
available experts and peer-to-peer assistance on human service
coordination, and disseminates best practices and other
resource materials. Earlier this year, HHS and DOT published guidance
on coordinated human service planning practices.
As we did by hosting the National Leadership Forum, we have also
recognized the important leadership role that State governments must
play in promoting and coordinating transportation services. We have
encouraged and supported the formation of the National Consortium on
the Transportation of Human Services Coordination to facilitate
collaboration among State and local organizations. CTAA has taken a
leadership role in the consortium. The consortium now comprises 17
national organizations with an interest in human services and
transportation--including the American Association of Retired Persons,
National Governors Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, National
Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
The FTA fiscal year 2005 budget request and the Administration's
SAFETEA proposal for reauthorization of surface transportation programs
include some important elements that will further promote human service
transportation coordination. I am pleased to note that the Committee's
reauthorization bill (S. 1072), as passed by the Senate on February 12,
incorporated many of these key program components, including provisions
that require local prioritization plans for projects to service older
adults, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals; increase
planning resources and create a new planning capacity program; make
mobility management an eligible expense; and permit other Federal
social service transportation dollars to count toward the local match
for FTA programs targeted to older adults, persons with disabilities,
and low-income individuals.
Like the States and communities that have already begun the tough
work needed to accomplish better transportation coordination, as
Federal officials, we know that this work will reap mobility benefits
far into the future, helping to ensure that every American has the
transportation necessary to access community life, services, and the
economic opportunities of this great Nation.
Finally, I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his leadership and
support of our efforts to improve the coordination of human service
transportation. In Alabama, he has promoted public transportation as a
vital link to employment services for individuals with disabilities and
low-incomes as part of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.
Nationally, he has worked to keep this issue at the forefront of the
Nation's agenda, and was an important champion of the United We Ride
Leadership Awards program.
New Starts
The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget provides $1.5 billion, a
record level of funding, for the New Starts Program. This budget is a
reflection of the Administration's strong commitment to continued
Federal investment in major transit projects that are cost-effective,
locally supported, delivered on time and within budget, and achieve
their promised transportation benefits. It is a $216 million (16
percent) increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and reflects
the specific project funding recommendations found in FTA's Annual New
Starts Report for fiscal year 2005.
In addition to funding the 26 existing and one pending full-funding
grant agreements (FFGA), the budget funds seven additional projects--
five that are expected to be ready for a new FFGA before the end of
fiscal year 2005 and two meritorious projects in Raleigh and Charlotte,
North Carolina. These project sponsors are working on possible design
changes intended to improve ridership that may have an impact on
project costs. They are working closely with FTA to ensure that their
final proposals deliver the most benefits for the taxpayer dollar.
These seven additional projects recommended for funding were among
29 that were evaluated and rated in the fiscal year 2005 Annual New
Starts Report. Of the 29 that were rated: 17 received ``recommended''
ratings (including the seven funded in the President's Fiscal Year 2005
Budget); 7 received ``not recommended'' ratings; and 5 were ``not
rated'' because complete, accurate data needed to rate the project was
not yet available from the project sponsor.
In the fiscal year 2004 process, FTA implemented a time-savings
measure to replace ``number of new riders'' in the calculation of cost-
effectiveness. For the fiscal year 2005 New Starts rating process, FTA
made no changes in measures, break-points for ratings, or weightings
among measures in the determination of ratings. However, we continue to
focus on helping project sponsors develop good projects that are
brought in on time and within budget, and that deliver the promised
benefits. With an increased focus on ensuring a good return on
investment, proactive project cost management by FTA and project
sponsors resulted in a total savings of $673 million for seven proposed
investments. One new tool we are using is a quantitative risk
assessment that helps project sponsors identify the issues that could
affect schedule or cost, as well as the probability that they will do
so.
Originally developed to help manage the Federal Government's risk
with regard to the 100 percent Federally funded Lower Manhattan
Recovery projects, this risk assessment tool has given both FTA and
project sponsors a new quantitative means to manage risk more
explicitly and reduce the likelihood of cost and schedule overruns. We
are currently conducting risk assessments for those projects that are
further along in project development, but will eventually use this
important tool to assist sponsors with projects in alternatives
analysis and preliminary engineering. We know that the earlier project
sponsors identify and understand the ramifications of alignment,
design, engineering, and other decisions, the better our projects will
be, and the fewer undesirable ``surprises'' communities will face in
later stages of development. We believe this tool will be particularly
useful as FTA responds to Congress's request that we become more
involved in project assessment during the alternatives analysis stage.
Enhancing Transit Security
The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget also reflects a continued
commitment to making our public transportation systems as safe and
secure as possible. In fiscal year 2005, we request $37.8 million for
security initiatives, which remain a high priority. This reflects the 1
percent of Urbanized Formula Grant funding grantees are required by
statute to use to increase the security and safety of an existing or
planned mass transportation system, as well as FTA investments in
security training for transit system employees, emergency preparedness
and response activities, and public awareness efforts.
As you know, public transportation is inherently an open,
accessible system intended to help people move rapidly and efficiently
everyday between home and work, shopping, medical care, and other
community activities. While our Nation's approach to security is
necessarily different in this environment than it is in the relatively
closed environment of airline security, we have pursued increased
security no less vigorously.
In light of recent events in Madrid, I believe it is particularly
timely to discuss our efforts with respect to rail security. America
has some form of rail transit (for example, some combination of subway,
light rail, and/or commuter rail systems) in 30 cities and 22 States.
These systems provide 11.3 million passenger trips each weekday. The
systems are locally operated and controlled, and it is important to
note that FTA does not provide operating funds for these systems.
As this Committee is aware, since September 11, 2001, FTA has
undertaken an aggressive nationwide security program with the full
cooperation and support of every transit agency. In each of these
important rail cities, FTA has, in concert with the transit agencies,
conducted risk and vulnerability assessments; deployed, at no cost to
the transit agency, technical assistance teams to help strengthen
security and emergency preparedness plans; and, as part of a $3 million
program involving 83 transit agencies, funded emergency response drills
conducted in conjunction with local fire, police, and emergency
responders.
Based on the full complement of threat and vulnerability
assessments that have been conducted, as well as consultations with
security experts around the world, FTA has pursued a consistent
strategy of promoting emergency preparedness planning, employee
training, and public awareness as the best way to prevent and/or
mitigate the consequences of a terrorist attack. Among other important
steps, FTA has:
Issued a list of the Top 20 Action Items for transit agencies,
identifying the most important elements to incorporate into their
Security System Programs. These elements formed the basis of one of
four Core Accountabilities for FTA Senior Executives in fiscal year
2003, and I am pleased to report that the 30 largest transit
agencies accomplished at least 80 percent of these action items.
This year, our goal is to ensure that those agencies complete 90
percent of the action items and to help the next 20 largest transit
agencies complete at least 80 percent.
Developed the ability to communicate instantaneously with the
general managers and heads of security of the 100 largest transit
agencies. This communication system is tested and used on a regular
basis to provide updates on incidents, as well as security
information bulletins and advisories.
Funded and worked on a daily basis with the public transit
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) operated under the
auspices of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
to provide two-way communication between the intelligence community
and the transit industry, as well as transit-specific intelligence
analysis.
Developed and launched ``Transit Watch'' in the fall of 2003.
Transit Watch is a nationwide emergency response passenger
awareness program, developed and implemented in partnership with
the APTA, CTAA, the American Transit Union (ATU), and the
Transportation Security Administration of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Developed and will deliver this spring, Security Design
Criteria for use by transit agencies as they design or redesign
infrastructure, communications, access control systems, and other
transit system components.
Developed and delivered new security courses through the
National Transit Institute (NTI), including Counterterrorism
Strategies for Transit Police, Conducting Emergency Drills,
Passenger Monitoring and Awareness, as well as updated versions of
transit security courses and security needs assessments.
Developed and will deliver this spring a web-based training
tool for use by communities to conduct table-top emergency
preparedness drills to test agency procedures, share best
practices, and identify needs.
Tested and provided targeted manufacturers and key transit
agencies with information on the costs and benefits of chemical and
biological detection systems.
Developed, in conjunction with Argonne National Laboratories,
and distributed to transit agencies standard protocols and
guidelines for responding to chemical and biological incidents in
rail, tunnel, and transit vehicle environments.
Issued to transit agencies specific guidelines outlining steps
to take at each Homeland Security Advisory Level.
Have substantially completed development and will soon
deliver, a passenger
behavioral monitoring course that incorporates the latest in
international counter-terrorism techniques. This course will
heighten the effectiveness of the transit industry's awareness
training portfolio.
During the recent ``Orange Alert,'' the 30 largest transit agencies
provided, at FTA's request, information about the specific actions they
were taking as a result. These actions include:
Utilizing bomb-sniffing dogs to patrol bus yards and train
repair facilities.
Increasing police patrols and visibility of transit system
personnel.
Increasing frequency of public awareness messages.
Sending reminders to all transit employees, including bus and
rail operators, about what to look for and how to respond to
suspicious packages and individuals.
Maintaining all police specialty vehicles in a state of
operational readiness.
Conducting more frequent Operational Control Center critical
system backup checks.
Assigning transit police to the local police department
command center.
Participating in conference calls with the FBI and emergency
management personnel from the region.
Notifying rapid response team members of potential for call-
up.
Issuing pager and text message alerts to operators and police.
Checking all security systems, including lighting and intruder
alarms.
Consistent with the current alert level, most transit agencies are
now operating under ``Yellow Alert'' guidelines. However, based on
intelligence information, several large systems continue to operate at
the higher ``Orange Alert'' level.
Finally, as you know, we continue to work directly with the DHS,
particularly in the area of intelligence analysis. As you may know,
this fiscal year, DHS is funding $675 million in security grants
through States to urban areas based on a formula that takes into
account factors including critical infrastructure, population density,
and credible threat information. These funds may be used to enhance
overall security and preparedness in order to prevent, respond to, and
recover from acts of
terrorism. In addition, DHS is providing a total of $50 million to 30
rail transit agencies to help enhance the security of their passengers
and assets. Allowable uses of these funds include the installation of
physical barricades; monitoring systems such as video surveillance,
motion detectors, thermal/IR imagery, and chemical/radiological
material detection systems; integrated communications systems; and
prevention planning, training, and exercises.
Despite the complete devastation of three subway stations and over
1,500 feet of track in Lower Manhattan on September 11, no passengers
or subway personnel lost their lives in the attacks, thanks to the
training and quick thinking of train operators, dispatchers, and
transit managers. Today, I am proud to say that America's subways,
light rail systems, and commuter trains are even better prepared to
help prevent and respond to such emergencies.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget proposal for
transit programs is fiscally responsible and programmatically
responsive to the needs of transit consumers. I would be pleased to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR
President, American Public Transportation Association
March 25, 2004
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the Administration's proposed Fiscal Year
2005 Budget for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
About APTA
APTA's 1,500 public and private member organizations serve the
public by providing safe, efficient, and economical public
transportation service, and by working to ensure that those services
and products support national economic, energy, environmental, and
community goals.
APTA member organizations include public transit systems and
commuter railroads; design, construction, and finance firms; product
and service providers; academic institutions; and State associations
and departments of transportation. More than 90 percent of the people
who use public transportation in the United States and Canada are
served by APTA member systems.
Background
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of APTA's 1,500 member organizations, I
want to thank you, and the Members of this Committee, for your support
of public transportation issues generally, and in particular your
successful effort to pass a long-term authorization bill that addresses
critical public transit investment needs, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Equitable Transportation Efficiency Act (SAFETEA), S.
1072. In that regard, I am pleased to advise you that the APTA Board of
Directors at its March 7, 2004 meeting during APTA's Legislative
Conference, unanimously approved a resolution in support of the bill
and commending the Senate Banking Committee on its outstanding
leadership in crafting the legislation. I would be pleased to submit a
copy of APTA's resolution for the record.
Mr. Chairman, SAFETEA builds and improves upon the success of ISTEA
and TEA-21, both of which helped to increase transit ridership by
providing significant investments in transit infrastructure. The
Senate-passed SAFETEA bill grows investment in the Federal transit
program while building on the successful structure of the existing
program. It increases investment for existing programs and addresses
unmet program needs with funding growth. Like APTA's reauthorization
proposal, SAFETEA provides extra growth for the rural formula program,
and it establishes a new tier under the small urban formula program for
communities that provide higher than usual levels of transit service.
It guarantees funding for all programs, regardless of whether they are
funded with general funds or trust funds, and maintains a level playing
field for modal investments by preserving the 80/20 Federal match for
all Federal transit capital programs. Again, we thank you for crafting
this critically important piece of legislation.
Fiscal Year 2005 Transit Investment
APTA believes it is crucial to build on the success of TEA-21--and
the Senate's action on SAFETEA--by continuing to provide significant
investment in the Nation's transit and highway infrastructure in the
fiscal year 2005 budget. That investment advances key national goals by
producing jobs, providing more mobility options to all Americans,
improving the environment and reducing dependence on foreign oil, and
by providing a solid return on the investment. In short, we urge that
Congress provide no less than the $8.65 billion level included in the
Senate-passed SAFETEA bill in fiscal year 2005.
The Administration's 2005 Budget
In contrast to this Committee's proposal for transit funding in
fiscal year 2005, Mr. Chairman, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2005
Budget proposes to freeze funding for the Federal transit program at
the fiscal year 2004 level of $7.266 billion. Here's why we think that
is a bad policy.
Fails to Meet Capital Needs
The Administration's proposed funding level would not even fund the
transit capital costs of maintaining current service, let alone support
funding levels needed to improve the system. Communities across the
country are rehabilitating and expanding public transportation systems
and constructing new ones. According to the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), more than 550 local public
transportation operators currently provide services in 319 large and
small urban areas; 1,260 organizations provide public transportation in
rural areas; and 3,660 organizations provide services to the aging
population and disabled individuals throughout the Nation.
Through improved mobility, safety, security, economic opportunity,
and environmental quality, public transportation benefits every
segments of American society--individuals, families, businesses,
industries, and communities--and supports important national goals and
policies.
At the same time, the growing problem of traffic congestion
continues to choke America's roadways and constrain community and
business development. Polls consistently show that most Americans view
congestion as a serious problem that
continues to grow every year. Last year, APTA and the American
Automobile Association (AAA) released the results of a poll that showed
95 percent of Americans said traffic congestion, including commutes to
and from work, has grown worse over the last 3 years. The poll also
showed 92 percent of Americans said it was important for their
community to have both good roads and viable alternatives to driving. A
separate poll by Wirthlin Worldwide found that 30 percent of
respondents had used public transportation in the last year, which
means that some 86 million Americans use public transportation each
year.
Annual Federal appropriations for the Federal transit program have
increased significantly in each of the years under TEA-21. Federal
funding increased from just under $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1997 to
$7.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. TEA-21 provided predictable growth in
the Federal investment in public transportation, leading to impressive
results. Service was expanded and improved, ridership reached its
highest levels in 40 years, and public demand for additional capital
investment in transit projects, new transit services, and improvements
of existing systems is at record levels. This demand for additional
service and capital projects comes at a time when many existing assets
are nearing the end of their useful lives and need to be improved or
replaced. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) concludes that an annual capital investment of more
than $44 billion is needed to adequately maintain and improve existing
transit system infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to
stop growing the transit program.
Fails to Grow Program; Program Structural Changes
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget
proposal would reduce by $103 million the funding which the
Administration had proposed for transit in fiscal year 2005 under its
own reauthorization proposal that was released just last May. Inflation
would further erode the purchasing power of a funding level that is
already well short of addressing capital needs.
The fiscal year 2005 budget proposal also continues to include
program changes that have been consistently rejected by Congress. For
instance, it calls for the elimination of the discretionary bus and bus
facilities program, for which there is great demand.
The Administration's proposal also would fold the fixed-guideway
modernization program into the formula grants program and permit the
use of fixed-guideway modernization funds for nonfixed-guideway
purposes. The fixed-guideway modernization program was originally
designed to ensure the proper modernization of the Nation's older rail
transit systems, and it helps ensure that as Federal new start
investment projects age they can be modernized. Rail systems in large
metropolitan areas carry billions of passengers each year and their
ridership has grown substantially in recent years. Many of these
systems are approaching capacity constraints. The Administration
proposal would allow these funds to go to urbanized areas and be used
for any transit purpose, not just modernization. We are concerned that
diverting these funds from fixed-guideway modernization, where needs
far exceed available recources, would only exacerbate unmet
modernization needs and
potentially result in the deterioration of some of the Nation's most
valuable capital assets. The fixed-guideway modernization has been a
critical component of the Federal transit program structure since 1982,
and it is a great success.
Balanced Transportation Investment
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget proposal also modifies
its proposed 6-year transit/highway reauthorization bill. It would
increase funding for its previously proposed 6-year reauthorization
bill by $9 billion, but all of that increase would be directed at
highway programs. In contrast, the proposal would actually reduce
authorized transit funding under the six-year bill by $2.2 billion,
from $45.8 billion to $43.6 billion. And of that amount, only the Mass
Transit Account portion, $37.6 billion, would be guaranteed. If only
guaranteed funding were made available, as has generally been the case
under TEA-21, transit funding would only reach $6.6 billion by fiscal
year 2009, which is some $630 million less than the actual fiscal year
2003 funding for transit!
Mr. Chairman, such a proposal would bring an end to the balanced
transportation investment between highways and transit that has been
fostered under both ISTEA and TEA-21, and has been so critical to the
growth of a balanced intermodal transportation system. Investment in
transit makes sense because it is in demand. Nationwide, many systems
are bursting at the seams, with the highest ridership in 40 years and a
huge backlog of capital improvements identified. In growing communities
where transit has not been a priority in the past, citizens are
demanding new services and capital projects. Public transportation
supports a solid and growing economy by providing access to labor,
decreasing time lost to congestion, and freeing highway and road space
for the movement of goods and people. Public transportation represents
an efficient use of scarce financial resources, because it helps to
mitigate congestion in densely populated areas and provides a mobility
option to millions of Americans. Public transportation represents an
environmentally responsible transportation option because it uses less
fuel and emits far less pollution per passenger than the automobile. A
report by economists Robert Shapiro of the Brookings Institute and
Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute demonstrates that
transit emits less pollution per passenger than the automobile, and if
Americans used public transportation for only 10 percent of their daily
travel needs, the United States could significantly reduce its
dependence on foreign oil. But people cannot use what they do not have.
Now is not the time to shrink transit investment.
Proposal Undermines Job Creation and Economic Benefits
Mr. Chairman, the Administration says it is focused on creating
jobs and improving the economy, but its budget proposal fails to
recognize the role public transportation can play in meeting these key
goals. It is well known that increased investment in our Nation's
transit and highway infrastructure will help the economy and produce
jobs. The Department of Transportation has demonstrated that for every
$1 billion in Federal highway and transit investment, 47,500 jobs are
created or sustained.
The jobs that investment in public transportation can create are
high-paying, stable, and cannot be exported. The jobs created are not
just those needed to operate new and expanded transit service, which
are significant, but significant job creation also occurs in the
private manufacturing sector, which supports and supplies the public
transportation industry. For instance, transit buses are built in,
among other places, Anniston, Alabama; Wichita, Kansas; Brownsville,
Texas; Lamar, Colorado; St. Cloud, Minnesota; Hayward, California;
Imlay City, Michigan; Pembina, North Dakota; and Oriskany, New York.
Engines for those buses may be built in Detroit, Michigan or Columbus,
Indiana. Spending on transit also benefits hundreds of other private
sector companies around the United States that build rail cars,
fareboxes, vehicle parts, and equipment or provide software,
engineering, and construction services for the transit industry.
According to a Cambridge Systematics, Inc. study, for every $10 dollars
spent on transit capital projects, $30 dollars in business sales is
generated. Every $10 dollars invested in transit operations results in
$32 dollars in business sales.
Congestion Relief and Transportation Access
Mr. Chairman, public transportation serves another important
economic purpose: Alleviating highway congestion. According to the
Texas Transportation Institute's ``2003 Urban Mobility Report,''
congestion costs $69.5 billion annually--more than 3.6 billion hours of
delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumed. The report finds
that without public transportation there would be 1 billion more hours
(30 percent) more delay. The average driver loses more than a week and
a half of work (62 hours) each year sitting in gridlock. The average
cost of congestion per peak road traveler is $1,160 a year. Congestion
holds up more than 64 percent of the Nation's freight that moves by
truck on highways, which represents annual value to the economy of more
than $5 trillion. As Paul Weyrich and Bill Lind of the Free Congress
Foundation demonstrate in their study, ``How Transit Benefits People
Who Do Not Ride It,'' public transportation, by alleviating congestion,
brings real benefits not just to those who use it, but also to those
who do not use it.
But public transportation does not just improve the economy by
taking cars off the road--it provides transportation options to low-
income workers who cannot afford to drive to work. According to the
Surface Transportation Policy Project, the proportion of household
expenditures devoted to transportation has grown from 14 percent in
1960 to almost 20 percent today. A recently published U.S. DOT Bureau
of Transportation Statistics Issue Brief found that Americans who
commute by car or truck spent about $1,280 per year in 1999, while
those who were able to use public transportation to get to and from
work spent just $765 per year. Clearly public transportation provides
real and needed savings for the many entry-level workers coming into
the workforce who are so critical for the Nation's economy.
Demand for Public Transportation Service and Options
Last November, voters in several cities, including Denver, Houston,
Grand Rapids, and Kansas City, approved by large margins new local
taxes to provide new and expanded public transportation services. These
were just a few of efforts across the country to increase funding for
transportation infrastructure, and they follow successful actions in
other cities over the past 5 years to expand transit service, including
votes in Phoenix, Charlotte, Dallas, and Minneapolis.
That these referenda have been approved should come as no surprise.
Polls have consistently shown that the American public not only
supports increased public transportation services but also supports
providing the resources to pay for it. A Wirthlin Worldwide poll taken
for APTA showed that 80 percent of Americans surveyed see quality of
life benefits from increased investment in public transportation; 76
percent support public funding for the expansion and improvement of
public transportation; two-thirds support propublic transportation
Congressional candidates; and a majority of Americans believe
transportation investment is preferable to tax cuts to stimulate the
economy. These findings hold true across areas of all sizes--urban,
suburban, small town, and rural.
The Wirthlin Worldwide poll demonstrates that support for public
transportation has increased dramatically not only in our biggest
cities but also in smaller urban communities and rural areas as well,
where 40 percent of America's rural residents have no access to public
transportation, and another 28 percent have substandard access. It is
estimated that rural America has 30 million nondrivers, including
senior citizens, the disabled, and low-income families, all of whom
need transportation options. According to a survey of APTA members, bus
trips in areas with populations less than 100,000 increased from 323
million to 426 million in a recent 5-year span.
Further Mr. Chairman, the Administration budget fails to help
transit meet the needs of the Nation's population of persons who choose
not to, or cannot, drive because of age or a disability. For many in
this population, public transportation may be the only option to living
a fully independent and productive life. According to an AARP report
for instance, 32 percent of people with disabilities over 65 report
that inadequate transportation is a problem. The report states further
that while public transportation is more economically efficient in
areas with high population density, many older Americans with
disabilities live ``outside of central cities in communities where
public transportation is found least often.'' This is becoming a
growing problem, and it is clear that we need to begin to address the
important transportation needs in these areas. The Administration's
budget fails to recognize this need.
Transit and Homeland Security
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a brief summary of what we are
doing regarding transit security. Transit systems around the country
are working hard to make our service more secure for the millions and
millions who use it every day. In testimony 2 days ago before the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, on the safety
and security of passenger rail and public transportation systems, I
highlighted $6 billion in critical security needs the transit industry
has identified as necessary to keep America's public transportation
systems safe.
APTA's recent survey on public transportation security identified
needs of at least $5.2 billion in additional capital funding to
maintain, modernize, and expand transit system security functions to
meet increased security demands. More than $800 million in increased
operating costs for security personnel, training, technical support,
and research and development have been identified, bringing transit
security funding needs to a total of more than $6 billion.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) does not request any specific line item funding
for transit security. We think it should. To increase security, APTA is
requesting that the President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget request for the
Department of Homeland Security be amended to include a specific line
item for public transportation and that these funds be provided
directly to transit systems so that additional security measures can be
implemented in a timely manner. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request
your assistance and the assistance of this Committee in this regard.
Conclusion
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Administration's budget proposal to
freeze funding for fiscal year 2005 has many shortcomings. It does not
grow the Federal transit program. It would fail to continue the success
of TEA-21 by changing the overall structure of the Federal transit
program that has served us so well. It fails to provide adequate
resources to meet current capital needs, let alone improve or enhance
service. In contrast, APTA recommends that Congress provide no less
than the $8.65 billion authorized under the Senate's SAFETEA bill for
fiscal year 2005 as developed by this Committee. We applaud the Senate
for passing this balanced and important legislation and we look forward
to working with this Committee as it works with the House of
Representatives to develop a strong 6-year authorization bill that
addresses the Nation's need to preserve and improve the Nation's
surface transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to try
and answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may
have.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE J. MARSICO
Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America
March 25, 2004
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, let me begin by
expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be
here today to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget proposals for the
Federal Transit Administration and how they relate to both our Nation's
transportation needs and to the Senate's recently passed legislation,
S. 1072.
The Community Transportation Association and its over 7,000 members
represent transportation providers of every type, size, and location.
Some of our members serve small rural communities, some have deep roots
in the nonprofit and faith-based service sectors, some are large more
traditional transit agencies, and some clearly characterize themselves
as independent businesses. All of them--just like all Americans--have
an important stake in how we finance America's transportation future.
In many ways our members reflect the changing nature of transit:
One that recognizes that no one solution works for every community in a
Nation as diverse as ours, and one where the traditional definitions of
mass transit have been replaced by a new form of flexibility you
recognized in both TEA-21 and in your recent legislation, S. 1072, as
public transportation.
This diversity gives us strength as we seek additional innovation
and investment to continue to meet the mobility challenges of the 21st
century.
This hearing comes on the second anniversary of this Committee's
first hearing to discuss the reauthorization of TEA-21, held in this
very room in March 2002. To paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, we have
returned to the place we started, and know many of the things we said
then remain true and just as important today.
We knew then and we know now that Federal investment in public
transportation is an investment that returns real dividends to the
American people. For every dollar provided in transit spending and
investment, transit returns $8 to the American people. We also know
that every dollar invested in transit creates jobs.
But there are other kinds of returns on investment that do not
lend themselves to numbers or statistics. They are the real stories of
individual success and achievement that we cite later in this
testimony.
Our testimony supports what we knew then and know now that
investments in public transit helped end welfare as we know it, that
transit is a primary way that millions of our fellow Americans go to
work every day and will be the primary way that Americans go back to
work as part of any economic recovery.
We know that over the last 10 years public transit agencies and
their services regardless of their locations are powerful tools that
guarantee the independence of many of our older citizens and that
strong transportation programs in rural areas allow America's seniors
to maintain their mobility independence. Together with programs and
services in urban and suburban communities, transit is the safe choice
for all of our older Americans.
We know that investments in America's rural and small urban
communities are as essential as transportation investments anywhere
else. Because these investments have all the beneficial benefits in
terms of employment and economic growth that transit provides in larger
communities.
And we know that in times of great distress, whether it be what we
lived through on September 11, or the role transit played last year
during the major power disruptions, or assisting communities in natural
disasters, transit was there doing what it always does in such times of
uncertainty, moving people out of harm's way and literally offering
shelter in the storm.
Despite our success, we are faced with the challenge of not just
maintaining our current level of Federal investment, but we face the
larger issue of finding greater resources that will allow transit and
the communities it serves to move forward to address our critical unmet
mobility needs in this new century. Therefore, we must respectfully
disagree not just with proposals that reduce transit is current
investment but those who would maintain transit is financial status
quo. Make no mistake about it, freezing transit investment or holding
transit to last year's funding level is a reduction in investment.
Critical areas of transit is overall cost structures, like fuel and
maintenance, safety and security, as well as capital improvements, are
rising faster than the current rate of inflation.
Is the mediocrity of maintaining current conditions acceptable,
given the need to motivate people to ride community and public
transportation? Or, do we encourage a visionary approach that secures
the introduction of substantial private-sector capital to be brought
into the capital equipment investment formula an innovative way to
solve the budget shortfall situation? Passage of substantive TEA-21
reauthorization law is the single most important element essential to
persuading the private-sector to commit investment dollars within the
context of innovative financing that is indeed necessary to meet the
need for capital replacement so necessary in community and public
transportation. The increased use of innovative financing is the only
way to bring the Nation's bus fleet up to safety, accessibility, and
quality standards.
Faced with the growing needs of our older citizens, as well as
closing the continuing unmet needs of rural communities, making further
inroads in the fight against congestion, or doing our share to improve
air quality, these are all at risk without higher levels of investment.
Although our investments and success are greater than what they
were, there is much more that needs to be done. There is still much
unmet transit need, and demand for public and community transportation
services outstrips supply. What follows are the real success stories of
community and public transportation, the real successes.
Extending the Economic Benefit of Transit to Rural and Small-Urban
Communities
In our estimation, the success of community and public
transportation ought not to be measured in vehicle miles, unduplicated
trips or even overall ridership totals, important though they are. No,
the success of community and public transportation must be measured by
its impact on the American people and on the local economy. The impact
of public and community transportation is all about moving people to
jobs, to school, to the doctor, to the mall, to social services, and
anywhere else.
Our colleagues at the American Public Transportation Association
have compiled many years' worth of statistical data that show the
positive effects of public transportation in our Nation's cities and
their surrounding suburbs. We commend them on this work, and stand with
them in their findings. But, you may well wonder what value does public
transportation have for that other half of our Nation's population, the
residents of smaller cities and rural areas? To better assess the
positive effect of transit in rural areas and smaller cities, we turn
to the Transportation Research Board. The report, Assessment of the
Economic Impacts of Rural Public Transportation, highlights that
because of the guarantees that you and your colleagues helped assure
for our Nation, many more small cities and rural areas were able to use
to the connections made possible by transit to strengthen their
communities.
Blacksburg, VA
Federal transit funding to this small, university-oriented city,
the home of Virginia Polytechnic University, has yielded demonstrable
benefits in reduced congestion and reduced demand for parking lots and
garages both on campus and in the city of Blacksburg. Indeed, city and
college officials have reported that it would cost the community twice
as much simply to construct more automobile-oriented roads, lots,
garages, and facilities than what is spent in combined Federal and
local transit investments.
Hagerstown, MD
According to Washington County, MD, officials, 80 percent of the
users of the county's transportation services do not own a car; these
same people are riding the public transit system's vehicles to get to
and from jobs on a reliable basis. The net impact on the county's
economy, were these hundreds of predominately lower-income commuters
forced to either purchase and operate automobiles, or leave their jobs
and risk return to dependence on public assistance, has been estimated
at a loss of $2.4 million a year, which is a far greater cost than the
county's annual transit budget of $1.1 million.
Lee County, NC
This rural county's transit program began strictly as a means of
providing basic mobility for the area's senior citizens and medically
underserved populations. The system has grown mightily over the years,
and now provides a full range of transportation services to link
residents with work, job training, health care, and social services.
Interestingly, one of the greatest economic benefits that this transit
program brings is the spending power of the county's senior citizens.
Thanks to the modest, but steady, Federal transportation investment in
Lee County, every dollar spent by the transit program has yielded two
dollars spent by senior citizens in local stores, restaurants,
pharmacies, and other businesses. Prior to the creation of the transit
program, these dollars were not being spent in the community.
Clarksdale, MS
The economy in this portion of the rural Mississippi Delta region
has changed tremendously over the past decade, and the area's economic
growth would have been severely limited without the local public
transportation network. This region's transit program began as an
offshoot of the local community health center, which needed to assure
access to basic health care for the large numbers of low-income and no-
income families in the area. More recently, this region has seen the
sudden employment demands of newly constructed casinos, and the transit
program has proven vital to getting these casinos the round-the-clock
workforce they need. Public transportation cannot meet such demands for
employers unless its resources are stable and its services reliable.
Pee Dee, SC
Health care is another realm in which public and community
transportation, when it has a stable foundation, helps assure health
and vitality for individuals and local economies. For a moment, imagine
the alternatives: Individuals who must either drive themselves, even
when ill or debilitated, to medical care, or who must use ambulances as
an expensive alternative for reaching hospitals and physicians, or in
the case of many seniors must otherwise contend with the choice of
leaving their homes, and even leaving their home towns, to go spend
weeks, months, years, or the remainder of their lives in nursing homes
and institutional care. Public and community transportation frequently
serves as that lifeline that connects people with critical services,
such as renal dialysis. Its access to other health services also is a
central consideration in helping seniors, persons with disabilities,
and others remain in their homes as they continue leading lives in
their own communities. The regional transit program in this largely
rural portion of South Carolina is representative of so many such
transit systems in its role as a transporter to doctors, dialysis, and
health care facilities. Without the transit service, the annual costs
of health care just in this one region of one State would increase $5
million, a burden that largely would fall on other Federal and State
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, that can ill afford such costs.
Thanks to the stable, assured transit funding of TEA-21, we have
seen similar economic and social benefits throughout the Nation over
the past 5 years. Seniors and others in rural areas of South Dakota now
are able to take public transportation to health services, stores, and
other places they never before could access. Rural regions such as the
Upper Cumberland area in Tennessee, the counties surrounding
Charlottesville, VA, and countless other areas across the country now
have 24-hour transit service, linking late night workers with their
jobs. Such a notion would be unthinkable without the resources of TEA-
21, and we are certain this reliability of transportation helped many
communities, and many individuals, weather the most recent downturns in
the economy.
Not only do we find economic progress in the traditional areas of
transit funding, but we also find it in programs like the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Program.
We find in the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program the same
commitment to public transportation that one might expect in a
Federally funded public transportation program, and also a unique
commitment to individuals, helping them reach the first rung on the
ladder of the American Dream. Community and public transportation were
instrumental in helping to end welfare as we knew it. As part of this
testimony, we have selected several communities, such as Chattanooga,
TN, and Santa Clara County, CA, to spotlight specific success stories
in helping Americans get to work.
Chattanooga, TN
The Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA) used
multi-year Job Access and Reverse Commute Program funds to expand
transit services that connect low-income people with jobs in both rural
and urban parts of Hamilton County, Tennessee. Hamilton County includes
the city of Chattanooga and surrounding suburban communities rich with
entry-level employment opportunities.
Through the Job Access Program, and funds from the Departments of
Transportation, Human Services, and Labor, CARTA sought to fill gaps
identified in a regional study on transportation needs, a study that
incorporated many neighborhood meetings designed to get input from
riders and potential riders in low-income areas. Job Access funds
enabled the system to expand service on five fixed-route bus routes to
improve the availability of transportation to residential
neighborhoods. CARTA extended these neighborhood routes to operate up
to 19 hours a day in order to accommodate those working earlier and
later shifts and on Saturdays.
The regional provider also was able to improve transit service to
employment corridors in suburban areas. As with the neighborhood routes
this service operates 19 hours a day and provides frequent service:
Every 10 minutes morning and afternoon peak, every 20 minutes mid-day,
and every 30 minutes during evening hours. CARTA also used Job Access
funds to purchase vehicles for a new vanpool service to be operated by
Special Transit Services, a private nonprofit specialized provider.
These funds were also used to acquire a new vehicle for Hamilton County
Rural Transportation so it could add a flexible employment
transportation route from a suburban residential area to jobs in a
neighboring city.
CARTA also initiated a travel training program at a rehabilitation
hospital so that people with disabilities could learn to ride on fixed-
route buses, and implemented an integrated fare and transfer fare
systems with the Hamilton County Rural Transportation Service, for
service between the rural demand-response routes that link with CARTA
fixed routes.
CARTA's Job Access expansions helped Aimee Nelligan, a mother of
seven who had been on welfare for years, to gain employment in a
commercial district that was previously inaccessible from her low-
income public housing community. Prior to the change in routing, this
15-minute trip took over an hour, was not possible past 5 p.m. on
weekdays or on Sundays. The trip is now available from 4:55 a.m. to
11:45 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays and from 11:30 a.m. to 7:45 p.m.
on Sundays. Another CARTA rider, George Bryan, a father who works in a
restaurant in a regional mall, is able to take a Dial-A-Ride
Neighborhood Route with his children, see them dropped off in front of
their elementary school, and then transfer to a Main Line route and
continue on to his place of employment. CARTA's Neighborhood Routes
were instituted after consultation with the system's riders, job
training, human service, and employment agencies during the Job Access
planning process. At least three other sets of parents and children
have ridden to work and school together during the 3 years this route
has been in existence.
As a result of Job Access-funded expansions, CARTA created 64
added stops within a half-mile of employment sites with the two new
routes, and 271 new stops within a half-mile of employment sites during
times not previously served that is, late night and evening. The
regional transit agency was also able to reach more than 2,000
employers and 20,000 entry-level jobs, add 1,400 new stops within a
half-mile of residences of welfare recipients, and reach 65 child care
facilities with capacity for 2,200 children within a half-mile of new
stops.
Overall, ridership on expanded routes has increased 15 percent
since the Job Access projects began in 1999. CARTA services now reach
67 percent of Hamilton County's welfare recipients and their families
who are within a half-mile of CARTA services. The system has provided
more than 12,000 fixed route trips on five new and expanded routes and
more than 7,000 child care demand-response trips.
Southeast Missouri
The Workforce Investment Board of Southeast Missouri is using
funds from the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program along with a
match of U.S. Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work dollars to provide
transportation services in Southeastern Missouri. This service area
covers seven of the most impoverished counties in the State, and most
are very rural.
The Missouri Bootheel Transportation Program, as the project is
called, creates an opportunity for residents to go to work at sites
they normally would not be able to access. Some of these job sites are
located out of State in northwestern Tennessee and northeastern
Arkansas, where the job market is richer.
Workforce Investment Board staff works with area transportation
providers to set up routes to select employment sites. Workforce staff
targets employment opportunities for clients that meet strict criteria:
Jobs are in the $8.00 per hour range, workers receive benefits, and
working conditions are safe. Staff assists their clients in obtaining
positions and guarantee them a way to reach these targeted job sites.
The Workforce Investment Board contracts to provide transportation
services with county and regional rural transit providers and one
private operator. The transit providers carry individuals from central
locations convenient to their homes, such as public housing community
buildings and churches, to employment sites.
The Workforce Investment Board and the Missouri Department of
Social Services supports half of the operating budget with Federal
Welfare-to-Work funds and TANF funds, respectively. The JARC grant
covers the balance of the operating budget. In addition, the contracted
transportation provider uses vehicles made available under the rural
transportation program.
On the first day of work at Proctor and Gamble, one rider
describes his experience: ``The bus picked me up down the road from my
home. This was very convenient for me. Knowing that the bus would be
there every morning to pick me up gave me the will to get up and get
dressed to go to work. They expected me to be there. I would feel
guilty if they came to pick me up and I did not go. I enjoyed the
encouragement I got from others on the bus on the way to work and after
a hard day's work. They knew exactly what I was going though because
they were going though the same thing. My family gained respect for me
and supported me too. It is nice knowing there are people behind you. I
would love to see other projects like this one so that others can be
helped the way I have been. There are lots of people in rural areas who
have not worked before, and just receive assistance from the State
because the job opportunities are not good where they live. Not only
has the transportation helped us financially, but it has also helped my
self-esteem 100 percent. My dream is to one day be their bus driver;
maybe give back a little of what was restored in me, HOPE!'' Bootheel
staff undertook an intensive outreach program to find the riders for
the transportation services. This outreach program has been compared to
a grassroots voter registration drive in that job developers and other
partners set up outreach booths in public housing communities, church
basements, and anywhere else where the targeted populations spend their
time. This outreach allowed individuals without transportation to come
in and apply for jobs and register for transportation services.
Staff also market the program, its services and successes within
the community-at-large, communicating that this program is taking
people to locations they could not otherwise have gone and that it is
creating a new opportunity for job development and economic
development. With Job Access funds, Missouri Bootheel has been able to
provide rides to over 700 individuals in the past year. It has allowed
individuals who have never worked to go to work and go off of public
assistance. Currently, about 160 people a day are riding the vans,
taking workers to approximately 10 employee sites.
Bootheel's project manager has attested to the Job Access
program's success: ``Many long-term welfare recipients have become
company people with benefits, vacation, and an income to support their
family. People who had very little hope for the future now have an
opportunity to work because of transportation.'' The Bootheel
transportation program also benefits other members of the community.
For instance, area rural transit providers have increased the number of
riders on their services due to the contracts with the Southeast
Missouri Workforce Investment Board. Additionally, the transportation
program has given employers an opportunity to tap into a new job market
that was not previously available to them. Since the transportation
service brings new employees from other counties and other States,
employers have found a new and valuable labor resource. For example,
the Tyson poultry plant currently employs approximately 80 of Bootheel
Transportation's participant riders and continually gives the Workforce
Investment Board orders for new positions. Finally, with more families
earning steady incomes, the Bootheel transportation program has also
benefited the local economy. Another success of the Bootheel project
has been tackling a challenge that comes with the territory of
workforce development: Job retention. Bootheel staff and employers
created techniques to help employees who were riding the vans stay in
their jobs. Among the techniques include: Free bus pass vouchers,
stipends, raffles, and leadership trainings.
Santa Clara County, CA
Santa Clara County, California, home to Silicon Valley high-tech,
manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries, offers a
range of employment, training and educational opportunities to welfare
recipients and other low-income people. However, these opportunities
are just out of grasp for those who cannot access them. While there are
a myriad of transportation options available in the Silicon Valley a
countywide bus and light-rail system, intercity and commuter trains, a
host of shuttle services, and connections to out-of-county
transportation their routes and schedules do not always match the
mobility needs of low-income workers. A Santa Clara public/private
partnership responded to this transportation gap when it formed the
Guaranteed Ride Program (GRP). GRP offers CalWORKs (California's
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program) participants and other
low-income individuals a short-term transportation service should they
need a back-up ride. GRP is a temporary, transitional service that
provides participants with up to 60 rides to work-related destinations,
including childcare and school. Job Access and Reverse Commute funds
support this service, along with CalWORKs funds from the county
Department of Social Services. GRP provides its door-to-door service 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
Many of the nearly 2,500 enrolled Guaranteed Ride Program
participants have used the service to leave work to pick up a sick
child, get home after working beyond the operating hours of area
transportation services, access a job interview or training site, or
reach a job when one's car is disabled. Since its inception, GRP has
provided more than 60,000 trips to CalWORKs participants and other low-
income riders.
OUTREACH, a private nonprofit that provides outreach and support
to Santa Clara County senior citizens and people with disabilities,
operates the Guaranteed Ride Program. As the community-based
transportation broker for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority, OUTREACH takes advantage of its expertise in the
transportation field, particularly serving people with disabilities,
and the technology it routinely uses to schedule trips, track vehicle
locations, and map travel patterns and needs. Peggy was already a
passenger on OUTREACH's ADA service when she enrolled in the Job
Access-sponsored Guaranteed Ride Program. She used the program for free
rides to employment training and job interviews, saving the monthly
transportation assistance from the county for ADA service. Peggy now
has a part-time job and continues to look for additional employment.
She feels that the program served her needs very well, and in her
words, this helped, ``make an incredible difference for people who have
no other options.'' Another rider enrolled in the Guaranteed Ride
Program while attending a local community college. Like all GRP
clients, she is able to take her children to school and childcare on
her way to college. Taking advantage of this program simplified
transportation for her family while she completes her education.
As part of the Guaranteed Ride Program, OUTREACH staff provides
individualized transportation planning service, promoting job access,
retention and self-sufficiency through one-on-one management of client
mobility needs. County social
service and workforce development staff participate in ongoing training
to understand the various transportation options available, including
GRP, and how to help clients learn about and obtain long-term
transportation solutions. Multilingual transportation resource guides
are available to CalWORKs participants and agencies, and transportation
resource centers have been established in four of Santa Clara County's
one-stop centers. ``Simply stated,'' adds OUTREACH Chief Executive
Officer Kathryn Heatley, ``The Guaranteed Ride Program expands
effective existing resources to reduce transportation barriers and
increase accessibility for CalWORKs participants.''
Allegan County, MI
Lack of public transit prevented many residents of Allegan County,
Michigan, a large rural area bordering Lake Michigan, from securing
jobs, and subsequently, prolonged their reliance on welfare and other
government services. The transit service created in 2000, however,
provided new connections. With investment from the Job Access and
Reverse Commute grant program, Allegan County is now meeting employment
transportation needs with benefits that have reached many of the
county's low-income, including employees with disabilities.
The new service funded with Job Access dollars, matching funds from
the Michigan Department of Transportation and Family Independence
Agency, and operating dollars from a fee-for-service contract with the
Allegan County Community Mental Health and Work First offers
transportation to jobs and other destinations Monday through Friday
from 5 a.m. until midnight. Allegan County Transportation rolled out
its Job Access operating with two vehicles donated by the Community
Mental Health and Allegan County Resource Development Committee.
Currently, the system runs six vehicles, four of which are lift-
equipped. While the service is demand responsive, Allegan County
Transportation offers subscription service for regular commuters, and
will deviate out of its service area on request. In addition, drivers
will pick up passengers who flag down the bus at stores and other
locations.
Shannon is one beneficiary of the new Job Access-funded Allegan
County Transportation service. Shannon gave up her driver's license
when her epilepsy started to impair her driving abilities. As a respite
from walking to and from work, she began taking Allegan Transportation.
She learned about the service from her mother and her Family
Independence Agency caseworker. Prior to the service, Shannon would
walk to and from her job in all weather conditions and in the early
morning darkness. After being followed by an unknown man one day at 4
a.m., Shannon began taking rides to work from her co-workers. Today,
Shannon's new husband drives her to work and the Allegan bus takes her
home after a stop at day care to pick up her child. Shannon says her
job provides her with steady employment and keeps her busy.
Over the past year, Allegan County Transportation has carried an
average of 1,200 passengers a month. Sixty-five percent of these riders
are people with disabilities, most using the service to reach jobs both
in and out of the county. These employment destinations are largely in
the service industry at hotels, restaurants, stores, gas stations, and
other locations.
Rhode Island
The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) has started an
employment transportation service for people with disabilities using
Job Access and Reverse Commute funds from the Federal Transit
Administration. RIPTA has implemented five flexible service
demonstration programs in Rhode Island's low-density suburban and rural
communities that provide disabled individuals with a reliable zoned-
based system. Called Flex Service, this program takes riders to work
and other destinations in their community. Passengers can also travel
outside their communities using Flex Service, then transferring to
RIPTA's specialized service.
The need for Flex Service became apparent when a statewide survey
revealed the unmet work-related transportation needs of Rhode Island
residents with disabilities. The results showed that 20 percent of the
respondents lived in the five suburban and rural areas of Woonsocket,
Coventry, West Warwick, Narragansett, or Westerly; 81 percent of those
people found reliable transportation an obstacle to accepting a job.
For these people, transportation services are key to employment and
self-sufficiency.
Maria, who is visually impaired, has been using RIPTA's Job Access-
funded Flex Service to get to work for about a year. Flex Service picks
her up in front of her house and brings her to work at two different
nursing homes. Her hours and work location vary each day of the week,
but a standing reservation with RIPTA meets the mobility needs of a
variable work schedule. Without the service, her husband would have to
drive her to work. Because their work hours do not match, Maria would
not have the flexibility her position currently requires. When asked
about Flex Service, Maria reported, ``The new system is great! It costs
less and the door-to-door service is wonderful. Thanks to all who made
it possible.''
As a wheelchair user, Martin qualifies for ADA complementary
transit service. His job as a customer service representative, however,
is located a mile outside of the \3/4\-mile service corridor. The
situation forced Martin to take a taxi from the edge of the corridor to
work. Not only expensive, but also taxis in the area were not
wheelchair accessible, and the trip was so short that he was having
difficulty getting the taxi companies to provide the trip each day on a
timely basis. He began using Flex Service the day the service started,
and, in combination with a ADA bus, has been using it to get to work
each day for 14 months.
RIPTA is providing 160 trips per month to people with disabilities,
who use Flex Service to get to work and other destinations such as
shopping at the local mall. Passengers take transportation from any one
of the five Flex Service locations and transfer to RIPTA's paratransit
service to go to the Amtrak station in Providence.
Voices from the Community
As mentioned earlier in this testimony, there are unique
connections to individuals that we do not usually find in Federally
supported transportation programs. We were able to gather information
from some of these individuals to better articulate the different kinds
of economic impact that these services make.
``People Who are Ill Need Transportation''
Dorothy Bougie is 73 years old, and lives in rural Alfred, Maine.
Her home, in which she has lived for the past 50 years, is somewhat
isolated in the southern-most part of the State, about 40 miles
southwest of Portland.
Three times a week, Dorothy heads to Sanford for dialysis. She has
been a dialysis patient for 3 years now. Up until recently, Dorothy
still drove anywhere she needed to go, including to her dialysis
treatments. But then she had an accident, totaling the car. She bought
a new car, and then had another accident, totaling another car.
``I got a lecture from my son when I had the second accident,''
says Dorothy. ``He made me feel like a highway menace. But I did think
that, perhaps, it was a sign that I should not be driving. Problem was,
there was no other way to go.''
Dorothy does not qualify for Medicaid, as her income puts her just
over the limit. With her husband's pension from General Electric and
Social Security, her modest income makes her ineligible for Medicaid,
which she's come to learn is a distinct disadvantage.
``The people who make the rules in Washington--and in Maine--they
should focus on the need and not the income guidelines,'' says Dorothy.
``People who are ill need some transportation if they need it.''
Thankfully for Dorothy, just when she could not figure how to get
around anymore, she found a solution. She had begun to really hate
having to ask neighbors and friends for rides, most of whom are as old
as she and experiencing their own medical challenges. What is more, her
two sons live too far away in New Hampshire and Connecticut, and there
was no church service to provide the service.
Enter the York County Community Action Agency in nearby Sanford,
riding to the rescue offering a regular trip to dialysis.
``The service is great and I was getting desperate. You know, the
only good thing about dialysis is that if you ever decide that you just
cannot deal with getting there anymore, you have only got 5 days before
you lapse into a coma,'' says Dorothy.
But more than anything else, Dorothy has grown to learn just as
critical mobility is to both her independence and quality of life.
``Living in my home is important to me,'' says Dorothy. ``It is
peaceful and quiet and the idea of moving into one of those. . .
facilities where everyone just sits around and complains, well, it is
not for me.''
``How to Get Around?''
The car wreck was enough. James Mearnf, 69, of Clarksburg, WV (in
the central part of the State) recalls. ``I could not feel the brake
pedal, and I did not want to kill anyone.''
So he stopped driving 2 years ago. But that raised another
quandary: How to get around? And for James, it was a matter of life and
death because he is diabetic and has been receiving dialysis treatments
at the local dialysis clinic about 15 minutes from his house.
His wife does not drive, and they both rely on Central West
Virginia Transit Authority (CWVTA) for much of their transportation
needs.
``You cannot beat it,'' says the former Sports Editor of the
Clarksburg Exponent who also spent 30 years as a social studies
teacher. ``I would seen the vehicles around town for years but never
really knew what they were doing. Now I rely upon them.''
Besides allowing James to access life-sustaining dialysis
treatment, the transit authority allows him and his wife to get just
about anywhere they need to in the county.
``People who have readily available transportation take it for
granted. But you like to get out a little bit,'' says James. He also
adds that community transportation services have helped him and his
wife remain in the house they have lived in for the past 36 years,
which to him is crucial.
James acknowledges that they are fortunate to have such services
available at a reasonable cost. ``It is a really great help to our
overall quality of my life. Without it, I could not take part in
anything at all.''
``You Have No Choice''
``After four hours hooked up to that machine, you are pretty
weak,'' says Norman Naimey, 72, of Cape Elizabeth, Maine, about his
thrice-weekly dialysis treatments in nearby Portland. ``I used to
drive, but it just got to be too much.''
Norman knows that it is hard for most people to understand what it
means to be dependent upon dialysis to stay alive. The four-hour
treatments leave him weak-legged and terribly chilled. But he knows
that literally he has no choice.
Today, Norman relies on Portland's Regional Transportation Program
to get to his dialysis. It is an agency for which he has much
admiration.
``I really depend on the Regional Transportation Program; it helps
my wife and me remain independent and it is helping to keep me alive,''
he says.
``When you go on dialysis, you pretty much go on for life. And you
go three times a week, period. You cannot put it off. You cannot
postpone it. You have no choice,'' says Norman.
What the local transit program does three times a week, according
to Norman, is save his life and help maintain his independence.
``I do not have to worry about transit at all now. They get me
there and back,'' says Norman. ``I would like to see the system get
some newer vehicles. The small bus I rode yesterday had 175,000 miles
on it.''
``I Don't Know What We would Do''
Eloise and Donald Beuhring live in Huntington, WV, not far from
the Kentucky and Ohio borders. Married since 1945, the couple had
retired to Florida, but returned to West Virginia to be closer to
family and the help they could provide.
Eloise, 79, has been on dialysis since December 1997. ``I used to
drive her myself, but I cannot do that anymore,'' says Donald, an 82-
year-old former postal worker and WWII veteran. Physically, Donald can
no longer manage to transport Eloise, who requires the use of a
wheelchair. They now rely on the Wayne County Transportation Authority
to access the treatments that keep her alive.
Unlike Medicaid, which the Beuhrings are not eligible for,
Medicare does not cover the cost of transportation to and from dialysis
treatment. If it were not for the services provided by Wayne County,
Donald says he and Eloise would have few options.
``I do not know what we would do. We would have to get help from
somebody.'' Their daughter works full time, but still makes time to
help out with sorting their bills, do Eloise's hair and ``get her all
prettied up,'' according to Donald. But she would not be able to take
the time off from work to drive Eloise to dialysis three times per week
even if she had the physical ability, and Donald says the couple would
not feel good about having to rely on neighbors.
Donald is grateful for the service provided for his wife by Wayne
County Transit Authority. ``They do it very well; there is nothing they
could really do to improve. They do it very well.''
``I would Rather Be Home''
``I would rather be home, here with my wife and family,'' says
Benjamin Leighton of Windham, Maine. ``Going into one of those senior
homes just is not for me.''
But it seemed that remaining independent and in his own home was
increasingly not realistic for Benjamin. Already reliant on portable
oxygen, last August he was placed on dialysis treatments three times a
week. At first, his wife drove him, but she soon underwent surgery on
her arm that made driving unbearable. Thankfully, a nurse and a social
worker had both spoken to Benjamin about transportation through
Portland's Regional Transportation Program.
``Thankfully, I knew about the transportation, so they were able
to set me up with a volunteer driver in his own car, who takes me and
another gentleman from Yarmouth down to Portland for treatments,'' says
Benjamin. ``He is an 80-year old former World War II fighter pilot in
amazingly good health.'' All told, the trip is 45 minutes, one-way.
``Some people I know are able to drive after dialysis, but I
really do not know how they do it,'' says Benjamin. ``I am right dead
after it.''
For Benjamin, the only problem he has had with his transportation
is that the ride down to Portland often aggravates his bad back, and
then he has to sit in the chair for dialysis for four-to-five hours.
But he is hesitant to complain too loudly.
``Hey, I cannot complain because I had no other way to get there
and their trip is much better than nothing,'' he says.
``It is Saving My Life''
When told that some areas of the country do not have the kind of
community transportation she relies on to get to her dialysis
treatments, Sylvia Thompson's reply was simple: ``Tell them to get it.
It is saving my life.''
Sylvia, like many dialysis patients, suffers from diabetes and has
not been able to drive for over 2 years. She cannot get into or out of
the car and receives door through door transportation from the Wayne
County (WV) Transit Authority.
Three times per week she makes the nearly 80 mile roundtrip to the
dialysis clinic for the three-to-four-hour treatments that remove
toxins from her blood and keep her alive. The treatments, however, take
a toll.
``By the time it is done, I am ready for bed,'' says Sylvia. She
has been doing this for the past year.
Sylvia is 72 and has lived in her current home with her husband
Clifford for the past 22 years. She recently became eligible for
Medicaid and it covers the cost of her dialysis transportation, which
Medicare did not.
``The van service is wonderful,'' says Sylvia. ``The drivers are
excellent. They come no matter what the weather. . . I could not be
treated any better.''
Sylvia also notes that ``a lot of people rely on Wayne Co. Transit
for cancer treatment and things like that.'' She says, ``I do not know
what would have happened if they were not there.''
``Transit is Something Great''
Randall Pierce lives 10 minutes from the dialysis center that he
must visit three times per week, but since he can no longer drive, the
distance might as well be 1,000 miles.
He lives with his wife in Clarksburg, WV. A former heavy equipment
operator, Randall is paraplegic and has been on dialysis for a year and
a half. He had to stop driving his own lift-equipped van last year
because of medical complications exacerbated by driving, and his wife
tried driving him to his treatments--but that interfered with her job.
The Central West Virginia Transit Authority (CWVTA) now helps Randall
access dialysis.
The transit authority also allows Randall to go other places when
his wife is not available to drive him. ``It is county-wide
transportation,'' he says. ``They have many lift-equipped vehicles.''
To Randall, and others with similar needs, community
transportation is ``Something great. Especially in the more rural
counties.''
An Avoidable Tragedy
Our final story is too real. A veteran of the Korean War, a
decorated sailor who reached the rank of Ship's Serviceman, Third
Class, recently died in Shelburne Falls, MA. He was 68 years old, and
he was ill--his kidneys were failing and he needed dialysis treatments
three times a week.
``He'd still be alive today if he had adequate transportation,''
says Leo Parent, director of Veterans Services with the Central
Franklin County (MA) District in Turners Falls.
This gentleman--whose name we will not use out of respect for his
privacy--lived too far outside the service area of any public or
community transit systems and did not qualify for Medicaid.
The veteran used to drive himself the 10 miles, one-way, to his
dialysis appointments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. This much
we know, because it was the local police department that first notified
the local Veterans Administration that some alternate form of
transportation was necessary. According to the police, he was simply to
weak to safely drive home from his four-hour dialysis sessions. A home
health care worker agreed, noting that the veteran was at-risk for
automobile accidents and falls. They were forced to take away his
driver's license.
``Now, I cannot go anywhere, I am stuck in this house,'' says
Parent, recalling the gentleman's reaction to having his driving
privileges revoked.
The VA contracted with a driver to take him into Greenfield, MA,
and for a little while all seemed well. But officials with the VA did
not realize that she, too, was ill and uncomfortable driving in the
snow and ice that is inevitable in Western Massachusetts in the winter.
Sometimes, when she could not take him, Parent himself would actually
go and get the veteran and take him to dialysis.
``He did not want to call and be an inconvenience,'' recalls
Parent.
Tragically, the volunteer driver died of her illness, and the
veteran was stranded once again, this time with dire results. Parent
estimates he missed 2-to-3 weeks of treatments before the VA could
contract with a local taxi company to reinstate the life-saving
transportation services.
He died, not long after, from complications that most assuredly
arose from his missing dialysis. He died for a lack of transportation.
``If our vets do not drive, then it is a serious transportation
problem, particularly in the rural areas of Western Massachusetts,''
says George Ponte of the Veterans Administration office in Northampton,
MA. ``We need to find the resources to make sure this does not happen
again.''
Dialysis patients are not the only ones in dire need of
transportation. The recent health care trend of increasing outpatient
services, coupled with the overall aging of the American population,
make for a serious disconnect. How to get people to continuing and
life-saving care they need? Public and community transportation are the
only answer.
There is a price for progress and there is a bottom line for
transit investment. Your number, the numbers in S. 1072, represent our
bottom line for assuring transit is robust ability to respond to our
Nation's needs.
According to the research firm Cambridge Systematics, ``Every $1
billion invested in public transit capital projects generates 30,000
jobs, and the same amount invested in public transit operations
generates 60,000 jobs. The return on investment could be as high as 9
to 1.'' (source: APTA, ``The Economic Importance of Public Transit,''
November 2003). Another APTA paper, ``The Benefits of Public
Transportation: Essential Support for a Strong Economy,'' cites similar
work by Cambridge Systematics, with local economic benefits ranging up
to $6 billion in benefits for every $1 billion invested.
In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, President Bush, Secretary
Mineta, and Administrator Dorn are requesting that Federal Transit
Administration programs be funded at $7.3 billion for a third
consecutive year. During this same period, inflation is averaging 2.0
percent a year, and the passenger Transportation Services Index, as
reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, has been slipping
at an annualized rate of 3.5 percent per year. Keeping the transit
program on frozen ground, as the Administration proposes to do, will
only lead to further degradation of our Nation's public transportation
infrastructure and will erode the transit ridership gains that we, APTA
and FTA all were so proud to share with the Banking Committee in our
past years' testimonies.
We know it is common to attack S. 1072 and legislation that seeks
to close the gap between our needs both to maintain and expand transit
investment by calling these efforts as pork barrel spending, budget
busters, extravagant, or unnecessary.
These attacks ignore the information gathering of the last 2 years
that started when this Committee took its first reauthorization
testimony, and it ignores the information contained in the
Administration's own Conditions and Performance Report, all of which
tell us that we must invest, or else we settle for the degradation of
the existing infrastructure that continues to serve the American
people.
At current dollars, the Administration's Conditions and
Performance Report estimates it would take a total of $89 billion over
6 years simply to maintain the current public transportation
infrastructure, or $124 billion to improve the Nation's transit
infrastructure in ways that address its present demands. If the Federal
Government's share of these investments were to continue at 80 percent
of project expenses, the Administration's numbers suggest that a 6-year
authorization bill's totals for FTA programs should be between $71.0
and $98.9 billion.
That is why S. 1072 and its proposed investment are so important.
We need the level of investment in the Senate bill to increase public
transit access for America's rural communities. We need the level of
investment in the Senate bill to expand transit is capacity to help our
senior citizens and help them cope with the continuing use of
outpatient medicine for their health care. We need the level of
investment in the Senate bill to help Americans return to full
employment. We need the level of investment in the Senate bill to
reduce congestion and making going to work faster and more efficient
for all Americans. We need the level of investment in the Senate bill
as an incentive to encourage State and local governments to do their
share in making their commitment to transit is future. We need the
guarantees for investment that are found in your bill to give us the
same kind of success we have seen from the guarantees Congress provided
in TEA-21 which are highlighted above in this testimony. And we need
the investments in S. 1072 to maintain the capacity of transit that we
continue to require in light of the uncertain implications caused by
natural and unnatural disasters. TEA-21 is recognized today as a great
success in transit and in highways. Your bill builds on this success.
We know that inevitably there will be a bill passed in the House
of Representatives that will require conferencing with the work of the
Senate. We hope that your representatives will continue to uphold the
important elements of S. 1072 as those efforts are joined.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent events that have
occurred since S. 1072 was passed, we hope that in that conference both
the Senate and the House might consider improving transit is capacity
to further respond to a natural disaster or a major terrorist attack.
Part of this improvement should include the establishment of
National Reserve Fleet of transit vehicles and rail cars, stockpiled
for use in local communities should the need arise.
This fleet, kept in a fully operational standby status would be
able to respond to emergencies as needed. We also believe that some
indigenous fueling capacity for this fleet should be developed, as well
as a stockpile of common transit fuels provided for not just its use,
but for transit is general use in an emergency. In light of the New
York experience, we also think that a standby reserve of ferry boats
for use in emergencies should also be given full consideration. And, we
believe that this fleet should be created in addition to and not at the
expenses of the program you envisioned in S. 1072.
I want to close by thanking you for your leadership, your
recognition of transit is role and potential for our country but most
of all for making S. 1072 the right first piece of transportation
legislation to be passed by either House of Congress in the 21st
century.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MARTIN
Chairman, Standing Committee on Public Transportation of the
American Association of the State Highway and Transportation Officals
Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation
March 25, 2004
Mr. Chairman my name is Timothy Martin, and I am the Secretary of
Transportation for the State of Illinois. I am also Chairman of the
Public Transportation Committee of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. First, on behalf of AASHTO and
its members, let me sincerely thank you and the Members of the
Committee for your leadership in developing and obtaining Senate
passage of S. 1072, which will reauthorize highway, transit and related
funding for the next 6 years. AASHTO is on record with its partner
organizations as saying that the TEA-21 reauthorization legislation
should be funded at a minimum at the levels approved by the Senate.
Transit is a critical component of a balanced intermodal
transportation system. It helps to provide:
Access to jobs and economic activities;
Mobility for the young, elderly, and disabled;
Reductions in traffic congestion and enhanced efficiency of
highway transportation;
Fuel conservation and improved air quality, and support for
security; and emergency preparedness activities.
At AASHTO, we look forward to working with you in seeking approval
of multiyear authorization legislation for the surface transportation
programs. While supporting increased transit funding, we also believe
that the transit program provisions of TEA-21 are working well and
should be continued. The investment in transit over the past 6 years
using TEA-21 has paid off with a 22 percent increase in ridership, and
the highest level of passenger trips in 40 years. Continued ridership
growth at these levels would increase passenger trips approximately 3.5
percent annually, or a 100 percent increase over the next two decades.
Mr. Chairman, AASHTO has significant concerns with the funding
levels in the Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget proposal for
transit. The Administration's Budget proposal would basically freeze
transit funding at the fiscal year 2004 level of $7.3 billion, of which
nearly $6 billion would come from the Trust Fund and $1.3 billion would
come from the General Fund. The Administration's proposed funding level
for transit falls substantially short of the needs documented in DOT's
most recent Conditions and Performance Report which indicates that an
annual investment of over $20 billion is needed for transit.
This need for increased transit funding has been documented in
AASHTO's Bottom Line report as well, which identifies the need for an
annual transit capital investment level of $19 billion over the next 6
years just to maintain the physical condition and service performance
of the Nation's transit systems. An additional capital investment of
$44 billion per year is needed over the same time period to improve the
physical condition and service performance of the Nation's transit
systems, assuring that ridership continues to grow.
In my home State of Illinois, the Administration's flat funding
level for transit would seriously compromise the progress Illinois has
made to expand much-needed transit service in both rural and urban
parts of the State. Through TEA-21's increased operating funding,
Illinois was able to provide rural transit service to 13 additional
counties. However, 37 counties of the State's 102 still do not have
transit service. TEA-21's capital funding in combination with
Illinois's own infrastructure funding program, Illinois FIRST, was able
to initiate five major New Start projects that will help address
growing congestion in the Chicagoland area. However, the region has
growing unmet transit markets such as reverse commuting and suburb-to-
suburb demand, both of which could be addressed with projects that are
ready to go right now with an increased Federal transit program. In
addition, these construction projects alone will create over 57,000 new
jobs to spur the local and national economy.
Mr. Chairman, AASHTO is also concerned that the Administration's
SAFETEA proposal, while ``guaranteeing'' funds from the Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund, contains no similar guarantee for
the General Fund component of transit funding. States and transit
agencies need stable, predictable funding in order to construct major
transit projects. The TEA-21 legislation provides and Senate bill S.
1072 continues guaranteed funding for transit from both the Trust Fund
and the General Fund. It is critical that both Highway Trust Fund and
General Funds for transit are guaranteed in the TEA-21 reauthorization.
The Administration's SAFETEA proposal calls for a reduction of the
Federal funding share for New Starts projects from 80 percent to 50
percent. In order for State and local officials to make balanced
decisions between highway and transit projects, AASHTO believes the
Federal share of 80 percent should be retained for both highway and
transit projects.
AASHTO commends the Administration for its concern with maintaining
the solvency of the Mass Transit Account, but does not support its
proposed program restructuring. SAFETEA proposes that New Starts be
funded at an 80 percent level with General Funds, rather than through
the Highway Trust Fund. Since SAFETEA does not guarantee General Funds
for transit, New Starts would be vulnerable to funding reductions or
elimination during the annual appropriations process. Also, under
SAFETEA, bus discretionary funding would be eliminated and the Rail
Modernization program would be shifted to the formula program. Other
alternatives exist to remedy budget scoring problems that have prompted
these proposals and we would be glad to work with the Committee and
your staff to find solutions.
AASHTO supports giving the States flexibility to fund some security
activities using Highway Trust Funds. However, given the magnitude of
transportation needs, some transportation related national security
activities and capital needs such as emergency response coordination
and communications equipment should be funded through Homeland Security
programs.
AASHTO's Bottom Line report documents the need to double Federal
rural transit assistance from current levels. For many rural regions,
transit access can mean the difference between isolation and inclusion.
Rural transit provides residents of these areas service to jobs, to
medical facilities, and to community activities. As the Nation's
elderly population increases in the coming years, more transit service
will be needed for citizens in rural areas, particularly when they are
no longer able to operate an automobile.
In summary, the Administration's proposed flat line funding for
transit in fiscal year 2005 at $7.3 billion simply would not provide
the level of investment needed to address job access, elderly
transportation needs, improved transit to reduce traffic congestion and
pollutants in the air. The higher level of fiscal year 2005 funding in
the Senate bill, $8.65 billion, will provide more resources to deal
with these issues as well as provide investment in our economy and job
growth. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that
every $1 billion invested in public transportation creates 47,500 jobs.
At that rate, the Senate proposal would create 60,000 more jobs than
the Administration in fiscal year 2005 alone.
We look forward to working with you toward passage of legislation
that funds the highway and transit programs at the levels provided in
S. 1072.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I would be
glad to respond to your questions.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROLF TH. LUNDBERG, JR.
Senior Vice President, Congressional and Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
March 25, 2004
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sarbanes, Members of the Committee,
thank you for allowing me to appear before you today to discuss the
importance of transit in our Nation's rural and urban areas. I am Rolf
Lundberg, Senior Vice President for Congressional and Public Affairs at
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I appear before the Committee on behalf
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing more than three million companies and
organizations of every size, sector, and region. My testimony will
address the Administration's proposed Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for
public transportation and the importance of a national, seamless
transportation network that meets the mobility needs of moving people
in urban and rural areas.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for Public Transportation
The U.S. Chamber is disappointed that the Bush Administration's
proposed Fiscal Year 2005 Budget freezes transit investment at last
year's level. For the Nation, the importance of investment in our
Nation's public transportation system is critical to our future
economic growth, international competitiveness, quality of life, and
national security. Public transportation funding is a proven investment
that creates jobs and generates economic growth. For every billion
dollars invested in transportation infrastructure, 47,500 jobs are
created and businesses experience a $3 billion gain in sales. We
applaud the Committee for your hard work to significantly increase
investment in public transportation in the transit title of S. 1072,
the highway and transit reauthorization bill. With critical TEA-21 set
to expire April 30 and infrastructure requirements continuing to mount,
now is not the time to flat line investment in our public
transportation system!
Importance of Public Transportation Infrastructure
Public transportation is taking on an increasingly important role
in America's multimodal transportation network. Americans used public
transportation a record 9.5 billion times in 2001, and transit
ridership has grown 23 percent since 1995. This represents the highest
level in more than 40 years. Over the last 6 years, transit use has
gown faster than population growth. Fourteen million Americans use
public transportation every day and 25 million people use transit on a
regular basis. Supplementing commuter rail, the passenger and intercity
bus industry serves more than 4,000 communities directly with scheduled
service.
These ridership gains are directly attributable to the significant
Federal investments in public transportation. Right now 3 out of 4
Americans do not have access to satisfactory public transportation
services. In 2001, each American traveling during peak periods wasted
on average 60 hours a year--nearly eight full working days--in traffic
congestion. Also in that same year, congestion cost America nearly $70
billion in wasted time and fuel. Without public transportation
services, congestion would have increased by 30 percent. American
communities nationwide are reaping enormous economic benefits from
affordable, modern public transportation through increased property
value and more tax revenue.
Across America, investment in public transportation is paying off.
Transportation accounts for approximately 17 percent of our gross
domestic product, and for American families transportation represents
18 percent of household spending, the second largest household
expenditure after housing. Without the option of providing strong
investment in public transportation to State and local governments, we
will feel the consequences of a sub par system--congestion, decreased
productivity, more accidents, and diminished quality of life. The cost
of road congestion to the U.S. economy was nearly $78 billion in 1999--
more than triple what it was 20 years ago!
Funding Requirements Not Meeting Demand for Public Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) data show that a minimum
$60 billion per year Federal investment is needed to improve and
maintain the current physical conditions of the Nation's highways and
bridges. DOT estimates that $20.6 billion in capital investment is
needed annually just to maintain and improve current public transit
services. Inflated to 2003 dollars, and using ridership estimates
consistent with current experience, brings that number into the $30
billion range. Indeed, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ``Bottom Line'' report indicates an
annual transit need of $43.9 billion to improve the transportation
system. We currently spend $7 billion a year. To meet these current
challenges, we must invest more of our limited resources in a better,
more efficient manner.
S. 1072 Highway and Transit Reauthorization Bill
We applaud the work of the Senate Environment & Public Works,
Banking, Finance, and Commerce Committees for developing a package that
significantly increases Federal highway and transit authorizations,
with appropriate budgetary protections. We firmly believe S. 1072's
authorizations of $255 billion for highways and $56.5 billion for
public transportation, and guaranteed funding levels are the minimum
that should be accepted for any 6-year TEA-21 reauthorization bill.
Many of our State Chambers of Commerce have expressed their belief that
there is no legislation that will be taken up this year that will
provide critical benefits to all industries, all communities, the
American economy more than the reauthorization of the Federal highway
and transit programs. The Senate investment levels represent the mid-
point between the Federal share of the Nation's documented
transportation needs and the current inadequate highway and transit
funding levels. The Senate-passed bill does not raise the Federal gas
tax or user fee, nor does it increase the Federal deficit. It continues
the important principle of paying for highways, bridges, and transit
through the Highway Trust Fund. Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber would not
support any legislation below the Senate investment number for a 6-year
bill. As the House prepares to debate a $275 billion bill, we urge this
Committee and the Senate to insist on a $318 billion funding level in
the conference report.
Americans for Transportation Mobility
Three years ago the U.S. Chamber helped launch a new coalition
called Americans for Transportation Mobility, or ATM. ATM is a broad-
based organization of transportation users and providers, State and
local organizations, and State and local government officials. The
coalition has more than 400 organizations whose objective is simple: To
build public and political support for a safer and more efficient
transportation system. We are working to achieve our objective through
a two-pronged approach: (1) Ensuring that Congress fully dedicates
Federal transportation trust fund revenues for their intended purpose,
and (2) accelerate the project review process by removing redundancies.
All the money in the world will not help if we are not efficient in the
planning and approval for much-needed improvement projects.
Through ATM, for the first time, the business and labor communities
have joined together in educating lawmakers on the importance of
improved mobility and safety to future economic growth. Without meeting
the mobility needs for the movement of people and goods, our Nation
will not achieve the economic success and quality of life it demands.
The ATM coalition looks forward to working with this Committee in
ensuring adequate investments are made over the next several years in
our transportation network.
Conclusion
In closing, the U.S. Chamber will continue to advocate for
increased investment in transportation infrastructure. We will play an
active and aggressive part in advancing a transportation agenda that
strengthens our national transportation system and allows American
business to compete in the global marketplace. We will remind the
Administration and Congress that infrastructure is not disposable--
rather, it is a strategic asset that must be renewed and protected.
The impact of freezing public transit funding at the current levels
will increase congestion, decrease safety on our roads, and setback our
ability to improve air quality. The U.S. Chamber, chambers of commerce
throughout the Nation, and the business community look forward to
working with Congress and the President to support funding the Nation's
surface transportation needs, and, at a minimum, support the authorized
and guaranteed investment levels in S. 1072 of $56.5 billion for
transit and $255 billion for highways. This investment in our national
transportation system will ensure we provide a quality of life all
Americans deserve.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DODD
FROM JENNIFER L. DORN
New Freedom Initiative
Q.1. One of the centerpieces of the Administration's budget
proposal is its New Freedom Initiative, which would increase
the availability of transportation services to persons with
disabilities for the purpose of helping them get to jobs.
How will the New Freedoms Initiative be implemented? What
will be the mandates or requirements of the new program? Are
there any real incentives or bonuses that will encourage
collaborative planning and implementation efforts?
A.1. The New Freedom Initiative (NFl) will be implemented in
accordance with the provisions included in the Administration's
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act (SAFETEA) reauthorization proposal:
Funds will be apportioned to States by a formula
administered by the Secretary. Moreover, FTA proposes to
base the formula on the number of individuals with
disabilities by State with a minimum allocation to ensure
that each State can implement a meaningful project.
Funds are to be used for new transportation services
beyond those required by ADA.
Fifteen percent of a State's apportionment may be used
for planning, technical assistance, and administration.
Any NFI funds may be transferred to Urbanized Area and
Nonurbanized Area programs for eligible NFl projects to be
implemented by recipients or subrecipients under those
programs.
Grants are subject to requirements of Urbanized Area
program to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate.
Labor protection requirements shall apply using a
Special Warranty. Since this warranty would contain
standard terms and conditions agreed on by Department of
Labor (DOL) and Department of Transportation (DOT), these
would be substituted for a labor certification.
The Secretary may waive the Special Warranty for
private nonprofit subrecipients on a case-by-case basis.
The State must distribute the funds on a fair and
equitable basis.
Recipients must select subrecipients on a competitive
basis. Recipients must coordinate NFI funded activities
with related activities under other Federal programs.
Projects selected must be derived from a locally
developed, coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan.
Plans must be developed through a process that
includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit
transportation and human services providers and
participation by the public.
Grants for capital costs shall not exceed 80 percent
of the net capital cost of the project.
Grants for operating costs may not exceed 50 percent
of the net operating cost of the project.
Local match for grants shall come from undistributed
cash surplus, a replacement or depreciation cash fund or
reserve, a service agreement with a State or local social
service agency or a private social service organization, or
new capital.
Local match may be derived from amounts appropriated
to or made available to a department or agency of the
Federal Government that are eligible to be expended for
transportation.
A major incentive that will encourage collaborative
planning and implementation efforts is that to be eligible to
receive funding under the program projects must be selected
from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan, developed with representatives of
public, private, and nonprofit tramportation and human services
providers and participation by the public. In addition, up to
15 percent of the amounts
apportioned under the program may be used to administer, plan,
and provide technical assistance for projects funded under the
program. Also, other Federal funds eligible to be expended for
transportation may be used as the local match to NFl funds.
Job Access and Reverse Commute
Q.2. How will the formula for the Job Access and Reverse
Commute program be calculated under the Administration's
proposal?
A.2. The Secretary has the discretion to administer the program
according to a formula that considers the number of low-income
people in each State. FTA proposes to allocate the funds
according to a formula based on the number of individuals
within 150 percent of the poverty level, with a ``floor'' level
provided to each State and territory to ensure that a minimal
level is available to each State, including those with a low
population of lowincome individuals, sufficient to fund a
meaningful program.
Q.3. Connecticut has a big concern that a straight formula by
low-income population will severely reduce the level of
services it can deliver with this program. As you may know,
Connecticut's Job Access and Reverse Commute program was one of
the first in the Nation to deliver access to job services. It
has since become one of the models for other collaborative job
access efforts throughout the Nation. It provides about $8
million annually in services designed and tailored in
cooperation with job developers, employers, human service
agencies, and transportation providers to meet the needs of
low-income individuals. Preserving the level of funding for
this program is vital to Connecticut's efforts to continue to
provide services as well as maintain the partnerships that
enable the program to secure matching funds.
I was wondering if you might consider building other
factors into the formula calculation? For example, FTA can
build in a factor that compares incomes with the general cost-
of-living in the State? Funds would therefore be allocated on
the basis of need in an equitable fashion across the country.
After all, earning the Federal poverty level in Connecticut
does not give a person the same quality of life as earning the
poverty level in a low-cost State. I would be interested in any
thoughts that you might have on this matter.
A.3. FTA would consider using other factors in calculating
formula allocation of JARC funding if data on which to base
such calculations is readily available. As you may know, the
House has proposed allocating 60 percent of the funds directly
to large urbanized areas (less than 200,000 population), 20
percent to the States for urbanized areas between 50,000 and
200,000 in population, and 20 percent to the States for
nonurbanized areas. The House has also proposed a formula that
includes density factors as well as low-income population and
population of welfare recipients.
Job Access and Healthcare Service Coordination
Q.4. Administrator Dorn, I want to bring to your attention an
issue that has become increasingly urgent in recent years. As
you may be aware, more and more healthcare services are offered
to the American public on an outpatient basis--services like
dialysis and chemotherapy. In addition, the population is
growing older and more people than ever are now reliant upon
ongoing, continuing care to maintain both their independence
and quality of life.
These two trends are placing some unprecedented pressure on
public and community transportation. It is interesting to note
that Medicare only reimburses older Americans for
transportation by ambulances, regardless of whether or not
there is an emergency. In addition, many older Americans must
fend for themselves on high-priced private sector providers
when local public transit options are not available.
What type of information does FTA have about the needs of
Medicare clients?
A.4. The Medicare restriction on funding transportation
services related to medical reasons has resulted in many
nonemergency ambulance trips and unnecessary ambulance trips
(even though the statute forbids such trips). The funds
currently used for unnecessary Medicare ambulance trips might
be better invested in community transportation services, which
would allow increased access to Medicare services and reduce
the burden on local ambulance providers, allowing them to
better respond to true medical emergencies.
Although the purpose of the Job Access and Reverse Commute
(JARC) program is to provide access to jobs, assets acquired
with JARC funding may be used for broader community needs,
including access to health facilities by low-income and elderly
Medicare clients, once the program related purposes of the
program are met.
Besides the JARC program, FTA funds the Elderly and Persons
with Disabilities Program (Section 5310). These program funds
are apportioned to the States based upon U.S. Census data on
the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities.
State recipients use these funds as they see fit to best meet
the needs of persons with disabilities and the elderly
(Medicare clients among them) throughout their State.
In addition, services provided under other FTA programs,
including the Urbanized Area and Nonurbanized Area programs,
are designed to meet the needs of the general public, including
older Americans. Transportation services, particularly high
quality demand responsive service and ADA paratransit service,
can be costly, and more equitable cost-sharing among agencies
would result in increased access to Medicare and other life-
sustaining and life-enhancing services for older Americans.
Q.5. Can FTA work with the Federal funding agencies for
Medicare? Is this an area for coordination?
A.5. FTA continues to work with Center for Medicaid and
Medicare (CMS), among other Federal agencies, on coordination
of human services transportation issues, Medicare
transportation services among them. An Executive Order on
coordinated human service transportation, issued by President
Bush in February 2004, established a Coordinating Council that
consists of Secretaries and leaders from 10 Federal Departments
and is chaired by the Secretary of Transportation. The Council
is responsible for identifying and implementing strategies to
improve coordination of human service transportation services
over the next year. This includes identifying duplication and
restrictions in Federal laws and regulations. However, because
the current transportation provisions identified under Mdicare
do not allow support for ``nonemergency'' transportation, this
limits our ability to address this issue at this time.
Federal work groups have been formed and are currently
meeting to achieve the tasks outlined by the President in six
areas: (1) Education and Outreach; (2) Consolidated Access; (3)
Regulatory Barriers and Relief; (4) Coordinated Planning; (5)
Cost Allocation; and (6) Useful Practice.
Earlier this year the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility (CCAM) launched United We Ride. This is a five-part
initiative to encourage Government agencies and nonprofit
organizations to collaborate on transportation planning and to
share resources in order to provide the best service for all
their customers. The United We Ride efforts support the
Executive Order in the following ways:
Framework for Action: The Framework is a tool to help
States and communities determine where they are and what needs
to happen. It provides a starting point for groups at all
levels to begin the dialog needed to improve coordinated
services. Needs are identified and an action plan for
implementation can be developed.
State Leadership Awards: These awards recognized States for
their leadership in building and implementing infrastructures,
policies, and programs that facilitate human service
transportation
coordination. The winners, announced by Secretary Mineta in
February 2004, were Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio,
and Washington.
National Leadership Forum: United We Ride hosted a forum
for cross agency, governor-appointed, senior leadership teams
to address State initiatives, to develop action plans and
identify technical assistance needs to improve human service
transportation services.
State Coordination Grants: These State grants are designed
to help address the gaps and needs related to human service
transportation. The award criteria are flexible and simple.
Help Along the Way: This technical assistance program
provides hands-on assistance to States and communities in the
development and delivery of coordinated human service
transportation programs.