[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED RULE ON THE NEW STARTS
AND SMALL STARTS PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(110-72)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-168 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JULIA CARSON, Indiana GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Carolina
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Virginia
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
BOB FILNER, California TED POE, Texas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Louisiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Huffer, Mark E., Kansas City Area Transit Authority, General
Manager, Kansas City, MO....................................... 29
Poticha, Shelley, Reconnecting America, President and CEO,
Oakland, CA.................................................... 29
Simpson, Hon. James S., Federal Transit Administration,
Administrator, Washington, D.C................................. 4
Townes, Michael, Hampton Roads Transit, Executive Director,
Hampton, VA.................................................... 29
Zimmerman, Christopher, Arlington County Board, Board Member,
Arlington, VA.................................................. 29
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 42
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Huffer, Mark E................................................... 46
Poticha, Shelley................................................. 51
Simpson, Hon. James S............................................ 60
Townes, Michael S................................................ 78
Zimmerman, Christopher........................................... 83
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Simpson, Hon. James S., Federal Transit Administration,
Administrator, Washington, D.C.:
Responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio....................... 67
Responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano.................... 75
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.007
HEARING ON THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED RULE ON THE
NEW STARTS AND SMALL STARTS PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
A. DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee will come to order. I want to
thank Members and the witnesses for being here.
On May 10th we held a hearing on New Starts and Small
Starts, and at that time the FTA had not yet issued its
proposed rule for these programs. We had, I thought at the
time, a pretty frank exchange of views and the Committee made
clear and underlined what we thought was the legislative intent
previously. Unfortunately, since that time we now have the NPRM
on New and Small Starts, and I don't think that, as currently
written, it reflects the concerns that were raised in that
hearing. I don't believe it implements the statutory intent,
and it has caused tremendous concern among transit stakeholders
around the Country in terms of the long-term implications,
should it be implemented as currently written. I am hopeful
that we will see some major changes.
We understand we are in the comment period. The FTA has
scheduled some listening sessions, and hopefully not only the
FTA will be listening, but those others in the Administration
who have been involved in writing this rule will be listening
and will be attentive to concerns expressed and perhaps
conveyed to them by the FTA.
I will get into the details of my particular concerns after
we have heard from the Administrator. I appreciate his being
here today. But I really do feel that this is potentially a
failed attempt at rulemaking that, as I said earlier, somehow
there are new provisions that were not authorized by Congress
that seem to reflect the agenda of other parts of the
Department of Transportation and the Bush Administration, and
yet those parts which should reflect the clear statutory
instructions from Congress are still wanting.
So I look forward to discussing this rule with the
Administrator and other witnesses.
I do have a markup on a very, very critical issue to my
district--it is also a national issue--in another Committee, so
at some point I will have to leave, but we will try and move
things along as quickly as we can.
With that I turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have pretty well
adequately stated the situation under the Federal Transit
Administration's New Starts Program. Local transit agencies
partner with the FTA to develop and construct subway, light
rail, commuter rail, streetcar, ferry, and bus rapid transit
projects to try to solve specific local transportation problems
in their communities. New Starts projects can be brand new
starter lines or extensions to existing transit systems. The
size, cost, and complexity of these projects varies widely.
SAFETEA-LU authorized a new Small Starts program within New
Starts for projects that are less than $250 million in total
cost and less than $75 million in New Starts funding. The
program is designed for simpler, smaller projects and the
evaluation and rating process is also supposed to be simpler,
and we hope will allow for faster development and construction.
The FTA project evaluation and rating process is
established in law by this Committee. SAFETEA-LU made a number
of changes to the New Starts program and today's hearing will
focus on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or, as you have
stated, NPRM, that the FTA has developed to implement those
changes. Once this proposed rule is finalized--and it always
amazes me how long it takes to finalize a rule such as this--it
will govern New Starts and Small Starts policy for years to
come. It will be at least two years after the next
authorization bill is passed before changes in that law are
implemented in a new final rule, so the final rule that results
from the current NPRM before us will be in place at least
through 2011, and perhaps longer.
I have been impressed and do appreciate the responsiveness
and courtesy which the FTA has shown my staff and my
constituents in Knoxville in working through a transit center
land purchase issue there, but I do wish there was more
flexibility in the rules that the agency is implementing in
this case. It seems like there is very little room for
responding to unique circumstances.
This same concern could also be raised regarding the
proposed rule on New Starts and Small Starts we are examining
today. The FTA runs the risk of locking in certain policies too
timely in the rule and not being able to react to new
information, including better forecasting tools, ways to
capture and reflect economic development around transit
stations and along the corridor, and other benefits.
The agency needs to carefully consider all the comments it
receives in the upcoming comment period and build in enough
flexibility in the New Starts and Small Starts evaluation
process to help move forward good transit projects. It would be
a shame and certainly would not reflect the intent of SAFETEA-
LU if this new rule has the effect of discouraging communities
from considering transit solutions at all.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
I have been notified that Ms. Matsui would like to make a
brief opening statement. I would recognize her at this time.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this important hearing. For many of us, our transit systems are
the backbone of our districts. In many cases, our transit
systems are also the blueprint for future growth and economic
opportunity in the communities we represent. In my district,
and especially within the City of Sacramento, we consider most
of our future growth and economic development on our
transportation infrastructure, and specifically our light rail
system. Therefore, it is important that our New Starts and
Small Starts programs are responsive to the needs and demands
of our growing communities.
My main concern is why isn't the FTA following the
guidelines and criteria that Congress laid out in SAFETEA-LU.
Specifically, I am concerned that the FTA is too narrowly
focused on cost-effectiveness of projects, looking only at the
time savings and not the full range of the project benefits.
While this is important and a criteria that should be followed,
other criteria such as land use decisions and economic
development opportunities must play a greater role in the FTA
decision-making process.
If our light rail systems are truly going to meet the needs
of our communities, they must be built with the anticipation of
future regional growth and economic development. Transit should
be used as a tool to encourage our communities to grow smartly
and, in some cases, safely. Sacramento is the most at-risk city
in the Country for catastrophic flooding. In addition, the
Sacramento region is one of the fastest growing regions in the
Country. We have to make our land use decisions wisely.
In short, the principles of transit-oriented development
must be a strong consideration in the New Starts approval
process. Over the last decade, public transportation's growth
rate outpaced population growth and the growth rate of vehicle
miles traveling our Nation's highways. It is my hope that, as
we move forward with full implementation of SAFETEA-LU
programs, that the full intent of the legislation that was
drafted here in the Committee be followed.
By this I mean that land use and economic development
criteria included among the six evaluation criteria be weighed
on equal footing with other factors, such as cost-
effectiveness. Transit-oriented land use and development are
demonstrated factors that truly do make projects more cost-
effective in the long run. We need to capture the dramatic
increase of transit ridership across the Country and marry it
with the steady population growth many of our communities and
regions are experiencing. We need a Federal partner that
responds better to these trends.
Combining SAFETEA-LU's revised criteria in the New Starts
FTA decision-making process is an important step in ensuring
that the projects Congress authorizes and ultimately funds may
see evolving demand of our regions. Ultimately, fully
integrating transit-oriented development into the New Start
decision-making process will be the most cost-effective measure
we can take to ensure that the investment made by the American
taxpayers leverage additional private sector investments and
create more sustainable, livable communities.
I am looking forward to working on these issues during this
Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I
yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady.
Any other Members have opening statements?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. If not, then we will proceed to the honorable
witness, Mr. Simpson.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JAMES S. SIMPSON, FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATOR, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Simpson. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Duncan, and Members of this Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the recent NPRM on FTA's New
Starts and Small Starts programs. This proposed rule is
intended to continue and strengthen our successful management
of this important program. Our goal for New Starts remains to
deliver the best projects on time, within budget, and that
realize the benefits projected. At the same time, we want to
streamline this process so that decisions are made more quickly
and projects are delivered sooner.
As I testified in May, we believe FTA's management of the
New Starts program fosters highly successful Federal local
partnerships that benefit millions of Americans across the
Country on a daily basis. We believe that this NPRM will
continue this record of success. As you know, FTA issued the
NPRM on New Starts and Small Starts on August 3rd, 2007. This
was the culmination of a significant effort to obtain input
from key stakeholders, which we are continuing.
In January 2006, we published a series of questions on New
Starts and an Advance Notice to Proposed Rulemaking on Small
Starts. FTA then provided an opportunity for public involvement
by holding three listening sessions. We received over 70
written comments on the New Starts questions and over 90
written comments on the Small Starts ANPRM. The NPRM summarizes
and responds to these comments. Continuing our outreach, we are
conducting five outreach meetings. At these sessions, FTA staff
will provide further explanation of our NPRM and related
proposed evaluation measures, and invite public comment to the
docket, which closes this November 1st.
Once the docket closes, we plan on closely examining the
comments we have received. Given the stakeholder interest on
this topic, we expect that it will take some time to carefully
consider and prepare a final rule. We expect that the rule will
be issued some time in 2008.
To implement the Small Starts program, the NPRM adds
eligibility for non-fixed guideway projects, as in SAFETEA-LU,
and defines the kinds of investments needed to qualify. Small
Start project justification includes only cost-effectiveness
and two measures of project effectiveness, that is, land use
and economic development benefits and mobility. Project
justification may be made based on simplified travel demand
forecasts based on year of opening, rather than a complex 20-
year forecast. Local financial commitment is assessed based on
a plan that demonstrates the capacity to build and operate the
project during the first year of operation.
The NPRM proposes that certain simple, low-risk projects,
which by their very nature have sufficient benefits to rate
well without further analyses, can qualify as Very Small Starts
and be subject to a highly simplified project evaluation and
rating process. A project will be required to contain certain
features and have a total project cost of less than $50
million.
The NPRM includes consideration of all the statutory New
Starts project justification criteria. The NPRM reorganizes the
justification criteria into cost-effectiveness and several
measures of effectiveness, namely, land use and economic
development benefits, mobility improvements, and environmental
benefits, and clarifies that operating efficiencies are covered
by cost-effectiveness.
The NPRM expands the evaluation of economic development in
a new combined measure of land use and economic development
benefits. We continue to believe that it is extremely difficult
to distinguish economic development benefits from land use
benefits. However, the NPRM provides an opportunity for input
on how we might do so and how we might implement improved
measures of project merit that would include the land use and
economic development benefits more directly.
The NPRM includes evaluation of the congestion reduction
potential of the proposed investment in the assessment of
mobility benefits. Further, it proposes to consider the
relationship of the project to road pricing strategies as
another factor.
Finally, the NPRM asks for inputs on methods by which FTA
could include the currently unmeasured highway system user
benefits in calculating the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
project.
The NPRM proposes to make permanent our current policy of
recommending for funding only those projects that rate at least
medium on cost-effectiveness. First, this is the only measure
that compares a project's benefits to its costs. Second, the
measure of effectiveness we use, user benefits, is an objective
and quantifiable metric. Third, other benefits such as improved
accessibility and mobility, the propensity for increase in
property values, and the likelihood that highway users will
switch to transit, reducing demand for highway travel, are
directly related to user benefits. Finally, a project with a
high rating on cost-effectiveness almost always has high
ratings on other factors such as mobility improvements and
environmental benefits.
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and Members of this
Subcommittee, FTA is committed to the New Starts and Small
Starts programs. We believe that the NPRM we have issued
provides a good basis on which to make continued improvements
to the management of this important program. We remain
committed to streamlining project delivery, while providing
strong project management oversight to bring good projects in
on time and within budget. We look forward to working with
Congress on these and other issues facing our Nation's public
transportation systems.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today,
and I am happy to respond to your questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Ranking Member Mica had another commitment, came in late,
and has an opening statement.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you for yielding, too, and also
for holding this hearing, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Duncan. I think
this is very important. Since we haven't really addressed New
Starts with the Administration, I wanted to weigh in a little
bit on a couple of my concerns and also from a policy
standpoint.
One of the things that I think is essential, we are all
trying to find ways to deal with congestion and get people out
of traffic and into mass transit and other environmentally
positive modes of transport. One of the frustrations I have--
and I am pleased to see you here this morning, Mr. Simpson--is
just the sheer amount of time it takes to get into the queue,
so to speak, with the New Starts program. And I think part of
the problem I have identified is sometimes Congress, and I
would ask this question: Have we set too many requirements?
I don't have a question, but one of the things I would like
you to do to respond to me and also to the Committee would be
to provide us with any of your specific recommendations on how
could speed this process up. I think we are going to hear from
Norfolk and I will ask the question about their light rail, and
I think from the entry to P&E it is eight years, I was told.
I have been involved, as you know, with a commuter rail on
an existing rail right-of-way. We first proposed this in 1989.
Of course, communities and partners have to make a decision,
and they did that, but I know we have been involved in this for
at least three years, answering some questions that are sort of
as plain as the nose on somebody's face. We have turned the
consulting requirements or the requirements to do New Starts
into a cottage industry that is very costly and time consuming.
So I want to know how we can speed up the process. Speeding
it up can also save us time and money.
The other thing, too, is I can't tell you, having been
involved in these not just in my district with commuter rail,
but around the Country, the players change. The local players
change and the politics, and some of the politics, of course,
evolve around these questions and they get pretty testy. So the
longer that takes, the more players we deal with and the
political challenges become even greater.
So I compliment you on what you are doing. You have to play
by the rules that we in Congress set, but anything you can
recommend or anything you can come up with that can condense
that period of time to get these New Starts moving.
Then, looking at exceptions for projects like commuter rail
on existing rail lines, this isn't exactly rocket science. For
example, through my communities, I have Amtrak already with a
franchise. They already make these commuter stops. They could
probably increase their traffic without all of these studies
and requirements, but folks are a little bit reluctant to give
Amtrak any more responsibility based on their performance and
some of the constraints that they have to operate under.
So those are just my comments this morning. I look forward
to working with you. I know Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Duncan are also
interest in seeing how we can help communities, States, and
localities that move these new projects forward.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I thank the Ranking Member for
those comments.
We will now proceed to questions for the Administrator.
At issue in the earlier hearing, in May, and I believe
still today, is that I feel you have not delivered on the
statutory direction, I believe, from Congress regarding
economic development and land use. They have been lumped into
one criteria, and I have a couple problems with it. One is that
it is lumped into a criteria which scores 20 percent, which,
given the statutory direction, I believe does not adequately
address the direction from Congress to act in these areas and
to emphasize projects that would provide benefits in those
areas.
Secondly, as I understand the way--I mean, we did have
testimony later, after you appeared in May, from several
experts who had models and said there is no big deal or problem
in predicting or forecasting economic benefits and quantifying
them; that the work has been done, but somehow the FTA can't
find that work and implement it. It seems that what you are
attempting to do is look at the impacts of a limited facility
on the regional economy, as opposed to just looking at what the
local transit agencies would look at, which is the economic
development based on the corridor and the station area economic
development.
I think that is part of the problem why FTA can't qualify;
they are saying, well, we want to look at the impact of this
line serving this segment, this neighborhood, and what the
impact would be on the regional economy kind of gets lost. And
we are going to have testimony a little later representing a
county in Virginia about how they don't have any trouble
quantifying exactly what is going to happen when they do the
streetcar line in terms of the more intense development that is
going to occur and the economic benefits that are going to flow
from that.
So do you think this this part of the problem, Mr.
Administrator, why you can't get to economic development, that
you are off chasing the regional benefit, when I believe the
models that have been developed, and would be more practical
since these are relatively small projects, to measure the
benefits on the corridor and the stations?
Mr. Simpson. Let me answer that two ways. First, let me
tell you what FTA is doing since the last hearing in terms of
economic development. Then I can give you my thoughts generally
on the measurement of economic development.
First, we have had a two-phased project, one started over a
year ago, and I mentioned it at my last hearing, where we did a
study, and the effort included an initial study to develop a
methodology to forecast changes in economic development
activity that result from transit capital investment projects.
The FTA developed and tested two potential approaches. One was
a regional economic model to forecast changes in jobs and
income, and, two, to develop a method to forecast station area
development that would result from transit investments, which I
think is what you are referring to, Mr. Chairman.
When we looked at those, we found that the first one, the
regional economic modeling approach, was rejected due to the
high cost and complexity of implementing these models, as well
as concern about the erratic results observed in FTA's test
cases. I said it in my last hearing, that cost-effectiveness
gives everybody a lot of grief. These models that we looked at
would be just as challenging.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. So why don't we just discard the
regional approach and focus on the second which you mentioned?
Mr. Simpson. I'm going to get to that.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Mr. Simpson. The station area forecasting method was also
somewhat unsatisfactory in that the impact of the transit
investment on development patterns was not significant in FTA's
test cases.
Now, we didn't stop there. There is more. We have a phase
two study that seeks to make additional progress in developing
a method to evaluate the economic development impacts of
capital transit investments. The first thing we are doing,
which I mentioned to you previously, is we are convening a
panel of top experts on economic development impacts which are
well known to the industry and are leaders in the field. They
are going to review FTA's results to date and try to come up
with a program for us. They are going to also assist us in
consulting and developing a program that can show us which
methods, if we can achieve them, are likely to succeed. The
panel is also going to develop a methodology and research
program based on panel recommendations, and so forth and so on.
But the bottom line is that, to date, we have not been able
to find anything that we can use on a cross-cutting basis to
measure economic development. And just as a sidebar, I have
been reading Alan Greenspan's book on the age of turbulence and
he talks about economic forecasting, and he basically says how
complex the world really is, and when you try to measure
something, it is just not that easy. And I think that, if you
will allow me to steal a page from his book, it is pretty much
the same case here.
But what we have found consistently throughout the transit
program at FTA is that when we measure cost-effectiveness,
which I know gives a lot of folks a lot of grief, there is a
direct correlation between the cost-effectiveness measure and
economic development and mobility and all the other factors.
They are inextricably linked and we just can't uncouple them.
That is why, when we now have decided to put land use and
economic development together, we are trying to do a couple
things: we are trying to show transparency and, as you said at
your last hearing, we have this mysterious black box that we go
back to the shop and try to churn out these cost-justifiable
projects. We are trying to be transparent and to let everybody
know clearly what we are thinking and how we are thinking, and
we are making our best attempt at that.
With respect to economic development and land use, we
believe that you can't have economic development unless you
have land use, good land use patterns and policies. So it is a
no-start if you don't have that in place. So if we rate a
project with really effective land use and then give another
measure of economic development, you could be double-counting,
number one. Number two, even if you do have really good land
use, it is not enough to make the case that you are going to
have that economic development; there are other externalities
that are so great, including--we have had a run-up in real
estate over the last 17 years. I don't care where you travel
around the city, every place that I have traveled has seen
economic development and the redevelopment of cities and
warehousing districts that have become a great mixed use
development, and people seem to be moving back to the city. But
there are other externalities like interest rates, like jobs,
and all those other things that are really hard to try to put
into a formula and put into our so-called black box and churn
out a metric that is cross-cutting throughout the whole Country
and that is meaningful.
The second thing with economic forecasting is we have got
our transportation model, as I spoke about, and some of this
economic forecasting is almost a second level of economic
forecasting. So I think that, in a certain way, it explains
what our predicament is here.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Well, if we can come back to earth for
a minute.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. DeFazio. I think you can look at projects that have
been completed and, yes, you do have land use, which is a
theoretical underpinning, but land use potential is only
realized in certain instances; there is a lot of potential that
isn't realized. So I wouldn't say just having that and then
counting the actual economic benefits and/or more intense
development that resulted from the construction of the transit
project are the same thing at all.
I mean, land use provides the potential, but the potential
often is not realized until there is a project. And if you just
look at the nodes that have developed just right over here in
Virginia and around the D.C. area, the intense development has
taken place and you can measure within a certain distance of
each of the transit stations the values that have occurred. You
can do so, similarly, in Portland, Oregon, where they have put
a streetcar. You can see where, along that line, they have the
same zoning on one side of the river and the other, but the
more intense development has been realized along the streetcar
line because that became a magnet for the development.
So I have got to disagree, and I think that we just gave
direction that doesn't require consulting with Alan Greenspan
or these other exotic metrics, but just the reality of will
economic development follow this project and will there be
value created. I think that is a fairly simple thing, I
believe, to quantify. Having studied economics, I know it is
not a science, so let's discard the scientific stuff and go to
observational reality and direction from Congress, which is we
want economic development and we don't want it to be part of a
criteria which is only 20 percent and which is totally trumped
by the black box of cost-effectiveness.
And then going to cost-effectiveness, part of that goes to
another concern, which is trips not taken. Again, we don't seem
to be putting any value on avoiding automobile use and/or
commuting. I just had the Chairman out to ride a tram in
Portland, and you were on that same tram. It has now been
operational. They say they have had a million riders in less
than a year on the tram, and what they are finding is at the
base of that tram, which is also served by a streetcar line, a
lot of people who work at Oregon Health Sciences University are
relocating there.
So they are either abandoning their cars or only using
their cars infrequently. But there wouldn't be any credit for
that, it is a trip not taken. They are living on a transit
line, they are living on a tram. You are not involving the
tram. But the point is we are missing a lot of the benefits
here.
And then we also wanted to have environmental criteria,
which go to trips not taken, congestion, lack of pollution, all
those things, and now you have brought in this new criteria. So
this is going to be a two-part question. One, why can't we
measure trips not taken and why isn't that a benefit, because I
think it is an avoided cost?
Secondly, how is it that we would penalize a transit agency
which, in most jurisdictions, has no control, none whatsoever,
over policy relating to roads, bridges, and highways, if their
local jurisdiction, which they don't control, doesn't impose
tolling and congestion pricing over here, then you are going to
penalize the transit project which is proposed over here to
mitigate congestion with trips not taken? I mean, you are
putting the transit agency in a bit of a difficult position
here.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with you
that we should measure the trip not taken. We asked the
question in the NPRM, and just to try to stay on earth, the
problem that we have experienced with the trip not taken, it is
sort of like the second order of magnitude or it is the
forecast on the forecast. In other words, we are trying to
forecast a certain development and a certain economic
development, so that is a forecast, so we have got this one
forecast.
Now, off that forecast, we are going to try to forecast
again behavior patterns, travel patterns, where people won't
need to use their automobiles. So it is the second order of
magnitude in a forecast, so the----
Mr. DeFazio. Maybe we ought to just count the number of
people that use the transit.
Mr. Simpson. Well, we should.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Simpson. We do. I think we do. But this trip not taken
is a very difficult----
Mr. DeFazio. And distribute a survey to them and say before
you moved here, how did you get to work.
Mr. Simpson. Right. You know, I understand the trip not
taken, having lived in an urban environment, so I understand
it.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Simpson. But let me just say again that we are asking
that question. We do believe that it should be counted. And I
know that there are one or two models out there that are
counting the trip not taken, or proposing to count the trip not
taken. Once again, when we put it into a national program, we
have to make sure that we have a product that is not usable in
one county and not used in the rest of the Country.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, but then how about my second part of the
question? Transit agencies often do not control other modes of
transportation and/or the policies that relate to them. So why
should a transit agency be penalized in applying if their local
jurisdiction has not adopted congestion pricing?
Mr. Simpson. The proposal is not to penalize anybody.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I understood the first proposal was just
to give them extra points. As I understand the NPRM, you could
get demerit points for not having that, in addition to getting
extra points.
Mr. Simpson. Not to my knowledge, but could you hold on one
second?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. It is only a matter of boosting, Mr. Chairman.
It would only help, it wouldn't hinder. And it also----
Mr. DeFazio. So you are going to filter, but you are going
to filter--I mean, it seems like pretty broad language. The
first proposal was we are going to take something that wasn't
statutorily authorized by Congress----
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. DeFazio.--that is an obsession of this Administration,
particularly a few ideologues from right-wing think tanks who
have positions of power, that relate to theories of market and
congestion pricing, and we are going to use it anywhere and
everywhere we can. So now we have added it on to transit. We
had this discussion last time, so I am not going to totally
revisit that in terms of whether or not you are discouraging
transit at this point with this. So you are just saying this
so-called filter is essentially the same thing you proposed
before, which is if an agency, which you don't control, in your
vicinity adopts congestion pricing, you will get extra points
on your transit project even though you had nothing to do with
it.
Mr. Simpson. That is correct. But most planning is not----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. Well, wait a minute, now, Mr. Chairman. Most
planning is not done in a vacuum. Typically, you have got the
whole MPO and the whole planning process. So we are saying if
an area were to adopt a congestion pricing strategy that would
help transit, because now you are getting more vehicles off the
road and you have more people riding transit, we would look at
things like, in the mobility factor, fewer vehicle miles
traveled----
Mr. DeFazio. But when we are talking about New Starts and
Small Starts, we are not talking about--many projects are not
deep into suburban areas.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. DeFazio. So when you include that--I mean, for the
inner city folks, I guess we would have to be talking about
cordon pricing and saying if you want to use your car today, it
is going to cost you $15 or $20. We are going to be like
London. Of course, they have slightly different land use
patterns in Europe. Again, the transit agency doesn't control
that, and it is beyond me why that should be a factor.
I can see, in some limited instances, when you are dealing
with light rail versus, say, streetcar or true Small Starts,
something that is an extensive system which serves suburban
areas, that you might get some extra points with the idea that
you are going to somehow drive people onto that and they are
going to utilize it more. I believe if you do it right and you
make it convenient, they will use it, and I don't believe that
we need to penalize people to make them do it, and the Chairman
of the full Committee shares my concern about this.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up the
Committee's valuable time to discuss this, but from everything
that I know and speaking to the folks at FTA, we know of no
area where anybody would be penalized as a result of not
implementing a congestion strategy----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But again, the point is that transit
agencies don't control these other policies. Transit agencies
we want to be run efficiently, we want them to bring in
projects on budget or under budget, we want them to run
efficiently, and we want them to serve the general public. None
of that, again, externalities that might or might not drive
customers toward them, that are beyond their control, I don't
believe, in most instances, should be scored.
Mr. Simpson. This is an NPRM and the point is well taken.
But if I could just continue for the record for one second.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. I am well over my time.
Mr. Simpson. With respect to congestion, as you know, and
we have said it before and it is mentioned throughout the
statute, the Department believes, first of all, that it is one
DOT, and we are not looking at highway versus transit. As in
the MPO planning process, we are trying to look at
transportation solutions for a corridor, and it could be a
mixture of transit and highway projects. You know, since
SAFETEA-LU was written, which was probably five or six years
ago, we have got a national crisis that is on the front page
every day on congestion, and the Department is trying to take a
proactive stance to try to solve the problem that perhaps
wasn't thought about when SAFETEA-LU was written.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I beg to differ. I think it was a major
consideration when SAFETEA-LU was written. This Committee
attempted to have about another $70 billion or $80 billion to
invest over the term of the bill, which the White House fought
tooth and nail, and in the end we got a bill that wasn't
adequate in terms of investment, and now they are trying to
make up for that by saying, well, we will just use market
forces, and I have just got to disagree with this cockamamie
theory.
Thank you. I am going to turn now to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, you know, the problem that I see is
this. I have great respect for Mr. Greenspan and I agree with
most of what he says on things, and I understand your quote
that he said the world is a lot more complicated than people
realize. On the other hand, a lot of people feel that the
government, and particularly the Federal Government, makes
things a lot more complicated than they really need to be.
So, in SAFETEA-LU we had these laws trying to come up with
some sort of environmental streamlining to speed up some of
these projects because people on both sides of the aisle agreed
that all of these projects were taking far too long. Where
there is really a desire to move fast, we can do so. We showed
that on the bridge out in Minneapolis. I mean, we passed a $250
million bill within just a few days of that happening.
We always hear, and it gets sort of old to me to say that
we are in a global marketplace now or we have to compete
globally, and yet we see all these other countries that are so
dynamic economically moving really fast on major projects,
major highway projects, major aviation projects. I chaired the
Aviation Subcommittee for six years and I will never forget the
main runway in Atlanta. It took 14 years from conception to
completion. It only took 99 days of actual construction, and it
was primarily due to all the environmental rules and
regulations and red tape. Certainly, we don't want to do to the
environment what they are doing in some of these places like
China and other places, but we have to do better. We have got
to have a better balance in there because we have got to speed
up these projects. A few months ago we had testimony in here
about a highway project they have been working on in California
since, I think, 1990, 17 years, and it was only 12 miles.
So what I am getting at through all this is what do you
think your proposed rule will do to contribute to faster
decision-making and project development, particularly in regard
to the New Starts, the bigger programs?
Mr. Simpson. Your question really gets to the question or
statement, rather, that Congressman Mica made earlier, so maybe
I can address it in that context. I mean, the environmental is
one piece of it, but with a lot of these projects--I know it
varies on the complexity. We talk about the length to bring a
project from the planning cycle to the revenue date or the date
that a project opens--there are a whole bunch of reasons for
them and they don't all wind up at the doorstep of the Federal
Government.
We find that most of the projects--and I think you asked
that question last time, Congressman, local commitment, rather
than cost-effectiveness, is the reason why many projects fail
and don't proceed through fruition, and that holds true for the
delay in projects. We find that in many times, as Congressman
Mica was so eloquent in explaining it, there are changes in
political parties, there are changes in transportation
officials, and what was once a priority may not be a priority
or other things happen, and you thought you had local
commitment and now you no longer have commitment. So that is
one reason why.
The other thing is transportation planning. Sometimes, when
we plan these projects--and we have a project very close to
Washington, D.C. that is like that--that the scope gets changed
and people think about, midstream, well, maybe we are not going
to have an aerial alignment, maybe we should do a tunnel, and
that is perfectly within the local jurisdiction. That also
slows up projects.
Our NEPA process, we are trying to do the best that we can
with respect to NEPA and with respect to the processes that go
on in FTA. We have commissioned Deloitte and we have
implemented many of the changes, and I won't take the
Committee's time to tell you them now, but I would be more than
happy to send them to you for the record. Then we have also
improved the product at FTA over the years. You know, there was
a time, maybe 10 or 12 years ago, where not our forecasting,
but the grant recipients' forecasts on ridership were woefully
inadequate and low, and their costs were a lot lower than what
the actual costs would be. Now, you know what the rationale is
for that: we need to get projects funded, so let's keep the
ridership numbers as optimistic as we can and the costs as low
as possible.
So FTA, with the help of Congress, clamped down on that and
we are moving forward with a Contractor Performance Assessment
Report. We started our own risk analysis to try--we do a lot,
but basically what I am saying is we are trying to keep
projects on time and on budget because we would rather be here
talking about this than why the project blew the estimate by 50
percent. And we are trying to streamline the process as much as
we can without jeopardizing the integrity of the program. It is
a multifaceted approach and the project time line did go from
3.7 years to 4.9 years, where it is at now,--I guess it has
been over the last 10 years--but then again we are handling
like $22 billion worth of projects within 99.5 percent of
construction costs, which is unheard of. We don't have that
anywhere, and I think it is a testament to the risk program. So
we are working what we can, it is just that there are so many
partners involved--between the local governments, the Federal
Government, the funding partners--that it is not as easy as
that when you build these major capital infrastructure
projects.
And with respect to the rest of the world, I only know that
we have rules and regulations that protect everybody, and I
know other countries sometimes don't have the same
environmental guidelines or they don't need to get consensus
from the community. We have all that public involvement.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I have certainly seen and read about what
you are saying, you know, one mayor will start a project and be
real enthusiastic about it, and the next mayor is not quite so
enthusiastic or whatever. But I also have heard through so many
Subcommittee hearings on several different Subcommittees in
this Committee, I have heard local officials, I have heard
academic experts, I have heard private business, you know, the
contractors and so forth, say that all these projects that we
deal with in this Committee--highways, water projects, aviation
projects, the whole kit and caboodle--that, on average, these
things take about three times as long and tossed about three
times as much as they should. If we really had the desire to
speed some of these things up, if we all joined together and
made that our main----
What do you think is the most time-consuming process for
New Starts projects sponsors in fulfilling the evaluation
requirements?
Mr. Simpson. Well, it depends on the project. I mean, a lot
of it is we have got some projects where they haven't done all
the environmental protocols correctly or their forecasting is
not--you know, we have seen projects before and we will have
projects come in where the forecasting doesn't look right,
where you will see forecasting on the date when the project is
scheduled to be completed and 10 years later you have seen--
this is just an example--or 100 percent increase in ridership,
things that are out of the norm. So we see less of that today,
but those are the kinds of things that we have to put the
paperwork back to the grant receiver and say, you know, this
really doesn't look right, you need to look at your travel
models and you need to look at this and you need to look at
that. So it is hard to just say any one thing, it is a whole
host of things, and it is a cumbersome process.
Mr. Duncan. Well, we have other Members here. I don't want
to take up too much time, but let me just ask one last
question. At our May hearing that the Chairman mentioned, the
GAO testified that there is less than half the number of New
Starts projects in the pipeline in fiscal year 2008 than there
was in 2001. Is that from State and Federal funding? What is
the situation?
Mr. Simpson. No. I think it was we had a lower bar. In
other words, sort of like if you just decided--I like to use
the SAT as an example for the New Starts program, with the SAT
score being cost-effectiveness. It is almost like if we throw
away the SAT, let everybody come in to preliminary engineering,
let's bring everybody in, which was happening for a long while
because of political pressures and other and lower standards.
So we found out, with our limited assets of full-time
equivalents, that we had our staff at FTA working on a
multitude of projects, probably half of which aren't going to
make it past PE.
So I think you brought this up last time, so I do have some
extra data. From 1999 to 2005, which is what you are talking
about, we found that 56 percent of the projects are out of the
process because of a lack of local commitment. So there is a
lack of local commitment, which seems to trump everything else,
where projects fall out, number one. Number two, we have
certain standards now, and if you would like to, I can
articulate them. Certain things have to happen before we allow
a project into preliminary engineering, because once we allow
the project in preliminary engineering, that is when the
resources of the Federal Government or local government, they
start spending money and putting a lot of resources into a
project. We want to make sure that projects now that come into
preliminary engineering have a really good shot of being
funded. The short answer is we didn't do that in the past.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, we will turn to Members in the order in
which they arrived for questions. Ms. Hirono would be first on
the Democratic side.
Ms. Hirono. I know that we are, today, addressing the
proposed rule, however, on July 20th, 2007, the FTA issued the
New Starts and Small Starts evaluation and rating process,
which I think are the guidelines that FTA intends to use, and
pretty much this rating process issuance incorporates many of
the factors in the proposed rule. So what is the intention of
the rule if you already have guidelines that incorporate these
rules and you intend to use those guidelines, I assume,
regardless of whether the proposed rules go into effect or not?
Mr. Simpson. Congress asked us to be more transparent in
what we do and to look at economic development and other
factors, and at the last hearing we heard from some Members
that we weren't really paying enough attention to environmental
benefits and the like, so, as the program changes, we are
trying to change along with the requirements that Congress has
enacted. So we are putting this proposed rule out to get
comment.
Ms. Hirono. My understanding is that this July 20th
issuance already incorporates the weight to be given to the
cost benefit aspects of New Starts and Small Starts, so it
seems as though you are already going in that direction under
these guidelines that have already been issued, so I need
clarification from you.
Mr. Simpson. Yes. Particularly the Small Starts was a new
program and we didn't have the rule out. We put out what we
thought would be--I guess what we thought might work in the
short run, until we had a final rule. So there was a certain
logic that went along with that, and I think you will see that
that logic follows what the proposed rule is now, particularly
for the Small Starts program. Once again, this is for comment,
so we are expecting a lot of comment from all the stakeholders
before we initiate a final rule.
Ms. Hirono. In other words, then, just so I am very clear
on this, then, the final rule will trump or will supersede
whatever is in your July 20th, 2007?
Mr. Simpson. Yes. Right now we have guidance. We have
guidance right now.
Ms. Hirono. Okay.
Mr. Simpson. We needed a place to start, a placeholder, and
we are moving towards the final rule, and hopefully that final
rule will come out sometime in 2008.
Ms. Hirono. I have one more question. Has any New Starts
project ever received a high financial rating, as opposed to
the medium rating?
Mr. Simpson. Yes. Yes. Quite a few.
Ms. Hirono. Could you provide the Committee with a list of
those New Starts that achieved a high financial rating?
Mr. Simpson. Yes. We will do that, absolutely.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. That was of interest to me also. We would like
to see a list of those that have achieved a high rating.
Mr. Simpson. Matter of fact, yours received a high, your
BRT project in your town received a high rating.
Mr. DeFazio. New Starts and Small Starts.
Mr. Simpson. New Starts as well.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono, are you----
Ms. Hirono. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson, the gentleman from Tennessee put a question to
you that concerns me, and that is the apparent lack of increase
in the starts that are in the pipeline, and I know you
responded to that, but am I correct in concluding that maybe
one of the reasons for this is that it is so difficult that the
local authorities just can't get their hands around it?
Mr. Simpson. No, I wouldn't call it that. It is difficult,
but we give a tremendous amount of technical assistance in
outreach to anybody that is interested in a New Starts. It is
just that there are certain milestones that you need to achieve
in order to get into the preliminary engineering stages where
basically the Federal Government starts to follow the projects
through to construction. As I said, years ago the entry was
very simple. If you had a project, pretty much you could get it
into the preliminary engineering, and we found that there was a
high failure rate.
So we figured that sort of prior planning prevents poor
performance. Let's try to do as much planning and let's try to
do as much work so that if you do get into preliminary
engineering, because there's a lot at stake once it's in PE,
there's an expectation that you are going to have a project, so
let's not disappoint communities and the like, so let's work
with folks. And once they're in PE, many times when projects
get into this preliminary engineering stage, we work with
projects that may not be viable and we help--because we have
been building projects all over the Country and this may be a
community's first project, so there are many projects that come
to us.
Once they meet the PE milestone, we work with them just
like partners, investment bankers, and we tell them, you know,
maybe your project is too long, or you need fewer stations or
you need more stations, or have you thought about transit-
oriented development and the like, have you thought about
alternative forms of financing. So we really work very hard
with the--we take ownership of the project, basically. We work
very hard with the grant recipients, and it is very timely. So
whatever shortfalls the local community or the transit agency
may lack, we really try to help them and we give them proper
guidance. It is really in that way. I say that seriously. We
take ownership of the project.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Simpson, there have been concerns voiced
about the proposed rules expanded eligibility to allow New
Starts funds to be used to build high occupancy toll lanes,
popularly referred to as HOT lanes, in addition to the high
occupancy vehicle, HOV, lanes, which are currently allowed.
What is the FTA's statutory authority to amend this regulatory
definition, and will this change make the treatment of HOT
lanes consistent under highway and transit law?
Mr. Simpson. We are really trying to help transit projects
as much as we can, and what we found over time, you don't see
bus lanes being constructed any longer, and it is our belief
that one of the reasons is that cost of a bus lane--I know from
my personal experience in the northeast, particularly in my old
community in Staten Island, we have exclusive bus lanes that
travel probably about 15 miles from one of the suburbs to the
center of Manhattan or to the tunnels that connect the highway
to Manhattan, and those bus lanes typically run at about 30 to
40 percent of capacity. So on existing bus lanes that transit
authorities, in this case, the City of New York, they have a
bus lane where they are running buses, great express bus
service, and they have only got 30 to 40 percent of capacity.
So it was our thinking, to try to be creative and look for
alternative financing methods and to help transit, that the use
of an HOT to make a bus lane or another lane, an HOT lane, as
long as you maintain that flow of traffic so that the buses are
not bogged down, that the HOT lane or the pricing lane, if you
will, is incidental to the main purpose of the bus project, but
it is also subsidizing the bus project.
So if you can envision a bus lane that is maybe 30 to 40
percent of capacity, now you put cars on the lane up to the
point where you have real-time pricing, up to the point so that
you don't bog down that lane and it meets the requirement of at
least 5 miles of the speed limit, all those cars that are on
the lane that are getting that what we call free flow, there is
a lot of revenue to be picked up off of those people that feel
that time is money. That actually goes to subsidize transit
projects. So the person who is sitting in the bus, looking out
the window of the bus as it travels down the exclusive HOT
lane, the cars that are on that lane are subsidizing the fare
box to promote more transit.
It is very similar to what New York City Transit does when
they build a tunnel and they put telephone wires and cable and
a whole host of things in that tunnel. Now, that is an
incidental purpose; they didn't build that subway tunnel--they
built the subway tunnel to drive the train through it, but they
are picking up huge revenues to help offset the fare box by
allowing these incidental purposes or uses to the tunnel.
So that's what the thinking was there. It is a new
innovative way of thinking to help alleviate traffic
congestion, because now, whatever cars that you take off those
other free lanes, you are helping everybody there. So you are
using unused capacity, and we believe that since that is not
the main purpose of the HOT lane, it is incidental, it is an
ancillary purpose, that we are perfectly within the statutory
authority to do that.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, any time we can
take action to improve congestion, which inevitably negatively
impacts productivity, results in additional consumption of
gasoline, I am endorsing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Simpson, if you could, since you gave a
long explanation, but at the very end I thought you sort of
brushed over the question. Again, he started the question with
what do you believe is your explicit statutory authority. Could
you just get back to that? It sort of was incidental at the
end. I think what you said was because it's incidental, or
something, that somehow you found it was statutory.
Mr. Simpson. I think it is best if I give you another
example.
Mr. DeFazio. No, I don't want examples. Just what statute
are you referring back to? I mean, what is the expressed
statutory authority to use these funds for HOT lanes? Because
you could argue the other side of the argument, which is the
Federal funds that go to construct the HOT lanes are
subsidizing the non-transit use of that lane, at least
initially, because later, perhaps, you will realize the
potential of those additional revenues and maybe you will pay
back the additional investment was made. So what is the
statutory authority?
Mr. Simpson. Well, first, our intent is that whatever
Federal dollars from the FTA program are utilized, it is for
the transit portion of the project only. That is what our
intent is. Secondly, can I get back to you for the record fully
with where in our statute, because I don't have that?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, we would like that. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Mitchell. He left also? Okay, then we go
to Mr. Bishop from New York.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to just follow up on the question that you were just
asking. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, you also create a
new category called Very Small Starts. So my first question is
what is the explicit statutory authority under which you are
creating that category.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I don't know that we have an explicit
statutory authority, but, once again, we have a lot of really
good thinkers at FTA that do a lot of transportation modeling,
and we have got economists. We know that when you build a
transit project, the complexity of forecasting and all those
other things increases exponentially the larger the project is.
So when you start to get to like your project on the Long
Island Railroad, the East Side Access project, as these
projects start to get complex, the forecasting, all those
things and all those requirements that you need to measure in
order to determine whether you are going to rate the project a
pass or a fail, get a lot harder.
We just happen to know, from working with all of these
transportation models, that if you have at least 3,000 riders a
day,--and there are two or three other requirements--that the
project is no more than a $3 million a mile, and a couple of
other things, that it automatically would meet our requirements
because we have just seen that over the pipeline. So it is sort
of like a preapproval, if you will.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just stay on that for a second. The $3
million per mile, in response to a question from Mr. Coble, you
just indicated that one of the goals was to help transit
projects as much as you could. By creating or imposing this $3
million per mile limit on Very Small Starts, does that not
eliminate certain types of transit projects like streetcars?
Mr. Simpson. No, not at all, no. See, what we are saying
is--I left out the most important thing. The project has to be
less than $50 million. So if you happen to have a project that
is less than $50 million, it costs less than $3 million a mile
to implement, and it has got 3,000 riders a day, it is
basically a preapproval. We know that that will meet the
requirements because it is really small in nature, the
complexity is not there, and we just happen to know, in
studying these projects and funding projects before we had the
Small Starts program, even, or these exempt projects, that
these projects meet the criteria.
You know, it is a proposal. If the desire of Congress is
not for us to label that or have that, we will note that in the
comment here today. But it is certainly not to exclude any
project, because there is the regular, you have got the Small
Starts program and you have got the New Starts program as well.
So there is no limitation on anything, it is just that, hey, by
the way, community, if you happen to have a project that meets
that litmus test, it looks good.
Mr. Bishop. And, again, not to be difficult, but in
response, I believe, to a question from Ms. Hirono, you
indicated that one of the goals here was transparency, improved
transparency. Are you not at odds with that goal by virtue of
layering all these both new designations and new requirements
onto the NPRM?
Mr. Simpson. I kind of think we are just trying to be
customer-focused. It is like if you go into a bank and buy a
mortgage, you want a fixed rate, an adjustable rate, or a one-
year ARM. It is just another option for people that may have a
small project that they need to fund quickly. So I don't really
know how to respond to that other than, when we get the
comment, if the transit industry or the stakeholders don't like
it, this is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. If I could, just following up on that. I would
agree with the gentleman from New York. I believe that the $3
million per mile yardstick would exclude any streetcar
project--and that is the consensus in the transit community
across America--from the Very Small Starts program. We are not
aware of any that have been built for less than that. In fact,
it would exclude many BRT projects that have enhanced guideways
and those sorts of things.
So, pretty much, I think we are just going down to--maybe
this would help the HOT lane issue or something. I don't know
what the objective is here, but you are excluding streetcars,
as far as I am aware. If you have any evidence of any streetcar
project that came in and has applied for Very Small Starts
under $3 million a mile----
Mr. Simpson. The only streetcar project that we have right
now is a project that is out on the West Coast at about $140
million or $150 million.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And people aren't applying because they
just know they can't meet the criteria.
Mr. Simpson. I don't know that that is the case, Mr.
Chairman, but we will note that.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, anecdotally, I mean, you say you want to
be customer focused--I guess let me just ask this and then we
will go on the next. If you are going to be customer-focused,
you are going to be real attentive, then, to the majority
opinion expressed on the NPRM, which I believe will be echoing
a number of the concerns you have heard here today.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, but to answer the earlier
question, if they don't meet the criteria, they can still apply
under the Small Starts program.
Mr. DeFazio. I know. But you are basically excluding them
from the Very Small Starts program.
Mr. Simpson. Well, no, we are saying--no, we are not.
Mr. DeFazio. Because you are establishing----
Mr. Simpson. No, I don't believe that we are. I really
hadn't given it that much thought, but I asked Mr. Steinmann
and he said no.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, you set the $3 million bar, which isn't
part of Small Starts.
Mr. Simpson. But all that we know now is that if you meet
these requirements, the project works. Once you get beyond any
of those limitations, then we really have to study the project.
That is all we are saying.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but you are excluding a mode is I think
the point. Anyway, we won't belabor it.
We will turn now to Ms. Fallin.
Ms. Fallin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. You will probably be the last set of questions
before the votes. Go ahead.
Ms. Fallin. All right.
I have one question, Mr .Simpson. How does the new rule
requiring the FTA to incorporate congestion relief benefit into
the New Starts process? We talked a lot about congestion on our
highways. How will that new rule help with that?
Mr. Simpson. Well, one of the things that we are doing is
right now, if we had a congestion program with a pricing
component--or let me just back up a step. We don't measure now
the impacts and the benefits. When we build a transit project,
there will be a certain amount of cars that come off the
highway as a result of that, and the people that remain on the
highway receive a benefit because there are fewer cars. We
don't measure that in our cost-effectiveness, so we think that
it is a benefit that is really out there for people.
So the first question is to ask that and to try to--we are
going to work with the Federal Highway Department to try and
come with a model so we can measure that benefit, because it
will help all projects, particularly projects--well, any
transit project. It will help any transit project. So that is
the first thing that we are asking the question and proposing
to do.
The second thing we are saying is that if you have got a
congestion program in place in your town and it happens to
coincide with a transportation project, that we will give you a
benefit as a result of that. If you have a pricing strategy, we
will give you one up tick in your rating because you are, in
effect, getting more cars off the road and there is a benefit
to transit that we don't capture that now. When we do our
forecasting to figure out the ridership that supports the
finances of a transit project, we have got no method of--
because this is somewhat of a new kind of thing, these HOT
lanes and all that. We have no way to measure the extra riders
that would ride on transit as a result of that.
So we are saying we think we have some things right now
with VMT reductions, vehicle miles traveled, and the like, and
we are also trying to respond to the fact that we know we have
a nationwide crisis on highway congestion, and we are trying to
do whatever we can to alleviate that and to assist transit
while we do so. I think that sums it up.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Baird, go ahead. We are going to have two votes, so Mr.
Baird will ask his questions, then we will recess and come back
for a few other questions.
Mr. Baird. First question is very quick. Under the fixed
guidelines proposal, would ferries still qualify?
Mr. Simpson. I believe they do. Yes.
Mr. Baird. That's good. Secondly, in my district, we are
working on the Columbia River Crossing project, and there is a
debate right now, should we go light rail, should we go buses.
The advocates of light rail point out that we can connect to
the very successful light rail system that Portland and
vicinity have put in place; others look at buses as having
relative advantages.
To what extent do you prejudice the decision through your
proposed rulemaking and to what extent would you take into
account, if there were to be a light rail proposed, because it
links up to existing light rail, how would that decision-making
process be affected by your proposal?
Mr. Simpson. Well, it is a simple question with a difficult
answer, and I will try to be as quick as I can with it. We
measure each project on its own merit and we look at the
alternatives. Basically, a bus rapid transit or a bus project
would be less expensive than a fixed guideway project like
light rail.
So, before we look at the cost-effectiveness, we say, okay,
where do we need to be out in terms of our transportation
alternatives? What is the best thing we can do short of the
fixed guideway? And we do a model on that. Then we figure what
is the delta, the difference in cost between that bus project,
if you will, and the fixed guideway project. We take the cost
of that plus the operating costs and we look at the differences
in travel time savings, how much more time do we save with the
fixed guideway project, which creates a problem for some folks,
but it is a metric that we use and we have used it
consistently.
Then there are other attributes that are associated to a
fixed guideway project like the reliability of rail; you don't
have to worry about traffic jams. People like to sit in a rail
car; they know where the tracks are. There are a bunch of
things we call a modal constant. So we give another benefit to
the fixed guideway in terms of time, because we want to keep it
consistent, so the whole thing is done in time.
So we look at that project and we look at all of our
metrics and we say, okay, now, based upon what the alternative
was and this new project, does the project meet our cost-
effectiveness criteria along with the other statutory
requirements, weighting cost-effectiveness as a key indicator,
50 percent of them.
Mr. Baird. So stay with the practical application. It is
helpful.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Baird. So in our community we have got a citizens'
commission plus the two departments of transportation trying to
make decisions. What are the relative differences? They are
trying to decide right now which do we go with.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Baird. How do they factor in your decision-making
process and outcome in terms of deciding what they think is the
right thing to do?
Mr. Simpson. They have a transportation plan, a long-term
plan, a medium plan. Typically, it is financially constrained;
how much money do they have to do the project. And when they
look at a corridor, they look at the transportation problem and
how best to solve it, and they decide, the local community, not
FTA, decides on locally preferred alternative. The folks that
really do their planning in advance have an idea whether or not
those guidelines, if they wanted a light rail, whether it would
meet the Federal requirement or not. So there is a lot of that.
That is why we want to get with the MPOs in the transit
agencies early in the process so we can help them, so they
don't bring us an alternative that might not be----
Mr. Baird. What would be the funding difference? What kind
of magnitude of funding difference might--let's suppose our
community comes to you and says if we go light rail, it will
cost X, if we go bus rapid transit, it will cost Y. How much do
you kick in on the choice?
Mr. Simpson. Do you mean how much is the Federal share?
Mr. Baird. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. We look at the project, we look at the size of
the community, the benefits that are derived. On average, we
look at a 50/50 contribution. If it is a mega project, if it is
a project that is in the billions of dollars, around a third,
because we do have a limited amount of funding.
Mr. Baird. But my point would be if it's 50/50, would you
fund 50/50 for bus and also, then, 50/50 for light rail, if
they choose that?
Mr. Simpson. It depends. We would look at really what
project winds up coming through the pipeline. We try to have
those discussions as early as possible so the transit agency
knows what the financial commitment is of the Federal
Government.
Mr. Baird. Might you be in a position to say we will match
50 percent if you do bus rapid transit, but only 20 percent if
you do light rail? Or if they choose light rail----
Mr. Simpson. No, we don't do that because we believe it is
a local decision. We really don't directly--maybe indirectly if
they don't meet cost-effective, but we don't directly tell
which city what mode, whether it be a fixed guideway or----
Mr. Baird. So they don't necessarily have to factor that
in.
Mr. DeFazio. There are three minutes remaining to the vote,
Brian. You have a little bit of time left, so you can finish up
when we come back.
Mr. Baird. We will get to this later.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
We will recess probably for 10 to 15 minutes.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee will come back to order.
We appreciate the Administrator's and the other witnesses'
tolerance of our hectic schedule.
I guess, sort of following up on a subset of Mr. Baird's
questions. First, as I would understand, when you are talking
about approximately 50/50, you are talking about very large
projects, where a smaller share was requested, is that correct?
Mr. Simpson. Usually, the grant recipient comes to us with
a plan. We take a look at a whole bunch of things: how we
funded other projects, how much money is left in our statutory
authority, things like that; what is the ability of the grant
recipient to pay their share. So there are a whole host of
things, and it is usually--that is never really an issue, Mr.
Chairman, with a grant recipient, in terms of funding projects.
But we don't dictate in any way what the Federal share is.
Mr. DeFazio. But this all then gets back somewhat to cost-
effectiveness. I mean, the issue is if in a local jurisdiction
there are contributions that constitute betterments that are no
burden on the Federal taxpayer, contributed by the local
business community, developers, whatever, local improvement
district was formed that paid for them, however they were paid
for, do those get cranked into the cost-effectiveness? And if
so, why, because I don't think that they should be.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, you are not alone in that
regard. We actually asked the question in the NPRM. Right now
there are two things. You can have several definitions of
betterments, but betterments are components of the project that
are not essential, so that if you do away with the betterments,
you still get all the benefits of the project. An example might
be--although my wife wouldn't like this example--art work in
the stations. Art is a betterment.
So right now the betterments are captured, so what we do
sometimes, we tell the grant recipient, if they don't meet
cost-effectiveness, are there any betterments that you can take
out? You know, how many betterments can you take out and still
keep the project?
So we are trying to get to the point where, hey, what are
the essential components of a project. Then we ask the
question, in terms of betterments, do we need to count those or
should we count those, because, particularly with the private
sector, as you hit on, private sector sees the value in
transportation projects and currently, if there was any private
sector contribution, we count that.
So the question that we ask is if we have a particular
project--and there are a lot of projects where developers,
landowners, private interests see tremendous value that accrue
to them as a result of this federal-State investment--should we
or could we exclude those contributions to cost-effectiveness.
And the rationale for that would be if it is not costing the
taxpayer any money, there is a betterment as a result of that,
there is something that is accruing, like a donation from the
private sector, so we believe that that has merit to look at,
so we have asked the question.
And that might also help some of these other projects that,
as you mentioned, streetcars, where there is certainly a value
to developers and people particularly close to the investment.
They see a value, and many streetcar projects are being funded
privately, so we asked the question if we have a project that
were to come forward before the FTA, if there is a private
contribution, should we exclude the private contribution from
the project and from cost-effectiveness.
Mr. DeFazio. So that is outstanding as one of the questions
in the rule?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. And you are taking comments on that?
Mr. Simpson. And would like to get comment on that.
Mr. DeFazio. Because it seems to me part of the rationale
for the cost-effectiveness criteria is, one, to have a screen,
but, two, theoretically, to look at what is the cost-benefit
for Federal taxpayers. You are also looking essentially at
financial soundness, risk, debt, those sorts of things, and if
the betterments are not constituting a financial overhang that
has the potential to bring this system down, I don't see why
they would have to be calculated in at all; and/or if you built
the system and the betterments were essentially an add-on and
someone added on the betterment after the system was approved
or built, we wouldn't count it. I mean, at that point you can't
count it, right?
Mr. Simpson. I can't express my view on it because we have
the rule, but I hear what you are saying.
Mr. DeFazio. I understand.
Mr. Simpson. You know, that might also--you know, when we
talk about economic development with respect to certain
projects, that we are not measuring economic development,
particularly, you know, we put the cards out on the table, this
streetcar projects, addressing that question might be able to
give you the--what is the true economic value of a streetcar
project? Well, maybe it is that value that the private sector
decides that they feel that it is worth that is given as a
contribution to a project and excluded from cost-effectiveness.
Mr. DeFazio. Again, further on economic development, you
mentioned in your testimony that you have engaged a consultant?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Are the results of that consulting going to be
accommodated in the rule or is this consulting result going to
come in after the rule is already finished? What is the timing
on that?
Mr. Simpson. I can't give you an answer on that right now,
I don't know.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. But it seems that if you have gone to
the trouble and expense of engaging a consultant, that
hopefully that contract will be structured in such a way that
it will inform the rule, since it is a statutory criteria.
Mr. Simpson. Absolutely. And it is a priority and we have
got a meeting here in Washington, D.C. on October 17th with
nine of the Nation's top transportation experts to discuss
economic development as part of the phase two.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Could we get a list of those and what
firms or organizations they represent?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, you can.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Appreciate that.
Now, I have a question, and it seems to me it is a no-
brainer, but apparently there is some theory or controversy out
there, and that is the issue of does transit provide
significant--in fact, there was a press conference going on
upstairs just before this with APTA talking about the benefits
of mass transit in terms of congestion mitigation and the
amount of fuel it saves. I mean, you can quantify it to a great
extent. So is it the position of the department that these
projects, absent this ancillary action by another body to
impose congestion pricing or something, but just the
construction of a transit project itself, is it intended to
mitigate congestion?
Mr. Simpson. A transit project serves a whole host of
purposes. As you know, it promotes good economic development,
environmental benefits, and also to alleviate congestion, as
outlined in SAFETEA-LU.
So I don't know if I understand the question, but I am
agreeing with you that it achieves all of those things.
Mr. DeFazio. All right. Okay. Well, no, there are some
people out there saying transit sort of exists, but it is
really not addressing congestion; they sort of take it for
granted and don't--I mean, if you had a strike tomorrow and
shut down the New York subway, I think what a benefit it had
been.
Mr. Simpson. That is exactly what thought came to mind when
you mentioned that. If somebody is not sure that transit fights
congestion, then they need to take a look at the articles in
New York or anyplace else that had a transit strike, or even
just a service failure or disruption of service as a result of
a power outage.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Okay. I see that I have been joined by
the Ranking Member.
Oh, do you have some questions? Okay, I recognize the
gentleman, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson, I realize I came in after you presented your
testimony, but I just wanted to relay some comments to you and
just ask for your response. In my community there is a lot of
talk about passenger rail from the New York metropolitan area
into the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania--Allentown, Bethlehem,
and Easton. The lines currently run to around Clinton, New
Jersey, and getting them from Clinton to the western edge of
New Jersey and Phillipsburg is, of course, a challenge. There
is talk about running passenger rail from Lansdale, just north
of Philadelphia, up to a community called Quakertown, a lot of
talk about it.
And I would like you to comment, too, if the community were
to express interest in a New Starts program or Small Starts,
what should I tell them about the local matching requirements?
What would be their obligation for that type of a passenger
rail project?
Mr. Simpson. First of all, I am very familiar with that
alignment. I have spent, I don't know, hundreds of days in
Allentown and the whole 78 corridor, and was just in Clinton,
New Jersey two weeks ago.
Mr. Dent. And there is a study going on right now on the 78
corridor.
Mr. Simpson. There is a study. I think in that particular
case, I think there would be some sort of a bi-State agreement
between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dent. That is correct. First phase was completed as it
relates to non-rail options and we are developing the rail
phase now.
Mr. Simpson. Not dissimilar to what we do elsewhere, I
think that we would need to get all the stakeholders in a room
and determine who would be the grant recipient for the project;
what would be the entity, do you need to create a new entity;
and what is the--you know, you have got two States, so what is
the share of the dollars that would flow through. You may have
to develop a port authority or some sort. But if you would
like, we would be more than happy to contact your office after
we leave here and fill you in, because the FTA would be very
helpful in assisting your community with that proposed commuter
rail line, I believe it is.
Mr. Dent. Yes, commuter rail. And I guess that is the
question, too. Oftentimes I tell the community that there will
be a local match requirement.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Dent. And what are you stating as official policy for
the FTA now in terms of local match for these types of New
Starts?
Mr. Simpson. Official policy is that you need to come up
with at least 20 percent, and we would encourage an overmatch,
anything above that; and then it depends on the community's
ability to contribute their share, along with what we have done
historically in the past, we like to have a level playing, and
within the transit community there is sort of an understanding
of how much money you should ask for given the certain size and
complexity of a project.
Mr. Dent. Is that local funding requirement consistent for
both New Starts and Small Starts?
Mr. Simpson. It is the first thing we look at, and that is
where we get into a lot of problems, where we believe there is
a commitment on a local level and then, as time passes, for one
reason or another, the local commitment fades, and that is why
the project becomes a no-start.
Mr. Dent. Well, I would be very happy to further discuss
this issue with you.
Mr. Simpson. Absolutely. We will contact you as soon as
soon as we leave here.
Mr. Dent. Thanks for your testimony.
Okay. And just one final question that I have. The FTA, as
you know, has been working with FHWA to develop a mobility
measure that explicitly includes congestion relief benefits to
highway users and pedestrian ridership of transit systems. What
is the status of that effort?
Mr. Simpson. We have allocated some research dollars. I
believe it is $100,000. We are working with FHWA as we speak
because, as this Committee asks us to do all the time, to
measure all of the benefits that accrue to a given
transportation project, and what we don't measure right now is
if we were to build a new transit project in a corridor--let's
take your project. Let's say we build your project.
What we haven't been able to do is--and let's say I-78 from
Allentown going to Newark, everybody wanted to go to Newark on
I-78, and we are at peak period in the travel, you know, it is
congest. The I-78 can get congested, as you know. So let's say
the transit project is good enough where we are able to take
off a portion of those vehicles that now ride transit. Well, we
pick up the benefit of the folks riding transit, but we don't
pick up the travel time savings that accrue to the people that
stay in the automobiles.
So what we are saying is--I mean, this would be the best
case scenario--if it took an hour to get from Allentown to
Clinton in traffic, maybe it would take 40 minutes for all
those other drivers if we took 5 percent of the drivers off the
road. We want to be able to measure that and measure that
within cost-effectiveness, because it truly is a benefit of
travel time savings.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I will yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Hirono, do you have further questions?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Very quickly. We appreciate your being here.
You said that you needed at least 20 percent. In reality, what
is that percent really, though? Now, because of the----
Mr. Simpson. An average? I would say it is averaging about
50 percent.
Mr. Boozman. So it is about 50. And that is just because of
the competition, the people that are saying that they will come
up with 50 percent?
Mr. Simpson. Well, you know, it is a whole host of things.
I mean, if we have got a couple of projects in New York that
were mega projects, literally in the billions, so you could
easily wipe out 20, 30 percent of the statutory authority if
you were to fund it at the maximum. So we really work closely
with the transit agencies, and that has really not been a
problem with us. We bend where we have to. You know, I am
surprised that there are that many questions on that topic, but
that is something that never crosses my desk, it is really
never an issue. I guess there is an understanding out there
with the transit properties where we are at on that.
Mr. Boozman. So there is enough competition out there that
people will come up with the dollars up to the 50 percent?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Boozman. It makes it tough if somebody without as much
resource only has a 20 percent. That really----
Mr. Simpson. We understand that and we work with the grant
recipients.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for being
here.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. One last question. SAFETEA-LU authorized a
study that is being, as I understand it, done jointly under the
auspices or sponsorship of FTA and HUD, Reconnecting America,
which is to--we have been talking about sort of the economic
benefits that result from transit projects, but we haven't
really gotten into this aspect of it, which is the linkage
between affordable housing and transit, and I am wondering when
that study's results are going to be available. Again, it is
sort of like my last question. Are those results going to be
available before you finalize your NPRM?
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, that study has
been published and it has been out for at least six months.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay.
Mr. Simpson. And if you would like to talk about the
results of the study, I can, but the study has been--and I
apologize if your office has not gotten a copy of it.
Mr. DeFazio. So, again, those results will inform the rule
to some extent. To the extent they find there is a linkage
between affordable housing or the potential for affordable
housing would seem to me, again, to be a benefit that would
need to be looked at in evaluating transit projects.
Mr. Simpson. You know, we do that within the mobility
factor, but I will tell you what the takeaway for me was with
that study. We have said it here, that as a result of building
transportation multi-use development around transit nodes, the
price value goes up. It is more expensive to rent an apartment
or to buy an apartment or a home which is within walking
distance of a transit property. And the people who need to be
able to walk and to get to work the most are the people
sometimes who can't afford it, and it is a concern that we have
at FTA and it is a concern that HUD has, and we have talked
about it.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. Well, that is a general urban
redevelopment rule of thumb, but some communities, for
instance, not to be totally parochial, but Portland has a
requirement on the developers that they provide a certain
number of affordable units in doing their developments. So, I
mean, the question is since we talked about you get scored for
planning and those sorts of things, would you get some benefit
or scoring for having a policy to provide affordable housing in
these corridors?
Mr. Simpson. Absolutely. We capture it under transit
dependent mobility, and it is----
Mr. DeFazio. So that will be expressed in the final rule,
then, that this would be----
Mr. Simpson. Well, the proposal that we have right now on
the street clearly articulates that.
Mr. DeFazio. Because it certainly would--some entities
haven't done that, and it would certainly potentially encourage
entities who are interested in qualifying a project to
undertake to see that, as the development took place, that they
were providing for some place for affordable housing.
Mr. Simpson. Well, FTA and the DOT believes in that and HUD
believes in that and the Administration believes in that, so we
will make sure that it is part of it.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you. I have no further questions.
Mr. Duncan?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. All right, with that, we thank you once again
for providing your time and your expertise, Mr. Administrator,
and we look forward to a totally transmogrified final rule.
Mr. Simpson. It has been a pleasure and honor to be here,
and as I said in the past, I look forward to our next hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. I would call the next panel: Mr. Christopher
Zimmerman, Arlington County Board Member; Mr. Michael Townes,
Hampton Roads Transit; Mr. Mark E. Huffer, Kansas City
Transportation Authority; and Ms. Shelley Poticha, Reconnecting
America, although she does have an Oregon connection.
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN, ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD,
BOARD MEMBER, ARLINGTON, VA; MICHAEL TOWNES, HAMPTON ROADS
TRANSIT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HAMPTON, VA; MARK E. HUFFER,
KANSAS CITY AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, GENERAL MANAGER, KANSAS
CITY, MO; AND SHELLEY POTICHA, RECONNECTING AMERICA, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, OAKLAND, CA
Mr. Zimmerman. I have always thought it should be a
prerequisite for service in higher office that one serve in
local government first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
am pleased to be here this morning. I am Chris Zimmerman, a
member of the County Board of Arlington, Virginia, right here
across the river, in which capacity I serve on the various
regional transportation bodies around here, like the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the Northern Virginia
Transportation Authority.
I have submitted, of course, a full statement for the
record, but I just wanted to make a few comments and then
answer your questions.
The community that I have the opportunity to represent is
today a very thriving urbanizing community that enjoys
extremely low employment, extremely low office vacancy rates,
and is widely cited as a model of what is now called smart
growth nationally and even internationally. Five years ago,
when the Environmental Protection Agency gave their first smart
growth award for overall excellence, it was to Arlington for
the Roslyn-Ballston corridor.
That stands in contrast to where it was a generation ago,
when it was a fairly typical declining inner ring suburb, with
declining population, with schools that were emptying out, with
retail that was really dying. When you wanted to go to a
restaurant, you went outside. When you wanted to go shopping,
you went outside.
It has really turned around in the last generation largely
because of the foresight of people who served before me, but
also because they were able to leverage a big public investment
with a significant Federal contribution in the Metro system,
and then use that effectively to create the Roslyn-Ballston
corridor and the Jefferson Davis corridor, which are about 10
percent of the land area of my very small county, smallest
county in America, effectively at 26 square miles. Ten percent
of that land is generating half the tax revenue that we
collect.
The 26 square miles in Arlington, out of a Northern
Virginia region of over 1,000 square miles, accounts for about
60 percent of the transit ridership. Sixty percent of all trips
in Northern Virginia begin or end in Arlington. We have some of
the highest transit usage, with over 23 percent of rush hour
trips being made--of workday trips, I should say, being made on
transit; and in our Metro corridors it is more like 40 percent.
Now, the reason I cite all this is that I believe that if
the rules that are in place now, or that are proposed now, were
in place at the time, that that transit investment could not
have been made. I don't believe Arlington would have qualified
for the funding that made this possible under the regulations
as they are now being pursued by the FTA. As it happens, today
we are looking at the next generation of transit development,
and we are looking both to redevelop in the Crystal City area,
where we have the biggest impact of BRAC from the last round
anywhere in the Country, with 18,000 jobs scheduled to leave
Crystal City; and we are looking at what has to be done to make
it again a vibrant economic center, and we are looking at
transit investments obviously as part of that.
Not far from there and connected to it, hopefully, is the
Columbia Pike corridor, where we are looking to transform what
has been an automobile-oriented strip into a more walkable main
street, and we have a streetcar project, very much modeled on
the Portland streetcar, which we think has the same kind of
potential for economic growth and transforming an area, really,
that you have seen in Portland.
However, we don't think that the current rules will make it
possible for us to get any help from the FTA and the Federal
Government the way they are proposed now, and we are looking at
what we have to do and what we can accomplish on our own
because we really don't see any way that we would qualify. The
specific rules that are being promulgated would make it very
difficult for our projects to qualify, which seems fairly
strange because they look like exactly the kind of projects
that you intended in passing the last law.
The Columbia Pike streetcar project, for instance, which is
about a five to six mile stretch, is a project under $250
million, probably $120 million, $140 million, something like
that. If we could get 50 percent money, then $60 million, $70
million, something like that, would seem to be within the
parameters. But the way the rules are being promoted, we would
not likely qualify.
The ridership that we have been able to encourage already
is held against us rather than working for us. The additional
funds that we will put in and the higher costs that are
involved in an urban area work against us, even when we are
spending our own money. So, in short, this is fairly
frustrating and seems to us to be counter to the intentions of
Congress in passing the last act.
Finally, let me just say that I think our commitment to
transit as an integral part of community and economic
development would be the model that was intended and that you
would want to promote in the interest not only of our region,
but the Nation, but it doesn't seem to be the model that the
proposed regulations would promote.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting me
here. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.
Mr. Townes.
Mr. Townes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here with you today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I want to note that while I
am the incoming chair of the American Public Transportation
Association, the testimony that I present today represents my
views, and not those of APTA, regarding the proposed
rulemaking.
I also want to note that on October the 1st, the City of
Norfolk, Virginia, the entire Hampton Roads region and HRT will
celebrate the signing of a full funding grant agreement for
$232.2 million for a 7.4 mile starter light rail line in the
City of Norfolk. I want to thank Congresswoman Drake, who was
here earlier, for her strong consistent support of this
project, as well as Administrator Simpson for making this
project a reality.
I don't have enough time to touch on all the points that I
think are important with the proposed rulemaking, but I will
touch on three in the time that I have, and that includes
provisions not included in SAFETEA-LU that are in the proposed
rulemaking, the land use and economic development measures
weights, and the weight given to cost effectiveness, things you
have talked about earlier today.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains provisions that
were not addressed by Congress when it adopted the Safe
Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a
legacy for users, but represents substantial changes to the New
Starts program. The proposed rulemaking would change the
definition of fixed guideway and allow New Starts and Small
Starts funds to be used for high occupancy toll lanes. This
proposed change is not found anywhere in 49 U.S.C. 5309. This
change is intended to alter the purpose and focus of the New
Starts program. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this
proposed change is that the FTA intends to diminish the
historical investment and traditionally fixed guideway
projects.
I would also note that there is no requirement that the
transit service which served to establish the amount of the
section 5309 investment be maintained after the project is
built. Now, why would the FTA support funding a project where
there is no ongoing commitment to maintaining transit service
in the corridor?
The proposed rulemaking also seeks to redefine these
projects that are eligible under the Small Starts program and
develop a program that is not neutral as to project eligibility
or the level of project review.
I have identified those changes in my written testimony; I
won't belabor that point.
With regard to land use and economic development measures
and weights, Congress amended section 5309 in SAFETEA-LU by
emphasizing the importance of land use and economic development
when it moved these criteria from the consideration subsection
to the project justification subsection. To the outside
observer, it seems clear that the intent of Congress was to put
greater weight and emphasis in the New Starts project
evaluation and review process on land use and economic
development. Instead, the proposed rulemaking diminishes the
weight to be given to land use by combining it with economic
development as a single factor and assigning only 20 percent to
that weight.
Moreover, 5309 establishes separate criteria for land use
and economic development, which would appear to clearly
indicate an intent by Congress to develop separate measures for
each. Instead, the proposed rulemaking not only reduces the
weight and emphasis given to land use and economic development,
but merges them into a single criteria rather than developing
separate measures.
Furthermore, FTA states that the cost to develop a measure
for economic development that is distinctive from land use is
overly costly and burdensome. Now, I don't recall that the cost
or burden on transit authorities was an issue when FTA
developed the Summit software and implemented the TSUB measure
for cost-effectiveness in 2002. While I don't know what it
costs FTA to develop the software and implement TSUB, many
communities, including mine, were required to spend several
hundred thousand dollars to revise travel demand models to be
able to interact with Summit and capture the user benefits in
ridership.
Finally, FTA should be rewarding communities that seek to
concentrate economic development in project corridors or at
stations through the use of local policies and incentives. The
benefits of a project are not measured solely in terms of
mobility improvements, but also on the impact of shaping
economic development patterns.
Finally, weights given to cost-effectiveness. Prior to the
March and April Dear Colleague letters, FTA employed a multiple
measure approach that enabled a medium or medium-high rating
for land use to offset a medium-low rating for cost-
effectiveness. Even with a medium-low rating on cost
effectiveness, a project could not obtain an overall project
rating of medium, based on receiving a medium or high rating on
the land use plans in the region where the project was being
built.
The March and April 2005 Dear Colleague letters changed
FTA's policy, but were not implemented as a permanent change to
regulation. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FTA has not
only chosen to require 50 percent weight for cost
effectiveness, which effectively trumps all the other project
evaluation or review criteria, but also attempts to make it
permanent law through inclusion in the notice.
I hope the Committee would agree that the proposed
allocation of weight and excessive emphasis on cost
effectiveness is contrary to your intent when you adopted
SAFETEA-LU, and I hope that you would agree that the
incorporation of specific weighting of criteria should not be
included in the final rule, but continue to be left to guidance
documents to enable FTA to shift the allocation of weights as
might be appropriate in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Townes.
Mr. Huffer.
Mr. Huffer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. My name is Mark Huffer. I am the General Manager of
the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, also known as
KCATA, and we are the regional transit authority serving the
Kansas City, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area.
While we are pleased to make comments on the NPRM today
regarding the New Starts program, I am going to limit my
comments to the Small Starts and Very Small Starts categories
only, as they are most closely related to two recent major
capital investment projects in the Kansas City area, one of
which is already implemented and the other one is planned.
In 2005, KCATA opened the region's first bus rapid transit
project known as MAX. MAX was built at a cost of approximately
$3 million a mile and would have met all the criteria of a New
Starts program had they been in place at that time. Since New
Starts program was not in existence in 2002 through 2005, when
we constructed this project, Federal funding was instead
attained through a series of discretionary grants spread out
over four Federal fiscal years.
The uncertainty of Federal funding and the timing of the
revenue stream presented significant challenges in making
construction awards and phasing implementation of this project.
Without a long-term Federal commitment, the scope and size of
the project was changed numerous times.
MAX has been an unqualified success. Ridership in the
corridor is up over 40 percent. Thirty percent of our customers
are new to public transit, and customer satisfaction is
exceptionally high. Because of the success of this program, FTA
has been very supportive of KCA's effort to expand into other
corridors in the community and, in fact, MAX has already
received Federal funding commitments of $24 million under the
New Starts guideline to expand into the Troost corridor in
2009.
In general, we applaud the congressional decision to
establish a separate Small Starts category for New Starts
funding in SAFETEA-LU. This program will allow projects like
ours to move quickly, allowing the community to benefit from
these projects at a quicker pace.
I want to comment on Small Starts right now, and that is
that the NPRM defines a Small Starts project as one with a
total project cost under $250 million, with 5309 funding not to
exceed $75 million. While we fully support the concept of Small
Starts, we are concerned that the proposed changes do not go
far enough in streaming the New Starts process for projects
under Small Starts category. The process of getting to an FTA
funding decision on a Small Starts project still appears to be
arduous and time-consuming, requiring nearly the full range of
FTA New Starts criteria and processes.
We believe it was Congress's intent to enable recipients to
expedite implementation of significant capital investments;
yet, the New Starts evaluation criteria require a full
alternatives analysis, as well as a NEPA environmental study,
regardless of the nature of the project. These two elements are
among the most burdensome and deliberative steps in receiving
Federal funds. There is little advantage to seeking Small
Starts funding as long as these requirements are not changed.
Additionally, we believe that FTA should reconsider and
clarify the provision that prohibits a corridor project from
being divided into several Small Starts projects. We concur
that a corridor should not receive several Small Starts funding
for projects concurrently, and that projects should not be
artificially segmented just to qualify as a Small Start.
However, given the long lead times and high capital costs for
implementation of major capital investment projects, phased
implementation is a realistic approach, and the benefits of
such approaches should be recognized.
For example, if a metropolitan area makes a decision to
build a 20 mile corridor, it might choose to implement the
system in three separate phases over several years. If the
phasing is appropriate and NEPA requirements met, FTA should
consider each phase for Small Starts funding eligibility, even
though the total 20 mile line might otherwise qualify for New
Starts.
In regards to Very Small Starts, this has been a program
that we believe will be beneficial to Kansas City. As a result
of the less stringent requirements for the Very Small Starts
program, we will be able to implement the Troost BRT-MAX
corridor project within four years of corridor planning. We are
generally supportive of FTA's Very Small Starts requirements,
but we believe that FTA should consider eliminating the local
financial commitment criteria regarding local overmatch of
Federal funds. We recognize that FTA will not rate any project
below medium for failure to overmatch, but question whether it
should be an evaluation criteria for projects of this size at
all.
Similar comments in New Starts regarding Small Starts. We
believe FTA should reconsider and clarify how the requirement
requiring all projects in the corridor to be considered
together for evaluation purposes will be implemented. If
multiple-phase projects qualify and are appropriately defined
with independent utility, KCATA believes each phase should be
independently evaluated as a Very Small project.
We do have a concern that the $3 million per mile
threshold, even exclusive of vehicle acquisition, will result
in a modal bias toward bus projects. Further, we encourage FTA
to consider raising that threshold or at least indexing it to
allow for inflationary growth, because it is very possible that
within several years, even BRT projects will not be able to be
built at $3 million a mile.
Finally, we react very favorably to the concept of the
project construction grant agreement for Very Small projects.
We find this to be a beneficial requirement that will provide
the same assurance as a full funding agreement for much larger
projects.
We thank the Congress for your interest in this. We support
the direction taken by Congress and FTA to streamline the New
Starts process and encourage FTA to consider all possibilities
to continue to make the process from beginning to end more
expedited.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Huffer.
Ms. Poticha, we have about seven and a half minutes to go,
so rather than hurry through your testimony, I think we will
reserve your testimony until after the short recess, and then
we will proceed to questions. At that point, I have to go to
the markup in resources and Ms. Hirono will take the chair,
unless Chairman Oberstar wants to take the chair. He can always
have the chair whenever he wants.
So, with that, we will stand in recess until probably about
15 minutes ago. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Hirono. [Presiding] We are back. Good afternoon. Okay,
we are on Ms. Poticha. Please proceed.
Ms. Poticha. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am Shelley Poticha, President of Reconnecting America,
a national nonprofit dedicated to using transit investments to
spur a new wave of development that improves housing
affordability and choice, revitalizes downtowns and urban and
suburban neighborhoods, and creates lasting value for our
communities.
We host the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, and
thanks to language included by this Committee in SAFETEA-LU, we
receive Federal funding to provide standards, guidance, and
research on transit-oriented development for the 40 regions
that either have or are planning new transit lines.
As I go from region to region, it is clear that there is a
thirst for new and increased investments in transit. First of
all, transit ridership is at a 40-year high, with three-
quarters of the growth coming from heavy, light, and commuter
rail. We are finding that mayors value transit to help spur
urban regeneration and reduce traffic congestion; businesses
value transit because employees can get to work on time; and
transit is viewed as a key amenity in attracting the highly
desirable creative class to local economies Developers see an
untapped market for housing near transit and are designing new
products and new neighborhoods to meet this demand. And
communities recognize that when all the pieces come together,
transit can help improve the quality of life and lower cost of
living.
A common thread in every one of these places is the
recognition that transit is a powerful tool that is made more
powerful when combined with proactive land use an economic
development strategies.
Despite these encouraging trends, we hear frequent
complaints about the Federal partnership. Funding for transit
is not keeping up with demand or rising construction costs. The
length of time, the complexity, and the added cost of trying to
navigate the Federal New Starts process is increasing and
placing an undue burden on transit projects, while high rate
projects receive much less scrutiny. There is a growing
concern, whether real or perceived, that including a full range
of amenities, streetscape improvements, and pedestrian safety
enhancements in a proposed transit project will jeopardize
Federal funding.
Yet, these are the very features that help maximize walking
trips to transit and create high value urbanism. Local concern
over meeting the cost-effectiveness index has led some
communities to short-change the number of transit stations,
rail cars, or corridor enhancements that would help meet or
even exceed 20 year ridership projections.
In addition, our research shows that actual ridership on
many recently built transit lines is higher than predicted by
FTA's Transit System User Benefit or TSUB model. Some lines,
such as Minnesota's Hiawatha Light Rail and the Metro Red Line
in Houston are outperforming their ridership estimates 15 years
ahead of projections. This raises significant concerns about
the substantial weight placed on these model results.
The good news is that over-performing lines give transit
agencies and communities the momentum and political capital to
expand their transit systems to benefit more of a region, but
the bad news is that these over-performing lines are resulting
in a shortage of transit vehicles, parking spaces, inadequate
tracking or maintenance facilities, or the inaccurate
evaluation may have contributed to a downgrading to lower
capacity technologies. Ridership numbers are the primary input
into the FTA's model to compute cost-effectiveness.
Last fall, in response to requests by FTA for specific
guidance on how economic development could be evaluated and
defined apart from the land use criteria, our Center for
Transit-Oriented Development commissioned research on the
topic; convened meetings with academics, practitioners, and
economists; and we found that there are different definitions
of economic development that are being used.
Without congressional direction on how to interpret
economic development, FTA appears to be trying to define
economic development as the impact of a proposed transit
investment on the regional economy; whereas, local governments
and practitioners are trying to maximize and coordinate the
transit investment to leverage and focus economic development
and growth in a proposed corridor.
We believe that there are a number of commonly used
indicators and metrics for evaluating economic development that
could be incorporated into the transit evaluation process, and
they do not require the creation of a new black box model.
The Federal New Starts and Small Starts programs sets the
rules for engagement in how communities coordinate proposed
transit investments with larger regional decisions about
population growth and economic development. I urge you to
remain steadfast in your intent to implement this congressional
directive. We need a strong partner for communities that are
trying to create new transit investments that provide residents
with greater transportation choices, use transit as a
development strategy, and promote more travel options that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We cannot afford a Federal transit policy that may result
in less transit being built or that makes it more costly and
uncertain to obtain Federal funding. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with FTA on these processes and rules to
help create a fair economic development and land use set of
evaluation processes.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you very much to all of the panelists,
and we will begin questioning.
I would just like to start by asking Mr. Zimmerman, you
heard me question Mr. Simpson regarding the directive that they
issued in July of this year. Do you have a concern that FTA
will use their July 20th directive, which does give weight to
the cost benefit factor, that they would use that in their
analysis of New Starts and of Small Starts pending the adoption
of the new rules, which could take a while?
Mr. Zimmerman. Yes, that is precisely the concern. Of
course, the way it is drawn up, the cost factors seem to work
against us; the benefit factors work against us with things
multiplied by cost--you know, costs including things
potentially that desire expense, in any case, or enhancements
we may make that may make the investment more valuable in the
long-run; and, on the other hand, the benefit side not counting
for some of the real reasons for making the investment in the
first place, which the statute seem to include as two distinct
criteria. So, you know, with the indication that that is the
way they are going to evaluate any proposal, it leads me to
question whether there is any point in submitting such a
proposal.
Ms. Hirono. So pending the adoption of the new rules--and
we hope that they will be changed to reflect the will of
Congress and the underlying legislation--what can we do so
that--I am a new Member of Congress, so I need to ask these
questions. What can we do to direct the FTA to not impose these
kinds of percentage requirements that are not in the statute?
Mr. Zimmerman. Well, it would be my hope that Congress
could give pretty clear direction that it meant what it said,
perhaps by some of the things that I think Ms. Poticha was
suggesting, you know, perhaps providing a more clear
definition, you know, going beyond what you have already done.
I mean, I imagine it must be very frustrating, frankly. The
government I work in, the management doesn't get to not do what
we put in law. But that certainly looks to me like what is
happening here. But if you can't get them to do what you
already told them, perhaps you have to give them more specific
instruction. Other than that, I am not really sure.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Mr. Huffer, you indicated that you basically support the
direction of these new rules as it relates to your State and
what you are doing there, is that correct?
Mr. Huffer. Generally for and in particularly for Very
Small Starts program.
Ms. Hirono. Very Small Starts. You heard some of the other
testimony that the proposal for the Very Small Starts could
actually push a lot of jurisdictions into going in that
direction so that they don't have to undergo the full range of
analysis and assessment. Is that of concern to you?
Mr. Huffer. Our primary concern with Very Small Starts
relates to the cost per mile. We think that that probably
prohibits streetcars and forces communities into bus rapid
transit. We have two bus rapid transit projects, one developed
that was under $3 million per mile, including vehicles, and one
that is being developed that will be under $3 million excluding
vehicles. But we fully believe that we would never be able to
do even a BRT in future years with that $3 million threshold in
there.
Ms. Hirono. So aside from wanting to increase that $3
million per mile, you don't share the concerns expressed by I
think it was Mr. Townes, that the new Very Small Starts would
actually move a lot of projects into those modes of
transportation that would be covered under----
Mr. Huffer. Our primary concern, again, is that it would
prohibit communities from proceeding with a streetcar project.
But what we do like is that, as Administrator Simpson said,
those projects are small enough that they pretty much
automatically qualify for Federal funding, and you can really
expedite that process at that point. But we do have issues with
some of those items as it relates to Very Small Starts.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Do the Members have any questions? Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Townes, congratulations on moving your Norfolk light
rail project through the New Starts process and executing your
full funding grant agreement next Monday, October 1st. Having
just been through this process under the current New Starts
rules, do you believe that any of the changes in the new
proposed rule will make the process easier or faster than for
the project sponsors? You are a guy that has just gone through
this. Are any of the proposed changes, do you feel like that
will help or speed up the process?
Mr. Townes. No, sir, I don't believe that the process, as
outlined in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, will go any
faster or be any less complicated, and I don't think it is fair
or reflects the intent of this Committee or Congress in terms
of bringing new measures into the process so that the true
benefits, not just the cost-effectiveness benefits, of these
projects are recognized.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Very good.
Mr. Huffer, do you believe that a bus rapid transit project
such as the Metro Area Express or the Troost corridor BRT
generates transit-supportive land use and positive economic
development effects? And can you give us some examples?
Mr. Huffer. Sure. We will say, first o fall, yes, we do
believe that it does produce positive economic development
effects and does help with transit corridor development, but
not to the extent to rail. We would never believe that to be
the case.
But I think a good example is on our main street MAX, our
first project that was open, the businesses in that corridor
formed a community improvement district by which they tax
themselves and hired additional security, additional people to
clean litter control, just because they saw that as an
advantage; they saw that MAX was working in the corridor, and
to them it was helping to bring new businesses in, and they
wanted to present additional face. So they actually tax
themselves to form a CID.
Mr. Boozman. Ms. Poticha, did I get that right?
Ms. Poticha. Poticha.
Mr. Boozman. Good.
Ms. Poticha. Yes. Thanks.
Mr. Boozman. I am Boozman, Bozeman, whatever.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Poticha. I can relate.
Mr. Boozman. Reconnecting America, has it looked at better
ways to estimate and incorporate the New Starts evaluation
process pedestrian use of transit? You touched on that earlier,
I think, about pedestrian being important, to get there so you
can get on the--can you kind of elaborate on that a little bit?
Ms. Poticha. Well, we have a database of every fixed
transit station in the United States and we are able to pull
data on how people get around in the neighborhoods that touch
the transit stations, and what we have done is that people who
live in areas within a half mile of a transit stop walk, bike,
and take transit four times as much as their peers in the
region.
I think one of the challenges in the way that transit
projects are evaluated now is that the measurement of those
pedestrians is often lost in the computer modeling, and, in
fact, although I am not a modeling expert, I have heard from
many of the academics and practitioners that the current models
that generate ridership are not sensitive to pedestrians and
don't fully measure those.
That is part of the reason why we have been doing research
on the tracking of projected ridership that is being generated
through this FTA computer model and actual ridership, and what
we are finding is that in many, many cases the ridership
exceeds or is far accelerated beyond what is estimated by the
computer model. I think much of this may be coming from this
wave of transit-oriented development that has happened in the
last 10 years around many, many transit stations in the United
States, creating this whole market for neighborhoods where
people can walk to transit, walk to services. And, yet, I think
in many ways that is not being captured very well by the
current system.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate
it. This is so important. You know, we talk about economic
development; we talk about the benefit of reducing emissions,
all of the things that we are concerned about, but also it
really is important for single moms and single dads who don't
have the resources to commute. If you can't do that, you can't
have a job, and then also for our seniors. You know, many of
them are able to continue to live in their homes because they
can get out and shop and do the things that they need to do
with just a little bit of help of transportation.
So, again, thank you all very much.
Ms. Hirono. I have a few more questions.
Some of you may be aware, possibly not, that Honolulu is
one of the New Starts cities, and I know that, in working with
the mayor there on obtaining Federal funding, that it is
certainly not just a question of cost-effectiveness, but there
is a lot of discussion around how can we revitalize those areas
that the transit stops will be in and economic development.
Those are very real issues just because FTA may not have quite
the models that they feel are reliable.
I have a question for Ms. Poticha. FTA has argued that it
is too difficult and costly to separate land use from economic
development factors and is, thus, proposing a single combined
measure of effectiveness. What are your thoughts about this
approach?
Ms. Poticha. Well, I have been an urban planner for about
25 years, and a vast majority of my career has been around
working with communities who are trying to build communities
around transit. It is very important for communities to plan
the kinds of land uses that happen around transit to change
their zoning codes so that mixed use walkable neighborhoods can
actually be built. In many places, as these transit lines come
in, the rules don't allow those kinds of neighborhoods to be
built and so there is an effort that needs to be done to
prepare the land use policies to even allow these neighborhoods
to be possible.
But that is not sufficient, in my opinion, to generate the
kinds of neighborhoods that truly capture the value that
transit provides, and what we are seeing is the most successful
places are places that have put in place financial tools that
help support and incentivize development to come to these
areas; that create the sites where development can actually
happen. In many of these places you are running your transit
line through an existing community. You might have a zoning
that allows transit-oriented uses, but that is often prevented
because the land maybe hasn't been assembled in any real way.
So there are a whole set of tools that can be used to work
with the private sector to ensure that economic development
happens and that this kind of glomeration and clustering of
uses and activity truly takes place. So I would say that they
are related, but they are different, and both are necessary in
order to truly maximize the public's investment in this
transportation infrastructure.
Ms. Hirono. So would you agree that FTA is perhaps jumping
the gun in trying to codify certain percentages that does not
give the kind of weight that some of us would like to give to
those other factors?
Ms. Poticha. Well, I have heard a lot about the challenges
of creating a predictive computer model that would generate an
estimate of economic development benefits from a particular
transit investment, and I had always thought that the most
appropriate way to evaluate transit projects was a combination
of predictive models and some qualitative measures, because
communities are very complex places. And as we are now learning
when we look at these ridership models, they are not
necessarily accurate.
So I would--one of the things that we found through all of
our research and commissioning papers from various academics
and practitioners who work with economic development on a
regular basis is that probably the best way to look at economic
development is a combination of qualitative and quantitative
metrics.
Ms. Hirono. That sounds like a yes answer to me. Yes. Thank
you.
Ms. Poticha. Well, I would also say that we looked at some
of the full funding grant agreements that have been made since
2000, and one of the things that is a worry to me is that there
are 14 projects on this list--which I can submit to you--that
received either a low or a medium-low cost-effectiveness rating
through the FTA's evaluation process. And yet, when land use,
which was one of the factors, was included into the evaluation,
they rose up high enough in order to get funding.
So, clearly, there is a recognition of the benefits of
these other factors, and I would say that we should continue to
do that and improve upon it.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. And I would like you to submit the
14 projects.
Ms. Poticha. I would be happy to.
Ms. Hirono. If there are no further questions, thank you.
This hearing is adjourned. I would like to thank once again all
of the panelists for giving us the benefit of your views.
[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38168.059