- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 1999

========================================================================

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman

TOM DeLAY, Texas MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
RALPH REGULA, Ohio ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RON PACKARD, California ED PASTOR, Arizona
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

John T. Blazey II, Richard E. Efford, Stephanie K. Gupta, and Linda J.
Muir, Subcommittee Staff
________

PART 4

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Page
Federal Highway Administration................................. 1
Federal Transit Administration................................. 1121
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration................. 1
RELATED AGENCIES:
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority................. 1449

________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-696 WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
HENRY BONILLA, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
1999

----------

Wednesday, March 4, 1998.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

WITNESSES

KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
GLORIA J. JEFF, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
ANTHONY R. KANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
RICARDO MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
PHILIP RECHT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Wolf. Welcome, both of you, to the committee. Your full
statements will appear in the record as if read. You can
proceed in whatever way you think is appropriate, but it might
be better to summarize, but whatever way you would rather go,
that would be fine too.
I'd recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Obey, for a statement
or comment.
Mr. Obey. No.

FHWA Opening Remarks

Mr. Wykle. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Federal
Highway Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget.
Joining me this morning is Ms. Gloria Jeff, the Deputy
Federal Highway Administrator and Mr. Anthony Kane, Executive
Director.
I'm also a strong proponent of empowerment, therefore I
have other members of the Federal Highway Administration staff
with me to elaborate on various aspects of our budget request
as may be appropriate.
Mr. Wolf. That's a good way of putting it. [Laughter.]

Overview

Mr. Wykle. As you have indicated, sir, I'll submit the full
statement for the record and I will summarize my statement.
Last month, the President submitted his fiscal year 1999
budget to the Congress, a budget that is in balance for the
first time in 30 years and ends deficit spending three years
ahead of the schedule envisioned in last year's budget
agreement.
Within this context, the Department of Transportation's
proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 invests in the Nation's
future at a historic level, 42 percent higher than the average
spending in the first four years of this decade.
Secretary Slater appeared before this committee yesterday
and provided an overview of that budget request. His testimony
outlined five strategic goals for building an integrated
transportation system that meets our vital national interests
and enhances the quality of life for the American people, today
and into the 21st century.
The Federal Highway Administration budget that we are
proposing today is built solidly around those strategic goals
and meets the challenge to maintain a safe, high quality,
intermodal transportation network.

budget highlights

Our budget proposes a Federal-aid highway obligation
limitation of $21.5 billion, a continuation of fiscal year
1998's record level. In addition, a total of $250 million is
proposed for State infrastructure banks and a new
transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program. These
funds will provide financing alternatives to help launch
projects sooner by attracting private and non-federal public
investment.

safety as a priority

Our budget request strongly supports transportation safety,
which Secretary Slater has stated is the Department's highest
priority. Working with Administrator Martinez and our other
partners in highway safety, we have stated an aggressive goal
of reducing the number of highway-related fatalities by 20
percent in 10 years and during the same period, also reducing
the number of highway-related injuries by 20 percent.
Our reauthorization proposal highlights safety as a
national priority. It provides new incentives and increases
flexibility among other highway programs to address national
and State priorities. Our reauthorization proposal includes a
major research focus within the intelligent transportation
system program for the development and testing of intelligent
vehicle systems that promise dramatic improvements in safety.
The Federal Highway budget request also includes $100
million for motor carrier safety. These funds will support a
results-oriented commercial motor vehicle safety program. Over
80 percent of the funds will be used as grants to States for
the implementation of comprehensive, nationwide, performance-
based safety programs. The funds will also support national
information systems and analysis and development of new systems
to support critical safety initiatives such as the Commercial
Vehicle Information System.

technology deployment

We have also proposed increased funding for programs which
support the advancement of technological innovation. Our fiscal
year 1999 budget recognizes that a strong Federal
transportation research and technology program is not a
tradeoff with infrastructure funding but is a powerful tool to
ensure that innovation is incorporated into the multibillion
dollar infrastructure program.
Technology advancement is essential to support the Nation's
infrastructure needs and this budget includes funding to deploy
innovative technology from which travelers will benefit on a
daily basis.

common sense management philosophy

And, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
underlying this Federal Highway Administration budget is a
philosophy of common sense management that allows us to meet
mission changes and develop the agency work force which will
provide leadership for meeting the transportation challenges of
the 21st century.
Even as we significantly streamline our agency, in fiscal
year 1999, we will make our final reduction and staffing levels
to meet our national performance review target ceiling. This
culminates an almost 12 percent reduction in staff since 1993.
We will also take the first steps in the implementation of our
field restructuring plan with the elimination of our nine
regional offices and theestablishment of four resource centers
to be staffed by program and technical specialists.
Since my appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in
November, I have reviewed in depth the work of an agency task
force appointed to evaluate our field structure and after
consulting with the FHWA leadership team, we have selected a
course of action.
With the support of the Secretary and other modal
administrators, we are moving forward with the implementation
planning that will be necessary to get us to the desired end
state. In completing this restructuring, we will make every
effort to minimize the impacts on our Federal employees.
During fiscal year 1999, we will begin operating with four
resource centers on a virtual basis until all necessary
restructuring actions have been completed. Even though we are
slightly behind the schedule originally envisioned, you have my
assurance, Mr. Chairman, that I am fully committed to
completing this restructuring of the Federal Highway
Administration.

reauthorization

Finally, while the Appropriations Committee completed their
work for fiscal year 1998, reauthorization of Federal surface
transportation programs is still pending before Congress. As
the Secretary stated yesterday, early action on reauthorization
is essential if we are to avoid severe impacts to the traveling
public and the highway construction industry, as well as the
operation of Federal agencies, including FHWA and NHTSA.
States' ability to obligate Federal aid highway funds
terminates at the end of April. And the extension act passed
last year by Congress only allows States to obligate $9.7
billion of the $21.5 billion ceiling for fiscal year 1998. This
means an estimated $11 billion could be left on the table.
Perhaps the foremost impact of delayed reauthorization lies
in the area of highway safety. By this summer, the Federal
Motor Carrier Program will cease to operate. States will be
forced to begin laying off safety investigators. The National
Driver Register, which is critical to identification of problem
drivers, will be shut down. This will create an immediate and
significant impact on highway safety.

conclusion

In conclusion, as we look to the future, we have set high
goals in our strategic plan that forms the basis for our fiscal
year 1999 budget request. We look forward to working with the
Congress to achieve these goals. We would be pleased to address
any questions you may have following Administrator Martinez'
statement.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement and biography of Kenneth Wykle and
biographies of Gloria Jeff and Anthony Kane follow:]

[Pages 5 - 23--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

NHTSA Opening Remarks

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Wykle.
Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Martinez. Mr. Wolf, I actually have a short statement
but I will summarize that.
Mr. Wolf. You're welcome to give the whole statement.
That's fine.
Dr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you and the members of the Subcommittee today. I
want to thank this Subcommittee for the bipartisan support
we've received for our programs and our safety mission.
With me today is Phillip Recht, Deputy Administrator for
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Right
behind me is my leadership team. It has been a strong reason
for our success in the past few years.
As you know, transportation safety is Secretary Slater's
number one priority. The Department's fiscal year budget
proposes a record investment in safety as a direct reflection
of Secretary Slater's commitment to improve transportation
safety, an 11 percent increase over fiscal year 1998.

NHTSA budget request

NHTSA is requesting an investment of $406 million, an
increase of 22 percent from fiscal year 1998 funding, to
address the highway safety challenges which I will outline
further.
I do want to say that I'm pleased with the bipartisan
support we've had working together under your chairmanship and
we've made great strides in highway safety. When I first came
here several years ago, you didn't know us as well as I wanted.
We came up with a lot of ideas and a lot of new ways to do
things, and I appreciate the fact that you all invested in us.
I think we have made a lot of significant responses to that.
The strategies are now realities. We launched a new
presidential initiative on safety belt use with a broad
coalition of public and private partners that is growing
rapidly. We have held intermodal Moving Kids Safely conferences
to improve the traveling safety of our Nation's children. We've
moved them from Washington, D.C. to the regions. We've now held
22 conferences intermodally.
We've distributed over 30,000 Protecting Your Newborn
videos to organizations, including videos in Spanish. Ford
Motor Company has distributed another 110,000 as part of our
partnership efforts.
We've expanded the Safe Communities Injury Control Program
which originally had a goal of 50 in 5 years. We now have over
350 sites, developed in the past 2 years. Our goal is 600 by
the end of 1999.
We created a Crash, Injury, Research and Engineering
Network (CIREN) that brought together seven trauma centers and
linked those to create not only detailed hospital-based data on
car crashes, but creates a strong link between the medical
engineers and researchers. We're sharing that information with
researchers and engineers in Detroit and around the world.
We initiated a multiyear project to field test the
prototype of the Automatic Collision Notification System and
we've proven that concept. We brought new partners into that,
including EMS, police and fire services and medical services
around the country.
We've issued several key air bag rulemakings to deal with
the most significant safety problems associated with air bag
deployment while preserving the overall safety benefits.
We've issued rulemakings improving protection for head
injury. I'll just mention that some of the underride for trucks
also comes on line this year.
We continue research on key vehicle safety initiatives such
as light duty vehicle compatibility, advanced air bags and
rollover. We've redesigned our programs with the States to
focus on performance partnerships, which has really energized
some of the participants in those programs. We think this has
led to significant changes in how we do business with the
States.
We have developed new incentive programs through our NEXTEA
legislation to focus on national priorities such as seat belt
use and impaired driving. The seat belt use initiative, as you
can see, has become a departmental priority.
Through our strategic planning, we have modernized the
agency in terms of improved communications and information
technology; we've streamlined our processes; we've improved the
skills of staff through training and education; and we have
strengthened our staff to create a well-trained, diverse staff
to meet the needs of tomorrow.
As you know, we are in a challenging safety environment. We
have an aging population and a growth of second baby boomers.
By increasing diversity in these groups, we have to reach hard.
We've had a flattening of some of our successes over the years
which is one reason we wanted to change our approach.
We believe that we are in an opportune position now by
having reached out to new partners and creating new programs to
move the ball even further. Our budget request reflects that,
and also reflects the fact that highway crashes constitute 94
percent of all transportation-related fatalities, and 99
percent of all the injuries, as well as $150 billion in
societal costs. We think it is a modest investment in our
Nation's effort to provide safe transportation and reduce
health care costs.
Our request includes the following: increased funding for
the recently launched President's Initiative for Increasing
seatbelt use; funding for the President's Initiative on Drugs,
Driving and Youth; expanding the number of safe community sites
to 600 in 1999, and with that, significant training for
individuals who are in those programs so that they can continue
to energize and mobilize resources in their own communities. We
will train the people to keep the program going.
Funding is also requested to implement successful
partnership strategies in Partners for Progress, which is
geared toward alcohol-related injuries, funding to investigate
car crash compatibility between light trucks, vans and
passenger cars; to study advanced airbag systems; to conduct
special crash investigations into the second generation air
bags; and to expand the number of CIREN sites to seven, to
increase our knowledge of injuries, biomechanics and the
kinematics, of car crashes.
We are requesting a substantial increase in the Section 402
Program--64 percent of the funding we're requesting actually
goes to our partners in the States to help others participate,
not only at the State level but at the local level, in these
national initiatives.
I do want to share that it is a real pleasure and
opportunity to appear with Kenneth Wykle, the Administrator of
the Federal Highway Administration, and Gloria Jeff, his
deputy. We continue to maintain a close relationship with the
Federal Highway Administration which continues to get better,
not only at the national level, but also at the regional level.
Today we've introduced programs and initiatives to
effectively address the Department's number one priority of
safety. A lot of work at the local level such as the red light
running campaigns, speed enforcement programs, and aggressive
driving programs, as well as initiatives dealing with
children's issues.

conclusion

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support, and Mr. Sabo,
for your support. We're very optimistic about our progress so
far. I know we have more interest in our programs, but we look
forward to working with you and your wonderful staff throughout
the year.
[The prepared statement and biography of Ricardo Martinez
and biography of Philip Recht follow:]

[Pages 27 - 48--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

reduction of blood alcohol level

Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Dr. Martinez.
I know Mr. Obey, the Ranking Member of the full committee,
has another hearing which I wish I could also attend but I
can't so I will recognize him and then we will go back and
forth.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I didn't expect that.
I don't have any questions. I would simply like to make a
comment to both these gentlemen. I wish I could have made it
yesterday when Mr. Slater was here, but I was otherwise
occupied.
I simply would like to most strongly disassociate myself
from one initiative that this Administration is undertaking.
Wisconsin has been for many years a donor State when it comes
to highway money. When I was first elected to Congress, we got
about 67 cents back for every dollar we sent to Washington.
Through the years, we've been able to change that to the point
this year where we were almost at $1. Now the Administration
budget would set our State back significantly with respect to
that issue.
The Administration's announcement yesterday with respect to
blood alcohol level would also, in my view, threaten to set
back my State even further.
As you know, the President announced an initiative which
would suggest that if a State does not reduce its blood alcohol
level to .8 percent, it would experience a withholding of 5
percent of certain highway programs, rising to about 10 percent
withholding, I believe, down the line.
I have no problem with the Administration going after drunk
drivers. My grandfather was killed in an accident involving a
drunk driver, but I want to say that I most strenuously object
to the narrow nature of the Administration's attack on drunk
drivers.
I would simply draw to your attention a few facts. There
are a lot of ways that you can attack the drunk driving
problem. One is to lower the blood alcohol level. If you want
to determine which States are tough on drunk drivers and which
aren't, another way is to take a look at the amount of fines,
the dollar level of fines that are levied on someone who is a
drunk driver. Another is to examine the amount of jail time
that is required if you're convicted of drunk driving.
We had two legislators in the Wisconsin legislature last
week introduce legislation which would provide for a ten-year
jail period for a repeat offender. I'd say that's pretty tough.
Another way to examine whether or not a State is tough or
lenient on drunk driving is to examine the quality of required
counseling and the toughness of probation activities associated
with our treatment of drunk drivers.
I simply want to say, I, for one, very strongly disagree
with the Administration picking out one specific target as
deserving of reductions in State highway aid. I would say its
decision to do so only strengthens my view that the proper way
to get out of the entire silliness which is accompanying the
way Congress is dealing with highways in general is to support
the Kasich bill which would simply turn the revenues back to
the States and let them run their own highway programs, with
the exception of a tiny set aside to meet a few Federal
responsibilities.
I guess I'm distressed when I see a public relations effort
such as we saw yesterday aimed at the right target but I think
very quaint in terms of the weapons it selects to go after that
target.
I'm also disturbed by the fact that the Congress apparently
is going to put concrete ahead of kids by deciding that despite
the budget caps last year, we're going to bust those caps in
order to pass the Authorization Committee's highway bill or at
least you're going to see them take a good many billions of
dollars away from education and other high priorities to fund
additional highways.
I don't think the Congress or the Administration has
exactly covered itself in glory in terms of the thoughtfulness
of its approach to transportation issues. I simply wanted to
get that off my chest. My real argument is with the White
House, although I'm sure that you fullysupport their proposals.
For what it's worth, which is probably not much, I simply
wanted to make that statement and I thank the Chairman for his
time.

impact of reauthorization delay

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Little more than three weeks remain before the expiration
of the temporary extension, of the short-term highway and
transit reauthorization. What will be the major impact on
ongoing and planned highway construction after May 1 should the
Act not be reauthorized by that time?
Mr. Wykle. From the standpoint of highway construction, the
impact on the States, it's certainly varies by State because of
the way they have managed or accumulated the money. We have
done some surveys to try to get a feel of the general impact
across all of the States if this happens.
Some of the initial information we have received shows that
if there is a delay until the end of June, as an example, there
will be approximately 1,400 projects valued at about $2.5
billion that will be deferred or delayed.
If it goes as far as July 31, then we will have another
1,450 projects delayed at about $2.6 billion. For each billion
dollars in highway construction funds, that equates to about
42,000 jobs, about 10,000 of which are directly related to on-
site construction work. Approximately 20,000 of those are
indirect, off-site type jobs.
So you can see a delay will have a significant impact on
the construction programs and projects in each of the States,
as well as on the economy and the jobs aspect. If you go beyond
the construction, as I mentioned in my statement, there is a
significant impact on safety also.

impact of reauthorization delay on safety program

Mr. Wolf. What will be the impact on the highway safety
program should the reauthorization not be enacted by May 1?
Mr. Wykle. Well, first of all, the programs are already
being scaled back.
Mr. Wolf. How are they being scaled back?
Mr. Wykle. In terms of FHWA travel, the extent to which
safety personnel we can go out into the field and some
locations.
Mr. Wolf. Actual programs have been canceled or trips have
been canceled?
Mr. Wykle. Right. Trips have been canceled or delayed to
try to consolidate with other trips to make maximum efficiency
of the funds that are available. States primarily fund their
own motor carrier safety inspectors through this program, so
that program will cease about the end of June.
The reason I say that is we have made management decisions
to stretch our funds to some extent. There will be a lapse in
term of inspectors available to the States to actually conduct
inspections and a significant impact in terms of the National
Driver Register shutdown, which is the automated system that
provides the States information on who the problem drivers are
based upon accident incidence and those types of things, so you
know who to target through your safety inspection. It will
potentially have a devastating impact on the safety program if
we go past the early summer.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Martinez. We have a very similar situation. We just met
with the governors' representatives to discuss this issue on
Monday. What happens is two things. One, the States are not
creating new programs and projects that are major initiatives
because of the fact they do not have funding for the entire
year. Two, within the region in their States, they are also
decreasing their travel monies and other activities in order to
maintain maximum money for programs. Once the money is gone,
they will begin to cut programs.
We believe they will begin to shut down their operations
somewhere around the beginning of June, and our field
operations will have to be shut down as well.
Mr. Wolf. What options do States have to avoid project
disruptions in their highway construction program? Can they
advance State funds on Federal projects or use their own money?
Mr. Wykle. They can. That's why my initial comment
indicated it varies State by State. Some States are advancing
construction in terms of providing funds to do that. Others are
taking some money from their State allocation, if you will,
kind of ``betting on the come'' that later in the summer at the
latest, there will be a reauthorization and they will get the
Federal funds to reimburse the State funds.
Mr. Wolf. Do they have that option with highway safety?
Dr. Martinez. I don't know of them having the ability to do
anything other than postpone the beginning of some projects or
programs. Again, I'm finding that since they don't have enough
funding for the whole year, those State programs would be much
smaller.
Mr. Wykle. It's my understanding that the States do not
have much flexibility in terms of transferring their own funds
to safety.
Mr. Wolf. Would you say a lengthy delay could actually be a
safety issue then?
Mr. Wykle. Yes, it would be a safety issue.

impact of reauthorization delay on agency operations

Mr. Wolf. What would be the impact on salaries and expenses
for the Highway Administration and NHTSA should there be no
reauthorization?
Mr. Wykle. In terms of the Federal Highway Administration
itself, when we got our six-month allocation, the FHWA
leadership team made some management decisions in terms of
trying to project when we might have reauthorization. It was
our feeling that we would not have it by March 31 and
therefore, we made decisions to really cut back on travel, to
not fill vacancies as they occur through people retiring, to
keep movement of personnel in terms of reassignments to an
absolute minimum and only fill critical positions.
As an example, we've talked to GSA about getting our rent
on credit to extend our capability to pay the salaries a little
bit longer. We have the same thing with our information systems
running on credit until the early summer time period to be able
to pay our salaries longer. We've delayed research and
development type work, no new starts, continuing at a minimum
level in terms of what we're doing, made some delays in the
intelligent transportation system earmarks in terms of actually
allocating funds for those.
We made those types of management decisions to be able to
extend our salaries and to keep our operations up and running
until about the end of June or soon after. If we don't have
something at the end of June, then we face furlough of our
employees.
Mr. Wolf. What happens at the end of June?
Mr. Wykle. At the end of June or soon after, we basically
shut down.
Mr. Wolf. Can you elaborate a little bit on what that
means?
Mr. Wykle. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. I know what it means, but just for the record.
Mr. Wykle. It means, in essence, that we furlough our
employees on or about the end of June. The reason I'm giving it
that way is because we're running on credit in some areas, so
we'll just have to see.
Mr. Wolf. You're already running now on credit because
you've asked GSA?
Mr. Wykle. No. We will be for the third quarter. We are not
actually running on credit yet, but to extend to the 30th of
June with our salaries, we will be running on credit soon.
Mr. Wolf. So if the Congress were to go home for the July
4th recess without dealing with this, what would we see at the
Federal Highway Administration?
Mr. Wykle. We would do our best to actually stop travel, to
delay absolutely all movements, take any of those critical type
steps to perhaps squeeze out another couple weeks or another
pay period. Beyond that, we go into the furlough mode which
means we shut down our division offices, our region offices, as
well as headquarters. It means we do not reimburse the States
for funds they have obligated on projects. All those accounting
type functions would stop.
So in the June-July time period is when this will occur. I
can't give you an absolute date because we're doing everything
we can from a credit standpoint to stretch it, but in that mid-
summer time point is the critical point at which we will start
to furlough and shut down operations. All the safety inspectors
come off, as I mentioned before.
Mr. Wolf. Do all the State highway departments know that
this?
Mr. Wykle. They do, yes, sir. We have talked to them and
we've also talked to the AASHTO State organization. They are
very concerned about that. I think they've been making visits
on the Hill to make sure their members know the potential
impact of delay in reauthorization.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Martinez. It's very, very similar at NHTSA. We think by
the end of June we will need to have layoffs for not only our
headquarters staff that oversees the regional offices, but also
the regional offices themselves. It greatly undermines our
effectiveness, because a lot of our programs have been national
leadership as well as local activities. It would stop the
momentum of the great critical mass we've just recently
achieved in implementing these initiatives.
I do think it has a very strong effect on safety and our
ability to continue to implement these programs into the local
environment.

impact of reauthorization delay on august redistribution

Mr. Wolf. In the past, the August redistribution has
ensured that 100 percent of the Federal aid obligation
limitation was obligated. Could we find ourselves in a position
this year that because of the delay in enacting a final bill,
some of the fiscal year 1998 obligational authority could
lapse?
Mr. Wykle. It certainly depends upon how late we get the
reauthorization. I think if we get reauthorization by the end
of July or early part of August, then it will have a minimum
impact. Certainly if it occurs after the first or second week
in September, we're in new territory; we haven't been in this
situation before, but I think it's reasonable to assume yes, we
might be unable to obligate all of the money.
We're doing as many things as we can in terms of being
prepared, in terms of statements of work, preparing the
contracts, getting ready to go out with the requests for
proposal in the States and so forth, so they'll be leaning
forward, but certainly the later you get in the year, the more
difficult it becomes.
Let me ask Tony if he wants to elaborate on that?
Mr. Kane. You mentioned advanced construction earlier, Mr.
Chairman, and a number of States have real significant amounts
of advance construction which can be converted very easily and
be able to make use of obligation ceilings.
We would closely work with each of the State DOTs on their
programs so that at whatever date we do get reauthorization, we
would be forecasting through the end of the fiscal year work in
terms of redistribution and really make it a goal to utilize
all those funds.
Advance construction will help a lot of the conversions and
using the obligation ceiling, even if it's late in the year.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.

intelligent transportation system (ITS) advances

Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure how we get out of this dilemma but it clearly
is Congress' fault if we don't get the ISTEA currently extended
in some form. We're way beyond expiration of the original law
and we should have acted, and what happens, I don't know.
Let me ask this question. Clearly as we look to the future
in increasing road demands, we are not likely to significantly
expand size of roads in this country. Rather, we have to focus
on greater efficiency of existing infrastructure to move
people.
One of the ways we're trying to do that is intelligent
vehicle systems. How are they working? What progress are we
making in terms of expanding capacity and hopefully make the
road safer at the same time?
Mr. Wykle. As you're aware, sir, we have some model
programs with intelligent transportation systems.
Mr. Sabo. I guess I called it the vehicle systems. It
should be transportation systems.
Mr. Wykle. A variety of areas there, but first to address
intelligent vehicle initiatives. We're working on such things
as intelligent cruise control to avoid rear end collisions as
an example, and other types of technology to prevent those
collisions. We're working on such things as view enhancers to
help older drivers be able to see better, also to be able to
see better in terms of reduced vision type conditions--fog,
rain, those types of things; looking at sensors for heavy
vehicles so they can identify other vehicles that are in their
blind spots alongside their trailers.
All of these technologies are available today. The
challenge is bringing those to market and where they are cost
effective from the standpoint of the industry itself and
putting them on their vehicles. I think technology and the
intelligent vehicle initiative has great potential to reduce
the number of crashes.
In the past, we've certainly put a lot of emphasis on
protecting the passenger with seatbelts, air bags, rollover
protection, those types of things. We've done a great job of
that.
Now we're focusing on avoiding the crash to prevent
vehicles from running off the road, to prevent them from
running into the vehicles in front of them, to identify things
in the blind spots. All these types of initiativeshold great
potential for reducing the number of crashes and then improving the
safety and reducing the number of fatalities.
Intelligent transportation systems go far beyond that. I'd
be happy to elaborate if you'd like.

its incident response technology

Mr. Sabo. How much progress do you think we're making in
increasing the capacity of the existing roadways?
Mr. Wykle. We have some initial data where we have put in
intelligent transportation systems to include traffic
operations centers as an example, where we have video out
around the highways to quickly identify incidents when they
occur, also trying to integrate that with law enforcement
activities and agencies--the police, the emergency response
vehicles.
So it improves response to incidents and clearing those out
of the roadway as much as 30 percent.
In terms of commuting time, naturally there are lots of
variables, but from 8 to 15 percent improvements in commute
time can be made through better traffic management, better
management of the highways, so we're getting those types of
improvements and additional capacity out of the existing system
through intelligent transportation systems.
Mr. Sabo. Mr. Martinez, are you following what's going on
with technology?
Dr. Martinez. We're very involved. I have just a couple of
things to add to this.
We're making cars and we're making people travel a lot
faster than we are making roads. In the last 10 years, for
example, we've seen about a 1 percent increase in roads; we've
seen about a 35 percent increase in the number of miles
traveled. So the question of how to use the roads more
efficiently is really part of the old ITS program.
There are things such as electronic tolls--paying tolls
automatically--which decreases the amount of time you have to
stop. Also traffic management, looking at intersections for
intermodal transportation, so that you can control the traffic
a lot better globally, with some of the systems in place.
Our greatest focus has been really on precrash--avoiding
the crash to begin with and then also after the crash--which is
an area we've added to the ITS program, and is now integrated
into the ITS structure.
Before the crash occurs, things such as hazard
identification, gives people early warnings. If you get an
extra second warning, for example, of a hazard ahead of you,
you may be able to take avoidance maneuvers and avoid a crash.
Crashes increase congestion flow and decrease the consequences
of driving.
Mapping services and information services are also being
installed in cars faster and faster. We're looking for ways to
make sure that these devices enhance driving and don't distract
from driving ability, but provide faster routes.
For example, when I was in Atlanta during the summer
Olympics, I rented a car that allowed me to punch into the
computer by global positioning where I needed to go. I was new
to Atlanta for driving. I could get the information two ways,
the most direct route or the fastest route. The system then
looked at what the traffic was on the highways and rerouted me
so that I avoided congestion by driving alternate routes.
We have the ability to get that information to people and
use our roads more efficiently, so that congestion is
mitigated.
Things that have been mentioned by Mr. Wykle such as
automatic cruise control and other devices that enhance the
driving experience are, I think, going to occur from the
vehicle side first. It is easier to put devices in vehicles
than to build the road infrastructure, this takes a little bit
longer. So we're working very strongly to look at devices that
can create collision avoidance.
After the crash is an area we've really focused on the last
few years. That is, when a crash occurs, trying to get
automatic collision notification. We started the program
several years ago that when a crash occurs, it sends a signal
to the local emergency medical services system.
We've now done proof of concept of that program in Buffalo,
New York. As we've been testing, we've created a large
coalition to help build the infrastructure to make this a
reality. That is currently an area that we put into ITS several
years ago, but is growing because the coalition of individuals
views it as another opportunity.
I think there is a lot of promise. You'll also see in
addition to the infrastructure we're developing, the ability to
implement tracking systems to help with fleet management and
delivery of products and services in a more efficient way,
given the roads and conditions of existing roads.
I think there is a lot to be gained from this initiative.
Mr. Sabo. Thank you.

rural its initiative

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I listened with interest to your information. What is the
rural initiative?
Mr. Wykle. Some of the things we're doing in the rural
areas is traveler information type systems so that travelers
can call in and get weather information, for example. We are
also using GPS system (global positioning satellite) so that if
there is an accident, then that vehicle can be located more
quickly in terms of response from an emergency standpoint or
law enforcement. Those are some of the types of things that are
being done in the rural areas--tourist information type systems
so tourists can call in and find locations and get information.

its deployment

Mr. Cramer. Is that the plan or are you actually deploying
that and using those or getting ready to because in your
written statement you indicate that over the next 10 years,
these initiatives will be deployed across the country. Are you
using demonstration projects?
Mr. Wykle. They are actually being done now and I have some
data here in terms of freeway management--47 metropolitan areas
are deploying ITS technologies. In terms of traffic signal
control, 70 percent more smart signals that stay green as long
as there is not a vehicle coming to the cross street to keep
traffic flowing better; electronic toll collection in 11 areas;
electronic fare payment in 25; transit management in 38;
emergency management in 63. So they are being deployed as we
speak.
I have personally visited the center down in San Antonio. I
was with Senator Chafee about a week ago opening a traffic
operation center in Providence, Rhode Island. There is one in
Anaheim, California that I have personally visited, one in
Colorado Springs that Deputy Administrator Jeff helped open
just last week. So they are being opened as we speak, being
deployed and being used.
Mr. Cramer. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
Before we go onto another subject, there was thecase of the
woman on the Dulles Toll Road or the Greenway, who was lost for a week.
As I recall the accident, she went down into a ravine and the body and
car were not found for a week. Is there something under ITS with regard
to notification?
Dr. Martinez. Yes. That is a system we're actually looking
at, automatic collision notification.

automatic collision notification

Mr. Wolf. How would that work? Do you recall the case? It
was out in my congressional district. She was missing for a
week. The car had gone off the road down into a ravine where
you wouldn't see it as you were driving by.
Dr. Martinez. We actually have a lot of technologies that
have come to the marketplace, that would give us an opportunity
to address that issue.
When a crash occurs, we look at a series of events that
need to occur in order to get the right medical response.
First, is the crash, then discovery. We're talking now about a
long time lapse to discovery, then from discovery to
notification.
Mr. Wolf. That discovery would not only be important in a
case like that but also in a heavy congested area on the
Beltway for the response vehicle to get there.
Dr. Martinez. Let me map it out because there are different
time frames. Discovery from the time the crash occurs--in a
rural environment or even in areas that aren't that rural--but
if you go off the road, you will not be seen late at night.
Then there is discovery of the crash, so the clock starts
ticking when the crash occurs.
From discovery to notification, right now we're in a change
between a mobile system of communication from a fixed base. It
used to be when someone was discovered, you had to go find a
phone. Now, we're finding the phones can come to the crash
site.
There is discovery, then notification, then access to care.
The 911 system makes the process from notification, to access,
to care fairly simple, because it directs the calls immediately
to the right center, and then to dispatch, and sends it back to
you.
In that particular case, what we're looking at is, when a
crash occurs, the vehicle itself would send a signal that a
crash occurred. The question is where does that signal go,
while getting that signal to a 911 system so that resources can
be sent out to shorten that loop.
We started that system several years ago. We have a program
going on in Buffalo that has shown proof of concept.

availability of global positioning systems (GPS)

Mr. Wolf. Are they in any cars now? You mentioned the one
you rented in Atlanta. Is that part of the GPS system and ITS?
Dr. Martinez. Actually, you can buy them now. In most
General Motors cars they are available with the On-Star System
and Ford has a Rescue system.
Mr. Wolf. Is that packaged with regards to the crash?
Dr. Martinez. Right. It has a GPS locator and it follows
the signal. I've actually been in cars with them. I suggest you
do it and listen to it. It's fascinating.
The threshold at this point in time is air bag deployment.
Air bag deployment is the threshold for the system to know that
there is a crash. We have a project looking at other mechanisms
in order to look at side impacts, rollovers, and other crash
modes.
That technology is coming into the marketplace pretty
quickly. One of the wireless carriers is going to create the
same system that will be put into your rearview mirror, and it
will be hooked into the vehicle. You can buy the system
separately and have it installed in your car.
Basically, those calls all go to an 800 number right now,
and then operators call back. We're looking at ways to build
the infrastructure locally. I think the system is already
underway. What we're trying to do is create the system to make
it fuse more rapidly into technology. We think that's going to
happen.
Mr. Wykle. Could I comment on this?
Mr. Wolf. Certainly.

integrating gps with traffic operations centers

Mr. Wykle. I certainly agree with Rick in terms of the
technology being there. I think you put your finger on the
right technology in terms of the global positioning system, and
some of the luxury vehicles that are on the market today have
those systems in them in terms of being able to identify
specifically where the car breaks down or where it's involved
in an accident or incident.
The real key, as Rick mentioned, is where does that
information come back to. It is my belief that this intelligent
transportation infrastructure we're putting in, the local
system here in D.C. that you're familiar with in terms of
information, the one I mentioned in San Antonio, and the
others, that you need to have these GPS systems integrated
where they report back to these operations centers. The key is
the operations center not only for the management of the
traffic, but also the incidents, and you have law enforcement
agencies now being co-located in these traffic operations
centers, traffic management centers--the name varies in the
city as to what you call them.
As we start to get this jointly manned center, then we
integrate the technology----

its model deployment

Mr. Wolf. Where are there any that are jointly manned?
Mr. Wykle. At San Antonio, as an example. There is a law
enforcement individual sitting right there.
Mr. Wolf. Because the one here is not.
Mr. Wykle. The one here is primarily information, so they
need to bring the law enforcement in there. Detroit has one,
and Anaheim, California.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe you can give us a letter to that effect?
I'd like to send that out to our people, Dave Gehr, the
Virginia State Police, Fairfax County Police, to see if they
may want to do that here.
Mr. Wykle. In terms of the integration? Sure, we'll do
that, sir.

congestion pricing-high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes

Mr. Wolf. On another issue that Mr. Sabo 's questions
triggered, congestion pricing on roads. There's been some
discussion, and I think Mr. Packard probably has one in his
district, in which they sell the right-of-way on HOV lanes, not
for people who are HOV.
Mr. Wykle. Right. I'm familiar with it.
Mr. Wolf. How many are there in effect today; how
successful has it been insofar as how many people have utilized
it; how has it impacted on those who are on the HOV lanes
because they had two or three in the car; and what is the cost?

congestion pricing projects

Mr. Wykle. Sure. I'll call on my staff and ask for the
specifics because I cannot give you the exact number that are
in existence today but I know more and more States are looking
at that--California, as an example, Orange County and down in
the San Diego area, they are right now putting in some
congestion pricing capability.
Mr. Wolf. Are they in HOV lanes?
Mr. Wykle. They are in HOV lanes, yes.
Mr. Wolf. And not everyone pays?
Mr. Wykle. Right now, three-person car pools on the Orange
County facility, as an example, pay a reduced toll. Two-person
carpools, or an individual, one-person car, if they want to use
the lanes during high traffic volume time, then they pay the
full toll. In San Diego, they're looking to change the price as
often as once every six minutes, depending upon the density and
capacity of that lane. So the jury is still out as to how
effective that is going to be.
Mr. Wolf. What is the cost during the peak point?
Mr. Wykle. They're looking at up to $2.00 to $2.25 for
about 10 miles.
Mr. Maring. Currently, $2.95 on the SR91 in California, the
LA area operated that for about two years. The San Diego one, I
think they're looking to go higher than that but haven't yet.
Mr. Wolf. Is the San Diego one in operation?
Mr. Maring. It's currently in operation with a sticker
system. They're going into operation similar to the SR91 with
automated technology.
Mr. Wolf. Have they been successful?
Mr. Maring. The SR91 has been very successful. The one in
San Diego modeling itself after the experience with SR91.
They're going to have very dynamic pricing as the Administrator
mentioned essentially every six minutes and the price will vary
more widely.
Mr. Wolf. And that will end at the end of the peak hour,
say from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.?
Mr. Maring. That's operating during the peak period.
Mr. Wykle. And they will notify the driver far enough in
advance through variable message signs that they can make a
decision based on the price as to whether or not they want to
pay 25 cents more.
Mr. Wolf. Are there others in the country? Are they the
only two?
Mr. Maring. In Houston or, the Katy Freeway, they have
allowed only car pools of three or more persons. They now allow
two-person car pools to enter for a price.
Mr. Wykle. Let us see if we can do a survey.
Mr. Wolf. If you could, I would appreciate it because the
idea has been discussed around here.
Let me recognize Mr. Sabo.

high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes

Mr. Sabo. I'm just curious. Do you have any studies on HOVs
on three versus two?
Mr. Wolf. We favor two, don't we?
Mr. Sabo. We sure do. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wolf. The State of Virginia, for I-66, had HOV-four.
Then we got it dropped to three. They would not drop it to two
and Mr. Sabo was helpful and we adopted legislation which
dropped it to two.
Mr. Sabo. I'm just curious because my observation has been
that HOVs make sense in theory but if you make them three
people and just practicality, not many people seem to use it.
Two seems more achievable, getting two people in a car rather
than one has a major impact on congestion and on fuel
efficiency.
Ms. Jeff. Mr. Sabo, we will provide you with the requested
information in terms of studies that we have done. Some of the
preliminary results have indicated that where there is a
requirement in place by the State for two occupancy, in
essence, they don't really reduce or increase the amount of car
pool utilization because normally what happens is you end up
with two occupants from the same household.
It is when you begin to get at the level of three or higher
that you really begin to see any difference.
Mr. Sabo. What's the problem if it's two from the same
household rather than two using two separate cars?
Ms. Jeff. The difficulty is that in many cases where that's
been seen, there hasn't been a substantive change in their
already existing travel pattern. In other words, they were
utilizing the same vehicle to start with, it hasn't changed
anything. It hasn't significantly reduced the number of
vehicles on the roadway.
Mr. Sabo. My observation is three doesn't do much either.
Ms. Jeff. As I indicated, we've gotten mixed results
depending on the volume and we'll provide that information to
you. There have been mixed results on two and three.
Mr. Wolf. I agree with Mr. Sabo, I think that three is very
difficult. You find people going to the dentist, going to the
doctor's office, leaving early, leaving late, on vacation,
particularly in an area like this with the travel that
different people who work do and the HOV 2 has been, I thought,
very, very successful on I-66 versus the three.
I would like to see that for the record. If you can just
get it individually to Mr. Sabo and myself, so we can take a
look at it, and also Mr. Cramer.

automobile communication systems

What about the safety impact of the built in car telephone
versus the hand-held one?
Dr. Martinez. You're asking about wireless communications?
Mr. Wolf. Yes. People picking up a telephone and talking on
the telephone as they're driving versus having a phone up on
the dash or a speaker whereby the driver has both hands to
drive?
Dr. Martinez. We just released a wireless communications
report looking at the overall issue of wireless communications,
not just cellular phones, but also in-vehicle communications
systems.
In the study, that received a lot of attention in the New
England Journal about a year ago, they did not find any
difference between hand-held or hands-free communication
systems. We look at three types of distraction that occurs in
these wireless communications--physical distraction which
really has to do with trying to put in the number, or play with
the phone while you're driving along; visual distraction, which
is where you're looking, this raises the issue of where the
information is, above or below the dash; and the third is
mental communication. Interestingly enough, we find that mental
distraction is different when you're speaking on a phone than
it is for other things like radios, CD players and that sort of
thing. We can't quantify these things because of the lack of
data collected in the States. That's an issue we have to deal
with somewhat separately.
For visual and physical distractions, we certainly have
seen in many studies that placing the information up higher
keeps you from having to look down and off the roadway.
Interesting enough--I realized this as I moved to bifocals--the
size of that information is getting smaller. They're making
more options available, and are now talking about telematics,
which is hooking up your car to the Internet and getting
information.
This to us, was a very important issue to look into--how to
get information to people. We actually have videotape of people
trying to program their navigation systems andgoing from the
right lane to the left lane and back without even noticing. So we're
looking at that. One reason we're building a driving simulator is to
help understand human vehicle interface much better.
The last issue is the physical distraction. Again, we think
there may be more to hands-free versus hand-held. It only
affects the physical aspect as opposed to the mental
communications, which seems to be across the board.
In all three areas, we are working with not just the
wireless communications systems, but with others to create the
knowledge so that we can address these issues as this
information is placed in the vehicles.

wireless communications--distraction

Mr. Wolf. I think that is important to do, not so much from
a regulatory point of view, but just to allow people to have
that information. There are a large number of people on the GW
Parkway that read the Washington Post on the way down.
It could be very dangerous to put the Internet in your car.
Dr. Martinez. It's very interesting. Remember, cellular
phones are not communications devices for conversation only,
but you can also have paging communications systems, Internet
and other access.
It's not just wireless that concerns us. The whole issue of
distraction, these videos really--I should send you a copy. For
example, we have a gentleman eating a doughnut as he's driving
along. When he raises that doughnut with his hand, the whole
wheel turns and he goes off the road and comes back. These are
people who become acclimated to the fact that there are built-
in cameras in their cars. We learned a lot about that human-
vehicle interface and quite frankly, we seem to know more about
the vehicle than we do about that interface. We're going to try
to build the tools we need to address that human-vehicle
interface.

discretionary project selection process

Mr. Wolf. In a review of five discretionary highway
programs, GAO found that the Office of the Administrator uses a
two-phase process for selecting projects to be funded under the
discretionary highway programs.
In the first phase, Federal Highway Program staff compile
and evaluate the applications that States submit for
discretionary funding. In the second phase, the Office of the
Administrator uses the information submitted by the program
staff as well as others to evaluate the projects and to make
the final decisions.
What criteria does the Secretary of Transportation or the
Office of the Administrator in the Federal Highway
Administration use to decide which projects will receive
discretionary funding?
Mr. Wykle. We've certainly taken a look at the GAO findings
and their report and having looked at that, we believe
certainly the Secretary was within his authority in terms of
the decisions he made. It is a discretionary program.
I've held sessions with my staff talking about that report
and the discretionary program, and what we can do to improve
the process. We haven't decided on specific actions to take,
but we are looking at such things as how far behind particular
States are in terms of the fair share of previous money that's
been passed out. We're looking at the percent of Federal land.
For example, if it's a Federal lands type discretionary program
in that particular State, we're looking at various objective
type factors that we can use in giving us a start in terms of
how to make the decisions.
We also want to look at all of the discretionary programs
as closely together as possible, so we can ensure an equitable
distribution between regions and between programs. So while a
State may not get one program they ask for, i.e., Federal
lands, they may get a project in the bridge area. We're looking
to ensure that there is equitable distribution across the
programs, not necessarily within the individual programs.
Mr. Wolf. Geographic factors could actually work to a
disadvantage. If you steer a grant to an area that has not
gotten a grant before, you may give a lower value or cost-
effective project funding over a more cost-effective project
just to make sure there is geographic equity. So geographic
considerations could have some problems.
Mr. Wykle. Sure, and we have not decided yet. We're looking
at those types of factors to try to determine that.
Mr. Wolf. I think you need fairness and integrity in the
process that everyone can rely on.
Mr. Wykle. Absolutely.

discretionary projects election process--staff recommendation

Mr. Wolf. How much weight does staff input carry in making
the final determination?
Mr. Wykle. I cannot speak for previous individuals, but
from my standpoint, considerable.
Mr. Wolf. I should make it clear that this did not happen
on your watch.
Mr. Wykle. Right. That's why I said I can't comment on
previous decisions.
Mr. Wolf. Why doesn't the Office of the Administrator
document its criteria and methodology for selecting the
projects?
Mr. Wykle. Again, I can't comment on past practices, but
that is one of the things we discussed in these sessions we
have had, not only the criteria but then some type of a
notation as to why a decision was made if it varies from the
staff recommendations. There could be legitimate needs and
reasons to do that.
Mr. Wolf. The next question was, how can the Office of the
Administrator be held accountable for its selections if it does
not document the basis and justification for the process of
selection?
Mr. Wykle. Right. We're looking at the entire process to
review that and come up with a way to perhaps tighten it up.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know why the Office of the Administrator
required staff to change the process they use to evaluate and
rank candidate projects?
Mr. Wykle. I don't know why they did, but again, I've
looked at it from the standpoint, you can become very
quantitative in terms of how you make the selection and that
can really reduce the discretionary aspect of it.
Or you can group them into say best qualified, qualified
and unqualified and then from those major groupings make
selections based on criteria that the Administrator uses. So
we're looking at reassessing the program in terms of making it
more objective.

discretionary project selection process--general accounting office
report

Mr. Wolf. In the report, GAO reported under the current
selection process as compared with the prior selection process,
the Office of the Administrator selected a declining proportion
of projects from the highest priority categories. There is a
table here which you've seen in the GAO report.
What are the reasons for selecting the smaller proportion
of staff priority projects and why has a change in the
selection process been necessary at all? Why was it necessary
to change it?
Mr. Wykle. I can't comment in terms of why the process was
changed.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe you can, without putting you on the spot,
but ask somebody who is currently around in your office why.
You can submit that for the record.
Mr. Wykle. Sure.
[The information follows:]

The earlier process only provided the Office of the
Administrator with staff views on a relatively small subset of
projects which staff recommended for available funding. It was
the desire of the Office of the Administrator to have staff
views on all submitted candidates, unconstrained by the amount
of available funds. This then allowed the Office of the
Administrator to select projects from a broad perspective with
staff views on each project. Because of the concerns expressed,
the selection process is being reviewed to ensure that it is
working well.

Mr. Wolf. In particular, do you know what the reasons are
that half of the public lands projects selected for fiscal year
1997 funding came from the qualified category when there were
so many other projects in the higher categories of most
promising and promising?
Ms. Jeff. There are a couple of factors that had to do with
it. One had to do with the fact that those programs have seen a
substantial decline in the available dollars as well at the
same time having significant amounts of increased demand. The
size of the projects has also been significantly larger.
In an attempt to stretch the dollars as far as possible to
increase the number of recipients associated with those
particular programs, there were some changes requested of
staff.
Those are some of the reasons there were changes in the
process.
Looking at the projects you specifically asked about, an
effort was made in that program area to stretch the number of
recipients and stretch those dollars to more effectively impact
on a national program as opposed to projects in one or two
States that would benefit from what is intended to be a
national program.
Mr. Wolf. I'm going to recognize Mr. Olver, but I think
it's important that you do something to assure the committee
that the selection process does not result in the funding of
poor or less cost effective projects and that the process has
fairness and integrity. Everyone must look at it and feel very
comfortable.
Mr. Wykle. I'll assure you we will do that. As I mentioned,
I'm currently reviewing that program right now and have spent a
considerable amount of time reviewing the criteria currently
used versus what was used in the past versus the various
breakouts, the different types of programs, trying to get a
handle on that so we can make it as fair and objective as we
can.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My apologies for arriving rather late from another
conflicting hearing.
Have we taken testimony from both?
Mr. Wolf. We have.
Mr. Olver. May I speak to NHTSA then? Thank you.
Dr. Martinez, I can't remember, were you here last year?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Was I here last year? [Laughter.]
Mr. Wolf. I once heard someone say that just about when
your face clears up, your mind gets fuzzy. [Laughter.]

cafe standard

Mr. Olver. Is there any request for funding in this budget
for research on the updating of the CAFE standard, particularly
in relation to light trucks and the sport utility vehicles?
Mr. Recht. Sir, there's just, if I recall, about $30,000 to
maintain the basic recordkeeping functions. As you know, the
Congress in the last two perhaps three years, has essentially
prohibited us from changing that standard.
Dr. Martinez. We maintain a database, I think it's about
$60,000, but in order to look at the long-term effects, we've
asked for funding to do environmental impact studies and it has
been denied over the past three years.
Mr. Olver. We may have prohibited the standard so let's ask
the question. We should never be afraid of the research, should
we, the research that would be necessary for decisionmaking
somewhere along the way? So the question of whether or not
research is being done on whether we can create vehicles that
are more efficient and what the safety aspects of the present
circumstances, are we prohibited from even asking for money to
do research?
Dr. Martinez. No, we do have a fairly large program, PNGV,
which looks at alternative forms of better fuel economy.

partnership for a new generation of vehicles (pngv)

Mr. Olver. What is PNGV?
Dr. Martinez. Partnership for A New Generation of Vehicles.
Right now being discussed in the marketplace are some of these
new types of vehicles. Instead of focusing just on the fuel
economy with numbers, we're looking at alternative ways in
which to dramatically increase fuel economy, but using
different types of power supplies as it were, whether it be
electric or fuel cells.
As those vehicles are being developed and actually come to
market, you can buy some of these vehicles through lease
programs. We are charged with the issue of safety for using
alternative types of materials, which is different than the
types of materials we've used in the past to look at crash
simulations. Using lightweight aluminum and carbon fiber
vehicles are examples. We're putting several million dollars
into this program.
In addition, we are continuing to look at the issues of
size and safety, as well as compatibility and aggressivity
issues. All of these issues factor into the different disparity
in the fleet. We looked at that issue last year and released
some information at last year's hearing about the issues of
size and safety.
Mr. Olver. So this would be research into the efficacy,
feasibility of new power trains but without any reference to
the CAFE standard itself?
Dr. Martinez. Correct. The Partnership for A New Generation
of Vehicles actually has some goals for fuel efficiency and
fuel economy that are done through the partnership. These
issues are not necessarily directly related to the legislative
approach on CAFE.
I think it's worth noting that two years ago, the idea of a
new generation of vehicles that got greater fuel efficiency was
under discussion. Now I think you're seeing these vehicles
being seriously considered for the marketplace.

vehicle compatibility

Mr. Olver. One of the real controversies on safety in
relation to the sport utility vehicles and light trucks is the
position at which bumpers in many of these vehicles come. They
are closer to the windows of passenger vehicles in some
instances or with the rear windshield than they are with the
bumpers of passenger vehicles, which is leading to some serious
kinds of consequences from asafety point of view.
Tell me what you're doing in those areas?
Dr. Martinez. We are, I think, moving very quickly and very
far ahead on that issue. As you know, we studied the database
analysis, which looked at these issues, and there was a lot of
conjecture about what were the exact issues causing this
compatibility problem. We will move it into full scale crash
testing and share that research with an international dialogue
which will occur this summer in June, in conjunction with the
Enhanced Safety Vehicle (ESV) Conference.
Mr. Olver. An international dialogue?
Dr. Martinez. Basically do the research, by doing the crash
tests, and then share that information and begin to better look
at the issues of compatibility and structural issues, that can
be addressed through design changes. For example, you talk
about the issue of bumper height differences and how you change
that, and what are the consequences of that.
We're finding there are some design issues and design
solutions already in the marketplace that begin to look at
those compatibility issues.
When you look at the aggressivity of one vehicle versus
another based on how they're designed, we're finding if you
take the issue of weight, some of those vehicles have the same
weight, but how much damage they inflict varies considerably.
We think there is a design issue there that needs to be better
investigated.
As we did the crash tests, we wanted to go into the mode of
sharing the information with researchers from around the world
to see if we can look at solutions that can be implemented in
the marketplace rather quickly.

vehicle compatibility--information sharing

Mr. Olver. The sharing of information is related to all of
the manufacturers of the type of vehicles, some of the
manufacturers coming from a number of different countries?
Dr. Martinez. Correct, and around the world. If you look at
it, the marketplace for the sport utility vehicles and the vans
and light trucks, really has expanded to most all
manufacturers. So we want this be a broad-based invitation.
In addition, the ESV conference occurs every two years. It
is the enhanced safety of vehicles, which is the biggest draw
of engineering researchers on these issues that occurs in the
world globally.
The last meeting was two years ago in Australia. At that
point, we brought the researchers together to look at what the
international research priorities should be. One of those
priorities was the compatibility issue you mentioned. We're now
two years down the road and we're looking at the research
aspects of it with full scale crash testing.
We will meet again in June and bring the manufacturers to
look at some of the design solutions that are being discovered.

safety standards compatibility

Mr. Olver. In the past, it has been NHTSA that has put
forward some of the standards in regard to seatbelts, airbags
and crumple zones?
Dr. Martinez. We do it.
Mr. Olver. Well, in the past--so there's no question, or is
there a question, that it's within your purview to deal with
this and get expeditiously to the point of voluntary or
regulatory consistency--to develop consistency in the
construction so that we can avoid the kinds of troubles that we
are hearing so much about recently?
Dr. Martinez. Absolutely. That is actually within our
purview. Our approach is to create the knowledge first to see
what the possible solutions are, and then begin to implement
those solutions through different methods including research
programs and regulatory aspects, whatever it takes. Right now,
we are at the point of creating knowledge. Most of the
discussion has been about data bases, major studies, looking at
large data bases. We can now move into the crash testing aspect
of it. But I think we're making considerable progress. As a
matter of fact, as you know, two of the manufacturers in
America, have come out and talked about how they are going to
work with their parts suppliers and their designers to begin to
address these issues.
Several years ago, there was considerable debate as to
whether or not there were design solutions that could be
brought into the vehicles. We are finding that we're better off
aligning all those resources and research the solutions rather
than waiting for the regulatory process to play itself out. I
think we are seeing considerable movement right now, to address
the issues you've raised.

cafe standards

Mr. Olver. To go back to the CAFE standards, there is sort
of an interweave here, in part. Is the achievement of a lower
fuel efficiency standard--does that require a lighter vehicle,
in your view?
Dr. Martinez. Weight certainly plays a part in that. Some
of the discussion has been the difference between weight and
mass. And that's one of the reasons why the focus has been on
new and different types of materials coming into the
marketplace. One of our areas of research has been, to focus on
how those new materials would play out in a crash scenario; in
other words, can you keep the same size but change the weight
by using different materials? And then, what are the safety
implications. So we're looking at that as an approach to the
PNGV program.
Mr. Recht. If I could add to that also, Mr. Olver, there
have been a number of car companies recently that have stated
that they're going to introduce these hybrid vehicles that
combine both gas and the General Electric engine, which will
effectively increase gasoline mileage quite significantly. They
are coming into the market in the next couple of years. Among
the items that this PNGV program is looking at are those kinds
of engines, as well as new technologies that might not simply
involve reduction in weight, but all with the goal of achieving
about 80 miles per gallon in these engines in the next five to
ten years.
Dr. Martinez. Let me give you an example of the current
status of hybrid fuel cells. They are fairly heavy, but it may
be that you end up with the same goal of decreased emissions.
You are using a different power plant altogether, and over a
period of time that efficiency may even get better as they make
those cells smaller and smaller.
I think the paradigm that we're looking at is a little bit
different than just the pure focus on the target number for
CAFE. It's gotten a little bit more complex now, because the
power cells and the power plant that were in the discussion
stage are actually now coming into being, so we actually have a
different situation to deal with.

vehicle design issues

Mr. Olver. I guess you partly found where I was going to go
next. Clearly, if you have a particular design of engine,
weight will be a key factor, it will be a proportionate factor,
although aerodynamic design of the overall vehicle may help you
somewhat along the way in a relatively more minor way, I think.
But I do remember on this point not so very long ago, we had
prohibited you from dealing with CAFE standards, and then one
of the Japanese companies came out with a different design, a
totally different kind of engine, and instantly the American
Big 3 said they would be in there competing within a year or
two with their own design. So clearly they are capable of doing
it, and I'm sort of wondering, here, whether we are on this
issue of the sport utility vehicles and the misalignment and so
forth, whether with your research--hey are going to end up
responding to that more quickly than standards get set.
Dr. Martinez. I would say that I am actually quite happy to
see what you said about that--looking at environmental issues
as being a challenge versus an opportunity. We've now seen a
mindset where there is more focus on the opportunity as a
competitive edge.
We are also seeing the same thing with the LTV issues. Now
that we've raised that issue--the compatibility issue has been
thoroughly discussed in the press--we are seeing some of the
car companies already begin to move forward on this. As a
matter of fact, the ESV conference, the international dialogue,
is a joint project based on the desire to work cooperatively.
If you look back a few years ago, everybody said, ``Well,
it just doesn't make sense; there's nothing you can do.'' I
think we're in a very different situation because we have
continued to move forward on this issue to explore it as the
honest broker. We are finding that there are things that can be
done. We are gratified to see the industry saying, ``We're
going to move ahead of you on that.'' We'd like to see more of
that.

light vehicle issues

Mr. Olver. Well, but the research has to be done in either
of these cases, whether it be the compatibility issue or
whether it be the CAFE standard, which goes to the question of
whether or not it has to be a lighter vehicle in order to get a
more efficient vehicle, which I don't think is by any means
true, not necessarily true. There are a bunch of different
factors.
Dr. Martinez. We are very blessed in having a lot more
options now with these different power plants. I think the goal
remains the same, to increase fuel efficiency.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing
me to go on.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Cramer.

research and technology program

Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you would, please, Mr. Wykle, indulge me and give me
some summary information about the FHWA research and technology
programs, the funding level--we're holding the same funding
level this year as last year.
How are those competitions--from the summary information I
have in front of me, they are merit-based competitions. Can you
tell me how many of those programs exist, how flexible that
competition is, and what you think you're mainly accomplishing
by those programs?
Mr. Wykle. Let me ask Tony to comment.
Mr. Cramer. Sure.
Mr. Kane. Our overall budget request in R&D is a
combination of both contract authority in reauthorization, as
well as the General Operating Expense (GOE) request, and it
totals some $496 million in research and development and
technology applications, of which about $250 million is ITS, a
combination of both contract authority in reauthorization, as
well as GOE and the appropriations process.
There is tremendous competition in the deployment areas.
There will be competition, certainly, amongst geographic areas,
the States, the municipalities, etc.
Most of our program is put out in a competitive way. We
utilize a variety of contracting mechanisms, some using global
procurement techniques where you have a variety of firms that
come in, and then we are able to assign tasks on projects. But
the entire program is really one of competition. Even in terms
of deployment, we have competition among the geographic areas,
the metropolitan areas and the States as well. But it's a wide
program, covering the physical side of the program in asphalt,
steel, and concrete; the operational tests; the environmental
and planning areas, as well as policy research areas.
Mr. Cramer. How many of the programs exist? Or can you
supply me with that information?
Mr. Kane. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Cramer. I'd like to see that.
[The information follows:]

The FHWA R&T Program consists of a number of individual R&T
programs. The following is a list of the larger individual
programs.
Highway Research and Development: Safety, pavements,
structures, environment, real estate services, policy,
planning, motor carriers;
Intelligent Transportation Systems;
Technology Assessment and Development;
Long Term Pavement Performance;
Technology Implementation Partnerships;
National Highway Institute;
Local Technical Assistance; and
Eisenhower Fellowships.

Research and Technology Programs

Mr. Cramer. And how long does a typical program last?
Mr. Kane. It depends on the nature of the research work.
Some are multi-year, particularly when we're looking at new
materials and new concepts. Others are very much application-
oriented; it may be contract work, where you're just
synthesizing existing work, or packaging up some technology
that is already developed.
So again, a big range. And if you have an interest in
knowing more depth than that, we can certainly go into that, as
well.
Mr. Cramer. I'd like to know more on that, including how
they are peer-reviewed.
Mr. Kane. Sure.
[The information follows:]

The length of research and technology ``programs'' varies
considerably, depending on how one defines ``program'' and on
the nature of the work done. At the aggregate level, the
programs are ongoing: we are continually doing work in
pavements, safety, etc. At the next level down, the sub-items
in the budget justifications such as pedestrian/bicycle work,
etc., the programs are typically 3-6 years long. Within these
programs, individual research, demonstration, training, or
other efforts may be one or two years in duration. These
efforts are oriented toward producing particular outcomes: a
research question answered, demonstrations performed in a
certain number of states, training developed and delivered by
technical people, etc.
Regarding peer review, there are several means used. At the
highest level, there are committees composed of customer
representation (included technical people who can be considered
peers) which provide a continuing, independent assessment on
the overall direction and strategy of the FHWA research and
technology program. The Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee (RTCC), administered for FHWA by the Transportation
Research Board, is the prime example of such a committee. Most
recently, this committee visited FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center to review the overall direction and specific
research efforts at the Center. The RTCC will begin a similar
review of the technology transfer activities of FHWA this month
(March 1998). The Long Term Pavement Performance Program has
its own committee and AASHTO has a Task Force on SHRP
(Strategic Highway Research Program) Implementation.
At the level of major portions of the R&T program
(pavements, structures, safety, etc.) there are Research and
Technology Coordinating Groups which develop the programs and
elicit review from technical peers within FHWA (but not in the
research or technology applications offices) and from outside
of the agency.
Particular R&T initiatives arrange for peer input and
review in various ways. The work FHWA is doing in high
performance concert is led by a team of technical experts,
including FHWA, academic, and industry experts who give input
to the research and implementation. Technical Working Groups
(TWGs) are another mechanism for getting technical peers
involved in reviewing R&T work.
When particular research efforts give rise to published
papers, these are peer reviewed in the same fashion that
comparable papers are handled if they are published in peer
reviewed journals.

Research and technology Accomplishments

Mr. Cramer. In your opinion, what kind of accomplishments
have come out of those programs?
Mr. Kane. A wide variety. If you take a look on the
physical side, for example, tremendous success in new
materials, composite materials, particularly in bridgework;
tremendous success on high-strength concrete, high-strength
steels that are going to be much more effective in terms of
life cycle costs. In terms of the ITS area, a wide variety of
accomplishments, as we heard earlier in the day, everything
from the vehicle to traffic control systems themselves.
In the environmental area, tremendous success in terms of
being able to model air quality, in wetland mitigation efforts;
tremendous success in the economic analysis area, where we now
know and are able to really pinpoint the relationships between
highway investment and economic growth and productivity in this
country.
Tremendous success in being able to simulate traffic flows
in different cities, a project called TRANSIMS, will really
allow us in the future to be able to do much better
microsimulation of traffic and be able to answer policy
questions, like, what if you raised the toll? What if air
quality standards changed?
We have a report highlighting, in all of these areas, the
kind of real benefits we've gotten out of this program,
significant benefit costs on all of them.
Mr. Cramer. How long has the program existed?
Mr. Kane. Really, since we have existed.
Mr. Cramer. And there seems to be, as I can see it, a mix
of industry, universities, State partners participating in the
program?
Mr. Kane. Correct.
Mr. Cramer. All right. Thank you. Any additional
information you can give me, I would like to have.
Mr. Kane. We have a report that highlights and summarizes
it, both for the past as well as a forecast. We'll get that to
you.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

A copy of the 1997 ``Research and Technology Program
Highlights'' report which covers the entire FHWA Research and
Technolgoy Program has been submitted to the Subcommittee.

Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Central Artery/Tunnel Cost Containment

Mr. Wolf. Moving on to the Big Dig issue, GAO has reported
that Massachusetts is not meeting the cost containment goals
for construction on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, and that
further cost increases seem likely. GAO also noted that these
goals form the basis for the project's $10.8 billion cost
estimate, and recommended that the State decouple the goals
from the project's estimate and revise the estimate to be more
realistic. Federal Highway has opposed this recommendation made
by the GAO, but when the cost estimate was developed in 1995,
Federal Highway issued a report that characterized the goals as
overly optimistic and suggested to the State that they be set
at a more conservative level.
Since what Federal Highway predicted in 1995 regarding an
overly optimistic cost estimate has come to pass, why would you
oppose revising the cost goals now?
Mr. Wykle. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass that one also to
Tony. He is the one who is closely monitoring that. He goes to
Boston on a quarterly basis to discuss their financial plan and
the status of the project, so I'll let him go into the details
on that.

Central Artery/Tunnel Estimate

Mr. Kane. If we take a look at the current cost estimate,
Mr. Chairman, the $10.8 billion, we really are in sync with
both GAO and the IG on that. The issue is being able to
forecast the future and what might happen, but for well over a
year and a half now we have been in continual dialogue with
both the IG and the GAO on this, and you will see in their
reports it's mostly about forecasting what might happen in the
future. But we all are in agreement on $10.8 billion, and we've
been holding to that.
I think the real reason we've been holding to it is by
trying to have aggressive assumptions about what the future is
going to bring, and the biggest potential area that we're
talking about is really the potential cost growth during
construction. We're at a phase now where the project, as of the
end of January, is--in terms of completion--96 percent
completed in terms of design, 36 percent completed in terms of
bills on construction. By the end of this year the bulk of the
construction contracts will be let. The issue of cost
containment involves working with those construction companies,
value engineering efforts, of which we've had about half a
billion in the last two years, efforts on insurance costs,
efforts on utility costs, efforts on scope changes, and we're
going to aggressively pursue them. But it is our feeling and
the feeling of our partner, the State, that unless you keep an
aggressive goal of cost growth during construction--and our
goal was to try and make that no more than 7 percent. In the
past it had been higher than that, and it's really speculation
as to what might happen in the future. Anyone can make
forecasts, and as we dialogue with the IG and GAO, it's more of
``what happens if,'' if you get cost growth on those contracts,
what will happen. But we do have contingencies built in there
in the sense that the State is fully committed to find any cost
increases outside of the Federal programs. But we think,
philosophy-wise, it makes sense to hold a tight forecast, and
to do that you then aggressively worry about scope changes, you
aggressively worry about value engineering.
The program that was put in place two years ago in terms of
design-to-cost when we still had a number of the designs to
still go meant that we did not change the forecast of $10.8
billion. In other words, it really forced lots of value
engineering on the project to hold to that forecast.
So our belief is that the best way to attack this is to
hold aggressive cost-containment goals and then do everything
we can to meet them. If it slips a little bit, you've got to
make it up. But rather than forecasting something bad or worse
in the future, we might live up to that expectation.
So it's a philosophy, that if we hold tight in terms of our
forecast, we will work much harder on cost containment methods.
The debates and issues as we deal with GAO and others are
forecasting what's going to happen in the future. But in terms
of today's estimate, we are in line with them.
One thing we have been doing, and we have always done it in
the past, is sharing much more information, even in terms of
the finance plan that was recently approved on an interim
basis, because as we look towards what's going to happen with
reauthorization, we'll clearly have to modify that. We have
been exchanging information far more frequently than we did in
the past.
Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.

Central Artery/Tunnel Funding

Mr. Olver. Do I understand what you say in there, that the
Federal share is based upon the $10.8 billion, and that
anything that goes above that if the goals are not met, the
State either has to pay all of, or a greater portion of, or
something? I certainly heard that somewhere.
Mr. Kane. Let me try to clarify it.
In terms of specific funding for that project, namely,
coming out of the Interstate cost estimate approach, that money
has been capped. The last money was in ISTEA; approximately $4
billion of the total cost is directed money in terms of
Interstate completion. The remainder comes from utilizing a
variety of categories of Federal Aid, as well as State
resources.
As you look to the future, what I was really trying to
indicate is that any growth in cost for which there is the
inability to utilize Federal Aid categories in a fair way--
because there was a commitment to have a solid Statewide
program; that was one of the things we really worked with the
State on over the last several years, so that there are various
Federal Aid categories, whether it's surface transportation
funds or NHS funds, they were not all dedicated to this
project, but rather they had a fair State-wide program. But the
State is committed, as you look to the future, if
reauthorization doesn't bring the amount of revenue to
Massachusetts that they might have gotten in ISTEA. They are
fully committed to coming in with State resources. That's what
I'm indicating.
In terms of special Federal funding for the project, that
has ended. Interstate completion funding was the last item for
that. ISTEA was the last payment on that, so approximately $4
billion of the total $10.8 billion comes from Interstate
completion funds.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Massachusett's Statewide Program

Mr. Wolf. When Federal Highway approved the Central Artery/
Tunnel Project's finance plan, Federal Highway officials said
that they expected--as you just referred to--the State to
continue its $400 million Statewide road and bridge program,
exclusive of the Central Artery Project. But despite that
commitment, the 6-year STIP that Federal Highway approved on
September 30 of last year shows dramatic reductions in both the
Interstate maintenance and CMAQ programs. In particular,
Massachusetts would spend only $9 million in Interstate
maintenance funds over the next six years. That appears to be
almost no maintenance on the Interstate. Is that level of
spending for Interstate maintenance and CMAQ in the 6-year STIP
adequate? And how do you support a program with no Interstate
maintenance for six years, to be considered balanced? The
figure doesn't look right when I look at it.
Mr. Kane. We'll give more detail on that.
[The information follows:]

[Page 74--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

central artery/tunnel--federal/state participation

Mr. Kane. My understanding, certainly, on utilization of
Interstate maintenance funds is that they are being utilized in
accordance with the needs.
One issue is obligation ceiling versus overall
apportionments, as well. But the balanced State program is both
Federal and State resources, and so as there was a commitment
Statewide to have at least a $400 million program, that's a
combination of both State resources as well as Federal
resources to keep that balanced program.
Mr. Wolf. Well, what the chart shows is that they have $415
million, but they're only going to spend $9 million for
maintenance. And with regard to CMAQ, they have $252 million
and they're only going to spend $44 million.
Is the $9 million--maybe we're looking at this wrong--is
the $9 million accurate?
Mr. Kane. I'll need to get back to you on that specific
one.
[The information follows:]

You are correct, $9 million is the amount of Interstate
maintenance in the STIP. However, as indicated previously, FHWA
bases its decision primarily on the adequacy of Interstate
maintenance on a ``results basis'', as opposed to a ``level of
effort'' basis. Also, the STIP does not include all State
funds, such as basic maintenance, and some are allocated on a
more short term needs basis. Nor does the STIP reflect any of
the funds for the reconstruction and maintenance of the entire
length of I-90, Massachusetts Turnpike, from the New York State
line to Boston, except for the major reconstruction of the
current interchange within I-93 in Boston. Nevertheless, last
year, FHWA did tell the State that we thought they may need to
allocate more funds to the Interstate in the future, and they
should reassess what is needed to maintain the conditions of
the Interstate.

Mr. Kane. The numbers I recall are more on the overall
Statewide program and the commitment that they have. But on the
specific Interstate maintenance----
Mr. Wolf. If $9 million is the figure, wouldn't that be not
enough to maintain the Interstate----
Mr. Kane. The answer is yes. I think another issue is going
to be how much State resources are also there. But we would
like to give you detail on those, on Interstate maintenance and
CMAQ.
Mr. Wolf. Excuse me, go ahead.

central artery/tunnel--finance plan

Mr. Olver. May I follow up on that one, too?
You're saying that the approved plan for funding by FHWA
includes $400 million. How strictly could that be adhered to,
or could that be enforced, that $400 million, aside from the
idea that so little of that $400 million is anything like
maintenance on the Interstates, which there are quite a few
miles of Interstate.
Mr. Kane. The commitment in the finance plan is that the
State will have at least a $400 million annual program. That's
a combination of both Federal and State resources. The STIP
itself is something that the State develops. I mean, the State
has made that commitment; we have seen that they have lived up
to that. In fact, in most years they have exceeded it in terms
of a feeling of a balanced Statewide program.
A significant share of the regular Federal Aid category of
funds is going to this project during the duration of the
construction. And what we wanted to make sure, and what we had
as a commitment in the finance plan, was that the rest of the
State would not suffer. We looked at it in terms of a total
combination of State program funds as well as Federal funds.
So we have seen that the State has put in their own State
resources to ensure that there is at least a $400 million
program Statewide.

central artery/tunnel maintenance

Mr. Olver. But that sort of begs the question, if they have
$400 million that they're committed to, but you don't really
have any underlying oversight as to what they put that to, that
could lead to just not doing much on the Interstates, which
might be left very inadequately covered.
Mr. Kane. Well, in terms of the Interstate maintenance
funds themselves, the State, under current Federal law, can
transfer up to 20 percent under the current rules that you have
in ISTEA. Beyond that, they can only do it if they show that
they have adequate maintenance of the facility in terms of
performance measures on pavements and bridges.
Mr. Olver and Mr. Chairman, we need to get back to you with
more details on that Interstate maintenance activity itself.
One issue that Massachusetts has, and a lot of States have,
is that you don't have an obligation ceiling to cover all of
the apportionments you have. States make choices as they do
their multiyear Statewide program as to which categories of
apportionments they are going to utilize because they only have
a limited amount of obligation ceiling to use it for.
Ms. Jeff. Maybe again just to restate, so that we're clear
about the question that was asked, what you've indicated is
that the account indicates that there is only going to be
spent--the chart that you have--$9 million on Interstate
maintenance. That does not necessarily represent all of the
dollars that will be spent on maintaining the Interstate. There
may indeed be State dollars associated with that. So you can't
simply read that as $9 million. ``Interstate maintenance''
refers to a category of funding; it does not necessarily
represent the total amount of funding available, or that will
be spent by the State on the maintaining of Interstates outside
of the Central Artery Project.
I think that in our response that we will try to provide to
you is an answer as to how much is going to be spent on
maintaining the Interstate as opposed to how much is being
spent out of the category of funds being utilized, called
``Interstate maintenance.'' I'm assuming that's your concern as
opposed to how much money in the category is being spent.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Kane. Federal funds and National Highway System funds,
as well as the Surface Transportation Program funds, can be
spent on Interstate.
Mr. Wolf. My sense is that 10 or 20 years from now, as you
look back on this, you will see that things were not done in
other parts of the State that could have been done or should
have been done. It is a big sucking sound and a big drain, and
obviously there is tremendous growth up north of Boston, up in
the Marblehead area and south of Boston, different places like
that, in the western part of the State.
But if you would just look at that.
Mr. Kane. Yes.

additional central artery/tunnel--additional funding needs

Mr. Wolf. The GAO reported that the project may need
additional funding, and you were mentioning it briefly, in part
because Massachusetts is expecting Federal funding that is up
to $1 billion less than the amounts in the reauthorization
bills before Congress. Since the Federal Highway Administration
has indicated that it does not support additional special
setaside funds, as you were talking about, or Interstate
construction funds, where do you expect that they will find the
rest of the money?
Mr. Kane. The finance plan indicates a variety of sources.
The Turnpike has already made a commitment to the project, and
there is a potential for more Turnpike resources to go into it.
Mr. Wolf. Has that resulted in an increase in tolls on the
Turnpike?
Mr. Kane. On the Metropolitan Highway System, there has
been a toll increase, that's correct. This project will be
incorporated--in fact, is incorporated--in the Metropolitan
Highway System with the two existing tunnels that are already
in Boston. So it's a combined system.
Fuel tax, registration fees, a variety of State resources,
but the commitment is there. And in approving the finance plan,
Mr. Chairman, we have called for an update as soon as
reauthorization comes in, so we will fairly soon have an update
of that with, then, a recommitment of what those State
resources would be.

central artery/tunnel contractor staff support

Mr. Wolf. The IG's office indicated that they are troubled
by the level of Bechtel people who are still working on the
project. Given the fact that the final design, as you said, is
94 percent complete, and is scheduled to be substantially
completed by the middle of this year, the IG indicated that
there should be significantly fewer Bechtel folks there.
Why have contractor support staff levels not decreased? And
are you taking any action to ensure that unjustified contractor
support costs are not being charged back to the contract?
Mr. Kane. We are closely working with them. In fact, in the
last quarterly meeting we focused on that issue. The amount of
staff that they have right now is less than what they had
forecast a year ago.
The shift is over into construction, however, and what the
Bechtel-Parsons team is doing, they are also in charge of all
the construction engineering. So they are out there right now
at the active phase of construction, and you need to have that
level of oversight. The Bechtel-Parsons team did do the
preliminary engineering work. Most of the design work was put
out to a variety of what are called ``section designers,'' but
the need right now is on construction.
So we have to carefully look at whether reducing Bechtel-
Parsons staff has a negative impact in terms of construction
oversight, because what they have done is switched staff from
the designers to the construction side of the house. So we have
to weigh that carefully. We will certainly discuss that and
talk with the GAO and IG on that, because I think they would
have as much concern as well, that you have good construction
oversight. That's the place right now where you really have to
worry about future costs. The future costs from now on are
really cost growth during construction. The design issues are
behind us. Scope issues, for the most part, are behind us. So
we really have to be careful in these next several years to
focus on the areas where you could have potential cost growth,
and it has changed to construction. So we really need to focus
closely on that.
At the same time, realize that it is clearly a significant
expense, with the level of staff that they have.
Mr. Wolf. Bechtel said that they were not going to transfer
these people to construction. And now they are. So that is
added cost, quite significant added costs.
Ms. Jeff. Mr. Chairman, I need to ask a clarifying
question. I don't think that Mr. Kane is indicating that the
same individuals who have been working on the design side have
now been switched to the construction side, but rather that
individuals who are employees of the company whose expertise is
in construction are now being utilized.
Mr. Kane. That's absolutely right. There are some engineers
who have the versatility and can do both who were actively
involved in some of the preliminary engineering work, but
you're absolutely right, Gloria. It's the level of staff effort
that they have.
We will provide more information for the record on that if
you like, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
[The information follows:]

[Page 79--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. Are you all in agreement, GAO and IG and Federal
Highway, pretty much overlay 100 percent on all these issues?
Mr. Kane. Well, to the degree possible. What we have
clearly done is open up a much better line of communication.

big project oversight

Mr. Wolf. I think this has been helpful for future big
projects.
Mr. Kane. One thing we have done jointly with them, and
what we are clearly doing with the IG and GAO, is trying to
share good lessons learned, and this is a mutual kind of
activity. The IG was certainly very impressed with the kind of
monthly tracking of costs and status, the monthly reports, and
they think that it's a very good tool that you could use on
other projects around the country.
Mr. Wolf. Are you going to use it for the Alameda Corridor?
Mr. Wykle. We're certainly looking at how we would design a
type of financial plan. It may not be identical, but certainly
the same type of process, the ideas.
Mr. Kane. In terms of some of the very specific items that
the IG may look at, we may have some disagreements where there
is judgment involved. But in terms of issues to focus and look
at, we certainly are in agreement.
Probably the hardest part--and I wouldn't call it a
disagreement--is being able to forecast the future, as I had
mentioned earlier. It is anyone's guess as to what the real
cost growth might be during the construction stage. They have
certainly wanted us to have a high degree of caution and
concern and worry about contingencies, and we're doing that.
But in terms of where we are to date and appreciation of kind
of the baseline, if you will, we are together on that.
Certainly on the IG, if there is any area where it looks
like there is a need to focus on it more strongly, we are
there. Their staff meet with our staff there daily up in
Boston, so it's really a close coordination.

public awareness costs

Mr. Wolf. We asked the Secretary yesterday on the media
consultant issue, and I don't know about the legality of it,
but that's probably not a good idea to hire and pay a
consultant with Federal funds. I can see this on ``Your
Money.''
Mr. Wykle. The particular one you're interested in the
$24,000----
Mr. Wolf. Well, the $24,000, and also the advertising
program. I think the best advertising and project promotion is
to do a good job.
Mr. Kane. Public awareness on traffic control is a very
important part of any large-scale project----
Mr. Wolf. Is it public awareness, though, or is it a
promotion?
Mr. Kane. Well, we will look at every particular cost item
on it. If it's about regional promotion, that's something that
wouldn't be chargeable to the project. If it's about letting
the public know about the construction problems, alternative
traffic routes, take transit----
Mr. Wolf. I think they know about the construction
problems.
Mr. Kane. Well, on large-scale projects, and we've looked
at a lot around the country, in Detroit and Chicago--I just
came back from a recent national conference in California where
they are about to redo the construction on 710 in the city of
Pasadena. The typical public awareness and traffic control
announcement plans have been in the neighborhood of 1 to 2
percent of the project cost. Now, if you took a look at the
Artery, I wouldn't want to say 1 to 2 percent of the cost is
what you should put on this, but on projects that were $50
million and $60 million and $100 million, those kinds of
project scale, we have had public information campaigns upwards
of $1 million on those.
It is very important, and it is done in a variety of ways,
on radio, on TV, it's now done on the Internet, but a variety
of ways of helping to control traffic during the construction
period, in a real-time sense, because this is an effort that is
going to be under construction until 2004.
Ms. Jeff. Mr. Chairman, if I may----
Mr. Wolf. What we're going to do is maybe give you all a
break about 12:30, just recess for 15 minutes so that you can
go get a bite.
I really don't want to spend a lot more time, and I think
it's the appropriateness of it. Originally the program was
going to cost $750,000, we heard; now it's up to $2 million.
Also, the 60-minute piece is not a good idea.
Mr. Kane. Yes. That is no longer.
Mr. Wolf. Well, has it already been paid?
Mr. Kane. It has been credited back.
Mr. Wolf. Credited back. But that's really what creates a
lot of the controversy. I think people can understand that
very, very easily. I made the comment yesterday that I remember
when I was running for Congress and I had lost my first couple
of attempts, and then we watched Governor Connally, on 60
Minutes, Mike Wallace interviewed him; and one of my kids said
at the end of the interview, ``Dad, if you're ever called by 60
Minutes, I don't think you ought to go on the show.''
[Laughter.]
The child was about 12 or 13 at that time.
But to do that, if they're going to do that, they ought to
pay for that out of their earnings. I think it's inappropriate,
particularly for a project that has had so much controversy.
Our sole purpose is just to ensure that it doesn't go out of
control, that there are sufficient funds to complete the
project, and lastly, that we don't set any precedent here that
somebody from the Alameda Corridor or Corridor H or some of
these other projects can point to.
Ms. Jeff. Mr. Chairman, on that matter, it is essential,
though, that you recognize that there is a public information
function that needs to be ongoing.
Mr. Wolf. I understand that. I understand that. This can be
used for political reasons and for a lot of other reasons. We
don't have to spend any more time on it.
Maybe I could go vote and Mr. Olver could ask some of these
questions, and then I'll come back and we can continue up to
12:30. Do you mind doing that? Whenever you feel comfortable,
just recess, and then I'll be back.
Mr. Olver. You are going to come back at 12:30?
Mr. Wolf. No, I'm going to go vote and then come back. I'd
like to keep this going until about 12:30 and then take about a
15- or 20-minute break at 12:30.
Mr. Olver [assuming chair]. Well, I think that the Chairman
has pretty well covered the ground on the Big Dig. [Laughter.]

massachusetts statewide transportation improvement program (STIP)
approval

He is much more comprehensive on this than I could have
been.
But let me ask one other here. We have learned as a
committee that you have threatened to withhold STIP approval
over an issue of representation on the Regional Planning Board
of the Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Massachusetts. Is that
true? And would you tell us what the issue is, and has it been
resolved?
Mr. Kane. My understanding is that it has been resolved. It
was an issue between the State and the Metropolitan Planning
Group in Boston, and that representation has changed and that
has been resolved.
Mr. Olver. It has been resolved?
Mr. Kane. My understanding.
Mr. Olver. So the STIP now has been approved?
Ms. Jeff. I think it's fair to say that we were not holding
up approval of the STIP contingent upon that resolution. It was
not being submitted to us for action because the State and the
local Metropolitan Planning Organization were resolving their
membership issue. Once they resolved it, they submitted it.
Mr. Olver. And has the STIP been approved? Or is that STIP
approval in relation to the balance of the Statewide plan, or
what is it?
Mr. Kane. This was a while back, I am told. It has been
approved, so we are currently working with a valid STIP. I'm
sure that after reauthorization it will go through another
whole process, both each Metropolitan Area as well as
Statewide, but it was some time back, and we are operating
under an approved STIP.
Mr. Olver. Okay.

funding for its operational tests

The Appropriations Act for this year, the 1998
Appropriations Act, included $130 million for intelligent
transportation systems. However, it would appear that the ITS
JPO has made the decision to delay the initiation of new starts
under ITS, including all of the earmarks. Is that correct? And
if that is correct, what is the genesis here?
Mr. Wykle. Basically, sir, as I mentioned to the Chairman,
we had to make some management decisions whenever we got the
six-month extension in terms of the things that we would fund
and what level we would fund those out. So, feeling that we
must be able to keep agency operations going past 31 March,
which the six-month extension gave us enough funds for, we
decided to delay and defer some programs so that we could use
the resources to pay salaries, rent, keep the general operating
aspects of the agency going.
We do not feel that that will have a negative impact on
these earmarked programs because you have to do some up-front
work. You have to get your statements of work completed. You
have to get your requests for proposals done. We need to do the
actual coordination with the States with that up-front type of
information. So it is certainly our intent, once
reauthorization occurs, to fully fund all of those earmarks as
prescribed, and we will have sufficient funds to do that, and
we will be able to do it in a timely manner because we will
have all the up-front work done. So we would have had some
delays anyway, waiting for the up-front work.
Mr. Olver. Well, the intent is to have the up-front work
going along, but much of this requires money somewhere along
the way too, doesn't it? Doesn't that require the funding to do
that?
Mr. Wykle. Yes. We have set aside $1 million of the $47
million that we received under the six month ISTEA extension
for this purpose.

its earmarks

Mr. Olver. And on these earmarks, if you have been using
some money for the up-front activities on these earmarks, has
it been used sort of evenly across the board? Or are some of
them not going anywhere?
Mr. Wykle. It's an even, equitable distribution. We're not
funding one project over another project. If for some reason we
did not get adequate funds, we would work to have an equal
distribution of those funds by partially funding.
Mr. Olver. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Wykle. I was saying, if for some reason reauthorization
does not occur, or we do not get the amount of money that is
intended, we will not favor one project over another. We will
do a pro rata share to get all of them started as intended. If
for some reason there is inadequate money to do that, we will
come back and consult with the committee.

Its strategy

Mr. Olver. So you can assure this committee that you will
not favor one project over another, and that all those which
were earmarked projects would move in a pro rated way?
Mr. Wykle. Yes, that is correct. We will not favor one
project over another. We will pro rate any money we have if we
do not get the full funding. But we anticipate the full
funding, and we will be ready to go because of the advance work
that has been done.
Mr. Olver. There was a caveat that you put on there, that
if something happened, you would come back to the committee.
What was that?
Mr. Wykle. I said that if for some reason the full program
is not funded----
Mr. Olver. I see.
Mr. Wykle [continuing]. Then we would come back and
consult.
Mr. Olver. But you anticipate the full program being
authorized, and if for some reason, in the reauthorization that
is going on, then you would come back--on the pro ration
aspect, not on the aspect of favoring one issue over another?
Mr. Wykle. Right. We would come back and consult with the
committee if for some reason that happened.
Ms. Jeff. Let me additionally clarify. If, for example, the
amount of funds that were to be made available were so woefully
inadequate that we could not reasonably pro rate any of the
projects, pro rate across all the projects, we would come back
to the Congress and say, ``You have provided so few dollars
that we cannot realistically, fairly and equitably, spread
dollars across all the projects. Which projects do you,
Congress, wish us to do?''
Mr. Olver. Well, I thank you.
I have a very short time, and the Chairman should be back
momentarily, but we're going to have to be in recess until he
returns. I think the intent was that he was going to continue
until 12:30.
Mr. Wykle. We can just hang loose here. We'll take a break
in place.
[Recess.]

its project earmarks

Mr. Wolf. [resuming Chair] I understand that Mr. Olver
asked a number of questions related to ITS, and a number of
these we will submit for the record.
The real question is, will the Department assure the
committee that no specific ITS projects will be afforded any
special funding considerations? That is, that all projects are
funded, or that none of them are funded?
Mr. Wykle. Yes, we will assure you of that.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. Because that begins the whole fairness
issue.
Mr. Wykle. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. I think that raises everyone's comfort level.
These others, we will just submit for the record.
[The information follows:]

Once we have full GOE funding we will fund all of the ITS
earmarks. We will not fund the earmarks in a piecemeal manner,
nor will we choose one of the earmarks over another. If we
receive less than full GOE funding, we intend to prorate the
funds across all earmarks. If the GOE funding is at such a
reduced level that prorating the funds would be unworkable, we
will return to Congress for additional guidance.

fhwa organization restructuring

Mr. Wolf. The next ones, too, we will submit for the
record. We have an extensive series of questions on field
structure. We had a good meeting when you came by the office,
and I don't want to rehash that and go through all this. What
is the status of FHWA's restructuring effort?
Mr. Wykle. Yes, we will do that.
When Tony and at that time the Acting Administrator
testified before this committee last year, they made a
commitment to look at the restructuring of the FHWA field
organization. They put together a task force to do that and
completed their work, and when I came on board, that was
basically waiting for a decision for the new Administrator. So
within the first week on the job I met with all of our Regional
Administrators, as well as the headquarters leadership team. We
selected a course of action and started to work on that. We
subsequently briefed the Secretary, the Department staff; we
coordinated with the Modal Administrators, to include Rick and
the other Modal Administrators within the Department; talked to
our own IG; briefed the GAO on that; and then got the clearance
from OMB to submit a report to you, which I delivered earlier
this week.
Basically, the concept is to eliminate the Regions. They
will no longer be in the decisionmaking process. We will
empower--delegate--to the Division Administrators at State
level the majority of the certifications and approval
authorities that are currently done by the Region. If there are
one or two exceptions, that will be withdrawn to the
headquarters level.

resource centers

We will then establish four Resource Centers. Those
Resource Centers will have technical capabilities in tunneling
or bridging expertise, where they can provide support on large
projects, complex projects, to the States, to the Divisions, as
required.
It also provides the flexibility to provide support to the
Federal Transit Administration, to NHTSA, to the Federal
Railroad Administration if we have an expertise that they need
in terms of a project or work that they are doing. It moves us
much closer to achieving the one DOT that the Secretary is so
interested in achieving, so that when a customer calls the
Department of Transportation, they get someone that can handle
their problem or their issue. We are jointly manning offices
with NHTSA in locations where it is needed and appropriate.
So we are moving in that direction. We will cut the letter
of direction to the Regions and the Divisions within 30 days in
terms of empowering them to make these decisions, then over the
next three to four months we will do the detailed analysis to
determine costs, identify the sites, and begin execution of the
program.
[The information follows:]

[Page 86--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. What are the estimated savings, do you know?
Mr. Wykle. I would prefer not to give you a figure at this
time, sir. We have not done a detailed analysis of that. We
have looked at certain factors in terms of individuals who may
choose to retire as opposed to moving, and termination costs,
reassignment costs. We don't have a good figure to even give
you an estimate.

fhwa organization restructuring funding

Mr. Wolf. Do you anticipate new funding for the Centers?
Mr. Wykle. We do not plan to use any new funding. We plan
to do it within the current budget. And for that reason, it may
take us two to three years to fully execute it; but as we
start, we will do virtual offices initially, telecommuting,
teleconferencing, that sort of thing.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
[The information follows:]

The FHWA will not be requesting additional funding for the
operational costs of the new resource centers. FHWA will absorb
these costs within current funding levels. However, in
preparation for any transition activity that may be required
during FY 1999, our FY 1999 budget included $2.4 million in
personal change of station (PCS) funding. These funds are
intended to cover costs of activities that may be necessary to
begin the process of transitioning to a new organization.

Mr. Wolf. Well, I have a number of others that we will just
ask for the record.
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate your attitude on that. We were
working with Congressman Hoyer, who authored the first Federal
telecommuting centers in my District, in Winchester.
I think the more you treat the employees with a sense of
compassion, to make sure we're not ripping somebody up and
moving somebody, particularly somebody who has a son or a
daughter who is going to high school and is on the debate team
or who is a cheerleader or on the football team, whatever the
case may be--so I would ask you to use a sense of compassion
and understanding. And coming from your background, you know
how difficult the military can be in moving people around. So I
do want you to do that in that way, as you downsize. But I
appreciate it.
Mr. Wykle. I have firsthand experience. I have moved 26
times with my family, so I understand the disruptions that can
be caused. I have talked to many of the employees personally as
I go to visit the Regions and Divisions. I make time to talk to
them, explain to them what we're trying to accomplish, and I
assure them that we will take care of them as individuals.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Wykle. This is not an effort to get anyone's job or to
fire anyone. It's an effort to become more efficient and more
effective and to better deliver our services to the customer.
Mr. Wolf. And I support you in that and in the way that you
approach it, even if it takes just a little bit--not forever,
obviously--but if it takes a little bit longer.
Mr. Wykle. We are confident that we can do it in a two- to
three-year time period.

program performance measures

Mr. Wolf. Recently the Federal Highway Administration
released its strategic plan which includes five goals relating
to mobility, safety, productivity, human and natural
environment, and national security. For each goal, Federal
Highway has identified indicators to measure performance. To
what extent will these performance measures become the basis
for comparing States to one another, and ultimately to
determine the effectiveness of each State's program?
Mr. Wykle. I want to share some of these questions, so
we'll let Gloria answer that.
Ms. Jeff. Mr. Chairman, it's a question that I am excited
at the opportunity to come back and chat with you about, since
Virginia has been one of our most verbal members in terms of
helping us with this issue.
It is not our intention to utilize these performance
measures in any way, shape, form, or fashion to compare one
State with another. The rationale for the performance measures
is to look at the overall performance of the national highway,
road, and street system, and in that context, be able to report
back to the American public that we have been good stewards of
their resources and that we are, indeed, improving the
performance, making it more responsive to their needs, both in
terms of personal travel as well as industry response.
So it is not our intent to utilize these performance
measures in any way, shape, form, or fashion to compare one
State to another. Indeed, the information may be available to
us which the State may be reporting, and we will be able to say
to the State, ``Here's what you've done; what are you going to
do in terms of your own decisionmaking process within the State
to improve your own performance?'' But we will not utilize it
to compare a State to another one. It is information that the
State may use to do its own job better, and for us to assess
the overall performance of the national system.
Dr. Martinez. Mr. Wolf, we actually have experience with
that now. If you remember several years ago, we started a pilot
project with States where they moved from basically focusing on
paperwork and oversight to performance partnerships. One of the
things we wanted to do early was to help States look at their
own data.
Mr. Wolf. Could I just recess for about three minutes?
[Recess.]
Mr. Wolf. What we're going to do, before we finish here, is
break about 12:30 to give you half an hour just to grab a
sandwich or whatever, and then come back at 1:00 o'clock.
Dr. Martinez. I was just going to point out, Mr. Wolf, that
some of these issues were raised when we began to work with the
States. We wanted to move toward the performance partnerships,
so we did a pilot project to begin with. That was so successful
that the second year, about 40 States requested that they do
the performance partnerships, and now they have all requested
to do that. It gives the States an opportunity to do several
things, one of which is to strengthen their own data systems so
that they can use a lot of this data to connect it and look at
what they have, not only at the State level, but also locally
and at the county level and at the city level. So we have
actually found that it has been a strength. At this point in
time, the States have requested that we move to that sort of a
relationship. They can look at a national level overall, but
use internal data to organize and identify their own issues.

program performance measures on assessment of grants

Mr. Wolf. To what extent would these performance measures
become the basis for awarding discretionary funds to the
States?
Ms. Jeff. In terms of assessing them as part of the
selection process for discretionary grants, we have not
specifically identified their achievement of performance
measures as one of the criteria. It is clearly one that could
be considered in the overall process. In our dialogues, not
only with the State Departments of Transportation but with the
others involved in the delivery of transportation, we have said
that we need to look at a variety of ways to achieve the
desired outcomes. And where there needs to be incentive to
achieve those outcomes, we will clearly look at that. Where
there needs to be utilization of a ``bully pulpit'' to improve
the performance, not necessarily by providing incentives, but
other actions in terms of increasing the overall objectives, we
need to take a look at that as well. But we have not
eliminated, nor have we said absolutely that it will be.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Martinez, how does that fit for your area
with regard to awarding grants?
Dr. Martinez. It has not been an issue for us. We do a
formula grant to give out funding to the States. We have found
that it gives us an opportunity for the localities to identify
where the hot areas are so that we can focus on them.
Another way we have been able to use those data systems is,
for example, with our alcohol programs, our Partners in
Progress. We're going to look at the top five States that have
alcohol fatality issues and try to work within those States,
and use the data to help identify what theirproblems are.
Mr. Recht. If I could add to that, in our NEXTEA proposal
we have performance alternatives in two of our incentive grant
programs, both in the alcohol incentive grant program and in
the seat belt program, where we say that if you meet these
performance measures, that's an additional way to qualify for
the funds.

incentive grants

Mr. Wolf. By giving to those who are doing well, which I
think is important, do you also take away from those who aren't
doing well, where there is a greater need?
Dr. Martinez. There are alternative ways to meet that. They
have several grant categories. What they can do--rather than
meet the performance measure--they can put infrastructure in
place with certain laws or programs that would allow them to
get the money.
Mr. Recht. One last item. The way it is structured, at
least on the alcohol side, is that you have to improve against
your own State's performance in subsequent years, so that it
essentially equalizes out.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think it's good to give it as a carrot,
but I just wondered if that doesn't take away from other
States, but you covered that.
Dr. Martinez. I will say that one of the nice things that
has occurred from this, is that we have seen data within the
States improve dramatically, because they do want to find out
what their problems are and how to address them.

emergency relief program

Mr. Wolf. The IG conducted an audit of the Federal Highway
Emergency Relief Program, revealing that Federal Highway had
not used emergency relief funds in accordance with the
regulations for nearly 30 projects, and had squandered $104
million. What are your comments with regard to the IG's
findings?
Mr. Wykle. Well, I think we certainly politely disagreed
with the IG in terms of his categorization of that. But we did
take a look at the term ``betterments,'' as an example, which
was one of the concerns that he had, that that was not
sufficiently defined, so we put out clarifying guidance to our
field offices in November. We are in the process of updating
our Emergency Relief Guide, and that will be out by the end of
the year. And we are reviewing projects to ensure that they
comply with this guide. When I was recently in California I met
with the State DOT Director and reminded him of the IG findings
from previous work on the earthquake, and the fact that we
wanted to ensure that those types of situations did not recur.
So not only have we put out clarifying guidance, we are
updating our regulations, plus I am personally talking to the
State DOTs as I see them and emphasizing the importance of
this.
Mr. Wolf. The conference report directed that Federal
Highway submit a report to the committee explaining under what
circumstances emergency relief funds can be used for
betterments, by February 1. Do you know the status of that
report?
Mr. Wykle. We are slightly behind on that. We did not make
that deadline. We should have it shortly, I would say within a
couple months--this month? Okay.
Mr. Wolf. By the end of March, then?
Mr. Kane. Yes.
[The information follows:]

FHWA will submit the report to Congress as soon as it has
been reviewed and cleared by the Office of Management and
Budget. The report discusses the eligiblity of funding
betterments under the emergency relief program and provides
several exampl.es of both eligible betterments as well as
ineligible betterments. The report also discusses the
development of emergency relief projects in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act process and the types of
projects and project features that are eligible for emergency
relief funding as a result of compliance with this process.

highway investment level

Mr. Wolf. We'll move to highway investments. Given the
Department's estimate of $63 billion annually to maintain
current highway conditions, why does the fiscal year 1999
budget propose a real cut from the fiscal year 1998 Federal-aid
highway program, which itself falls far short of your estimates
of need?
Mr. Wykle. Well, it is certainly a tough issue, and within
the Government it is a matter of priorities. Congress passed
the Balanced Budget Agreement, which we support as the
Administration. There are competing demands for the resources
within that cap. The other agencies certainly would like to
have additional money, as would we, but recognizing that it is
a priority issue, it's a matter of trade-offs. When we submit
our budget, we think the levels it contains are fair and
equitable and the best that we can get within those caps and
competing priorities.
Mr. Wolf. Would it have made sense to have repealed the 4
cents that was allocated from deficit reduction rather than
depositing it into the highway trust fund? That 4 cents were
never meant for highway construction; it was always meant for
deficit reduction. If it were repealed, it would allow the
States to collect it at the State level, where they would have
more flexibility and have every dollar they collected. In your
general thoughts, would that make sense?
Mr. Wykle. My preference would be not to do that. I think
it's important to have a total national program so that you can
maintain the visibility and ensure that priorities and
apportionments to the States maintain the National Highway
System. Of course, the Interstate system is part of that, as
well as the bridges. Trying to get this ITS infrastructure up
so that we can increase the capacity of the existing physical
infrastructure that we have, I think it's more important that
we maintain the program completely at the Federal level.

federal credit enhancement program

Mr. Wolf. The budget, again, includes $100 million for a
Transportation Investment Credit Enhancement Program. Last year
the program was to make direct loans and loan guarantees to
States and local governments to assist in the financing of
large transportation projects.
This year, the program is to provide grants to projects
that otherwise might be delayed or not constructed because of
their size and uncertainty over timing of revenues.
Why the change this year?
Mr. Wykle. Well, there are some difficult technical issues
there as we started to work this program in terms of the
budgetary and tax issues that we need to resolve in terms of
the grant-based credit enhancement program. So in order not to
delay the program, at least keep some funds out there for the
States to use, we felt this was the appropriate way to go while
we continue to try to resolve these technicalissues.
So it is a good first step in terms of continuing the flow
of money to the States.
Mr. Wolf. What types of grants would be made by the
Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program, and
what projects would be funded? Would, for example, a section 3
new start project be funded if appropriations did not meet the
levels set forth in a full funding grant agreement? Or would it
cover something like the Woodrow Wilson Bridge?
Ms. Jeff. I think that the basic criteria that have been
considered for projects of this nature would be projects that
are at least of $100 million in total cost, or that exceed 50
percent of the dollars that would be made available to a State
under a normal program structure, projects in which there was
not only Federal and State participation but additional user
participation, and projects that can be done by any variety of
other user revenue mechanisms.
We have also been looking for projects that are of national
significance; not simply a large project in a State, but one
that would be deemed as having national significance and
assuring continued economic viability, serving some national
economic purpose, be it facilitating the movement of U.S.-
manufactured goods and products to ports for sale overseas, be
it utilization for lowering U.S. industry's cost to keep it
competitive in the international marketplace--those kinds of
factors would be looked at in determining whether or not a
project was of national significance. Those are the kinds of
criteria that would be utilized in determining if a project
were of national significance.

woodrow wilson bridge

Mr. Wolf. I asked about the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Ms. Jeff. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge----
Mr. Wolf. Excuse me just a minute. Both the Department and
the Federal Highway Administration have shirked their
responsibilities on the bridge. It is a Federal bridge, and the
only one on the Interstate system that I know of, certainly on
north-south 95. And I think both Republican and Democratic
administrations have watched this bridge deteriorate and done
little about it.
I think that both the Department and the Federal Highway
Administration really have to step up and do the right thing on
the bridge.
Did you want to say something?
Mr. Wykle. Sure. I would like to comment on that, sir.
As you know, our going-in position in terms of the current
budget is $400 million. We arrived at that based on the
National Highway Systems Act, which gave us authorization to
fund certain types of costs, if you will. We can fund 100
percent of continuing rehabilitation, which would be about $10
million per year, on that. Also, costs to replace it at its
current lane capacity, six lanes, would be $329 million, and
the cost for planning, for engineering design and so forth, is
$61 million.
So that gets us to the $400 million in terms of our current
position. We understand that there's a difference in terms of
the total cost when you consider the access ramps on each end
and the other work that needs to be done. We're willing to work
with the Congress. We're certainly willing to work with the
States in trying to get this issue resolved. We have an
individual working almost full-time in terms of looking for
innovative financial methods to help fund this project.
Again, I have personally spoken to both the DOTs of
Virginia and Maryland, and we will find a solution. I don't
know what the solution is, but we're committed to working with
the Congress and the States to try to find the right answer to
this.

woodrow wilson bridge reconstruction

Mr. Wolf. If El Nino were to come to this region and
destroy the bridge, how much of the reconstruction costs would
it be eligible for?
Mr. Wykle. Well, Tony and I talked about that. We didn't
use El Nino, but we used earthquake, if that would have
happened.
So, Tony, do you want to comment on that? [Laughter.]
Mr. Kane. Obviously it would depend on the extent of the
damage, but then you would look at a facility needed for future
traffic forecasts. And then we would be involved at a level
commensurate with that. So it's very hard to ever forecast what
might happen.
The current planned structure right now, including the four
interchanges--the interchanges alone, the four interchanges,
are about $1 billion of the $1.6 billion price tag. So on your
hypothetical question, it would really depend upon where the
extent of the damage was. If it was just the structure, we
might be talking about something different. If it was pervasive
and covered the entire area, it might be a different situation.
But the interchanges alone are about $1 billion of the total
cost.
Mr. Wolf. They would qualify as betterments under your
current definition, just as you've done in California, so they
would qualify, wouldn't they? [Laughter.]
I think the point is, though, this is a very important
issue for this region and for the entire East Coast, from as
far south as Florida, which brings the citrus products up to
Massachusetts; for the shoe industry of Maine, which takes its
products down there.
So I really appreciate your comment and the fact that you
have somebody working on it. This has to be resolved and it has
to be resolved in a positive way. It isn't your fault; you were
probably a Colonel when this thing should have been dealt with.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wykle. I may have been a Lieutenant.
Mr. Wolf. When I first moved to the region, I remember I
was living, I think, in Park Fairfax then, and I heard that the
dedication of the bridge was taking place, and Mrs. Woodrow
Wilson came; she dedicated the bridge. That was in 1961 or
1962. I think it was his second wife, obviously.
But I think we have known for quite a while----
Mr. Wykle. We understand that, sir, and we are committed to
finding a solution. I have talked to our Secretary on it also
in terms of the differences, and we are just committed to
finding a solution. We will continue to work at it. I am
personally involved in it.

state infrastructure banks

Mr. Wolf. Okay.
As you know, the National Highway System Designation Act
provided a number of innovative financing mechanisms, including
the authorization of a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Program
for up to 10 States. These 10 States could capitalize their
SIB, in part, by depositing in the SIB a maximum of 10 percent
of their Federal-aid highway funds for fiscal years 1996 and
1997. In addition, the 1997 DOT Appropriations Act provided
$150 million for SIBs andremoved the 10-State limit. States
have expressed their interest to use up to $2.1 billion of their fiscal
year 1996 and 1997 highway programs to capitalize their SIBs; however,
States obligated only 9 percent of these funds as of December 31, 1997.
For the $150 million provided through the Appropriations Act, the
obligation rate was 96 percent as of December 31, 1997.
Why have States been slow to obligate their program funds
to capitalize a SIB, but so quick to obligate the $150 million
provided through the Appropriations Act?
Mr. Wykle. A couple of reasons. It takes time, first of
all, for the States to get them established. It's a new
innovation, so understanding the mechanisms and the processes
for it takes time.
Also, the current budget situation--instead of taking money
to capitalize these, they are using these dollars to continue
current construction programs, to make capital investments,
because they're not certain of the reauthorization. So right
now they are taking this money and putting it against capital
projects and investment as opposed to capitalizing the bank. So
``new'' takes time; establishing the processes right now are
priorities within the States.
Mr. Wolf. All right.
We'll have a couple other questions for the record.
[The information follows:]

States obligated their SIB capitalization funds allocated
as a result of the FY 1997 DOT Appropriations Act relatively
quickly because those general funds were outside of the
obligation ceiling.
The vast majority of SIB pilot States have indicated plans
to obligate their regularly apportioned FY 1996 and FY 1997
Federal-aid highway funds for SIB capitalization, but have been
slow to obligate those funds in FY 1998 due to uncertainty
regarding their overall Federal-aid highway funding.
As of February 15, 1998, the amount of regular Federal-aid
highway funds that have been obligated was $182 million and the
amount of FY 1997 DOT Appropriation Act general funds that have
been obligated was $144 million (including amounts obligated
for SIB highway accounts at $127 million and SIB transit
accounts at $17 million).

Appalachian Development Highway System

Mr. Wolf. Last year the Congress provided a total of $400
million for the Appalachian Highway, about $100 million in the
Energy and Water Appropriations Act, and yet another $300
million in DOT appropriations. This funding level represents an
increase of threefold over the preceding year. Have States been
able to fully obligate these funds?
Mr. Wykle. You asked, have they been able to? The answer is
no, they have not to this point in time.
Mr. Wolf. Can you give us a list of what has and what has
not been obligated?
Mr. Wykle. I have that. Rather than read it, do you want me
to provide it for the record?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
[The information follows:]

[Page 95--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. Though the final authorization for ISTEA has yet
to be enacted, it may include, from what we read in the paper,
additional funding for the Appalachian Highways in fiscal year
1998. What indications do you have that the States can fully
obligate these funds before the end of this fiscal year?
Mr. Wykle. Before the end of this fiscal year, fiscal year
1998?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Wykle. I know they are doing a lot of advance work, but
I cannot give you a specific State-by-State condition.
Mr. Kane. Our own proposal had it starting in fiscal year
1998 because we were anticipating reauthorization coming a lot
earlier. The Senate picks it up in fiscal year 1999. The
overall total 6-year levels are about comparable now with the
latest Senate action to increase the level of funding in
committee this week.
The question really is a very good one and probably the
first year of starting it will become an issue, depending upon
when reauthorization finally comes on line. It could well be
that 1999 becomes the year, depending on when reauthorization
actually takes place.

Appalachian development highway system--status of funds

Mr. Wolf. What is the current unobligated balance of funds
provided for Appalachian highways?
Mr. Wykle. It is currently $190 million.
Mr. Wolf. How do you propose to allocate the funds
requested for Appalachian highways and how does this proposal
differ from the distribution involved in the fiscal year 1998
DOT appropriations?
Mr. Kane. The same as in the past, remaining constant.
Mr. Wolf. In the 1997 Appropriations Act, it included $30
million for the Appalachian highway construction. For instance,
West Virginia got $20 million. How was this allocation
determined, considering there were 13 States participating in
the program?
Mr. Kane. Let us provide that for the record, sir.
Mr. Wolf. We had $30 million for the program and $20
million went to West Virginia.
Mr. Wykle. We don't have those details, so we will provide
that for the record.
[The information follows:]

The allocations were determined based applications from
several States which had ``ready-to-go'' projects that would
help expedite completion of segments not open to traffic and on
Congressional interest.

Appalachian Development Highway system--allocations

Mr. Wolf. All the States that got money were able to
obligate their funds except one, West Virginia. I understand
that $20 million allocated to West Virginia was returned at the
end of fiscal year 1997 because they were unable to obligate
the funds, but that the Federal Highway Administration turned
around and reallocated it back to West Virginia. Is that right
and why?
Mr. Wright. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is our
expectation that those monies will be obligated this year. They
had originally been allocated for specific project activities
that the State has submitted and assumed they would be able to
utilize in fiscal year 1997. That did not take place and this
money has been reallocated for that same project purpose.
Mr. Wolf. Do you consider the ability to obligate when
discretionary allocations are made? If so, why was West
Virginia reallocated the $20 million it was unable to obligate
last year? Did Federal Highway ignore that West Virginia has a
current unobligated balance--and I would be interested in
seeing what your lists say--we think of over $46 million, more
than double the next highest State and more than one-third of
the total? Is that figure $46 million?
Mr. Wykle. I show their unobligated balance at $45.93
million.
Mr. Wright. It is our expectation, Mr. Chairman, that they
will be able to utilize that $20 million that was allocated to
them for this year. If that turns out not to be the case, as
has been the case in the past with allocated programs, that
money would be withdrawn and made available to projects where
it could be utilized. But our expectation is--and the reason
for the reallocation--is that we do expect that they will be
able to make that obligation.
Mr. Wolf. With that you would really have West Virginia
getting the fiscal year 1997 plus the fiscal year 1998. Does
that seem a little high?
Mr. Wright. The monies that were distributed for fiscal
year 1998, the $300 million provided for in last year's
Appropriations Act, was distributed not on a discretionary
basis but on a remaining cost to complete basis. So that was a
decision that was made independent of the allocation of the
discretionary funds in fiscal year 1997. We did just utilize
the straight cost to complete basis.

Appalachian development highway system--Unobligated funds

Mr. Wykle. There are a couple of other States that have
fairly high unobligated amounts.
Mr. Wolf. I think there are four: Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Alabama, and West Virginia. I don't understand why funds were
returned to West Virginia the very next year. I just don't
understand that.
Mr. Kane. We promise an explanation on fiscal year 1997 and
will amplify that in our response.
Mr. Wolf. You keep allocating to States that can't
obligate. It just seems to be a little unusual.
[The information follows:]

FHWA provided information on the ADHS unobligated balances
(as of 3/3/98) for each State just before the hearing. Of the
$300,000,000 available from the FY 1998 Appropriations, the
four States with the highest unobligated balances were:
Pennsylvania ($73,800,000), West Virginia ($45,930,000),
Alabama ($45,000,000), and Georgia ($13,113,000).
Of the four States noted above, two had unobligated
balances for their ADHS funds from all sources at the end of FY
1997: West Virginia ($34,360,730) and Pennsylvania ($295,793).
Four other States had unobligated balances at the end of FY
1997, including South Carolina ($4,186) as the third highest
balance following Pennsylvania.
West Virginia had expected to complete the final EIS for
Corridor D in 1997. West Virginia encountered opposition from
local citizens about the impacts on historic districts which
would result from the likely preferred alternative in the final
EIS. The delay in the environmental process delayed advancing
the project to the next phase (right-of-way acquisition and
final design), so West Virginia was not able to obligate the
funds for Corridor D in 1997. FHWA pulled back the $20,000,000
for Corridor D, so States could obligate other Federal-aid
highway funds within the overall obligation limitation. West
Virginia expects to complete the final EIS this summer for
FHWA's approval and issuance of the Record of Decision, in
which case, the project should advance to right-of-way
acquisition and final design this fiscal year. At West
Virginia's request, FHWA returned the funds for the project.

Mr. Wolf. Let me recognize Mr. Packard. Ron, ask any
questions you have and whenever you feel comfortable to stay or
go, we can just adjourn here and then come back in a half hour.
I want to give them an opportunity to get a sandwich or
something. Maybe after Mr. Packard finishes, we will try to
wrap up before the break, perhaps in about a half hour.
We are going to be here for awhile and I think you ought to
be able to go get a sandwich.
Mr. Packard [assuming chair]. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
you set a time certain that either you or I can be back here to
conduct the meeting.
Mr. Wolf. How long do you think you will be?
Mr. Packard. I won't be more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. Wolf. And Mr. Olver?
Mr. Olver. I will be 5 minutes.
Mr. Wolf. Why don't we adjourn at 10 minutes of and return
at 20 minutes after.

NAFTA--Border Crossing Issues

Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wykle, you are relatively new here and we appreciate
you coming before the committee. It is a pleasure to see you. I
apologize for not being here to hear your testimony. I have
been conducting a hearing of my own with my subcommittee and I
had the Secretary of State in another subcommittee of which I
am a member. So I have not been able to come and listen to you.
I appreciate you still being here.
At the border crossing in San Diego--which is not in my
district, but close by--at Otay Mesa we have built a very
successful new crossing there for trucks. Of course, it really
does enhance the movement of goods in both directions and
certainly serves the needs of NAFTA.
But once the trucks cross the border coming north into the
United States, there are no highways that connect to our
freeway system, as you may know. It is proposed that we have
State Route 905 as the connecting freeway right from the
checkpoint onto our existing freeway systems that allows the
trucks to distribute goods throughout the rest of the country.
Would you give us an update on the progress of that and
where it stands?
We are hoping to get it in ISTEA to be authorized. In fact,
it is in ISTEA, as we understand it is drafted. So it will be
authorized, but what are your plans on it?
Mr. Wykle. I would say to you, first of all, that I have
had the opportunity to go to Otay Mesa and see that facility. I
agree. It certainly is a very modern facility, the inspection
station there that is used to look at the condition of the
vehicles and so forth. Connectors are definitely needed in
terms of connecting the border crossing with the other
interstate highways and the National Highway System.
In terms of the particular status of that project, I don't
know offhand. We will have to get you for the record the
particular status of it.
But I was briefed on it while I was there. I know the need.
Mr. Packard. It is perhaps the highest priority for most of
San Diego County. It is a very important international issue
because of NAFTA and our trade. If you could get me an update
on that for the record, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 100 - 101--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

motor carrier regulatory relief project

Mr. Packard. Under Section 344 of the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995, FHWA was required to implement
a motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration
project. Who specifically required this program to be up and
running by August 24, 1996?
Mr. Reagle. FHWA.
Mr. Packard. Final guidelines were not published until June
of 1997 and now in December of 1997 the OMC announced a 6-month
extension. Why is it taking so long?
Mr. Wykle. Let me refer that to Mr. George Reagle.
Mr. Reagle. Several things. I think it is the first time,
Mr. Packard, we have really tried to use incentives in the
Highway Safety Program, so it is new territory. What we really
wanted to do was to create an incentive for carriers to get
involved and in turn what we would do is decrease the
regulatory burden. So we had to work through that process.
Second, at the end of December, we had five companies who
wanted to get into the program. The reason we extended it was
that there was a great deal of communication problems between
what was in the Federal Register and what we thought we meant
when we published it, so we had to interpret that.
I think, third, we have had quite a bit of pressure--a good
kind of pressure, a dialogue--between both the House and the
Senate to in fact create more incentive on the program.
So all of those have come together to cause us to have a
slight delay and, as a matter of fact, relook at the program to
see if we can create more incentive.
Mr. Packard. Is it true that the OMC is considering
changing the pilot program and revising the application
requirements and so forth?
Mr. Reagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. When can we expect it to announce those
changes?
Mr. Reagle. I would hope sometime this spring, certainly
before the 6-month period ends.
Mr. Packard. And you fully expect no further extensions
would be required then?
Mr. Reagle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. And how many carriers have applied to
participate in the pilot program?
Mr. Reagle. Five as of the end of December.
Mr. Packard. And how many do you expect will be accepted?
Mr. Reagle. We are going to change the criteria, so I
wouldn't be able to say at this point in time until we have
changed the criteria.
Mr. Packard. That is all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Olver.
I am getting accustomed to asking Mr. Olver for questions.
He has certainly been very faithful on my subcommittee as well.

right turn on red laws

Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to take this opportunity to delve back into one of
those little pet peeves that one often has, a little bit like
getting four pennies back in change and having to carry them
all over the place when there isn't a thing you can buy for a
penny nowadays. That should be an apple of discord, shouldn't
it? [Laughter.]
The particular pet peeve--some years ago, 15 or
thereabouts, when we adopted the right turn on red law, my
impression is that in my State what they did was to immediately
put up signs in all directions at every four-way intersection
to stop any right turns on red. You can come up to these places
and there is no traffic anywhere and if you are following the
signs and willing to sit there idling, you are not allowed to
turn on red.
My impression from my experience in that State is that we
could very easily eliminate half of those signs without having
a very serious problem with safety, if one used good judgment.
I am curious what the experience has been nationwide,
particularly from the highway safety point of view, and maybe
from Federal Highway itself.
Dr. Martinez. Mr. Olver, I would really have to go back and
get you information on that. I cannot say that I have looked
hard at that right turn on red issue and its implications for
safety overall. There are some interesting dynamics that occur
with pedestrians, for example, with right turn on red. People
look right, then they look left, and then they turn their wheel
right and begin to hit their accelerator. Someone may have
entered into the intersection. There has been some evidence
that that becomes an issue in the past.
But to go into more detail, I think I would have to go back
and ask our staff if we do have research on that.
Mr. Olver. It is obviously both a fuel and a safety issue.
I was just wondering whether we had any clear and comprehensive
data on that. Maybe we were the outrider State--as we are
occasionally--that just put up signs everywhere to stop that
intent totally.
[The information follows:]

[Page 104--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

right turn on red

Mr. Wykle. Let me ask Denny Judycki to comment on that.
Mr. Judycki. There have been a number of studies on right
turn on red, which is actually part of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. We can certainly follow up in
providing those studies.
The posting of signs is the discretion of State and local
traffic engineers. There has been a great debate--and it still
continues--as to the extent to which those signs which prohibit
right turn on red should be introduced into the network. Most
often it is for the purposes we are talking about, which is in
the downtown area for pedestrian movement and so forth as a
safety precaution. But there have been studies that relate to
both the fuel efficiency as well as the safety issue on right
turn on red and we can provide that for you.
[The information follows:]

[Page 106--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

right turn on red analysis

Mr. Olver. Has there been any summary analysis and thereby
guidance given from FHWA or NHTSA as to those studies that have
been done and what really comes through from that? I could take
you to lots of sites not far from where I live where there are
no pedestrians, where it was done at that time I think purely
to thwart what was viewed as a wrong-headed decision. But if
its purpose had to do with saving some fuel at the time when we
were in a fuel crisis--there are benefits as well as costs
here.
Mr. Judycki. I am not aware of any recent synthesis that
has been done, but it is probably time to take a look at that
and to look across the States and see if we can synthesize what
they have done on their experience on right turn on red from a
safety as well as efficiency standpoint.
Mr. Olver. Do you know if there ever was synthesis and
guidance given to the States on the basis of----
Mr. Judycki. Not that I am aware of. It has been handled on
a State-by-State basis, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Thank you very much.
For the record, it might be useful to have whatever other
summaries, syntheses--you may have so much stuff that it would
not make much sense.
Mr. Wykle. We will take a look at it, sir, and use our
judgment in terms of providing you information from studies.
Mr. Olver. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

A preliminary survey of FHWA division offices reveals that
the practice of Right Turn On Red (RTOR) is widely accepted in
all States, with the exception of New York City. Because of New
York City's high pedestrian volume, RTOR is only allowed when
indicated by signs. States do not view RTOR as compromising
safety, and consider it a critical component of sound traffic
management. In addition, FHWA field offices further indicate
that acceptance of RTOR within a State was directly related to
the amount of outreach and public information provided to
citizens when the practice of RTOR was first introduced.

maximum national speed limit

Mr. Olver. Let me ask a couple of other questions here.
In fiscal year 1995, we prohibited the national speed limit
and gave the authority for setting speed limits over to the
States. And at the same time in that legislation the Congress
asked for a report to be submitted by the end of fiscal year
1998, which was September 30, 1997, on the costs in deaths and
injuries--basically safety costs--that accrued from that versus
the benefits that may have accrued from that.
We haven't seen that report. When is it going to be
available?
Dr. Martinez. That report will be available shortly,
probably within the next 48 hours. [Laughter.]
Mr. Olver. That is fast action, isn't it?
Dr. Martinez. That didn't sound very good.
Actually Secretary Slater was hoping to have brought it
with him yesterday. I understand that it is now going through
its final stages to be signed off by him.
I will tell you that we came to the committee in the past
and notified others about the report requirement. We were
starting during the year and it would take to the end of the
year before the required information was available. Remember,
the first year various States started their changes at various
points in time, based upon their legislative process.
So going back and evaluating, really created two technical
challenges. One is having the varying times in the report, and
number two is different types of information from different
States. So finally, we started having a series of discussions
through the Federal Register notice with the States, and
interested parties, on the best way to develop a report that
would be meaningful for Congress. That led to a scientific
approach in which we grouped States that changed their speed
limits with those that did not, and looked at that data against
historical trends.
Mr. Olver. It would be very interesting to have been on the
wall as a fly in those discussions as to what would be the best
way to report those results to the Congress.
Dr. Martinez. I think it was actually a very open debate
through the Federal Register process because different parties
have very different views. To try to bring that together was
really our overall goal. The bottom line, we have seen in those
States that did raise their speed limit a 9 percent increase in
fatalities versus the trends. Again, we went back and looked at
trends in States with and without, but we lumped them together
to do that.
Mr. Olver. So my next question was going to be--and
apparently you are willing to telegraph what is in the report
when it comes out in a couple of days----
Dr. Martinez. I don't want to give all the specifics since
I don't----
Mr. Olver. Whatever the press release is from the
Secretary.
There was a report by the National Insurance Institute of
Highway Safety that suggests 12 percent. You are saying 9
percent. So those at least are within margins of error, I would
take it.
Dr. Martinez. They use a lot of the same data that we use
and we generally find ourselves with similar results when we
evaluate the issues.

fatality statistics--speed related

Mr. Olver. My understanding of the national statistics of
the total vehicle fatalities and deaths per hundred thousand
began increasing in 1993. It had been decreasing for probably
close to 20 years before that time, probably really related to
when the last energy crisis--that big one back in 1974 or
thereabouts--occurred. Do you have the feeling that the speed
limit is a significant or major contributor to that?
Dr. Martinez. It is hard for me to answer that question
specifically. When you look at the numbers, there has not been
a straight line. These numbers always go somewhat up and down
based upon the economy. When the economy is good, the exposure
goes up quite a bit.
The other line we look at is the fatality rate, going
through the hundred million vehicle miles travelled. We saw
from 1965 or so about 5.5 fatalities per hundred million miles
travelled down to about 1.7, which then flattened out about the
last 3 or 4 years. With the fatality rate being flat, if you
increase exposure, you are going to see the numbers go up and
then follow that wave.
We have seen, too, during that period of time, seat belt
use going up. Vehicles are increasingly having additional
standards implemented into the fleet which make a difference
because vehicles have become increasingly safe. We have watched
drunk driving come down and then kind of flatten. It is a
little hard to pull that data out, so we try to look at the
historical trends related to speed.
We think we are at the point of easy gains being made, so
our approach has been changed to focus on a lot of different
issues. If you want to look at the issue of speed, I think you
are absolutely right. It came to us, recognizing the role of
speed, when the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit was implemented.
We saw a 16 percent decrease in fatalities in one year, despite
the fact that there was only a decrease of 2 to 3 percent in
travel.
Mr. Olver. Well, it's a pretty dramatic drop from 5.5 in
the middle 1960s to 1.7 at its bottom. I don't know how much it
has gone up, but we will see what the data show. But it would
be tragic if we are going significantly up. To be at 1.7 seems
to me to be good. And anything that increases that, if it is
increasing it in any dramatic way, would seem to me to be bad
and obviously something you should be concerned about.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Olver, I am going to call for the recess
at this time. It is 10 before the hour. If you come back at 20
minutes after, the chairman should be here to continue the
questions. We will recess until then.
[Recess.]

air bag testing

Mr. Wolf [resuming chair]. With regard to air bags, in the
spring of 1997, NHTSA allowed automobile manufacturers to begin
producing vehicles with less aggressive air bags. Have you
begun testing vehicles with depowered air bags to see if they
are as safe as the same vehicles with the more aggressive? If
so, how are they doing?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir. Let me make a clarification. The
rule that we issued allowed manufacturers to make changes to
the air bags faster, not just the amount of power they chose,
but also design changes and other changes were made. One of the
reasons we used the SLED test as the significant way to do
compliance testing for the air bag as opposed to full-crash
testing into the wall is that you can do several SLED tests in
a day whereas only a couple of full-crash tests within a week.
That allowed changes to occur really fast. We saw the first
redesigned air bags in the marketplace by June of last year.
Right now, about 90 percent of the fleet----
Mr. Wolf. How many cars would that be?
Dr. Martinez. The number of cars?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Dr. Martinez. Right now, an estimate of about 90 percent of
the fleet of vehicles being made are equipped with newly
designed air bags. That would be about 900,000 cars per month--
somewhere around there.
Mr. Wolf. So it would be about 12 million a year?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, between 12 million and 14 million a year
total. We think it has made a significant difference. In the
testing we have done so far--we are doing both compliance
testing in NCAP, which is our new car assessment program, and
also in static testing in our laboratories. We are finding that
they are dramatically decreasing the risk of injury while at
the same time providing some high levels of perfection.
The NCAP tests, for example--the Ford Windstar, with its
newly designed air bag, still gets a five-star.

new car assessment program

Mr. Wolf. Is that the safest car?
Dr. Martinez. I am not going to say it is the safest car,
but I will say----
Mr. Wolf. According to the article I read in the Washington
Post a week ago----
Dr. Martinez. They are the mini-van that has a five-star
rating, and I believe the only one. And this is the second year
in a row they have had that rating.

special crash investigations

Mr. Wolf. So you have investigated accidents?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, we have. We have a special crash
investigation team that has now done about 50 of these
investigations. I don't have all the results of the
investigations. We have done about 50 and expect to do 100 this
year. Our request for fiscal year 1999 is to double that to
200. In addition, the manufacturers are doing investigations of
car crashes, or at least have proposed to do that also.
Mr. Wolf. So you think that it has saved lives,
particularly of small children and small-stature adults?
Dr. Martinez. With regard to the risk to children and small
adults, the risk drops off dramatically in the initial stages
of the decrease of the power. If you drop the power a lot more
than that, you don't get much back. The curve looks like this.
By using the SLED test, we have seen that the risk has been
dropped very dramatically at this point.

air bags--on-off switches

Mr. Wolf. In December of 1997, a rule went into effect that
would permit cut-off switches to be installed in vehicles to
activate or disable the air bags. To have this switch
installed, a car owner needs to request an authorization form
from NHTSA after certifying that the air bags are a threat to
them or their children.
How many requests have been made to NHTSA to date? How many
have you approved?
Dr. Martinez. It is a three-stage process. The first thing
to do is contact us or dealers or other outlets that have the
information. After they have read and certified that they have
read the information and understand the risks and are self-
certified to one of the risk groups, they send that back in to
us, at which point we then turn that around. Right now our
processing time is about 4 days, we send it back to dealers. We
are in the early phases of this process. We have given about
18,000 authorizations.
Mr. Wolf. How many asked for information? What are the
different numbers?
Dr. Martinez. We don't know the numbers for information
requests because we are not the only source that gives the
information. We wanted to make the information widely
available. We have given authorizations to 18,000. We have had
about 22,000 to 23,000 requests in total. It has actually gone
up and peaked and now is beginning to come back down.
Mr. Wolf. Do you authorize every one where there is a
request?
Dr. Martinez. Every one that is completely filled out. We
have actually sent some back for further information. The VIN
number has been the most important, the vehicle identification
number. We plan to track these long term. We have sent requests
with no VIN number back for this information.
Right now, two-thirds of the requests are for the driver
side, for distance. The other one-third are for the passenger
side, mostly for children's issues.
Mr. Wolf. Say that again for the driver's side.
Dr. Martinez. The majority of the requests are actually for
the driver's side.
Mr. Wolf. Really?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir. About two-thirds to one-third.
Mr. Wolf. Did you expect that?
Dr. Martinez. Actually, we weren't really sure where it
would go. I think for the passenger side it helps us that
people understand you can eliminate the risk totally for kids
by putting them in the back so they have a very simple option.
Drivers don't have that option to be in the back. Therefore, we
have the self-certification aspect of it. The majority of them
have been for the distance on the driver's side.
There were some concerns raised about having switches
installed. We are now beginning to see the forms coming back
from dealers that they are installing the switches and we are
monitoring that. There were some issues about liabilities
raised early on.

tracking air bag deactivation requests

Mr. Wolf. Are you tracking the people that get the switch?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir, we are. We are going back to call
the dealers to find out what can be done to facilitate the
dealers putting the switches in for the people. We are not
particularly tracking those individuals who have the switches.
Mr. Wolf. I mean those who make the request versus those
who actually get it done. Do you know the difference?
Mr. Recht. We know how many people have requested
permission and how many authorizations we have given.
Mr. Wolf. Because you sent them out?
Mr. Recht. Yes. And we can tell you today that that is
about 18,000.
Dr. Martinez. We also know how many installations actually
occur because the dealer is required, after the installation,
to send us a form telling us it has done the installation. That
is what we know. That is a much, much smaller number.
Mr. Wolf. But you don't actually track the individual after
that?
Dr. Martinez. Not after that, but we do keep track of the
vehicle identification number.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. Is NHTSA tracking those people that request
authorization to have a cut-off switch installed in their
vehicle?
[The information follows:]
The agency is maintaining a database with records of all
requests it receives, including an imaged version of each
completed authorization request form and a record of the
agency's response to each request. It does not track the
individuals who make the request, but it keeps a record of the
vehicle identification number of each vehicle for which a
request is made and in which a switch is installed.
Mr. Wolf. Is NHTSA tracking how many of the people that
obtain authorization for a cut-off switch actually have the
work done? If so, how many people have had cut-off switches
installed to date?
[The information follows:]
The agency tracks switch installations through the use of a
form attached to the bottom of each letter that it sends to
authorize the installation of a switch. The dealer or other
business entity that installs a switch is required to fill out
this form and send it to the agency. As of March 20, 1998,
NHTSA has received forms from dealers documenting 406 switch
installations.

Mr. Wolf. Is there a sticker or something put in the car?
How would someone know that purchases that car?
Dr. Martinez. The way the switch is designed----

air bag on-off switch warning

Mr. Wolf. Is it visible?
Dr. Martinez. It is visible. It has a warning light that
goes on; it gives you the status of the air bag. It is visible
to the driver and the passenger.
Early on the question was deactivation. Deactivation would
have occurred somewhere in the electronics system. One of the
reasons we moved from deactivation to the on-off switch is that
it allowed you to change the switch according to conditions for
which that vehicle was used. Secondly, you could have the
status light come on and people could change that status based
upon the use of the vehicle. We thought it was a better option
when the technology became available.
Mr. Wolf. At one time, NHTSA was estimating that
approximately 10 percent of the driving population would seek
approval to deactivate their air bags and the insurance
industry was predicting that one in six would have their bags
disconnected. That is no longer the case.
Dr. Martinez. Gladly so. That was in the backdrop of a
tremendous amount of misinformation and concerns. It is a
confusing issue to a lot of people.
One of the things we did with the air bag information
switch brochure is have you read the information, I think in a
fairly user-friendly manner, so that you get an informed
decision, opposed to a panicked decision. From our Hotline
calls, we found that people who are concerned often regain
their comfort once they are given the proper information. For
example, understanding that belting makes a big difference--
understanding that it is the first 2 or 3 inches as opposed to
the entire deployment of the air bag--where the injury or harm
is most likely to occur.
That information gives people simple things they can do to
address the issues. We found that when given that information
people's concerns went down.

accidents related to air bag on-off switches

Mr. Wolf. Have you seen any accidents of people in cars
where the switch was off?
Dr. Martinez. No, sir, at this point we haven't. Remember
one of the reasons we felt comfortable with the on-off switch
is that there are over 2 million out there already on different
vehicle lines. We allowed on-off switches several years ago on
pick-up trucks that have no back seats. We went to the
companies and asked them to make phone calls. We had some focus
group meetings. People felt that they could use those switches
wisely.

companies manufacturing on-off switches

Mr. Wolf. Are all the companies making on-off switches for
the vehicles?
Dr. Martinez. The vast majority of companies are making on-
off switches, though they have different time frames as to when
they are available. Some are still doing the designs for the
vehicle models. Some have opted not to.
Mr. Wolf. Who is part of----
Dr. Martinez. There are a few that don't think they need to
make them.
Mr. Wolf. Who?
Mr. Recht. I believe Mercedes and BMW have not yet
indicated they are going to do it, some of the smaller----
Mr. Wolf. Honda?
Mr. Recht. Honda indicated it would.
Dr. Martinez. I think Honda just recently made the decision
that they would.
Mr. Recht. Originally they had decided that they didn't
need to.
Dr. Martinez. But the big three and Toyota, which are the
largest, all have.
Mr. Wolf. We saw the news story about dealers not wanting
to install on/off switches. What is the status?
Dr. Martinez. I will give you a little bit of information
and ask Mr. Recht to give you more details, because I have
asked him to deal with Mr. McCarthy and the dealers.
The original concerns were really from the deactivation
aspect of it, which had a lot more liability concerns than our
final decision for on-off switches. As a matter of fact,
crafting the final decision for rulemaking was really taking
the dealers' concerns into consideration. NADA and others have
now created model waivers that they are actually getting other
dealers to use.
With that backdrop, we then had the process begun. One of
the things we found to help address the issue of liability from
the dealers, is that the manufacturers have now come out and
said that installation of the on-off switch would now be
covered under the warranty; that they would then indemnify the
manufacturers as long as the switch is installed according to
directions.

dealer installation of on/off switches

Mr. Wolf. So there is not a big problem now with dealers
not----
Dr. Martinez. This only occurred in the last 2 weeks. And
we have also begun to see the forms coming back from the
dealers. We think this will make a major dent in those
concerns.
Mr. Wolf. How big a problem was it that the dealers were
not installing the switches?
Dr. Martinez. It is hard for me to give you an answer to
that. A lot of the stories about dealers not doing it was
actually before we would allow them to do it. Actually since
that time, January 19th, the forms have just begun to go back
out to the dealers. So we are really in the early stages of
this.
Mr. Recht. Let me add that, anecdotally we were hearing it
was quite difficult for people, after they got approval from
our agency, to find a dealer. In fact, I spoke to the dealer
organization, which confirmed that the dealers were hesitant.
They had these liability concerns and, interestingly, the
insurance companies who insured the dealers--their own
liability carriers--were by and large advising them not to do
it.
So one thing we did was to approach the big three and ask
if they could do something to give some comfort here. In fact,
to their credit, they have said that they would indemnify the
dealers under the standard manufacturer-dealer agreement.
Mr. Wolf. And there have been no suits?
Mr. Recht. No suits so far. In fact, Ford sent a letter out
to all its dealers about a week or 2 ago and stated that they
have already sold 1.2 million pick-up trucks with on-off
switches, and they have never, to this day had a lawsuit for
any of those vehicles. So we hope that going forward the
dealers will feel more comfortable.
[The information follows:]

It seems likely that some dealers will continue to decline
to install switches. Despite the willingness of the
manufacturers to indemnify them, these dealers remain concerned
about litigation in the event of injuries that can be
attributed to an air bag being turned off. At this point,
however, NHTSA expects that a sufficient number of dealers will
be willing to install switches to enable most people to have
them installed.

Mr. Wolf. It is our understanding that under limited
circumstances, if a cut-off switch is not available from the
vehicle manufacturer and an aftermarket switch cannot be
installed in a motorist's vehicle, NHTSA will authorize the
deactivation of an air bag. Is that accurate? Has that
occurred? If so, under what circumstances?
Dr. Martinez. We had that process before the rulemaking for
the on-off switch. If there is no on-off switch available--
which we understand by a lower threshold for installation--then
they would basically still have available the option to do the
deactivation aspect of it.
We think that is not as good a solution because the
benefits of the air bag are completely removed. It does require
some labelling and some information for people who have the
car, but we would also worry about how that information travels
through the chain. So our belief is that the on-off switches
are a better option. It looks as though, from the response of
the manufacturers, there will be switches available for the
vast majority of cars.
Mr. Wolf. We were talking earlier that NHTSA thought
approximately 10 percent of the driving population would seek
to deactivate, and now you say it is the 18,000.
Dr. Martinez. Actually, it has peaked and then begun to go
down a little bit.

air bag reprogramming money

Mr. Wolf. You reprogrammed money for air bags. Do you need
all the money?
Mr. Recht. We may need to take a look at that. We needed a
certain amount of that money to create the pamphlets and the
literature and the like and get that out, but we will be glad
to take a look at that and get back to you.
[The information follows:]

The agency has received far fewer requests for air bag on-
off switches than initially anticipated. NHTSA is currently
reviewing the costs associated with maintaining the database,
report requirements and other process-related items. If a
review finds that all reprogrammed funding is not needed for
this effort, then funding will be reallotted to the pertinent
programs to carry out the original programmatic intent.

Mr. Wolf. How much was reprogrammed?
Mr. Recht. About $2 million.
Dr. Martinez. I will make a point that the reprogramming--
--
Mr. Wolf. You might be able to use that money some other
place.
Mr. Recht. The fact of the matter is that for the air bag
issues we basically went and put many projects on hold and did
not buy things we needed to buy. I would like to make sure that
we can give you a good thought-out answer as to what we took it
from. Quite frankly, we did not feel that first step was to
come ask for additional money from Congress, but instead to
make this our top priority. I want to make that point because
we put a lot of things on hold last year that we are little
behind on and would like to go back and make sure we are using
our monies wisely.

advanced air bag technology

Mr. Wolf. Is the Department still planning to require the
installation of advanced technology or ``smart'' air bags into
vehicles within the next 5 years? If so, when do you expect to
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking defining what constitutes
a ``smart air bag''?
Dr. Martinez. I think we're on very fertile ground in that
regard, for a variety of reasons. One of which is that we have
put a fast track on the science of looking at air bags; this
changes the paradigm.
The focus before was to get the air bag out in time for a
crash. You are talking about the blink of an eye. So the focus
was to get it out. Now the entire focus is on how it gets out
and how you modulate the air bag, the shape of the air bag, the
power of the air bag, the threshold, the different stages of
air bag deployment, suppression systems. All these things have
only in the last 2 years had greater focus.
The environment we are in is actually a fairly good one. We
have seen a tremendous amount of resources allocated through
new and emerging companies for air bag and restraint systems. A
lot of them are actually coming from this defense technology.
Now we are finding ourselves with the opportunity to move
forward on advanced rulemaking.
I do think we will be on track and the rulemaking will come
out during this summer. We are doing some internal research at
this point in time, but we are also working with companies
around the world to look at what is practical and what is
feasible. Part of what we are doing is trying to do a
bracketing of performance standards. That actually was kicked
off when we started having our meetings with the companies last
year.

advanced air bag rulemaking

Mr. Wolf. Will this rule be expedited to make the 1999
model?
Dr. Martinez. I don't know that those advanced air bags
coming out from this rule would be in the 1999 model, since
right now design specifications are being made for the 2001 and
2002 models. That is the kind of advanced time frame needed.
We will still be operating under the existing modifications
that we have made. I have just come back from Europe and
Detroit meeting with the manufacturers and there are a series
of continually improving changes being made to air bags over
the next few years. I am quite comfortable and confident that
you will see changes in design occur, but those next level
advanced designs will probably be around 2001 or 2002.

air bag education program

Mr. Wolf. With regard to the education program, NHTSA, in
conjunction with the automobile manufacturers and the Air Bag
Safety Campaign, have done a pretty good job in educating the
public about the dangers. There for awhile, every time you
picked up the newspaper there was an article on the subject.
In August of 1996, 56 percent of the adult population was
aware of the dangers associated with air bag deployment. By the
time our subcommittee began hearings in December of 1996,
awareness had increased to 85 percent. Since then, it has
declined and information collected by the Air Bag Safety
Campaign shows that as of December of 1997, a year later,
awareness has dropped to 76 percent.
Why do you think that is occurring and how can you get it
back up to 85 or 90 percent?
Dr. Martinez. We are actually very lucky in that. In
creating the campaign, we have raised through public-private
partnerships about $15 million. That money actually allows us
to do these surveys on a very rapid basis and see not only what
the message is, but what are some of the approaches we can try
to attack the message again. As you said, messages come in to
the media and then begin to dissipate.

[Page 117--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. You don't see the number of stories that you did?
Dr. Martinez. No. So we can't count on it. The media has a
life of its own and certain issues become big issues and then
that will fade away into the next one. We have to look at
weaving it into the fabric of society in other ways. We are
actually using our Buckle-Up America Campaign as a way to help
amplify this message. We also have the Patterns for Life
Program to amplify the message. We are increasing our request
for monies for occupant protection in this budget in order to
go after high-risk groups and also hard-to-reach populations,
as well as diversity issues, so that we can bring it to those
that have different message avenues.
The other thing we are doing is working with manufacturers
who make child safety seats. I just bought a new one for my
little boy, who is actually 6 months old but somewhat of a tub.
He weighs more than his 2-year-old sister already.We had to buy
a rear-facing seat for him. It is a much bigger seat. When we opened up
the box, there was a tremendous amount of information on this
particular issue, with the seat.
We want to go back out with the videotape we did last year.
One of the areas of greatest decline is new parents. If you are
young and you are married and you don't have a child, you don't
focus as much on the children's issues. When you are getting
ready to have a child--or you have one--all of a sudden there
is a whole bunch of information for you to learn. We have to
constantly get this information in front of new parents.
We found, for example, that children being placed in the
front seat has increased to 30 percent. That is very disturbing
for us. This is totally preventable.

child safety seat education

Mr. Wolf. That was going to be my next question.
The industry had done such a good job, but now you are
slipping.
Dr. Martinez. I think it's where we are.
Mr. Wolf. How can you reach that 25-to 35-year-old group?
Dr. Martinez. These children are in that rear-facing seat
for one year, then they graduate up to the forward-facing seat.
You are talking about a renewing 1-year effort. That is what I
meant about going back to focus on those who are getting the
new parents coming in and making it a central message, as you
transfer into that.
Mr. Wolf. How do you go after that group? Husband and wife
working, getting up at 6:00 a.m., maybe 5:30 a.m., coming in
very busy, getting home at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.--how do you reach
that group?
Dr. Martinez. As you know, for the past few years we have
begun to reach out to non-traditional groups. Those
relationships are beginning to become fertile--the OB/GYN, the
nurse midwives, neonatal nurses, family physicians,
pediatricians--we are working more and more with the police
departments to focus on child passenger safety. We will have a
national mobilization in all 50 States by May.
We are also actually getting the entire Department of
Transportation focused on seat belt and child safety seat
initiatives and bringing all those constituents in to try to
influence the target audiences, as well as our big focus on
diverse populations. By creating the message in Spanish we can
go to the lower socioeconomic areas where the message isn't
always understood in English.
Mr. Wolf. Is it fair to say that that increase to 30
percent will translate into more deaths?
Dr. Martinez. I believe there is a possibility that it
will. It is a central concern of ours. I think if you look at
our request for fiscal year 1999, it is a strong amount. A
large percentage of that money is for occupant protection, both
in the highway safety grants and also within NHTSA's programs.
A lot of that is for public information and targeting those we
think need to hear the message.
I think your point is true. You have to find out what
streams of information get to that new parent and what makes
this decision.
I met with the families and they have said that if they had
only known what they could have done, this would not have
happened. As a new dad and as the Administrator, that is a
major issue for us.

seat belt usage rates

Mr. Wolf. On seat belt usage rates, in the report last
year, the committee expressed strong support for the
Administration's initiative to increase seat belt use to 85
percent by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. At last year's hearing,
you testified that the national safety belt usage rate was 68
percent, the same as in 1995 and only 1 percent higher than in
1994. In 1997, it was essentially the same as the 1996 rate.
What are your explanations for the lack of progress? And what
does next year look like?
Dr. Martinez. I will tell you that I am quite optimistic.
We have really tried to go out and get a lot of different
groups on board. It takes a little while to develop
relationships from which you can build and which you can begin
to move forward. We have tried to get other people to see this
as being their issue to attack. Seat belt use is something
everyone can do.
There are basically two groups of individuals who don't
wear their seat belts--part-time users and those that never use
it--high-risk non-users. Part-time users see it as an issue.
They like seat belts fine, but on the other hand, they are just
going to the corner drug store or on a short trip and not going
on the interstate to take a long trip. So for them, we have one
sort of message to get out there.
On the other side of the coin, for the high-risk individual
who also has speeding, drunk driving, and a lot of these
issues, we want to get stronger laws. We have these secondary
seat belt laws which are the only traffic laws you cannot
enforce. It is very bizarre. We are working with the National
Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, and others to get stronger laws.
Last week, Indiana passed a primary seat belt law. Georgia
passed one a year and a half ago. They have now taken this 85
percent rate as a goal. What we have to do is have a strong law
followed by enforcement and education, but enforcement is a big
issue.
[The information follows:]

The national use rate has been essentially the same for the
last several years, from 68 percent in 1995 and 1996 to 69
percent in 1997. While we do not expect to see linear increases
in nationwide seat belt use from the 1997 rate to our goal of
85 percent by 2000, we do expect improvements for 1998 and then
for 1999 which reflect the increases achieved during our ``70
by `92'' program where use increased about three-four
percentage points for each of the years 1992 and 1993. From now
through 1999, the four point strategy of the Presidential
Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide, and the Buckle
Up America program which implements that strategy, should be
achieving the necessary momentum to move national use into the
high 70 percent range. That momentum should continue to build,
so that we fully expect to reach 85 percent by the year 2000.
Mr. Wolf. NHTSA's second National Occupant Protection Use
Survey showed overall belt use at 61.3 percent, up from 58
percent in 1994. It is my understanding that these rates are
lower than the 68 percent reported because the state data (used
to calculate the 68 percent) frequently excludes pickup trucks
and other vehicles not covered by state belt use laws. Why does
NHTSA continue to report an average of state data as the
national belt use rate instead of reporting the more inclusive
rate calculated by the survey? For the record, please provide
the Committee with the results of your most recent National
Occupant Protection Use Survey.
[The information follows:]
NHTSA continues to use state reported use rate data for a
number of important reasons: (1) State reported use rates
provide the only annual data to measure seat belt use; the
NOPUS survey is conducted every two years, (2) State use rates
remain the only way to measure change in individual states; the
NOPUS survey measure seat belt use at the national level only,
(3) State use rates provide seven years of continues, uniform
data; the NOPUS survey has only been conducted in 1994 and
1996, and (4) obtaining state use rates is much more cost
effective than conducting a yearly, state based, national
survey.
State use rates do provide accurate, inclusive, and timely
safety belt use data, but they do tend to vary in survey
methodology, seating positions observed, and types of vehicles
included. However, 28 states include pick-up trucks in their
surveys, and 21 states include vans.
NOPUS is conducted once very two years because of its
considerable expense. A year uniform survey measuring use rate
changes in individual states, as well as the nation, would be
extremely expensive to conduct.
The latest NOPUS results are from 1996. The NOPUS national
use rate is 61.5 percent overall and 66 percent for passenger
cars.

Mr. Wolf. What is the swing in terms of seat belt usage
rates? California was the highest and North Dakota the lowest?
Dr. Martinez. California is 88 percent now. At this point,
I think Mississippi and Arkansas are the lowest at 48 percent.
It's a 40 point spread.
Mr. Wolf. And 48 percent in Arkansas, too? You would think
the President would talk to his own State, wouldn't you?
Dr. Martinez. We may ask.
Mr. Wolf. I don't generally talk to him very often.
[Laughter.]
Seriously, I think that is part of leadership to make that
case.
Could you submit for the record all the States and the
percentages and then it will be clear those that have a
primary--there won't be many that are high that don't have a
primary seat belt law.
Dr. Martinez. Probably not because the enforcement aspect
is so hard.
Mr. Wolf. Washington?
Dr. Martinez. Washington actually has a very strong
enforcement and education component. They are 82 percent, with
a secondary law. The rest are primary seat belt laws.
We are seeing a lot more activity on this issue with a lot
more involvement in the coalition. The Department of
Transportation is going to focus on this by getting the FAA
involved. They would encourage their big corporations to buy
into the 85 percent seat belt use rates for their employees. We
would see what we could do to get the message out on the
airplane--about wearing a seat belt after you leave the plane--
in the more risky part of the trip, as it were.
We have a weekly report looking at what we do in one month
in Buckle-Up America. I am beginning to see a much more
critical mass on this issue and a belief that you can do
something about it. For example, 2 years ago Georgia had 51
percent seat belt use and really not much in the way of strong
laws. In the past 2 years, they have put in strong drunk
driving laws, graduated license laws, a primary seat belt law
and went to 68 percent and have now made a commitment in the
Legislature to 85 percent. That is how we will do it, focusing
on 85 percent in each and every State, one at a time.
Mr. Wolf. What is Virginia?
Dr. Martinez. Virginia is 67 percent.
Mr. Wolf. How many States had a lower seat belt use in 1996
compared to 1995?
Dr. Martinez. I have it racked up somewhere, quite frankly,
and it would take a few minutes to get it to you.
Mr. Wolf. And what about 1997 as compared to 1996?
Dr. Martinez. I would be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]

Twelve states has belt use rates that remained unchanged
from 1995 to 1996: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
Twelve states had belt use rates that remained unchanged
from 1996 to 1997: Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Missouri, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, and West Virginia.

Dr. Martinez. I do want to make a point, too, that General
Wykle just reminded me that we do have the Network Employers
for Traffic Safety. They want to achieve the 85 percent goal
also. We are going to corporations through programs that are
created just for them. We think we are beginning to spread this
idea of 85 percent and that it has real value to the various
constituents in having them buy in.

lives saved by higher seat belt usage

Mr. Wolf. To get to the 85 percent figure, how many lives
would that roughly translate into saving?
Dr. Martinez. It would be the most significant thing we
could do in the Department of Transportation, 4,000 lives per
year and over 100,000 serious injuries a year.
Mr. Wolf. And if you ever got to 100 percent?
Dr. Martinez. If we ever got to 100 percent--well, 90
percent is 5,000. I don't know the number for 100 percent. But
actually, the higher you go, the greater the gains are because
you are getting to that high risk group more and more. That is
one reason at 68 percent we saw it stall. We began to realize
that this was the harder group. That is why we kind of changed
our programs to do them.
Mr. Wolf. I commend you for your effort. I think it is
very, very important, from my own experience and others.
Anything the committee can help you with, we will be glad to do
that.
Dr. Martinez. We appreciate that.

PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVE FOR INCREASING SEAT BELT USAGE

Mr. Wolf. For the record, the presidential seat belt
initiative has a goal to increase national belt use to 85
percent by the year 2000. With seat belt rates remaining
essentially flat for the past 4 years, and in some States
sliding backwards, it seems to me that the approaches NHTSA
used to get belt use rates up from the low teens to above 60
percent will not enable us to reach this ambitious goal by
2000. What new steps is NHTSA taking to get all States to
achieve significantly higher seat belt use levels?
[The information follows:]

Prior to April 1997, when the Secretary of Transportation
submitted the national seat belt plan to the President, seat
belt use had leveled off at 68 percent. The two most
significant reasons for this were a decrease in the number of
states conducting periodic high visibility enforcement programs
and only a modest interest in upgrading to primary enforcement
laws.
Since April 1997, the Department and NHTSA have been
developing a new nationwide effort called Buckle Up America
(BUA) in support of the Presidential Initiative to Increase
Seat Belt Use Nationwide. During the first year of this
initiative, staff and resources were directed at developing the
program content, BUA campaign and messages, resource materials,
staffing and organizational structure, building outside
partnerships, and announcing the program. Using the four
strategies developed in the President's Seat Belt Plan:
Building Partnerships; Encouraging Stronger Seat Belt and Child
Safety Seat Legislation; Active High Visibility Enforcement;
and On-Going Public Education, NHTSA is conducting seasonal
events to expand the partnerships which are committed to
achieving the national goals; and convincing the public that
they must be part of the solution. The theme for this effort
within the Department is to ``get our own house in order,
energize and mobilize our partners, and recognize and praise
the good.''
The Agency has created a special team to address issues
affecting diverse populations in targeting our educational and
enforcement programs. The team is developing new partnerships
in the African-American, Native-American, Asian-American, and
Hispanic communities, requesting assistance in promoting seat
belt and child safety seat use.
For Spring 1998, NHTSA has partnered with the Air Bag and
Seat Belt Safety Campaign in a national mobilization to work
with several thousand law enforcement agencies in all 50 states
to conduct seat and child safety seat checkpoints and to bring
increased media attention to the issue.
To benchmark our successes and to identify new concepts and
approaches, NHTSA is working with the American Coalition for
Traffic Safety (ACTS) to conduct a BUA Leadership Conference
June 14-16, 1998. This working conference will bring together
80 senior policy makers and experts in highway safety to assess
progress to date and to identify specific strategies to raise
seat belt use and reduce child passenger fatalities. These
efforts, combined with the proposed incentive grant program in
the Department's surface transportation safety reauthorization
proposal, should produce a significant increase in the seat
belt use numbers reported by the states beginning in CY 1998.

SEAT BELT USAGE INITIATIVE

Mr. Wolf. For the record, in reviewing your 1999 budget
request, it appears that NHTSA is using the same old approaches
to tackle the goals set out in the presidential initiative to
increase seat belt usage. For example, the agency is requesting
funds to promote seat belt use with constituents and partner
organizations including the health and medical professions,
businesses, and industry leaders. We have been funding these
efforts for a number of years. Dr. Martinez, tell me how you
are ``thinking out of the box''.
[The information follows:]

Over the past several years, all of our experience and data
shows that the combination of effective legislation, on-going
enforcement, combined with public education result in increased
seat belt use. For example, in every case where primary seat
belt legislation has been adopted, a permanent 10 to 15
percentage point increase in seat belt use has occurred. We can
not assume that the strategies to increasing seat belt use are
necessarily wrong. Rather, for a variety of reasons there has
been a noticeable decrease in the number of states conducting
periodic high visibility enforcement and only a few states have
upgraded their seat belt law to primary. Still, new and
innovative methods need to be incorporated into our program to
overcome these challenges.
In addition to the four strategies (Partnerships,
Legislation, Enforcement, Public Education) submitted to the
President in April 1997 to raise the seat belt use rate, NHTSA
is exploring other ways to reach children and other high risk
occupants in motor vehicles. NHTSA is developing new strategies
to work with part-time seat belt users, over-represented
minorities, and drivers on rural roads. Specifically, the
Agency has created a special team to address issues affecting
diverse populations in targeting our educational and
enforcement programs. The team is developing new partnership in
the African-American, Native-American, Asian-American, and
Hispanic communities, requesting assistance in promoting seat
belt and child safety seat use. Special attention will be
focused on the perception of police harassment of diverse
populations in the enforcement of seat belt and child passenger
safety laws.
To facilitate ``thinking out of the box'', NHTSA is working
with the American Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) to
convene a Buckle Up America Leadership Conference in June 1998.
This conference will bring together 80 senior policy makers and
experts in highway safety to benchmark our successes and to
identify ``new and innovative'' strategies to raise seat belt
use and reduce child passenger fatalities. Using the
recommendations and commitments from the organizations
attending the conference, NHTSA will provide guidance and
coordination to insure that their recommendations are
implemented. NHTSA will also provide technical assistance to
the states in implementing their plans to achieve the
President's seat belt use goals. The theme for this effort
within the Department is to ``get our house in order, energize
and mobilize our partners, and to recognize and praise the
good.''

EFFORTS TO DECREASE CHILD OCCUPANT FATALITIES

Mr. Wolf. For the record, another goal of the President's
initiative is to decrease child occupant fatalities by 15
percent by the year 2000. What efforts are you taking to reach
this goal?
[The information follows:]

NHTSA's efforts to decrease child occupant fatalities
follow the national strategy presented in the Presidential
Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide which
presents a cooperative four point plan (public-private
partnerships, strong legislation, high visibility law
enforcement, and effective public education) to achieve the
ambitious national goals for increasing seat belt use and
decreasing child occupant fatalities.
NHTSA continues to identify and engage new partners to
support our efforts. For example, as part of the Healthy Child
Care America Campaign supported by NHTSA and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Child Care Bureau and Maternal and
Child Health Bureau and coordinated by the American Academy of
Pediatrics, ten pilot training session are proposed to take
place around the country to provide basic child passenger
safety education and awareness to child care administrators,
providers, licensing representatives, and others transporting
children. Also, USAA Insurance will be providing NHTSA's
Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Course to its
employees so they can provide child safety seat education and
proper installation to their members. Five courses are
currently scheduled at various USAA Insurance localities around
the country.
NHTSA is working with partners to identify states with
opportunities for legislative action to remove gaps in child
occupant protection laws. This will be accomplished by
providing technical information and support for comprehensive
child passenger safety laws to cover all children up to age 16.
NHTSA is also supporting advocacy training to support this
legislative agenda.
As part of the four point plan to embrace high visibility
enforcement, NHTSA will work with state safety offices, state
police, patrol agencies, and state associations of chiefs of
police and sheriffs to plan and carry out special enforcement
programs, tailored to the state's statutes for child safety
seat violations. The agency will work with these same
organizations to implement ``Operation Kids,'' a child
passenger safety training for law enforcement officers. This
training will provide officers with an awareness of what they
can do in their communities to improve child passenger safety.
To coincide with these efforts, NHTSA will partner with the
region's mass media and state safety offices to develop and
implement public information campaigns consistent with the
special enforcement programs. The agency will also release
Vince and Larry PSAs with ``kids in back seat'' messages,
develop media materials to educate the public about placing
children in the back seat, how belts and bags work together,
and establish child passenger safety technical information
``hot lines'' through cooperative agreements with advocate
partner organizations.

Mr. Wolf. Your recent National Occupant Protection Use
Survey found that when a driver is buckled, restraint use for
toddlers is 86 percent. However, when a driver--mom or dad--is
unbuckled, restraint use for toddlers is only 23 percent. To
reduce child occupant fatalities, more drivers must buckle
themselves. A failure to do so has obviously brought about a
danger. How can we better educate the public about the need to
restrain children? I still see two kids jumping around in the
front seat and the parent has no belt on.
Dr. Martinez. Again, there are two issues. One is getting
the message in front of the media where they accept it and
balance it out, and the second is working through our part to
weave the message in. We just finished the first quarter of
1998 with 10 Moving Kids Safely Conferences around the country,
which had big media events focusing on child passenger safety.
That was the week we announced these results in order to get
the media bond.
One of the other things we are trying to do is make sure
people understand that seat belt use affects everyone. And when
you focus on its effects on adults to children, you begin to
look at issues of responsibility and support enforcement of the
stronger laws.
The second quarter, we are going to have a Mobilization
America in which ABC--America Buckles Children--will focus on
children and buckling up children in all 50 States. We are
going to amplify that throughout all the modes of the
Department of Transportation.
We are very concerned about several things. One is that
seat belt use for children tends to be lower than that of
adults. It is high for the first couple of years, but at the
age of 4, the laws suddenly don't cover children anymore. Seat
belt laws often cover 18-year-olds and over and 4-year-olds and
younger. In that age group, we are looking at how to strengthen
those laws across the board.
Interestingly enough, New Hampshire--which is the only
State not to have one for adults--has one of the strongest laws
for children that goes up to age 16, a primary seat belt law
for children.
The second issue is that----

seat belt education

Mr. Wolf. What is their percentage? Does that show that
that has had an impact on adults since you had to keep it on up
until you were 14 or 15?
Dr. Martinez. I think you raise a good point. I don't know
because they passed it last year. It is too early to be
evaluated. But I will amplify your point, if I may, that if we
can keep kids buckled in that time frame, from 14 to 18, we
believe we would have a much greater success by investing in
that, than having them suddenly hit 18 or 19 and then tell them
they have to buckle up.
Mr. Wolf. It's like if you don't smoke up until you're 18,
then you won't smoke. If you do, then obviously it looks like
you continue. So it would seem to me that your primary target
would be young people in first through fifth grades. Once you
get them, it seems that you would keep them.
Dr. Martinez. We're on the same wave length. I just spoke 2
or 3 months ago with the National Science Teachers Association.
We are actually working with them on a school science
curriculum about car crashes and about what a seat belt does
and what happens in a crash. It is aimed at middle schools
right now, but it is very good for science teachers. We try to
add traffic safety at the schools in the health program. The
health program is competing with AIDS issues and alcohol issues
and violence issues, so we decided to go to the science
teachers.
It turns out that this helps them teach their lessons. It
teaches distance, forces, acceleration, and deceleration. That
project is now nearing completion and I was quite pleased with
our meeting in Nashville. They were quite pleased because it
was a way to make it real for the students.
But again, I don't think you need driver's education, but
occupant education early on and get people the tools they
understand. The only reason I have raised this issue is because
when I was back at Stanford, one of the studies we did was to
put car crashes in the physics class. When we looked at the
high school students, they all wore their seat belt as a
driver, but as a passenger they didn't. To me, there was a
fundamental knowledge base missing that was allowing them to
make that decision.
If you look at age 13- to 16-year-old passengers who are
not driving, they are unbuckled. And they die with another
teenager driving at the wheel. We think that before they become
drivers, we have to interact. We think we can do it through the
school system.
Mr. Recht. I would just add to that. A number of the
private companies that have been participating in this Air Bag
Coalition have gone out on their own to do programs.
Particularly at the schools they have been very successful,
kindergarten through sixth grade.

occupant protection education

Mr. Wolf. Any in the Virginia area?
Mr. Recht. We can probably find out for you.
Dr. Martinez. They are doing it in preschools and other
classes. Ford Motor Company is working with Sesame Street and I
think you have seen some of the commercials. They have a road
show that is going to malls around the country. General Motors
is working with Safe Kids Coalition. We are quite pleased with
some of the responses on this.
I remember actually being with Bob Eaton who did ``Kids in
the Back is Where It's At''. He told me that he thought if we
had invested in this 10 years ago, we wouldn't have the
problems we have today with child safety. I agree with him very
much.
Mr. Recht. We can find out. I know this Chrysler Program is
taking place in the Maryland suburbs because a little daughter
of friends of ours went through it.
Mr. Wolf. If you let me know, maybe I would write all the
superintendents of the schools in my area and ask them to take
a look at it.
Dr. Martinez. We would be happy to do that and we
appreciate the support.
[The information follows:]

[Page 127--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

primary seat belt usage laws

Mr. Wolf. How many States have primary seat belt usage
laws?
Dr. Martinez. Thirteen.
Mr. Wolf. What States are they?
[The information follows:]

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia currently have
primary seat belt use laws. They are: California, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas.

Mr. Wolf. During last year's hearing, NHTSA testified that
the District of Columbia and a few States were considering
primary seat belt laws. I know that the District of Columbia
adopted a primary seat belt law. Did any States switch from a
secondary to a primary seat belt law in the last year?
[The information follows:]

Oklahoma, Maryland and the District of Columbia switched
from a secondary to a primary seat belt law in the past year.

primary seat belt laws--changes in use rates

Mr. Wolf. What changes in use have we seen for those States
that recently adopted primary seat belt laws?
Dr. Martinez. Just understand that in our research
programs, we do evaluations to help legislators make decisions.
In Louisiana, we just did an evaluation. They have also seen a
significant increase with their law.
Mr. Wolf. Because you can be ticketed for littering and not
for not wearing a seat belt?
Dr. Martinez. That's absolutely correct.
[The information follows:]

To date, five states and the District of Columbia have
changed from secondary to primary seat belt laws. All six
jurisdictions have seen increases in belt use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-change Latest use
State Changed in use rate rate Net gain
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................................................. 1993 70 ('92) 88 18
Louisiana................................................... 1995 50 ('94) 67 17
Georgia..................................................... 1996 53 ('95) 68 15
D.C......................................................... 1997 58 ('96) 66 8
Oklahoma.................................................... 1997 48 ('96) 60 12
Maryland.................................................... 1997 70 ('96) 71 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The latest survey in the District of Columbia took place after the primary law was enacted but before it
became effective. Maryland's survey was conducted within two weeks after the law became effecive. Oklahoma's
survey was conducted about six weeks after the law went into effect.

states enforcing seat belt laws

Mr. Wolf. How many States are seriously enforcing seat belt
laws?
[The information follows:]

Because a seat belt violation is an infraction rather than
a crime, states do not routinely compile or report total
citations issued or stops made for that offense. However, it is
clear that seat belt and child seat violations are being
seriously enforced by many law enforcement agencies in all
states. This is demonstrated by the increased resources that
law enforcement officials are devoting to improve the occupant
protection enforcement capabilities of their officers, deputies
and troopers. For example, the agency's annual training needs
assessment in 1997 disclosed that the states plan to train more
than five thousand officers in Traffic Occupant Protection
Strategies (seat belt enforcement) in FY 1998, and another five
hundred officers in Operation Kids (child seat enforcement).
The planned training will draw students from virtually all
states. In addition, superintendents, chiefs and sheriffs
representing more than 2,000 of the nation's largest law
enforcement agencies have registered for the series of Buckle
Up America Law Enforcement Summits that the agency is
conducting during the Spring of 1998. These officials will sign
public proclamations of support for strict enforcement of the
child seat and safety belt laws. The officials will also commit
increased support to proven methods of occupant protection
enforcement, including seat belt and safety seat checkpoints,
high visibility moving patrol and special traffic enforcement
``blitzes''.

Mr. Wolf. In the United States, littering is a primary
offense and a person can be ticketed for it. In comparison, in
the majority of the States, failure to wear a seat belt is a
secondary offense and a person must be pulled over for another
violation before he or she can be ticketed for this violation.
With weak laws and limited enforcement, how do you believe we
will ever reach the national goal of 85 percent belt use by the
year 2000?
[The information follows:]

The agency strongly encourages all states to consider
enactment of primary belt laws, based on research that
demonstrates this is an important contributor to a high rate of
belt use. For example, within two months after Oklahoma's
primary law went into effect in October 1997, the state's belt
use rate had increased by 12 percentage points. In addition to
encouraging states to pass primary laws, the agency is also
working with the network of Safe Communities programs and other
local-level partners to promote adoption of primary belt-use
local ordinances by cities, counties and other local
jurisdictions. However, the agency believes it would be unwise
to devote its resources exclusively to promoting passage of
primary laws, as substantial gains can also be achieved through
other approaches. The state of Washington, for example, has
belt use above 80 percent despite having a secondary law. The
agency continues to believe that a comprehensive approach, that
links passing the best possible laws to the fullest possible
enforcement of the laws we have, along with intensified public
education and expanded public-private sector partnerships, is
the best means of meeting the goal.

seat belt enforcement

Mr. Wolf. Is stronger enforcement at the State level our
best option?
[The information follows:]

Sustained, strong and highly visible enforcement is an
important component of the Buckle Up America Campaign. States
such as North Carolina, Georgia and New Mexico (to name just a
few) that have conducted well-publicized enforcement programs
have demonstrated that substantial increases in belt use can be
achieved. All three of those states have seen belt use go up by
approximately 25 percentage points since 1990. However, no
single countermeasure can be considered the best option. The
agency continues to believe that a comprehensive approach, that
links good laws to high-visibility enforcement, intensified
public education and expanded public-private sector
partnerships is the best means of meeting the goal.

seat belt usage--light trucks

Mr. Wolf. There are three States with belt use laws that
still do not cover the occupants of light trucks--Georgia,
Indiana, and Missouri. What efforts is NHTSA undertaking to
change these States' belt usage laws to include occupants of
light trucks?
[The information follows:]

The occupant protection incentive grant program proposed by
NHTSA would encourage states to extend their seat belt laws to
cover all passenger vehicles, including light trucks. The
agency annually publishes crash and fatality statistics that
demonstrate the need for improved protection of light truck
occupants. And disseminates these data to the states. When
requested, the agency will provide testimony and other
information to legislators who are considering upgrades to
their seat belt laws. For example, the NHTSA Region 4 office
was requested to testify before the Georgia Senate and on
February 24, 1998, by a vote of 34-20, the full Senate passed
the primary upgrade safety belt bill SB591 which will require
occupants in all vehicles and all seating positions to buckle
up. There has been no legislation introduced this year in
Missouri or Indiana to cover the occupants of light trucks.

section 402--occupant protection

Mr. Wolf. On funding, in fiscal year 1998, Congress
provided $9 million under the 402 grant program to States to
increase seat belt usage beyond what each State spent. Are all
the States using this increase in funding for seat belt
initiatives?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir. That money has gone out and been
programmed by the States.
Mr. Wolf. What are they actually doing with it?
Ms. Derby. Some of them are undertaking roadside
checkpoints, using it for law enforcement, child safety seat
laws. Some are using it for education in the schools. Some are
using it on child safety seat purchase programs. It is across
the board.
Mr. Wolf. What have been the most successful ones?
Ms. Derby. If you have a good law and you enforce that law,
that has been very successful as long as it is accompanied by a
strong education program. In the cases where the states are not
using the money--and there are a handful of those cases--it is
because the Congress has said they can't spend it until they
spend the base sum they spent last year. Because there is a
reduced amount of funding for some states, they have put on
hold some of their occupant protection education programs so
they are not up to the limit of their spending. They programmed
it, and at such time as they get the balance of the money and
can complete their base program, then they will go into the
additional supplemental money.
Mr. Wolf. If there is anything that the committee can do to
help you with regard to that, let us know.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. What steps can the Committee take to assure that
states are using their 402 funds to meet these high-priority
goals?
[The information follows:]
No committee action appears to be necessary. The States are
doing an excellent job of using their 402 funds to address
high-priority goals. Even though states can modify projects and
shift funding during the year without NHTSA review under the
new 402 process, there is no major fluctuation due to the new
process. NHTSA's review of Section 402 spending by program area
over the past three years indicates that States are spending
their Section 402 funds in the priority program areas where
their highway safety problems lie. In FY 1997, funding in
certain program areas decreased due to lack of earmarks
(Alcohol and Safe Communities). However, spending in the high-
priority area of Occupant protection increased by almost $900
thousand without an earmark.

[Page 131--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

section 402--occupant protection incentive grants

Mr. Wolf. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA is requesting $20
million for a new occupant protection grant program. Please
explain this program to the committee and discuss how this will
differ from occupant protection activities the States are
already doing with their 402 grant funds.
[The information follows:]

The new occupant protection incentive grant program would
make grants available to those states that adopt and implement
effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries
resulting from persons riding unrestrained or improperly
restrained in motor vehicles. The proposed grant program is
designed to stimulate increased safety belt and child safety
seat use, and to support the President's goals to increase
national seat belt use to 85% by 2000 and 90% by 2005, and to
reduce child occupant fatalities (0-4 years) by 15% in 2000 and
25% in 2005.
Incentive grants are provided to encourage states to pass
stronger laws and implement the most effective countermeasures
to increase safety belt and child safety set use. States become
eligible for basic grants by taking specific actions, such as
passing primary enforcement laws or driver license penalty
points for belt law violations, and implementing stepper-up
police enforcement of belt laws. Also, states are awarded basic
grants by demonstrating exceptional performance in increasing
safety belt use rates.
The occupant protection activities which would be funded
through incentive grants are no different than those which can
be currently funded with Section 402 dollars. However, Section
402 funds may be spent in a variety of traffic safety areas
beyond occupant protection, based on the problems identified by
States in their annual state highway safety plans. The proposed
occupant protection incentive grant program would encourage
States to focus their energy on increasing safety belt and
child safety seat use. In order to maintain a high level of
belt use or to implement a primary belt law which is passed,
states need additional funding to support a high level of
enforcement and public education, and they will be able to
receive that funding through the incentive grant program.

impact of increase in speed limits

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver asked the questions which I wanted to
be sure to get into, so we will have your answers for the
record, but on the speed issue, are you able to say now that
there has been an increase in deaths because of--how was that
again? You don't have to go into all the questions and answers,
but just for my own----
Dr. Martinez. We can state that compared to historical
trends, those States as a group that raised their speed limits
have had an increase in fatalities versus those that did not
raise speed limits. The exact reason for that--whether it is
miles travelled or changes in types of trips and number of
trips--is not available at this time because of limitations of
the data.
Mr. Wolf. Will you have that later on?
Dr. Martinez. Probably next year, because the fact of the
matter is that you don't have a full year of data. Some states
implemented it on different roads at different times.
Mr. Wolf. But a number have had it for several years.
Dr. Martinez. Raising it to 55?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Dr. Martinez. There have only been a few that have had
that. Looking at a group and trying to get enough data to be
able to make decisions based on the information that came in,
required that they grouped them.
Mr. Wolf. How many States raised it or took it off and are
now going back. Did Montana put it on again?
Dr. Martinez. I would have to get that for you for the
record. I know that Montana is entertaining a night limit, and
also Texas is entertaining whether or not to change their
limits back down.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. How many states have increased speed limits since
passage of the National Highway System Designation Act [the NHS
Act] of 1995? Have any of these states considered passing
legislation to return limits to pre-NHS levels?
[The information follows:]
With passage of the NHS Act, the National Maximum Speed
Limit (NMSL) was repealed. The NHS Act eliminated the NMSL,
thereby permitting the states to pass legislation to establish
their own speed limits. Based upon the latest information from
our regional offices, FHWA, state legislatures and other
sources, a total of 32 states raised speed limits in calendar
1996. Another four states raised speed limits in 1997. To date,
in 1998, one state has raised its speed limit, bringing the
total of states with increased speed limits to 37.
Several states have conducted preliminary studies of the
potential impacts of increased speed limits, and as a result,
may be considering legislation to lower the limits. For
example, Montana passed legislation, effective December 8,
1995, to increase the speed limit to ``reasonable and prudent''
for passenger cars during daytime hours, with lower limits for
trucks and for all vehicles during nighttime hours. Montana's
legislature has considered reducing the speed limits, however,
we do not have any information at this time as to the potential
outcome of the legislature's consideration. We do not have any
additional information at this time that other states may also
be considering reducing the higher speed limits.
Mr. Wolf. Total motor vehicle fatalities and deaths per
100,000 people began increasing in 1993 after declining since
the mid-1970s. Do you believe that the repeal of the national
speed limit had any impact on the recent fatalities?
[The information follows:]

Fatality Rates Per 100,000 Population

Year Fatality rate
1992.......................................................... 15.39
1993.......................................................... 15.57
1994.......................................................... 15.64
1995.......................................................... 15.91
1996.......................................................... 15.80

One of the findings of the NHTSA-FHWA study of increased
speed limits is that approximately 350 additional fatalities
occurred on Interstate roads for the 32 states with increased
speed limits in 1996. The estimated increase in Interstate
fatalities was about 9 percent above what would have been
expected, based upon historical trends. In contrast, fatalities
on lower speed limit roads declined in 1996. Thus, the decline
in the fatality rate per 100,000 population in 1996 occurred in
spite of the higher speed limits, and it is estimated that this
decline would have been greater had speed limits not increased
in 1996.
Mr. Wolf. Are our nation's highways safer as a result of
increased speed limits?
[The information follows:]
The agency estimates that the nation's highways may not
have been as safe with increased speed limits in 1996. The
National Highway System Designation Act [the NHS Act] of 1995
required the Department to study the impact of increased speed
limits. NHTSA and FHWA conducted the study, using data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for 1996, the first
year of states' experience with higher speed limits. In 1996, a
total of 32 states had increased speed limits in place; 21 of
the 32 states had the increased speed limits in place for a
portion of calendar year 1996. Based upon the analysis of this
first year of experience with higher speed limits, it is
estimated that the states with increased limits in 1996
experienced approximately 350 more Interstate fatalities than
would have been expected based on historical trends, about 9
percent above expectations. Due to the current unavailability
of full vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and other data, however,
it is not known how increased travel on higher speed roads,
shifts in travel, and other traffic safety factors, (e.g.,
changes in alcohol involvement, belt use) or various economic
factors (e.g., fuel consumption, roadway maintenance, travel
time) may have contributed to an estimated increase in
Interstate fatalities and economic costs. NHTSA and FHWA plan
to continue to study the impact of increased speed limits at
the national and state levels, particularly after states have
had additional years of experience with the higher limits.

Mr. Recht. There were 32 States that raised their limit in
some fashion and one or two are considering it.
But back on this issue of the data, we asked the States to
give us their data. Of the 32, if I recall correctly, only
about 10 were able to give us something that they felt was
confident and competent data to help us out. Hopefully next
year we will be able to do that for you.

vehicle compatibility--ltv issues

Mr. Wolf. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
recently released a report on vehicle compatibility. The report
stated that ``for all crashes between cars and pick-ups or cars
and utility vehicles, people in cars are four times more likely
to die than people inside pick-ups or utility vehicles. When
pick-ups or utility vehicles strike cars in the side, the risk
of death for car occupants relative to the risk of pick-up or
utility vehicle occupant is 27 to 1 . . . People in small cars
weighing less than 2,000 pounds struck in the side by pick-ups
or utility vehicles have a relative death risk of 47 to 1.''
What is your overall strategy for addressing the vehicle
compatibility issue?
Dr. Martinez. That is a good question to ask. We actually
have an overview of our vehicle compatibility LTV issues that
really shows a comprehensive approach.
The particular issue you talked about concerns structural
issues. We have a research program underway that is testing six
sets of crashes between pick-up trucks, vans, and sport utility
vehicles versus a mid-sized car to begin to focus on the
structural issues. In addition to that, we are looking at roof
strength, roll-over issues, and some ejection issues for the
vehicle itself.
The last thing that I will say is that we have been looking
at this issue for several years and have been moving forward.
We actually have an international group working with us on the
LTV crashes. We are presenting this information for further
discussion at an international dialogue meeting in Windsor,
Canada in June. We are trying to get the research done. We have
a lot of the analysis done from previous databases, but we are
going to work with the manufacturers and others.

[Page 135--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. What do you think should be done since so many
vehicle sales are----
Dr. Martinez. It is a concern to us in the fact that they
now represent 34 percent of the fleet.
Mr. Wolf. And growing every year.
Dr. Martinez. They are basically the station wagons of the
1990s and beyond. I actually own one and we bought it because
with kids--going to the airport--I just throw a lot of stuff in
the back of that car. That is the only vehicle that would
really meet my needs.
By the same token, we want to make sure that as these
problems emerge, we are ahead of the curve so that design
characteristics can be taken into consideration. There are
several issues to be addressed. One of which is the vehicle
itself. The other one--which is why I think we need to put it
into more consideration--is improving the side impact standard
for vehicles across the board to represent the changing height
of the bumpers within a fleet. I think that was mentioned also
in the IIHS report and also by some of the manufacturers in the
last few weeks as we focused on this compatibility issue.
Mr. Wolf. So that meeting is in June?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Let us know about that.
Dr. Martinez. The International Research Committee meets
every 2 years. This year it is in Windsor, Canada. Last year,
we called for a research agenda. Compatibility is one of the
ones we were able to broker and now we are going to come back
with our results from this next meeting.
Mr. Wolf. In mid-February, NHTSA began crash testing pick-
up and sport utility into passenger cars to examine mismatches
in vehicle design. What can you tell us about your first set of
crash tests with a Chevrolet S-10 pick-up and a Honda Accord?
How many more tests do you plan to conduct?
[The information follows:]

NHTSA is conducting a series of crash tests between
passenger cars and light trucks and vans (LTVs) to study the
interaction between these two vehicle types. The first three
tests in the series are side impacts in which the LTV is the
bullet vehicle and a mid-size car is the target vehicle as
shown below.
Test 1: Chevrolet S-10-Honda Accord--(Tested 2/20/98).
Test 2: Ford Explorer-Honda Accord--(Tested 3/2/98).
Test 3: Dodge Caravan-Honda Accord--(To be tested 3/21/98).
The results of these tests will be released in late April
after the agency has received the films, test reports, and
electronic data from the tests and has had chance to undertake
a quality control review of the test report and electronic
data.
A second set of tests is scheduled for April and May. Test
conditions for the second set of tests are currently being
developed.

vehicle compatibility--redesign

Mr. Wolf. There are many reasons why more car occupants die
when they collide with a pick-up or utility vehicle. These
reasons include vehicle weight, vehicle height--the truck or
utility vehicle rides high enough off the ground that the frame
strikes the side of the car not on its frame but on the middle
of the door, thus hitting the occupant of the car in the head
or chest--and vehicle stiffness--light truck frames are
stiffer, meaning they absorb less energy in a crash and
transfer more of it to the other vehicle. Now that pick-ups and
utility vehicles account for almost 45 percent of new vehicle
sales, do you believe that these vehicles may need to be
redesigned to make them more compatible with cars in a crash?
[The information follows:]

As you have mentioned, vehicle aggressivity is influenced
by a vehicle's weight, stiffness, and geometric design. While
weight has a dominant role in aggressivity, the stiffness and
geometric design also are important in both frontal and side
crashes. While agency staff have concepts that could be pursued
to reduce aggressivity of vehicles, careful research and
evaluation of potential countermeasures to address the issue of
compatibility are necessary.
The crash testing that is currently underway will be used
to study the complex interactions between vehicles and to
develop mitigation concepts that will enhance vehicle
compatibility. These will be further evaluated and refined by
computer modeling. It should be noted that these concepts are
not limited to striking vehicles, but also may include
potential countermeasures that apply to collision partners,
i.e., the struck vehicles. With respect to your particular
question, it is possible that pickup trucks, utility vehicles,
and vans may need to be redesigned to make them more compatible
in a crash.

Mr. Wolf. What are some of the design changes you might
recommend?
[The information follows:]

The crash testing that is currently underway will be used
to study the complex interactions between vehicles and to
develop mitigation concepts that will enhance vehicle
compatibility. These will be further evaluated and refined by
computer modeling. It should be noted that these concepts are
not limited to striking vehicles, but also may include
potential countermeasures that apply to collision partners,
i.e., the struck vehicles. With respect to your particular
question, our previous research has shown that improving the
geometric mismatch between vehicles' major structural members
improves the crash energy absorption by the vehicles. Also,
previous work has shown that improved compatibility is achieved
if the vehicle structural stiffness is progressively ``softer''
from the firewall to the bumper. This is particularly important
in side crashes.

Mr. Wolf. Would these changes be contained in a new safety
standard or are you seeking voluntary changes from the
automobile industry?
[The information follows:]

NHTSA's objective is to make light trucks and vans (LTVs)
as safe as possible for their occupants and for occupants of
other vehicles involved in crashes with LTVs. Rulemaking is
just one component of the agency's overall strategy to meet
this objective. The two primary components are: (1) research
and rulemaking coupled with enforcement, and (2) consumer
information and driver behavior modification. Successfully
addressing the LTV safety issue will require a combination of
these approaches. In all cases, the agency's decision to
proceed with rulemaking, enforcement, and/or customer
information will be based on thorough research.

ltv--rollover and brake issues

Mr. Wolf. The press has recently covered a number of other
safety problems with pick-ups and utility vehicles, including a
danger of rolling over and weaker brakes. What work does NHTSA
have ongoing on these two issues?
[The information follows:]

In the braking area, the agency issued a final rule last
fall that extended the coverage of FMVSS No. 135 to light
trucks and vans. In that standard, the brake performance
requirements for light trucks and vans are exactly the same as
for passenger cars. Compliance with the new requirements is
optional now, and becomes mandatory for light trucks and vans
built on or after September 1, 2002.
NHTSA also has an ongoing Light Vehicle Rollover Research
program. This program's primary focus has been on-road
untripped rollovers. To date, seven maneuvers have been
investigated using three sport utility vehicles. It has been
decided that two of these maneuvers were promising to determine
a vehicle's rollover propensity and merited further
investigation. A repeatability study has begun and will
continue through fiscal year 1998. A vehicle steering
controller is being purchased to help reduce test variability
due to driver influence. Testing of an additional twelve
vehicles will be initiated during 1998 using refined test
procedures based on the results of previous research. The Light
Vehicle Rollover Research program will continue in fiscal year
1999. Additionally, NHTSA is currently building a Variable
Dynamics Test Vehicle (VDTV) which will be ready for use before
the end of this year. One of the first programs planned for the
VDTV is rollover research. The VDTV will be used to examine the
effect of various vehicle characteristics on its rollover
propensity.

aggressive driving

Mr. Wolf. NHTSA has a goal to reduce speed and aggressive
driving fatalities by 5 percent by the year 2000. Obviously
your program hasn't worked here in Washington, D.C. You can
just sense it here. What are you doing to reach the goal?
Dr. Martinez. We have created some new public awareness
information campaigns that actually are geared----
Mr. Wolf. Are they working?
Dr. Martinez. Well, they are just rolling out. Actually,
they are geared to run during drive time which we think is
really one of the central times at which people are on the
road.
Mr. Wolf. Where will they be done? Here in Washington?
Dr. Martinez. I would think that the PSA programs--I don't
know if we have any particular ones that have signed on yet,
have we?
Mr. Nichols. We plan to distribute them to all the radio
stations, including the Washington, D.C. area.
Mr. Wolf. When you do that, I would like to hear it. But I
would also like to send a letter out to all the radio stations
in the region to tell them that you're going to be sending this
out and ask them to look at it.
What else are you doing?
Dr. Martinez. We have some aggressive driving demonstration
projects that are being rolled out to look at ways to target
aggressive drivers and to see which particular enforcement
programs or technologies that we put in to monitor these issues
pay off in dividends.
Mr. Wolf. What can you do that really works?
Dr. Martinez. There are things such as speed cameras, red
light running campaigns--actually the red light running
technology has been found to be fairly successful in that what
people begin to do is, not having a police presence or any sort
of mechanism to cause compliance with the rules of the road,
results in the rules of the jungle. On top of that, you have
some of the problems of congestion that we may not be able to
solve right away. So we have to find ways to----
Mr. Wolf. You mean people are in traffic and they are so
stressed? Is that what you mean?
Dr. Martinez. When we looked at the issues, we found that
congestion played a large part. There is more of an urban
problem than a rural problem. A lot of it has to do with
congestion, time delays, people's frustration, and kind of an
all-against-all phenomenon that occurs out on the roadway.
The second one was the lack of enforcement. We have seen
travel go up by 35 percent in the past 10 years and enforcement
has been essentially flat. I don't know about you, but I don't
see that much enforcement at times. So we have worked with the
beltway to do the smooth operator program, which really was
enforcing a lot of the speeding issues, following too close,
passing on the right and left--those sort of things--to
mitigate the aggressive driving. That was combined with a large
public awareness campaign that you saw a lot of on the radio
and television.
Mr. Wolf. Is that still going on on the beltway? I don't
think it is.
Dr. Martinez. I think it just stopped and is going to the
evaluation phase at this point in time.
We have some partnerships here with FHWA, NHTSA, and the
Maryland State Police to target speeding and aggressive driving
behavior on the Capital Beltway. NHTSA and the Department of
the Interior are looking at things we can do to reduce
aggressive driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
and that is really speed enforcement and a look at automated
enforcement.
So we have a lot of these programs that we are now putting
into place. But also the States are creating some innovative
programs and we are going to do evaluations with them and then
work with, for example, IACP, to find what are some of the best
practices and the National Sheriffs Association to try to move
that from locality to locality.

[Page 140--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. Could you send a packet of material to us that we
could get to Governor Gilmore? Or maybe you could just send it
to him and tell him that we asked you to send it to him. He was
interested in this during the campaign. If you can get it to my
office, and with a cover letter we will send it down with the
name of somebody they can talk to.
Dr. Martinez. Absolutely. It is an area not just of
interest here, but the States are really struggling with
looking for the best use of their funds to do something that
works.
Mr. Wolf. So it is a big problem in Los Angeles and all
over?
Dr. Martinez. Yes.

mega-project oversight

Mr. Wolf. Concerning mega-projects, several bills have been
introduced in the Congress during 1997 included a requirement
for States to submit a finance plan for highway projects
costing $1 billion or more. If enacted, how will FHWA implement
the proposed requirement that States submit finance plans for
projects over $1 billion?
Mr. Wykle. Well, first we would prefer that it not be
legislated. But if it is legislated, certainly we would look at
trying to develop standard processes in terms of items to be
looked at across mega-projects so that we would have
consistency between them. We agree that if we are going to have
financial plans for mega-projects $1 billion is probably about
the right threshold in terms of dollar value to do this.
We think from these large projects are also lessonslearned
that we need to collect and pass out to others that may be getting
ready to start a mega-project or are currently constructing one.
Certainly Utah is experienced with the design-build process that was
innovative and proved cost-effective and also sped up the process for
project delivery.
So we would work to develop standard consistent processes
across the board.
Mr. Wolf. The Administration's proposal for NEXTEA includes
legislative language to require these cost estimates? To do
that--and you currently have the authority to do it now----

oversight projects

Mr. Kane. By policy, we're really already doing it. The
first was the I-15 project in Utah. There was clearly a finance
plan developed for that. As we launch into other projects,
there will be a finance plan as well. Department-wide, across
all modes, we are actively developing and will develop them as
projects come on-line.
Mr. Wolf. That was my next question.
Yesterday, when Secretary Slater was here, he indicated
that he did support the requirement that the Department require
cost estimates and financial plans for mega-projects or those
projects that have total costs in excess of $1 billion. To
date, you have required project finance plans only for the
Alameda Corridor Project, the Big Dig, and I-15 reconstruction
in Utah. An early survey by the Inspector General's Office
indicated that there may be as many as 30 projects that are in
excess of $1 billion. Some are transit and rail so they would
not all be your projects.
Why haven't you required more projects to submit these cost
estimates and their finance plans?
Ms. Jeff. I think that, to be fair to the highway side,
those that are at a stage where a finance plan--because funding
has been identified--has been done, those other projects that
the survey references are projects that are in pipeline, that
is, there are in their environmental review process, they are
in the thought process, or they are in the conversational
stages. They have not yet been translated into projects for
which long-term funding has been identified and therefore the
project sponsors are not able at this time to put together a
finance plan.
Mr. Kane. For any highway project, we are there, in terms
of the ones that are over $1 billion. If I could amplify on a
point General Wykle made on sharing information, we won't limit
that to projects over $1 billion. The Artery had some very good
practices in terms of monthly tracking of projects, design
construction, targets as well as what you actually had. The IG
was really impressed with the system they had. A lot of
different technologies as well as the design build concepts. On
the Artery we will have about 10 different areas that are
strongly working with the project in the State to have ready in
early 1999. We will have best practice packets to give out and
will certainly give those to every State and not be limited to
the projects just over $1 billion.
Mr. Wolf. Corridor H in West Virginia I understand is
estimated to cost over $1 billion. Would it not be appropriate
to require the State to submit a cost estimate and finance plan
for this project?
Mr. Kane. As Gloria Jeff indicated, it goes with the
staging of it.
Mr. Wolf. Based on what you said, this ought to be one.
Mr. Kane. Yes. You're absolutely right. I think it's a
question of when they're ready to come on line and what stage
of planning you're at. But yes, we will look at that and at the
appropriate time do it.
Mr. Wolf. I would appreciate that.
We're going to have a vote at 2:45. I hope that we can end
at that time so you can just go. Otherwise I will need to bring
you back at 3:00 or 3:30.
We will ask this next one for the record.
If we are going to have finance plans, and if the Federal
Government is to invest billions of dollars in large-dollar
projects, does FHWA favor requiring States to prepare initial
total project cost estimates to fully understand the extent of
the proposed Federal investment and the related financing
requirements?
[The information follows:]

A formal requirement to prepare an initial total project
cost for all projects is not needed. As part of its
reauthorization proposal, FHWA would require a financial plan
for all projects estimates to cost $1,000,000,000 or more.
Aside from this proposed change, FHWA believes there are
effective requirements and checks in place for cost estimates
and determining the proposed Federal funding for a project. For
example, ISTEA requires that the Transportation Improvement
Plan be financially constrained as a means of assuring that no
project will begin without adequate funding to complete that
project. State and local officials develop cost estimates at
various points in the environmental, planning and project
development process.
Each estimate is reliable and accurate based on what is
known about the proposed alternatives or project at the time.
Estimates become more refined as the project is better defined
and more is learned through project development, final design,
and construction.

Mr. Wolf. Should FHWA require States to track cost growth
on large-dollar Federal-aid projects similar to what OMB
requires Federal agencies to do for its own large-dollar
acquisitions?
Mr. Kane. Certainly commensurate with the concept of a
finance plan on large projects over $1 billion. I think we
would really have to do that in order to have an adequate
update.

conditions and performance report

Mr. Wolf. As you know, Mr. Administrator, the biennial
report to Congress outlines the condition of the Nation's
highways, bridges, and transit systems and the investment
requirements to both maintain current status and to make
improvements. The most recent report was issued in October of
1995, then some 10 months late, and its successor was due in
January of 1997. That report has yet to be issued. Do you
expect it to be coming up pretty soon?
Mr. Wykle. Yes, we do. I think the Secretary mentioned to
you yesterday that you should have it within 10 to 14 days.
Currently it is at the contractor for the final incorporation
of all the comments we received. Our target is to have that
back the middle of next week and then the cover letter from the
Secretary will be signed and the report sent up here. So it is
almost done.

alcohol-related fatalities

Mr. Wolf. Last year for the first time in a number of years
alcohol-related fatalities increased 16,580 in 1994 to 17,274
in 1995. Did alcohol fatalities continue to rise from that
time?
Also what is the impact of not only alcohol fatalities, but
fatalities because of drugs? We see a tremendous increase in
drug use among young people and other people.
Dr. Martinez. Let me go to the last part first. We have
seen increased use of drugs within the past few years. There is
a large percent of concomitant drug use with alcohol, which
sometimes makes it difficult because the testing is not done as
routinely for drugs. But it is an area of concern.
We have proposed in our fiscal year 1999 budget programs to
specifically address drug-related issues, especially for youth.
With regards to the alcohol issues, the overall percentage
of alcohol-related deaths has been about 41 percent. It has
been flat for several years. It has gone up somewhat as the
overall number of deaths went up as exposure went up this last
year.
The area that concerns----
Mr. Wolf. Could that rate be one of the major reasons it
has gone up?
Dr. Martinez. You mean the drug use?
Mr. Wolf. No, because of increased alcohol use. There was
the LSU case, with which you are familiar with.
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir.

youth alcohol involvement

Mr. Wolf. I saw a survey of a university in my State that
53 percent of the students were binge drinkers.
Dr. Martinez. We are very concerned, anecdotally, where we
are at this stage putting information together. When you talk
to policymakers and educators, there seems to be more unbridled
drinking on some of the campuses. We don't know exactly how
that translates directly into crashes. We have seen the
greatest decrease, for example, occur by raising the drinking
age to 21 years of age. But one of the problems we have is that
when you are under 21 and drink, you end up drinking at keg
parties, at the lake front or by the river front, which doesn't
necessarily have law enforcement patrols. We are working with
law enforcement to have special youth patrols and also
targeting parents who often buy these kegs, and also targeting
the judicial system which oftentimes is not so interested in
adjudicating under 21 to do things such as teen courts and
things like that, which we have seen make an impact.
We have many activities in process, focused toward youth as
well as a protection focus for youth. We think it is a separate
issue altogether.
Last year we saw a bump under age 21 for the first time in
about 5 years. That concerned us and we expanded our
relationships with youth organizations, including SADD--
Students against Destructive Decisions, now--and moving that
into a peer-to-peer relationship within schools in both the
high schools and the college environment.
Mr. Wolf. But it doesn't seem to be working. Do you think
so?
Dr. Martinez. I think there is going to be a lag time here
to evaluate those programs. But we're actually more concerned
with the fact that the social message isn't necessarily there.
We have to find ways to get a social message to that particular
group that understands the problems with alcohol and the
responsibility of driving. We think, for example, the .08
across the board and zero tolerance for youth helps send the
right messages. Also the drunk driving program that states that
you have to be drug-free to have the responsibility of driving.
We often find that both getting your license and beginning
to drink is kind of a rite of passage. With that, we are
missing the opportunity to talk about responsibilities that
come with it. We actually hope we make these points with spring
break coming up. I think people are beginning to complain about
the fact that spring break has become one giant drinking binge,
more and more people are showing concern about it. We are
trying now to get new partners to focus particularly on this
issue, including some in the alcohol industry and some of those
in the hospital business. They can help us get a better message
out there to youth.
I share with you the same concerns that this group is going
to be a little harder to address. We're going to have to focus,
not only with messages from various parties who are sometimes
trying to sell to this group, but also from the students
themselves. Students are actually a little bit more
sophisticated than we might have been, toward messages from
people outside their age group.
Mr. Wolf. Are you working with universities?
Dr. Martinez. We are working with educators. I can't tell
you exactly what we're doing with universities.
Mr. Wolf. But shouldn't you be working with the
universities? Shouldn't you be dealing with the college
presidents? I spoke to one from my State not too long ago and
he was very, very concerned about this. I think he wants some
help and some ideas.
Ms. Jeff. Many universities, as a matter of their student
policies, have fairly strong drinking provisions having to do
with not only punishment but also having to do with education.
Mr. Wolf. But are they ever being enforced?
Ms. Jeff. And they are being enforced. What happens is that
they usually end up back-dooring them. Where there is a major
university-wide policy and where they really put thebeef in it
is the athletic programs. They use the athletes as the examples because
the athletes tend to be the ones, in some institutions, who get caught
initially. So it is the internal process by which they deal with the
athletes that sends the message to the rest of the student body. The
starting center for the basketball team gets nailed and brought under
the university policies, then they know what is going to happen to
them, a student who is not bringing in several million dollars of
donations on an annual basis.
Mr. Wolf. I think there are two areas, alcohol and seat
belts, where you are going to get most of the bang from. Both
are going to be a long-term potential problem. If you're not
using your seat belt at age 28 or 38, you're going to get
killed. Also, if you're a big drinker at 20 at the University
of Wherever, you are probably going to be a binge drinker at 28
at IBM or Xerox or TRW or Honeywell or NHTSA. [Laughter.]
I think when you look at the pain and suffering and agony
that comes as a result of it, not only in deaths but in the
breakup of families and the hardship--and it is not uncommon to
read about and talk to men in prisons who will tell you that
they were abused by alcoholic fathers that beat them. There is
a great correlation between people in prisons and how their dad
treated them.
The long-term pain is so great. To date, programs are not
working. I go into all the high schools in my congressional
district. I try to do it once every cycle. Drug use is high.
Alcohol use is higher. And the numbers are quite startling in
both the rural areas as well as the non-rural areas. I just
think we have not targeted--it is not your responsibility,
obviously.
I think dealing with fraternities--I saw a report that came
across my desk on Monday showing that the leadership of college
fraternities drank more than the regular Greeks. The president
of the fraternity--and I think it was 14.2 versus--did you see
it?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, I know what you're talking about.

seat belt and alcohol use--fraternity involvement

Mr. Wolf. I would think this would be an opportunity to
deal with all the fraternities and to aggressively go into the
high schools. Many of them have good purposes in their mottos
and creeds.
I almost think you could pilot both. You could pilot the
seat belt and the alcohol together and get a double bang for
your dollar and be much more effective, and save a lot of
lives, and save a lot of pain and suffering.
I was one of the members who supported Mike Barnes, a
Democratic Member back in the 1980s, on the 21 drinking age. I
had a problem where young people from Virginia were going into
the District of Columbia where the drinking age was 18--and
going onto a military base because they could drink at a
certain age. I made the comment that raising the drinking age
reduced the number of parents who got the call at 2:00 in the
morning saying that your daughter or son is dead. I gave Mike
Barnes the credit. All the people out here in this region who
will never have gotten the call because of the Congress raising
the drinking age is really amazing. I think we have seen that
have a significant impact.
I think you really have to go and deal with the high
schools and colleges. Those students are going to be the future
leaders. Life is a relay race that is won or lost in the
passing of the baton. That is where most relay races are lost.
It is not in the runners. They are about the same speed. As we
are passing the baton and they are taking it to provide the
leadership, there is some young high school kid who will be the
head of NHTSA some 20 years from now.
They are the people we have to deal with. With a limited
amount of resources, I think the high schools and the colleges
are the places to go. They are going to be the opinionators and
they will also be the future leaders.
I would hope that you and your staff would be very, very
open to that. I think in drug use--stopping the drugs at the
border is very, very important--but also having educational
programs explaining and educating people why they should not
use drugs is equally important.
I would urge you--and we can help you in some way
financially--to put together a program both in the high schools
and the universities.
The remainder of the questions we will just submit for the
record.

states with .02 alcohol laws in effect

Young drivers have the highest rate of crash involvement
and many of these accidents involve alcohol. The National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 included a provision
that allowed supplemental Federal apportionments to be withheld
if States have not enacted and are not enforcing a law that
considers an individual under age 21 who has a blood alcohol
concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while operating a
motor vehicle to be driving while intoxicated. How many States
currently have this type of law in effect?
[The information follows:]

As of February 1998, 46 States and the District of Columbia
have adopted zero tolerance laws; only four States were without
zero tolerance laws (Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Wyoming). All of these remaining four States have proposed or
introduced legislation to enact zero tolerance laws.
Two States have laws that do not meet requirements to avoid
a sanction (Delaware and Nebraska). In one of these States,
legislation has been introduced to modify laws in order to
comply with Federal requirements.

youth zero tolerance program

Mr. Wolf. What efforts is NHTSA undertaking to assure that
States enact laws declaring youths under the age of 21
intoxicated if their blood alcohol level exceeds 0.02 percent
while driving?
[The information follows:]

Section 320 of the National Highway System Designation
(NHS) Act of 1995 established a new program, 23 U.S.C.
Sec. 161, which requires the withholding of certain Federal-aid
highway funds from States that do not enact and enforce ``zero
tolerance'' laws by October 1, 1998.
On October 21, 1996, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) published a joint regulation establishing the criteria
that States must meet and the procedures they must follow to
avoid the withholding of funds.
The agency has taken steps to assure that the States were
informed about the requirements and understood the
certification process. In February 1997, the Administrator
wrote to the Governor of the 13 States without a zero tolerance
law and the 3 States with non-complying laws, to explain the
new regulation and urge them to adopt ``zero tolerance'' laws
that comply with the Act. Again, in January 1998, the
Administrator wrote to the governors of the remaining 4 States
without a zero tolerance law and the 2 states with non-
complying laws, to remind them of the upcoming penalty date and
to encourage action to comply with the law. The agency has also
worked to assist the States in formulating legislation that
would meet the criteria under the law.

closing remarks

Mr. Wolf. I appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Martinez. Just as a parting comment, as the person who
made those phone calls in the middle of the night, I appreciate
your concerns on this. We have an industry that is concerned
about this also and we want to make sure that we are moving
forward in the direction you said.
I thank you and your staff for all the support this year
and in past years. It has always been a pleasure.
Mr. Wykle. Sir, thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you today.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.

[Pages 148 - 1120--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Thursday, March 12, 1998.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

WITNESSES

GORDON J. LINTON, ADMINISTRATOR
NURIA FERNANDEZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
PATRICK REILLY, CHIEF COUNSEL
MICHAEL WINTER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR BUDGET AND POLICY
HIRAM WALKER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
CHARLOTTE ADAMS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING
EDWARD THOMAS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION AND
INNOVATION

Mr. Wolf. Good morning, Mr. Linton. Welcome to the
committee. Your full statement will appear in the record as if
read. You can read it or summarize it. There are a series of
votes today, so there is going to be a timing problem today.
Mr. Sabo.
Mr. Sabo. Welcome.
Mr. Linton. Thank you.

Opening Statement

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity once again to come
before you and testify in support of the Federal Transit
Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
As has been the case for the last 5 years, I look forward
to working with you in discussing the importance of the Federal
role in America's transportation system. With me this morning
are, to my right, Nuria Fernandez, my Deputy Administrator;
Hiram Walker, Associate Administrator for Program Management;
and Edward Thomas, the Associate Administrator for Research,
Demonstration and Innovation. To my left is Patrick Reilly,
Chief Counsel; Michael Winter, Associate Administrator for
Budget and Policy; and Charlotte Adams, my Associate
Administrator for Planning.

Overview

Mr. Chairman, we are requesting $4.8 billion in budgetary
resources for fiscal year 1999. Our request includes $4.6
billion for capital investment, the highest level ever asked
for for transit. This level of funding is essential to our
efforts to build a transportation system for the 21st century.
In the future, countries with the most efficient transportation
systems will have a competitive edge that will make the
difference between domestic growth and stagnation. Transit is a
critical element of our efficient nationwide transportation
system.

Measuring Performance

This budget submission fully implements the process of
tying the budget to performance measures as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act. Our 1999 request
reflects our strategic goals that are fully supported and
consistent with the Department's strategic plan. Our standards
reflect the contribution that transit makes to the mobility of
Americans and to the economy of the United States. I look
forward once again, Mr. Chairman, to working with you and the
members of your committee as you monitor our progress in
meeting these very, very tough standards.
While our direct customers are grant recipients, transit
operators and States, in more general terms the customers for
transit and thus for the FTA programs are transit users,
highway users, and the American public at large. Users benefit
through the access and mobility which are provided. The
American public benefits through impacts such as reduced
highway congestion, reduced air and noise pollution for highway
operations, improved mobility and access for low-income people
and for those who choose not to drive, and better land use
patterns. The benefits to the American public form the basis
for the rationale for the governmental support for transit.
The Department of Transportation's strategic plan and
performance plan have been touted as one of the best, but,
frankly, we have been in this business for a while. In FTA, we
had performance measures before the Government Performance and
Results Act. For example, we have had New Starts Cost-
effectiveness criteria and in place since 1984. In fact, the
President's Executive Order on Infrastructure Investment used
our procedures as a model. The application of these procedures
in our New Starts Allocations Report sets the stage for
decisions by the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope to have that New Starts
Allocation Report to you as soon as we can get it available and
after it goes through the coordination process, which it is
currently in.

Strategic Goals

The Department of Transportation has developed a
departmentalwide strategic plan and the fiscal year 1999 annual
performance plan to accompany its 1999 budget request. FTA has
completed its own strategic plan with strategic goals that
support the overall Department goals. The strategic goals of
the Federal transit system program are. Safety and Security;
Mobility and Accessibility for all Americans; Economic Growth
and Trade;human and natural environment; and 5, a quality
organization.

Safety and Security

The FTA believes, as does the Department, that safety is
our utmost importance, and it is important to the viability of
the Nation's transportation systems. FTA's goal is to promote
the public health and safety by working towards the elimination
of transit-related deaths, injuries and property damage, and
the improvement of personal security and property protection.
With increased capital investment provided in this budget,
we will administer grants to maintain and improve the condition
of transit vehicles and infrastructure. In fiscal year 1999, we
have increased the funding for safety and security from $2.1
million, which was in fiscal year 1998, to $6.4 million that we
are requesting in 1999. These funds will fund training courses
at the Transportation Safety Institute and other such projects
as the Advanced Automated Train Control Project at BART and
commuter rail car crashworthiness tests with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA). In our oversight program, we
propose $2.8 billion, which represents a 50 percent increase
over the 1994 to 1997 average.
Our primary role is to provide guidance and technical
assistance and training to our grantees; to make transit system
facilities safer for employees as well as for the riding
public. FTA has worked diligently with the States to
successfully implement the State safety oversight requirements
in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA.
The implementation of this program has increased the awareness
of rail safety nationwide. To carry out this commitment, Mr.
Chairman, we have had to get tough. We have issued letters to
the Governors of Georgia and Michigan withholding 5 percent of
each State's urbanized area formula grants apportionments for
fiscal year 1998 since those two States have failed to
designate a State safety oversight agency in fiscal year 1997
as required by law. Thus, they were not in compliance with the
State safety oversight law.
However, Mr. Chairman, I report that based upon news
reports and information that we received, it is my belief that
Georgia is moving in the right direction, and the Governor has
indicated his willingness to allocate $90,000 to establish such
a State safety oversight office in the Department of
Transportation for the State of Georgia. Of course, we are also
working with the State of Michigan to also rectify the problem.
We are also working with the FRA to explore the use of
location and position communication technology to address
railroad grade crossing safety. In addition, FTA is working
closely with the rest of the Department to improve driver
safety through the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative.
Thanks in part to FTA's commitment to safety and the
support from the Congress, total transit vehicle accidents have
steadily and consistently declined since 1990. In fact, our
numbers show that vehicle accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles
fell from 2.33 in 1990, to 0.94 in 1995, with each year's rate
lower than the previous year's. So we have had made tremendous
progress in that area.
In addition to these specific activities, increased capital
and maintenance funding for vehicle requirements will help us
maintain the average age of the bus and rail fleets and
rehabilitate and modernize transit facilities and structures.
This provides the means to keep our transit systems as safe as
we possibly can.

Mobility and Accessibility

With the resources found in the 1999 budget request, we
will be able to contribute substantially and immeasurably to
the Department of Transportation's strategic goals. One of the
key goals is to increase access to domestic transportation
systems for the movement of people as well as goods. To this
end we seek to shape America's future by ensuring a transit
system that is accessible, seamless with other modes and
efficient, and offers a viable transportation choice. Our
efforts with intelligent transportation systems, such as
traveler information and electronic payment, are already in
place in many urban areas around the country.
With Federal support, the Nation's transit capacity grew by
3.5 percent, and passenger miles grew by 4.8 percent between
1998 and 1995. The funding proposed in this budget will
continue this trend in improving capacity and increased
ridership.
Closely tied to the Department's mobility efforts is our
outcome goal of improving the structural integrity and
operational efficiency of the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. Our request of $3.7 billion in formula funding
will provide resources that can be used for all transit
purposes.
Nationwide, transit infrastructure consists of 135,000
total transit vehicles, 9,600 miles of track, 2,600 rail
stations, and 1,165 maintenance facilities. Investments in this
infrastructure ensures transit succeeds in meeting all of the
strategic goals.
We have just completed, Mr. Chairman, the 1997 edition of
the Conditions and Performance Report. This report states that
an investment of $9.7 billion each year over the next 20 years
will be required to maintain the Nation's transit facilities
and equipment in their current state of repair and to meet
projected increases in travel demand. At this level, the
conditions of bus and rail transit infrastructure can be
maintained. However, I note, Mr. Chairman, to improve the
conditions and performance will require an annual investment of
$14.2 billion.
Our statistics show that prior to 1993, 57 percent of bus
maintenance facilities were in good or better condition. Our
newly released Condition and Performance Report shows that 74
percent of urban bus maintenance facilities and 72 percent of
rural bus maintenance facilities were in good or better
condition in 1996. This, once again, demonstrates that the
recent higher levels of Federal capital funding since 1992 have
resulted in improved facility conditions. However, it also
notes that we still have a ways to go.
I am requesting once again, Mr. Chairman, your support to
allow all operators to use capital funds for preventive
maintenance and to allow areas under 200,000 in population to
continue to use Federal formula funds for operating as well as
capital costs.
I would like to thank you personally, Mr. Chairman, for
your work and the work of this Committee as you provided this
added flexibility in our 1998 appropriations law. Our proposal
today focuses the Federal dollars on capital expenditures.
However, for small urbanized areas where historically the
transit operators have faced the greatest difficulty in meeting
operating expenses, funds will be available for either
operating or capital expenses. For transit operators in both
medium and large urbanized areas, the change in the definition
of capital costs will effectively help with the elimination of
operating assistance.
The American public transit association supports this
project, and the House and Senate versions of the transit
reauthorization bills also support this provision; however,
there is a slight variation in the House provision.

Economic Growth and Trade

A key element of the DOT strategic plan is to promote
America's economic growth and competitiveness through efficient
and flexible transportation systems. The Secretary notes that
we must build systems that are in fact international in reach,
intermodal in form, intelligent in character and inclusive in
service, and we strive to advance this goal by increasing our
overall investment in transit infrastructure and supporting new
technologies to meet the traveling demands of our country.
Today, transit expenses account for 11 percent of the
United States gross national product. More significantly, it
constitutes 19 percent of the spending by the average household
in America, as much as food and health care combined. In order
to strengthen America's economic performance, our
transportation dollars must be invested in a manner that
supports efficiency and improved performance.
Transit is a vital element of a healthy transportation
system. One of transit's most important roles is the ability to
move people efficiently and reduce the economic costs of
congestion. American productivity is dragged down by traffic,
gridlock and highway snarls. Transit addresses this situation
by taking drivers off the road, thus improving the commute
times of transit riders and automobile users alike.
The extensions of rapid rail, busways, light rail and
commuter rail projects currently underway nationwide would
provide an estimated 150 million annual transit trips. Our New
Start request in this budget is $876 million. It fulfills the
Federal commitment to 14 cities that have active full funding
grant agreements (FFGA) for new fixed guideway projects.
Funding within this budget proposes to reinstate project
shortfalls experienced in previous years. The requested level
will also reassure State and local entities that the Federal
Government is a dependable partner in the development of major
fixed guideway construction projects. These actions continue
our successful strategy of employing the mechanisms allowed in
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA to
execute long-term contracts to keep projects on construction
schedules, thus ultimately saving the money for the government
and the American taxpayers.
But as you know, Mr. Chairman, and we have had discussions
about this, the number of new bus or rail transit systems under
study nationwide is staggering. There are several things that
we can do to help manage the huge demand for future new starts,
a pipeline that could be worth over $80 billion in Federal,
State and local dollars.
First, we must fully fund projects with existing FFGA
commitments, with funding levels adjusted as necessary to
compensate for appropriation shortfalls.
In terms of new projects, we would propose to fund only
worthy projects based on our evaluation criteria which are
ready to obligate construction funds within the budget year.
The merits of each project will be determined based upon how it
benefits mobility, environmental benefits, and its operational
efficiency.
The Senate has just adopted the criteria forwarded by the
House in its reauthorization proposal. As the reauthorization
process comes to a close, hopefully this will happen in May, we
will have a good understanding of the factors that we will be
using to make funding decisions over the next 5 years. But in
any case, it is our position, Mr. Chairman, that major
investment study, MIS and project planning, should be left to
be funded by grantees using their formula funds or other
resources that are available to them, and that we should
establish as a principle the desire to make sure that our New
Start money is being used for projects that are close to
construction and under construction.

Human and Natural Environment

In the area of environmental protection, our goal is to
protect and enhance communities and the natural environment
affected by transportation. This includes reducing the amount
of transportation-related pollutants released into the
environment and improving the livability of communities through
transportation planning and investments.

Quality Organization

Mr. Chairman, it is also our goal to make FTA even more of
a quality organization, one that is responsive to our customers
and meets employees' needs. We are a small agency, fewer than
500 employees, yet we manage an annual program of more than $5
billion per year, with more than $48 billion in active grants,
for more than 800 grantees. We are currently processing 96.5
percent of our grantee payments electronically, and we plan to
achieve 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 1998. In fiscal
year 1999 we will continue to expand and also improve the use
of electronic grant-making and management, moving us closer to
a paperless system and putting us on the cutting edge of
electronic business within the Federal Government. We will also
complete our computer reprogramming for the year 2000 for all
of our systems.

Five-Year Research and Technology Plan

Our Department recognizes that improving innovative
technologies are the tools needed to meet our strategic goals.
In your subcommittee report on our fiscal year 1998
appropriations, you requested that we submit a 5-year plan for
our research program, along with our fiscal year 1999 budget.
In carrying out your request, we consulted with the American
Public Transit Association, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, the National Academy of
Sciences, and other interested parties at several public
workshops. As you requested, the plan will be based on an
objective assessment of both the short- and long-term research
and development activities which offer the greatest payoffs,
are responsive to the transit community, and are targeted with
indicators of expected progress or milestones. This plan, which
is in its final coordination process, will be submitted to the
committee shortly.

use of oversight funding

Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to report on the resolution
of several oversight problem issues. The Department Office of
Inspector General in its report of December 1997, identified
three issues. First, it found that we had appropriately revised
our oversight guidance to require our project management
oversight contractors to independently verify that grantees are
adequately and effectively implementing quality assurance and
quality control programs, and we had revised our guidance to
require project management oversight PMO contractors to monitor
project costs and schedules and independently verify quality of
construction data.
Second, the Office of Inspector General, OIG found four
indications where we used oversight funds in a questionable
manner. However, beginning in fiscal year 1998, we have taken
corrective action, and we are funding those projects from our
Transit Planning and Research account.
Third, the OIG found that we set aside funds for oversight
in excess of plan requirements and obligations for fiscal year
1994 and fiscal year 1996. Our plan activitiesfor fiscal year
1998 will fully exhaust all fiscal year 1998 funding as well as
carryover balances. In addition, based upon the action of the
authorizers, where we have seen their desire to have us monitor
projects much more closely at all levels, it is our belief that in
fiscal year 1999 there will be a substantial increase in project
management oversight workloads.

New York Regional Office

I am also pleased to report that the General Accounting
Office, GAO found that we have strengthened our overall
oversight of transit grants and are continuing to enhance the
quality and consistency of our oversight by improving guidance
and training for staff and grantees, standardizing oversight
procedures, and effectively using contractor staff. GAO found
these actions have provided an increased emphasis on oversight
and are continuing to strengthen our stewardship of Federal
transit grants.
However, Mr. Chairman, I will note that the GAO did find
inadequate documentation of follow-up activities in our New
York regional office. I would like to report to you, however,
that we have taken action to address these areas of weaknesses
as noted by GAO. We are pursuing enhancements to our Grants
Management Information System to ensure timely and accurate
data collection and analysis to ensure adequate documentation
of our reviews.

LOS Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The GAO in its testimony before the subcommittee in
February 1998, supported the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transit Authority's decision to suspend construction on the
eastside and Mid-City proportions of the Red Line Metro Project
due to substantial funding shortfalls. However, they must still
comply, Mr. Chairman, with the consent decree for added bus
service as provided in the conference report. Once the MTA rail
recovery plan is submitted to us and accepted by us, the OIG
and GAO will have the opportunity to review and determine if
MTA has adequate funding sources to meet their capital and
operating requirements, as well as bus consent decree demands.
I will keep the subcommittee informed of MTA's progress.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Finally, Mr. Chairman, GAO noted that the Bay Area Rapid
Transit finance plans for its 8-mile extension of its existing
line to provide access to the San Francisco Airport understates
the financing gap for which short-term borrowing is planned.
However, BART has established a capital reserve account to meet
the added financial requirements, whose success will depend on
the actual rate of construction expenditures and the actual
revenues flowing into accounts. Also, Mr. Chairman, BART is in
the process of updating its financial plan to demonstrate its
ability to finance its shortfalls. In addition, in response to
your request, BART is currently negotiating land acquisition
and does not anticipate any impact to project costs and
schedules related to the negotiations of land acquisitions
concerning the cemeteries.

Closing Remarks

We have proposed a budget, Mr. Chairman, that is proactive
and addresses the key issues of infrastructure investment and,
more importantly, common-sense government. We seek these budget
levels because transit is vital to America's marketplace; our
metropolitan areas where American products and jobs compete in
the global economic market. Transit is essential in our rural
areas where transit connects to vital services--we must
continue our historic investment in our rural transit
infrastructure. Transit is key in unlocking and solving our
gridlock. We believe that the transit investment choices that
we make today will affect the well-being of our country and its
citizens into the 21st century.
We at FTA are trying to change, however, Mr. Chairman, the
parochial view of new transit systems. As you are aware, most
recently I visited Curitiba, Brazil, and having looked at their
introduction of successful bus operations, it has spurred my
commitment to encouraging cities that are thinking of new fixed
guideway systems to consider such systems.
In addition, we are requesting in our fiscal year 1999
budget a $2 million program to demonstrate how a combination of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITS technologies and
operating and engineering strategies can produce high-
performance, low-cost enhanced bus systems. I believe, Mr.
Chairman, that in many of our cities this is, in fact, the way
to go.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for the opportunity. I
would like to thank you and members of the subcommittee for
your support of including preventive maintenance as an eligible
capital expense. But, Mr. Chairman, let me also say I would
like to personally thank you for your generous support
throughout the years, but also your guidance and also your
pushes when, in fact, we needed it. I think that our Nation
will be better as a result of that, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you and the other members of your
committee.
I will stand ready to answer questions that you may have.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Linton. We appreciate
your testimony.
[The prepared statement and biography of Gordon Linton and
biography of Nuria Fernandez follow:]

[Pages 1130 - 1151--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. I have a number of questions, and we will go back
and forth between the members.

congressional justifications

The President's budget request was released on February
2nd, and many Federal agencies and departments submitted their
congressional justifications either that day or by the end of
the week. But more than 4 weeks after the official submission
of the President's budget, this committee had not received your
agency's congressional justification. What was the problem? Why
was FTA not able to meet the target date?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, I know that this has been a
question that has also been asked of the Secretary, and as a
result of that, we all are preparing a response to you and to
your committee for all the agencies in the Department of
Transportation. We have gone through our normal process of
submitting our budget and going through the normal coordination
that we have had in previous years, but unfortunately, that
coordination has resulted in the justification being received
at the date that the committee has received it.
I would mention, Mr. Chairman, however, that we, in
response to the request that you have made of the Secretary, we
in the Department are providing a formal submission to you that
will indicate for all of the FTA as well as other sister and
brother modes within DOT how we came to that problem.
[The information follows:]

We apologize for the lateness of our FY 1999 Budget
submission. It was late in part due to the integration of the
most up-to-date information from our Strategic Planning process
to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) and the final review by the Office of
Management and Budget. In addition, FTA was experiencing
computer crashes caused by network overload. As I have noted,
the Federal Transit Administration was not alone. The
Transportation Service Center Printing Office reports that
final FY 1999 budget justifications were printed and delivered
to the modes on the following schedule:
Office of the Secretary--February 9.
Federal Aviation Administration--February 17.
Office of Inspector General--February 19.
Maritime Administration--February 20.
Research and Special Programs Administration--February 20.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--February
23.
Federal Railroad Administration--February 28.
Federal Transit Administration--March 2.
U.S. Coast Guard--March 5.

Mr. Wolf. Can you assure the Committee that next year that
will not be a problem?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, I will assure you that we will
work within all of our control to try to make sure that we get
our budget justification up to the committee as quickly as
possible. I recognize the challenges that are before you in
trying to do the committee's work, and we will want to work
with you in that regard.

3(j) report on new start projects

Mr. Wolf. What about the 3(j) report, when do you think the
Committee will get that, if we had to pick a date?
Mr. Linton. I wish I could pick a date. In my recent
discussions with you, it was my hope we would have had it to
you before today. Unfortunately, I come before you today not
being able to meet my goal, and that does not make me very
happy about that, because my staff has put a considerable
amount of work and time and effort into that document. We know
how valuable it is to the committee's work, and we would like
to see it on your desk so that you can deliberate on your
activities as well. We are still working it through our
coordination process, and we would hope to expedite its
delivery as quickly as possible. I will keep trying to get it
to you in the quickest way that I humanly can.

delay in reauthorization of istea

Mr. Wolf. Last week the committee heard from the Federal
Highway Administration about the complicating features of a
delay in the reauthorization of ISTEA. How serious a disruption
will occur in the transit programs if there is no authorization
until late spring or even early summer?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that we are seeing a
great deal of activity going on in the Senate chamber. I know
you are closely following it, as are we. I am a little more
optimistic that this impasse of not having a reauthorization is
finally moving.
But, if in fact we do have a delay in reauthorization, we
will have some problems. Some of our grantees will be forced to
borrow money therefore increasing unnecessarily their interest
costs. We know that the average age of our bus fleet is
currently 8.1 years, compared to the standard of 6 years, or
half the expected life of 12 years for a full-size bus, and, of
course, the increased costs of borrowing will make it much more
difficult for our grantees to try to keep on a vehicle
replacement schedule.
We are also concerned, about jobs lost. That is, if we
don't get our reauthorization, it will have some impact on the
economy. A $1.45 billion shortfall in 1998 will equal a delay
or loss of about 61,000 jobs nationwide. So job loss or delay
will incur in our bus and rail manufacturing, as well as in the
regular constructionindustry if we do not get our
reauthorization on-time. So getting the reauthorization on time is
extremely, extremely important.
You also know, Mr. Chairman, we were thankful for the 6-
month extension of our current authorization, because we were
only able to commit a small portion of our program. Even with
the 6-month extension, the reauthorization level allows us only
to commit about 57 percent of our program that you and the
Appropriations Committee appropriated for this fiscal year.
Mr. Wolf. It has already had an impact.
Mr. Linton. That is right.

transit funding needs

Mr. Wolf. Giving your estimate of needs for transit, $13
billion per year in capital requirements alone, why does the
fiscal year 1999 budget propose a cut in transit funding from
fiscal year 1998 levels?
Mr. Linton. The budget itself, is a straight-line budget at
$4.8 billion. It means that we will continue the record level
of investment that we were able to achieve in 1998.
If you look at the actual reduction in the bottom line of
our budget, any reduction can be attributed to the $150 million
reduction in our request for WMATA. You know, Mr. Chairman, we
are requesting $50 million this year for WMATA which will
complete the Federal commitment to the 103-mile system. So that
resulted in a reduction from $200 million in that line item
that was in our budget for 1998 to a $50 million this year.
If you subtract that $150 million, that is a substantial
part of what we see as a difference between our 1998 budget and
our 1999 budget. But overall, it is pretty much a straight-line
budget this year.
Mr. Wolf. So you are saying by adjusting for WMATA
reductions, you are at the same level?
Mr. Linton. That is right.

rural program

Mr. Wolf. Your budget provides $135 million for rural
transit formula programs, including the rural transit
assistance program, which is proposed to be funded into the
rural formula program. This amounts to at least a 16 percent
cut from fiscal year 1998 total funding provided for rural
programs, which includes $134.1 million in rural formula funds,
a separate appropriation for RTAP of 4.5 million, and at least
22 million in bus discretionary funds for nonurban areas. Why
did you propose a reduction in funds for rural transit?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, that is a reflection of the
formula. Our rural program is, formulized within the overall
formula, and as our NEXTEA authorization formula was
introduced, that percentage was proposed for the rural program.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget is calculated based on those
percentages in NEXTEA.
Mr. Wolf. How do we address rural transit, since by your
own figures there are 30 million people in rural America that
use buses?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we are going
into this budget year in a year where there is some uncertainty
due to the reauthorization. I would suspect that as we get to
the reauthorization, hopefully, additional resources that will
go to our rural areas.
As I follow the Senate activity leading up to the
reauthorization, there has been an effort to try to respond to
the disparity to some degree to the rural communities, and I
would hope as we move forward with that, we will be able to do
so. I will provide a more detailed response for the record.
[The information follows:]

Our request for Fiscal Year 1999, for nonurbanized areas
formula was calculated based on our NEXTEA proposal. We have
recognized over the last few months that the percentage for
nonurbanized area formula may be slightly understated in NEXTEA
due to the historic proportions of Bus and Fixed Guideway
Modernization funding used in the NEXTEA calculation at the
time our NEXTEA legislation was developed. We have been working
with the House and Senate authorizing committees to ensure that
rural areas receive their fair share. In addition, the
Governors' have the ability to transfer urbanized formula funds
to the rural areas that could mitigate any reductions in the
nonurbanized area formula program. The nonurbanized formula
program has also benefited from flexible fund transfers
averaging over $17 million annually over the past five years.

formula equity

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just curious, as you go through your internal studies
in terms of making your recommendations to the Congress and
look at future operations of your program, you pay attention to
these formula distributions. I come from Minnesota, and
occasionally I take a look at how these formulas flow. I look
at the transit formula. We are roughly 1.8 percent of the
Nation's population. There are significant urban populations;
still many rural communities. And I look at formulas, and if we
are in the neighborhood of 1.8, a little more, I rarely find
those, I figure, you know, it is in the ballpark, or if it is
slightly less, we are getting slightly shortchanged, and I can
understand that variation.
But I look at what happens with transit formula grants,
$2.5 billion last year, $1.8, 45, and our State gets about 26,
a little over 1 percent, $19 billion off what I would consider
to be in the ballpark of being fair.
In fixed guideway modernization formula, it was 3.3, 1.8,
is about 60 billion, and we end up with 28, a shortfall of 30.
I am sure that we are not the only State in that category. I
looked briefly at our neighboring State to the east, Wisconsin,
slightly bigger, but much the same characteristics as we have,
and roughly it followed the same pattern.
How do I go home and explain that to my folks, that we have
this formula distribution, and we are 1.8 percent of the
Nation's population, roughly average, our income may be a
little bit above the national average, not much, and we come
out that short on the formula? How do I explain that?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and
Congressman Sabo, specifically I served 11 years in the state
legislature and vice-chaired an appropriations committee, and
one of the challenges I found was trying to find a perfect
formula. It becomes as much an engagement in discussions with
my colleagues as it is with the realities of the demographics
of communities as well.
As you know, one of the biggest challenges of the
reauthorization process, is trying to find a formula that
maximizes the return to every community across the country.
We continue to work with the formula and try to work with
the committees through the reauthorization as they fashion a
formula that is responsive to the needs of all interests. One
of the things that we had always hoped would be a way to allow
us to offset some of the issues with the formula was
discretionary money. When we looked at things like our
discretionary program, which was our old section 3 funds, it
was thought that that was a way to compensate for some of the
disparities within the formula, so that when there was an area
that should get more because of current needs or pressing
needs, one could use those discretionary funds in order to do
that.
So that was one of the ways.
Mr. Sabo. Excuse me, discretionary is sort of taking care
of unusual demands. The formula flows year by year.
Mr. Linton. That is correct. I am acknowledging that the
formula itself needs some attention, and I am suggesting--
Mr. Sabo. Is that occurring? Is there any change in the
formula funds in the reauthorization?
Mr. Linton. The Senate has considered major changes in the
formula and are working on those as the bill is going forth.
Mr. Sabo. In what fashion?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sabo, we are still trying
to work through the magnitude of amendments that have been put
through the Senate, so I would not attempt this morning to give
you detailed information on the breakdown of that formula.
Mr. Sabo. Well, I just want you to know that some of us are
concerned over this flow of money. I understand there is a
national role to try and define needs. No, I am not sure. There
is some equitable way. But this is further out of whack than
any of the highway formulas that everybody gets so excited
about.
Mr. Linton. Congressman, this is the year that hopefully
this will get resolved, as the House and Senate authorizing
committees complete their work. This is our window of
opportunity to address those issues.
Mr. Sabo. Well, I don't see much happening.
Mr. Olver. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sabo. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. Olver. I am not sure I should get involved in this
myself, but is there anything closer to proportion with, say,
the total ridership of public transit to the number of dollars
that goes into each State? Do you have any idea of whether that
would show a better proportion? That could be nothing but a
self-fulfilling prophecy, because if you provide the services,
then you get some ridership, and then you have got to support
them in one way or another. If you haven't done it, provided
the capacity to serve, then you don't have much ridership.
Mr. Linton. That could be a self-fulfilling prophecy that
gets you further and further into a glut. Our formula right now
is not just based on population, it is based on service factors
and like route miles, population, population density.
Mr. Olver. I thought the ranking member was talking about
the distribution of transit monies.
Mr. Linton. That is what I am referring to.
Mr. Olver. You said route miles, routes of transit.
Mr. Linton. Yes, vehicle miles, passenger miles,
population, and population density.
Mr. Olver. What route miles would be in the transit
formula?
Mr. Linton. I don't have the details for you. I can
provide those for you if you would like to have those,
Congressman.
Mr. Olver. I would love to see whether the total ridership
has any better proportion to the amount of money that goes to
different States according to whatever is that formula, with
whatever factor is drawn from whatever conceptualization that
occurred. Anyway, that is all.
Mr. Linton. We can provide that to the committee, Mr.
Chairman.
[The information follows:]

We find that the Urbanized Area and Nonurbanized Area
formulas distribute available funding fairly and equitably. The
formulas use a combination of population and service factors
that take into account the need for new service as well as the
need to fund existing service.
For areas under 50,000 population, the Nonurbanized Area
formula apportions funding in proportion to each state's share
of nonurban population. Transit providers in these areas are
typically very small and would find the need to report
necessary data for other distribution approaches extremely
burdensome.
The Urbanized Area formula apportions funding to areas over
50,000 in population. For areas up to 200,000 in population,
the formula is based on a combination of population and
population density. Using such factors is reasonably reflective
of transit needs without burdening relatively small operators
with reporting requirements. Also, since this funding is
apportioned to the governors for allocation within the state,
the funding can be targeted to the areas with the greatest
need. For the larger areas over 200,000 in population, the
formula is based on a combination of population and population
density, vehicle revenue miles, passenger miles, operating
costs, and route miles. Thus, the formula considers both
population as well as transit usage.
The following chart shows a comparison of FY 1998 formula
apportionments to passenger miles and the 1990 census
population. Minnesota has 1.76 percent of the national
population, a higher percent than its 1.08 percent of transit
formula funding. On the other hand, Minnesota only accounts for
0.72 percent, or a lower percentage than its population share.
Massachusetts is just the opposite. Its 3.66 percent share of
formula funding is higher than its 2.42 percent share of
population, but lower than its 3.96 percent share of passenger
miles. We believe that the data for these two states and others
demonstrate that the most equitable transit distribution
formula is one that takes into account a combination of
population and transit usage.

[Page 1158--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

impact on non-defense programs

Mr. Sabo. I would just say that I would like you to have
some sensitivity to this issue. It is lots of money, and I
might add too, just as sort of a side light, I suppose to a
certain degree it is related to how much you have done, which
in part is sparked by how much money you have gotten. But just
taking broad looks at it, I just see major inequities. It tells
me that somebody, somehow, has gotten this formula skewed in a
certain fashion years ago, and it continues to go on year by
year. I find that happening regularly in how we distribute
Federal funds.
I could go into a whole host of other programs where I find
the same problem. But I am curious also as we move to this
reauthorization and I see major expansions of dollars being
taken away from other programs to fund the current highway
bill, my rough estimate is what I hear coming from the Senate,
the additional resources going to highways from other programs
would represent about a 2 percent cut in all other non-defense
discretionary spending programs. I am just curious how you
think transit is going to end up not being impacted by that
kind of discretionary spending cut on all non-highway programs
in this process of reauthorization and where the money is going
to come from, and how transit and other--we frankly have
problems here with outlays for FAA, the Coast Guard, for the
Federal Railroad Administration, and major problems with
proposals for user fees that are not going to be impacted. When
we get through all of this, transit ends up better off.
Mr. Linton. Congressman, I think two weeks ago when the
President met with the governors at the National Governors'
Association in response to a question about increased funding
for transportation, the President stated that if in fact those
increased fundings can be made within the budget caps, that he
could support those.
The President still wants to protect major programs which
are his priorities and the Congress' priorities. To date, the
Senate has provided some $26 billion additional on the highway
side and some $5 billion additional on the transit side.
Mr. Sabo. Excuse me, but just so I understand, the $5
billion on transit is authorizing, which then has to fit within
all the competition for that reduced outlay dollars available
for us and other subcommittees of appropriation.
Mr. Linton. That is correct, and what those offsets are,
Mr. Sabo, I don't know. We will all be looking and waiting to
see what has been decided to be those offsets. But the
framework in which the President has stated was that, one, we
do not destroy the budget agreement; that we stay within the
budget caps; and, that of course, he would be concerned about
what offsets are proposed, and what programs would be affected.
Mr. Sabo. I would assume we would stay within the budget
caps. I am curious how transit is going to come out along with
all the other discretionary programs in the country, when all
of a sudden we assume a significant increase in highway
funding, above and beyond what it was. It was already a
significant increase in the budget agreement of last year.
I think we may have some things that look nice on the
surface, but that we have major problems in dealing with some
of the real future transit needs that exist in this country if
we proceed in the direction we are going. I would hope that
your agency puts some major effort into really examining
closely what is happening internally with the department.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. I don't have anything.

communication-based train control

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. If I could direct your attention to the
communication-based train control systems, I want to ask a
question. Mr. Reilly, you may need to be involved in this.
There is a proposed settlement that was negotiated by your
precursor, UMTA, between the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority and a supplier, which would result in
the installation of the CBTC system that would substantially
increase the safety and efficiency of SEPTA's operations.
So my question is a two-fold one. Are you familiar with the
settlement approved back in 1993? How do you feel about the
CBTC's similar systems that I consider to be an important new
addition to enhance the safety of transit systems?
Mr. Reilly. Are you referring to a proposed settlement
between Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
SEPTA and ADTRANZ?
Mr. Cramer. Yes.
Mr. Reilly. I am familiar with that issue. That is an issue
before the agency right now and one of the critical issues we
have to consider is whether or not ADTRANZ can meet the agency
requirements for a sole source procurement. And we have asked
for that information from SEPTA, and SEPTA has supplied that
information to us. We have asked for some additional
information. My understanding is they just recently submitted
the final information. We intend to hold a meeting with
signalling system suppliers to hear their point of view. We
have already met with SEPTA on this issue, and the agency will
consider all these viewpoints before it makes a final decision.
Mr. Cramer. Doesn't the settlement offer expire on March
15th, a few days from now?
Mr. Reilly. That is correct. We have already asked SEPTA to
extend it, and they have informed us that they can do that. In
fact, they had extended it once before. The settlement had a
deadline of December 31st, and through a SEPTA board meeting,
they received authorization to extend it to March 15th, and we
have asked them to extend it again, and they said they could do
that.
Mr. Cramer. Well, I would hope that this matter is resolved
fairly quickly and that we don't--I mean, it has been pending
since 1993. But then, Mr. Administrator, back to the issue of
the CBTCs. Do you feel that they are similar systems that are
an important new addition to enhance the safety of transit
systems?
Mr. Linton. Absolutely. In fact, we have been engaged in a
train control project in California with the Bay Area Rapid
Transit, BART system that we have been working on for the last
couple of years. This is a project that we are doing with the
Department of Defense, and we believe that this automatic train
control both has advantages for safety, as well as efficiency
in utilization of the fleet. Regarding SEPTA, as was shared by
my attorney, it is clear that even though there was a proposed
settlement, and I believe you made reference to a 1993 date,
this issue involving train control has only recently surfaced
in our regional office for us to consider. It was only last
year that we had documents that were submitted to us from
SEPTA. It wasn't an item that had been awaiting a decision for
5 years. It was not an item that SEPTA had been negotiating
asettlement for several years. The documentation that we needed to
review, we only received last year. When we received that
documentation, we met with the general manager and talked to several of
their attorneys and suggested that there was additional information
that they needed to provide. SEPTA recognized that, and by recognizing
that, they also extended the deadline of the contract settlement, which
from December of last year, to March 15, 1998, Their most recent
submittal still was lacking in information that we needed to make an
informed decision. SEPTA recognizes this.
We have tried to accommodate their settlement, but we also
have to be mindful that we have to be assured that the system
itself will be the safest system. This is in fact new
technology which was not involved in the 1993 Settlement. We
also have to make sure that we comply with our procurement
laws. We have had court decisions over the last several years,
which lay out the terms in which we can entertain such an
agreement, and we must make sure that we do not violate our
procurement laws. Other manufacturers of similar type systems
may have an opportunity here. In addition, there is a
possibility that they will be excluded from the marketplace if
we do not do this in the proper way.
So that is why we are being very judicious and careful in
deriving this decision and make it is one we can stand by.
Mr. Cramer. If time would permit, I would carry the
discussion on. I would like the opportunity to interface with
you more about this, because I am made to understand there is a
summary that would support the sole source justification here
that you have had, or SEPTA has had for some time. So there is
more background information here that I would like to share
with you. If you would give me that opportunity, I would like
to do that.
Mr. Linton. I would love to do that, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Wolf. We are going to recess for about 15 minutes for
two votes.
[Recess.]

access to jobs program

Mr. Wolf. The Reconciliation Act last year contained a
direct appropriation of $1.5 billion for the welfare-to-work
program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Seventy-five percent of
these funds are allocated based on a formula to private
investment councils, 25 percent of the funds, $275 million, are
retained by the Secretary of Labor for discretionary grants.
The welfare-to-work grant program includes transportation as an
eligible activity and transit authorities are able to apply for
these grants in conjunction with other entities.
Why do you need another $100 million grant program at DOT?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, we worked very closely with the
Department of Labor to try to make sure that transit was
considered eligible within their welfare support program, but
the point is that transit is only eligible. There are many
other competing programs that are in place. There are efforts
for job support, child care and others, all of which are
eligible as well.
Mr. Wolf. If I could just add, and I will give you a chance
to finish, but I note here that 19 percent of household
spending goes to transportation. The food basket is 19 or 20
percent or maybe 21 percent today. If that is the case,
particularly for people who are at that income level who need
as much help as possible, shouldn't the Department of Labor
make transportation a priority? Shouldn't it be, if it is
nearly equal to household food allocation, shouldn't the
administration make it clear that transportation has to be a
high priority, not just eligible for, but a high priority?
Mr. Linton. The biggest problem that we face in
transportation, which we are seeing now as an issue of
authorization, is how do you balance. Everyone thinks that
their priority is the highest priority. As I have reviewed some
of the surveys from former welfare recipients, transportation
is mentioned as a major concern. But also they mention child
care as a major concern. What the program is designed to do is
to try and provide the opportunity for those in local
government to work to establish their needs based upon what
they see as their priorities. Transportation, once again, is
recognized a major issue that must be solved.
Yes, there is some money in the Department of Labor that
transit programs would have access to and we are working with
local governments and grantees and providing them with
guidance. Mr. Chairman, from what we have seen, there still
continues to be unmet demand for transportation. We believe
that the authorization that has been supported in the Senate
this week, shows our request in our budget is still needed at
this time.
Mr. Wolf. How will you keep them from being redundant or
duplicative if you were to get this money?
Mr. Linton. Our proposal is a grant proposal with
competitive grants. It will however require coordination. We
are working through the Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
NPO's, and we will be lookimg at the coordination of these
projects.
With that in mind, we will have in place the process that
will lend itself to knowing where funds are coming from, who
the participants are, what their funding streams are. All this
will ensure that we do not have competing Federal dollars out
there.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 1163 - 1164--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

access to jobs riders and cost

Mr. Wolf. Organizations involved with HUD's ``bridges to
work'' program are spending roughly $2 million to provide
transportation services to 400 people. As you can figure out,
that is $5,000 a participant. You could almost buy a used car.
Most of my children bought used cars for $2,000. If you were to
get the money, how many people would you move?
Mr. Linton. Unfortunately, I can't give you that answer,
but I can tell you that based on our experience with programs
that are similar we have not had that high of costs per
occupant.
Mr. Wolf. Could you give us some of the programs that you
have had and what the costs per are? Because it is very
difficult as you are going from, let's say, south Philadelphia,
out to Chester, it kind of disperses. There is really not a
rail line going out that way. So it is really tough. I just
think if you could show us some of the programs you have had
and what the cost per participant was.
[The information follows:]

The number of persons to be supported under the Access to
Jobs program is dependent on the transportation strategies and
services selected locally. The cost of providing service varies
widely depending on service type and service circumstance. For
example, the cost involved with ridesharing arrangements may be
relatively modest, while the cost of paratransit and fixed
route services may be more. The cost of late night rides may
prove more expensive to provide than regular day time service.
However, the number of welfare recipients that will be
assisted by the Access to Jobs program can be estimated based
on nationwide examples of similar service and costs generated
by our congressionally directed Joblinks demonstration program.
For example, in Hartford, Connecticut, the metropolitan
planning agency has generated a proposal involving a mix of
services that range in annual costs from $400 to $2,000 per
patron, after fares. Under our Joblinks program where discrete
new services have been provided in both urban and rural areas
and drivers are paid the service is more costly. If Joblinks
projects were projected on an annualized basis providing round
trips five days a week over fifty (50) weeks, Joblinks costs
would range from $2,000-$6,000 per passenger annually. After
adjusting for average fares the cost would be $1,000-$5,000 a
year. Based on these two examples, between 40,000 and 500,000
persons could be supported annually under the Access to Jobs
Program, assuming a program of $200 million annually, which
includes the 50 percent local match.

Mr. Linton. We will provide that information, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, SEPTA is conducting a program in Philadelphia, not
with our resources, but they have been able to use some
resources, and I think it is leaving from the city to one of
the--I don't know if it is Federal Express or United Parcel
Service, UPS.
Mr. Wolf. Located where?
Mr. Linton I think it is in Chester County, or maybe it is
Delaware County, where they are providing transportation
service, and UPS has done some of the underwriting. I think
they have some cost per rider numbers we might be able to
provide to you.
[The information follows:]

SEPTA has made a number of service changes to provide
access to jobs for city residents. For example, SEPTA's Route
68 operates from South Philadelphia, Broad and Oregon Subway
stop to the United Parcel Service (UPS) Air Hub. SEPTA has
recently added 13 new one way trips to and from the Broad and
Oregon to UPS to meet the demand of new UPS employees. Based on
SEPTA reported costs the added expense on the Route 68 service
is $216,366 annually. The ridership to UPS is 834 trips per day
generating $195,656 in fares. Therefore, the operating cost to
SEPTA is $20,710 annually to transport 417 people to jobs at
UPS. This is only $49 per person a year, much more economical
than the HUD program.
Mr. Wolf. Would programs that provide welfare recipients
cars, rather than relying on mass transit systems, be
considered a success?
[The information follows:]
A number of states have initiated automobile refurbishment
programs to make automobiles available to a limited number of
welfare recipients at low cost. Additionally, most states have
removed restrictions on the value of automobiles that welfare
recipients may own and still qualify for welfare assistance.
While automobile donation and refurbishment programs may be
attractive in the more isolated rural areas, it is questionable
public policy to support the use of older vehicles in
metropolitan areas unless specifically used for car pooling
welfare recipients to work. These areas are already plagued by
congestion and air pollution. Older vehicles are polluters and
will add to the congestion and air quality problems that are
greatest in our innercities where many welfare recipients live.
This population has suffered disproportionately from health
problems caused by poor air quality. Older car donation
programs would directly contravene air quality and congestion
reduction policies supported by the Clean Air and Federal
Transit Acts.
It should also be noted that the cost of owning an
automobile, particularly an older auto with high probability of
breakdowns and high maintenance costs, is likely to be
considered more expensive than mass transportation
alternatives. The cost of insurance and the probability of
theft or vandalism in innercity neighborhoods is also quite
high. Such automobiles will not provide the reliable
transportation that is needed to ensure on time attendance by
employees.
Illustrative of these problems is a demonstration program
supported by the Metropolitan Affairs Council in Detroit. The
Metropolitan Affairs Council is an organization of business
community, public and labor organizations. Their membership
includes the ``big three'' automobile manufacturers. The
Council has been active in helping to support welfare to work
activities in Detroit. With the help of the automobile
manufacturers, they made 10 automobiles available to innercity
residents. The results have not been encouraging. Most vehicles
have been either stolen or vandalized.

DOL Coordination

Mr. Wolf. Though the Department of Labor's welfare to work grant
program includes transportation as eligible activity, the eligibility
criteria in DOL's recent solicitation notice do not permit public
transportation systems to apply directly for the grants. Why? Aren't
you and the Department of Labor talking to each other?
[The information follows:]
The Department of Transportation has worked very closely with the
Department of Labor in the formulation in DOL's WtW grant program.
Specifically, DOL invited DOT, HHS, and HUD to be part of a policy
committee that established the WtW program guidance. As a result,
transportation is an eligible support service under that program. WtW
funds may be used not only to reimburse individual participants for
transportation costs, but also to enable administering agencies to
purchase additional services from transportation providers, or
alternatively to support, in combination with other funding sources,
the development of new transportation that may be needed in order to
connect individuals with jobs.
WtW grants are divided into competitive and formula grants. Twenty-
five percent are available for competitive grants. Seventy-five percent
are allocated to formula grants.
Transit agencies can directly apply for DOL's Welfare to Work (WtW)
competitive grants. The guidance for these funds requires that agencies
other than Private Industry Councils (PICs) and political subdivisions
must apply ``in conjunction'' with local PICs or local political
subdivisions. This merely means that transit agencies must provide
written evidence, usually in the form of application signoffs, that
they have coordinated their applications with PICs or local political
subdivisions. The intent is to ensure that competitive grant
applications are consistent with the formula funded local programs
administered generally by PICs. The Lowell Massachusetts Regional
Transit Authority, for example, has taken the lead in Lowell in
applying for a competitive grant.
By statute, the other 75 percent of WtW funds are allocated
directly to governors by formula. States must pass 85 percent of such
formula funding to local Private Industry Councils (PICs). WtW planning
guidance requires that the PICs as recipients of local formula funds
must coordinate the development of their local programs with MPOs and
transit agencies. These formula funds may support services provided by
transit agencies.
In addition, fifteen percent of the formula funds may remain in the
governors for projects of their choosing. Transit agencies may apply
directly to the governor for state discretionary funding.

Mr. Wolf. I am going to recognize Mr. Olver in a second.
Just these last two questions that fit in together. APTA
testified that the transit agencies do not have enough
resources to provide new welfare-to-work services without
potentially adverse effects on existing services and customers.
You are proposing to take $100 million off of the top of the
formula funds distributed to all transit districts. Won't you
be hurting people more than you will be actually helping them?
Mr. Linton. We recognize the concerns that APTA has
expressed. This is a concept that we have introduced in our
NEXTEA proposal. What I have seen to date, however, seems to
indicate that the Congress, the Senate specifically, has in
their authorization, is looking at access to jobs as a separate
program. If that was the authorization that we would have
today, it may not have the same impact on current funding that
APTA is concerned about.
[Additional information follows:]

In general, the flexibility to decide the type of transportation
projects at the local level is supported by the Department. But in
instances where strong national interests exist, the Federal transit/
highway program does include categorical programs such as the Access to
Jobs program. The Access to Jobs program reflects a national priority
over the next several years to put in place transportation services
that will supplement our existing transit services and make it possible
to help transition persons from welfare to work in the required time
frame. Time limits on welfare recipients creates an urgent need to act
expeditiously. The Access to Jobs and Training program is also
constructed to draw other non traditional funding resources to address
these transportation priorities. Under the proposed Access to Jobs
program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the new
Welfare to Work grants may be used in meeting the match requirements.
It also should be noted that the Access to Jobs program affords
localities great flexibility in determining the best solutions to
meeting these important employment transportation needs and provides
funding flexibility, even beyond that afforded in the transit formula
program. Funding may be used for operating and capital service costs
for new and supplementary transit services, support for providing
employer transportation services, capital for needed support facilities
at transit stations such as day care and other employment support
services, the development of long term financing strategies and other
related activities. It also should be noted the program also will
afford localities and states great flexibility in determining provider
strategies. A local employment transportation program developed through
local collaboration may include transit agencies, non-profit social
service providers, local neighborhood or community-based transportation
ventures, private-for-profit operators, ridesharing organizations,
employer transportation management associations and other arrangements
to provide additional employment transportation services.
Therefore, the Access to Jobs program initiative, similar to other
programs funded under ISTEA, reflects a strong national purpose, but
affords localities the maximum flexibility in deciding how to respond.

Mr. Wolf. Well, the House and Senate bills include an
authorization for access to jobs, but it is from the general
fund. Why should the general fund support these activities and
not the mass transit account of the highway trust fund?
Mr. Linton. That is a good question.

reverse commute

Mr. Wolf. The last one, I hope it is as good as the last
one. I am asking this on behalf of Mr. Sabo too. Mr. Sabo, I
hope you will volunteer to help out here.
Last year the committee directed the FTA to work with
public private partnerships to develop reverse commuting
opportunities for urban residents seeking public transit
alternatives to reach their jobs. If you can tell the committee
what progress that you have to report, how, and if, you
distributed the educational guidelines to advise the
metropolitan communities to advise them on developing such
strategies. A man from Minnesota came in to see me at the
request of Congressman Ramstad and he knows Mr. Sabo, too. He
is hopeful to have a reverse commute program using the
Department of Labor's funds, which are readily available.
What progress can you report to the committee? Have you
distributed an educational guide, and second, would you work
with Mr. Sabo's office and with the committee to be an advocate
with the Department of Labor to help with regard to this
gentleman's proposal?
Mr. Linton. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, one of the ways we
have been responsive to that guidance was that in meeting with
the industry in our 5-year Research and Technology plan, that
we hope to forward to you soon, will show the work we are doing
to respond to the reverse commute. That is one of the items
that has been identified within the five-year plan that the
committee has been working on.
Mr. Wolf. Would you work through Mr. Sabo's office and our
staff to schedule a meeting with the Department of Labor and
your people to look at this proposal? It would be for
Minneapolis' reverse commute. They have more details in another
document that I have. If you could do that, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Linton. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

The Department of Transportation has worked very closely
with DOL in the development of DOL's Welfare to Work (WtW)
grant program. DOL's WtW grants include transportation as an
eligible support service expense and requires that the
development of plans under that program be coordinated with
transit agencies. Reverse commute services are among the
eligible services under that program. We will work with Mr.
Sabo's office and the appropriate DOL staff to review the
Minneapolis, MN reverse commute proposal.
As you are aware, FTA awarded a grant to Hennepin County,
MN in 1995 to document their ``Destination Jobs'' Reverse
Commute Employment Program and to develop an instructional
manual for replicating the program in other areas. We continue
to disseminate this document to all interested individuals and
agencies.

Mr. Wolf. I think a meeting with FTA and Labor would go a
long way.

preventive maintenance

Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It turns out that I had
been intending to ask exactly where we are, questions exactly
where we are.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Olver. I will follow that along, if that is okay with
you. Mr. Linton, it is good to see you again.
Mr. Linton. It is a pleasure, Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Last year we expanded the definition of capital
expenses to include preventive maintenance. Can you give us
some idea of how much expenditure has there been moved, under
the new definition, from what would previously have been
capital, onto the operating side in the transit business?
Mr. Linton. Sure, I can address that. One of the things
that we know is that we have had a short year fully
implementing this provision because of the need for the
extension for our authorizations. This has delayed the spending
in the industry.
Mr. Olver. Delayed the expenditure?
Mr. Linton. The spending in the industry.
Mr. Olver. The spending only started in this fiscal year,
and we are not quite halfway through the fiscal year.
Mr. Linton. That is right. And available because we do not
have a full year of appropriations. Because the authorization
schedule, it is a little difficult to see whether or not the
provision is working as designed.
Mr. Olver. What is your sense of what is happening out
there with the new language?
Mr. Linton. We have gotten about $43 million that has been
used at this point for preventive maintenance.
Mr. Olver. Out of a total of how much that would be
available?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Olver. This is out of the total formula
programs of $2.5 billion.
Mr. Olver. So it is a rather small amount at this point
that you know has been used with the new flexibility.
Mr. Linton. Let me add a couple comments to that, if I may.
We have been working with a number of systems who have just
started exploring the opportunity. We have also been providing
some technical assistance to some of our grantees who did not
quite know how they could restructure their budgets so they
could accommodate this change.
We are also trying to provide technical assistance. For
example, I spoke just yesterday with the general manager of
Chicago Transit Authority CTA, who indicated to me that the
RTA, which is their governing body, had a misunderstanding of
state law and indicated to them that they could not utilize the
preventive maintenance. Through the work of APTA and our staff,
we have been able to rectify this problem.
The shortness of the time period in which preventive
maintenance has been available, coupled with those type of
misconceptions in its usage, has prevented many of the systems
from maximizing its utilization.
Mr. Olver. That is a clear instance of the kind of example
that an agency had difficulty using the new flexibility. Are
there any other obvious categories that you have seen up to
this point of problems with how to use this flexibility?
Mr. Linton. No, not at this point. I think it is a matter
of education. We are working with the industry to provide that.
I think it is a matter of clarifying the laws, the State laws
and their impact on the ability of these systems to use this
provision, and then it is a matter of people changing their
habits. We will work through that. But I think it provides a
major opportunity, and we have gotten from an APTA survey good
support for the continuation of this provision.

operating assistance

Mr. Olver. I would like to explore this as a process,
because at one level at first glance it looks like a robbing
Peter to pay Paul kind of a situation. In fiscal year 1994, you
had $800 million of operating subsidy out there, Federal
subsidy. What is it in this budget, in the proposal for this
budget?
Mr. Linton. In our proposed budget, there is no operating
subsidy.
Mr. Olver. No operating subsidy. So fiscal year 1999 goes
to zero, and it has gone down since that $800 million in 1994
pretty steadily, leaps and bounds certainly.
How much do the States put into operating subsidy? Over the
years, has there been a match that they had to put in?
Mr. Linton. That varies by State.
Mr. Olver. So there was no required----
Mr. Linton. That is right.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Legal match to the Federal dollars,
like three to one or four to one or anything like that?
Mr. Linton. That is right.
Mr. Olver. The States put in.
Mr. Linton. About 50-50, but it varies by State.
Mr. Olver. What have the transit organizations been doing
to absorb the loss of operating subsidies? What have they been
doing over these last several years?
Mr. Linton. Well, a couple of things. Some of the transit
properties have actually been working with their States, either
trying to trade operating for capital and trying to get more
operating money from the States, recognizing that they can draw
on capital sources from us.
Mr. Olver. Has our capital expenditure gone up in that same
group of 5 years?
Mr. Linton. Yes.
Mr. Olver. Maybe someone could find the numbers, from what
to what, from 1994 to now while you are finishing.
Mr. Linton. Sure. That is one of the methods that some of
the properties have utilized. And even before we got to
preventive maintenance in its pure sense, with the support of
this committee, we also did some changes in utilization of
spare parts, changes in definitions of that, that also gave the
properties a little more opportunity to use their capital in
the way they were expending operating assistance before.
So I think a combination of changing the ability to use
spare parts and viewing it the way we did in the past, which I
think we did in '95. Then I think also some of the States have
been trying--some of the properties have been working with
their States to change the proportion of State money for
operating to offset the Federal reductions.
Mr. Olver. Well, I guess what I am really trying to explore
here is that it may look fine to have reduced the operating
subsidy. I think I see some numbers appearing. Do you have them
for how the capital amounts have gone up?
Ms. Fernandez. We have the full budget amount, but we
don't have it broken down to give you a percent.
Mr. Linton. We can submit that to you for the record.
[The information follows:]

[Page 1171--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Operating and Capital Policy

Mr. Olver. What I was trying to get at, it sounds great to
have reduced the operating subsidy. What I would like to see
for transit programs, as we usually need more and more in this
country, and we have lots of urban areas who are coming in for
probably their first transit program, maybe the first ever, for
imagine what are now major metropolitan areas that were not
there a generation ago, or certainly were very spread out a
generation ago. I can't see the whole picture here.
I would like to see how operating subsidy policy and
capital policy goes along with the FARE policy, the amount of
State subsidy, whatever it is going in, whatever cuts in
services or expansion of efficiencies, a whole matrix,
essentially, of these matters that go into being able to answer
whether our transit systems are improving and being supported
the way they ought to be, without trying to make that decision
on the idea that, oh, we have decreased the Federal operating
subsidy to zero and therefore everything is hunky-dory, when in
fact it is the whole pattern, whether the transportation needs
are in their totality being served, that I would be much more
interested in. Do you have any kind of analysis that takes
those kinds of factors and tries to see what it is that has
been happening here over a period of--within this decade, for
instance?
Mr. Linton. I think we can look at those, we can look at an
analysis and see if we can provide something to you that would
provide that. It would have to be a snapshot of what is going
on in certain States so you can get a sense of that. Because,
as I indicated, from my own experience, not just the seat in
which I sit now, but from the fact when I was on the board of a
transit system and was in the legislature in Pennsylvania,
those factors and those variables change from system to system,
even within a State. So we can try to give you a snapshot of
what is going on in different areas of the country and how they
are responding and what the impact will be.
Mr. Olver. It would have to be a whole series of snapshots.
It is inevitably snapshots in the sense that you look at some
period of some time and some other time, and then you have to
look at a variety of different, well, there are policies.
Probably each State is handling this in different ways.
But we, I would certainly be interested in having a sense
of what our policy of operating subsidy reduction, what has
resulted. If not a specific cause and result of that effort,
what the service system looks like after you are in place for
some period of time. So it is a snapshot probably for each one
in a number of different major systems.
Mr. Linton. That is something we should do. I agree with
you.
[The information follows:]

To cope with the reductions in Federal operating
assistance, grantees have typically reduced service, raised
fares, improved operating efficiencies or relied upon greater
state and local assistance. As shown in the table and graph on
operating assistance below, Federal assistance has declined
from 13 percent of total transit operating assistance to just
six percent over the ten year period ending in 1996. (Please
note that the funding levels are expenditures which lag Federal
appropriations and obligations by one or three years.) Local
and state governments have generally covered the Federal
reductions by almost tripling their assistance from $3.8
billion in 1987 to $9.4 billion in 1996. Even after adjusting
for inflation, this is still a significant increase in
assistance. While many areas have had to reduce service, in
total, the transit industry has been able to increase service
provided. For example, in 1995, 4.3 billion bus mile
equivalents (based on maximum of 70 passengers per vehicle
including standees) were provided compared to 3.8 billion ten
years before in 1986.
As shown in the table and graph below on capital
assistance, the Federal share declined from 58 percent in 1987
to 42 percent in 1993, but then increased to 47 percent in 1996
reflecting the increasing Federal appropriations for
infrastructure.
Grantees are handling the phase-out of operating assistance
and implementation or preventive maintenance quite well. Like
any change, it takes some time for the industry to adapt.
Experience to date shows that transit authorities, as they
better understand the flexibility of preventive maintenance,
are finding that they do not need Federal operating assistance.
Grantees are utilizing preventive maintenance where it fits
their needs, but many grantees have also decided not to use
preventive maintenance at this time.
Since most transit agencies are awaiting enactment of the
full reauthorization before they submit their grant
applications, we have limited experience to date. Nevertheless,
there is evidence that grantees are not making any major
changes in their budgets to shift capital projects to
preventive maintenance. For example, through February 1998,
less than three percent of the obligations have been for
preventive maintenance. And most of the grantees using
preventive maintenance tend to be the smaller areas, not the
areas over one million in population.

[Pages 1174 - 1175--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Let me also say, Congressman, that I have from my own
experience in Pennsylvania when I served both in the general
assembly enacted, but also on the SEPTA Board, that we created
in 1991 provided something similar to what we have now proposed
Nation-wide with preventive maintenance. We called it asset
maintenance, but it was implemented under the same policies and
procedures, where in fact the definition of capital within the
State of Pennsylvania was expanded to included asset
maintenance that could be used, just like the preventive
maintenance we are proposing at the national level. And the
transit systems in Pennsylvania have embraced this in a big
way, and they have also endorsed our preventive maintenance
policies. Pennsylvania is one of the States where they have had
at least 5 years experience in utilizing this type of
flexibility.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am done.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
Mr. Sabo. Nothing further.
[The information follows:]

Preventive Maintenance--Transit Response

Mr. Wolf. Last year the Congress expanded the definition of
capital expenses to include preventative maintenance and your
budget request again includes that language. How have transit
agencies responded to this new flexibility? Has it mitigated
fully the reductions in Federal operating subsidies over the
last year?
[The information follows:]
It is too early to tell exactly how much use transit
agencies will make of this new flexibility. As of February 6,
1998, only $4 million had been obligated, but we expect more
once transit operators become more familiar with the concept
and adjust their plans and programs accordingly.
If the capital definition continues to include preventive
maintenance, transit agencies will have sufficient flexibility
in the use of Federal formula funds that operating assistance
will not be required. Without this provision, virtually every
transit operator in urbanized areas over 200,000 population
would have preventive maintenance costs that exceed their
previous apportionments of operating assistance under a $400
million Federal cap.
Mr. Wolf. Last year when advocating an elimination of all
Federal operating assistance, you anticipated that there would
be a dollar-for-dollar trade in. Has the capital maintenance
definition enabled transit providers to mitigate the reductions
on more than a dollor-for-dollar basis, and if so, does it
concern you that transit providers are using less of their
formula funds for traditional transit investments in facilities
and new rail cars?
[The information follows:]
The flexibility afforded by this provision enables local
operators to tailor the use of Federal formula funds to meet
their specific needs. It is likely that the proportions of
funds used for preventive maintenance, versus capital
investments, will vary from year to year and among individual
operators. We do not foresee a trend away from infrastructure
investment in favor of short-term maintenance costs.
Experience with preventive maintenance to date in Fiscal
Year 1998 is limited. Most transit agencies are awaiting
enactment of the full reauthorization before they submit their
grant applications. However, there is evidence that grantees
are not making any major changes in their budgets to shift
capital projects to preventive maintenance. For example,
through February 1998, less than three percent of the
obligations have been for preventive maintenance. And most of
the grantees using preventive maintenance tend to be the
smaller areas, not the areas over one million in population.
Also, the San Francisco, Chicago, and New York urbanized areas
have indicated that they do not plan to utilize the preventive
maintenance flexibility.
Mr. Wolf. Operating subsidies have been on a steady decline
over the past several years. As recently as Fiscal Year 1994,
Federal operating subsidies totaled over $800 million a year.
Are transit agencies adjusted well enough now to the expanded
capital definition combined with increases in formula funds
enacted over the past several years to eliminate all Federal
operating assistance this year?
[The information follows:]
Yes, we believe that operating assistance can be eliminated
if the capital definition continues to include preventive
maintenance. We have had many discussions with the transit
industry on the subject of preventive maintenance, and have
found that most of the concern over the elimination of Federal
operating assistance is due to an incomplete understanding of
the preventive maintenance definition. Once transit agencies
more fully understand the issue, they support the expanded
capital definition and their concern for the loss of operating
assistance declines.
It is important to note that no actual funding was cut
through the ``elimination'' of Federal operating assistance.
Rather, it was the eligibility of certain expenses for Federal
formula funds that changed. Operating assistance represented a
``cap'' placed upon the amount of Federal formula funds that
could be used for operating expenses; it was not a separate
funding category.
Historically, Federal operating assistance for transit
agencies has accounted for less than five percent of operating
revenue expended by transit operators in large cities
(urbanized areas over 200,000 in population). Thus, the
elimination of operating expenses as an eligible item for use
of Federal formula funds, plus the revised preventive
maintenance definition, will more than offset its elimination.
Operators in urbanized areas of less than 200,000 population
can continue to fund operating expenses with their Federal
formula funds, and there is no ``cap'' on the amount of such
funds that can be used in this manner.
Mr. Wolf. What problems, if any, have transit agencies had
in adjusting to the new flexibility?
[The information follows:]
Like any change, it takes some time for the industry to
adapt. Experience to date shows that transit authorities, as
they better understand the flexibility of preventive
maintenance, are finding that they do not need Federal
operating assistance. Grantees are utilizing preventive
maintenance where it fits their needs, but many grantees have
also decided not to use preventive maintenance at this time.

Mr. Wolf. Were you upset that the committee put $150
million in for operating last year?
Mr. Linton. I am very happy with whatever you provide me,
Mr. Chairman, and we will try to make sure we can utilize it to
the best of the country's well-being.
Mr. Wolf. Since Mr. Olver asked a number of the questions,
we are going to submit a number for the record. How many of the
systems liked the change in definition and how many had a
difficult time adjusting to it? Just tell me.
Mr. Linton. What I have heard from APTA, based on a recent
survey that they have done, and I think they have surveyed
about 134 systems----
Mr. Wolf. Of all sizes?
Mr. Linton. Yes, I believe so. There were 128 that said
that this was a program that they could embrace.
Mr. Wolf. So knowing the budget restraints that we are
under this year, would it be better for us to take that money
and move it into capital?
Mr. Linton. I think that the systems would be able to
leverage it more and give more opportunity to commit it if it
were in capital. As we indicated to you last year, we will work
with them continuously so they can get the most leverage out of
that opportunity. But, yes, I think that would provide the best
support for our systems, if you were to roll it all into the
capital.
Mr. Wolf. Are you planning to discuss with the 4 or 5 or 6
systems that didn't feel good about it to see what the problem
was?
Mr. Linton. We are working with at least one grantee that I
met with yesterday.
Mr. Wolf. Do you feel comfortable to tell us so the
Committee could find out? We would like to know.
Mr. Linton. One of the systems I met with yesterday said
that there was a local decision within the MPO not to use it
this year. It wasn't that they disliked it. In fact, they made
a local decision not to take advantage of it this year because
they had already made previous years' programming for capital.
I don't think they disliked it. There is also another city, in
Greenville, South Carolina, that has some difficulties. I think
there has been an effort to rectify their problem in the
reauthorization.
Mr. Wolf. So overall, it has been an A?
Mr. Linton. I would endorse it again, and from all I have
heard, it has been embraced, and the transit associations have
embraced it as well.
Mr. Wolf. What is the point of de minimis return? Are we
below what now? This is an issue we are going to have to deal
with, since we are at $150 million. There is a point I would
guess, that it is better to move all of it from operating and
put it into capital. Do you think that is a de minimis point?
Mr. Linton. The way in which we have operated this current
year is, if you have less than 200,000 in population, those
systems have the flexibility of continuing to use operating.
Population of 200,000 is still a good ceiling.
Mr. Wolf. But we are talking about if there is only $150
million available for operating assistance, given the numbers
that you have, the question is do you get too small an amount?
John was saying that he spoke to a large transit authority, and
they were getting as little as $300,000 this year. It was a
small amount for a large system. So are you better just zeroing
it out? I know it is the administration's position to zero it
out, and put it all in capital? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Linton. Yes.

major capital investments

[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. Reauthorization bills reported by the House and
Senate authorizing committees retain the major capital
investment program in its current form. And APTA does not
support the program structure advocated by the Administration
in its NEXTEA proposal. Given these repudiations of your
proposal to eliminate the bus discretionary program and move
the fixed guideway modernization program into a formula
program, why does the department's fiscal year 1999 request
continue to assume this significant change?
[The information follows:]
We still believe that consolidating the Fixed Guideway
Modernization and Discretionary Bus programs in the Formula
Grants program would provide increased flexibility to our
grantees and reduce the number of discrete programs. At the
time of our budget development process, during the latter part
of 1997, it was still unclear as to what legislation Congress
would enact.

Mr. Wolf. Last year you indicated there were 68 major
investment studies which were underway throughout the country
that may lead to requests for section 3 new start funding. How
has this number changed over the past year and what are the
total capital costs for the projects?
Mr. Linton. In my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I said we
are looking at $80 billion.
Mr. Wolf. $80 billion.
Mr. Linton. Yes, that's the estimated demand in total
Federal, State and local dollars.
Mr. Wolf. Using current budget projections, how long would
it take you to get there?
Mr. Linton. The year 2064 maybe is an estimate that I heard
tossed around by someone whom I have confidence in.
Mr. Wolf. There are 40 projects that are likely to be ready
for full funding agreements in the next 5 or so years. What is
the total Federal demand for those projects?
Mr. Linton. From what I recall, Mr. Chairman, we have right
now in final design approximately $800 million of projects that
are ready to be moving towards full funding grant agreements.
When we go to preliminary engineering, we are talking about
almost another $7 billion of projects. So those will be the two
tiers. You are talking about 27 projects.
Mr. Wolf. Could you elaborate for the record all of those
projects and the different amounts connected with each project?
Given the demands, how do you expect to manage the emerging
pipeline requests?
Mr. Linton. Well, there are a couple things that we are
hoping to do, and in our most recent efforts to produce our
3(j) report, we are trying to raise the bar in terms of
scrutinizing the projects. We are trying to come up with a way
of ranking the projects.
I would also point out what seems to be a uniform agreement
now between the House and the Senate authorizing committees,
since both of them have adopted the same and similar language.
What they propose to do is having us to do a very, very
stringent ranking of projects in the area of recommend, highly
recommend, and not recommend, and within that ranking you would
consider factors like financial capacity of the system,
mobility improvements, land use planning, and very stringently
look at those factors.
What we will do, and are already beginning to do, based
upon our most recent experience, is raise the bar in terms of
scrutinizing the financial packages for those systems earlier
in the process. We will require them to demonstrate to us where
their financial contributions will come from the State, local
and other contributors. We will start doing that before they go
into preliminary engineering.
[The information follows:]

The projects cited are either in final design, preliminary
engineering, or are expected to submit a request to enter
preliminary engineering over the next six months. The estimated
Section 5309 share of these projects total almost $12 billion.
Many of these projects are likely to be ready for full funding
grant agreements in the 1998-2000 time frame. The attached
table provides specific information on these projects.

[Page 1180--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

local share commitment

Mr. Wolf. Do you think the ratio 80/20 ought to be changed
to something else, to leverage more local money? Because now
somebody can come in at 80/20, they are going to have a tough
time, but they think they can do it. We are having hard times,
the committee, agonizing over some of these things. I just rode
up with two different Members who are coming to me talking
about two different projects. Are you looking at local share?
Do you look at that and discuss that?
Mr. Linton. In that criteria I just described, local
commitment will be highly weighed.
Mr. Wolf. Commitment share?
Mr. Linton. Share, yes. Local share will be weighed. So
those projects that have a stronger local share commitment and
the stability of that will get a higher ranking in that
categorization, and we will be asked to provide this report to
both the authorizers and appropriating committees, and,
therefore, you would be able to use that in making your
determinations.
Mr. Wolf. Are you finding more coming in with a higher
share than 80/20?
Mr. Linton. We are finding more projects coming in, with
higher local shares, because they are beginning to believe that
Congress will make the ultimate deliberations is going to
consider that as a factor and they are beginning to recognize
that. They rise higher on the list of consideration when they
have a higher local share.
Mr. Wolf. So you agree based on the answer to your last
question that you think those who have higher shares ought to
rise higher, is that correct?
Mr. Linton. We are going to rank them higher. The other
thing I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that we are also going
to look more closely at the financial system. I think in the
past we have looked more at the capacity of the property to
finance a project. Based upon some of our most recent
experiences, we are going to look more at their capacity
throughout their system. This means we will look at what is the
interrelationship of their bus system to their rail system,
what are the other kind of projects they are involved in, and
what is the relationship of these elements to their ability to
finance the new project they are asking us to support.
That higher level of scrutiny of their financial capability
is going to give us a lot more information that we will utilize
to assist you in making your decisions.
Mr. Wolf. Well, just with your answer, I think you have
probably changed a lot of tabulations that have taken place or
are going to take place in the future. In some respects, and I
agree with you, you have raised the bar. Hopefully that will
not be one of the 100 factors you will consider, but it will be
one of three factors.
We do look at it. Members want to do the best they can by
everybody, but I think that certainly has an impact when you
look at it.
Mr. Linton. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, my staff has been
working closely with the authorizing committee, and I am, quite
frankly, pleased that both authorizing committees have stepped
up to start looking at those factors and are putting them in
the authorization bill, both in the House and the Senate. We
all recognize to get to that year 2064, forwarding even some of
these projects is something that creates a tremendous amount of
demand within the limited amount of resources. We need to find
some way of ensuring that, one, we have the best projects and,
two, that there is some demonstration of local commitment to
both finance the construction, as well as the operation of
those projects.
This year is a good opportunity for us to begin to address
these issues.
Mr. Wolf. Where will you be living in 2064? Will you be in
Mt. Moriah?
Mr. Linton. I know you and I have engaged in this
discussion for the last 5 years. I don't think either one of us
will be doing that.
Mr. Wolf. You may be in Mt. Moriah.
Mr. Linton. It is a possibility.
Mr. Wolf. Most of my family is buried in Mt. Moriah.
Mr. Linton. Is that right?

Bus Rapid Transit

You made the comment, and if you could elaborate a little
more for the Committee, about buses and new systems, young
cities, rapid rail transit. What are you doing to convince
people of the utility of bus rapid transit systems. Mr. Thomas
was very, very helpful when he came out to our region, and I do
appreciate that very much. I think he did a good job explaining
the rationale and why. I think buses have this image in
people's mind that it is where you have to line up with 10, 15,
25 people waiting, and they are not aware of some of the new
technology.
How are you reaching out? Are you waiting for systems to
come in, or are you going out to those who have made
preliminary contact with you saying could I get a couple
minutes with you to let you look at this concept? Are you doing
that? Have you sent the Curitiba tape out to other transit
agencies? Could you tell us what you are doing with regard to
that?
Mr. Linton. Sure, Mr. Chairman. We have been astonished
about the response that we are getting on bus rapid transit
around the country. When we returned from Curitiba last year,
We had some conversations with you about our excitement about
this new application in use of buses. We started producing the
Curitiba tape, and now we are continuing to distribute the
Curitiba tape, because we are getting requests every day from
cities and systems, who have heard about the concept, and want
to consider it.
We are also getting requests from some of our systems that
currently have planned light rail or heavy rail. These systems
are beginning to look at the reality of the resources and the
demand, and are beginning to question whether or not they need
to look at another alternative. They, too, are beginning to
turn to looking at bus rapid transit.
On January 15th, Martin Luther King's birthday, we had a
forum here in Washington. I was very pleased that Mr. Blazey
was able to join us. At that forum we were joined by a number
of astute individuals who worked on bus studies around the
country. Jonas Radonovich from the United Nations Sustainable
Communities Division was in attendance. Mr. Radonovich came
from Curitiba, and was there when they developed their system.
At the form we put together a program show-casing the studies
done by all of these individuals. There were over 150 in
attendance from across the country, who wanted to know about
how they could adapt bus rapid transit to their communities.
We are doing this proactively. We are going out with the
videotape introducing bus rapid transit at the forums and
workshops throughout the country. We are also trying to get
ourselves invited to any available forums so we can present
this idea.
Mr. Wolf. Wouldn't the APTA convention have been a good
place?
Mr. Linton. In May, at the APTA bus conference, we are
going to have sessions demonstrating bus rapid transit in
Curitiba. APTA has embraced this idea and are working with us
to sell the concept around the industry.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe Mr. DeLay was waiting when you were talking
about buses, because they are the best example, I think, in the
country to date of a community that looked at rail and then
went to buses. They are doing very, very well. We have been
talking about--I thought you were waiting. We planned this. You
are just right on time. But I think the more you do that, I
think you put it in your publications. Anything you can do,
even developing field trips whereby some of the systems are
encouraged to go down there and look at it firsthand.
Before I recognize Mr. DeLay, let me ask you a question
like that. If you had a system in rail that was going to move
so many people, if you were to--and the conditions were
suitable for it to be--if you were then to use a Curitiba
substitute, if the rail system were going to cost $2 billion,
what would the Curitiba system cost? Do you know what the ratio
is? Is it 10 or, 20 percent of?
Mr. Linton. To give you an average, A heavy rail subway
system would be about $200 million a mile. The numbers we are
seeing for bus rapid transit, if you base it upon what Curitiba
has achieved, it would be in the area of about $10 million a
mile. So that is fairly substantial.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. DeLay.

Houston Metro DBE

Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Linton, thank you
for being here. I just have to congratulate you and the FTA on
the work that you have been doing, and specifically the
cooperation that we have gotten out of your department over the
years, and particularly in the last year or two, under some
very tough circumstances. You all have taken a very objective
view of things going on in mass transit, and I really
appreciate it.
I would also like to express my appreciation for your
having extended Houston Metro's current waiver from the Federal
DBE regulations. As you know, Houston Metro has been prohibited
by Federal court order from implementing its federally approved
DBE program. Metro continues to operate under the constraints
of the Federal court order and is it looks like, to be released
from these constraints for months, if not years, while Metro
appeals the District Court ruling that invalidated its DBE
program as unconstitutional.
Is there any reason why your agency would not, in light of
these restraints, grant an extension of that waiver in October
when this particular extension expires?
Mr. Linton. I don't see any reason at this point why we
wouldn't. As you indicated, we have continued to work with you
and we look forward to continuing to doing so. I think you and
I have had some difficult issues over the last 5 years that we
have had to address, and we have always been able to come to a
good resolve. We have been on this issue as well. I understand
our common objective, is to make sure that your projects and
the projects, all of our projects in the City of Houston, in
that region, continue to be constructed, and that the people
there continue to get their mobility needs met.
We also have regulations that we have to operate under. We
have found the right mix to make sure that we can achieve both
of those goals. It will be my desire to work with you and
Houston as we have done in the last 5 years, to keep this
operation going and meet our goals.
Mr. DeLay. You have been very creative, I must say. So is
there anything that Metro ought to be doing that it isn't
already doing to make sure that Federal funding is not
interrupted again? Can they do anything else?
Mr. Linton. We have gotten from Metro what we need. They
continue to call us when they need clarification or with
questions. Our staff is working with their staff. As you know,
there is a new board that has been appointed. I have already
had a conversation with the new chairman of the board, and met
with the mayor. We are still right on course. And even with the
change in administration, our ability to continue to work with
Metro and the board has not changed at all.
Mr. DeLay. Thank you. Great. I understand that yesterday
the Senate passed an amendment sponsored by Senator McConnell
from Kentucky, and it was passed on a voice vote, and this
amendment protects transit agencies that find themselves in a
situation similar to the one that Houstondid. Does the FTA or
the Department of Transportation have a position on the McConnell
amendment?
Mr. Linton. I just recently, in fact as recent as this
morning, became aware of the McConnell amendment. It is one
that would bring an amicable resolution to a situation such as
the one in Houston. The amendment is one that is consistent
with what we have tried to do now. I think it is one that would
fit within that same sphere. I think that would give us the
legislative guidance and authority that we need to resolve this
issue. So the authority would be good.

ridership and capacity

Mr. DeLay. Great. Your budget in brief boasts the Nation's
transit capacity grew by 3.5 percent and passenger miles grew
by 4.8 percent between '93 and '95, and that the funding
proposed in fiscal year '99 will continue this trend in
improving capacity. However, the FTA and the Commerce
Department data indicate that while Federal subsidies have more
than doubled since 1980, ridership has dropped 10 percent.
What is the point of expanding transit capacity when
ridership is dropping?
Mr. Linton. We have had, quite frankly, some increasing
riderships in the most recent years. The system right here that
I use every day, WMATA, has had a substantial increase in
ridership, and that increase has occurred within the recent
year and may not even be reflected in the data that you are
making reference to. We think we are on an upturn in this
country. We also have seen in recent years, that States where
historically have not had congestion problems are now also
turning to transit. For example in your own State transit is
increasing not only with what you continue to do in Houston,
but also the very expansive and highly successful transit
system in Dallas. We are seeing interesting places like Utah
seeking transit solutions. I know just last year, Governor Hunt
in North Carolina, working with the corporate communities and
others, even enacted local taxes and cited congestion in places
like North Carolina and the need to have transit funding there.
We are seeing across the country some recognition that one
cannot live by highways alone, and that we cannot continue to
build ourselves out of our congestion, and you have to have
choices and options.
If that momentum continues in this country, and we all know
we have additional issues of clean air and global climate
change. All of those factors will feed into both a continued
need and a continued growth of transit
Mr. DeLay. That is a good answer. You could have left the
climate change stuff out. I am very interested in the number
crunching and studies on this issue. In the case of WMATA
though, WMATA's ridership went down and the recent increase
just brings it back up to where it was, is that not correct?
Mr. Linton. That is true. There was a reduction in
ridership, but a number of things accounted for that. Of
course, they have some new services. But you also have what I
think is the key to a lot of this, is more creative planning,
making sure that your system serves the location where people
need to go.
Mr. DeLay. Innovative.
Mr. Linton. That is right. One of the things we are seeing,
quite frankly, is the new boarding at the airport. People who
did not normally use that station, because it was located such
a distance from the airport itself, are now using WMATA to get
there.
We also have had the MCI Center arena open, where 60 to 70
percent of the people going into that arena are beginning to
use the system.
The key to making our systems viable is not just the
investment, but it is the planning so that you have an
integrated system with growth, development, housing, economic
development, and the systems are tied into taking people where
they want to go. If you provide good quality service, people
will use it.

local flexibility

Mr. DeLay. The administration has been very vocal about its
support for local participation in transportation projects and
the need for community involvement in transportation planning.
Do you support greater local flexibility also along with the
financial support to adapt these projects as opportunities
become available that might result in greater cost
effectiveness or better meet the needs of the community?
Mr. Linton. We are always looking at flexibility. We have
seen a great deal of flexibility in funding. We have also tried
to be creative with our transit systems and getting them to be
very flexible and innovative. We are looking at things such as
joint development. We are looking at new ways that they can
also receive revenues that they can use for transit purposes.
We have been having conferences and workshops on innovative
finance and joint development, trying to encourage private
sector participation. We are seeing some projects now where the
local match will not just be State or local money, but it also
includes private sector money. We are encouraging that. We have
some systems where private firms are actually building
stations. I know in Charlotte, N.C., Nations Bank built a
transit station. We have some of that going on here in WMATA
where a developer has stepped up to the plate and expressed
interest in building a station.
So I think flexibility increases the opportunity to
leverage resources. We are going to have to use innovative
financing if we are going to help meet this expanding demand
with our fixed amount of resources.

interdepartmental flexibility

Mr. DeLay. As you know, that flexibility is vitally
important to Houston, because we have always done things
differently from anybody else, in that we move monies around in
our overall transportation system.
Would you also support greater intradepartmental
flexibility within the Department of Transportation? Like in
the area of shifting funds in order to take advantage of
opportunities that might result in greater cost effectiveness,
or better meets the needs of the community?
Mr. Linton. We do a lot of that, and the Secretary has
pushed us to be, as he says, one DOT, so we look for
opportunities to provide funding flexibility. Although we also
have within our laws some defining categories, and sometimes
within those defining categories our flexibility is in fact
limited.
Unfortunately, there are very often things that sometimes
some of the properties would like us to do, but they are
outside the eligible use of a category of funds, and that
becomes a problem. We are flexible to the extent that our legal
standing allows us to be flexible, but you would not like to
see the Federal Transit Administration do anything that
violates the laws you enact.
Mr. DeLay. That is true.
Mr. Linton. I choose not to do that either.

houston--attb program

Mr. DeLay. We do have an opportunity coming in the next few
weeks to change those laws, to maybe help make your job a
little easier.
Texas is one of the primary sponsors of the ATTB program,
the advanced technology transit bus, which is developing the
transit buses of the next generation. I understand that Houston
has been scheduled to receive one of those prototype buses this
summer in order to incorporate and test additional advanced
technologies that Houston Metro has been developing.
Can you tell me if the ATTB program is on schedule so that
Houston will have one of the buses to work with this summer?
Mr. Linton. Yes, it will. In fact, Houston is on the test
site for one of the buses, as is Washington. The next bus will
be coming to Washington. We will have a great roll out, and I
hope that, Mr. Chairman, we will have members of the committee
at the roll out here with the Advanced Technology Transit Bus,
ATTB. We will invite all of the members of your committee who
have been so supportive of that effort to see it here in the
Nation's capital.
But, yes, Houston is on the schedule to be one of our test
sites, and the program is on schedule.
Mr. DeLay. Well, I have just been informed that it was
announced recently that Lockheed Martin, which is developing
its own hybrid electric bus, plans to acquire Northrop Grumman.
The merger has been delayed by the Justice Department while
they review antitrust matters.
Will that merger mean that development of either the ATTB
or the hybrid electric bus will be delayed because of the
Department of the Justice review?
Mr. Linton. I just found out myself yesterday that that
decision was rendered. I have not heard nor do I anticipate
that delaying the product.
Mr. DeLay. Have you heard from Lockheed Martin as to
whether they are going to stop participation in the ATTB?
Mr. Linton. Ed, would you like to respond to that? This is
Edward Thomas, Associate Administrator for Research,
Demonstration and Innovation.
Mr. Thomas. Congressman, we have actually two advance
technology bus projects and Lockheed is currently involved in
only one of them. That one is a project that is looking at
advances in subsystems, and Lockheed Martin is continuing to be
involved in that project. Northrop Grumman Corporation is
actually the firm that is working with the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority on the second ATTB project. We
do not expect any delays in the project. We are pretty much on
schedule to finish up the testing program in April of 1999. As
the Administrator mentioned, we expect to have a bus in
Houston. There are meetings actually planned for next week to
address the Houston issue.

congressional review act

Mr. DeLay. Great. Finally, Mr. Linton, I would like to
bring up a subject that is very near and dear to my heart, and
that is regulatory reform. Recently I have been working with
the leadership and committee chairman to make one of our
legislative victories, the Congressional Review Act, a higher
priority in this session of Congress. As a reminder, the
Congressional Review Act was signed into law nearly two years
ago. It requires agencies to report on their compliance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and some others. It also gives
Congress the ability to disapprove a regulation once it becomes
final.
Mr. Linton, what, if any, procedural changes in the rule
development process were made in response to the passage of the
Congressional Review Act, CRA?
Mr. Linton. Congressman, I don't have that available at the
moment. I will submit it for the record. I will say to you that
procedurally we have looked hard and fast at any efforts that
we would take to undertake any results. We have also worked
very, very deliberately in reducing paperwork. In fact, we have
a very, very strong achievement record in the reduction of
paperwork in our agency.
As I indicated earlier in my opening remarks, one of the
areas, for instance, in our electronic grant making, we are now
up to, 83 percent of our grantees are now on-line
electronically, and we expect at the end of this fiscal year,
we will be up to 100 percent. So we are moving to a paperless
operation. We have been cutting back on our relations. We have
been reducing the paperwork in our regulations. We have been
engaging much more--operationally we have been different in
terms of working with the industry. We have done some things
recently with our procurement rules where we have streamlined a
number of those, reduced those as a result of our working with
the industry.
There has been some very good work as a result of the
passage of that act, and I think we have been responsive to it.
[The information follows:]

FTA has not had any procedural changes in response to the
passage of the Congressional Review Act.

Mr. DeLay. Has the GAO highlighted any concerns about your
agency's compliance with the CRA?
Mr. Linton. Not that I know of, no.
Mr. DeLay. I am asking this of everybody.
Mr. Linton. Not that I know of, no.
Mr. DeLay. Finally, what regulatory policies are currently
under way that are critical to achieving your strategic goals
and objectives during the next fiscal year?
Mr. Linton. I think the only ones that we are responding to
are the GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act.
In response to that, we do have some performance measures.
In order to reach those performance measures, we may need to do
some additional data collection. So that in and of itself may
require us to do some additional data collection.
But it is only directly responsive to GPRA, and I need to
meet the performance measures, and we can't do it if we don't
collect the data.
Mr. DeLay. Could you submit the data you talked about on
ridership to the committee for the record?
Mr. Linton. Sure.
[The information follows:]

Our statistics show that since 1993, transit utilization
has increased at about 2.5 percent per year. The following
table shows the number of transit passenger miles since 1993.

Federal Transit Administration--Passenger Miles

Billions
Year:
1993,......................................................... 36.2
1994.......................................................... 37.9
1995.......................................................... 37.9
1996.......................................................... 39.0
1997........................................................\1\ 40.0

\1\ Estimate.

Looking only at boardings is misleading, since the length
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of transit trips has increased.

Mr. DeLay. I would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your indulgence.
Mr. Linton. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Wolf. We are going to keep on going until the next
vote, maybe 30 minutes. Then at that time we can break for
maybe 20 minutes and you can grab a sandwich or something. We
wanted to keep going on.

new starts funding requests

Last year the department requested almost $170 million less
for new starts than assumed in the full funding grants
negotiated by the FTA. Compare that to this year's request to
fully fund the FFGAs, $678 million and $144 million, to cover
the accumulated shortfalls. It seems like the funding for new
starts is either feast or famine. Why such dramatic shifts from
year-to-year?
Mr. Linton. We recognize the need to catch up and be on
point with our agreements to these new transit systems. We
recognize that the shortfall that they received over the last
years was creating some difficulty. There is an effort in this
budget this year to make up for those shortfalls, to try to get
back to where we should be with our full funding grant
agreements. The budget request of $876 million is a direct
reflection of our desire to meet our commitments, we have made
in the full funding grant agreements. This is recognition of
what you just stated, that we were below our commitment in the
previous year and we needed to catch up.
Mr. Wolf. So from here on in you are going to stick to the
levels, except in circumstances like L.A. or something like
that? You will stick to the levels?
Mr. Linton. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can be
consistent with our full funding grant agreements. They need to
represent a commitment by the Federal Government, and we need
to do all that we can do to follow these commitments. We will
talk a little bit later today about WMATA, but one of the
successes of the WMATA system has been the consistency of the
resources over a period of years, and that has allowed them to
do the kind of creative financing needed to keep the
construction on schedule.
It is my objective to try to do that with the rest of our
commitments as well.

full funding grant agreements

Mr. Wolf. The budget proposes to fund only the existing 14
full funding and grant agreements. Doesn't FTA anticipate
entering into any additional ones in fiscal year '98 or '99?
Mr. Linton. I think it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that we were
in an unusual circumstance this year, recognizing that our
reauthorization expired and we were in the midst of an
extension. But before we engaged in any additional full funding
grant agreements, it would be prudent to see what our
authorization levels are or what the projects are that get
authorized. So we want to be guided by that, and that will
allow us to make decisions on the next full funding grant
agreements.
Mr. Wolf. But there are a number of new starts that are
nearing their final design and are expected to obtain their
record of decision within the next several months with a
funding agreement to soon follow. Since the budget request
fully allocates the $876 million to make up, again, as you
said, for last year, where it did not, requests for new starts
in fiscal year '99, aren't those projects that are in line now
to obtain the agreements in fiscal year '98 or '99 out of luck,
particularly if we enact the request?
Mr. Linton. It may be an anomaly in that it is going to be
an unusual year. We in the administration as well as the
committee, will have to deal with the possibility, that the
authorization will occur at the same time as your final
deliberations on appropriations. We will have to be guided by
the authorization and make the appropriate adjustments. At this
point in time that what we have done is prudent management by
staying with the 14 full funding grant agreements that we
currently have in place and propose our budget accordingly.
Mr. Wolf. If the reauthorization of ISTEA were to require
FTA to sign new full funding agreements in '98 or '99, would
the department then submit a budget amendment reallocating '99?
Mr. Linton. That is a question that today I could not
answer. That is something that we have not explored, and I
think that is something that we must have some discussion with
the administration on how we would respond to the
reauthorization if it occurs during the middle of
appropriations, and there are other projects that are
authorized.
Mr. Wolf. What is the total Federal cost to complete the
existing 14 full funding grant agreements? You briefly
mentioned that, but what is the cost?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, $2.2 billion.

shortfalls in full funding grant agreements

Mr. Wolf. When the department negotiates a full funding
agreement and establishes the annual Federal funding levels
assumed in them, yet when it doesn't really seek those levels
in the annual appropriation request, such as we talked about
last year, what should the transit agencies do or how do they
respond to the variation from levels?
Mr. Linton. When we enter into a full funding grant
agreement, we make it clear that yes, this is a contractual
agreement that we enter into with the property, but we also
make them aware that this agreement is contingent upon annual
appropriations. Therefore, the agencies would have to be
prepared to adjust to that within their implementation of the
project.
There are several ways that they can do that. One is to
have contingencies so they can deal with those shifts in
appropriations. The other way is that they have the ability to
do financing, and we consider the cost of the financing as
reimbursable within the full funding grant agreement. Interest
payments are also allowed. Those are the tools that many of
them use to deal with the shortfalls as they occur.
Mr. Wolf. That actually costs more money in the long run
then?
Mr. Linton. In the long run, it does. In the long run when
you have to use financing options, you have to cover the
interest costs.
Mr. Wolf. And in a bad economy it would be even worse with
the interest rates?
Mr. Linton. That is correct.
[The information follows:]

Mr. wolf. Your department negotiates the FFGAs and
establishes the annual federal funding levels assumed in them
yet it does not regularly seek those levels in annual
appropriations requests (as evidenced by last year's budget
submission). How do transit agencies respond to variations from
the levels assumed in the FFGAs and the final appropriation?
[The information follows:]
Prior to the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request, budget
requests were always based on the annual commitment levels
specified in the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) schedules.
However, due to overall budget pressures, the Fiscal Year 1998
request did not follow the FFGA schedule. For Fiscal Year 1999,
the Budget Request returns to the FFGA scheduled amounts and,
additionally, includes amounts to make up for prior year
shortfalls (including Fiscal Year 1998).
Transit agencies employ a variety of measures to mitigate
the effects of lower than expected appropriations.
Unfortunately, these measures, if implemented, could translate
into higher costs to the projects. This is due to short term
borrowing costs required to bridge cash flow shortfalls and the
necessity to delay or stretch out construction schedules to
defer or reduce current spending.
Mr. Wolf. Given their ability, why is it imperative that
Congress appropriate funds to cover all the accumulated
shortfalls this year?
[The information follows:]
Given projects' carefully prepared construction and cash
flow schedules, we believe that, if at all possible, the
Federal FFGA funding commitments should be honored on a yearly
basis. The accumulation of shortfalls only tends to disrupt
cash flow schedules and ultimately translate into higher costs
to projects.
Mr. Wolf. The temporary extension of ISTEA has limited the
amount of funds that may be obligated for transit capital
programs. This will likely lead to greater first-year
unobligated balances than would normally be the case. Shouldn't
these balances be taken into account when allocating funds in
1999 so as to avoid irregular funding peaks and troughs?
[The information follows:]
Fortunately, the temporary extension of ISTEA has not
resulted in a shortfall of funds for the new starts program.
The combination of the additional authority contained in the
ISTEA extension of $452,640,000 and the unobligated contract
authority of $392,000,000 remaining under ISTEA exceeds the
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation for new starts ($800,000,000).
Consequently, the concerns stated above do not apply to the
Fiscal Year 1999 new starts program.

st. louis-st. clair extension

Mr. Wolf. The St. Louis MetroLink, the budget requests
$64,320,000 for the St. Louis MetroLink St. Clair Extension
project, yet the full funding grant agreement for fiscal year
1999 is $35 million, and to date the Federal Government has
provided the project a little over $5 million less than agreed
to in the full funding grant agreement. So a fiscal year
appropriation of $40.1 million would meet the full funding
grant agreement requirements. In this case, the department
proposes to accelerate funding. Why the special treatment and
the extra money, the extra $24 million?
Mr. Linton. Well, procedurally we really would like to
complete our Federal commitment to these projects at the point
that they open for revenue operations. This project was one in
which, according to the original schedule, we would still be
paying the property after they already completed construction
and started operation.
What we are seeking to do here is try to complete paying
the Federal share at the point that they start their operations
for revenue service. We were able to do that within this year,
and we sought to try to do it in this year's appropriation.
Mr. Wolf. John was just saying, there are other projects,
and what do you tell the others?
Mr. Linton. Yes, there are other projects.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, why do you treat these people differently
than you treat the others?
Mr. Linton. Once again, as you indicated, we are trying to
cut the cost of the project by trying to close these out
earlier. It cuts down on the interest that they would have to
pay.
Mr. Wolf. But it would take it away from someone else. It
is a zero sum game. We only have so much.
Mr. Linton. What we are trying to do in St. Louis is
expedite the completion of the project, and we would like to do
that whenever we can, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. How does the need to accelerate funding for this
project differ from time-sensitive projects like Salt Lake
City, or far more cost-effective projects like Tren Urbano?
[The information follows:]
The St, Louis Metrolink extension into St. Clair County,
Il, provided an opportunity to accelerate the Federal payment
schedule in order to conclude the Federal commitment in Fiscal
Year 2001, prior to the project's revenue operations date of
September, 2001, and one fiscal year earlier than specified in
the FFGA. The additional $24.2 million included in the
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1999 accomplishes
this objective.
In the case of Salt Lake City, the Congress has itself
already accelerated payments to this project, appropriating
through FY 1998, a total of $22.6 million more than called for
in the project's FFGA schedule. In the case of San Juan's Tren
Urbano, the Congress appropriated $15.1 million less than the
Administration's FY 1998 Budget Request and $3.9 million less
than the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Request for Tren Urbano.
Mr. Wolf. In fact, the budget request for this project
doubles the level assumed in the project's finance plan. Why
should the Congress approve the department's budget request
from this particular project and treat it differently from
other FFGA's, as you propose?
[The information follows:]
This project provided the Administration with the
opportunity to accelerate the Federal payment schedule in order
to conclude the Federal commitment prior to the project's
revenue operations date of September, 2001. This recommended
acceleration should alleviate cash flow problems and thus short
term borrowing costs associated with cash flow shortfalls.

mid-america airport

Mr. Wolf. Well, we would like to accelerate funding on
every project. Project sponsors plan to extend the project from
the Belleville Area College to the Mid-America Airport as soon
as Illinois State funding is available, while seeking Federal
funds for other MetroLink extensions. As of last month, the
Mid-America Airport had no airlines using it, and I guess if
you had no airlines, that would mean you probably had no
passengers--you would just going out to the restaurant or
something. It was featured in Fleecing of America.
So when you look at the needs in San Francisco and in other
places, it just seems to me this would not be a good idea. This
could almost, if you were to do that, be viewed as a fleecing,
I think, of some of the other systems.
Why would this be more important to do it, particularly
since the airport has no airlines or flights?
Mr. Linton. We expect that the reauthorization will give us
the guidance and the opportunity as to how we are going to
address any future extensions. But let me just say that from
both my travels to Illinois and my meeting with several of both
private sector as well as public sector agencies there, they
believe that the Mid-America Airport will in fact have new
airlines. They have plans in place to do that.
Mr. Wolf. They may. I saw that piece myself, and it just
kind of hit me. They may, and then they may not. Obviously
every Chamber of Commerce wants to boost every local airport.
But look at the needs in Washington, and look at the needs in
San Francisco, and look at the needs in Houston. I mean, their
definition of a rush hour is probably a tie-up in traffic for 5
additional minutes. There are people in this region spending an
hour to an hour and a half to get in and out to work.
I just don't think that is appropriate. I think you do with
the levels you can, but to jump that up higher I think would be
unfair just to so many others.
Do they have any planes, any airlines that are now serving,
and have they signed any agreements for any to come in?
[The information follows:]

The Mid-America Airport is scheduled to open on April 1,
1998. At this time, Mid-America Airport officials are
negotiating with TWA and a number of charter airlines to
establish service to Mid-America. The St. Louis region also has
plans to move freight services currently being handled at St.
Louis-Lambert International Airport to Mid-America Airport by
the end of 1999. St. Louis-Lambert is currently being expanded
to accommodate TWA's growing hub operations. The St. Louis
region looks for Mid-America Airport to handle freight,
charters and single destination flights (for example, St.
Louis-Chicago Midway).

los angeles red line project

Mr. Wolf. What does your financial management oversight
consultant's analysis of the MTA reveal? Does it have the
financial ability to implement the bus consent decree, meet
other financial commitments, like the Alameda corridor and
continue with the Red Line subway?
Mr. Linton. At this point, Mr. Chairman, we are still
waiting, as was called out in the reported language, some
additional information from the L.A. MTA. Right now we are
comfortable with the fact that they have the financial
wherewithal to finish North Hollywood, and they have
demonstrated the ability to purchase a significant number of
new buses, and we have documentation of their bus purchases and
the buses they will have on delivery and their commitment to
purchase those buses.
However, we are still waiting to see how they seek to have
the financial ability to support Mid-City or Eastside.
Mr. Wolf. When will you have that, do you think?
Mr. Linton. The Board made a decision to suspend for six
months those projects, so we would expect that they would be
providing us plans to continue those projects in around June-
July.
Mr. Wolf. We will have marked up by then. I think you
probably know the answer, and I think as your people know the
answer you ought to let the committee know. You see what is
happening out there, and I think everybody else knows, so it is
helpful to know as early as possible.
Mr. Linton. If I can make one further comment on that
point, Mr. Chairman, our budget request is only for North
Hollywood, and even decisions that they would make post the
markup would not affect that. That is also consistent with
where we are at the moment, North Hollywood is under
construction and it is pretty much on budget. The $100 million
we are requesting for that system would only be for North
Hollywood.
The decisions that they are going to be making that are
critical for our future consideration would affect primarily
the Mid-City and Eastside extension, neither of which we are
recommending funding for in this budget cycle.
Mr. Wolf. The IG report said that North Hollywood was
slipping a few months. Is that accurate?
Mr. Linton. They may have been slipping a few months, but
we still think they are relatively within schedule.
Mr. Wolf. So how much slippage? In schedule, but a little
slippage? What are you talking about?
Ms. Fernandez. Mr. Chairman, based on the information that
is contained within the full funding grant agreement, the
completion date was scheduled for December of 2000. The Board
and the staff made a determination that they could complete the
project by May of 2000 in lieu of December. So even if they
slip for a couple of months, they are still within the full
funding grant agreement schedule.

los angeles red line cost overruns

Mr. Wolf. The newspaper reported that there were cost
overruns on the Hollywood segment that hit nearly $80 million,
is that correct?
Mr. Linton. Let me have Mr. Walker respond to that, if he
would.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any overruns on
that. The report that we have is that they will be in on
schedule and within budget.
Mr. Wolf. Could you check and the committee will make
available the newspaper report and then you can just tell us,
run it down and maybe get back to us next week if you could.
Mr. Walker. Sure. If I could just make one more comment,
some of the things they are calling cost overruns are a change
in their budgeting. They are allocating now indirect costs to
those projects, which they had not allocated previously.
[The information follows:]

The newspaper headline which stated ``Hollywood Subway Cost
Overruns Hit $79.1 million'' referred to MOS-2, not the MOS-3
segment to North Hollywood. Any cost increases on this segment
are a local responsibility and will be borne by the LACMTA not
the Federal Government. LACMTA has made appropriate provisions
to cover the increased costs, which was confirmed by the
article. LACMTA had increased its budget to account for
potential cost increases which could result from contractor
claims against the agency, including those arising from the
Hollywood sinkhole incident. The budget increase would also
cover projected price increases of materials used in project
construction activities. LACMTA itself has filed suit against
the contractor responsible for the segment of work that
included the sinkhole to recover some of the costs resulting
from that incident. If successful, the ensuing settlement could
be applied to offset any cost increases.

Mr. Wolf. Do you think that is valid, the way they are
doing it?
Mr. Walker. It is. You can do it either way. But any of
those costs that they are allocating they will have to pay
themselves. We have made that very clear to them.
Mr. Wolf. Of course, this has been a subject of a lot of
newspaper and radio and TV reports too. What is the status of
MTA's recovery plan and do you expect the recovery plan to
focus on only ongoing construction of segment 2 and North
Hollywood, or will it outline funding sources and commitments
for the whole project?
Mr. Linton. We are expecting the recovery plan to reflect
several items. One is the consent decree. The others include
the Pasadena line, as well as a final resolution on what they
are going to do with Eastside and Mid-City.
Mr. Wolf. The $24 million which was set aside in the act,
do you believe that should be taken from Eastside and made
available for North Hollywood?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, based upon the decision that the
Board has made to suspend Eastside, we know that North
Hollywood is under construction and could obligate the money
now. It would be prudent for us to allow that money to go to
North Hollywood. What happens with Eastside is still uncertain.

mid-city and eastside

Mr. Wolf. Do you personally believe that the Mid-City and
Eastside will ever be built?
Mr. Linton. I think that it will be very, very difficult
for L.A. MTA to financially construct those two legs in the
near future.
Mr. Wolf. Do you think they are fairly aware of that as
they look at the numbers?
Mr. Linton. The Board members under the leadership of
Julian Burke are becoming more and more aware of their
financial constraints, not only with us, but also with the
California Transportation Commission. The Commission has also
given L.A. MTA a December 2nd deadline in which if they do not
present a plan on how they are going to deal with Eastside and
Mid-City, the money that they are holding aside for those two
lines would have to be used in some other parts of the system.
I think everyone is pushing in the same direction.
Mr. Wolf. What are the costs involved in suspending the two
Red Line extensions and how long can the suspensions be
sustained before a major redesign is needed? And who will pay
for the costs?
Mr. Linton. The shutdown costs would be about $5 million,
and it is our expectation that they would absorb that and not
us.
Mr. Wolf. So none of it will be paid for by the FTA?
Mr. Linton. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. No Federal funding. The political leadership of
the city is said to be considering bus alternatives in the
Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The existing authorization for
the Red Line is for heavy rail subway. Does the FTA support
broadening its existing authorization to include other fixed
guideway and bus alternatives to these corridors thereby giving
them the opportunity to probably meet the demand at a much
lower cost? We were mentioning that Curitiba project earlier,
and I know the mayor or somebody from his office went down
there.
Mr. Linton. That is correct, the deputy mayor was on the
same trip I was, Mr. Chairman. There has been a considerable
interest in the Curitiba-type bus rapid transit system in
California, as you mentioned, by the mayor. But I would like to
bring to your attention that I have met with members of the
assembly in California who have also expressed a great deal of
interest in exploring that not just for Los Angeles, but other
corridors in that region.
We will be guided by the direction from the Board. The
mayor is very persuasive, and I think the mayor is convincing
the rest of the Board that they need options and flexibility.
They recognize, Mr. Chairman, that they are at a critical
point, and that projects throughout the rest of the country are
moving and that the authorization is also moving ahead. They
realize the risks they are taking by not coming to a decision
and how that will box them in. We continue to make them aware
of that. We have given their own congressional delegation some
direction in regards to reauthorization and how they could be
accommodated.
Mr. Wolf. The 6-month hiatus was seen as a victory for
subway proponents since the Board did not go as far as the MTA
CEO wanted them to do. If in your opinion, did the MTA Board go
far enough in the action taken in January to suspend the
extension of the subway work beyond the North Hollywood
extension for 6 months, or should they have done more?
Mr. Linton. I try to not substitute my judgment for that of
the Board members.
Mr. Wolf. I think we are not in antagonism. The position, I
felt certainly they have a transportation gridlock problem out
there, and I think they of all the regions need it. If you
could do something quickly, the faster you do whatever you are
going to do, the cheaper it is going to be. Interest rates are
not always going to be where there are, other things are not
always going to be where they are. The sooner you make a
decision to move ahead. Also if you do need a change, other
systems are coming on line, there is greater competition for
everything. I was looking----
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, let me respond. I had hoped that
they would have made a more definitive decision in January and
would have liked to have seen a more definitive decision than
the 6-month hiatis. As you have indicated, that the information
is there, and they need to address that. But as we always do,
we try to respond to that Board just as we responded to the
issues with Mr. Delay and his board. We try to give those
boards the opportunity to govern locally. Yes, I too believe
that a definitive decision could have been derived and should
have been delivered in January.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We will have a number of other questions
for the record. You know, this is an opportunity I think for
maybe you and Secretary Slater to kind of bring them in. I had
written a letter before asking that and members from the
delegation seemed to agree. Just bring everybody into town and
just spend a day, bring all the people that have to be part of
the decision-making process. Because it just keeps going on and
on and on.
We will do this one for the record too.
[The information follows:]

We are awaiting LACMTA's submission of their revised Rail
Recovery/Restructuring Plan. As you know, the Fiscal Year 1998
Conference Report language requires our review and acceptance
of the plan and further review by the Department's OIG and the
General Accounting Office before the plan is sent to Congress.
Once this has occurred and we have received feedback from your
Committee, we can assess the situation and determine the new
step to take. It may well be advisable to assemble key
decision-makers to examine the Red Line MOS-3 situation at some
future point, but I believe that it would be premature to make
any definitive plans at this time.
Mr. Wolf. What options does the Federal government have if
MTA determines that it can no longer construct the Mid-City and
Eastside extensions or must indefinitely suspend construction?
[The information follows:]
If the LACMTA Board of Directors decides to make the
temporary suspension of work on the Mid-City and Eastside
portions of MOS-3 indefinite, FTA could reduce the commitment
to MOS-3 by the value of the suspended segments (less allowable
expenditures to date), recognizing that the financial ability
of LACMTA to restart and complete these projects would likely
be many years in the future; and could also consider lower
cost, but cost-effective, fixed-guideway type substitute in
these corridors as proposed by Los Angeles to use the remaining
commitment authority in MOS-3. This latter option might require
clarifying language in the next authorization to expand or
adjust the definition of the project or projects to be built.

Contingent Commitment

Mr. Wolf. I understand that some $650 million in contingent
commitment authority has been allocated for the Mid-City and
Eastside extensions in the MOS-3 FFGA. These funds have been
committed against the balance of the trust fund. Since these
projects are years behind schedule, in some cases well after
the next re-authorization of ISTEA, why not reallocate these
funds to other worthy projects that are ready to go and have
completed (or are soon to complete) the required analysis, but
are precluded because FTA has fully committed the balances of
the trust fund?
[The information follows:]
It is true that FTA has essentially exhausted commitment
authority as provided by law (a residual amount remains to
accommodate possible downward fluctuations in Treasury
estimates of the balance of the Mass Transit Account of the
Highway Trust Fund). Before making a final decision on the
remaining MOS-3 commitment, FTA will await a definitive
decision by the LACMTA Board of Directors on the disposition of
Mid City and Eastside. This is expected later this year. Once a
public decision has been made and LACMTA reveals and
replacement plans for the corridors in question FTA will
address the commitment issue.
Mr. Wolf. Isn't there a way to preserve the contingent
commitment authority provided for MOS-3 over the long-term
while still providing needed up front commitment authority in
the short-term for other ready-to-go-projects.?
[The information follows:]
In essence, you are asking whether new start commitment
authority can be reserved for two projects at the same time,
that is, one which will be needing federal funds in the short
term and the other in the longer term. Given the existing basis
in law by which overall new start commitment authority
(including contingent commitment authority) is calculated and
dispensed, such a differentiation is not possible.
Once the transit program is re-authorized, however,
adequate authority will become available to make additional
commitments for ready-to-go projects.
Mr. Wolf. The structure and governance of the MTA has been
a source of many of the problems at the MTA. In your opinion,
are things getting better or is there still a governance
nightmare of the agency?
[The information follows:]
The Interim CEO at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transit Authority (LACMTA), Julian Burke, has taken aggressive
measures to promote institutional change and establish a more
responsive and business-like approach to day-to day operations
at the agency, Moreover, Mr. Burke has guided the agency and
the governing LACMTA Board of Directors into a more realistic
view of agency's planning and financing capacities and
mandates. Mr. Burke has already announced requests for
proposals from private consultants to re-work the agency's
budgetary mechanisms and controls to ensure that budget
activities are in line with the accounting industry's best
practices. Clearly, Mr. Burke is working to lay the groundwork
for a better-run organization which can execute its missions to
(1) provide efficient, effective transit services on a daily
basis; and (2) plan, manage and execute needed capital
improvements for the future based on realistic financial
assumptions.
The LACMTA Board of Directors, as presently constituted,
has also received criticism as a dysfunctional body which poses
a significant impediment to agency reforms. Changes to the
Board structure is the purview of the State of California and
any reforms to that body must be passed by the California
legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

MOS-3 Budget Request

Mr. Wolf. The budget earmarks $100 million for Los Angeles
MOS-3 extensions, but it does not expressly limit the funds to
the North Hollywood segment, the only portion still under
construction. How does the Department propose to allocate these
funds?
[The information follows:]
The President's FY 1999 Budget Request requests $100
million for MOS-3. This request was made on the premise that
the funds would be applied to the North Hollywood segment. This
segment is presently under construction, is making steady
progress and is essentially on schedule and on budget. The
North Hollywood segment is expected to open for service well
ahead of the revenue operations date specified in the FFGA
(December, 2000), and is also expected to bring significant
ridership increases to the system.

Bart Extension to the Airport

Mr. Wolf. Recent local newspaper reports declared that
``construction bids shatter BART-SFO cost estimate'' and that
the BART to the airport project will end up costing more than
the planners had originally anticipated. With the award of the
first two construction projects more than $125 million over the
amount planned, what is the revised project cost?
Mr. Linton. There were two things that contribute to the
cost of the initial contracts. One was that there is a change
in the construction market, both in terms of both labor and
materials in that region, and we have checked that, not just
accepting BART's information, but we have begun to recognize
that with the upturn in the economy in the San Francisco
region, the cost of materials as well as construction has
risen.
Another thing that has occurred is that there was a change
of scope in the contract. Some of what was going to be in the
later contracts, the two station areas, were moved up into the
line area of the current contract. So more work was being done
under the contract than was originally considered. The other
thing that we should be mindful of is that with the letting of
those two contracts, 92 percent of the work for the project has
now been out to bid, and is under contract. Only 8 percent of
the total project is yet to be let to contractors.
But in addition to that, BART recognizes that we will not
be contributing more money. We just received their plan that is
still under review, but they are seeking money from CTC, I
think $57.5 million, and our own indication in our discussions
with those at the California Transportation Commission (CTC) is
that they seem to be favorably supportive of that request. We
have checked that out independent of BART.
Mr. Wolf. In order to meet the higher costs, BART's board
has been forced to use the balance of the agency contingency
funds as well as to dip into the capital reserve account. In
doing so, hasn't BART essentially exhausted the $80 million
contingency funds for cost overruns, the amount that was
supposed to carry the project through to completion?
Mr. Linton. We have new financials that reflect a new
capital reserve account (CAPRA), that they have provided us
with new financials quite different than the ones that I think
were looked at when the GAO did their analysis, and those new
financials provide BART with an additional capacity. They will
have to underwrite any additional reserve that may occur in
this process.
The other thing that I would mention is that they
themselves recognize the increased costs of construction in the
region and have increased allowances for what they would
normally consider for the balance of their contract. I think
they have now increased it up to $12 million, or is it 12
percent, on the balance of the contracts?
Mr. Walker. I am not sure.
Mr. Linton. I will provide the specifics to you in writing,
Mr. Chairman. But I do know that one of the questions I raised
with them was if in fact the cost of doing contracts in that
region has risen, have you made the adjustments in your cost
factoring for the balance of your contracts, and they have done
so. We will provide you with our review of their updated
financials very, very soon.
[The information follows:]

BART's Finance Plan assumes that an additional $57.5
million in State funding will be forthcoming, providing, among
other things, for a $33 million construction contingency.
BART's revised plan also increases the $24 million budget for
short term financing costs by about $3 million, and provides a
$13.4 million risk contingency toward potential additional
financing costs. This latter figure recognizes the possibility
that Federal appropriations may not be received exactly as
scheduled in the FFGA. Since the GAO's estimate of higher debt
financing costs was made, BART has reduced the assumed
estimated effective rate for commercial paper to a 4.25 percent
based on a firm proposal from a financial institution. The
expected advancement of state aid to meet cash flow
requirements will result in reduced borrowing needs and thus
financing costs.
To summarize, the BART budget now includes a $33 million
construction contingency, a $27.1 million budget base for
financing costs, and an additional $13.4 million contingency
for appropriations variability (total $40.5 million).
In addition, BART's Capital Reserve Account (CAPRA) has
been increased in size to $79.0 million, based on projections
from BART's financial advisors. $8.5 million of the CAPRA has
been used in the ward of the Millbrae station, a total of $70.5
million remains available to cover unforeseen conditions.

Hickey-San Bruno Station Bids

Mr. Wolf. These next two fit in with what you have already
said, but to get to some sense of it, the contracts we were
told for the stations and parking at Hickey and San Bruno were
bid in February and also I guess in January. How do they come
in compared to the original cost estimates and how will they
affect the project's total costs?
Mr. Linton. I don't think I have those actual cost
estimates before me. We will submit that for the record.
[The information follows:]

The original schedule called for the San Bruno Station and
Parking design-build contract to be bid and let in January and
February 1998. However, the new schedule calls for a revised
contract to be advertised in late March 1998. Thus, at this
time, no comparison between cost estimates and bids can be
made. When the bids are opened, we will analyze the effect the
bids have on the projects total costs.

Mr. Wolf. Okay. Following along then, there was some other
construction major projects, for instance we were told a
Caltrans bridge retrofit project was 35 percent higher than
engineers' estimates. We were told that other Caltrans bridge
projects were 23 percent higher and the airport's international
terminal is almost 14 percent higher. Won't this be difficult
for BART to absorb cost increases of as much as 25, 30 or 40
percent more if you average these figures out?
Mr. Linton. One of the things that those statistics point
out is that construction costs in that region are driving
contract costs up.
Mr. Wolf. What will that do to them?
Mr. Linton. Of course, BART has factored that into their
plans. The recovery plan they submitted to us, has gotten a
great response from the California Transportation Commission
(CTC), who to date has assisted them when they met with those
kind of difficulties. They just recently, for instance,
requested $57.5 million to accommodate those other cost
escalations in the contracts.
Mr. Wolf. They are prepared to do more?
Mr. Linton. That is the indication I have to date.
Mr. Wolf. They don't have to go to any more local funds or
local sales tax; the State is going to be the deep pocket just
to do whatever they need?
Mr. Linton. They have the CAPRA available, so they may
resort to that. Between the CAPRA and the support from the
State, it is our anticipation that they will be able to
accommodate that.
I would also mention to you on the same point----
Mr. Wolf. I guess one point is they will not be coming back
for additional Federal funds.
Mr. Linton. Not to us.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Because we had heard there was a BART
executive decision document that indicated that should the
State application be rejected, and what you are saying is it
has not been rejected, so that they were going to come to look
at more Federal funding. So you have no understanding they
would come?
Mr. Linton. The vote I understand is in June by the CTC,
but our own independent discussions with the CTC indicates
that.
Mr. Wolf. John just said there is an executive decision
document. It said, ``to replenish the project contingency, an
application has been submitted to the State of California
jointly by BART and San Francisco for an additional $57.5
million. The staff is optimistic this grant application will be
successful. Should the application not succeed,'' we will do
what every other place in the country seems to be doing, and I
put those words in myself.
Mr. Linton. It got my attention, Mr. Chairman.

how will bart fund increased loss?

Mr. Wolf. Other Federal, State or local funds will be
pursued. But you have no indication that additional Federal
funds are sought--you would not support that. You just don't--
--
Mr. Linton. No, not at all. I just met the day before
yesterday with the Executive Director and was grilling him
about his plans and the reliability of his request for the
$57.5 million. We are also going to assign one of our financial
management oversight teams to go in and examine the financial
capacity as well. One thing that we have learned from our
experience in Los Angeles is that we must gear up our financial
management oversight, FMOs to go in and do ongoing reviews of
financials, of properties, and we believe we will benefit from
those reviews.
Mr. Wolf. Is it an option to eliminate a station to save
money?
Mr. Linton. I haven't seen eliminating a station as an
option in the plan they have submitted to us, it is not
something they have explored. It is always an option, but their
plan does not present that as something that is under
consideration, or needed.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 1202 - 1206--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

bart-turnkey demonstration

Mr. Wolf. We have a number of other questions that we will
do for the record. The last one: Given the higher than
estimated costs for the design/build contracts, is the BART
project still a model for greater use of design/build in
transportation projects?
Mr. Linton. We have seen overall, that design/build
contracts are still a very good tool to use in constructing
major projects of this sort. The information that we have seen,
when you look at all the design/build operations across the
country, is that they have been successful in terms of being
more efficient.
Mr. Wolf. Is this the model?
Mr. Linton. I wouldn't say BART is the model. The design/
build is a good model, but I would not say BART is necessarily
the model of design/build that is the best.
Mr. Wolf. What would be the model now, do you think?
Mr. Linton. Baltimore design/build system that came in MTA
was a very good one and highly successful. We expect Hudson
Bergen is moving very well in New Jersey. We are seeing some
good results around the country.

san juan tren urbano project

Mr. Wolf. The committee understands that they have
experienced significant cost overruns. Do you know anything
about that?
Mr. Linton. Once again we are examining that issue. The
costs are not overruns, but they are enhancements, which means
that they are doing different items and additional elements
than what they agreed to in their FFGA.
Mr. Wolf. Is that smart for them to do?
Mr. Linton. As long as they pay for it. They have the
resources to pay for additional elements from their local
funds. But it should be understood that those enhancements are
outside of our agreement.
Mr. Wolf. Since this is early on, are you going to have
anybody take a closer look at this?
Mr. Linton. Absolutely. What I was alluding to just
generically earlier, we have a financial management oversight
team that is going to be assigned to examine that project as
well.
Mr. Wolf. Beginning when?
Mr. Linton. Within the next month. We have amended our
contracts for financial management oversight. That gives us the
latitude now to go in and look at these projects. We have
learned quite a bit from the Los Angeles situation, and the
IG's recommendation also would suggest that we should undertake
these type of stringent reviews. We are following up on these
recommendations.

fta grant management activities

Mr. Wolf. A recent review of FTA's oversight by the GAO
has shown that FTA has continued to strengthen its oversight of
Federal transit grants and decreased the risk associated with
providing billions. However, the GAO noted there is room for
significant improvement in several management areas.
What have you taken action on with regard to the GAO
findings?
Mr. Linton. First of all, we appreciate both the fact we
have made improvements, but we also appreciate the fact that
the General Acounting Office, GAO has identified to us some
areas of weaknesses that we need to strengthen. One of the
areas that was very specifically noted was our New York
regional office.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. The GAO found that many grantees still frequently
do not meet the FTA's time frames for correcting non-compliance
findings. How does the FTA expect to safeguard the Federal
investment if it is lackadaisical about the deadlines it
imposes upon its non-complaint grantees?
[The information follows:]
We are reinforcing to the Regional Administrators the high
priority and importance of timely issuance of Triennial Review
Reports and the monitoring of corrective actions in follow-up
to oversight review findings. We have stated it is essential
that the FTA regional office leader for each Triennial Review
meet the deadlines for processing Triennial Review Reports;
expeditiously monitor grantee corrective actions; and enter all
findings of compliance or noncompliance and follow-up into the
Triennial Review Information System (TRIS) and follow-up on
past due deadlines. FTA Headquarters will follow-up with the
regional offices' progress on a quarterly basis. A comprehsnive
Oversight Tracking System is being developed and will assist us
in these efforts.

New York Regional Oversight

Mr. Wolf. I was going to ask you specifically about New
York too.
Mr. Linton. We have changed the grant management
responsibilities in the New York regional office and made
management assignments that are in fact different. We are
upgrading our grants management information system so that we
can more timely and accurately respond to deficiencies as the
GAO report has recommended. We have already put in place those
changes to respond to those deficiencies.
Mr. Wolf. Have you put a new person in?
Mr. Linton. We are currently in the process of doing that.
Mr. Wolf. This was the only office that had a political
appointee. Why was there a political appointee there and not
any other place?
Mr. Linton. It has been the case in the recent history of
this agency.
Mr. Wolf. Really?
Mr. Linton. Yes. It was the case when I came, and it had
been the case through several administrations.
Mr. Wolf. Do you think that should change?
Mr. Linton. We are doing that.
Mr. Wolf. So it is now just going to be a career person?
Mr. Linton. Yes that is correct.
Mr. Wolf. Did the person leave or did he become----
Mr. Linton. The person separated from Federal employment.
After that person separated from Federal employment, we have
posted the position as a civil service position and we hope to
be making a permanent hire for that position.
Mr. Wolf. Who made that appointment--FTA, the Secretary or
the White House--on who got that job?
Mr. Linton. All political appointments come through the
White House.
Mr. Wolf. Can you just supply for the record the background
of the individual that had the job?
Mr. Linton. Sure.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 1210 - 1211--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. What steps are being taken to correct the
significant management oversight weaknesses in the New York
regional office?
[The information follows:]
As a result of the deficiencies noted by GAO, the New York
regional office has assigned specific responsibility for
corrective action follow-up to program managers in the Office
of Operations and Program Management. These program managers
now have responsibility for day-to-day oversight of their
grantees. In addition, FTA Headquarters will increase its
monitoring of the oversight function in all regional offices.
These changes will address the areas of weakness noted by GAO.
Mr. Wolf. Currently, the FTA is not able to identify the
full extent to which grantees are not complying with Federal
transit requirements. In light of these findings and in the
context of the Government Performance and Results Act, how can
FTA evaluate the overall effectiveness of the agency's own
oversight program?
[The information follows:]
FTA has developed performance measures to evaluate the
overall effectiveness of its oversight program. One all
encompassing performance measure is the total number of non-
compliant findings identifeid each year in Triennial and State
Management Reviews. A non-compliant finding is a determination
that a grantee has failed to meet a Federal grant requirement.
An example of FTA use of this performance measure is: For
fiscal year 1999, we have set a performance goal of improving
grantee compliance by five percent. This will be calculated as
percentage decrease in total fiscal year 1999 Triennial Review
and State Management Oversight Review findings.
Also, FTA is developing a comprehensive Oversight Tracking
System to help identify areas on noncompliance. This tracking
system will be a management tool to assist FTA in evaluating
the overall effectiveness of its oversight program.

Mr. Wolf. We are going to have one vote. We are going to
go for 5 more minutes, and then maybe take 20. You can go down
and grab a sandwich or something like that. When we break, we
will go back into session at 1:30.
Mr. Linton. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. I think you have covered--we have a number of
others about the New York office. Also, too, that region
oversees more transit dollars than I think maybe any other
region. Did that start under a Republican administration or
under a Democrat administration?
Mr. Linton. I don't know, but there has been equal
opportunity to do it.
Mr. Wolf. We will do that for the record too.
[The information follows:]

The New York regional office had been headed by a political
appointee since 1981, prior to my tenure as the FTA
Administrator. The New York regional office is no longer headed
by a political appointee. The FTA has advertised and is
planning to fill the position with a career employee. There are
no legislative or statutory changes required to convert the
position into a career position.

general accounting office review helpful

Mr. Wolf. At a GAO hearing, John Ennison--what would we do
without GAO? It seems your attitude has been very positive. In
the past, some people have been very defensive, but Jane Garvey
testified yesterday--we have found this very helpful to have
GAO and IG looking at these--and Jane Garvey was very open
yesterday, and I have noticed you have been relatively open.
You haven't been defensive to criticism. Have you found that
working relationship, having GAO look at these things, has
given you the ability to get things done that maybe you
wouldn't know about?
Mr. Linton. I think it is helpful. Oversight is a necessary
part of the process. Although I am kind of biased because I
worked in the Office of the Auditor General in Pennsylvania and
was the Regional Administrator. Some of the things I learned
from GAO courses in government standards. But I think that that
kind of oversight is important, as long as it is done so that
it provides direction and the kind of guidance in which the
agency can take corrective action. It is useful and important
to have it. We have benefited from GAO's involvement.

project management and financial management oversight

Mr. Wolf. Here is one that fits into that. They said in
the report, ``Continued scrutiny and improved oversight are
needed to safeguard the substantial Federal, State and local
investments in several large dollar highway and transit
projects.'' No one would disagree with that. ``Moreover, if the
demand for project management oversight services continued to
increase due to the number of projects entering preliminary
engineering,'' which they will, ``and to a lesser degree by the
need to increase oversight of several troubled projects'' why
does the FTA propose to cut project management oversight by 13
percent and financial review activities by almost 50 percent in
1999? That doesn't sound like a good idea, particularly given
today's discussion on the San Juan, the L.A., and the BART
projects.
Mr. Linton. Actually, Mr. Chairman, there is not a
reduction. In our 1998 budget, we had a tremendous amount of
carryover from previous years, and in fact the committee put a
ceiling on the amount of oversight money that we could draw
down in 1998, with the idea that we would spend down that
carryover. This is also the year in which we negotiated our 5-
year contracts for both project management oversight as well as
our financial management oversight. Therefore, there is an
unusually large infusion of dollars.
This is kind of an unusual year. But what you see reflected
in our 1999 budget request is actually increased activity. We
will do more oversight reviews with the dollars that we have
requested, and, quite frankly, we really need those dollars. We
need the entire amount that is available within the law so that
we can do those reviews.
As I indicated, we have learned from Los Angeles. We
believe that what the GAO has suggested is true, that we have
to go in, look at the entire system not just the project. We
have to put them under a lot more financial scrutiny. And with
the major pipeline of projects in major investment study MIS,
if we are going to have to have the responsibility of ranking
projects, recommend, highly recommend, or not recommend, we
need the resources and the ability to go in and do that kind of
thorough review.
Our oversight is going to have to be even more intensive
than it has been in the past. That is our plan.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. Last year in response to a question for a record,
the FTA indicated that it requires projects covered by an FFGA
to submit a financing plan in support of the grant application
before signing an FFGA. Other than monitoring individual
grantee's local funding sources, does FTA require that each new
start project with an FFGA submit annual updated financial
plans and cost estimates after signing the FFGA, and if not,
why not?
[The information follows:]
FTA does require grantees with FFGS's to submit budget
reports on a regular basis as a means of tracking project costs
against the baseline budget. If FTA sees a problem developing,
we request updated financial plans and cost estimates.
In addition, over the past year, FTA has assigned Financial
Management Oversight ((FMO) contractors to grantees with major
capital projects with financial issues and have been receiving
periodic analyses of their financial plans. FTA is in the
process of assigning FMO contractors to additional grantees in
order to enhance oversight of grantees financial capacity to
complete their projects.

Mr. Wolf. Okay. We will recess until 1:30.
[Recess.]

bus rapid transit for los angeles

Mr. Wolf. We will resume the hearing. We are going to go
into WMATA, but I bumped into Julian Dixon on the walk over to
the vote, and he asked me to ask you, and I know it has come up
and I have a couple of questions on the advanced technology
transit bus. He was concerned, one, he was interested in the
idea of the Curitiba. I began to tell him a little bit of what
we were talking about earlier today, about the North Hollywood
and the others and the eastside and mid-city and the potential
of this. So he would like to see the video, and I told him that
you would--Julian Dixon--you would call him this afternoon,
after the hearing, if you can.
Mr. Linton. Sure.

advanced technology transit bus

Mr. Wolf. And try to set up a time to go by to show him
the video and explain a little bit. I think it would be well
worth the time, particularly with all the time and money that
has been spent on this.
Secondly, he was concerned about the advanced technology
transit bus, with the merger being delayed by the Justice
Department. Would Lockheed Martin continue--rather Northrup
Grumman continue, would they go out and get somebody else to do
it with them, and do you have any thoughts? I said I would
raise it at the hearing, but he would also like to talk to you
about it.
Mr. Linton. I have not seen anything that pointed, that
would indicate Northrup Grumman would stop anything they were
doing with the advanced technology bus.
Mr. Wolf. Did they plan going into production and
producing the buses or just the next step? Or were they going
to get somebody else to go team up with them?
Mr. Linton. They were planning to team up to do the
production. They were looking for a firm who had some
experience in the bus manufacturing business. Their business
has generally been the aerospace. I think Northrop was looking
to Lockheed, because Lockheed, had done a lot of work in
subsystems, and thought that from the merger, that would be a
good part of a team. But I also know they have been talking to
other bus manufacturers that would assist them in doing the
actual manufacturing.
Mr. Thomas, if you would like to add to any of that?
Mr. Thomas. Congressman, Northrop is responsible for the
program working with the transit agency, and Northrop has
expertise in developing the shelf of the bus.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Thomas. The composite shell.
Mr. Wolf. But not producing buses.
Mr. Thomas. They are not bus manufacturers, but they did
express an interest in producing the first 100 buses. The L.A.
CMTA's board actually passed two resolutions to advance at
least 100 ATTB, and Northrop was pretty much willing to do that
much.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 1216 - 1217--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

advanced technology transit bus

Mr. Wolf. When you call Mr. Dixon, if you could tell him
that. The other thing is he said, when are they going to roll
the buses out here in Washington--the bus? And I said that you
said that the committee would be welcome. He said he thought
they were doing it April 1 or 2. Of course, the Congress is not
in session. When is the recess? April 2nd is the last day we
are here?
Mr. Sabo. I think April 1st is.
Mr. Wolf. We go out on April Fool's Day.
Mr. Linton. When will you be recessing, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. We will recess on April 1st, so we will not--the
Congress--I will, but the Congress will not be here on the 2nd
and 3rd.
Mr. Linton. We can make accommodations, I am sure.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think it might not be a bad idea. The
1st is a Wednesday.
Mr. Linton. Would the 1st be a good day?
Mr. Wolf. You could pick a time, and I don't know if we
would actually hold a hearing, but I think we could do a notice
to everyone and tell them. Mr. Dixon expressed interest in
going, and other Members. If you were to do it either that
Tuesday or that Wednesday, either the last day of March or the
first day of April, and you were to tell the committee, maybe
Mr. Sabo and I could do a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all the
Members of the House telling them.
Mr. Linton. We would welcome that and coordinate it with
your offices so we could do that.
Mr. Wolf. I am glad I bumped into Mr. Dixon.

[Pages 1219 - 1448--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Thursday, March 12, 1998.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

WITNESSES

GORDON J. LINTON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
RICHARD WHITE, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT
AUTHORITY
PETER BENJAMIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR FINANCE AND COMPTROLLER
JOHN C. ELKINS, ACTING ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR TRANSIT SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Wolf. Why don't we go to WMATA now, if we can. Do you
want to come on up, Dick?
Your statement, if you have one, can appear in the record
as if read, and perhaps you could summarize.
Mr. White. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. I will very gladly
submit the statement for the record. I will be very, very brief
and just indicate that this is our final appropriation request
under the 1990----
Mr. Wolf. Could I just say ``hooray----'' And if you could
underline that, if you have any color opportunities, if you
could put it in that, and then I would like to frame it. So we
will never see you again.
Mr. White. You will never see us for a request for a 103-
mile system, sir; yes.
Mr. Wolf. Is it possible to go in color?

construction request

Mr. White. The request is for $50.3 million. This will
complete the Federal contributory share of $1.3 billion of the
program. The total program cost is $2.075 billion, 62.5 percent
federally funded, 37.5 percent locally funded.
We are very, very thankful for the strong support that you
have provided us, Mr. Chairman, in making sure that we get
these appropriations within this time frame, which has allowed
us to put these investments in the ground. We are very, very
pleased.
We are pleased that this program is on time and under
budget. We are very, very proud of our accomplishments in terms
of managing these public resources in a very prudent way.
We opened our Franconia-Springfield station last summer and
it has been enormously successful. There were those who
predicted that we would only be getting about 4,000 new transit
riders daily at that station. Since week one, we have had
double that, approximately 8,000 new riders, at that station.
That is a 3.3 mile line, with one station.
Our Glenmont station will open up July 25th of this year.
We are very pleased to extend an invitation to you have you
join us. This will be our last station in Montgomery County.
This line is 1.4 miles, with one station and a yard.
In December of 1999 we will be opening up the so-called
``missing link'' in the District of Columbia on the inner green
line from U Street to Fort Totten, and that is two stations,
2.9 miles. In spring of 2001, we are on schedule to open up the
last piece of the 103-mile system, which is the extension from
Anacostia to Branch Avenue, 6.5 miles and five stations.

ridership

I would like to indicate very, very briefly a couple of our
recent program initiatives. We are very pleased with the recent
turn of events on our ridership situation. Our ridership is
extremely strong. Our system ridership is up 4 percent this
fiscal year, compared to last year. It is up over 5 percent on
rail and approximately 3 percent on bus.
I think there are a number of factors that have helped
contribute to that. First, several large capital investments
coming on line, such as Franconia-Springfield, the opening of
the new National Airport terminal and the outstanding Metro
connection to that facility. We have seen a 25 to 30 percent
increase at the National Airport Station. With the recent
opening in December of the MCI Center, approximately 60 percent
of the gate are taking Metro to get there. People who come to
the MCI Center are served by Metro, and transit ridership has
been as high as 70 percent of the gate on certain events. So
that is certainly not only a transit-friendly investment, it is
a transit-dependent investment.
We are carrying another 26,000 additional weekday trips on
the rail system compared to a year ago, so we are taking that
many more cars off the road this year than we did last year. It
is not just the rail side.
On the bus side, we are up 10,000 daily trips compared to
last year. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have had 2 or 3 years
of downward spiral on the bus side. We have now seen that
situation reversing itself and moving in the right direction.
We are very thankful for you joining us in our 25th
anniversary celebration of the Metrobus system. We are
certainly making a strong commitment to the bus system and the
role that it can play in helping to address the mobility
requirements of the metropolitan area.

rehabilitation and replacement

Finally, we are nearing completion of construction of the
Metrorail system, yet the oldest segments have now been in
operation for more than 22 years. Our problem is now moving
from building the system to adequately maintaining what will be
a $10 billion public investment in the Metrorail and Metrobus
system.
Our region is very focused on trying to come up with a
solution so that we can adequately preserve this system so that
we do not see ourselves facing a series of disinvestment, like
some of the older systems in the country did. Other cities
watched their system suffer for a number of years until they
could figure out how to adequately fund their capital program.
That now becomes our regional challenge, to develop a solution
to that.
Finally, we are very pleased that you urged us to come up
with a solution to the regional bus situation. Your fiscal year
1997 appropriation language directed the region to develop a
report to Congress by September 30 of 1997, which we
accomplished.
You identified the need to deal with issues of
fragmentation and rising costs and to develop a regional plan
that would make sense for the region. We are very pleased that
the region came together, probably in a way that it hasn't done
in quite some time, and has come up with what I think is an
outstanding plan that defines appropriate roles and
responsibilities and a new set of conditions to make the bus
system do even more than it has done in the past.
So I think we are now up to the challenge to start
addressing some of these new population and employment trends
that are developing in the metropolitan area and have transit
play even a stronger role in serving new markets. Thank you.
[The prepared statement and biography of Richard White
follows:]

[Pages 1452 - 1472--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. White. We will recess for about
20 minutes and be back.
[Recess.]

regional mobility panel

Mr. Wolf. Would you briefly summarize the regional mobility
panel with regard to coordination and less fragmentation, and
in detail for the record?
Mr. White. The Mobility Panel has agreed on service-based
criteria to determine what are routes of regional significance,
services that a regional operator should provide, and what are
routes of local significance, routes that should largely be
under the control of local government.
They took the entire route system and broke it up into
those two different categories, playing into the strength of
what a regional operator should be able to do and also
recognizing that there are services that local government can
do at their choice, but that they should all be integrated
together. So there is a new set of integrating mechanisms that
didn't exist before.
The Panel completely changed the formula, that allocates
the subsidy shares of the bus system costs. The formula was
significantly outdated and based on inappropriate criteria that
had the wrong incentives and disincentives. The Panel created a
new formula similar to the rail system formula, and said that
we would all start moving forward with the new formula starting
next fiscal year.
The Panel took approximately 25 percent of the service that
Metro runs today and said that that service can be operated at
the choice of local government. Local governments can decide to
contract with Metro, run it themselves, or make any other
decision that they would choose to make, but they have made a
commitment to the regional system. The local governments have
made a 5-year commitment to preserve the regional bus system
which is 75 percent of the service we run today, and to make
their own decisions on the remaining 25 percent.
In return for that stability and predictability, we made a
commitment that we would hold our fares constant for 5 more
years, on top of the 2 years when we have already not had a
fare increase. We also agreed not to ask for any increase in
our subsidies for the same level of service. That was a very
strong statement to our funding partners that we are serious
about ensuring that we provide cost-effective service.
Mr. Wolf. What are you doing at the local level to provide
predictable funding?
Mr. White. Well, the region is clearly struggling with that
issue right now. The way our services are funded is different
depending upon which jurisdiction you are talking about. In the
State of Maryland, it is almost exclusively funded by the State
out of their transportation trust fund, which is a large fund
that supports statewide highway and transit activities. The
Baltimore transit system and our system is funded out of that
trust fund. Only a very small amount of money comes from county
government.
In the District of Columbia, their contributions come from
the District's appropriations that are financed with its own
resources, combined with that which the Federal Government
provides. In the State of Virginia, it is largely a 50-50
proposition. Approximately half of the money that we get for
capital and operating comes from the State, and approximately
one-half comes from local government. So it is a larger burden
in Virginia for local government than it is, clearly, in
Maryland.
We have indicated to the region that we are one of the few
metropolitan areas that does not have a source of dedicated
funding to support its transit system. We certainly have been
educating the region on that chart that you have in your hands,
Mr. Chairman, and the region is now engaged in a debate on that
issue.

fare simplification

Mr. Wolf. Well, I am sure you have. I haven't seen a lot
though out there, to be honest with you, and I read all the
stories with regard to transportation. I think this is a pretty
dramatic thing, if it is accurate, and I think it is from the
sources. But I think there needs to be a lot of work done at
that level soon or else you are going to have a potential
problem.
Fare structure, a little bit about simplify. Tell us what
you are going to do with regard to that.
Mr. White. Yes. I like to label it as you need a Ph.D. in
transit to understand how to navigate our bus system and pay
our bus fares. It is a very Byzantine collection of very
complex zone structures and transfer charges that differ by the
jurisdiction that you happen to reside in. That is under the
old rules of the bus game.
Under the new rules of the bus game, as a result of the
Regional Mobility Panel, we are now able to break out of that
hold that was on us because of the way the funding formula
worked. We can now try to approach this on a much more global
or regional basis.
We have committed that we will move forward with simplified
and integrated fares, simplified on our bus and appropriately
integrated into our rail system. The Board has authorized us to
hire Booz-Allen & Hamilton who, in my opinion, are the foremost
experts on this issue around the country. Every large
successful fare simplification effort that has gone forward in
this country has largely been done by Booz-Allen.
So they are engaged in starting their work now. It will be
a process that involves all the local jurisdictions, our Board,
and public hearings. Mr. Chairman, by this time next year, I
fully expect we will have a new simplified fare system in
effect.
Mr. Wolf. It will be in effect by next spring?
Mr. White. Yes.

funding needs: rehabilitation and replacement

Mr. Wolf. How much does WMATA receive annually in Section
3 and Section 9 capital funding and how does this compare with
WMATA's annual rehab and replacement needs?
Mr. White. For fiscal year 1998, we received approximately
$20.5 million in Section 3, $61.6 million in Section 9, $1.45
million in operating. With flexible ISTEA funding, our capital
sources add up to a little over $90 million. In total, when
combined with local matching resources that we have, we get
approximately $130 million in Federal, State and local funds
for our capital program. Our needs, on an annual basis, are
approximately $100 million in excess of that number.
Mr. Wolf. One hundred million dollars a year.
Mr. White. Annually, that is correct.
Mr. Wolf. For how many years?
Mr. White. Essentially for our lifetime. As our system now
moves middle age and beyond, all of the assets that were
originally purchased have seen their useful lives. They are
coming due now and in the next several years for replacement.
In essence, you are in a perpetual method of always
rehabilitating and replacing your assets.
Mr. Wolf. For rehab and replacement, the need will be $100
million a year?
Mr. White. Annually $100 million more than what we have
today.
Mr. Wolf. More than what you have today. I don't think the
region understands that.
Mr. White. Well, those who are working with us understand
it, but it is such a daunting task, they haven't been able to--
--
Mr. Wolf. They are all probably lawyers, and a couple,
probably a select few, maybe you are dealing with some in the
business community, one or two, but if you stopped the average
person at the Vienna subway stop and asked them that, I would
venture to guess they will not understand that.
Mr. White. That is a good point, Mr. Chairman. Our Mobility
Panel, has a Transit Funding Subcommittee, chaired by Ken
Sparks of the Federal City Council.
Mr. Wolf. Where does he live?
Mr. White. Ken lives in Springfield. Secretary Winstead
from Maryland, Chairman Hanley from Fairfax and many others are
on this committee. It is the chief elected officials and
members of the business community who largely have been leading
this effort. They clearly have identified that we need a more
extensive public education process, as you have suggested. The
goal is to get the public to understand that what they see
today, which is largely a good, high quality service that
doesn't appear to be aging is on the verge of deterioration.
Clearly we are facing difficult choices. The way we have
described it is that we, we are now stretching that rubber band
and the tension is getting greater and greater. At some point
in the next couple of years, we are going to be at the snapping
stage, where the funding shortfall will definitely affect
service delivery, and our customers will see it in a very real
way.

transit funding in other cities

Mr. Wolf. How have other transits dealt with this?
Mr. White. Well, a number of them have chosen to stick
their head in the sand and ignore it for a decade or so and
then come back and get the political will to fix it, usually at
two or three times the cost, because it has resulted in such a
serious condition of neglect. That has been, unfortunately, the
experience of most of our largest and oldest systems. New York,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, by and large, have all followed
those cyclical trends. For a decade or two they have under
invested to such an extent that the quality of their services
deteriorated so far that people said it is now broken, and now
we have to fix it.
What we are attempting to do is try and prevent ourselves
from breaking.
Mr. Wolf. When they had to repair their systems, have they
come to the Federal Government mainly, or have they done it at
the local level?
Mr. White. I think largely, it has been largely a State-
local issue.
Chairman Wolf. Do you agree with that, Mr. Linton?
Mr. Linton. Yes, and I refer particularly Philadelphia,
because I was there at the time the problem was addressed.
Mr. Wolf. How did Philadelphia deal with it?
Mr. Linton. We ended up raising additional revenues. I
worked on the bill, Act 26, to provide additional funds. I was
a sponsor of the bill. There had been so much deferred
maintenance of the system that bridges were falling down and
addition funding was critical. There had been a major
educational initiative to get the public to understand how
critical those new revenues were needed. Public support was
essential in gaining revenue for asset maintenance. Mr. White
is trying to avoid the same situation.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. White. That is really the reason why the Federal
Government created the rail modernization program as part of
the funding program. There was the recognition of this need.
Mr. Wolf. Obviously if you talked to those numbers, $100
million every year----
Mr. White. We receive $20 million from rail modernization
program. It is not going to do the job.
Mr. Wolf. That is above what you are getting; correct? The
shortfalls for the rehab and replacement----
Mr. White. The $100 million per year shortfall is on top of
what we get today.
Mr. Wolf. You are kind of out into the distant future.
Mr. White. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. I really think you are going to have to go and
just make this an issue, and I know there is going to be a
great temptation, and I want to just kind of say it publicly
before the temptation gets too great, you really just don't
look to the Federal Government. You are really going to have to
make this case. I think the people support Metro, I think you
do a fine job.
I would venture, and I don't want to put you in a difficult
spot on this, but would it be fair to say maybe Metro should
have dealt with this issue several years ago, or do you think
it was appropriate to delay it as long as it did, particularly
since they were still constructing the full 103 system?
Mr. White. It is clearly difficult to get on people's radar
screen the severity of the problem when they still see
construction. But this issue was recognized two general
managers ago by David Gunn, who came in and said we have a
problem here. He started to bang the drum, but it was the first
time that people had heard of it, and they largely didn't
believe it.
After David left, Larry Reuter continued that message that
this is a serious problem. We are not too far away from a very
unfortunate set of circumstances. As soon as I got here, I
recognized that problem.
What you have is a continuum. You have the old systems that
were built decades ago, even before the turn of the century and
in the early part of this century. Then we had a hiatus in this
country for decades when there were no fixed guideway
investments. Then BART was built in San Francisco, and then the
WMATA and Atlanta rail systems and now other rail systems are
being built around the country.
So you have this huge continuum, and now the BARTs and the
WMATAs of the world are struggling with this issue. Everybody
is now trying to come up with a solution to it. But it is
something that has not happened for a long time.
Mr. Wolf. How is BART dealing with it?
Mr. White. Well, BART is very fortunate to have a half-cent
sales tax created by the State legislature. It actually came
into being before the system was opened. When they were running
short on capital to complete the system, they raised money
through a half-cent sales tax. They then recognized, of course,
that the operation of the system was going to warrant an
operating subsidy. They have been living essentially off of
that half-cent sales tax since the late sixties, early
seventies. That is a very powerful source of revenue in the Bay
Area. It was bringing in $120 million a year. So it is a very
strong revenue source for BART.

preventive maintenance

Mr. Wolf. Preventive maintenance, the change; Mr. Linton
said it was very successful. Do you agree it was very
successful?
Mr. White. Yes. I would agree that the industry would have
been in desperate straits were this provision not enacted. We
certainly need it to be continued in the future. I think the
industry will be responsible in making the appropriate
decisions to use the money prudently.
In our case, if this were to have happened abruptly,
without flexibility, we would have been faced with no other
choice but to significantly raise fares or cut service. We have
experienced here in Washington, unfortunately in the 1990's,
raising fares consecutively three times in rapid succession. We
also had a huge service cut at the same time because of funding
shortfalls in local government. We have been suffering as a
result. We suffered for 2 or 3 years in reduced ridership
because of these decisions.
So if we are faced with the necessity of raising of our
fares or cutting service, we are going to be in great
difficulty. This has been a very important provision to us.

status of the construction program

Mr. Wolf. Metro construction, on schedule, and when will
the 103-mile system be completed? I am not asking for the day,
but----
Mr. White. Our Board of Directors is.
Mr. Wolf. When do you expect it to be? Are you on
schedule?
Mr. White. Yes. We are very pleased. All of our segments
are on schedule. As I said very briefly, our Glenmont segment
opens July 25th of this year. December 1999, the two remaining
stations on the Inner Green Line will open.
My apologies, Mr. Chairman, I just jumped into this and
didn't introduce you to John Elkins, our Acting Assistant
General Manager for Transit System Development, and Peter
Benjamin, Assistant General Manager for Program Finance and
Development. John will say the project managers are cautiously
optimistic on the progress of the Inner Green Line
construction. We experienced some very difficult site
conditions that set us back a bit as we put into place a
grouting system to deal with the unexpected high level of
water. We also have had a problem with one of our station
contractors that is behind schedule.
We have a number of workarounds and are cautiously
optimistic that the segment will open in December 1999.
Things are looking very good for the Branch Avenue opening
in the spring of 2001. At that point, the 103-mile system will
be completed. There are two remaining elements that are being
funded under this program. One is an operating yard to support
Branch Avenue which will be completed later. We are buying
railcars as well.
Mr. Wolf. So spring of 2001?
Mr. White. Spring of 2001, sir.
Mr. Wolf. What is the status of your efforts to identify
funding for the Branch Avenue yard and the purchase of
additional rail cars?
[The information follows:]

We have successfully identified residual savings sufficient
to pursue the design of the Branch Avenue Yard, the purchase of
necessary real estate for the yard, and the purchase of rail
cars. With the approval of Full Funding Grant Agreement
Amendments now being processed by FTA, we will proceed to
contract for the rail cars in April 1998. We anticipate
identifying the remaining necessary funding to proceed with
construction contracts to begin construction of the Branch
Avenue Yard later this year.

Mr. Wolf. If you could, for the record, maybe just a
sentence or two, how much did the State and local jurisdictions
in the region contribute annually for operating construction
and capital funding?
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. To what extent have the participating
jurisdictions indicated that they are unwilling to continue
their participation, particularly in the bus program?
[The information follows:]
The Regional Mobility Panel recognized that there is a
fundamental need to maintain a regional bus system, most
essentially for interjurisdictional travel. The Panel's
recommendations included an identification of the region's bus
routes that classified about 54% of the region's bus service as
a regional and the remaining 46% as non-regional. The
jurisdiction have made a commitment that WMATA will plan and
operate the regional bus system. Non-regional bus service will
be planned by the jurisdictions and either continue to be
operated by WMATA or the jurisdiction will operate the bus
service themselves or contract to another entity.

Mr. White. They spent over $300 million a year in
operating, approximately $320 million. Their local match on
capital funding for our rehabilitation and replacement program
is about $25 million. For construction, their annual
contribution is approximately $120 million.

ridership

Mr. Wolf. Ridership, it is up. What are the general
factors? What percentage of the increase--say National Airport,
which has to be significant--have you been able to kind of
analyze it? Is it because everything is going great, or is it
because National Airport opened up and this happened?
Mr. White. It is largely because of good management, Mr.
Chairman, of course.
Mr. Wolf. Of course.
Mr. White. No, we are very fortunate. At the National
Airport Station, we are seeing a 30 percent ridership increase
which is approximately 1,800 new trips being generated because
of the new airport facility. There are approximately another 8
or 9,000 daily new trips at our new Franconia-Springfield
Station, and, on average, about 8,000 new trips at the new
Metrorail entrance to the MCI Center. So these three large
facilities are contributing significantly to our ridership
increases.
We have also had general systemwide ridership increases
that are accounting for the remainder of the growth.
We have not raised fares for several years. We have stable
and expanding services, which is an important factor in our
recent success. The local economy, is certainly improving. The
central city is becoming healthier. The massive exodus of
population and jobs of a few years ago affected us
significantly, because that is the bread and butter of our
market. The downsizing of the Federal Government had an impact
on us, because a third of our rail customers are Federal
employees. So all of those factors are now stabilizing and are
contributing to our recent success.
Mr. Wolf. What efforts does WMATA have underway to attract
ridership.
[The information follows:]

[Pages 1480 - 1481--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Wolf. What happened Monday night? There were five
trains lined up at the West Falls Church stop.
Mr. White. I know on Monday itself, I am not sure----
Mr. Wolf. They were spaced apart.
Mr. White. In the evening at West Falls Church?
Mr. Wolf. I didn't hear anything on the news or anything.
Mr. White. We had a whole series of complications in the
morning. I did not hear of any particular disruptions in the
evening. I am not aware of that occuring on Monday evening.
Mr. Wolf. It would be highly unusual for five trains to be
stacked.
Mr. White. It is exceptionally unusual.

wmata serves the nation's capital

Mr. Wolf. Are there special demands, I know there are
opportunities, but are there special demands on WMATA because
it serves the Nation's Capital?
Mr. White. I would certainly say yes, that is the case. We
have to be prepared to carry extraordinary numbers of people on
short notice to support events that go on in the Nation's
Capital. There are always large events going on at the Mall.
There are Fourth of July fireworks, presidential inaugurations,
and other events of that nature. We have to have the capacity
to be able to absorb those kinds of demands.
Being in the Nation's Capital, brings with it heightened
security considerations. Unfortunately, in today's world, that
is a very important factor that is an extreme challenge to us.
We also have the basic challenges of serving the region's
largest employer, the Federal Government. It is a real
challenge to us to serve, as well as the federal workforce, the
remainder of the region, all the tourists that visit the
Nation's Capital.
Mr. Wolf. Are you confident you are doing everything you
can to attract the ridership? Do you have advertising programs?
Mr. White. Well, you can never rest on your laurels and say
that you are doing everything that you can do. I think we are
taking many aggressive steps to address these issues. We are
becoming much more businesslike, more entrepreneurial, and more
market driven. We are trying harder to understand our
marketplace, understand what our customers want, understand
what it is going to take to attract the people who are not
riding the system today. We recognize the changing population
and employment trends in this region, and are figuring out how
we can address all of these issues.
So we are beginning to turn ridership trends around, but I
feel that we can still do more in that arena.

employer provided transit benefits

Mr. Wolf. Today, up to $65 per month is tax free for
employer-provided transit benefits compared to $175 tax free
for parking benefits. What impact would there be on Metro
ridership if the proposal to make the tax-free benefit for
transit users equal to that for parking were enacted?
Mr. White. I think it would be of significant potential
benefit to us. One of the things that transit suffers from is
that we are frequently not on a level playing field with the
automobile when the public makes its decision as to what mode
of transportation to use for a particular trip. The automobile
receives some very large hidden subsidies. The Tax Code creates
this bias, allowing an employer to offer to an employee $175 a
month of tax-free benefits, tax free to both the employer, and
tax free to the employee, while transit benefits can total only
$65 per month.
So as an employer, what is your likely decision to be when
you start divvying up your benefits?
Mr. Wolf. Have any of the transits pushed to equalize
that?
Mr. White. This is an issue that the industry has been
pushing for quite some time. We are very pleased that the
President has included it in his budget proposal for this year.
We will see if that Tax Code amendment is made this year.
Mr. Wolf. Who is the sponsor of that?
Mr. Linton. I don't know if a sponsor has been identified,
but I do know that Representative Lewis has a bill that I think
he has already introduced.
Mr. Wolf. What would the revenue loss be for the
government?
Mr. Linton. I don't have those numbers. It would be about a
wash.
Mr. Wolf. It can't be a wash. You lose.
Mr. Linton. Any revenue lost to the Treasury is accounted
for in the President's budget.
Mr. Wolf. You would have gas tax not collected.
Mr. Linton. We will get that for you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I don't think it could be a wash.
Mr. White. There is probably some revenue impact.
Mr. Wolf. If you could get that for us.
[The FTA information follows:]

The President has proposed a number of new tax initiatives
in his FY 1999 Budget to address Climate Change. This Climate
Change Technology Initiative is a five-year $5 billion package
of tax incentives and research and development spending to spur
energy efficiency and help develop low-carbon energy sources.
Equalizing the tax treatment of parking and transit and vanpool
benefits is one of the tax initiatives. To encourage public
transportation and vanpools, employers would be allowed to
provide tax free transit and vanpool benefits in lieu of
compensation, up to the same amount that they can provide for
parking beginning January 1, 1999. The estimated cost over the
five years is $84 million. The entire package of tax incentives
to address climate change is included in the President's
overall balanced budget proposal.

Travel Purposes

Mr. Wolf. The Transportation Planning Board recently
released its 1994 Household Travel Survey that found that
travel for personal business reasons, such as shopping, banking
and childcare account for 38 percent of all weekday travel.
What are the implications of this research for transit?
[The information follows:]
The Metrorail and Metrobus systems play a vital role in
meeting the travel needs of the region. Both systems serve
discretionary and personal business, as well as the work trip.
Currently, about 55% of Metrorail ridership uses the system to
travel to and from work, and the remaining 45% use the system
for shopping, personal business, recreation, school and tourist
travel. On Metrobus, the distribution between work and non-work
purposes is very similar.
The implications of this research is quite positive.
Spreading the demand for service more uniformly over the entire
day can reduce peaking requirements typical of transit service
and increase the utilization of vehicles. Transit service,
however, must orient its services to new and emerging travel
markets in order to gain a share of this market.
Mr. Wolf. What is the potential role for transit to be a
viable option for people making these trips?
Transit can better serve these markets by developing the
area in and around transit stations to serve riders with
commercial activities such as convenience stores, newspaper
vendors and banking facilities. This will enable riders to
conduct some of their personal business at the transit station,
perhaps on the way to and from work, thus eliminating the need
for a separate trip to accomplish these tasks. Better land use
policies and development patterns, conducive to transit use
will have to be in place before transit can play an even
greater role in serving this trip purpose.

Washington Convention Center

Mr. Wolf. The other couple of questions we will ask for the
record on that.
The new Convention Center budget, the administration
budget, we have questions for you, Mr. Linton, on this, too,
and we will kind of blend them.
The request includes $25 million for transportation-related
expenses associated with the new station at the D.C. Convention
Center. Did WMATA request these funds at all, either from the
District or the Federal Transit Administration?
Mr. White. No, we did not request these funds. As I
understand it, this proposal was made by the President as a
part of the economic development and management reform in the
District of Columbia category of his budget. It is for the
benefit of the Washington Convention Center Authority, which is
an independent authority.
They consulted with us as a part of their deliberation as
to where they were going to locate that new Convention Center.
They asked if they were going to place it at the proposed Mount
Vernon location, what investments would be required of Metro to
adequately serve the huge volume of people that would be using
that Convention Center.
We provided them with some cost estimates, which I believe
are the basis for the request the President has made in his
budget.
Mr. Wolf. Should it be enacted and WMATA be required to
provide the local match, what other capital projects would have
to be curtailed, delayed or canceled?
Mr. White. WMATA is not being asked to provide any funding
in connection with this proposed project. I believe that the
request is being made in a section of the budget other than
transportation funding.
I think the situation is somewhat analogous to the MCI
Center, where no special facility was originally contemplated
at the Gallery Place location. When it became a location that
Mr. Pollin was interested in, and as a part of the collection
of interests trying to attract the MCI Arena, a funding program
was put together. In that particular case the District of
Columbia offered some flexible Federal funding as the primary
source of funding for that investment. Clearly that project has
been very important to both the economic revitalization of that
part of the city, because of the number of people using Metro
to get to the arena.
Mr. Wolf. I understand that. That is not before this
committee. Is that before the D.C. Appropriations Committee?
Mr. White. That is our understanding, yes. It is the
District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. Wolf. Congressman Taylor.
Mr. White. Yes, as we understand it.
Mr. Wolf. What effect, has the placement of the Metro stop
a half a block away from the new MCI Center had on attendees?
The current station, what impact? You just told me that 65 to
70 percent are using it.
Mr. White. At the MCI Center we had three entrances into
that station location before the MCI Center was built. Then
when the MCI Center was being planned, they wanted a Metro
connection to the new building. We moved the southern terminus
to create a whole new exit, where there was an existing
mezzanine, to bring you out and literally deposit you almost in
the front door of the MCI Center. You exit our station through
a new entranceway and turn left, and you are in the MCI Center.
Mr. Wolf. But if you told me 65 to 70, you even said at
some games 70 percent were captured by Metro, why do you need
that? I mean, why do you need that? Is it half a block walk
now?
Mr. White. The other locations would have been, yes, about
a block away.
Mr. Wolf. So you are building a whole new station?
Mr. White. It was largely a capacity issue. The existing
concourse entrances we had clearly were not capable to absorb
the kinds of crowds that come in. We knew that we were going to
have to put in new gates, new escalators, and new elevators to
be able to be adequately sized for the crowds. So there was a
substantial investment that was going to have to be made
irrespective of the location of that entrance.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Linton said you might not build it, you
might be rehabing it. What is FTA's involvement in this? It is
apparently not before this committee if it is before Mr.
Taylor's committee. What do you plan on doing? What is your
involvement in it?
Mr. Linton. We haven't had any involvement. I understand
the money, as was indicated by the General Manager, Mr. White,
is in to the District's budget. I would suspect that we may be
asked to do some project management, but that would be
something that we may be asked to do. But at this point, we are
not engaged.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. FTA's budget request includes the final
appropriation of $50,300,000 to complete the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority's 103-mile rail
system. An additional $25 million is requested for
transportation-related expenses associated with a new station
at the DC convention center. Why were these funds included in
the administration's request for the District of Columbia and
not within the FTA's budget?
[The information follows:]
The $25 million is intended to augment the access to the
existing Mt. Vernon Sq-UDC Station to provide for the increased
use associated with the new convention center. The existing
station entrance will be expanded to increase the number of
escalators from three to four, to double the number of
elevators from one to two, and to add a stairwell.
Additionally, 16 fare card vending machines, 19 turnstiles, and
5 add fare machines will be installed to provide service to the
crowds from the convention center expected to use the Metrorail
system. There are no plans to build a new station at this site.
The FTA was not consulted, nor participated, in this
funding decision. Therefore, I am unable to provide an answer
to the question.

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, I had answered your question as I
had understood it. I thought you were asking about the MCI
Center. I believe your question was really on the Convention
Center. With respect to the Convention Center we have a one-
entrance station that exists at that location now. There is no
new entrance that is being built for that station. What is
being built is an expansion of that entrance to be able to
accommodate the crowds. So it is not like we are building a new
entrance.
Mr. Wolf. For the Convention Center, the $25 million, is
that to take it directly into the Convention Center?
Mr. White. There are two different issues.
Mr. Wolf. One is Convention Center, and one is MCI.
Mr. White. I might be confusing you. There was
approximately $20 million spent to put in a new entrance at the
MCI Center. For the Conference Center there is a proposal for
approximately $25 million to rebuild and expand the one single
entrance that exists for the planned Convention Center. So we
are not going to be building a new entrance to that station
that might be 50 feet closer than the other entrance. It is to
expand the existing exit, to put in the escalators and
elevators that are necessary, to open it up to bring in more
fare collection equipment. So it is just to make it suitable
and large enough to handle the crowds.
Mr. Wolf. So the $25 million is not for the MCI?
Mr. White. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. That doesn't conflict----
Mr. White. The $25 million is for the Convention Center, to
expand an existing entrance to the Convention Center at the
proposed location of the Convention Center.
Mr. Wolf. It was put in D.C. as an economic development
item?
Mr. White. My understanding is the category was economic
development and management reforms in the district.
Mr. Wolf. Is it difficult to get--I have honestly never
taken the subway to the Convention Center. Is it difficult to
get to the Convention Center now?
Mr. White. The existing Convention Center? No. There are a
couple of stations, one right across the street and another one
a couple of blocks away.
Mr. Wolf. Is this needed, in your opinion?
Mr. White. I would rather not get into the merits of the
Convention Center. I believe the case being made that
convention events have outgrown the existing Convention Center.
At the existing Convention Center there is no opportunity to
expand. So they are now looking for a location for a new
Convention Center.
Mr. Wolf. And this would serve the new Convention Center
that is not built yet?
Mr. White. That is correct. That is what is being proposed.
Mr. Wolf. Would they tear down the current Convention
Center?
Mr. White. I believe they are intending----
Mr. Wolf. I can remember when it opened.
Mr. White. There are already discussions under way as to
what might be the future use of that facility. Clearly there is
an intended reuse of it.
Mr. Wolf. Is that authorized? Is there a piece of
authorization legislation for this $25 million job?
Mr. Linton. I am not aware of the details of that, Mr.
Chairman, to say the least.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know, Mr. White?
Mr. White. I don't believe that the District's
appropriation comes with an authorization. I believe it is just
through the direct appropriation process. Is that correct,
Peter?
Mr. Benjamin. There is no authorization.
Mr. Wolf. WMATA will not be required to put up any money
if Mr. Taylor agrees to fund it.
Mr. White. Correct.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. A recent budget plan that you presented to the
Board faces an $80 million shortfall in its maintenance
funding. To make up this shortfall, you proposed to delay
several projects and purchases that had been planned for next
year. Let's be honest. If you had your druthers, wouldn't WMATA
prefer to have any appropriations in excess of the final
installment of $50,300,000 available for these deferred
projects or for the Branch Avenue yard and new rail car
purchases to respond to the increase in ridership rather than
direct access to the new convention center?
[The information follows:]
Our priorities are to finish construction of the 103-mile
system, including the Branch Avenue yard and new rail car
purchases, and to perform adequate rehabilitation and
replacement in order to protect the public investment in the
Metro system. We are also pleased to work with the District of
Columbia and the Washington Convention Center Authority to
expand the existing Metrorail entrance to accommodate the
additional ridership that is expected.
Mr. Wolf. I am lead to believe that the $25 million would
provide a direct access from WMATA's rail system into the new
DC convention center. Why is this direct access necessary at
all, since a station already exists only a half block away? (A
similar configuration currently exists for the MCI Center which
requires people to walk a half block and it has not deterred
Metro ridership to the MCI Center at all. Almost half of all
MCI attendees arrive by rail.)
[The information follows:]
Because the FTA is not involved in this project I can only
provide you with the information we have been given by WMATA.
WMATA management officials have told us that the $25 million
will not provide a direct access into the proposed DC
convention center from the existing Mr. Vernon Sq--UDC Station.
We are also informed that the augmented station entrance will
be similar to the access provided from Metro to the MCI arena
in that the escalators will be within the footprint of the
convention center but as far as 25 feet from the entrance to
the center.
Mr. Wolf. a recent budget plan presented by WMATA general
Manager Dick White indicates that WMATA faces an $80 million
shortfall in its maintenance funding. To make up the shortfall,
Dick White proposed to delay several projects and purchases
that have been planned for next year. Wouldn't you agree, Mr.
Administrator, that WMATA could use additional appropriations
for these deferred projects rather than a new, unjustified
station access to the DC convention center?
[The information follows:]
The augmented station access to accommodate the crowds
expected at the convention center is an appropriate
consideration in planning such an activity center. In my
opinion, providing ease of access to and from traffic
generators such as sports arenas, convention centers, and
employment centers are an important function of an urban mass
transit system. Budgeting limited resources across a variety of
conflicting needs requires making difficult decisions in
establishing funding priorities.
Mr. Wolf. If the District determined that such a stop was
warranted, why should all American taxpayers pay for it?
[The information follows:]
The convention center is to be built at an existing
Metrorail station. The work planned will simply provide for
augmented access to handle increased station usage.
Mr. Wolf. Did FTA include this $25 million in its request
to the Office of the Secretary? to the OMB?
[The information follows:]
The FTA did not include this $25 million in its request to
either the Office of the Secretary or the OMB.

dulles corridor

Mr. Wolf. The Dulles Corridor, I appreciate your sending
Mr. Thomas, I don't see him--I guess he has gone back--to our
meeting, Mr. Linton.
Should the task force which is working on this recommend
any new major infrastructure in the Dulles Corridor, such as
fixed guideway or new buses, would the planning process have to
be reopened, or could it all be done within the current
planning process that has been taking place out there?
Mr. Linton. There is a possibility that you might need to
do an amendment to the major investment study, but I think we
are looking to the locals to work with that process to
determine if one is needed. A lot is going to depend on how
this project gets scoped out in its design, which I know is
being planned. There has been some resolution into how much
they would like to spend. There is a concept there now that is
more finite. As WMATA looks more closely at the design, what
changes may be necessary in the MIS, it is possible that it may
be amended. But I think it would be something abbreviated, not
a major effort.
Mr. Wolf. Very minor. Mr. Thomas told me he thought the
proposal made sense. Do you have any feelings about it?
Mr. Linton. I think it makes sense, too.
Mr. Wolf. You also had a staff person sitting in on all
the meetings.
Mr. Linton. Yes, we had Sharon Pugh from our planning
office attend the meetings.
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate your cooperation too, I do.
Mr. Linton. It is a great project. It is something you and
I have had some discussions about in terms of the concept, and
I think we need a good model to show the rest of the country.
The Dulles Corridor provides a real opportunity for that to
happen. I am looking forward to it.

dulles corridor--express bus

Mr. Wolf. Good. I appreciate that. I do, too. There are
people who want rail out there tomorrow, and obviously we all
know if I had my choice, I would love to see rail go out there
now. But we cannot afford it. And here is something I think is
creative, and Metro has some ideas about it too and could bid
on it, but some creative opportunities at one-tenth the cost or
less, that can deliver the same capacity.
I think to do it here in the Washington region where people
could see it, plus both the National and Dulles Airports used
to be Federal airports, owned and operated by the FAA; and,
too, would be to serve that airport and also serve the new
Aerospace Museum which will be out there. So I appreciate that.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate your personal
attention and that of your staff to the use of express buses in
the Dulles Corridor. Should the Task Force recommend any new
major infrastructure in the Dulles Corridor, such as new fixed
guideways or new bus lanes that would trigger a major increase
in capacity, would the planning process be reopened?
[The information follows:]
The essence of the major investment study (MIS) process is
to: (a) determine the nature of transportation problems in a
given corridor before committing to any particular solution;
(b) make major investment decisions in an open, collaborative
process; and (c) consider a complete array of multimodal
alternatives and evaluation criteria in support of these local
decisions. These alternatives must be introduced at the very
beginning of the MIS process, although they may be modified and
re-evaluated at various points throughout the study. All
alternatives under consideration must be adequately and
consistently evaluated in terms of meeting the mobility needs
of the corridor, determining relative costs and benefits, and
achieving desirable environmental, socioeconomic, and land use
of objectives.
It may be desirable for local officials to reopen an MIS in
situations where there is a significant increase in capacity
beyond what was studied, or where the local consensus is to
advance a transportation option which was not previously
evaluated, nor compared to other alternatives, within the
original study. Reopening an MIS does not necessarily require a
great deal of time or resources, but such further analysis must
ensure, at a minimum, that adequate justification exists to
advance the option over other alternatives, and that the public
is provided with the opportunity to participate in the
discussion of transportation improvements in the corridor.
FTA appreciates the opportunity to work with the Dulles
Corridor Transit Task Force to determine the degree to which
enhanced bus elements currently under consideration were
analyzed in prior planning studies, and the applicability of
their results to current conditions, needs, and preferences in
the corridor.
Mr. Wolf. The 1990 MIS advocated substantial park-and-ride
and express bus service in the Dulles Corridor. Is it accurate
that to the extent to which plans involving park-and-ride lots
and express bus service are incremental and support the 1990
study, a new major investment study would not be necessary?
[The information follows:]
The need for a new MIS is ultimately a decision made
collaboratively by local governments and agencies with an
interest in the study. In the case of the Dulles Corridor, one
relevant factor affecting this decision is the extent to which
bus and park-and-ride improvements currently being considered
in the corridor vary from those proposed as a result of the
1990 Fairfax County Transit Alternative Study. We intend to
work with stakeholders in the Dulles Corridor to better
understand the nature of and relationship between the 1990
study and the MIS completed for the corridor in 1997.
Specifically, we need to cooperatively determine: (a) the
extent to which the 1990 study examined a broad range of
transportation alternatives, as consistent with the intent of
the MIS; (b) the degree to which conditions and needs in the
corridor in 1990 are similar to those found in 1998 and
forecasted for year 2020; (c) the extent to which the 1990
study results were incorporated into the MIS alternatives; and
(d) the level of local stakeholder support for implementing
express bus service.

bus safety

Mr. Wolf. Just a couple of last questions. Bus safety. You
said bus safety was up by, I forget the figure you said, but
tell us about that.
Mr. Linton. Vehicle accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles
have reduced from 2.33 to 0.94 from 1990 to 1995.
Mr. Wolf. How about in terms of injuries?
Mr. Linton. Injuries as well.
Mr. Wolf. Are the injuries down also?
Mr. Linton. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. Did you want to give us for the record what the
injuries are, say, for the last couple of years? You can do it
for the record.
Mr. Linton. We can submit it for the record.
[The information follows:]

Our statistics show that overall injuries for both bus and
rail, has gone down from 1994 to 1995. However, the number of
injuries has fluctuated up and down since 1990. We expect the
trend to continue as transit operations employ safer operating
procedures and the number of passenger miles nationwide
increase. The following chart shows that history of injuries,
as measures per 100 million passenger miles, since 1990.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injuries
per 100m Percent
Year Injuries passenger change
miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................. 54,556 154 ...........
1991............................. 52,125 151 -2
1992............................. 55,089 162 7
1993............................. 52,668 157 -3
1994............................. 58,193 167 6
1995............................. 57,196 161 -3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

safety oversight

Mr. Wolf. The Safety Board learned during an investigation
that many transit bus operations are exempt from significant
Federal oversight and that States provide little, if any,
safety oversight of bus system. Why are so many transit bus
systems exempt from Federal oversight? You mentioned Georgia
earlier. How many are exempt?
Mr. Linton. Well, actually, I think there are two issues
here. One is that we do have a State safety oversight program.
We received the authority to initiate the program from Congress
in ISTEA. But that applied only to rail systems. It does not
apply to buses.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Linton. As I mentioned in my statement there are two
States that were not in compliance.
Mr. Wolf. Georgia and Michigan.
Mr. Linton. That is correct. The NTSB issue is talking
about buses specifically. We do not have national safety
oversight with respect to bus operations. At this time the
safety of transit bus operations remains the responsibility of
the state and local governments.
Mr. Wolf. How do they do?
Mr. Linton. It varies from State to State. I am only
becoming aware of this issue myself. I came from Pennsylvania,
as you know, and we have vehicle inspections that the State
Police perform. I was under the impression that was the norm in
each state.
Mr. Wolf. So when we were talking about the fatalities
earlier today, we were just talking about fatalities in rail,
or rail and bus?
Mr. Linton. We were talking about the fatalities in total
for both. The incidents are going down.
Mr. Wolf. For both?
Mr. Linton. For both rail and bus the incidents are going
down. The NTSB is suggesting that we even have a more rapid
reduction in incidents if there were some uniform oversight
across the country on the bus side. That program doesn't exist
now.
Mr. Wolf. Are there any proposed model programs that you
have put out for States to adopt that the States could do it
without the Federal Government being involved, or are you in
touch with all the DOT's at the State level with
recommendations?
Mr. Linton. Our safety office has been gathering
information from various states concerning their safety
programs. One of the States that we seem to be very impressed
with their oversight is California. My Safety Office director
has indicated that California has a fairly good system. She
indicated to me that their system might be something we might
want to replicate.
Mr. Wolf. Have you ever put out model law?
Mr. Linton. No, we haven't.
Mr. Wolf. Do many States not have any?
Mr. Linton. This is something I think we are just starting
to look at. The NTSB focused at the lack of uniformity across
the country. Each State has their own direction, their own laws
on how they handle the problems. I believe that NTSB is
suggesting that there should be some consistency nationwide.
Mr. Wolf. Perhaps it would be, without getting into
greater regulation, put together a model code or model law,
working through the State legislature that the States could
adopt.
Mr. Linton. That is an excellent suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I will submit these other questions for the
record.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Wolf. It appears that uniform practices for the
systematic safety oversight in areas such as driver
qualification and training, drivers hours of service, bus
maintenance, and maintenance training do not exist in this
segment of the transportation industry. What must be done to
ensure that federal or state governments provide safety
oversight of transit bus systems beyond that of very infrequent
roadside inspections?
[The information follows:]
The Federal Transit Administration has very limited
authority over bus safety. Prior to the advert of public
ownership of virtually all transit systems in the nation,
private transit operators were generally regulated by state
public service commissions, and local city councils, regarding
franchises, fares, quality of service and safety. However, with
public ownership, it was presumed that the public interest was
represented by transit authority boards of directors consisting
of appointed local citizens and elected officials. A few states
have maintained jurisdiction over public transit safety beyond
vehicle inspections and police enforcement of traffic
regulations.
In fact, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 exempted
state and municipal employees, and agencies thereof, from
intrastate motor carrier regulations except for the commercial
drivers license requirement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has taken a
proactive role in safety for all modes of transit. Through
training programs at the Transportation Safety Institute, for
example, some 20 courses are offered to transit industry
personnel in the areas of bus and rail safety, transit
security, system safety, industrial safety and managing
emergencies and, shortly to be introduced, fatigue awareness
training. For the ``Train-the Trainer'' course, since 1976,
some 1,936 instructors have been trained and certified who in
turn have trained 23,505 bus operators. FTA has encouraged the
adoption of system safety programs by transit agencies, and has
monitored safety implementation through its Triennial Review
process and Safety Management Information Statistics program,
but is not of course empowered to require such programs.
The Federal Transit Administration believes that, although
safety can always be improved, the transit bus safety record is
excellent and should continue to be regulated by the states or
local transit authorities.
Mr. Wolf. What involvement does the FTA have with the
Safety Board's special investigation of transit bus systems?
[The information follows:]
The FTA's Office of Safety and Security was represented by
a witness who testified before the National Transportation
Safety Board's (NTSB) March 3 and 4, 1998, Board of Inquiry in
St. Louis. The FTA witness provided extensive testimony
concerning the history and background of the Federal mass
transit program, purpose and function of the Office of Safety
and Security, safety oversight authorities granted to the FTA,
safety data collection and analysis, and related oversight of
rapid transit systems.
The FTA has and will cooperate fully with the NTSB in their
investigation of bus transit safety. FTA has been responsive to
the Board's accident investigation findings and all previous
recommendations have been classified by the Board's as
``Closed-Acceptable''. Currently the FTA has underway four
activities costing a total $425,000 which address specific
outstanding recommendations.

joint program for advanced vehicles

The department's budget includes a request for $10 million
for a new joint program between DOT and the Energy Department
to focus on the development, demonstration and deployment of
advanced vehicle technology. The congressional justification
states that this program builds on the electric hybrid
technology supported by FTA.
That being the case, why is the FTA requesting an
additional $5.5 million for activities like the Georgetown fuel
bus and other technologies that can be supported within the $10
million requested by Federal Highway for the joint program?
Mr. Linton. The joint program office was designed most
recently to coordinate the research efforts of all the DOT
modes in working with the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy.
We have made our specific request for the hybrid electric
vehicle with Georgetown as part of our continuation to close
out that project.
Mr. Wolf. When does that end?
Mr. Linton. I think we have 1 or 2 more years on that
installment in our cooperative agreement with Georgetown.
Mr. Wolf. Will there be any duplication between you and
Energy and others?
Mr. Linton. Actually, the objective of the coordination
office is to eliminate duplication and to make sure that we
have cross-pollination, in that we learn from the other modes.
We are not doing the same research. However, we can learn from
the research we would do for heavy buses and trucks, and we
would be able to exchange that research information and not
have it done independently within each of the various modes.
That is the objective of the joint program office.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We appreciate all of you taking the time.
Thank you Mr. Linton and Mr. White. The hearing is adjourned.

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Adams, Charlotte................................................. 1121
Benjamin, Peter.................................................. 1449
Elkins, J. C..................................................... 1449
Fernandez, Nuria................................................. 1121
Jeff, G. J....................................................... 1
Kane, A. R....................................................... 1
Linton, G. J.................................................1121, 1449
Martinez, Ricardo................................................ 1
Recht, Philip.................................................... 1
Reilly, Patrick.................................................. 1121
Thomas, Edward................................................... 1121
Walker, Hiram.................................................... 1121
White, Richard................................................... 1449
Winter, Michael.................................................. 1121
Wykle, K. R...................................................... 1

I N D E X

----------

Federal Highway Administration

Page
Accident Fatality Rates.......................................... 628
Accidents........................................................ 1082
ADHA-Allocations...............................................96, 1013
ADHS-Status of Funds............................................. 96
ADHS-Unobligated Balance......................................... 486
ADHS-Unobligated Funds........................................... 97
Administrative Expenses-Interim Allocation....................... 677
Advanced Bus Technologies........................................ 998
Advanced Vehicles, Components, and Infrastructure................ 991
Air Quality Models............................................... 945
Alameda Corridor................................................. 517
Analysis of Cargo Tanks Accident Data............................ 565
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS)...94, 458, 493, 541, 1011
ADHS-Allocations...........................................96, 1013
ADHS-Status of Funds......................................... 96
ADHS-Unobligated Balance..................................... 486
ADHS-Unobligated Funds....................................... 97
Appropriated Demonstration Projects.............................. 578
Approval of Massachusetts STIP................................... 440
Big Proejct Oversight............................................ 80
Biographies:
Anthony R. Kane.............................................. 23
Gloria J. Jeff............................................... 21
Kenneth R. Wykle............................................. 19
Border Program................................................... 496
Brake Related Research Program................................... 982
Budget Highlights................................................ 2
Cargo Tank Trucks-Rollover Protection Devices.................... 564
Carryover and Contract Funds..................................... 681
Central Artery/Tunnel (CAT):
CAT-Additional Funding Needs................................. 77
CAT-Contractor Staff Support................................77, 437
CAT-Cost Analysis............................................ 571
CAT-Cost Containment......................................... 71
CAT-Estimate................................................. 71
CAT-Federal/State Participation.............................. 75
CAT-Finance Plan............................................75, 438
CAT-Funding.................................................. 73
CAT-Interstate Construction Funds............................ 570
CAT-Maintenance.............................................. 76
CAT-Other Costs.............................................. 440
CAT-Oversight Staff Years.................................... 573
CAT-Project Impact on Statwide Maintenance................... 434
CAT-Project Future Funding Needs............................. 436
CAT-Public Awareness Costs..................................80, 439
Challenge Program................................................ 1048
Clean Air Act Studies and Research............................... 639
Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) Program:
CVO Allocations.............................................. 843
CVO Border Projects.......................................... 807
CVO Outreach Expenditures.................................... 831
CVO Program.................................................. 804
CVO Smart Card Study......................................... 811
Common Sense Management...........................................3, 14
Common Truck Problems............................................ 1034
Compliance Reviews............................................... 1066
Conclusion........................................................4, 17
Conditions and Performance Report................................ 143
Congestion Pricing Projects...................................... 59
Congrstion Pricing-High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes............ 58
Congressional Review Act......................................... 469
Construction Industry Unemployment Rates......................... 631
Cost Sharing Arrangements........................................ 861
Cost Trends and Capacity in the Construction Industry............ 631
Covert Operations................................................ 1035
Crash Causation Research......................................... 967
CVO Allocations.................................................. 843
CVO Border Projects.............................................. 807
CVO Outreach Expenditures........................................ 831
CVO Program...................................................... 804
CVO Smart Card Study............................................. 811
CVSIN Private Sector Involvement................................. 838
Deficient Bridges................................................ 626
Demonstrated Research Projects................................... 651
Department of Energy Activities.................................. 992
Deployment of Fatigue-Related Technologies....................... 976
Deployment of Safety Systems..................................... 837
Differential Global Positioning System.........................738, 859
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program........................ 655
Discretionary Bridge Program..................................... 612
Discretionary Funds............................................494, 607
Discretionary Grant Programs..................................... 567
Discretionary Program Funding.................................... 569
Discretionary Project Selection Process.......................... 62
Discretionary Project Selection Process--General Accounting
Office Report.................................................. 63
Discretionary Project Selection Process--Staff Recommendations... 63
DOT Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Action Plan...................... 894
Driver Training Standards........................................ 1119
Effects of Tax Expenditures in Achieving Performance Goals....... 1009
Emergency Relief Program........................................90, 450
Environmental Research........................................... 937
Fatal Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes........................... 1048
Fatigue.......................................................... 1014
Fatigue Measurement Technology................................... 813
Fatigue Related Research Funding................................. 989
Federal Credit Enhancement Program............................... 91
Federal-aid Estimated Fiscal Year 1999 Obligation Limitation..... 615
Federal-aid Highway Construction Price Trends.................... 629
Federal-aid Highway Obligations.................................. 602
Federal-aid Limitation Exemptions................................ 617
Federal-aid Obligations by Month................................. 601
FHWA Administrative Expenses..................................... 673
FHWA Discretionary Highway Program Project Selection Process..... 431
FHWA Opening Remarks............................................. 1
FHWA Organization Restructuring.................................. 84
FHWA Organization Restructuring Funding.......................... 87
FHWA Organization Restructuring Status........................... 84
FHWA Reorganization.............................................. 462
Field Operations Staff Breakdown...............................657, 658
Field Structure Reorganization................................... 443
Fitness Centers.................................................. 1117
Foreign Travel Expenditures...................................... 686
FTE Allocations.................................................. 671
FTE Reductions................................................... 670
Full-Time Equivalent Employment--On Board Levels................. 656
Funding Flexibility.............................................. 506
Funding for On-Board Diagnostic Systems.......................... 841
FY 1998 Appropriations Act Directives............................ 673
Garrett Morgan Scholarships...................................... 667
General Administration and Oversight............................. 668
Geographical Information Systems................................. 925
Global Warming................................................... 648
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 449
Government Review and Oversight.................................. 1003
Hazardous Materials Enforcement Research and Innovative
Enforcement Strategies......................................... 975
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes............................... 60
High-Risk Bus and Truck Inspections.............................. 816
Highway Investment Level......................................... 90
Highway Investments.............................................. 452
Highway Needs Report............................................. 461
Highway Safety Outreach Program.................................. 914
Highway Trust Fund Analysis...................................... 621
Highway Trust Fund Receipts...................................... 538
Highway Trust Fund Spending Versus Receipts--Highway Account..... 618
Highway/Rail Grade Crossings..................................... 735
Hours of Service Rulemaking...................................... 566
Impact of Delay on Agency Operations............................. 51
Impact of Delay of August Redistribution......................... 53
Impact of Delayed ISTEA Reauthorization........................498, 502
Impacts of Reauthorization Delay................................. 50
Impacts of Reauthorization Delay on Safety Program............... 50
Incident Management Activities................................... 719
Information Systems for CVO Program.............................. 824
In-House Research Projects....................................... 634
Inspector General's Report on the Motor Carrier Safety Program... 1077
Integrating GPS with Traffic Operations Centers.................. 58
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS):
ITS Advances................................................. 53
ITS Cost Benefit Assessment.................................. 773
ITS Deployment............................................... 56
ITS Earmarks...........................................83, 441, 698
ITS Energy Benefits.......................................... 710
ITS Environmental Benefits................................... 708
ITS Expenditures............................................. 768
ITS Funding Analysis......................................... 739
ITS Funding for ITS Operational Tests........................ 82
ITS Funds Used for Other Purposes............................ 743
ITS Improvements............................................. 741
ITS Incident Response Technology............................. 54
ITS Management and Oversight................................. 753
ITS Model Deployment......................................... 58
ITS Model Deployment Allocations............................. 716
ITS Model Deployment Tests................................... 750
ITS National ITS Program..................................... 699
ITS National Systems Architecture..........................764, 766
ITS New York/New Jersey Model Deployment Project............. 751
ITS Operational Tests........................................ 744
ITS Police Notification of Impaired Drivers.................. 772
ITS Policy Assessment Activities............................. 801
ITS Priority Corridors Program............................... 710
ITS Professional ITS Capacity Building....................... 701
ITS Program Assessment....................................... 712
ITS Program Funding.......................................... 706
ITS Project Earmarks......................................... 84
ITS Projects................................................. 698
ITS Projects--Delayed........................................ 782
ITS Projects--Unobligated Funds.............................. 793
ITS Rural ITS Initiative..................................... 56
ITS Rural ITS Program........................................ 704
ITS Spending Plan............................................ 720
ITS Standards................................................ 755
ITS Standards Funding Profile................................ 763
ITS Standards Rulemaking..................................... 765
ITS Standards--Single Compatible Transponder................. 760
ITS Strategy................................................. 83
ITS Technical Assistance..................................... 798
ITS Transit Deployment....................................... 800
ITS User Acceptance Research................................. 769
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) Program..................... 844
Intermodal Freight............................................... 714
International Allocations........................................ 958
International Marketing Activities............................... 961
International Outreach Program--Travel........................... 662
International Scanning Trips..................................... 956
Interstate I-69.................................................. 464
Interstate Pavement Conditions by Functions...................... 624
Interstate Pavement Conditions by State.......................... 622
Iowa Simulator Project........................................... 979
ISTEA and Texas.................................................. 466
ISTEA Demonstration Projects..................................... 577
ISTEA Funding Obligated for Transit Projects..................... 578
ITS Cost Benefit Assessment...................................... 773
ITS Deployment................................................... 56
ITS Earmarks...............................................83, 441, 698
ITS Energy Benefits.............................................. 710
ITS Environmental Benefits....................................... 708
ITS Expenditures................................................. 768
ITS Funding Analysis............................................. 739
ITS Funding for ITS Operational Tests............................ 82
ITS Funds Used for Other Purposes................................ 743
ITS Improvements................................................. 741
ITS Incident Response Technology................................. 54
ITS Management and Oversight..................................... 753
ITS Model Deployment............................................. 58
ITS Model Deployment Allocations................................. 716
ITS Model Deployment Tests....................................... 750
ITS National ITS Program......................................... 699
ITS National Systems Architecture..............................764, 766
ITS New York/New Jersey Model Deployment Project................. 751
ITS Operational Tests............................................ 744
ITS Police Notification of Impaired Drivers...................... 772
ITS Policy Assessment Activities................................. 801
ITS Priority Corridors Program................................... 710
ITS Professional ITS Capacity Building........................... 701
ITS Program Assessment........................................... 712
ITS Program Funding.............................................. 706
ITS Project Earmarks............................................. 84
ITS Projects..................................................... 698
ITS Projects--Delayed............................................ 782
ITS Projects--Unobligated Funds.................................. 793
ITS Rural ITS Initiative......................................... 56
ITS Rural ITS Program............................................ 704
ITS Spending Plan................................................ 720
ITS Standards.................................................... 755
ITS Standards Funding Profile.................................... 763
ITS Standards Rulemaking......................................... 765
ITS Standards--Single Compatible Transponder..................... 760
ITS Strategy..................................................... 83
ITS Technical Assistance......................................... 798
ITS Transit Deployment........................................... 800
ITS User Acceptance Research..................................... 769
IVI and Transit Maintenance Automation........................... 847
IVI Crash Avoidance Technologies................................. 851
IVI Funding...................................................... 849
IVI Obligations.................................................. 854
IVI Role of Commercial Vehicles.................................. 840
IVI System Architecture.......................................... 856
Lack of Transportation Data...................................... 468
Local Technical Assistance Program Improvements.................. 876
Mailbox Project.................................................. 819
Major Safety Priorities.......................................... 919
Management and Coordination (M&C) Expenses....................... 669
Massachusetts' Statewide Program................................. 73
Massachusetts' Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) Approval................................................ 82
Medical Requirements for Drivers................................. 1116
Mega-Project Oversight....................................141, 459, 534
Mega-Project Oversight Projects.................................. 141
Minimum Allocation, Donor State Bonus, Hold Harmless, and
Emergency Relief Data.......................................... 609
Miscellaneous Programs........................................... 606
Motor Carrier Administrative Funding Issues...................... 1096
Motor Carrier Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration Project.
488, 495
Motor Carrier Regulatory Relief Project.......................... 102
Motor Carrier Research--Regulatory Reform........................ 962
Motor Carrier Safety Medical Requirements........................ 963
Motor Carrier Safety Program Funding Issues...................... 1089
Motor Carrier Safety Rulemaking.................................. 962
Motor Carrier Safety Wellness Study.............................. 965
NAFTA............................................................ 1040
NAFTA-Border Crossing Issues..................................... 98
National Advanced Driver Simulator............................... 1087
National Center for Physical Acoustics........................... 860
National Recreational Trails Funding Allocations................. 612
National Technology Deployment Initiatives....................... 528
National Technology Deployment Program.........................873, 977
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey........................ 1002
Office of Motor Carriers (OMC):
OMC Staffing.............................................1039, 1056
OMC ADP Funding Request...................................... 1107
OMC Foreign Travel........................................... 1106
OMC Meetings................................................. 1106
Operation Respond Project........................................ 986
Out-of-Service Activities........................................ 1026
Overview......................................................... 2, 5
Pan American Highway Institute................................... 692
Pavement Research and Development................................ 862
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.................................... 893
Performance Goals Linked to Budget Activities.................... 1006
Performance Plan................................................. 1008
Performance-based State Enforcement Program...................... 1085
Planning Research Challenges..................................... 931
Policy Research Contractor Support Services...................... 949
Policy Research Expenditures..................................... 955
Policy Research Initiative....................................... 954
Priority Technology Program...................................... 882
PRISM............................................................ 1110
Program Performance Measures..................................... 88
Program Performance Measures Assessment of Grants................ 89
Program Quality Coordination Reports............................. 687
Program Reauthorization.......................................... 16
Proposed FTE Reduction........................................... 691
Proposed Investments and Estimates of Need....................... 453
Read Your Road Partnership Program............................... 887
Reauthorization.................................................. 3
Red Light Running Program........................................ 912
Redistribution of Unobligated Federal-aid Authority.............. 604
Research and Development Contractors............................. 633
Research and Technology Accomplishments.......................... 70
Research and Technology Program.................................. 69
Research and Technology Program Interim Funding.................. 868
Research and Technology Program.................................. 70
Research Initiatives............................................. 1059
Research UV Head Lighting........................................ 891
Research, Development and Technology Transfer Allocation......... 859
Resource Centers Locations....................................... 447
Restructuring:
FHWA Organization Restructuring.............................. 84
FHWA Organization Restructuring Funding...................... 87
FHWA Organization Restructuring Status....................... 84
FHWA Reorganization.......................................... 462
Right Turn on Red................................................ 105
Right Turn on Red Analysis....................................... 107
Right Turn on Red Laws........................................... 102
RT-TRACS Project................................................. 718
Safety........................................................... 10
Safety as a Priority............................................. 2
Safety Campaigns................................................. 921
Safety Management Challenges..................................... 907
Safety Outreach Project.......................................... 886
Safety Performance Measures...................................... 908
Safety Research and Development Program.......................... 884
Safety Research Initiatives...................................... 881
Salt Lake City Interstate I-15 Reconstruction Project............ 525
Shift of Programs from the General Fund to the Trust Fund........ 537
Speed Limit Increase and Occupant Fatalities..................... 458
Speed Management Challenges...................................... 904
SP & R and National Cooperative Highway Research Program......... 638
State Allocations................................................ 562
State Apportionment of Highway Bridge Funds...................... 608
State Infrastructure Banks.................................93, 456, 508
State Obligation Rates........................................... 499
Statement of Kenneth R. Wykle.................................... 5
Common Sense Management...................................... 3, 14
Conclusion................................................... 17
Overview..................................................... 2, 5
Program Reauthorization...................................... 16
Safety....................................................... 10
Strategic Infrastructure Investment.......................... 9
Technology Development....................................... 12
Status of Authorized Demonstration Projects...................... 576
Strategic Infrastructure Investment.............................. 9
Strategic Plan & Performance Measures............................ 1004
Structures Research Program...................................... 865
Sustainable Communities.......................................... 884
Sustainable Transportation Allocation............................ 935
Sustainable Transportation Concept............................... 933
Sustainable Transportation Initiative............................ 922
Technology Deployment............................................ 3
Technology Development........................................... 14
Training Advisory Committee...................................... 694
TRANSIMS......................................................... 923
TRANSIMS Allocations............................................. 926
TRANSIMS Cost Containment........................................ 929
Transportation Computer Center Services.......................... 1010
Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program......... 510
Transportation Investment Credit Enhancement Program............. 454
Truck and Bus Accidents.......................................... 1038
Truck Crash Analysis Data System................................. 975
Truck Size and Weight Study...................................... 950
Violation of Out-of-service Orders............................... 821
Woodrow Wilson Bridge............................................ 92
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Reconstruction............................. 93
Work Zone Safety Challenges...................................... 915
Work Zone Safety Allocations..................................... 889
Youth Alcohol Involvement........................................ 143

Federal Transit Administration

Access to Jobs...............................................1161, 1219
DOL Coordination............................................. 1166
Mobility and Accessibility For All Americans................. 1124
Reverse Commute.............................................. 1167
Riders and Cost.............................................. 1165
Access to Jobs Riders and Cost................................... 1165
Accident Data.................................................... 1404
Administrative Expenses......................................1147, 1243
Electronic Commerce Program.................................. 1255
Electronic Grant Making Schedule............................. 1250
FTA Requests to OST and OMB.................................. 1249
FTA Staffing................................................. 1419
FY 1998 Current Vacanciess................................... 1445
Metropolitan Offices......................................... 1248
Staffing..................................................... 1245
Wide Area Network............................................ 1253
Year 2000 Computer Reprogramming............................. 1247
Advanced Technology Transit Bus........................1214, 1218, 1321
Houston--ATTB................................................ 1186
Average Age of Bus Fleet......................................... 1410
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART):...................................
Bay Area Rapid Transit District.............................. 1128
Extension to the Airport.................................1198, 1226
How Will Bart Fund Increased Loss?........................... 1201
Turnkey Demonstration........................................ 1207
BART Extension to the Airport................................1198, 1226
BART--Turnkey Demonstration...................................... 1207
Bay Area Rapid Transit District.................................. 1128
Biographies:
Gordon J. Linton............................................. 1149
Nuria I. Fernandez........................................... 1150
Bus:
Average Age of Bus Fleet..................................... 1410
Bus and Bus Related Status................................... 1336
Bus Capital and Formula Funds................................ 1412
New Buss Model Testing in Altoona............................ 1310
Rapid Transit................................................ 1182
Technology and Infrastructure................................ 1264
Unobligated Bus Funds........................................ 1328
Bus and Related Status........................................... 1336
Bus Capital and Formula Funds.................................... 1412
Bus Rapid Transit................................................ 1182
Bus Rapid Transit for Los Angeles................................ 1214
Bus Technology and Infrastructure................................ 1264
Capital Funding Distribution..................................... 1410
Capital Obligations for Certain Cities........................... 1417
Closing Remarks..............................................1128, 1148
Communications-Based Train Control............................... 1160
Congressional Review Act......................................... 1187
Contingent Commitment............................................ 1197
Delay in Reauthorization of ISTEA................................ 1153
Discretionary Grants/Major Capital Investments................... 1144
DOL Coordination................................................. 1166
Economic Growth and Trade........................................ 1125
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program.............................. 1237
Electronic Commerce Program...................................... 1255
Electronic Grant Making Schedule................................. 1250
Farebox Recovery................................................. 1402
Five-Year Research and Technology Plan.......................1126, 1258
Fleet Operations Research........................................ 1261
Flexibility:
Interdepartmental Flexibility................................ 1186
Local Flexibility............................................ 1185
Formula Equity................................................... 1155
Formula Programs................................................. 1144
FTA Capital New Starts--Disposition of Earmarks.................. 1358
FTA Grant Management Activities.................................. 1207
FTA Requests to OST and OMB...................................... 1249
FTA Staffing..................................................... 1419
Fuel Cell:
Georgetown Fuel Cell Bus Program............................. 1268
Transit Bus Program.......................................... 1264
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.................................... 1264
Full Funding Grant Agreements.................................... 1189
FY 1998 Current Vacancies........................................ 1445
FY 1999 Budget Request, The...................................... 1144
Garrett A. Morgan................................................ 1284
General Accounting Office Review Helpful......................... 1212
Georgetown Fuel Cell Bus Program................................. 1268
Grant Allocations for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999................. 1386
Grants Management:
FTA's Grant Management Activities............................ 1207
Oversight.................................................... 1229
Project Management and Financial Management Oversight........ 1213
Grants Management Oversight...................................... 1229
Hickey--San Bruno Station Bids................................... 1199
Houston--ATTB.................................................... 1186
Houston Metro DBE................................................ 1183
How Will Bart Fund Increased Loss?............................... 1201
Human and Natural Environment.................................... 1126
Human Resources Activities....................................... 1283
Impact on Non-Defense Programs................................... 1159
Information Management and Technology............................ 1279
Innovative Financing Programs.................................... 1236
Interdepartmental Flexibility.................................... 1186
Joint Partnership Program........................................ 1260
Labor Compensation and Operating Assistance...................... 1408
Local Flexibility................................................ 1185
Local Share...................................................... 1181
Los Angeles:
Bus Rapid Transit for Los Angeles............................ 1214
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority..... 1127
Mid-City and Eastside........................................ 1195
MOS-3 Budget Request......................................... 1198
MTA's Commitment to Alameda Corridor......................... 1226
Red Line Cost Overruns....................................... 1194
Red Line Project............................................. 1193
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority......... 1127
Los Angeles MTA's Commitment to Alameda Corridor................. 1226
Los Angeles Red Line Cost Overruns............................... 1194
Los Angeles Red Line Project..................................... 1193
Major Capital Investments........................................ 1178
Mass Transit Account............................................. 1404
Measuring Performance........................................1122, 1131
Metropolitan Offices............................................. 1248
Metropolitan Rural/Policy Development............................ 1282
Mid-America Airport.............................................. 1192
Mid-City and Eastside............................................ 1195
Military Technology Adaptable to Transit......................... 1325
Mobility and Accessibility For All Americans..................... 1124
MOS-3 Budget Request............................................. 1198
National Parks:
National Park Service........................................ 1276
National Parks............................................... 1310
National Park Service............................................ 1276
National Parks................................................... 1310
National Program Activities...................................... 1288
National Transportation Safety Board Concerns.................... 1239
New Bus Model Testing in Altoona................................. 1310
New Starts:
Discretionary Grants/Major Capital Investments............... 1144
FTA Capital New Starts--Disposition of Earmarks.............. 1358
Full Funding Grant Agreements................................ 1189
Funding Requests............................................. 1189
Local Share.................................................. 1182
Major Capital Investments.................................... 1178
Section 3--Project Status.................................... 1350
Shortfalls in Full Funding Grant Agreements.................. 1190
3(J) Report on New Start Projects............................ 1152
New Starts Funding Requests...................................... 1189
New York Regional Office......................................... 1127
New York Regional Oversight...................................... 1208
Opening Statement................................................ 1121
Operating and Capital Funding--30 Largest Operators.............. 1398
Operating and Capital Policy..................................... 1172
Operating Assistance:
Labor Compensation and Operating Assistance.................. 1408
Operating and Capital Funding--30 Largest Operators.......... 1398
Operating and Capital Policy................................. 1172
Operating Assistance......................................... 1169
Operating Assistance............................................. 1169
Oversight:
Grants Management Oversight.................................. 1229
New York Regional Oversight.................................. 1209
Oversight.................................................... 1147
Oversight Obligations........................................ 1232
Project Management and Financial Management.................. 1213
Risk Assessment.............................................. 1236
Use of Oversight Funding.................................1127, 1142
Oversight........................................................ 1147
Oversight Obligations............................................ 1232
Overview.....................................................1121, 1130
Performance Plan:
Measuring Performance....................................1122, 1131
Performance Plan and Measures................................ 1238
Performance Plan and Measures.................................... 1238
Planning and Program Development................................. 1282
Preventive Maintenance........................................... 1168
Preventive Maintenance--Transit Response......................... 1176
Project Management and Financial Management Oversight............ 1213
Quality Organization............................................. 1126
Rail Systems and Infrastructure.................................. 1277
Reverse Commute.................................................. 1167
Ridership and Capacity........................................... 1184
Risk Assessment.................................................. 1236
Rural Program.................................................... 1154
Safety:
Safety and Security.......................................... 1123
Security and Safety Activities............................... 1280
Safety and Security.............................................. 1123
San Juan Tren Urbano, The........................................ 1207
Section 3 Project Status......................................... 1350
Section 5307 Funding for Areas Without Transit Service........... 1385
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Apportionments............... 1369
Security and Safety Activities................................... 1280
Shortfalls in Full Funding Grant Agreements...................... 1190
Specialized Transit Services..................................... 1278
St. Louis--St. Clair Extension...............................1191, 1223
Staffing......................................................... 1245
Statement of Gordon J. Linton.................................... 1130
Strategic Goals..............................................1122, 1131
3(J) Report on New Start Projects................................ 1152
Transit Cooperative Research Program............................. 1285
Transit Funding Needs............................................ 1153
Transit Planning and Research.................................... 1145
Triennial Review Information System.............................. 1230
Unobligated Bus Funds............................................ 1328
Unrestricted Cash................................................ 1257
Urban Work Trips................................................. 1400
Use of Oversight Funding.....................................1127, 1142
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
Bus Safety................................................... 1489
Construction Request......................................... 1449
Dulles Corridor.............................................. 1487
Dulles Corridor--Express Bus................................. 1488
Employer Provided Transit Benefits........................... 1482
Fare Simplification.......................................... 1474
Funding Needs: Rehabilitation and Replacement................ 1474
Joint Program for Advanced Vehicles.......................... 1491
Preventive Maintenance....................................... 1477
Regional Mobility Panel...................................... 1473
Rehabilitation and Replacement............................... 1450
Ridership................................................1450, 1479
Safety Oversight............................................. 1490
Status of the Construction Program........................... 1477
Transit Funding In Other Cities.............................. 1475
Travel Purposes.............................................. 1483
Washington Convention Center................................. 1484
Witness List, WMATA.......................................... 1449
WMATA Serves the Nation's Capital............................ 1482
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority................... 1147
Wide Area Network................................................ 1253
Witness List, FTA................................................ 1121
Witness List, WMATA.............................................. 1449
Year 2000 Computer Reprogramming................................. 1247

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Advanced Air Bag:
Advanced Air Bag............................................. 335
Compromise................................................... 336
Rulemaking................................................... 116
Technology................................................... 115
Aggressive Driving:
Aggressive Driving........................................... 138
Demonstration Project........................................ 374
Air Bag:
Accidents Related to On-Off Switches......................... 113
Companies Manufacturing On-Off Switches...................... 113
Dealer Installation of On-Off Switches....................... 144
Depowered Air Bag............................................ 344
Depowered Air Bag Testing.................................... 228
Disconnection-Medical Guidelines............................. 345
Education Program............................................ 116
Funding...................................................... 337
On-Off Switches.............................................. 110
On-Off Switches.............................................. 333
On-Off Switch Warning........................................ 112
Patterns for Life and Air Bag Safety Campaign................ 211
Reprogramming Money.......................................... 115
Safety....................................................... 38
Testing...................................................... 109
Tracking Deactivation Requests............................... 111
Alcohol Program:
.02 Alcohol Laws in Effect (states with)..................... 146
.08 BAC Limit (states with).................................. 196
Administrative License Revocation Laws (states with)......... 297
Alcohol Program.............................................. 29
Alcohol Program.............................................. 34
Budget....................................................... 194
Campaign Safe and Sober...................................... 329
Demonstraton Project......................................... 193
Drinking and Driving Behavior Survey......................... 195
Executive Order to Reduce BAC to .08......................... 393
Highest Alcohol Fatalities (states with)..................... 193
Impaired Countermeasures..................................... 198
Impaired Driving Enforcement................................. 289
Reduction of Blood Alcohol Level............................. 49
Related Fatalities........................................... 143
Related Fatality per Vehicle Mile............................ 200
Antilock Brake System (ABS):
ABS Research Program......................................... 237
Antilock Braking Devices Engineering Analysis................ 236
Auto Safety Hotline:
Auto Safety Hotline.......................................... 33
Auto Safety Hotline.......................................... 326
Costs........................................................ 327
Bicycle and Pedestrian:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety................................ 36
Bicycle Safety Research...................................... 261
Pedalcyclist Fatalities...................................... 261
Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding............................... 369
Pedestrian and Bicycle Program............................... 367
Biography:
Philip R. Recht (Deputy Administrator)....................... 48
Ricardo Martinez (Administrator)............................. 47
Biomechanics:
Funding...................................................... 333
Research Program............................................. 330
Car-to-Car Offset Rear Impact Test............................... 382
Challenging Safety Environment................................... 28
Child Safety Seat:
CD ROM Database Installation................................. 150
Child Restraint--Rulemaking on Uniform Anchorage Systems..... 210
Child Restraint Testing Procedures........................... 150
Education.................................................... 118
Recalls...................................................... 209
Standardization.............................................. 148
Uniformity................................................... 423
Consumer Information:
Consumer Information......................................... 31
Consumer Information Program................................. 357
National Academy of Science (NAS) Recommendation............. 358
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
CAFE......................................................... 245
Compliance Test Failure Data................................. 249
Compliance Testing Program................................... 253
Penalties Collected.......................................... 248
Standard..................................................... 64
Standards.................................................... 67
Standards.................................................... 395
Standards for Light Trucks and Vans.......................... 247
Crashes:
Crash Avoidance Research..................................... 42
Crash Investigations......................................... 342
Crashworthiness.............................................. 40
Data Programs.................................................... 30
Defects Investigation Program.................................... 33
Defects Investigators............................................ 243
Driver Vehicle Performance Program............................... 377
Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program................. 35
Elderly Driver Demonstration Project............................. 376
Electronic Braking System........................................ 379
Emergency Medical Services (EMS):
Emergency Medical Services................................... 39
Emergency Medical Services................................... 376
Evaluation and Technology Sharing Program........................ 160
Fatalities:
Alcohol Related Fatality Goals............................... 202
Efforts to Decrease Child Occupant Fatalities................ 123
Fatal Crashes by State....................................... 191
Fatalities--Ages 15 thru 20.................................. 200
Fatalities By Vehicle Category............................... 270
Fatality Impact of Speed Limit and Helmet Laws............... 265
Fatality Statistics--Speed Related........................... 108
Highway Fatalities for Selected Countries.................... 275
Fuel Economy Program............................................. 32
Garret Morgan Technology Funding................................. 392
Heavy Vehicle Program............................................ 378
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes............................... 60
Highway Safety:
Achievements................................................. 27
Programs..................................................... 34
Research..................................................... 39
Research--Occupant Protection................................ 375
Highway Traffic Safety Grants:
Drugged Driving Incentive Grant Program...................... 385
Flexible Performance Based Incentive Grant Program........... 45
Funding--Sections 402 and 410................................ 283
Grants Management Process.................................... 44
Highway Traffic Safety Grants................................ 44
Impact of Reauthorization Delayed:
Impact of Delay on Agency Operations......................... 51
Impact of Delay on August Redistribution..................... 53
Impacts of Reauthorization Delay............................. 50
Impacts of Reauthorization Delay on Safety Program........... 50
Improved Identification Program.................................. 40
Integrating GPS with Traffic Operations Centers.................. 58
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):
Advances..................................................... 53
Automatic Collison Notification.............................. 57
Automatic Crash Notification Technology...................... 351
Automobile Communication System.............................. 60
Availability Global Positioning Systems (GPS)................ 57
Deployment................................................... 56
Incident Response Technology................................. 54
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)..................... 43
Model Deployment............................................. 58
Programs..................................................... 350
Rural ITS Initiative......................................... 56
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI)............................. 346
International Harmonization:
Harmonization of Offset Frontal Impact Standards............. 355
Harmonization of Side Impact Regulations..................... 354
International Harmonization.................................. 351
Overseas Travel Data......................................... 298
International Safety Ranking..................................... 220
Light Vehicle Issues............................................. 68
LTV-Rollover and Brake Issues.................................... 137
Motorcycle:
Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Laws............................. 258
Maximum National Speed Limit................................. 107
Motorcycle Helmet Repeal..................................... 260
Motorcycle Safety............................................ 36
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS):
NADS......................................................... 42
NADS......................................................... 151
NADS Completion Costs........................................ 155
NADS Cost Sharing Requirement................................ 154
NADS Development Cost........................................ 153
NADS Operations Schedule..................................... 155
NADS Users................................................... 158
National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA)............... 43
National Driver Register (NDR)................................... 46
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC)..... 40
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP):
Crash Avoidance Testing on Vehicles.......................... 234
Frontal NCAP Test............................................ 223
NCAP......................................................... 31
NCAP Costs................................................... 232
NCAP Program................................................. 110
NCAP Program................................................. 223
NCAP Program Costs........................................... 230
NCAP (Other) Activities...................................... 235
Side Impact NCAP Side Impact NCAP............................ 233
NHTSA:
Budget Request Highlights.................................... 27
Budget Request Highlights.................................... 28
Closing Remarks.............................................. 147
Conclusion................................................... 46
Intermodalism................................................ 27
Key Regulations.............................................. 325
Major Contractors............................................ 320
Opening Remarks.............................................. 24
Political Appointees......................................... 306
Record Investment In Safety.................................. 27
Reprogramming................................................ 319
Safety Recall Campaigns...................................... 240
Web Site ``Hits''............................................ 326
Occupant:
Crash Protection............................................. 37
Fatality Crash Statistics.................................... 263
Protection................................................... 29
Protection Education......................................... 125
Protection Incentive grant Program........................... 384
ODI--Computer Aided Design................................... 244
ODI--On-Site Investigations.................................. 243
Odometer:
Fraud Program................................................ 34
Fraud Program................................................ 255
Fraud Program--Cooperative Agreements........................ 256
Patterns for Life:
Patterns for Life............................................ 38
Patterns for Life............................................ 423
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV):
PNGV......................................................... 65
PNGV......................................................... 388
PNGV Funding................................................. 390
Personnel:
Incentive Awards............................................. 89
Office of the Administrator Staffing......................... 312
Regional Office Staffing..................................... 308
Police Traffic Services.......................................... 39
Program Performance:
Measures..................................................... 88
Measures and Assessment of Grants............................ 89
Records and Licensing............................................ 39
Regulations of Sport Utility Vehicles............................ 396
Regulatory Oversight............................................. 401
Report on the Impact of Increased Speed Limits................... 176
Research and Development:
Research and Development..................................... 40
Research and Development..................................... 29
Restraint Use Among Fatalities................................... 168
Right Turn on Red Laws........................................... 103
Rollover Crashes................................................. 205
Roof Crush Standards............................................. 208
Rulemaking on Low Speed Vehicles................................. 392
Safe Communities:
Injury Control............................................... 29
Injury Control Program....................................... 34
Safe Communities............................................. 360
Safety Assurance Program......................................... 32
Safety Defects Investigation Budget.............................. 242
Safety Performance Standards Program............................. 30
Standards Compatibility.......................................... 67
Seat Belt:
Alcohol Use-Fraternity Involvement........................... 145
Education.................................................... 124
Enforcement.................................................. 129
Enforcement.................................................. 170
Law Compliance............................................... 158
Lives Saved by Higher Seat Belt Usage Rates.................. 121
Lives Saved by Using Safety Belts............................ 193
Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Usage....... 122
Primary Laws-Changes in Use Rates............................ 128
Primary Usage Laws........................................... 128
Usage Initiative............................................. 122
Usage-Light Truck............................................ 129
Usage Rates.................................................. 119
Use Laws-Key Provisions...................................... 172
Section 402:
Expenditures................................................. 214
Grants....................................................... 364
Occupant Protection.......................................... 130
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants......................... 132
Program Staffing............................................. 216
State and Community Formula Program.......................... 44
Section 402 and Section 403...................................... 365
Section 410:
Funding Allocation........................................... 277
Program Evaluation........................................... 276
Special Crash Investigations..................................... 110
Speed:
Increased Limits................................................. 132
Related Fatal Crashes........................................ 188
Speed........................................................ 174
State Limits................................................. 177
Staffing:
Authorized FTE............................................... 304
FY 1999 Staffing Increase.................................... 305
State Participation.............................................. 30
States Enforcing Seat Belt Laws.................................. 128
Strategy to Reduce Air Bag Dangers............................... 336
TASC Funding..................................................... 357
Theft Prevention Program......................................... 32
Total Crashes Involving Collision and Rollover................... 205
Training Data Update............................................. 314
Unobligated Balances............................................. 318
Vehicle Compatibility:
Funding...................................................... 381
Information Sharing.......................................... 66
LTV Issues................................................... 134
Redesign..................................................... 136
Vehicle Compatibility........................................ 65
Vehicle Compatibility........................................ 380
Vehicle Design Issues............................................ 68
Vehicle Fatalities by State...................................... 267
Vehicle Safety Compliance Program................................ 33
Vehicle Safety Standards......................................... 30
Wireless Communications--Distraction............................. 61
Youth:
Drug and Youth Safety........................................ 29
Graduated Licensing System................................... 213
Pre-Licensure Drug Testing Demonstration..................... 373
Presidential Initiative on Youth Drugs and Driving........... 36
Youth Alcohol Involvement.................................... 143
Youth Zero Tolerance Program................................. 146
Youth, Drugs and Driving Initiative.......................... 371

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

103-Mile Program................................................. 1462
Biography of Richard A. White.................................... 1472
Bus Safety....................................................... 1489
Closing Remarks.................................................. 1470
Construction:
Completion of 103-Mile Program............................... 1462
Program...................................................... 1477
Request...................................................... 1449
Customer Services Initiatives.................................... 1461
Dulles Corridor.................................................. 1487
Dulles Corridor--Express Bus..................................... 1488
Employer Provided Transit Benefits............................... 1482
Fare Simplification.............................................. 1474
Funding Needs.................................................... 1474
Joint Program for Advanced Vehicles.............................. 1491
Maintenance...................................................... 1477
New Market Initiatives........................................... 1458
Operating Efficiency improvements................................ 1457
Oversight........................................................ 1490
Preservation of The Metro System................................. 1465
Preventive Maintenance........................................... 1477
Regional Mobility Panel......................................1453, 1473
Rehabilitation and Replacement...............................1450, 1474
Request............................................................1449
Ridership....................................................1450, 1479
Safety:
Buses........................................................ 1489
Oversight.................................................... 1490
Statement of Richard A. White.................................... 1452
Status of the Construction Program............................... 1477
Transit Benefits................................................. 1482
Transit Funding in Other Cities.................................. 1475
Travel Purposes.................................................. 1483
Washington Convention Center..................................... 1484
Witnesses........................................................ 1449
WMATA Serves the Nation's Capital................................ 1482