[Senate Hearing 105-429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-429
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2169/S. 1048
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Transportation
General Accounting Office
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
National Transportation Safety Board
Nondepartmental witnesses
Office of Management and Budget
Railroad Retirement Board
Surface Transportation Board
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-864 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-056437-9
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
SLADE GORTON, Washington HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina PATTY MURRAY, Washington
TED STEVENS, Alaska
ex officio
Professional Staff
Wally Burnett
Reid Cavnar
Anne M. Miano
Joyce C. Rose
Peter Rogoff (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 6, 1997
Page
Department of Transportation..................................... 1
Thursday, April 10, 1997
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration............................... 123
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 144
Federal Transit Administration............................... 146
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 225
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing........... 267
Wednesday, April 16, 1997
National Transportation Safety Board............................. 287
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 317
Wednesday, May 7, 1997
Department of Transportation..................................... 355
General Accounting Office........................................ 355
Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration.... 391
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)................. 391
General Accounting Office........................................ 391
Thursday, June 12, 1997
Congressional witnesses.......................................... 461
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................
461, 487, 531..................................................
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 487
Thursday, July 17, 1997
Department of Labor: Railroad Retirement Board................... 561
Department of Transportation..................................... 573
Office of Management and Budget.................................. 573
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)................. 573
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration............................... 591
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 784
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 878
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 945
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 1033
Related agency: Surface Transportation Board..................... 1051
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 1079
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Specter, Bond, Bennett,
Faircloth, Stevens, Lautenberg, Byrd, Mikulski, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY LOUISE FRANKEL STOLL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND
PROGRAMS/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your joining us today.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. We will get into some of the specifics of
the President's budget request in a few minutes, Mr. Secretary,
but I am going to be looking to you to help me better
understand the criteria by which the administration evaluates
the cost effectiveness of some of your programs.
In the current budget environment, it is critical that we
do all we can to make sure that we focus our limited Federal
resources on projects that create jobs, create opportunities,
create economic activity, and improve mobility in this country.
As we put this year's bill together, I have asked the staff to
focus on some of the large-dollar highway, transit, and
aviation projects to make sure that we are being wise stewards
of our limited transportation dollars.
In turn, I am committed to doing what I can to bring more
private money to building transportation infrastructure by
utilizing innovative financing and establishing a business-
friendly environment. I will also try to identify any money we
are currently spending on potentially unnecessary
transportation studies into spending on real projects that
bring value to real people.
Increasingly, this subcommittee performs a balancing act,
juggling resources among a host of worthwhile priorities
competing for the same Federal dollar. There are no easy
choices. Pressure to fund new initiatives and to maintain and
expand current discretionary programs continues, while there
are fewer options and less consensus on where offsetting cuts
should be taken.
In turn, I am dedicated to continuing the search for more
efficient, less costly ways to deliver essential transportation
services, to consolidate and to reform programs to increase
flexibility over the use of limited Federal dollars, to
question the merit of Federal expenditures, and to shift funds
from lower to higher priority activities. However, I believe,
Mr. Secretary, we must recognize that if the total amount
available for transportation appropriations is frozen, we must
weigh the future consequences of continuing to defer needed
capital investments.
I probably bring a little different perspective to this
subcommittee than some of the past two chairmen, who are
friends of mine. Like every State in the Union, my home State
of Alabama has substantial transportation needs, but our needs
are primarily to improve and expand our highway system. I am
very sensitive to the varied transportation needs of the States
represented by other members of the subcommittee, the
Appropriations Committee, and the Senate, and I commit to them
and to you, Mr. Secretary, that I will do everything possible
to help them find the tools and the flexibility to address
their individual State's transportation needs. I strongly
believe that all solutions involve a reexamination of the
Federal commitment to investing in transportation
infrastructure and a renewed commitment to ensuring that all
States and regions receive adequate consideration of their
transportation needs.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, I want to reiterate my commitment
to preserving and promoting transportation safety. I want to
work with you to create a better understanding of how safety
cuts across modal lines. While we need to strive for continued
improvements in transportation safety, we must be mindful that
the cost of safety improvements in one mode of transportation
may influence transportation choices by the traveling public.
I look forward to our discussion today and to working with
you on the many challenges facing our transportation system.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
first congratulate you on being named chairman of the
Transportation Subcommittee. I can speak with authority it is a
very good job. You will find it fulfilling. You can make a
difference, and I am glad that we both have significant
transportation interests and hopefully we will be able to
satisfy our mutual interests with the appropriate amounts of
funding and interest on our part.
Never in the 14 years that I have been in the Senate--and I
have served on this subcommittee for a long time. I am thankful
to Senator Byrd, our distinguished ranking member and past
chairman, for encouraging my appointment to the Subcommittee on
Transportation.
Never, though, have we had so many historic decisions
related to transportation in the same year that we were
charting the course and will continue to chart the course of
our national transportation policy.
In the coming year, we are going to be debating proposals
to convert the entire Federal aviation system to a user-based
fee. It will, however, not be enough to simply enact financial
reform for the FAA. We will need to monitor its progress to
ensure that taxpayers and the flying public actually enjoy the
benefits of true reform.
While we have already granted the FAA far-reaching
personnel reform, we continue to see unacceptable delays in
getting an adequate number of fully trained staff into some of
the busiest air traffic control facilities in the country.
While we have granted the FAA far-reaching procurement
reforms, we still see difficulties and delays in getting state-
of-the-art traffic control equipment deployed to the field.
Just 1 week ago this day, we saw an equipment failure at Newark
Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world, which caused
the radar screens in the air traffic control tower to go blank.
Thankfully, all systems were fully operational within 9 minutes
and no passengers were put at risk and there were hardly any
departure or landing delays.
But I, like all Senators, find such incidents to be
intolerable. We cannot and should not wait 1 day more than is
necessary to replace aging equipment with modern and fully
reliable systems. We have added hundreds of millions of dollars
to the FAA's budget to address critical deficiencies in the
areas of safety and security. Yet, we continue to see holes in
the safety net that require immediate attention.
This subcommittee can easily spend all of its energies this
year on ensuring that our aviation system remains the safest in
the world, but we are simultaneously charged with focusing on
the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act--ISTEA as it used to be called in the old days--
and I understand we might even have a new name.
As we approach reauthorization of ISTEA, we will continue
to advance the balance of the agenda, balance of flexibility
that was the centerpiece of that landmark legislation. Or will
we retrench to our previous one-dimensional policy that would
exacerbate rather than mitigate congestion?
Will we face the fact that Amtrak is a critical part of our
national transportation network, or will we deprive the
railroad of the kind of capital that is necessary to improve
its performance to the level of a high-speed railroad that this
country so rightly deserves?
And what about the safety agenda? After years of steady
improvement, we are now seeing a tragic increase in fatalities
that are associated with drunk driving. As a result of
Congress' ill-advised repeal of the national maximum speed
limit, we are now seeing increased carnage on our highways,
especially increasing fatalities resulting from high-speed
crashes. Will we use ISTEA II to insist on improvements in the
safety of our highways and railroads, or will we continue to
simply deregulate, abdicating our Federal leadership on safety?
If these challenges were not enough, the President's budget
asks us to address still other challenges: improving the
ability to move welfare recipients to work and increasing the
Coast Guard efforts to keep drugs off our shores. And the
President's budget asks us to address all these challenges
within a very tight funding envelope, a budget that is
consistent with the goal of balancing the budget but leaves no
room for redundancy or waste.
While we may wish that we had the opportunity to address
each of these challenges 1 year at a time, we are required to
address them all and address them now. There will be no hiatus
for the new chairman of the subcommittee, just as there will be
no hiatus for our new Secretary of Transportation.
Now, fortunately, we have in Secretary Slater a proven
executive with years of experience at DOT. This, Mr. Secretary,
is your first appearance before the subcommittee in your
capacity as Secretary, but hardly your first appearance before
those of us at the table.
The ease with which Mr. Slater was confirmed by the Senate
serves as testimony to his performance as our Federal Highway
Administrator, as well as the confidence that we place in him
in his new role. And I want to welcome you this morning, Mr.
Secretary. I look forward to your presentation of the
administration's budget.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first let me apologize to you for having
been out of town during the final vote on your confirmation and
make the record clear that had I been able to be there, I would
have cast a very enthusiastic aye in favor of your
confirmation. I am delighted with the President's decision that
you are the man for this position.
If I may be allowed a personal reaction to your testimony,
which I have glanced through, I am delighted that you are
quoting my old boss, John Volpe. I entered the Nixon
administration in 1969 as the chief lobbyist for the Department
of Transportation. We do not call them that. We call them
congressional relations and congressional affairs and that kind
of thing, but I have always liked to call a spade a spade. I
was in charge of the lobbying effort of a very new, fragmented
cabinet level department that was less than 2 years old.
If I may say so, I have my fingerprints very, very lightly,
to be sure, but I was involved in convincing the Congress to
pass the Airport Airways Act creating the airport airways trust
fund, the Urban Mass Transit Act laying down the legislative
structure for that administration and, Senator Lautenberg,
Amtrak.
One of the last things I did before I left the
administration to go to private practice was convince Mike
Mansfield that if we did indeed run a train to Yellowstone Park
through Montana, he would allow that bill to pass out of the
Senate and become law. Some of the folks at Amtrak were not
understanding how important it was that we got Mike Mansfield's
support. They said, he is just another Senator. I was able to
add my expertise, which was not very expert, to say that if you
do not have Mike Mansfield with you, you are probably not going
to get this piece of legislation.
They showed the same obtuseness toward Harley Staggers in
West Virginia. They did not understand why the chairman of the
House committee had to have a train running to the universities
in West Virginia in order to make sure that the whole system
would pass congressional muster.
But I have a great affection for your Department, having
served there and learned many things there, and welcome you to
this position. If there is any position that I would personally
lust after in an administration, it might be yours. I make it
very clear I am not available, however, because I like the one
I have a lot better. [Laughter.]
References have been made by the other Senators to their
own States, and that is appropriate and fairly standard in
these circumstances. I will not go on at length but simply
point out that, which I am sure you already know and I know the
people in the Department already know, in addition to all of
the standard kinds of transportation challenges faced by the
State of Utah, we are acting as host for the Olympic games in
the year 2002. That puts an absolute deadline that cannot be
stretched on our finishing some of our projects and it will not
look good--which is a very mild understatement--to have the
television cameras of the world focus on Utah in the winter of
2002 and have us say, well, the highway that would connect you
to the venues where all of these events are going to take place
was to be finished 6 months ago, but we have had a few delays
and you will be able to get there by summer. Do not worry about
it. The Olympic games do not give us the luxury of waiting on
that, and I know you understand that and your people in your
Department understand that.
I look forward to working with you in ways to see that Utah
meets its deadlines. I am not asking for anything that is
untoward. I am not saying that Utah should get any favoritism
above and beyond other States just because of the Olympics, but
I think all of us as a nation recognize that we have an
obligation, having made a commitment that something will be
done by x date, in this case to make sure that date is met. Or,
to take out of context another phrase, the whole world will be
watching, and I am sure none of us want that to happen.
So, I welcome you to the committee and to your assignment.
My congratulations to you in your assignment. I look forward to
the balance of your testimony.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I congratulate
you on the occasion of your first hearing as chairman of the
Transportation Subcommittee. I am pleased to have a chairman of
the subcommittee who is sympathetic for the need for highways
in this country and who in this particular instance has some
unfinished Appalachian corridors in his State.
I also look forward to continuing to work with our very
capable former chairman, now the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Lautenberg, on the many responsibilities that
we face in this extremely important, in some ways, most
important subcommittee. I say this because this subcommittee
provides funding for the Nation's transportation
infrastructure, its 953,000 miles of Federal-aid highways and
its 296,000 bridges, together with the Nation's mass transit
systems, Amtrak, and all the Nation's airports.
In addition, the subcommittee must address critical safety
issues in all of these transportation modes, whether the issue
is airbags, air traffic control, rail highway crossings,
oilspills, or curtailing drunk driving.
I join the subcommittee in welcoming Secretary Slater. I
congratulate you, Mr. Slater, on having been promoted to the
position of Secretary of Transportation after serving the
Nation very ably as the Federal Highway Administrator. I have
had several occasions over the past 4 years to work closely
with our new Secretary. He was a very forthcoming and capable
Administrator, and I look forward to continuing my close
cooperative relationship with him in this new capacity.
Mr. Chairman, never are we reminded more quickly of the
importance of our highways than at times of disaster. Secretary
Slater has just returned from Arkansas where he witnessed
firsthand the devastation from the tornadoes that cut a deadly
path across his home State.
My State is also suffering at the present time, for the
umpteenth time, suffering from the effects of yet another spate
of floods that have taken the property and not the spirit of so
many families. I know that the members of this subcommittee
join me in saying to the Secretary that we intend to move as
rapidly as possible on any funding requests that the President
puts forward to address the needs arising from this recent rash
of disasters, the floods and heavy snows in the West and
Midwest, the tornadoes and floods in the South, as well as the
floods affecting the States of Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky,
and other States.
As Secretary Slater knows, I have grave concerns regarding
our decades-long disinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure.
Our national investment in our infrastructure as a percentage
of our gross domestic product has been cut almost in half since
1980, from roughly 1.2 percent to 0.6 percent. This trend has
taken a severe toll on the viability and the safety of our
National Highway System.
In his last full year as highway Administrator, Mr. Slater
published a comprehensive report on the conditions of our
National Highway System, showing that we are developing a
larger and larger backlog in the funding necessary to maintain
even an adequate system of highways and bridges.
Unfortunately, we are faced with a budget request from the
administration that calls on this subcommittee to effectively
freeze the annual obligation limitation on the Federal Highway
Program at its current level for each of the next 6 years.
Secretary Slater's statement makes some mention of a few
encouraging signs that indicate that we may be witnessing a
turning point in the continuing deterioration of our National
Highway System, but there is no question that if we freeze
highway spending at the current level, this perceived
stabilization in our highway system's performance will be
short-lived indeed.
The current level of spending certainly will not allow us
to address the millions of hours and billions of dollars that
our economy loses every year due to constrained capacity and
traffic congestion not only in the Nation's major metropolitan
areas, but also in many rural and suburban areas as well.
Plus we must simultaneously remember that highway use is on
the rise. The vehicle miles traveled by our citizens have grown
more than 40 percent in just the last decade and this trend is
expected to continue.
According to the Secretary's formal statement--and I quote
him--``The Department is committed to a long-term
infrastructure investment program and seeks the highest levels
of investment within the balanced budget context.''
Well, the Secretary knows that it is with great respect and
fondness that I'm required to disagree with the notion that a
freeze on highway funding is the best that we can do. We must
do better, and I am hopeful that we in Congress can find a way
to increase substantially the levels of funding for the
programs covered in ISTEA over the next 6 years, while
simultaneously finding a way to balance the budget over that
same period.
While I cannot agree with the overall funding levels
assumed for our highway programs in the administration's
budget, I can and do agree with many of the priorities that the
administration has highlighted in its ISTEA reauthorization
proposal.
For this Senator, the brightest spot in the President's
proposal is his $2.19 billion authorization of direct contract
authority toward the completion of the Appalachian Development
Highway System. A total of $200 million is requested in
contract and obligational authority for this initiative in
fiscal year 1998. That is only a portion of what is needed.
I have introduced a bill, S. 182, the Appalachian
Development Highway System Completion Act. Senator Sessions has
joined me in sponsoring this legislation. I know that the
chairman of this subcommittee is very sympathetic with this
legislation.
My bill will provide sufficient funding over the next 6
years to complete the 725 unfinished miles in the 13
Appalachian States, the people of which have been promised now
for more than 30 years this highway system.
I discussed my proposal with a number of my colleagues who
have direct responsibility over the ISTEA legislation, and I
received favorable reactions from the Senators with whom I have
spoken.
While the Interstate Highway System is now almost 100
percent complete, the Appalachian Highway System remains only
76 percent complete throughout the region and only 74 percent
complete in the State of West Virginia, even though its
completion was promised in law, as I say, some 32 years ago.
And I was here at the time that we made that promise, as I was
here at the time we made the promise concerning the Interstate
Highway System during the administration of President
Eisenhower.
Mr. Chairman, our region has waited long enough for the
Federal Government to meet its responsibility to complete this
essential part of our National Highway System. So, I again want
to compliment Secretary Slater and the President for proposing
an excellent first step toward that end.
In conclusion, let me again congratulate you, Mr. Slater,
and assure you that this subcommittee stands ready to do its
part in achieving what you described as your goal, namely, the
highest levels of investment to a long-term infrastructure
investment program within the balanced budget context.
And as the last word of the New Testament of the Bible is
amen, let me say that also in closing my statement. Amen.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a
delight to be on this committee, working with you as one of the
newer members. Congratulations on your assignment and I look
forward to working with you.
Secretary Slater, it is good to see you again on your side
of the world. The Secretary and I have met several times now in
the past several months, both of them in my home State, the
first time when our State had severe flooding and disaster
about 1\1/2\ months ago, and the Secretary came out and met
with some of the people who were firsthand experiencing some of
the dramatic impacts of what weather can do to them and their
roads. I appreciated your being out there.
The second time was in a very tragic circumstance when we
lost three young Coast Guardsmen who were trying to save a
sailboat off the northernmost corner of my State and the
Secretary was most kind in coming out with Commandant Kramek,
traveling all the way across the country to be at that funeral
service in a very remote community of La Push in the State of
Washington. I want you to know that your words and your being
there really meant a lot to those young Coast Guardsmen and the
community and the Quillayute Indian Tribe who is such a
tremendously important part of that community. We very much
appreciated your being there.
That community is continuing to try and deal with that
tragedy, the first Coast Guardsmen that we have lost in this
country in a number of years, and I just wanted to tell you how
much we appreciate your personal interest in them and in that
community.
I am looking forward to your remarks in just a few minutes,
but I just wanted to touch on a few issues that I am going to
be following on this committee.
As you traveled to La Push, you had the opportunity to fly
over the Olympic Peninsula in my State and saw what a beautiful
natural area that is, tremendously large. It is a regional
interest for cyclists who come there from all over the country
now. They do not mix well with logging trucks, and we have had
a number of accidents. So, we have been working with seven
different communities out there on a voluntary basis to put
together a bike trail, a 360-mile bike trail, around the
Olympic Peninsula and hope we can work with you further to be
flexible with some of our funds so that we can meet some of
these safety issues on those logging roads.
Second, I just wanted to quickly mention the regional
transit plan that was just passed by Puget Sound with a 50-50
match. They are very excited about this opportunity,
particularly in Bellevue. We have a crowded I-405 that is
becoming a real congestion problem. My constituents are
concerned that as the Federal budget declines, that they will
not be able to see this get off the drawing board, and they
want some information back on whether these new projects will
be able to have Federal matching dollars as they push forward.
Finally, just let me mention the Airport Improvement
Program. I noticed that it is being targeted a cut of nearly
one-half of a billion dollars. Many of our airports are
suffering. Infrastructure is old, needs replacing. Our traffic
is greatly increasing. Particularly in rural areas, people
depend on the AIP funds for survival and safety, and we want to
hear from you how we are going to be able to absorb some of
these cuts.
So, with that, Mr. Secretary, I welcome you and thank you
for all your great work and I look forward to working with this
committee.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bond. I understand it's your
birthday. Is this the day?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND
Senator Bond. Yes, sir; thank you. I appreciate that. I am
at that stage where one is delighted to be here to celebrate
one. [Laughter.]
We do not worry about the number of years that have
gathered.
Mr. Secretary, I welcome you.
And I also congratulate our new chairman and I certainly
look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with our
good friend, Rodney Slater, with whom we've worked on many,
many important issues.
I can certainly sympathize with Senator Byrd and others who
are having the problems of flooding. You well know how serious
an impact the floods of this magnitude can have on the entire
transportation system, and it is absolutely essential to have
someone as responsive as you have been, Mr. Slater, in these
efforts.
I also want to join with the Senator from Washington,
expressing our thanks for the concern you showed for the Coast
Guardsmen. One of those brave, young men who was lost was from
southeast Missouri, and I know that the family and all of the
friends in that area appreciated your concern.
But speaking of safety, I have to tell you, again to go
along with what Senator Byrd said, that the lack of adequate
funding for transportation, for highways in particular, was
really brought home to me this past weekend. We had the funeral
for one of my very good friends from Chillicothe, MO, who was
killed in a head-on collision on a narrow, two-lane highway
which is in the process but is not yet upgraded because it
carries traffic for a four-lane.
The evening after his funeral, I attended an event in
Festus, MO, where the mayor had just buried his wife, who also
was killed in a head-on collision on a two-lane road that now
has been upgraded to a priority for improvement.
The funds that we need for highways, roads, and bridges,
all transportation needs, are overwhelming. Yesterday, with
Senator Chafee, I introduced a measure to change the budget
scoring so that the highway trust fund moneys, collected one
year would be paid out the next year--the Highway Trust Fund
Integrity Act. I think that the people of America who pay into
that fund, when they gas up their cars, want to know that these
funds are going for transportation purposes, and I hope we can
obtain support both from your side and from my fellow Members
of the Senate for that.
I am not going to be able to stay for the full hearing. I
have some other obligations, but there is one issue that I did
want to call to your attention.
You have been most generous and helpful in dealing with our
bridge problems. We have stood side by side in Hannibal, MO, at
the Chouteau Bridge and at Cape Girardeau where there's a
bridge named for my dear friend, the late Congressman Bill
Emerson.
It was initially rumored that the administration's ISTEA
bill would not include a bridge discretionary program. However,
my good friend and Missouri colleague, the widow of Bill
Emerson, JoAnn Emerson, brought this up in a House hearing last
week. You mentioned that the Department was in the process of
reconsidering that position but was unable to make any specific
recommendations. I applaud your reconsideration and ask for
your careful attention as you give thought to this vitally
important program.
Something has to be done. I think the statistics showed
that in 1995, the Department reported that 25 percent of the
Nation's interstate bridges were classified as deficient or in
poor condition, and 28 percent of 130,000 bridges on all other
arterial systems were deficient. According to your Department,
my State of Missouri has the dubious distinction of being sixth
from the bottom in condition of bridges. We are sixth highest
in total number of bridges, something to do with the Missouri
and the Mississippi Rivers, I believe. Over 10,000 bridges in
my State are in need of some kind of repair and replacement.
We certainly do not want to be talking about attending any
more funerals if a bridge collapses. So, I would hope that you
would be able to inform this committee and our House
counterparts and also the authorizing committees what your
position will be on the bridge discretionary program.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici. Oh, excuse me. I did not
see. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Go ahead, Pete.
Senator Domenici. Oh, no.
Senator Shelby. You were sitting back Senator Faircloth.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Slater, delighted to see you here this morning.
I am new to the subcommittee but spent about 8 years as
chairman of the North Carolina Highway Department. Just as an
aside, Mr. Chairman, it is the largest in the Nation. We have
close to 78,000 miles of highway. North Carolina has very few
city streets and no county roads. They are all under one
unified system, and it works extremely well.
I recently had some conversation with Secretary Slater, and
he was most helpful in saving air service to two communities
and I want to thank you.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Mr. Chairman, one of the most
contentious transportation issues in this Congress will be
surface transportation and the reauthorization of the bill. I
am glad that we have scheduled a hearing to do it.
This subcommittee is also going to have to address some
very important issues this year. We face critical issues in
subcommittee with aviation safety as well as highways. So, I am
eager to start working on the program.
North Carolina has been rapidly growing, particularly in
the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte areas. Our State in the late
1940's built the most complex farm-to-market road system of any
State in the Nation, literally tens of thousands of miles of
it. Now, along those same roads, instead of farms, are
microelectronics plants and high-technology industry. We simply
are going to need much upgrading to maintain and to look after
the traffic that is created.
But one thing that was unheard of, or would have been
unheard of, even 10, 15 years ago in North Carolina--we are
going to have to go in many of our highly congested areas to
some sort of light rail transportation, and I look forward to
working with you on that and look forward to the rest of the
hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici, now.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I would ask your permission, before you close this record,
to put in the record the 5-year budget requests of the
President on transportation.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Domenici. Frankly, it is nice to be here, all
talking like things are rosy because we have this wonderful
Secretary before us, but the truth of the matter is, the
President's budget cuts transportation over the next 5 years.
Actually I think it is pretty obvious that the administration
does not believe that is what is going to happen.
But just so people know, it is kind of difficult to put
budgets together when everybody wants to cut more and more out
of the appropriated accounts and the President sends us a
budget in an area that is least probable to get cut. When
everybody is asking for more, the President asked for less. In
the fifth year, there is less transportation funding than there
is in the first year, according to what my staff tells me.
So, I just think we ought to make the point that it is not
going to be easy. The chairman does not know what amount he is
going to get to spend yet from the distinguished chairman and
ranking member of the full committee when funding is allocated.
But I want you to know, members of the committee--and I
have already said it publicly--while we do not direct the
spending in the budget, I clearly am not going to produce a
budget that has less transportation money over the next 5
years, but rather more. I am just struggling with how much
more. My ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, while we do not
see eye to eye on some budget issues--I am hopeful on this one
we will see eye to eye and put more money in transportation
rather than less.
I am absolutely convinced that people are talking about
alternate modes of transportation and that is a great idea, but
for many, many, many parts of America, there is no alternative.
It is a road or no transportation, a safe road or a dangerous
road, and there is nothing in between. That need is growing,
not diminishing.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
have a chance to stop by. I see my colleague from West Virginia
is here. Mr. Slater, I think we are both here to welcome you to
one of the most difficult portions of the budgets that we
oversee. I do not want to prolong this because I know my
colleagues want to hear from you.
But I join with the chairman of the Budget Committee in
indicating I think there is no alternative but to fund the
moneys that are needed for highways and for the modernization
and replacement of our bridges.
We do have a study, Mr. Slater, going on to determine the
number of bridges that are really critical. I know your
Department has already addressed that, but clearly we are going
to have to have some reconsideration on how this money is
allocated because of the safety considerations of many of these
bridges. And one is right here in the District of Columbia.
Now, I do have some questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to submit.
Mr. Slater, the question about the commuter rule is very
critical to my State, and I do request that once you have
addressed that, that we see if we cannot get together with you
and with the head of the FAA because the application of this
rule has already reduced the fleet of commuter airlines in my
State, which I might say, Senator Faircloth, does not have
10,000 miles of roads despite the fact we are one-fifth the
size of the United States. It has reduced the commuter fleet by
one-half. We have one-half the transportation now for rural
areas of Alaska that we had 2 years ago because of the
application of this rule to a State for which it was not
intended.
So, once you have read that question, I urge that you give
us a chance to come visit with you and see if we cannot restore
really the basic backbone of transportation in my State and
that is the commuter airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you, and I am sure my colleague does, as we get
the bill to the full committee.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Slater.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Could I just give you three outlay
numbers so I will not burden the record?
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Senator Domenici. Highways from 1998 to 2002 are down $3.9
billion, a 3.8-percent reduction. FAA is down 3 percent, a $1.4
billion reduction, and transit is down 7 percent, a $1.5
billion reduction. So, I will not put anything in the record.
Those are the summary numbers.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici, we thank you for those
numbers, though.
Secretary Slater, your entire written statement will be
made part of the record, and if you will just briefly sum up
the highlights of it, and this will give us some opportunities
to question you. Thank you.
Statement of Secretary Slater
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. At the outset, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal year 1998
budget of the Department of Transportation as submitted by the
administration.
Departmental Priorities
Let me say at the outset, just in summary, in response to
all of the concerns raised, with priorities, three in
particular, during my tenure as Secretary--with safety as the
No. 1 priority, dealing with transportation and its
relationship to the economy, and also bringing a commonsense
approach to our operations as servants of the American people--
with you in partnership and in partnership with the private
sector, I think we can address effectively many, many of the
issues that you have raised.
It is noted that I have a longer statement that I would
like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, outlining some of
the specific particulars of the administration's commitment to
invest $38.4 billion next year in our transportation
infrastructure.
The President, in his State of the Union Address, noted
that, ``Over the last 4 years we have brought new economic
growth by investing in our people, expanding our exports,
cutting the deficit, and creating over 11 million jobs, a 4-
year record. Now we must keep our economy the strongest in the
world.'' And clearly, transportation is central to all of that.
Under President Clinton, we have tried to make good--and I
believe we have made good--on the promise of ISTEA, landmark
legislation that the Congress will be reauthorizing this year.
With the Congress, we have increased transportation
infrastructure investment to record levels. These investments
have paid off in substantial improvements in the condition and
the performance of our highways and mass transit systems.
The President's budget includes $38.4 billion for our
Nation's transportation system and key national transportation
priorities which invest in both our people and our economy.
Foremost among these priorities is to make the Nation's
transportation system even safer for the American people.
When George Washington saw the mountain terrain, separating
the seaboard cities of the United States from the settlements
along the Ohio River, he noted that we have to open a wide door
to connect those markets.
Well, over the last few years, we have worked to continue
to open that wide door with an effective intermodal
transportation system, allowing new businesses, express
packages, to move in just-in-time delivery practices and
procedures where items move almost seamlessly through the
system, whether on land, water, or air.
Thirty years ago, we started the Department of
Transportation, committed to a vision. Today we work
continuously to make that vision a reality, investing in people
and investing in safety.
As you know, I believe transportation is about more than
concrete, asphalt, and steel. This budget proposes many
critical investments in the quality of life concerns of the
American people.
Safety
First, as relates to safety, we propose in 1998 raising the
direct safety spending for highways, aviation, rail, and
maritime by $200 million to a total of $2.9 billion, a record
7.5 percent of our total budget. And all of you have mentioned
safety as a top priority, whether on a two-lane highway or as
it relates to aviation.
Also I would like to note that this administration has
tried to work with the National Transportation Safety Board to
respond speedily to all of its recommendations. One of the
first meetings I held, even before being confirmed, was with
Jim Hall, the Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB]. Approximately 88 percent of the recommendations offered
by the NTSB have been closed, and of the 758 open
recommendations, over 86 percent have been classified by the
NTSB as open with acceptable action underway. So, clearly
safety is a priority.
Strategic Investment
As relates to jobs, one of the key provisions that we will
have in our proposal is to improve our transportation system
for people whether they live in rural, urban, or suburban
areas, and a critical part of that will be a new $100 million
program to deal with questions concerning welfare-to-work
initiatives.
Strategic transportation investment in infrastructure aids
the economy. Beyond improving the quality of life, the
transportation system of the 21st century must provide
Americans with the ability to compete and win in a truly global
marketplace. Working with the Congress over the past 4 years,
we have increased Federal investment in highways, transit
systems, and other infrastructure to an average $25.5 billion,
more than 20 percent higher than the 4 preceding years.
These investments are producing results. The conditions of
bridges--and that has been noted time and time again--as well
as the pavements of our system, have improved significantly. We
have financed nearly 26,000 buses and almost 600 railcars for
State and local transit systems as well, and we are doing a lot
along the Northeast corridor.
I believe, like you, that our transportation must be a part
of our overall economic system but that it must be consistent
with our commitment to balance the budget by the year 2002. So,
as Senator Byrd has noted, our proposal is to get the highest
level of funding possible within that context.
Let me close by making a couple of commitments and also
comments regarding aviation operations. Just as the interstate
system expanded our national economy in this century, I believe
that aviation will expand our global economy in the 21st
century. I assure you that I will use the leverage provided by
all of the innovative decisions made over the last year or so
to give the FAA improved legislation as it relates to
procurement reform and personnel reform. We will work hard to
deal with the question of long-term economic investment.
Commonsense Government
On the issue of commonsense Government, let me note that
we, too, Mr. Chairman, will make an effort to work with you to
bring private sector dollars to the financing of transportation
infrastructure investment. We hope to do that through our State
infrastructure bank initiative, as well as through the
establishment of a $100 million new Federal credit program
designed to deal with big-ticket items.
In closing, I would like to say that as we work to create
the transportation system for the 21st century, we must also
work to build a critical mass of professional wherewithal and
skill to man and to provide the human resources to make that
system work.
And I would like to ask the Congress to work with me in
establishing a Garrett A. Morgan technology and transportation
futures program designed to bring 1 million young people across
our country into the transportation industry. Giving them
access to the technological advancements of our transportation
system of tomorrow will be just the kind of inspiration they
need, I believe, to find this profession rewarding.
In closing, let me just say that I look forward to working
with all of you to ensure that our best days as a Nation are
yet ahead of us, and in doing so, we have to make sure that we
have a quality transportation system to sustain and to buttress
the economic activity that we know will come from our efforts
to improve and stimulate our economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have your
complete statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney E. Slater
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of the fiscal year 1998 budget
proposals for the Department of Transportation.
overview
President Clinton said in his State of the Union address: ``Over
the last four years we have brought new economic growth by investing in
our people, expanding our exports, cutting our deficits, creating over
11 million jobs, a four-year record. Now we must keep our economy the
strongest in the world.'' Under President Clinton, we have made good on
the promise of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991--ISTEA, the landmark legislation that Congress will be
reauthorizing this year. Working with Congress, we have increased
transportation infrastructure investment to record levels. These
investments have paid off in substantial improvements to the condition
and performance of our highways and mass transit systems.
Four weeks ago, President Clinton presented the details of the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget. Included in that budget is
proposed funding of $38.4 billion for our Nation's transportation
system and key national transportation priorities, which both invest in
our people and in our economy. First and foremost among these
priorities is to maintain the safety of the nation's transportation
system and to make that system even safer for the American public,
whether they travel by land, water or air.
Transportation is critical to economic growth and for providing our
citizens with the mobility on which they have come to rely to sustain
their quality of life.
This is as true today as it was at the beginning of our nation,
when George Washington saw that the mountain barrier separating the
seaboard cities of the new United States from the settlements along the
Ohio River must be overcome or the settlements would be pulled into
economic alliances with the British in Canada and the Spanish along the
Mississippi River. The solution that was in the young nation's clearest
interests was to: ``open a wide door, and make a smooth way for the
produce of that Country to pass to our Markets before the trade may get
into another channel.''
Today, just think of the wide doors that have been opened, the new
businesses and innovations in the last twenty years that have arisen
because of our effective intermodal transportation systems--express
packages, just-in-time delivery--where items move almost seamlessly
from land, whether by highway or rail, to water or air and then back to
land. These innovations are not just transportation change--they
support whole new ways of doing business.
Former Transportation Secretary John Volpe discussed the objectives
of the Department almost thirty years ago and his remarks are quite
remarkably pertinent today, as we near celebration of the 30th
anniversary of the Department. ``Our objectives range over improvements
in the overall efficiency of transportation, ensuring that the
unemployed have access to employment * * * that there be joint planning
of transport corridors in the hearts of our cities, that we upgrade the
safety of all modes, and most important for those who will come after
us--that we safeguard our priceless heritage of natural wonders,
historic sites and places of recreation.''
Even though transportation improvements over the last 30 years have
been astounding--for example, the ability of businesses to minimize
inventories because of the reliability and efficiency of the nation's
transportation system--the challenge that we face today sounds
remarkably similar to John Volpe's assessment. Today we must improve
our transportation system to meet the needs of the 21st century. We
must continue to invest in improving the safety of our people. We must
maintain critical infrastructure investment to meet the needs of our
economy. And we must do that in a way that protects our environment,
our neighborhoods and our national heritage.
investing in our people
The Department's budget proposes many critical investments in the
quality of life of the American people. I would like to highlight three
of these.
(1) Improving the safety of the transportation system, to save even
more lives so that the heartbreak that we see everyday due to
transportation is reduced. As you may know, in the past few weeks the
Department of Transportation experienced this heartbreak directly
within its family--two Maritime Administration employees were killed
when coming back to the office from lunch and three Coast Guardsmen's
lives were lost as they were trying to save others in rough seas.
(2) Ensuring that those going from welfare to work are not stymied
by lack of transportation. Transportation is one of the three major
challenges faced by welfare recipients, along with day care and skills
training.
(3) Interdicting illegal drugs, which continue to threaten the
well-being, safety and security of all American citizens, including the
children in our schools.
Safety
Our most important investment in the quality of life of the
American people and our highest priority--as always--is improving our
transportation system's safety and security.
Although it's already the safest in the world, much of what we do
is aimed at making it safer, as travel continues to grow. That's why
the President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposes to raise Department of
Transportation direct safety spending by $200 million--to $2.9 billion,
a record 7\1/2\ percent of our total budget.
A major focus in our safety effort will be highway crashes, which
account for more than nine out of every ten transportation fatalities.
About 41,500 travelers died in highway crashes last year, a slight
reduction from 1995. That's notable because it turned around a three-
year trend of increasing highway deaths. But, unless we also begin
again to lower the fatality rate, the growth in travel created by our
expanding economy will begin increasing the number of deaths once
again.
To cut the fatality rate, we have to focus not only on safer cars
and safer roads, but also on affecting the human factor. To do that, we
need measures such as increased education and law enforcement, and so
we propose raising NHTSA's safety spending by 11 percent--to $333
million. That includes:
--$9 million for a new occupant protection grant program to promote
safety belt use, the best way to protect travelers;
--a $9 million increase to support states in passing tough drunk
driving laws;
--$8 million for a new research and education program to reduce air
bag risks for children and small adults, while still preserving
the benefits of air bags for all motorists; and,
--$2 million for a pre-license drug-testing pilot program, the first
step in launching the President's new initiative to combat
drug-impaired driving.
We're also increasing funding for important safety programs in
aviation, rail and maritime safety.
--Aviation safety spending would increase 12 percent to $839 million,
enabling the FAA to hire 273 safety inspectors and
certification staffers. It also funds the work of the new
National Certification Team, which inspects start-up airlines.
--Railroad safety spending would increase by 12 percent, to $57
million, with funds going to speed up new safety rules and to
buy an automated track inspection vehicle.
--Finally, we're proposing to increase maritime safety funding to
$797 million--including Coast Guard programs to improve vessel
and recreational boating safety.
Access to Jobs
Transportation empowers our neighborhoods by providing access to
jobs, to markets, to education and to health care for all Americans,
whether they live in rural, urban or suburban areas. But this budget,
in addition to working for all Americans, is directing resources to one
group that needs special assistance: we are proposing the creation of a
new $100 million program to provide access to jobs and training,
administered by the Federal Transit Administration and cooperatively
supported by the Federal Highway Administration. This new initiative
will elevate the transportation contribution to welfare reform. We hope
this program will act as a catalyst, uniting local governments, mass
transportation providers, and social service providers in working
toward a common goal of helping people who do not own cars improve
their lives not only by finding a job, but by being able to get
regularly to that job.
As President Clinton said in his State of the Union address: ``Over
the last four years we moved a record 2\1/4\ million people off the
welfare rolls. Then last year Congress enacted landmark legislation
demanding that all able-bodied recipients assume the responsibilities
of moving from welfare to work. Now each and every one of us has to
fulfill our responsibility, indeed our moral obligation, to make sure
that people who now must work can work.'' One part of the President's
three-part plan to accomplish this goal is to provide training,
transportation and child care to help people go to work.
Our proposed new $100 million program would offer welfare
recipients the access to jobs, training, and support services that they
need to make the transition to the working world. This program would
promote flexible, innovative transportation alternatives--such as
vanpools--that get people to where the jobs are. It also would promote
family-friendly transportation, such as day care centers at bus and
rail stations.
In addition, DOT's ISTEA reauthorization proposal contains several
provisions designed to strengthen existing programs allowing states to
utilize Federal-aid funds for training.
Drug Interdiction
And third, the work of the Coast Guard not only directly supports
the safety and security of our people, but also is a direct investment
in the future of our country through its role in interdicting illegal
drugs before they get to America's streets and young people. We're
proposing to increase the Coast Guard's drug law enforcement budget--by
15 percent--to $389 million. That includes $53 million in additional
funding for surveillance technology, improved intelligence capabilities
and increased operations as part of the President's effort to stop
illegal drugs from entering our country.
investing in our economy
In the 21st century Americans will compete in a truly global
marketplace. This marketplace will be fiercely competitive and our
success as a nation will be determined on how safely, reliably and
cost-effectively we can move people, goods and information.
Transportation expenses now account for eleven percent of the United
States gross domestic product--a greater share of the economy than
health care or defense--and will affect our country's global
competitiveness in the future.
As he again made clear when he met with the nation's governors last
month, President Clinton recognizes the contribution of sound
infrastructure to increasing America's prosperity and its international
competitiveness. That's why he's worked on increasing infrastructure
spending even as he's reduced the budget deficit.
Infrastructure Investment
Working with this Subcommittee and the entire Congress, over the
past four years (fiscal years 1994-97) we've increased Federal
investment in highways, transit systems, and other infrastructure to an
average of $25.5 billion, more than 20 percent higher than the previous
four years. The Department is committed to a long-term infrastructure
investment program and seeks the highest levels of investment within
the balanced budget context.
Our investment is producing results, even with many of these
projects still under construction. For example, the latest data on the
National Highway System shows us that the condition of bridges and
pavement has improved significantly. System performance--as measured by
peak hour congestion, which had been deteriorating--has now stabilized.
This success extends to transit. In the last four years we've
financed nearly 26,000 buses and almost 600 rail cars for state and
local transit agencies. With 19 new full-funding grant agreements,
we've also financed more than 100 miles of new transit lines, serving
more than 100 stations. Meanwhile since 1993, Amtrak has either taken
delivery of or placed orders for 236 new rail passenger cars, 191 new
locomotives and 18 high speed train sets, making dramatic improvements
in the age and condition of its fleet and enabling 150 mph service in
the Northeast Corridor by the turn of the century.
The fiscal year 1998 proposal of $25.6 billion for infrastructure--
actually above the average of the past four years--would sustain the
investment that's produced these results. And I want to emphasize
that--by proposing even higher ISTEA reauthorization levels--we're
leaving room for additional investment in the future as economic
conditions and our deficit reduction efforts warrant.
For next year's federal-aid highway program, we're proposing an
$18.17 billion obligation limit, just a shade below this year's $18.19
billion.
We also propose a supplemental request for 1997 to increase the
obligation limit by $318 million. This would be distributed to states
that received lower-than-expected obligation authority this year
because of the Treasury Department's correction of an accounting
problem in crediting prior-year tax receipts to the Highway Trust Fund.
We're proposing $4.2 billion for transit capital this year, a $390
million increase. Transit operating assistance for communities with
more than 200,000 people would no longer be available. But increased
capital funding would be made available to them, and, as an added
measure of support for them and for communities of all sizes, we're
proposing to broaden the definition of ``capital'' to include
preventive maintenance of capital investment. Smaller communities--
which are the ones most dependent on federal aid--could use transit
formula grants for either capital or operating expenses.
Our efforts in the coming months will be largely devoted to
ensuring that an ISTEA reauthorization bill gets passed in a manner
that does not result in increases in the budget deficit, but also
provides states and localities with much needed flexibility and funding
in a timely manner. I know that you share that same goal. For the past
year, Congress and the Department have been engaged in reaching out to
groups and individuals across the country to gather ideas for
reauthorization of ISTEA. What has emerged is a consensus that ISTEA
works. The goal upon which our ISTEA reauthorization proposal is based
is to build on ISTEA, not abandon it.
Maritime
While not under this Committee's jurisdiction, I would also like to
mention that the Department's maritime programs have at their center
the strengthening of our national and economic security. They
accomplish this through genuine partnership with other government
agencies and absolute reliance on the private sector to accomplish two
goals: making our maritime transportation system the most modern,
competitive and efficient in the world and providing strategically
critical sea-lift capacity to support our national security needs.
Aviation Operations
Just as the Interstate highway system expanded the potential of our
national economy in this century, so aviation is tying us to an
expanded global economy as we enter the 21st century. Aviation has not
only brought Americans closer to each other, it has brought us closer
to the rest of the world. Our aviation system is vital to our domestic
economy and to our nation's global economic competitiveness. I can
assure you that I will use the leverage provided by access to the vast
United States market to urge our aviation partners to adopt more open
markets--and to ensure expanded access to their markets for United
States carriers.
The FAA's air traffic control system enables the safe travel of
1\1/2\ million passengers every day, and its inspections ensure that
aircraft, pilots, and aircraft operations meet the highest safety
standards. We're requesting an 8.7 percent increase, a notable amount
in an era of budget freezes, to the FAA's operating budget, up to a
record $5.4 billion. In addition to more safety inspectors, that will
let the FAA add 500 air traffic controllers and 173 security personnel
to carry out the Gore Commission's recommendations. The personnel and
procurement reform authority provided in our fiscal year 1996
Appropriations Act will enable FAA to hire the best people possible in
the most effective way, as well as to accelerate modernization of
critical equipment.
One area in which tough budget choices resulted in our proposing
lower investment is airport grants, for which we're proposing $1
billion. We've chosen this course because large airports can obtain
funding more easily than can other types of infrastructure; in fact,
most already use other sources--such as aircraft landing fees,
concession revenue, and passenger facility charges--for most of their
capital financing. We plan to mitigate the impact on small airports--
which are especially dependent on federal aid--by proposing that their
formula grants continue at current levels.
Financing all of our aviation system's needs--airports, airway
facilities, security, and FAA operations--is a critical priority for
us. I want to commend the Congress for its prompt action in renewing
expired aviation taxes and crediting receipts to the Trust Fund. We are
grateful for this quick action, which will avoid a serious, short-term
financing crisis.
We also want to work with Congress to establish a reliable, long-
term funding base so that the FAA can provide the services our aviation
system needs. As an interim measure until comprehensive financial
reform is achieved, we're proposing $300 million in new user fees.
We're looking forward to appointing the new National Civil Aviation
Review Commission--which will analyze aviation budget requirements and
ways to fund them--and help us to reach a consensus on what course to
take.
proactive leadership
As I said in my confirmation hearing, I will continue to bring
common sense government to the Department of Transportation in order to
provide the people we serve with a Department that works better and
costs less. I will encourage more flexible, innovative funding to
leverage federal dollars for infrastructure investment, technology use
to improve the performance of our transportation system, and
transportation policies that are sensitive to environmental concerns.
Innovative Financing
The fiscal year 1998 budget expands the efforts the Department has
made in innovative financing by providing another $150 million in seed
money for State Infrastructure Banks (SIB's) and $100 million for a new
Federal Credit Program, both to be included in our proposal for ISTEA's
reauthorization.
The Federal Credit Program will be similar to the SIB's in its
support of innovative financing, but it will fill a different need--the
support of projects which, by virtue of their size or their multistate
benefits, are nationally significant but which might not fit into the
programs of individual states. That will enable us to make loans and
apply other financing arrangements for these vital investments, much as
we did with California's Alameda Corridor project.
Technology
Technology is particularly essential to the health of our
transportation system. Innovations in transportation technology
contribute to America's global competitiveness and national security,
enhance the capacity of our infrastructure, our environment and local
communities, and perhaps most importantly, save lives and reduce the
risk of accidents and injuries. That's why we propose to increase
investment in technology research and development by nine percent, to
$1 billion.
This total includes $250 million for Intelligent Transportation
Systems, which apply advanced computer and communications technologies
to travel. This will help improve information to drivers in order to
increase transportation efficiency. About $150 million will fund ITS
research and technology development, and $100 million is to encourage
state and local governments to invest in electronic infrastructure such
as travel information programs and automated traffic signals to enhance
infrastructure performance.
The budget also requests funding to complete all six prototypes and
conduct testing of the Advanced Technology Transit Bus. This bus was
developed using proven, advanced technologies from the aerospace
industry and is a lightweight, low-floor, low-emission alternative to
current buses.
Other efforts in the technology area are geared at helping the
Department target its resources to address critical problems. For
example, the FAA's technology budget includes funding for an aviation
safety risk analysis program. This program is designed to improve FAA
and industry measurement of and accountability for safety performance.
The analytical techniques to be developed will focus on more
effectively and efficiently using information contained in FAA and
industry databases.
Protecting the Environment
Transportation, like all human activity, affects the environment,
and we have an obligation to mitigate its impacts. That's why we're
proposing a five percent increase in environmental funding--to $1.53
billion.
Much of this would be for the successful Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program, which state and local governments use
to cut pollution through transit projects, traffic flow improvements
and alternatives such as ridesharing. CMAQ funds would be authorized at
$1.3 billion a year, up 30 percent from their level under ISTEA.
The Coast Guard's marine environmental protection program, which
promotes and enforces an aggressive approach to pollution prevention,
preparedness, and response, along with oil spill cleanup programs,
would increase seven percent, to $326 million.
conclusion
As the President has said, when times change, so government must
change. And so, as I look to the next four years, I believe we in the
Department of Transportation must set high goals and must be architects
of change, but also build a new balance in our relations with state and
local governments. We must ensure our success in the 21st century by
recognizing the crossroads we are at today--recognizing the need not
only to invest in our current infrastructure, but to take full
advantage of technology and leave a more efficient, safer
transportation system and environment than we have today. I hope that I
can help us reach not just for the easy and the quick, but for the
solutions that will make a difference in the long run, for the
solutions that appear, but are not really, just beyond our reach.
As President Clinton said in Putting People First, ``Just as
interstate highway construction in the 1950's ushered in two decades of
unparalleled growth, investing in the pathways of the future will put
Americans back to work and spur economic growth.'' The Department's
fiscal year 1998 budget proposes strategic investments in two important
pathways: people and infrastructure. It also does its part to balance
the federal budget by 2002. I stand ready to be your partner as you
develop a DOT appropriations bill that is consistent with our national
commitment to reach a balanced budget by 2002 and with our commitment
to ensure that critical national transportation needs are met so that
Americans can maintain their mobility and our economy can continue to
prosper. I also stand ready to work with the Congress as it develops a
long-term ISTEA reauthorization bill that address the issues of this
fiscal year and the 21st century.
Proposed Highway Obligation Levels
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the administration's ISTEA
proposal in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget, as Senator
Domenici referred to, appeared to set a highway obligation
limitation significantly below the contract authority level.
Effectively, the obligation limitation envisioned in the 1998
budget request in the administration's ISTEA proposal has been
frozen below the 1997 appropriated level. The administration
proposes, as I understand, a higher contract authority level
but without--but without--the accompanying obligation
limitation.
That simply raises false expectations among my colleagues,
the States, the transportation constituency, and the American
public.
Why, Mr. Secretary, are you proposing higher contract
authority numbers in the budget than your proposed obligation
limitation?
Secretary Slater. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is
to exercise a policy that really is evident in ISTEA where you
have higher contract authority than obligation authority, but
with the robust economy, we have actually been able to fund
approximately 96 percent of the authorized levels in ISTEA.
Under our current scenario, it provides for a contract
authority that is at the highest level possible and an
obligation authority at the highest level possible within the
context of our overall budget goal of balancing the budget by
the year 2002.
But with a multiyear program, it is our hope that as much
as we have been able to do in ISTEA in its full-funding effort,
we will be able to do the same as we look at the outyears of
our proposal.
Currently the obligation limitation would limit us to
about, I guess, 86 percent on the dollar of the moneys coming
into the trust fund. But again, we had a similar situation with
ISTEA. Over time, because we were able to provide record-level
investment over the last 4 years, we were able to provide 96
percent of the funds coming into the trust fund during this
period. We believe that the same will hold true as we look
forward to a robust economy in the coming years.
Transit New Starts
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the President's proposed
1998 budget would cut transit new starts by $126 million from
the current enacted level of $760 million.
There are now 13 new starts with full funding grant
agreements in the funding pipeline, and two more are awaiting
FFGA's. These 15 projects will cost $3.7 billion to complete.
There are about 100 other projects already in various
preliminary stages, totaling about $10 to $20 billion to
complete. The San Francisco BART subway extension to the San
Francisco airport is awaiting approval of a new $750 million
Federal full funding grant agreement, and Sacramento is
awaiting one for about $100 million.
Some new start projects have encountered serious
construction problems, notably in Los Angeles, where concerns
have been raised about whether improved bus service is a
cheaper and a better option.
Should, Mr. Secretary, the administration be entering into
new funding grant agreements when the new starts program is
already at least oversubscribed?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, your point is well taken
in that we have recently moved rather aggressively as it
relates to new starts, really, 13 major new starts, but on
average I think we had about 20 or so over the last 4 years, a
considerable investment.
I think it responds to the challenges of the moment. I
found it quite interesting that Senator Faircloth from North
Carolina would make mention of the importance of light rail, a
southern State, a State clearly dependent on highways, as he
noted, with the largest system in the country, but because of
the capacity needs of this age and the future, States are
beginning to diversify their system much more, even in the
South, a region that we both hail from.
It is the opinion of the administration that through the
planning process, working with local and State officials, we
will be able to bring about better transportation decisions so
as to bring more transit projects on line, but to do so in a
way that recognizes our limited dollars, our limited ability to
play at the Federal level, but to also encourage and stimulate
activity at both the local and State levels and even from the
private sector. We are finding that these arrangements can be
put together as we work as a team and bring commonsense
approaches to these kinds of decisions.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, is the administration
interested in working with new starts project sponsors to help
reduce the size of the Federal commitment to these expensive
projects?
Secretary Slater. I think we have to continue to work with
our partners to do that.
Clearly, State and local governments are strong and
actually majority participants in all transportation
infrastructure investments. I think we have moved past the day
when the Federal Government is the total pocketbook when it
comes to these kinds of major investments. We also have to test
the private markets, and many of you have spoken to that.
But that is not to say that we can shirk our responsibility
as a Federal Government in providing much needed resources and
in carrying our part of the load, and I do believe we are going
to work through this process as we go forward as a nation into
a new era.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Safety Regulations
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Slater, for an excellent presentation.
Mr. Slater, I was opposed to the passage of the National
Highway System bill, and I asked the President to veto the
bill. The bill, in my opinion, went just too far in undermining
our Federal role in ensuring safety on our highways. The law
repealed Federal mandates regarding speed limits, as well as
use of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.
Now, I hear that some interests want to use the
reauthorization of ISTEA to force more rollbacks and
deregulation in the safety area, including allowing longer and
heavier trucks on our highways and eliminating mandates on the
minimum drinking age.
Can you tell me what the administration's position is going
to be regarding the effort to roll back the existing safety
mandates in current law?
Secretary Slater. Senator, I do not think that those kinds
of rollbacks can be tolerated, frankly. As you know, the
administration fought vigorously to make the case for a
national speed limit law, for the helmet law, and the like. It
was a battle that we lost.
We also made a strong case for the importance of the
National Highway System. This is a system that is but 4 percent
of all the roadways in the country, but it carries 45 percent
of all the highway traffic, 75 percent of the truck traffic, 80
percent of the tourist traffic. It is on this system that we
hope to make the kinds of improvements that will make less
likely the kinds of accidents that we have heard about even
this morning.
Because of that, because of the focus on intermodal
connectors that will hopefully take us closer to the
establishment of a national intermodal system where all of the
modes of transportation play the roles that they play best, it
was my suggestion, along with Secretary Pena, to the President
that he sign the bill, knowing that many of our key supporters
were on a different side.
We also then made a commitment to establish a strong and
aggressive safety action plan that we are yet in the process of
moving forward on implementing, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman,
that as Secretary I will make safety not only my No. 1 priority
in rhetoric, but it will be the North Star by which we will be
guided and also a commitment by which we will be judged. I am
committed to following through on this commitment.
Driving While Intoxicated
Senator Lautenberg. I am pleased to hear that, Mr.
Secretary. We cannot expose our passengers on the highways to
ever more danger and ignore what is taking place.
I was the author of the provision that sanctioned State
highway funds for failing to adopt the 21-year-old drinking age
bill.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. I am pleased to say that as I look back
on my work here, one of the things that pleased me most was the
fact that it is estimated somewhere around 14,000 young people
did not die on the highways because of our legislation. I think
it is also assumed that if the law was enforced more
rigorously, that we would have a substantially higher number
that would have escaped death and injury on the highway.
The NHS bill included an initiative that Senator Byrd had
to sanction State highway funds if they did not prosecute
drivers under the age of 21 with any amount of alcohol in their
system.
Have these sanction programs served their purpose?
Secretary Slater. They have, Senator. Actually we have a
commitment to the Congress to respond with a report dealing
with what have been the effects of some of the other safety
provisions, and at that time, we will have better data as
relates to the success of this particular program.
But, again, I do think that it underscores the fact that
there were safety components of the NHS bill that really made
it worthy of the President's signature, and you have just noted
the commendable effort on the part of Senator Byrd in that
regard. And I might add that that was a provision that passed
overwhelmingly in the Congress and also by numbers comparable
to the numbers by which some of the other provisions were
actually removed from our national policy.
So, I do believe that the Congress is ready and willing to
ensure that we have laws on the books that make safety our No.
1 priority in transportation.
Senator Lautenberg. We are happy to hear your commitment
and to test whether or not the Congress is determined to do
what it can to prevent this carnage when it comes to
determining blood alcohol levels for prosecuting drunk drivers.
NHTSA has determined that drivers become significantly impaired
at .08 BAC. They also found that the risk of being in a crash
rises gradually as the BAC level increases, but then rises very
rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 blood alcohol
content.
Do you think we ought to take a more aggressive stance to
get the States to adopt .08 for prosecuting drunk drivers?
Secretary Slater. Let me just say that that is clearly an
issue to be considered.
What I would really like to note, though, is I do believe
NHTSA is doing quality work. One area where we are focusing a
great majority of our attention is in the seatbelt area. So,
this, as well as other initiatives, can be considered as a part
of an overall toolbox from which States, locales can select
those programs, policies, and procedures that best relate to
the transportation and safety challenges that they face at the
State and local level.
Amtrak Funding
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, under your view of
things, your ISTEA proposal assumes that Amtrak will be funded
from the highway trust fund, but it is not at all clear that
Amtrak will see any sizable increase in capital funding under
your request. Will your ISTEA proposal provide Amtrak with
sufficient capital dollars to eliminate the need for operating
subsidies and be able to provide first-class service? Because
that is what is going to determine the success of the railroad.
Secretary Slater. I understand. Senator, I know that the
issue of Amtrak is one that is very important to you and many
Senators clearly in the Northeast corridor, but I have heard
from a number of Members really across the country, Senator
Lott in particular from Mississippi and others, who are in some
of the more rural areas of the country, who also value the
importance of Amtrak.
I can tell you that it is my personal desire that Amtrak
has to be a part of the 21st-century transportation system. The
challenge before us is to determine how to best fund it, how to
best make it self-sustaining. The people within Amtrak, the
leadership, Tom Downs and others, I think have made a very
strong case in that regard, but we do have a long ways to go.
I would hope that when we unveil our proposal in the first
instance, that Amtrak could be a part of it. I have to tell you
that because we are trying to come to grips with how to best
fund it, that may or may not be the case, but it would again
then be my hope that before we move through the entire
reauthorization process, that we would be able to come to some
consensus, find some common ground as to how to make Amtrak
more viable and self-sustaining.
Senator Lautenberg. It needs leadership, Mr. Secretary, and
Amtrak, when presented as an asset in a State or a community,
is very much sought after by people here, the Members. I am
sure the distinguished Senator from Utah would like to see that
Amtrak is there in 2002 carrying all those people, bringing all
that money, getting----
Senator Bennett. I think it has a better role to play in
the Northeast corridor than it does in Utah, and I support it
in the Northeast corridor.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I am willing to share the
admiration for Amtrak. [Laughter.]
Well, can you guarantee now in front of this subcommittee,
Mr. Secretary, that Amtrak will not have to terminate more
routes under the funding levels that are being proposed?
Secretary Slater. What I would like to do, Senator, is to
just make a firm, unequivocal commitment that the Department
will work with the Congress, with the Amtrak team, both
management and labor and its leadership, and State and local
governments, to find common ground and to ensure that we do not
lose any more service and actually that we build on the service
that we currently have. My objective would be to see Amtrak as
a viable part of a transportation system for the 21st century.
Senator Lautenberg. You will convey that to Majority Leader
Lott, please?
Secretary Slater. I will.
FAA Facility in Atlantic City
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, the Coopers & Lybrand
accounting firm evaluation of the FAA's financial needs was
released just this Friday, and as you know, this report
included a recommendation that the FAA look into consolidating
the Hughes Technical Center, which is in Atlantic City, NJ,
into a facility in Oklahoma City, OK. They justify this
recommendation largely based on the value of the land they say
could be sold if FAA moved from its present location.
Well, it is mysterious to those of us who know the area,
because it is an established fact that there is a reversionary
clause that says this property that FAA is on must be sold to
the Southern New Jersey Transportation Authority for only
$55,000. The estimate on it is, I think, a couple of hundred
million dollars. And there is no way that that is going to
redound as a bonus to the Federal Government.
The Hughes Technical Center is also, unfortunately, a Super
Fund site, and it is going to require some very expensive
environmental remediation.
It functions, however, in its present form to continue the
pursuit of explosive detection equipment, of ways to thwart
terrorists, of ways to reduce the damage that comes from bomb
explosions, hardened containers. They do some wonderful,
wonderful work down there.
To uproot this infrastructure of intellectually trained
people, I think, would be a travesty, and I hope that, based on
the facts, that you will be able to assure us that the Atlantic
City technical center will continue to operate to provide
safety to the traveling public and to deal with our expanding
need.
As we all know, aviation is scheduled for growth. Mr.
Chairman, I think it could almost double in the next 20 years.
So, I would like to have your word, Mr. Secretary, that you
will look very closely at that and make sure that we do not
lose this asset.
Secretary Slater. Yes; Mr. Chairman, what we are doing now
is analyzing the study of which you speak. Our objective will
be to pass it on to the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission that will be established soon for full consideration
and for the implementation of those parts of the study that we
would find worthy of implementation.
I can tell you, speaking specifically about your concern,
that the cost of land should be a factor, but not the sole
determining factor, when it comes to this issue. Clearly the
issues that you have raised here and that we will likely
discuss as we go forward will be taken into account.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. We have been joined by Senator Mikulski. Do
you have any opening statement?
Senator Mikulski. I will be happy to wait for my turn for
questions, and I am very happy to welcome Secretary Slater to
this committee.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Transit New Starts Funding
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize I did
not do my manners properly by congratulating you in my opening
statement for your assumption of this chairmanship.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. I am delighted to have you there and to
join you as a new member of the committee.
I want to follow up on the chairman's comment about full
funding grant agreements. I am not sure I heard quite what I
wanted to hear in the answer, and it may be my faulty hearing.
But once you get a full-funding grant agreement in place
and a new start underway, filling up the pipeline with other
full funding grant agreements behind it that end up diluting
what you are doing on existing projects can have the effect of
slowing down what is there on the projects in progress, which
ultimately drives up the costs.
I think the issue that the chairman raised about the BART
extension in San Francisco and the extra hundred million in
Sacramento is one that has to be looked at in terms of its
impact on the FFGA's that are already in place.
Would you address that again for me? As I say, I may not
have got it properly from your comment. How do you react to
that?
Secretary Slater. Sure. Senator, clearly as we deal with
those two proposals, we will take into account those projects
that are currently in the pipeline. Your point is well taken
there. When we talk about our priority of bringing a
commonsense approach to Government, I think that that would
mandate that kind of analysis and review.
I can tell you that the way we have been able to handle
these projects thus far is to continue to monitor the progress
of the projects in the pipeline and, where in an instance a
project is not moving as effectively, efficiently, as we would
like, we make decisions about the resources. I can tell you
that the Los Angeles Red Line is a project in point dealing
with that particular issue.
So, I think that your point is well taken, and I assure you
that that is the kind of thoughtful consideration that will go
into the way we address these new proposals that are yet before
us and how they relate to the projects that are currently in
the pipeline.
Spending of Trust Funds
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that
clarification.
Reference was made earlier to spending the money that is in
the trust fund. If I may again go back to my history, we
naively thought in the Department of Transportation in the late
1960's when we created the airport airways trust fund, we were
guaranteeing that FAA would have sufficient funds, independent
of the ups and downs of budget cycles, to see to it that the
airport airways system would be properly funded.
We did not recognize that Presidents, regardless of party--
the Presidents of my party have been just as guilty of this as
the Presidents of yours have been--could find ways to thwart
the effect of creating a trust fund for both airport airways
and highways. The money that is put in both those trust funds
piles up on paper so that the funds have huge, wonderful
surpluses, but in effect in the unified budget, the impact is
to say we have lowered the deficit elsewhere because we are not
appropriating those funds.
Talking about safety, I heard a report of someone who
looked into the issues of hackers breaking into the computer
systems of the Federal Government and whether or not they would
be able to render serious mischief in the Federal Government
and was told the one place where a hacker cannot create damage
in the Federal Government system is in the FAA airport airways
computer system because it is so obsolete, there is not a
hacker anywhere in the world that is capable of penetrating it.
That is not a really reassuring kind of safety circumstance.
I support the notion that the money that is in the highway
trust fund should be spent on highways and not sequestered for
a budget effect later on, and I support the notion that the
money that is in the airport airways trust fund should be spent
on bringing the airport airways computer system up to the point
where hackers can at least understand it.
I would like your reaction to that. I know I am putting you
and the chairman of the Budget Committee in something of a box
with this, but I do go back to the days when the trust funds
were created as trust funds and I have seen the budgeters of
both parties get around that congressional intent and would
like just a comment.
Aviation Trust Fund
Secretary Slater. Well, first of all, let me commend you
for raising really an important question, even though it is
difficult to grapple with.
But let me also commend the Senate and the Congress as a
whole for the prompt action taken on the reinstatement of the
aviation excise tax, because our trust fund was almost in
bankruptcy status, and I very much appreciate, and I know that
the entire administration appreciates, the prompt action taken
there.
Also let me say, as relates to the issue of equipment and
the other needs of the aviation industry, because that is what
is really underlying the question and the strength and power
and force of it--Senator Lautenberg mentioned earlier the fact
that there was the equipment failure at an airport in his
State, and that has happened probably all too often in
districts and States around the country.
I think that the Congress, working with the administration,
has acted to give us the most powerful tools we have ever had
to deal effectively and forthrightly with these issues. I speak
of it from the vantage point of my work as Federal Highway
Administrator. I think coming into the office and having the
ability to make ISTEA real, with all of the planning and
flexibility and innovative potential there, was a treat for
someone who really wanted to make a difference, as was noted
earlier by Senator Lautenberg in reference to Chairman Shelby
and the opportunity he has now serving as chairman.
I think today the aviation industry, FAA, has the same
opportunity we had in highways with the enactment of ISTEA to
really make a difference, to turn the curve, to deal with these
issues of personnel reform, procurement reform, and then with
the advent of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission and
the work that it will do in dealing with the long-term funding
needs to put aviation on a path, a flight path if you will,
that will ensure that it will give us what we need in the first
half of the 21st century when it must play the role that the
Interstate System played in the last half of the 20th century,
helping us to develop a national economy, the Interstate
System, but the aviation industry helping us to compete
effectively and forcefully and win on the international stage.
And all of these funding questions underlie that, and so I
would like to, in offering my response, make the point that I
do understand the issue. I think that you raise it--even though
uncomfortable--you raise it as it should be raised, and we just
have to work over the coming year to answer this very difficult
question and to find common ground in doing so.
Senator, as one who would not see any Senator as just
another Senator, I very much appreciate you for having raised
this very, very important issue.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. We have been joined by Senator Specter. Do
you have any opening statement, Senator Specter?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
am delighted to join others in welcoming the new Secretary of
Transportation. It is a job of enormous importance.
I am very much concerned about the funding for mass
transit, for operating expenses. The impact of cuts is very,
very hard on not only the big cities but in the rural areas.
People do not understand that mass transit affects small
counties in my State like Monroe County and Schuylkill County,
and in the big cities it is indispensable in order to take
people from the inner city to jobs in the suburbs. I think we
have to do better on that subject.
On the ISTEA issue, I am hopeful that we will be able to
find the money to take care of America's infrastructure. I know
that in the House of Representatives, Chairman Shuster is
taking the position that the highway trust fund ought to spend
all the money on highways. It has some very substantial
opponents, as I understand it, Senator Domenici, among others.
But I think we need to get to the day where we will have
the trust funds carry out the purpose for which they were
intended. They really are trust funds.
When I was district attorney in Philadelphia, I indicted
people who invaded trust funds because that is a fraudulent
conversion, and the Federal Government, regrettably, can get
away with it.
One other point that I would like to comment on, as we move
forward to ISTEA, I think it was very important that we
maintain adequate funding for mass transit. We have a very
delicate situation with the supply of oil from the Mideast.
This is something I saw in some detail working on the problems
of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, the difficulties we have seen
with Iran, and while we do not like to think about it or talk
about it, we have to face up to the fact that the government in
Saudi Arabia is on a thin thread and that if we had a problem
with Saudi oil, we would be in very, very deep trouble, the
entire Western World and Japan. So, we ought to be moving
toward independence from Mideast oil.
I know Senator Byrd and I and others have worked years on
the subject of clean coal. We have hydrocarbons in our country
which would go a long way for independence from Mideast oil.
That is a very bitter pill we might have to face, but we can do
a little something about it on ISTEA if we look more to mass
transit.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Domenici. Senator Byrd, would you yield one moment
to me?
Senator Byrd. Certainly. I would be glad to.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. I cannot stay because of
another engagement.
I have several questions, which I am going to submit for
the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Submit them for the record.
Senator Domenici. I very much would appreciate as early an
answer as you can give us.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Spending of Trust Funds
Senator Domenici. Let me just make one quick observation
about trust funds. What we are trying to do is make sure the
Appropriations Committee maintains some power over how the
trust fund moneys are spent, just to be honest with you.
Frankly, just because you have an airport trust fund did not
mean that the expenditure from that trust fund to build a new
computer system was right. Had somebody been looking at it,
they might have said we do not want to spend the money. It
turned out to be a botched project.
So, I am trying to find a balance between a trust fund and
making sure somebody has some real oversight and some ability
to say that this year we are not going to spend all the money
in the trust fund because the program is not right.
Now, I am sure, even in your capacity as district attorney,
that the judge would understand that I am acting in good faith.
So, I would urge that you not seriously consider taking any
action against the chairman of the Budget Committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, just one comment. I would
confess error if there was any error to confess about
implicating the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
I am not saying that you have to spend all the money in the
trust fund. What I am saying is that the money in the trust
fund ought to be spent for the purpose for which it is
intended.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Status of Appalachian Highway System
Senator Byrd. The Senator is welcome.
Mr. Secretary, as I indicated in my opening statement, I am
very encouraged by the President's request for $2.19 billion in
contract authority and obligational authority for the
Appalachian Highway System. I think it is an excellent first
step toward ensuring the system's completion.
Question.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Even though you are not able to request the
adequate funding in the next 6 years to complete the system, is
the administration committed to its eventual completion as soon
as possible?
Secretary Slater. Senator, we are committed to that end.
Senator Byrd. Based on the funding stream that you have
recommended for the next 6 years, when do you estimate that
construction of the system will be completed?
Secretary Slater. We anticipate that--well, first of all,
we are doing an update of the estimate. I believe the last was
done in 1992. At that time we anticipated that the cost to
complete was probably in the neighborhood of about $7 billion
or so. We were asked by the Appalachian Regional Commission to
do an update. We hope to have that update completed by the
middle of the year. I would say summer. I think we are looking
at May. At that time we will have a better handle on what the
challenge is. We anticipate that it will again be in the
neighborhood of about $7 billion or so.
When you consider what we were able to offer as a result of
this reauthorization proposal--that will become public fairly
soon--of around $2.19 billion, it is anticipated that it will
probably require that we go beyond the 6-year period of
reauthorization. So, I would assume and hope that over the next
decade or so, maybe a little longer, we can complete the
funding of this very important program.
I do understand that many are a bit frustrated. This was an
effort that started more than 30 years ago, and you do have the
commitment of this administration to work with you in
partnership to see that the work is done and is done as timely
as possible.
Senator Byrd. I appreciate your answer, Mr. Secretary. I
was a little bit concerned by the words that you used. Perhaps
you did not choose them with design.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. But you said, within the next decade or so,
possibly a little longer.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. I would hope that we would complete this
system in 12 years, which would give ISTEA--two highway bills--
certainly no longer than 3, which would be 18 years.
Secretary Slater. I understand. I can tell you that as I
was thinking about the next decade or so, I was thinking
basically two evolutions of reauthorization.
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Secretary Slater. But since those bills can sometimes be 6
years, 5 years, I just did not want to be too specific there,
but we are going to do the best we can this time around.
Senator Byrd. Well, you cannot be too specific. I think we
are on the same wavelength and I appreciate your understanding
of our needs, those of us who represent the Appalachian States.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Will the Appalachian highway funding that you
are proposing in your ISTEA proposal also grant the necessary
obligational authority so that the States do not have to choose
between funding the Appalachian highways and addressing their
other highway needs?
Secretary Slater. That is correct, sir. There will be no
impact on the obligation authority that is normally given to
the States through the formula program.
Alcohol-impaired Driving
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I have been concerned for many
years about the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving.
Let me say, incidentally, we have witnessed a great crusade
in this country against smoking and it is being fairly
successful, I think. I am not critical of that crusade, but
what I cannot understand is why this Government of ours is not
equally concerned about alcohol. Why do we not have a crusade
against drinking, not just drinking while driving but against
drinking, period?
Now, it may not be very politically correct--God help us if
we ever succumb to that term--to mention drinking.
I see the smoker as maybe killing himself, but I see the
driver who is drinking as killing other persons, innocent
people, my wife, your wife, our children, our grandchildren,
and so on, and likely not killing himself.
As I have noticed most of these collisions that involve
drunken drivers, it seems to me that they get off with a few
bruises in most instances, but it is the person who was not
drinking who is killed.
I just hope that this administration will take up the
crusade against this evil. Smoking does not break up homes.
Smoking does not cause divorces. Smoking does not cause
absenteeism from the job, from the work place, but it is Old
John Barleycorn, that evil we call booze. We need to effectuate
a crusade in that regard.
Now, that is neither here nor there as far as your
questions and answers are concerned, but it leads me at least
to this question.
Are the fiscal year 1998 requested amounts for these types
of programs sufficient to deal effectively with the problems
associated with drunk driving, particularly given the fact that
in 1995 alcohol-related fatalities rose for the first time in a
decade to 17,274 deaths?
I am alluding to the request for the alcohol-impaired
driving incentive grants for which NHTSA has requested $34
million, an increase of $8.5 million from fiscal year 1997.
I am also referring to the impaired driving research or
section 403. NHTSA is asking for $1.6 million, the same amount
as fiscal year 1997.
For the State and community formula grant program, NHTSA
has requested $140.2 million, $34.1 million of which is
approximately spent on alcohol safety programs. The fiscal year
1998 funding is at the same level as fiscal year 1997.
So, again, are these requested amounts for these types of
programs sufficient, in your judgment, to deal effectively with
the growing problems associated with drunk driving?
Secretary Slater. Senator, first of all, let me say that
the increase in the number of accidents involving alcohol-
impaired drivers was not a figure that went unnoticed by those
of us within the Department. We are committed to safety as the
No. 1 priority, more than just through rhetoric. That kind of
reality is what has caused us to make a significant increase in
our request for funding to really provide more incentive to
States to respond to these kinds of issues.
As relates to the alcohol-impaired driving program, we do
request an additional $9 million. That is a significant
increase, but I would like to note that overall, as it relates
to all of the NHTSA programs, we are requesting an 11-percent
increase in those programs.
So, again, to give States a toolbox from which to select
those initiatives that best meet their particular challenges,
we are asking for total funding in the amount of $333 million
for NHTSA for these types of programs.
We are also beginning to focus more and more on driver
behavior as an area on which to provide additional resources
and focus to deal with this particular issue. We have made
significant contributions on the infrastructure side, dealing
with pavements and the like, also as it relates to vehicle
safety, but we do believe we can do more in the area of human
factors and that is where we are going to focus a lot of
attention and effort in the coming years.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I compliment you on your
response.
I hope that you will be more aggressive, very aggressive in
pushing the States in this direction.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Safety of Washington, DC, Area Parkways
Senator Byrd. The life you save may be mine, and I am
thinking of the George Washington Parkway.
Secretary Slater. Oh, yes.
Senator Byrd. Recently we have seen some terrible, most
tragic accidents occur on that road, and it was my
understanding in watching the TV that $16 million would be
needed to install structural divides between the road going
east and the highway going west.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; your divides.
Senator Byrd. Those median strips are so very narrow in so
many places.
Do you have any comment?
Secretary Slater. Yes; I do, sir. This is something that we
have followed very closely. I might also add that the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway, about which I know Senator
Mikulski is very interested--we have looked at these and we
have really tried to work with the Park Service to make the
necessary improvements. I might add, though, that our figure is
more in the area of about $10 million for the improvement, but
I am willing to be mistaken on that point.
The only point I want to make is we will work with the Park
Service in partnership to make sure that the necessary
improvements are made. We are expediting the process to provide
for some temporary structural improvement over the next few
months, and then we will move forward with the kind of
resources and initiative necessary to provide for the permanent
barriers.
But if I may, Senator, let me just say that I saw a very
interesting editorial in the Washington Post dealing with this
issue, which noted that these parkways were not built to
interstate standards, nor were they built with their use to be
in the same way as the interstates are used.
In the final analysis, I think we have to seek the
assistance and the support of the driving public that will use
this facility and know that it is constructed in the way that
it is constructed so as to accentuate the pristine beauty of
the roadway and the landscape, as well as to provide a
transportation service. We just all have to be considerate of
the individuals with whom we share the road. So, I think
enforcement is also a part of the answer, and that is really
what I am getting to.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. May I ask
one question of the Secretary with regard to the funding that
is needed in regard to the problem that we just indicated?
Would this be funding that would come through this
subcommittee or would it come through the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the
parks?
Secretary Slater. It is going to come from our Federal
Lands Program, which is a part of our overall DOT program. So,
this committee would have a lot to say about those resources
and how they are expended.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I hope we will do something
about this.
I thank the chairman and thank the Secretary.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Mileage of Appalachian Highway System
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also share an interest with Senator Byrd on the
Appalachian Highway System. I was 8 years working with it.
Have we added additional miles to it? Have there been miles
added since the inception--what? Thirty years ago?
Senator Byrd. Over 30; 32 years.
Senator Faircloth. Have there been additional miles added
to that system or is it a locked-in mileage? If we have
continued to add mileage to the system, then there is some
reason for not having completed it in 30 years, so are we still
adding? That is my question.
Secretary Slater. Yes; I understand the nature of the
question.
Let me just say that I do not know personally whether miles
have been added. I would say this, that most of the costs and
the increase that we have determined are really based on other
factors, the need to ensure that the roadways are compatible
with the environment and a lot of our clean air
responsibilities that have come into existence in the ensuing
years. But that represents the increase in the costs more so
than the addition of miles.
I have just gotten a note that no new miles have been
added.
Senator Faircloth. No new miles.
Senator Byrd. It seems to me, if the Senator would yield,
that there have been some new miles added from what they were
in the very beginning.
Secretary Slater. OK. Let me just say that what I would
like to do is to look into it. I know that the system is pretty
much consistent with the way we have looked at the Interstate
System where originally it was about 42,000 miles, if I
understand correctly. Then over time, because of changes in
demographics, there were some roadways that were added, and we
have got a system now that is about 45,000 miles. I would not
be surprised if a few miles have been added to the system.
But the point that I want to underscore is that the
increase in the cost is primarily based on inflation and based
on other responsibilities that we have to meet that go beyond
just the laying of the concrete, the asphalt, and the steel,
many of them environmental considerations. We are taking those
into account appropriately so, and our objective is to complete
the system as soon as possible at a cost as low as possible.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, would the Senator yield again?
Senator Faircloth. Sure.
Senator Byrd. I wonder if the Secretary--and perhaps I am
the one who is confused--is talking about the interstate
mileage system when I believe the Senator is talking about the
Appalachian corridor.
Secretary Slater. Yes; I was talking about Appalachian. But
my point is I would not be surprised that some miles were
added. We are going to confirm that.
But then I went on to use the interstate as an analogy.
Originally it was laid out actually during the Roosevelt
administration, and then during the Eisenhower administration,
we were able to put together--Senator, you noted your presence
at the time--not only the concept but also the funding
mechanism. Then over time, because of some demographic changes,
we did add miles here, miles there. We are talking about I-73/
74 right now. So, those kinds of additions have been made over
time, but it has not resulted in a large addition. We started
at about 42,000 miles. We are now at roughly 45,000. That is
not a significant addition with a system of that size, and I
would think that the same would hold true with the Appalachian
development highway program.
[The information follows:]
No corridors have been added to the system since 1978.
However, Congress amended the 1965 Appalachian Development Act
to increase the original 2,350-mile Appalachian system in 1967
to 2,700 miles, in 1975 to 2,900 miles, and finally in 1978 to
its present size of 3,025 miles.
Varied Uses of Highway Trust Fund
Senator Faircloth. Thank you.
Secretary Slater, the administration has expanded the use
of highway trust funds in many, many areas. When we added a 4.3
cents per gallon tax increase on gasoline, it simply went to
the general revenues. And now the President has proposed that
funding for Amtrak come from the trust fund, which it did not
in the past. Additional funds for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration come out of the trust fund.
If we keep bleeding the highway trust fund--and that is
what we are doing with every program that comes up--do not we
at least need to give the States additional flexibility in the
use of their transportation funds?
And if we need to fund Amtrak, do you favor an additional
one-half cent per gallon as they have wanted, and is that the
direction we are headed in?
Secretary Slater. First of all, let me just deal with the
issue involving Amtrak. We are engaged in ongoing discussions
internally about how to best fund Amtrak. Once we are clear as
to our thinking, we will then, as we always have to do, come to
the Congress for your consideration of that proposal, and
hopefully in the process, we can find some common ground there.
What I have said is that, as Secretary of Transportation, I
do view Amtrak as being central to our transportation system
for the 21st century. Now, the issue of how we fund it is a
matter that is open to discussion and to debate.
On the question of the use of the trust fund for purposes
that go beyond, say, the hard side of transportation, meaning
the investment in the concrete, asphalt, and steel, with the
highway trust fund, let me just say that with our
reauthorization proposal that will become clearer as we unveil
it and roll it out. The focus will be on the preservation
primarily of the system as it exists, with over 80 percent of
the resources going toward the NHS system, interstate
maintenance----
Senator Faircloth. Excuse me.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Maintenance of the Interstate System?
Secretary Slater. The NHS which includes the interstate;
yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Just the maintenance, not expansion.
Secretary Slater. Well, also expansion.
Senator Faircloth. But primarily maintenance.
Secretary Slater. Primarily maintenance because most of the
system is in place.
And I want to get to that question of flexibility because
that is exactly what we are doing. We are giving the States the
option. They are not being forced to do anything. They are
going to have the flexibility to use the resources to make the
decisions that they think best, clearly after having gone
through the planning process.
But the point I want to make is that, with the
reauthorization proposal, we are going to focus primarily on
preserving the system that we have, and that could include
expansion. But the NHS, which includes the Interstate System,
the interstate maintenance portion of the NHS, the bridge
program--many have mentioned bridges here today--and then the
Surface Transportation Program [STP], which is almost like a
grant program that provides maximum flexibility to States and
local governments to deal with their transportation needs.
Eighty percent of all the funds will go toward that kind of an
investment.
When you compare apples to apples, meaning ISTEA and our
program, the total amount for ISTEA is about $157 billion. For
our program, again apples to apples, those things in our
program that are in ISTEA, our total is about $169 billion,
which is still a considerable increase, I think about 8
percent.
Then you get to the additions that take our total program
to roughly $175 billion. But again, most of the program goes
exactly as you have expressed in your comment, toward the core
system, the core programs.
But we do offer a proposal to include other things, for
instance, the welfare-to-work portion of our effort, at $100
million. That is a part of our initiative to ensure that all
Americans, wherever they find themselves, whether in urban,
suburban, or rural America, have the benefits of our
transportation system and also have really the skills that make
them viable players in our society, individuals able to make a
difference. But it is only a small portion of the bigger pie.
Then we also hope to make that pie even bigger through our
innovative financing initiatives, again the State
infrastructure banks and also the Federal credit program that
we hope to finance at about $100 million per year. That is the
way we hope to deal with the important issues that you have
raised, Senator.
Senator Faircloth. Are we going to see this flexibility in
the administration's ISTEA proposal that is coming up?
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; we hope to provide even greater
flexibility.
An example, the ITS technologies, intelligent
transportation technologies. We want to make those kinds of
expenditures eligible for all of the major programs, but we
want to give that flexibility again to the States and to
locales.
Senator, I too have had the honor of serving as a
commissioner in my State, you serving as the head of your
program in North Carolina. I know that from that vantage point,
you want as much flexibility as possible when it comes to
dealing with too many projects with too little money, and with
that flexibility, you can be strategic and you can put the
moneys to the greatest use. We hope to make that the norm
rather than the exception.
Aviation Computer Systems Procurement
Senator Faircloth. Secretary Slater, my time is running out
but I have one question that bothers me, and we talked on it
briefly in my office the other day.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. I understand it was not of your doing
and you were not even there. But the $1 billion that was put
into an utterly failed computer system is a great source of
bother to me and a lot of other Senators that I have heard
mention it. I understand that some of the overall project might
be salvageable for something.
But has any investigation internally been pursued about how
they could spend $1 billion--and I think that was the figure--
on a total failure? And not only did it waste the $1 billion
plus, we went 12 years with a deteriorating system for the FAA.
We are operating with an absolutely antiquated system. Has
there been any investigation as to who created this fiasco?
Secretary Slater. Well, let me just say that I do believe
that there have been some investigations. What I would like to
do is to follow up with more detailed information on that.
[The information follows:]
There were several investigations in the form of studies on
the AAS program and the problems that surrounded it. Studies
were conducted by the National Volpe Transportation Systems
Center, Center for Naval Analysis, Lincoln Labs, the Software
Engineering Institute, and a team of independent FAA experts.
Those investigations concluded that there were multiple reasons
that resulted from the actions of numerous organizations for
the failure of AAS. Subsequent to these studies, the program
was rescoped, top-level management of the program was changed,
major improvements were made in the way major acquisitions are
managed, and the resulting programs are fully on track.
Secretary Slater. What I would like to do, if I may, is to
say that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated, that we have
limited resources, and as good stewards, we have to ensure that
those resources are expended in such a way as to bring about
the best and the greatest good for the American people.
It is true that we had a very detailed conversation about
this long before I was confirmed, and I made a commitment to
you then that we would move forth aggressively and with
dispatch to fully implement all of the laws that the Congress
has given us to deal with acquisition reform, to deal with
personnel reform, and hopefully in the next few months to a
year, to get the tools that we need to deal with the long-term
funding needs of aviation. But your point is well taken.
I would also like to note that Secretary Pena and
Administrator Hinson and also Deputy Administrator Daschle,
upon getting into office and getting a sense of this issue, did
revive the approach to dealing with this concern, and I think
we have had a pretty good record since that time. But it is a
record that we want to make better. In partnership with you,
Senator, and others who I know are concerned about this issue,
I know we can.
Senator Faircloth. Could you have someone in your office
send me the background on this?
Secretary Slater. We will do that.
Senator Faircloth. And somewhat of a litany of how the
fiasco developed.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; we will do that.
Senator Faircloth. I understand we are going to have
another hearing later on with the FAA people. I would like to
have that report as soon as possible and before the hearing.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; we will get that for you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Transportation Issues for Maryland
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I too
would like to congratulate you on assuming the chairmanship and
stewardship of this subcommittee. We have worked together in
the House on Energy and Commerce where we did a lot of the
railroad legislation in those days and also worked with the
chairman on Treasury/Post Office where you showed us so many
courtesies, for which we were appreciative. I look forward to
working with you on this committee.
Mr. Slater, let me just talk about a few things. First, my
opening statement is in the record, but transportation is vital
to Maryland. We are in both the interstate and rail corridor
from Massachusetts down all the way through the South into the
Carolinas, and of course are part of the hub.
We are also in many ways part of the regional hub for the
capital of the United States of America. So, it tends to be
that our subway system, our highway system are very important
to that.
Of course, we are on the Chesapeake Bay and the Coast Guard
is so crucial to us.
So, we could go through all of those, but I would like to
get to a few top priorities.
Your agency is truly where the rubber meets the road, and
the American people really count on you for safety. I am not
going to reiterate what my colleagues have said, but I really
want to offer the strongest and amplified voice that our
safety, particularly in rail and aviation and highway, really
be affirmed, whether it is the behavior of drivers, the fitness
for duty of FAA, and also of our rail.
Senator Byrd has left, but this time last year we were just
about attending the funeral for some wonderful Job Corps kids
who were killed in a most ghoulish accident in the MARC train
in Silver Spring.
So, we are really safety obsessed and count on you to
really be able to move on that. Often air safety captures the
imagination of people, but everything from driver's education
to switches now are yours.
Woodrow Wilson Bridge
Let me, though, go on to what I think is another safety
issue and it does affect the capital area, and that is the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I know this might be seen as a Maryland
or Virginia project, but it is a national project because it is
a bridge over the Potomac that is one of the key links in the
I-95 Interstate.
As you know, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is, No. 1, 30 years
old. No. 2, it was designed to serve 70,000 people. It now
currently serves one-quarter of a million people a day and
projections increase.
The bridge is outmoded. It is of questionable safety as it
goes on.
I wonder what the administration's timetable is and plans
are for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I note a $40 million item in
the budget. That is about 4 percent of what is estimated. So, I
would like to hear from you your plans for the Woodrow Wilson.
Secretary Slater. First of all, we recognize the importance
of this structure to the overall transportation system of the
country, especially the interstate. This is the only bridge on
the interstate that is owned by the Federal Government, and
because of that fact, we also understand the important role
that we must shoulder and must carry in dealing with this very
important transportation safety challenge.
Let me just say that the $40 million that is in the budget,
the 1998 budget, is for continued design purposes, as well as I
think about $10 million for rehabilitation purposes, to just
extend the life of the structure.
But we do know that we are working on a short fuse here and
we have got to deal with this issue as quickly and as
expeditiously as possible. In that spirit, we are working with
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Commission that has worked tirelessly
to come up with a design that I think has received at least
positive response. It is a design that has a price tag in
excess of $1 billion.
We have made the comment in the President's budget that we
see ourselves as clearly having a $400 million or so obligation
as relates to the structure, because that is the amount that it
would take to rebuild the structure to current standards, if we
were merely replacing it as is.
But we understand the concerns of both the State of
Maryland and the State of Virginia, as well as the District,
when it comes to dealing with this issue and want to come to
some closure on it and look forward to working with you in that
regard.
Senator Mikulski. So, you anticipate, from what you see,
that the Federal Government's obligation would be one-half of
what is estimated that the project would cost to rehabilitate
the current bridge.
Secretary Slater. That is correct.
Senator Mikulski. Therefore, your current thinking is that
the other one-half would come from Maryland and Virginia.
Secretary Slater. Well, clearly that is our current
thinking, but I can tell you that we have gotten strong vibes
from both Maryland and Virginia that it is their belief that
since it is a bridge that is owned by the Federal Government,
that our responsibility is much greater. We are taking those
comments into account.
Senator Mikulski. This requires further conversation.
Secretary Slater. Sure.
Senator Mikulski. I have gotten more than vibes from
Governor Glendening. I have gotten vibrations from Governor
Glendening [Laughter.]
Secretary Slater. I understand.
Senator Mikulski. And the Maryland General Assembly,
concern about exactly how we would do this.
What do you think would be a process by which we should go
in order to be able to resolve what we are going to do and how
we are going to pay for it so we really do move expeditiously
on this project? Do you have suggestions on that?
Secretary Slater. I do.
First of all, let me say that I have gotten more than vibes
as well from Governor Glendening. We have talked directly about
the matter and I do understand his position on it.
I think that there are a number of ways to approach it.
First of all, there has been significant coordination among
the States and the District, the State leadership, the
congressional leadership, and our Department on this matter.
Also, I do think that there is a recognition clearly that we
have a responsibility to play a substantial role when it comes
to financing this project. One of our employees was actually
the Chair of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement Committee.
Senator Mikulski. My time is going to run out. So, what do
you think we should do?
Secretary Slater. Yes; this is what I think we should do:
Not lose the opportunity to take full advantage of
reauthorization. It is a 6-year bill. It gives us an
opportunity to deal with the money responsibilities over a
period of time. Look at all innovative financing opportunities
available to us, whether it is the State infrastructure bank
[SIB] initiative or the credit program that we are going to
bring on line to deal with large multistate projects, and to
just stay engaged. I think we can come to some common ground on
the matter.
There are many funding strategies to be taken into account,
and we should explore them all. But I want to assure you that
we understand our obligation to play a substantial role in
dealing with this matter.
Senator Mikulski. Is it your intent within the next few
months to meet with the Governors of the two States, their
secretaries of transportation?
Secretary Slater. Yes; that is my goal.
Senator Mikulski. I can say this on behalf of Senators
Warner and Robb, Senator Sarbanes and myself, we are very eager
to resolve this and I think we would look forward to any type
of collegial consultation process in which we then would bring
our Governor or our secretaries of transportation in for a
meeting and almost like a little workshop on this to resolve
this.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Transportation-related Employment
Senator Mikulski. I know my time is moving along. Let me
just ask two things about jobs because you help people get to
work. I have two questions on that.
No. 1, my concern is that I would like the United States to
be a leader in manufacturing of transportation. Right now we
are the world's leader in the manufacture of airplanes, but we
are not the leader in manufacturing of buses and railcars. What
is happening is we buy all of this stuff and it is not from
America.
Now, this is not jingoism. I agree we believe in a global
economy, but we spend all this money, Federal level, State
level, on buses and railroad cars, freight as well as
passenger. I wonder if you have thoughts on--not a Government
program; we are not looking for a comrade five-point program
here--but what we could do to strengthen the Buy American
provision, not shackle the Government or private sector. But,
boy, I wish when we were spending this money, we were back in
the transportation business.
This is no fault of our cousins from Canada, who are
wonderful neighbors, but we have got a little $20 million
subway system running around this capitol, and we bought it
from Canada. Well, I did not know if we had to spend $20
million and I did not know if we had to spend it in Canada.
Maybe we did, and it is no fault of Canada. But, my gosh, every
time I see a bus and a railroad car, I wish it was made by UAW
workers or their equivalent somewhere.
Do you have thoughts on that?
Secretary Slater. I do. Senator, first of all, I believe as
well in the made-in-America spirit. I think that has been
manifested in the Department of late with the significant
rebound that has occurred on the aviation front, but I would
also mention the shipbuilding industry as well. We, through the
support of the Congress, have a Maritime Administration that is
moving, moving forth aggressively, confidently, and I am sure
will be a major player in the years to come.
There is a lot of talk about how we are moving from an
industrial society to an information-based, technology-based
society. We still need to build things and our people are
capable of building things to be used in the 21st century. I
think transportation provides an ideal arena in which to
explore this kind of initiative.
One thing that I mentioned in my opening statement was a
desire to have the support of the Congress, this committee in
particular, as I move toward the implementation of what I am
calling the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation
Futures Program to focus on those transportation needs of the
coming century and to work now to build a work force of
visionary and vigilant individuals who can make real that
dream.
I would like to bring in 1 million young people in that
kind of effort, working with management and labor, and I have
spoken to President Sweeney about this. I have spoken to CEO's,
CAO's of some of the major companies, and I have also had
conversations with many of you. I look forward to making this a
reality.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that is a good step.
Would you also support strengthening Buy American
provisions in both the authorization and appropriations?
Secretary Slater. Oh, yes; yes, I would.
Transportation and Welfare Reform
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I just want to wrap up by
saying I really support your initiative of welfare to work. I
think transportation is one of the biggest deterrents,
particularly in rural parts of my State, of people being able
to move back into the market force. I think by that initiative,
we will truly get welfare reform moving literally and
figuratively, and I look forward to working with you.
Secretary Slater. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Status of Administration's Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, when is ISTEA coming up?
Secretary Slater. Well, we hope to have our bill soon, Mr.
Chairman. You know I had two committee hearings last week. One
of them went a little better than the other, and I think it is
because I was more specific. I made a commitment then that we
would have our proposal ready within 7 to 10 days. We are
nearing that 10-day period, and I am committed to fulfilling
that commitment.
Airport Improvement Funding
Senator Shelby. AIP funding is at an alltime low in recent
history, and in the 1998 budget request you have requested an
obligation ceiling of only $1 billion. In the past 4 years, Mr.
Secretary, annual airline passenger enplanements have increased
16 percent and investment in airport development has decreased
23 percent. That is before the $460 million decrease in airport
investment envisioned in the President's budget.
I have been informed that the FAA has pending applications
for over 3 billion dollars' worth of airport improvement
projects ready to go. The FAA cites 22 airports that are
seriously congested and estimates, Mr. Secretary, that number
growing up to 32--in other words, another 10--in the next
several years.
Delays, as you well know, associated with congestion cost
the airlines over $500 million a year directly, and the total
cost to the national economy is many times greater, if you
consider the time lost to passengers and businesses in doing
it.
Yet, your budget request here requests the historically low
airport improvement funding level that I mentioned earlier of
$1 billion, lower than the AIP ceiling has been in 10 years.
Mr. Secretary, have we been spending too much on airports
or is the President's budget underfunding our airport needs?
And has the Department done any research on the economic impact
of funds spent on new airports and airport improvements?
Secretary Slater. On the latter question about the
research, let me just say that we have ongoing research dealing
with the overall impact of transportation on the economy and we
are studying it from all vantage points. So, clearly, we are
looking at it from the vantage point of investments in
airports.
Let me also say that I do not think that we in the past
have been spending too much on airport infrastructure
improvements, but I also say that as we offer a budget in this
environment, that I do not think, as we have reasoned, that we
will be spending too little in this instance, because it is our
belief that the larger airports have many, many opportunities
to access resources for improvements on and improvements to the
system.
It is your smaller airports that really, really rely on the
Airport Improvement Program, and if we can continue to address
their concerns and in innovative ways encourage the larger
airports to try to leverage private sector dollars or to
utilize public sector dollars in more innovative ways, then I
think we can bridge the gap, if you will. But it is going to be
difficult.
In a nutshell, this proposal is merely reflective of our
desire to have as much investment as possible but within the
context of a balanced budget goal, shared by both the
administration and the Congress.
Regulation of Golf Cars
Senator Shelby. I want to get into the regulation of golf
cars, whatever that is. I was intrigued, Mr. Secretary, to
learn that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
is proposing to regulate the safety of golf carts. Evidently
golf carts whose speeds do not exceed 15 miles per hour would
be excluded. However, faster golf carts whose speeds are over
15 miles per hour but under 25 miles per hour would be
regulated as golf cars.
Golf cars, I understand, would be required to have
headlights, turn signals, taillights, reflectors, mirrors,
parking brakes, windshields--windshields--and seatbelts. They
would also have to post warning stickers that state, ``This
vehicle must not be operated on the public roads at a speed
more than 25 miles per hour.''
I know that the NHTSA has important responsibilities to
deal with to reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting
from highway traffic accidents. However, I am not aware myself
of any deaths or accidents dealing with these.
I would like for you to explain.
Secretary Slater. Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I have been
on the job now for a couple of weeks.
Senator Shelby. Is this a surprise for you as well?
Secretary Slater. And during my confirmation preparation
and hearings, this is an issue that never came up.
Senator Shelby. Would you look into it?
Secretary Slater. I will definitely look into this.
I will say this. We are serious when we say we are going to
take a commonsense approach to Government.
Senator Shelby. Just common sense.
Secretary Slater. Common sense. We will review this
particular action.
Senator Shelby. I hope you will. I do not have a golf cart.
I do not ride in one, but I do not know how you make a car out
of it.
Secretary Slater. I understand.
[The information follows:]
There appears to be a growing demand, especially around
retirement communities, for small, light-weight, low-speed
vehicles as alternatives to the traditional passenger car for
short, in-town trips. Part of this demand will be met by
``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' (NEV's), which are small,
electric passenger cars manufactured for on-road use, but
capable of being used on golf courses. Part of this demand will
be met by golf carts, because States have begun to amend their
laws to allow golf carts to use the public roads with other
heavier forms of traffic at speeds up to 25 miles per hour.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has jurisdiction over vehicles used on the public roads. At the
present time, any on-road vehicle capable of a speed of 25
miles per hour is subject to the full range of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. It does not appear practicable or
necessary for NEV's, on-road golf carts, or other small, low-
speed vehicles to meet current Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, which, in the absence of further NHTSA action, they
would be required to do. After studying the regulations of the
City of Palm Desert, California, which has a golf cart safety
program in force for golf carts registered for use on the city
roads, NHTSA decided to propose creation of a new class of
vehicle, called ``Low-Speed Vehicles'' (LSV's). All LSV's,
whether fast golf carts or NEV's, would be required to have the
safety equipment that Palm Desert has found to meet the needs
for safety of that community. In addition, a warning label
would be required advising that the LSV is not to be operated
at speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour.
NHTSA is currently evaluating comments on the proposed
regulation. The Senator is correct that there are no reported
deaths and injuries concerning on-road golf carts. That is
attributable in part to their scarcity. The possibility of
accident involvement is bound to increase with their numbers.
In addition, there is no assurance that Palm Desert's system of
road zoning and restriction of LSV use to daylight hours--
factors contributing to golf cart safety--will be adopted by
other municipalities permitting the use of golf carts and NEV's
on their streets.
Traffic Safety Terminology
Senator Shelby. One other thing. The NHTSA has been in the
news also for pushing a new policy that its employees are not
to use the word ``accident'' in any official communication from
the agency. Instead, the word ``crash'' is to be used. Do you
believe that the NHTSA should be spending valuable resources--
you know, we are having money problems--and time on initiatives
such as changing the vocabulary of its employees? Is it
reasonable to think that the Federal Government has a role in
removing the word ``accident'' from our common language, common
parlance? Would you look into that?
Secretary Slater. I will look into it, but let me offer
this.
Senator Shelby. Everything is not a crash.
Secretary Slater. I understand.
Senator Shelby. I would think a crash would entail
something really big.
Secretary Slater. I understand. I will look into it.
Let me just say that for the second time in the history of
NHTSA we have a physician at the helm, and there are within the
medical profession terms of art. This effort is only to bring
greater clarity to actions that can be prevented. Thus, they
are actions that are not perceived as accidents.
But, now, I do not want to get into a long discussion of
it. What I would like to do is just follow up with a detailed
explanation and then look forward to discussing with the
chairman and other interested parties why this is the approach
that is being discussed internally. But no final action has
been taken on this particular initiative.
[The information follows:]
NHTSA is promoting use of the word ``crash'' in lieu of
``accident'' because motor vehicle crashes and injuries are
predictable, preventable events. Continued use of the word
accident promotes the concept that these events are outside
human influence or control. In fact, they are predictable
results of specific actions. NHTSA can identify their causes
and take action to avoid them.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. Thank you. We do have a number of questions
for the record that we will be submitting to you. I will have
some. Senator Domenici had a number and other members, Mr.
Secretary.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
essential air service (eas)
Question. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 provides a $50
million annual set-aside for EAS, funded by FAA ``overflight'' user
fees. Will FAA realize $50 million in overflight fees in fiscal year
1997? Can this level be anticipated in 1998?
Answer. The FAA issued its rulemaking establishing the specifics of
the overflight fee schedule on March 20, 1997. The charges will take
effect 60 days after issuance of the rule, on May 19, 1997. As a
result, fees will be collected for only about four and one-half months
of fiscal year 1997, and are expected to be well under $50 million. EAS
does not have access to these funds during fiscal year 1997 until
collected revenues exceed $75 million; thus, no funds from the
overflight fees will go to the EAS program in fiscal year 1997. The
Department expects that the overflight fees will generate about $90
million per year in fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
Question. In fiscal year 1997, EAS is funded at $25.9 million. Is a
$50 million annual program level necessary? Currently, are eligible
communities not receiving EAS service because of funding constraints?
Answer. The $50 million funding level for EAS and rural airport
safety was established by Congress last year. In our fiscal year 1995
appropriations act, the EAS program was reduced by one-third and the
Department was directed to implement service and subsidy reductions
across-the-board (except in Alaska), but to keep at least some air
service at all communities. In order to do so and stay within the
budget, the Department had to reduce subsidy levels below even the
statutory minimum service guarantees. The Department would now propose
to restore service levels at all of the subsidized communities to at
least the minimum statutory guarantees.
There are now nine EAS communities that have no air service as a
result of the budget cuts: Kearney and Hastings, NE; Fergus Falls,
Mankato, and Fairmont, MN; Brookings and Mitchell, SD; Goodland, KS;
and Lamar, CO. As a result of the one-third, across-the-board budget
cut, one of the major EAS airlines serving about 20 communities, Mesa
Air, announced that it would suspend service at six communities. The
Department issued an order prohibiting that suspension, as required by
statute. Mesa took the issue to court claiming that the Federal
Government had breached its contract by unilaterally reducing EAS
subsidies. Mesa prevailed in a unanimous decision in which the Court
ruled that Mesa, and by extension all EAS carriers, could suspend
service where their subsidies had been cut, leaving affected
communities with a hiatus in service.
fiscal year 1997 supplemental request
Question. Currently, there are only two components to DOT's fiscal
year 1997 supplemental request: $318 million to correct a Treasury
Department error that affected States' highway allocations, and $4
million to cover a military cost of living adjustment for Coast Guard
retired pay. Will you request a supplemental for highway funds to
repair damage from the January floods in the Northwest, and, even more
recently, from the damage stemming from tornadoes in your home State of
Arkansas and flooding throughout the Ohio Valley? How much will you
request? Will these be classified as ``emergency relief'' funds?
Answer. Yes, on March 19th the administration requested a
supplemental appropriation in the amount of $291 million for emergency
needs due to flooding. Of this amount, $276 million is needed for
additional emergency relief funding due to floods in the Winter of 1996
affecting the States of California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington
and Montana. Many of these States required emergency relief funding
under both their Federal-aid and the Federal roads programs. The
remaining $15 million is requested as contingency funding, for the
emergency requirements in the Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic States.
Question. Are there any other pending or possible DOT supplemental
requests for fiscal year 1997?
Answer. No, there are none anticipated at this time.
office of aviation and international affairs
Question. OST's office of aviation and international affairs
utilizes airline traffic and financial data to support its statutory
responsibilities in aviation programs. Some of these responsibilities
include: developing the U.S. position in aviation bilateral
negotiations with foreign countries; deciding carrier selection cases
and making international route awards; resolving international route
transfer issues; reviewing the antitrust implications of carrier
acquisition and merger proposals; setting international and intra-
Alaska mail rates; and determining the essential air service needs of
small communities and establishing appropriate subsidy rates for such
services. The data and statistics that OST utilizes in all these areas
is provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics office of
airline information (OAI). In return for this data, does OST support
OAI through annual reimbursable agreements? If so, at what level? If
not, why not?
Answer. At times in the past, OST has supported the Office of
Aviation Information (OAI) through annual reimbursable agreements when
it was a part of the Research and Special Programs Administration. More
recently, it was decided that all funds for OAI would be provided more
effectively through the modal administration's authorizations. In the
current fiscal year, OST does not have any reimbursable agreements with
OAI.
timely availability of aviation data
Question. Please discuss any problems OST has encountered in the
last two years with timely availability of airline data from OAI. Have
these problems been resolved? If not, please outline some possible
solutions.
Answer. Aviation data frequently are not available on a timely
basis, particularly, the Passenger Origin and Destination Survey data
and the monthly segment and market data that the airlines file on Form
41, Schedule T-100.
It is clear that timeliness, accuracy, availability and
accessibility of aviation data are important for proper analysis. One
possible example of a solution is our ongoing effort to replace the
Passenger Origin and Destination Survey with a database built on data
from computer reservations systems. If this effort proves feasible, we
should have an excellent database for the future that could serve many
purposes and would not be a major burden for the airlines or OAI staff
to administer.
transportation safety priorities
Question. Given the relative differences in fatality and accident
rates on our nation's highways, in the air, on rail lines, and on
waterways, are the Department's efforts adequately balanced to address
the relative incidence in each mode of transportation? Does the
Department conduct any cross-modal safety analyses?
Answer. Ensuring the overall safety of our transportation system
requires us to focus our efforts on a diverse array of transportation
activities involving the movement of both passengers and freight, some
of it commercial, but most by private citizens. The magnitude of the
Department's programs in each mode is also determined by the role that
Congress has given to the various operating administrations. The FAA
budget reflects the fact that it directly operates a massive and
complex safety system, which requires the public's full confidence that
it is extremely safe. NHTSA, in contrast, can use its regulatory power
to set motor vehicle safety standards, but these automobiles are then
operated independently by individuals. Other programs in NHTSA, as well
as those of FHWA, must use their funding to form partnerships with the
States and local governments that have the police and safety
enforcement authorities.
All the modal administrations within the Department utilize a
cooperative and leveraged approach to achieve continuous improvements
in the safety of each mode of transportation. The Department's recently
announced NEXTEA proposal reflects an increased emphasis on programs
that address the single largest source of transportation-related
fatalities (94 percent) and injuries (99 percent), the operation of
motor vehicles, particularly passenger cars and light trucks and vans.
Cross modal safety analyses are conducted in the Office of the
Secretary, primarily in the comparison of relative statistics and
development of common measures, and to assure that safety approaches
that prove successful in one mode are applied, where feasible, in
others.
surface transportation infrastructure
Question. Congress will take up the reauthorization of ISTEA this
year. With continuing budget deficit reduction goals, increasing
spending for transportation programs is difficult. Our infrastructure
is deteriorating, and congestion clogs our cities. Total public
spending on the capital needs for highways and bridges was about $40
billion in 1993, the most recent year for which data are available.
However, DOT estimates that as a nation, we are about $16 billion short
on an annual basis, just to maintain our existing highway and bridge
infrastructure at the 1993 level. Issues at the forefront of the
reauthorization debate are how Federal funds will be distributed, and
what the Federal role will be. Are we currently getting the most bang
for the Federal dollars we invest in our surface transportation
infrastructure? Are we directing Federal funds to those programs that
can produce results?
Answer. One of the key factors in the success of the ISTEA
legislation over the past six years has been the flexibility it allowed
for States and local governments to distribute funding to their top-
priority transportation needs. The National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA) continues this approach
and responds to our core program infrastructure needs while helping us
move toward a balanced budget. It would authorize about $175 billion
for surface transportation programs from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2003, and increases funding for core highway programs such
as the National Highway System, maintenance of the interstate system,
and the Surface Transportation Program by 30 percent. It continues the
commitment to cities in terms of mass transit, helping them get more
capacity from existing systems, and allows rural areas to play a
greater role in protecting planning and in determining which projects
get done first. NEXTEA would give State and local officials greater
flexibility to target funds toward projects that best meet community
needs. It also increases the tools available to State and local
officials by making intelligent transportation systems eligible under
all major program categories and by expanding innovative finance
strategies to cut red tape and leverage private and non-Federal public
resources.
intermodalism
Question. What actions will you take to further encourage the
integration of surface modes of transportation to enhance the mobility
of people and transport of goods? How will you address the conflict
between continuing to fund modally-based programs while attempting to
foster an intermodal approach to transportation decision making?
Answer. Although DOT's funding programs continue to be modally-
based, they are significantly adaptable to local needs. To a much
greater extent than previous surface transportation legislation, ISTEA
allows State and metropolitan areas to spend their apportioned Federal
funds based on thorough and inclusive planning rather than restrictive
program categories. Specifically, almost 60 percent of the funds
authorized by ISTEA have been available, at the initiative of State and
local officials, for almost any type of surface transportation
projects.
The administration's proposal for reauthorization--the National
Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act, or NEXTEA--continues
these ISTEA programs that have given State and local officials the
freedom to spend Federal dollars on an expanded set of transportation
solutions.
NEXTEA would retain the enhanced flexibility and eligibility
provisions of three programs introduced by ISTEA: the National Highway
System (NHS), the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. Through these
programs, $3 billion in five years has been transferred at local
request from the FHWA to the FTA for delivery to its grantees. Without
any administrative transfers, however, the STP and CMAQ programs
support many projects that directly benefit multiple transportation
modes. In addition to preserving this flexibility, NEXTEA would extend
eligibility within certain programs to intercity bus and rail service
and publicly owned freight rail service.
collocation of dot field offices
Question. Please provide a detailed plan of how DOT will collocate
and/or consolidate the Department's surface transportation field
offices (that now number more than 150) to best serve transportation
needs in a cost-effective manner.
Answer. In June 1996, the Department chartered a co-location task
force to review the field office structure and prepare a report.
To date, the restructuring effort has focused on six major areas:
planning, safety, co-location, administrative resource sharing, program
management and the establishment of metropolitan offices.
The task force identified approximately 160 offices (including CG,
RSPA and FAA) that appeared to offer co-location opportunities. It is
the goal of the Department to co-locate offices and consolidate
services wherever reasonable in order to provide enhanced customer
service, reduce costs and operate more efficiently. Currently,
additional analysis is underway to determine the feasibility and costs
associated with such a consolidation.
Because of the major costs associated with such a major co-
location, the task force has recommended that the initiatives be
undertaken as leases are due to expire or other restructures are about
to be undertaken which would advance the consolidation. Presently,
there are field work groups developing localized plans for their
respective areas. Last November the first of many anticipated co-
locations occurred when NHTSA moved into space occupied by FHWA in
Region III. In this one case, we were able to reduce 2,096 square feet,
which will result in overall rent savings of $37,854.
dot sick building
Question. What have been the total costs through fiscal year 1997
associated with cleanup of the ``sick'' Nassif Building? (Please
display each year's associated costs, and a total to date.) Are any
fiscal year 1998 costs anticipated?
Answer. As of February 28, 1997, the total costs associated with
the cleanup and repair of the Nassif Building that have been incurred
by the Government is approximately $6,389,000. The General Services
Administration has picked up these costs for DOT. At this point in
time, costs in fiscal year 1998 are not anticipated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Total
1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental testing/health assessments........................ $941,875 $565,125 $1,507,000
Project management.............................................. 591,000 1,104,000 1,695,000
Swing space rent................................................ 276,000 1,568,000 1,844,000
Moving expenses................................................. 97,000 116,000 213,000
Swing space set-up 1,130,000 .............. 1,130,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 3,035,875 3,353,125 6,389,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fra vacating the dot building
Question. It is our understanding that some FRA offices have
declined to move back to the Nassif Building, though the affected
floors have undergone cleanup. Why? What additional costs will be
incurred by this decision?
Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) began relocating
some employees shortly after air quality problems began to affect their
work space in October 1995. As time passed, more and more employees
were relocated to space outside the Nassif Building due to symptoms
that employees believed were caused by the building's indoor
environment. The sheer number of FRA employees working in different
locations caused disruption to the organization. As a result, in August
1996, the entire FRA headquarters organization was relocated to a
single location, with plans to remain there until the cleaning and
repair program of the Nassif building is completed.
The FRA organization is now operating without disruption and would
like to avoid the disruption of a major move back to the Nassif
Building until the Department consolidates its headquarter operations
following expiration of the lease on the Nassif building. The
Department supports this request, since we are able to consolidate
other elements of the Department from higher-cost space in downtown
Washington into the vacated area of the Nassif Building.
new programs
Question. If Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for the
Transportation Infrastructure credit program ($100 million requested);
the Intelligent Transportation System infrastructure integration
program ($100 million requested); and the ``access to jobs and
training'' transit grant program ($100 million requested), how quickly
do you envision these programs spending out in fiscal year 1998 (and
the outyears)?
Answer. For each of these three new programs, the administration is
proposing $100 million for each of the 6 years of NEXTEA.
The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program is expected to
outlay 50 percent in the first year, 25 percent in the second year, and
25 percent in the third year.
The ITS deployment incentives program is expected to be fully
obligated each year. It will be within the category of the Federal-aid
program. Overall spend-out rates for the Federal-aid program are
estimated at 15 percent in the first year, 53 percent in the second
year, 16 percent in the third year, 5 percent in the fourth year, 3
percent in the fifth year, 3 percent in the sixth year, 2 percent in
the seventh year, 2 percent in the eighth year, and 1 percent in the
ninth year.
The Access to Jobs and Training grant program is projected to have
an outlay rate similar to that of the existing Urban Capital formula
program: 5 percent in the first year, 20 percent in the second year, 30
percent in the third year, 20 percent in the fourth year, 20 percent in
the fifth year, and 5 percent in the sixth year.
credit program versus sibs
Question. Please describe the differences between the
Transportation Infrastructure credit program and the current State
Infrastructure Banks program.
Answer. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
authorized DOT to establish the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Pilot
Program. SIBs are State-level investment funds capitalized in part with
Federal grants. They are intended to complement traditional
transportation programs and provide States with increased flexibility
to offer many types of assistance, including low-interest loans, loan
guarantees, and standby lines of credit. However, Federal
capitalization grants for SIBs currently are limited to 10 percent of
most categories of a State's annual apportionments for fiscal years
1996 and 1997 and $150 million of ``new money'' to be shared among the
participating States. Moreover, Federal legislation limits the annual
disbursement of these funds, thus reducing the capacity of the SIBs to
provide large amounts of credit assistance directly in the near term.
SIBs will require a number of years to build up sufficient financial
resources to gain access to external funding beyond their own
contributed capital. Consequently, SIBs, like other startup credit
intermediaries, are best suited to assist portfolios of smaller,
relatively homogenous, shorter-term projects that are regional or local
in scope.
A Federal credit enhancement program would complement existing
financing techniques, including SIBs, by directing resources to areas
of critical national importance--such as intermodal facilities,
expansion of existing highways, border infrastructure, trade corridors,
and other investments with national benefits--that otherwise might be
delayed or not constructed at all because of risk or scope. Federal
credit assistance would encourage more private-sector and non-Federal
participation, address important public needs in a more budget-
effective way, and take advantage of the public's willingness to pay
user fees to receive the benefits and services of transportation
infrastructure sooner than would be possible under traditional, grant-
based financing. Essentially, providing direct credit assistance would
be a more efficient and effective way for the Federal Government to
help advance a limited number of nationally significant projects than
increasing outlays for regular grant reimbursement programs or even
SIBs.
its infrastructure integration program
Question. Please provide a detailed description of the proposed ITS
infrastructure integration program.
Answer. The ITS infrastructure integration program is an initiative
to foster the uniform national deployment of a computer and
communications infrastructure in our surface transportation system,
both inside and outside metropolitan areas.
In 1991, the Department initiated the Intelligent Transportation
Systems program, through the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, to research, operationally test and promote the
application of computer and communications technology to our surface
transportation system, in part to address the growing gridlock in our
nation. Over the past five years, we have learned through our research
efforts that an intelligent transportation infrastructure applied to
our surface transportation can improve efficiency, productivity, and
safety. Such an infrastructure consists of a series of ``elements,''
such as smart traffic signals, advanced traffic management systems, and
more, that allow the public to travel more efficiently and safely. This
system works best when the components are interoperable, or can ``talk
to one another.'' ITS is an important option in an era when we can no
longer depend on building our way out of congestion.
We are proposing a one-time incentive to last through the next five
years. Its purpose is to jump start State and local government
involvement in deploying ITS in a coordinated manner, consistent with
standards and within the bounds of the national ITS architecture. This
deployment incentive focuses on:
--Integrating existing intelligent transportation infrastructure
elements in metropolitan areas, including those elements
installed with other Federal-aid funds.
--Installing, as well as integrating, the various elements of an
intelligent transportation infrastructure for commercial
vehicle projects and projects outside metropolitan areas, such
as rural areas.
The priorities are as follows:
--At least 25 percent of the funds made available would allow
eligible State or local entities to implement commercial
vehicle information systems and networks, and international
border crossing improvements.
--At least 10 percent of the funding would be made available for the
intelligent transportation infrastructure deployment outside
metropolitan areas (in rural areas).
--The Federal share payable to the project cost is 50 percent. The
matching funds can include funds from other Federal sources.
The projects are to accelerate the deployment and commercialization
of ITS; realize the benefits of regionally integrated, intermodal
applications, including commercial vehicle operations and electronic
border crossing applications; and demonstrate innovative approaches to
overcoming nontechnical constraints.
Projects chosen for funding within the intelligent transportation
infrastructure deployment incentives program would, in general terms,
have to meet the following criteria:
--Help meet the national goals of the ITS program;
--Demonstrate public-private partnerships;
--Aim to achieve integration with the architecture and standards;
--Be a part of State and metropolitan plans for transportation and
air quality implementation;
--Catalyze private sector investment and minimize Federal
contributions;
--Include a sound financial plan for long-term operations and
maintenance; and
--Demonstrate the ability to operate and maintain the systems.
This program will build upon prior efforts. We have already
identified a core intelligent transportation infrastructure and set a
national goal for deployment of this infrastructure across the United
States over the next decade. We are facilitating model deployments that
will serve as showcases for operators and users of the system. They
also will show both State and local transportation officials and
citizens how to envision ITS deployment in their communities. In 1996,
four metropolitan areas were chosen: Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio, and
New York. We have also established eight model deployments of the
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) to be
operational by the end of 1997, in Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California. These model
deployments will perform the same function for other State officials in
helping them to envision the fully integrated system and to understand
the benefits.
A deployment incentives program is needed to alleviate a hardening
or ``stove-piping'' of the existing fragmented infrastructure. Timing
of deployment is critical. At the moment, elements of the intelligent
transportation infrastructure are being deployed piece by piece with no
guarantee of interoperability. State and local governments will then
have to live with a ``stove-piped infrastructure,'' one in which
components do not form a system and are not necessarily efficient.
This program gives State and local governments an incentive to
cooperate with agencies, jurisdictions, and the private sector, to
achieve fully integrated ITS deployment in accordance with the national
ITS architecture and established ITS standards and protocols. This
commitment will be shown through the signing of Memorandums of
Understanding that clearly define the responsibilities and the
relationship of all parties to a partnership agreement which outlines
the institutional relationships and the financial agreements to ensure
continued, long-term operations and maintenance for the project.
We're providing the incentive, but are also limiting the Federal
share payable to 50 percent of the project cost and requiring a
financial plan for long-term operation and maintenance. We're asking
State and local governments to be creative, to use their own funding,
other Federal-aid monies, and to leverage the private sector's
involvement. This is a minimal Federal role. In short, after this five-
year period, the incentive program will not be up for additional
Federal funding in the future; it's a one-shot deal.
access to jobs and training
Question. Why is the FTA a more appropriate provider agency for the
proposed ``access to jobs and training'' program than Health and Human
Services?
Answer. Transportation is one of the three major challenges faced
by welfare recipients, along with day care and skills training.
Welfare recipients rarely own cars. Furthermore, studies show that
existing public transit frequently does not provide realistic
connections to the locations where entry-level jobs are concentrated.
The need for off-peak time service and multiple stops for activities
such as day care complicate further the problem of access to jobs.
DOT's Access to Jobs Initiative will enable State and local
governments to provide the transportation services that welfare
recipients need within the framework of the existing transportation
planning process--an important factor in sustaining their delivery. But
collaboration with the human service agencies is a key element of the
proposed program. The criteria in the proposed program call for a
coordinated planning process, a financial partnership and a 50/50 (FTA/
non-FTA) match to ensure that transportation providers and human
services providers are working closely to ensure that those Americans
who have to go to work can get there.
highway trust funds
Question. I note that the President's Budget request would have
Amtrak and FTA funded from the Highway Trust Fund, rather than general
funds. Under your budget, the total percentage of highway trust funds
in the transportation appropriations bill increases from 78 to 85
percent. What is the rationale for shifting the number of DOT programs
from being funded by general funds to highway funds?
Answer. The administration proposes to use the Highway Trust Fund
for all highway safety research and agency operations (parts of NHTSA
are currently funded from the general fund), as well as the transit
program and Amtrak.
The rationale for these shifts is that the programs to be funded
from the trust fund are directly associated with highway construction
or preservation, or are associated with providing alternative
transportation services that contribute to reducing the demands placed
on our highways, thereby improving service to the users of highways.
Question. What will the Highway Trust Fund balance be at the end of
the current ISTEA authorization period, as envisioned by the
administration's pending reauthorization proposal?
Answer. We project cash balances of $14.8 billion in the Highway
Trust Fund and $9.6 billion in the Mass Transit Account at the end of
fiscal year 1997.
flexibility in state use of federal funds
Question. This approach of having different modes drawing on the
Highway Trust Fund would seem to me to argue for increasing the States'
flexibility in the use of their transportation funds. Do you share that
view?
Answer. Yes. Under NEXTEA, State and local officials would have
greater flexibility to target funds toward projects that best meet
community needs, including Amtrak and intermodal terminals. It also
increases the tools available to State and local officials by making
Intelligent Transportation Systems eligible under all major program
categories.
highway trust fund off-budget
Question. What is the administration's official position on the
proposal to move transportation trust funds off-budget?
Answer. The administration opposes taking the transportation trust
funds off-budget. We should not redefine the deficit calculation to
exclude certain programs or to exempt programs from appropriate budget
controls. That would mean either a larger real deficit or a larger
burden for deficit reduction on other critical programs in DOT or
elsewhere in the Federal Government. Either outcome would be
inconsistent with the joint commitment by the President and Congress to
balance the Federal budget.
woodrow wilson bridge
Question. I understand that the administration was prepared to
transfer the Woodrow Wilson Bridge to the States of Maryland and
Virginia and the District of Columbia back in 1990 and 1991. Why didn't
this transfer take place? Why is this the only non-defense interstate
bridge still under Federal jurisdiction?
Answer. The bridge has been the subject of three agreements. The
December 18, 1961, agreement was simply a detailed contractual
arrangement between the three jurisdictions (FHWA was not a party) as
to the rights and responsibilities of each jurisdiction in the
operation and maintenance of the bridge. It was the result of Federal
legislation (Public Law 87-358, October 4, 1961).
A June 28, 1982, agreement was signed by the three jurisdictions
and the FHWA. Again, this agreement was the result of Federal
legislation (Public Law 97-134, December 28, 1981) that provided $60
million for 4R work on the bridge, and spelled out more details as to
each jurisdiction's operation and maintenance duties, and provided that
the ``* * * three jurisdictions shall submit to FHWA within 6 months of
the date of the agreement proposed reasonable terms and conditions upon
which they would be willing to accept title to the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial Bridge.'' This agreement was never fully implemented.
The last signed agreement between the two States, the District of
Columbia, and FHWA was on April 19, 1985. The 1985 agreement required
the jurisdictions to accept the bridge once rehabilitation of the
bridge was complete, e.g. upon ``completion and final acceptance of the
construction work * * * which will include rehabilitation for the
bridge bascule span and minor substructure rehabilitation.'' Although
the $60 million provided under the 1981 legislation was used for the
bridge--most of it for 4R work and some for a study on long-term
needs--the District and the States declined to take over responsibility
for the bridge because of the cost of continued maintenance.
Question. What is the traffic mix on the bridge between local
commuters and through traffic?
Answer. Local commuters comprise between 85 to 90 percent, and
through traffic 10 to 15 percent, depending on the time of year.
Question. What is the justification for the President's Budget
request of $400 million?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget includes $40 million for the
Wilson Bridge project: $30 million is needed for the continued design
(and construction) of a new bridge, and $10 million is needed for
necessary interim repairs and rehabilitation work on the existing
bridge.
The Department has been working closely with the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge Coordination Committee on options for replacing the existing
bridge. The Committee has selected the current alignment, with side-by-
side drawbridges having a 70-foot navigational clearance, as the
preferred alternative for replacing the bridge. There would be a total
of 12 lanes: 8 general purpose lanes, 2 merge/auxiliary lanes, and 2
HOV/express bus/transit lanes. The current estimated cost for this
alternative is $1.56 billion.
$400 million is the cost to replace the existing structure. The NHS
Designation Act of 1995 provides a framework for determining the
Federal contribution of the cost to replace the existing 6-lane bridge
with a replacement structure. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Coordination
Committee estimated that this would cost approximately $400 million.
Question. Since initial construction, how much has the Federal
Government spent on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge?
Answer. A total of $168.9 million in Federal funds has been
allocated since 1954; $163.9 million was at a 100-percent Federal
share, and $5.0 million was at an 80-percent Federal share.
Question. Given that the Woodrow Wilson bridge alternatives being
considered are all significantly in excess of the President's Budget
request, is this bridge a reasonable candidate for the proposed new
credit program in ISTEA reauthorization or another innovative financing
approach?
Answer. The bridge likely would be eligible for a credit program or
other innovative financing approaches; the project would also be
eligible for regular Federal-aid apportionments. The bridge could be
funded through a combination of a direct Federal contribution ($400
million) and some form of credit.
alameda corridor
Question. FHWA officials have cited the Alameda Corridor's Federal
loan as a precedent for future finance efforts. Officials noted that
FHWA used the project as a model in the agency's effort this year to
create a new $100 million Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program.
The program is intended to leverage Federal funds and provide credit to
assist nationally significant projects, particularly large, multimodal,
and revenue generating projects. However, since the Alameda Corridor
project is in its early stages, there are a number of unanswered
questions concerning the risk to the Federal Government if other
funding sources are not realized and the success of this type of
Federal loan at leveraging other funding. How important was the Federal
loan to the project?
Answer. The Federal loan, which was signed January 17, 1997, is a
vital part of the project's financial package. The $2 billion project
is a public-private venture involving the ports and cities of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, the regional transportation authority, the
railroads using the corridor, and the Federal Government. The Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) is a joint-powers public
agency established by Los Angeles and Long Beach to develop, finance,
build, and operate the project. The two ports have already contributed
$400 million for rights-of-way along the corridor, and the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Los Angeles County's metropolitan planning
organization) will provide nearly $350 million of its Federal, State,
and local grant funds. Project revenues--user charges paid by the
railroads and other income of the ports--will be used to repay
approximately $735 million in revenue bonds and the $400 million
Federal loan.
The Federal loan offers permanent financing with flexible payment
features that should alleviate market concerns and promote efficient
use of private capital by positioning the government as a patient
investor in the project with a long-term horizon and no liquidity
requirements. Those features include: (1) structuring flexible
repayment schedules with deferrable interest and principal to match
realized project revenues; (2) facilitating the project's access to
private capital by enhancing the capital markets debt coverage,
lowering interest rates, and reducing reserve requirements; and (3)
leveraging substantial private financing by limiting Federal
participation to 20 percent of total project costs. At a budgetary cost
of only $59 million (to cover the subsidy or risk of non-repayment),
the Federal Government is providing a $400 million loan that will help
advance a $2 billion project with significant local, regional, and
national benefits.
Question. How will the loan be used? Could you expand on how the
Federal loan will be spent?
Answer. Under the terms of the January 17 loan agreement signed by
DOT and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, the Federal loan
can be used for any costs related to: (1) acquisition, design and
construction of the project, including legal, administrative,
engineering, planning, design, insurance and financing costs; (2) debt
service, capitalized interest, contingency, or capital reserve funds,
(3) debt service payments; and (4) costs of equipment and supplies and
initial working capital.
Question. In the loan agreement, why was the Federal loan repayment
made subordinate to the repayment of revenue bonds?
Answer. Given the uncertainty of the projected revenue stream and
operating costs associated with large startup transportation
facilities, investors and rating agencies typically require that the
project revenue bonds have a relatively high coverage margin. Coverage
is the annual surplus of net revenues after payment of operating
expenses and debt service. A high coverage factor (such as 1.75 times)
constrains the permitted level of annual debt service, reducing the
amount of debt that can be supported and leaving a funding gap.
While project sponsors could seek to raise additional debt proceeds
with a thinner coverage margin (such as 1.10 times), such debt likely
would be rated sub-investment grade. The major capital market funding
source for debt financing of infrastructure--the municipal bond
market--is generally risk averse, and there is only a limited market
for non-investment grade obligations. The situation defines the need
for a flexible debt instrument that can be payable out of the coverage
factor after the senior bonds' debt service. The Federal loan addresses
this market gap and promotes the efficient use of capital by
positioning the Government as a patient investor with a longer-term
time horizon and no liquidity requirements.
Question. How much would the Federal Government lose if the project
goes into default? How much would the Federal Government gain if the
loan is paid back?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act (Public Law 104-208) provides $59 million for the Department of
Transportation to pay the subsidy costs associated with making a direct
loan not to exceed $400 million to ACTA for the Alameda Corridor
project. If the loan is repaid in full, the subsidy budget authority of
$59 million will be returned to the General Fund. In a worst-case
scenario, none of the $400 million loan would be repaid, and the
Federal Government would lose $400 million. However, such a scenario is
unlikely. If project bonds are not issued to construct the project or
an alternative source for funding the remainder of the project's costs
is not put into place by December 31, 2005, the loan will still be
repaid by ACTA from rental income from the partially built project and
other port revenues. And if the project is fully constructed as
planned, the flexible terms and rate covenants included in the loan
agreement offer the Federal Government additional security.
Question. How much of the corridor's financing is based on Federal
funding, including both direct and indirect Federal funds, both with
and without the Federal loan?
Answer. The $2 billion project is a public-private venture among
the ports and cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the regional
transportation authority, the railroads using the corridor, and the
Federal Government. Direct Federal contributions to the project include
$45 million in ISTEA demonstration funds (USDOT), $2 million in
Economic Development Administration funds (Commerce), and the $400
million direct Federal loan. Thus, the project will receive $447
million ($47 million without the Federal loan) in direct Federal
funding.
In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) will
provide another $329 million of apportioned Federal-aid highway funds.
Total Federal funding for the project (including indirect Federal-aid
highway funds passed through the Los Angeles County MTA) equals $776
million ($376 without the Federal loan).
Question. Will the revenue bonds be fully or partially tax-exempt?
How could that affect the Federal loan?
Answer. Under current law, without special legislative authority,
ACTA believes that a portion of its revenue bonds could be issued as
tax-exempt debt (relating to public use/public purpose). The amount of
the tax-exempt debt ultimately issued for the project should not affect
the security of the Federal Government's investment, as the budgetary
cost of the Federal loan was ``scored'' based on the assumption of all
revenue bonds being taxable.
Question. Is the Alameda Corridor Federal loan being seen as a
promising way to finance other projects? If so, why?
Answer. The Alameda Corridor Federal loan was a unique, ad hoc
response to a specific project. The administration is seeking in NEXTEA
a somewhat different approach. The Transportation Infrastructure Credit
Enhancement Program would provide grants (up to 20 percent of total
cost) to assist in the funding of nationally significant transportation
projects that otherwise might be delayed or not constructed at all
because of their size and uncertainty over timing of revenues. After
projects are selected by the Secretary, grants are made to capitalize
revenue stabilization funds. A revenue stabilization fund could be
drawn upon if needed to pay debt service on the project's debt
obligations in the event of revenue shortfalls. The stabilization fund
may also be used to secure junior lien debt or other obligations
requiring credit enhancement. Limiting the use of the revenue
stabilization fund to these types of obligations is designed to
maximize the project's ability to leverage private capital, and assist
it in obtaining investment grade ratings on senior debt. The program's
goal is to encourage the development of large, capital-intensive
facilities through public-private partnerships consisting of State or
local governments with private business.
transportation infrastructure credit program
Question. How will the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program
affect the trust fund balance, since the program calls for more money
up front and for payment out of the highway trust fund?
Answer. The new transportation infrastructure credit enhancement
program is funded at $100 million. This level of funding would have a
minimal impact on the highway account balance, which is projected to be
about $15 billion at the end of fiscal year 1997.
Question. How will DOT assess the economic benefits of a project?
Will it just consider future revenue streams or will it consider
pollution reduction, congestion relief and other indirect benefits?
Answer. Projects selected for this program will have to demonstrate
the ability to generate broad economic benefits, support international
commerce, or otherwise enhance the Nation's transportation system and
economy. Specific factors would include the extent to which the
project: (1) advances high-priority corridors (NAFTA, trade corridors),
intermodal connectors and border facilities, or otherwise promotes
regional, interstate or international commerce; (2) enables U.S.
manufacturers to deliver their goods to domestic and foreign markets in
a more timely, cost-effective manner; (3) stimulates new economic
activity and job creation; (4) reduces traffic congestion, thereby
reducing shipping delays and increasing workforce productivity; and (5)
protects the environment by enhancing air quality through the reduction
of congestion and decreased fuel and oil consumption.
Question. Who will be able to apply for funding--private
organizations, cities, States, metropolitan planning organizations,
etc.?
Answer. The sponsor of a project eligible for assistance under the
credit enhancement program must be a State, local government, or other
public agency, or the project must be publicly owned and publicly
sponsored, meaning it satisfies the Statewide and metropolitan planning
requirements of Title 23, U.S.C., and the application is submitted by a
State, local government, or other public agency. Therefore, the
applicant could be a corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, or
governmental entity.
Question. Since the Department will not directly oversee the
project, how will it assure that the Federal money will be used
efficiently and effectively?
Answer. As with other projects funded in part through Federal
transportation programs, the Department will work with its State and
local partners to ensure that Federal funds are used effectively and
efficiently in accordance with relevant laws and regulations. Recipient
projects will be treated like ``regular Title 23'' projects in that
they must be advanced by a State or local government (or agency
thereof), satisfy the usual planning requirements, and be eligible for
Federal assistance under Title 23 or chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C. In
addition, the usual Federal requirements that apply to funds and
projects under titles 23 and 49 shall also apply to revenue
stabilization funds and projects receiving them under the new credit
enhancement program. The Secretary of Transportation will consult with
the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that any grants made to
capitalize revenue stabilization funds under the new program shall
contain appropriate terms and limitations to ensure that Federal funds
are used prudently in leveraging private capital to advance important
national transportation investments.
Question. Given that the Department has had limited experience with
loan guarantee projects such as the Alameda Corridor, should more
experience be gained before establishing a nationwide program?
Answer. The need for and efficacy of Federal assistance (whether
direct loans, loan guarantees, or credit enhancement) for large
revenue-generating projects of national significance is already being
demonstrated by the TCA toll roads (through Federal lines of credit)
and Alameda Corridor ( a Federal direct loan). Establishing a Federal
credit enhancement program provides the benefits of being able to
clearly set forth prudent and consistent policy guidelines and fiscal
parameters that will advance vital national transportation goals while
maximizing efficiency and minimizing risk. Without a programmatic
structure, such Federal credit assistance provided on an ad-hoc basis
may not have the desired level of efficiency, equity, and
effectiveness.
Also, we believe any Federal credit enhancement program should be
limited in scope, targeted to a relatively small number of projects of
national significance. Each project will be one-of-a-kind, evaluated
according to a unique set of benefit and cost factors. It is not
expected that the Federal Government will or should generate a large
portfolio of such project financings. The program should rely on the
discipline and credit evaluation expertise of the private capital
markets. One measure of the program's success might be the extent to
which it demonstrates the feasibility of long-term infrastructure
investments to the private capital markets and can eventually be phased
out.
Question. If this program is established, will the Boston Central
Artery/Tunnel Project qualify for funds under this program? Does it
meet the criteria for a project with a revenue stream? Has there been
any discussion about using this program to help fund the suggested
freight tunnel beneath New York Harbor?
Answer. The new Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
Program is intended to help advance projects of national significance
that require Federal assistance to secure financing and begin
construction. Based on the proposed eligibility criteria (national
significance, planning requirements, need for financial assistance,
State/local support, size, and existence of revenue sources), the
Central Artery project could be eligible for assistance. However, the
project's current finance plan does not contemplate additional Federal
assistance outside the State's regularly apportioned Federal-aid
funding. Also, any project determined to be eligible for assistance
would have to be assessed against various selection criteria.
To our knowledge, no proponents of the suggested freight tunnel
beneath New York Harbor have approached the Department about seeking
assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
Program. If the project satisfied the eligibility criteria set forth in
NEXTEA, it could seek funding under this program. Its application would
be evaluated along with those of other applicants.
state infrastructure banks
Question. To what extent are SIBs expected to leverage new, non-
Federal money? Do any of the ten pilot States plan to try and attract
private financing? If yes, how?
Answer. The extent to which SIBs will leverage non-Federal money
will depend on a number of factors, such as the amount of non-Federal
matching funds (State and private) contributed to the SIB; the type of
assistance offered by the SIB, including the extent to which any
assistance is subsidized; and whether the SIB is able to leverage
itself, i.e., issue debt or provide credit enhancement in excess of its
own contributed capital.
The Environmental Protection Agency's State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
for wastewater treatment facilities have, on average, a leveraging
ratio of about 1:2 (Federal grant contributions to total credit
assistance provided). We believe SIBs are likely to have a higher
leveraging ratio because they will be able to leverage funds through
projects--by contributing only a portion of required assistance in
conjunction with significant private and other non-Federal capital--as
well as by issuing debt against their contributed capital. For example,
a SIB loan of $10 million might be part of a total financing package
for a project costing $100 million. Also, SIBs have a much larger and
more diverse pool of potential recipient projects.
Three loans have been made by the initial ten States participating
in the SIB pilot, and all three loans will support bond issuances by
localities. In these cases, the loans will help the localities access
the capital markets by raising their ratings and thus lowering the
interest that the bonds will require when repaid.
Question. How does DOT plan to choose and allocate the $150 million
in new SIB money for fiscal year 1997 and, if passed, DOT's request for
$150 million in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. We are currently reviewing the new SIB applications, and
approvals should be made soon. After this is completed, decisions will
be made on allocation of the $150 million.
Question. Will the selection criteria DOT chooses affect the type
of projects States submit in their applications? For example, will DOT
likely target States with several projects as a State, or will DOT
consider States submitting only one project for SIB funding?
Answer. The number of projects a State submitted in its application
will probably not be a factor for selection. We hope the SIBs will be
able to assist many projects, but we believe that more projects will be
identified as a State implements its SIB.
Question. Why have SIBs been slow in getting projects underway?
Answer. A number of actions are required before a project can be
funded from a SIB. After DOT approved the first 10 States in 1996,
cooperative agreements had to be executed. Most of the agreements were
signed at the end of fiscal year 1996. States had to establish a SIB
structure and develop procedures. Once a SIB is in place, projects must
be selected and financial assistance negotiated. A number of other
project actions may be needed before a project is ready to receive
funds from a SIB.
Another factor involves the Federal capitalization of SIBs. The
legislation requires that SIBs be funded at the traditional highway and
transit outlay rates, which means that Federal deposits into SIBs are
made over several years. Therefore, the amount of Federal funds
currently available to a State is considerably less than 10 percent of
its apportionments--the limit a State may transfer to the SIB.
central artery/tunnel project
Question. In FHWA's opinion, are the State of Massachusetts
projections of savings on the insurance program realistic?
Answer. We understand that the GAO is concerned about the degree of
certainty that can be assumed for the large savings that have been
reported for the Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP or Wrap-Up
Insurance). Given the fact that the project is entering the heaviest
phase of construction over the next several years, GAO is concerned
that the level of savings trended for the OCIP may not occur. While we
understand the cautionary tone reflected in GAO's comments, the FHWA
continues to believe that, as in a number of other areas on the CA/T
project, an appropriate management and oversight strategy for the OCIP
is to set clear and measurable objectives or milestones regarding
project costs and schedules. Then FHWA's and the Project's performance
can be clearly measured against meeting these objectives or milestones.
Given this recommended oversight strategy, the OCIP is an excellent
example of one of the more readily trackable programs. The Project
Management Monthly Report tracks the Insurance Program's measures on a
monthly basis, giving early indications of any positive or adverse
trends. The structure of the insurance program now reflects and
benefits from that trackability in its use of a retrospective approach
that allows for adjustments in the cost of the program based on how
claims have occurred during a preceding year. The extraordinary success
of the Insurance Program can be reported as very real, given the
established track record of safety programs and insurance claims on the
project during the last four years, a period that certainly contained
its share of heavy construction in sensitive areas. Each year that
successes occur in very measurable and actuarial aspects of the
insurance program, the Project is more and more able to report a
firming up of the expected performance of the program in the future.
Likewise, given the retrospective adjustments based on year-by-year
performance, the Project will have early indicators of any trends that
may be developing. Finally, the Project continues to proactively
explore ways to further improve the excellent safety record. Therefore,
in summary, FHWA has accepted and believes that the State's projected
savings on the insurance program are realistic.
Question. Does FHWA believe the project's cost can be kept to $10.4
billion?
Answer. The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project (the Massachusetts
Highway Department--MHD--& FHWA) is aggressively managing to the $10.4
billion total cost through the implementation of strategies to meet
cost containment goals for design and construction. The CA/T Project
recognizes this estimate as achievable, and FHWA supports this
management strategy that involves setting measurable milestones
regarding cost and schedule and measuring the CA/T Project performance
against these milestones. The CA/T Project uses trend analyses and
early indicators that allow the management process to be dynamic and
adjust to deviations in schedule and cost. As long as this aggressive
management is maintained, the current budget is viewed by FHWA as
achievable.
Question. What is FHWA doing to review and scrutinize project
costs? What does FHWA think the cost of the project is?
Answer. The FHWA is actively involved with the MHD CA/T staff in
scrutinizing and controlling total project costs, and in developing a
variety of cost saving strategies. The unprecedented allocation of
resources to staffing in the Massachusetts Division Office, with
assistance from both Region and Headquarters Offices, has enabled the
FHWA to provide a program of both comprehensive and tailored oversight
regarding cost, schedule and quality. The FHWA engineering and
technical staff provide a range of project- or contract-specific design
and construction monitoring based upon a geographic assignment of
responsibility. Each area engineer is specifically responsible for
monitoring all Federal-aid work within this assigned area, reviewing
designs to ensure that components are both economical and cost-
effective. This design review also ensures compliance with necessary
standards. Area engineers are also responsible for monitoring costs and
quality for their area during construction, monitoring construction
procedures and the administration of change orders as necessary. A
variety of technical experts are available from the division, the
regional and headquarters levels of FHWA to provide special expertise
to the area engineers as needed during both design and construction.
This expertise is especially valuable in bench marking design or
construction procedures and cost-effectiveness in areas such as
specialty tunnel areas or environmental mitigation.
Besides contract-specific monitoring, the Division Office,
supplemented with assistance from the Region and Headquarters, also
provides programmatic oversight through a variety of task team, peer
review, and/or process review activities. These activities insure that
design and construction processes are designed or re-engineered to
provide streamlined and cost-effective outcomes. To give two examples
from 1996, task team/process reviews were conducted on the wrap-up
insurance program and the geotechnical instrumentation. Cost saving
strategies were identified in each review. The Division Office also
participates in a number of MHD CA/T committees that have been charged
with managing costs on the project. Examples of these activities
include the Cost Containment Committee (generating innovative
approaches such as the Design-to-Cost program, an approach that
controls growth of design estimates) and the Project Contingency
Allowance Committee (controlling costs associated with such issues in
construction as changed site conditions). Through further participation
on value engineering teams and through construction partnering,
Division Office representatives ensure that cost-effective functional
designs are provided and moved to construction in a fashion where
costly litigation or dispute resolution is avoided through
collaboration with the contracting industry. Total costs and cost
trends are closely monitored by the FHWA upper management at all levels
by proactive involvement in Project Management Monthly reporting and
through quarterly briefing of FHWA's highest management. These review
activities include monitoring and periodic validation of macro-level
Finance Plan assumptions or trends in areas such as inflation and
bidding results.
In regard to the second question, as reported in an earlier
question and as has been reported in the September 30, 1996 Financial
Plan, FHWA has accepted the State's total cost as $10.4 billion.
Question. Does FHWA believe it is time for Massachusetts to revise
its cost estimate to be more realistic? Why or why not?
Answer. The cost estimate for the Central Artery/Tunnel is
validated monthly. This has been done for approximately a year now as
part of the Project Monthly Management report that tracks the actual
project cost and schedule, gives early indication of potential cost
increases or decreases, compares it to the Cost/Schedule Update 6 (Rev
6) and previous forecast, and develops a new forecast for the remaining
cost and schedule. The report also shows the changes from the previous
month for actual versus planned costs and schedule time. The result is
a current cost-to-go and total cost, and a current schedule on a
monthly basis. Assumptions used for Rev 6 are also being tracked. While
some of the assumptions are tracking better than others, the overall
project cost is staying within budget. As part of the next Finance Plan
Update, currently planned for October 1, 1997, we will assess the need
to revise these assumptions.
Question. Does FHWA believe that the financing strategies outlined
in the consultant's study are viable? Has FHWA conveyed these views to
the State?
Answer. Massachusetts' Metropolitan Highway System (MHS) Financial
Feasibility Study, while legislated by Massachusetts itself, is a key
part of the State's plan to finance the Central Artery/Tunnel. FHWA's
acceptance of the State's CA/T Finance Plan was conditioned upon the
State's completion of the MHS Study and implementing legislation. The
MHS Study was completed in December 1996 and contained numerous
scenarios, the majority related to increasing existing tolls, to
identify State funding for the CA/T, and MHS operation, and still allow
a $400 Million (Federal and State) Statewide Program exclusive of the
CA/T.
The Executive Office of Transportation and Construction's December
5, 1996, submittal to the Legislature and Governor contained specific
recommendations primarily related to raising existing tolls for the
tunnels and bridge in downtown Boston. Implementing MHS (State)
legislation was introduced on January 6, 1997; two public hearings were
held, at the first of which FHWA's Massachusetts Division Administrator
answered questions as requested. The legislation has moved through the
Legislature and was signed by the Governor on March 20, 1997. The
existing legislation does not set toll levels, but does enable the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to adjust tolls to meet the needs to
complete the CA/T and operate the MHS and maintain a $400 million
Statewide program.
While FHWA believes that the assessment of the options in the MHS
Study is a State and local responsibility, we believe the study did a
good job of identifying options that would meet both the State's needs
and conditions as relate to the completion of the CA/T, maintaining a
$400 million Statewide Program, and operating the MHS. FHWA also
believes the existing legislation is feasible and will meet both the
State's and our needs. FHWA has conveyed these views to the State both
informally and in answering questions in a State legislative hearing.
Question. Is the use of grant anticipation notes to leverage future
Federal funds a feasible strategy for financing $1 billion or more of a
project's costs? What experience has FHWA had with these kinds of
instruments?
Answer. In general, we believe that the use of grant anticipation
notes (GANs) is a prudent and effective way to cover the timing gap
between a project's up-front cash flow requirements for construction
and the receipt of future anticipated Federal aid. The amount that can
be financed through GANs depends on the size of the cash flow
shortfall, the term of the notes, and the predictability of the future
Federal grants to be used to repay the GANs.
GANs have been used extensively in connection with other Federal
aid programs (notably FTA and EPA) but only occasionally with FHWA
receivables. We believe the reason for this is that most States
historically have had sufficient cash balances in their highway
programs to internally finance the timing gap, thus avoiding the need
to borrow externally through GANs. However, for large projects (such as
the Central Artery) it may be necessary to consider using GANs to meet
cash flow needs.
Question. What actions does FHWA plan to take if legislation is not
enacted by the State to implement the study's recommendations?
Answer. On March 20, 1997, Governor Weld signed the Metropolitan
Highway System (MHS) legislation into law, thus implementing the
recommendations of the Executive Office of Transportation and
Construction from the MHS Financial Feasibility Study. Given the
enactment of the required legislation, FHWA will not have to withhold
authority or take other actions in regard to this issue.
Question. Does FHWA believe that the shortfall estimates are
accurate? How much will these estimates go up if costs increase?
Answer. Yes, the annual shortfall estimates (cash flow needs) are
believed to be accurate for the scenario(s) used in the CA/T Finance
Plan, and recognizing that the actual Federal funding levels for post-
ISTEA are still unknown. The effect of cost changes, even assuming the
same scenario(s) for unknown post-ISTEA Federal funding levels, would
depend on what year the associated changes were built and needed to be
paid. That is, a design change or construction change could be known
today, but its effect would depend on whether the actual billing for
the resultant work occurred in a peak cash flow year or afterward when
cash flow needs are not as great.
Question. What fallback position is available to the State if the
strategies outlined in the consultant's report are not sufficient to
meet the funding gaps?
Answer. The Metropolitan Highway System (MHS) Financial Feasibility
Study contained several options for the State share of costs associated
with the CA/T interim cash flow needs, total CA/T project cost needs,
and also operating expenses for the MHS. The options included revenue
bonds backed by toll increases, interim borrowing backed by anticipated
Federal funds, increased gas tax, toll increases, and/or other State
sources. The Executive Office of Transportation and Construction
requested legislation, which passed both houses of the State
legislature and which has been recently signed by the Governor, turning
the construction of the CA/T, and operation of the MHS (including the
CA/T) over to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA). The
legislation also indicates the amount of State share to be paid by the
Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort or MPA), MTA, and the
Massachusetts Highway Department. It also enables them to adjust tolls
as needed to cover such costs. The State would have the option of
covering funding needs by such tolls or short-term borrowing, or if
necessary could consider a gas tax. The latter is not considered
necessary by the State at this time.
transit new starts
Question. The President's proposed fiscal year 1998 budget would
cut transit new starts by $126 million from the current enacted level
of $760 million. There are now 13 new starts with full funding grant
agreements in the funding ``pipeline'' and two more awaiting FFGAs.
These 15 projects will cost $3.7 billion to complete. There are about
100 other projects already in various preliminary stages, totaling
about $10 billion to $20 billion to complete. Should the administration
be entering into new full funding grant agreements when the new starts
program is already oversubscribed?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget proposes funding for 15
projects for which FFGAs are in place or pending. Our 1998 funding
request reflects budgetary pressure, and while it is not the annual
amount for fiscal year 1998 in the FFGAs, our proposed outyear funding
is sufficient to cover funding requirements for these 15 projects.
Furthermore, our reauthorization proposal includes an even higher level
of contract authority that could become available dependent upon future
Federal budget decisions. Therefore, our current plans to sign two new
FFGAs are within our long-term budget plan.
Question. Why is the administration asking for a cut in transit new
starts at the same time that it is poised to approve $850 million in
new commitments?
Answer. The request for Major Capital Investments (new starts)
funding in fiscal year 1998 represents the funding necessary to enable
those projects recommended for funding to proceed at a reasonable pace.
The ``$850 million in new commitments'' (actually $853 million)
represents the administration's planned Federal commitment through
multi-year Full Funding Grant Agreements for two projects: the BART
Extension to San Francisco Airport ($750 million) and the Sacramento
light rail extension ($103 million). Through fiscal year 1997, $84
million has already been appropriated toward the total $853 million
planned Federal commitment to these projects. Our request for fiscal
year 1998 includes another $75 million for the two projects, leaving
outyear requirements of $694 million in Federal funding. Our proposed
outyear funding levels are sufficient to cover these funding
requirements.
Question. Is the administration interested in working with new
starts project sponsors to help reduce the size of the Federal
commitment to these expensive projects?
Answer. There are already provisions in law that encourage project
sponsors to do this, and FTA actively encourages their use.
Title 49, U.S.C., Section 5309(h) establishes the level of Federal
participation in new starts projects at 80 percent of the net project
cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower percentage. There are
at least two reasons why a project sponsor may want to reduce the
percentage of Federal participation. First, project sponsors seeking
discretionary funds for less than one third of the total cost of the
project, or less than a total of $25 million in discretionary new
starts funds, are exempt by statute from evaluation under the project
justification criteria established in 49 U.S.C. Section 5309(e).
Second, the statutory project justification criteria themselves
require an evaluation of local financial commitment. One indicator of
this commitment would be a higher share of project costs from State
and/or local sources. Therefore, a project with a proposed Federal
share of 50 percent, for example, might be rated higher than a similar
project proposed for 80 percent Federal funding (provided, of course,
that FTA's analysis of the financing plan confirms its viability). This
may speed the project with the smaller Federal share through the new
starts funding process.
A number of project sponsors have taken advantage of these
provisions in recent years. In Los Angeles, the Metro Red Line is being
constructed with 50 percent of the project costs from Federal new
starts funding. The Federal proportion of funding for the Houston
Regional Bus plan, which evolved as a cost-effective alternative to a
proposed monorail system, is slightly less than 60 percent. Light rail
extensions in Baltimore and an extension of the BART system to San
Francisco International Airport are being constructed as part of
regional transit improvement programs, of which the Federal share will
be less than one-third overall.
aviation excise taxes
Question. The aviation excise taxes were recently reinstated by the
Congress, and went back into effect March 7th. Are there any critical
FAA capital needs that will go unfunded because of the lapse in the
aviation excise taxes?
Answer. No, the recent reinstatement of the excise taxes will fund
the FAA's capital requirements for the balance of fiscal year 1997.
However, according to the current legislation, the excise taxes will
lapse again on September 30, 1997. Unless there are alternative
financing plans in place, the FAA would not be able to proceed with the
capital programs in fiscal year 1998.
Question. If so, are you planning to submit a supplemental request
to fill urgent safety needs?
Answer. Since the excise taxes were reinstated, the FAA is
proceeding with the capital programs and does not foresee a need for a
supplemental in fiscal year 1997.
faa administrator
Question. How is the administration progressing on the appointment
of a new FAA administrator?
Answer. Candidates have been identified and we are in the final
stages of preparing a nomination. We expect to finish our internal
processes shortly.
faa financial and personnel management
Question. The recent Coopers & Lybrand study is critical of the
FAA's financial management of large procurement projects, and the
agency's personnel management. There seems to be a continuing drumbeat
of experts who have studied the FAA and all come to the conclusion that
the agency must fundamentally change the way it makes decisions,
approaches personnel costs, and transitions from older technology to
new technology. These are not new challenges, but they are challenges
that continue to frustrate the FAA and the Congress. It is especially
frustrating in light of the fact that this Committee has been
responsive to the department's requests for flexibility in the
personnel and procurement areas. In the fiscal year 1996 bill, FAA was
given unprecedented personnel and procurement reform tools, which the
Coopers & Lybrand study points out that they have yet to effectively
use. Why does the FAA fail to include any estimated savings from
personnel and procurement reform in its five-year business plan?
Answer. Cost containment and potential cost savings for the agency
in the longer term are basic tenets of personnel and acquisition
reform.
Since the advent of personnel reform in April 1996, FAA has made
significant accomplishments in implementing an initial phase of new
personnel policies and processes. However, development of new personnel
programs to replace the existing systems that have been in place for
decades must be done in a thorough, systematic manner to ensure that
the new programs support the underlying objectives, properly address
problems with the existing systems, and ensure fiscal responsibility.
Until we have made specific decisions on what the major components of
our new human resource systems will look like, we cannot identify
specific cost savings that might result from the new programs.
Under acquisition reform, our goal is to reduce costs of new
acquisitions by 20 percent and reduce the time it takes to make an
award by 50 percent by April 1999. At this time, it is too early to
estimate specific future cost savings resulting from the new system.
Only five or six new programs have been awarded since April 1996 when
procurement reform went into effect. However, we do know that
procurements have been awarded faster, and time is money.
FAA is developing metrics and will conduct annual internal
evaluations that will build the infrastructure to calibrate and project
savings that we can expect in the future. In addition, FAA will provide
for independent evaluations of the acquisition management system later
this year and in April 1999 as directed by the Appropriations and
Authorization Committees.
Question. What savings have been realized from the procurement and
personnel reforms? What savings are projected for fiscal years 1997,
1998, and the outyears?
Answer. While it is too early to assess the full benefits of the
new acquisition management system (AMS), we know there have been
successes and we must continue to work to ensure complete success.
However, there have been numerous lessons learned under the AMS that
indicate time savings for both the FAA and industry.
As an example, the STARS procurement was awarded in 6 months (with
no protest) under reform; award under the previous system could have
been up to 18 months. The time and resource savings experienced under
this procurement is 12 months, not including any time and resources
which would have been expended in the event of a challenge to the
award. Another example is the procurement handled by the newly formed
Security Integrated Product Team (IPT). This team used the reform
flexibility and authority to make an award within a six-week period and
saved valuable time and resources.
While many procurements have been handled in less time and with
less resources, another factor that cannot be overlooked under reform
is the culture change. An example of this culture change is the
Computer Based Instruction procurement. Historically this action would
have been handled as a single-source procurement. However, the IPT made
the decision to compete the requirement. The IPT was able to award to a
new contractor and save $3 million over the incumbent's prices, as well
as obtain state-of-the-art equipment.
There have been many procurements of lesser dollar value that have
been awarded in shorter time frames than would have been under the
previous system. The reason for these shorter time frames is that the
response times are tailored to the requirement, there is more
discussion with industry to obtain a better understanding of the
requirement (therefore less time and resources spent on numerous
proposal submissions), and the decision-making process is within the
IPT.
We anticipate that there will be similar savings in the future. Our
goal is to reduce costs by 20 percent and reduce the time it takes to
make an award by 50 percent by April 1999.
Question. Why should Congress be expected to take seriously FAA's
estimates of offsetting collections from user fees, if the agency can't
accurately lay out the FAA's costs that are associated with the
services for which they plan to charge the fees?
Answer. The FAA is implementing a cost accounting system that will
permit the allocation of costs to users of FAA services. This system is
to be fully operational by October 1, 1998. Until information from this
system is available, an independent financial assessment conducted by
Coopers & Lybrand, Inc., determined that a cost allocation study
conducted by GRA Inc., which was recently finalized, provided an
acceptable interim basis for attributing FAA costs to broad categories
of users and could be used for fee setting.
faa's acquisition system
Question. In 1995, Congress gave FAA unique authority among Federal
agencies to establish its own procurement system. In response, FAA
replaced the extensive set of procurement rules with a 100-page
document, entitled Acquisition Management System. GAO has reported that
elements of the new system are a promising first step in improving
acquisitions, but has expressed caution. How complex and difficult to
address do you consider FAA's acquisition problems to be? What are the
major issues that need to be addressed to solve the problems?
Answer. The problems are complex and difficult, especially
considering the rapidly growing demand for air traffic management and
infrastructure. Prior to the Acquisition Management System (AMS), a
rigid set of acquisition laws, regulations, internal rules, and
overlapping approvals contributed to costs and delays in fielding and
maintaining systems. Excessive time to field systems often led to those
systems containing obsolete technology. Also, there was no coordinated,
corporate-level view of acquisition programs. Rigorous mission needs
determinations, analyses of alternatives, and affordability decisions
were not always focused at a corporate level.
The new AMS addresses the problems of excessive time and cost,
unnecessary oversight, and burdensome processes. The AMS promotes time
and cost savings by allowing streamlined processes, decision-making at
a level appropriate for the circumstances, integration of all
disciplines responsible for an acquisition into product teams, and
innovation. All elements of acquisition are integrated by the AMS, from
determining mission need to disposal. The AMS also requires the FAA to
prioritize mission needs and make investment decisions based on those
needs. In summary, the AMS will allow the FAA to buy what it needs,
when it needs it, at the best deal, and will allow for changes.
airport funding
Question. AIP funding is at an all-time low in recent history. And
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request, you have requested an
obligation ceiling of only $1 billion. In the past four years, annual
airline passenger enplanements have increased 16 percent and investment
in airport development has decreased 23 percent--and that is before the
$460 million decrease in airport investment envisioned in the
President's Budget. I'm informed that the FAA has pending applications
for over $3 billion worth of airport improvement projects ready to go.
The FAA cites 22 airports that are seriously congested, and
estimates that number growing to 32 in the next several years. Delays
associated with congestion cost the airlines over $500 million a year
directly, and the total cost to the national economy is many times
greater, if you consider the lost time to passengers and businesses.
Yet your budget requests the historically low airport improvement
funding level of $1 billion--lower than the AIP ceiling has been in 10
years.
Have we been spending too much on airports, or is the President's
Budget underfunding our airport needs?
Answer. Like many other Federal programs, the requested AIP level
has been reviewed carefully to help the administration and Congress
balance the Federal budget. Airports, particularly large ones, are able
to raise capital for airport development in the private market. Also,
the ability to collect and use Passenger Facility Charge funds will
continue to provide an important supplement to Federal grant funds. We
hope the newly authorized demonstration program for innovative
financing will help airports do more with the Federal funds that are
made available to them.
We are optimistic that the work of the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission will produce recommendations for long-term funding of
airport infrastructure, as well as other aviation programs.
Question. Has the Department done any research on the economic
impact of funds spent on new airports and airport improvements? If so,
please provide an executive summary of the results of this research for
the record.
Answer. FAA has not conducted research into the broad impact of
airport improvements on the economy of the surrounding area. FAA has
conducted benefit/cost analyses of specific proposals for large airport
capacity improvements to be funded in part through the Airport
Improvement Program. These analyses were conducted within FAA and did
not result in formal reports. We have included economic impact analysis
as an element of the master planning process, and have developed a
suggested methodology for use by airports.
white house commission report
Question. On page 11 of the Gore Commission report, the Commission
concludes that ``Cost alone should not become dispositive in deciding
aviation safety and security rulemaking issues'' and that ``non-
quantifiable safety and security benefits should be included in the
analysis of proposals.'' What are some of the factors in this ``non-
quantifiable'' category? Are these just factors that we'll know when we
see them?
Answer. The White House Commission recommendation that cost alone
not become dispositive in regulatory cost/benefit analysis is
consistent with current FAA practice and with Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review), which recognizes that some
significant costs and benefits are difficult to quantify. With respect
to U.S. aviation safety and security, examples of difficult to quantify
benefits include estimates of the value of public confidence in the
safety of air travel, the value of trying to achieve 100 percent risk
reduction with the use of redundant systems or procedures, and safety
measures instituted as a result of risk analysis rather than a record
of actual accidents. In regulatory actions where these difficult to
quantify benefits or costs are included, the specific issues are
identified and discussed so the reader is aware that they have been
included in the analysis.
weather-related aviation research
Question. Weather is a contributing factor in over one-third of
aircraft accidents. In the report, the Commission sets the goal of
reducing ``the fatal accident rate by a factor of five within ten years
and conduct safety research to support that goal.'' I note that the
President's Budget request for aviation weather research has been
reduced by over 60 percent below current levels (from $13 million to $6
million). Is enough money committed to weather research, or is this an
area that deserves greater attention by the FAA?
Answer. Research and development project funding varies
considerably from year to year, depending on the phase of research. The
FAA's Aviation Weather Research program is in a phase where several
components have completed the capital intensive portions and are now in
a less costly period of analysis. We are studying how to implement the
recommendations of the White House Commission Report, and can shift
resources, as necessary, to fund any additional weather research.
nasa safety program
Question. I've heard that in response to the Gore Commission
report, NASA has started planning a $300 million a year safety program.
Is NASA the appropriate agency to lead on aviation safety, and what
type of safety initiatives would you anticipate that NASA is best
suited to contribute?
Answer. The FAA is working in partnership with NASA in an endeavor
to reduce the aviation fatal accident rate by a factor of five within
ten years. NASA has pledged to contribute one-half billion dollars over
the next five years to support the safety research. The initiative, now
named the Aeronautical Safety Investment Strategy Team (ASIST), was
kicked off by an FAA and NASA workshop February 18-21, 1997. Subsequent
ASIST workshops were held March 6-7 and March 25-28, 1997. The groups
used facilities provided by Boeing and worked on a process for
prioritizing safety research. Subgroups are preparing a comprehensive
list of research projects being done by FAA and NASA to identify those
projects with the most immediate impact. Long range research is also
being examined in those areas expected to have a major impact on
accident rates. The next workshop will be held April 17-19.
While aviation safety is the responsibility of the FAA, the
agencies have worked in partnership for over ten years on several
safety research initiatives that contribute to the overall goal of
reducing accident rates. Current FAA/NASA cooperative research programs
include aging aircraft studies, Advanced General Aviation Transport
Experiments (AGATE) to include the General Aviation Propulsion Program
(GAP), and new situation awareness methods such as the Aviation
Performance Measuring System (APMS) program.
The research roles of the two agencies are complimentary in that
the FAA's research program is focused on applied research with results
expected within two to five years, while the NASA research programs
tend to be longer term. Working in partnership will ensure that the
research performed by NASA can be applied by the FAA in its advisory
material and rules.
Question. I note that the Gore Commission Report mentions the need
for a ``new long-term financing mechanism to ensure that modernization
occurs on an acceptable schedule, and that the resulting safety and
efficiency benefits are realized faster.'' and that ``Replacing the
traditional system to excise taxes with user fees offers the potential
to correlate revenues and spending more closely.`` What is the
Department's view of what a user-financed regime might look like? I
know that this is the task for the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, but can you give the subcommittee a sneak preview of what
you expect the administration to favor for user fees, fuel taxes,
ticket taxes, or other financing mechanisms?
Answer. User fees should cover the full costs of operating FAA.
Ideally, the fees would be derived by determining the full costs of
providing specific services such as air traffic control services to
aviation users and relating the fees to those costs. Recommendations
for specific types of changes and types of services subject to charge
will be heavily influenced by the findings of the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission.
passenger facility charges
Question. To augment funding from the AIP grants, in 1990 the
Congress established the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. Under
the program, commercial service airports can charge each airline
passenger $1, $2, or $3 per trip segment up to a maximum of four
segments per round trip. After determining which projects to fund with
PFCs, an airport must apply to FAA for approval of the PFC. In 1996,
PFC collections totaled over $1 billion. Generally, PFCs can only be
spent on the same types of airport development projects that can be
funded with AIP grants. However, in 1996, the Congress extended the use
of PFCs to include relocating air traffic control towers and
navigational aids as part of an approved project, and meeting Federal
mandates. Have any airports as yet requested to use PFC's to relocate a
tower or navigation aid? If so, what was the PFC contribution to the
total project cost?
Answer. Yes, the Albany County Airport Authority in Albany, New
York, has an approved project to relocate the air traffic control at
the airport. The Albany County Airport was approved to impose and use
$8,521,093 in PFCs toward the total project cost of $15,496,956. Also,
numerous public agencies have been approved for the imposition and use
of PFCs for runway projects of various types at airports they control.
However, it is not known which, or if any, of these projects contained
navigational aids as a construction element.
Question. Have any airports as yet requested to use PFCs to meet
Federal mandates? If so, could you provide an example of the type of
mandate and the PFC contribution to the total project cost?
Answer. Yes, many public agencies have had projects approved that
were federally mandated or had projects that contained construction
elements that were federally mandated. Examples of these mandates are:
airfield signage; terminal security; projects to comply with the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; and clean air and
water projects. Many of these mandates are carried out as elements of
other major construction projects. For example, many ADA projects are
contained within terminal rehabilitation projects. The FAA has approved
over $15.2 million in terminal ADA projects and $16.4 million in
airfield signage projects.
Also, Dayton, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Syracuse, New York; and
Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, have environmental clean water
projects totaling over $41.8 million approved or pending approval.
faa's funding shortfall
Question. In its fiscal year 1998 budget, FAA projects a $6 billion
shortfall between its existing requirements and projected funding
levels through 2002. In addition, the cost of the Gore Commission's
proposal to accelerate improvements in aviation safety and security
will increase this shortfall by over $2 billion, placing an additional
burden on FAA's resources. What cost containment efforts have you
implemented to address these escalating costs?
Answer. The FAA has taken numerous steps in the last three years to
reduce personnel costs and reduce FTE levels, as called for by the
National Performance Review. Through the end of fiscal year 1996, the
agency has been able to reduce overall FTE usage by 11.7 percent or
6,324 FTE. Cumulative savings as a result of FAA's downsizing exceed $1
billion through fiscal year 1996, with fiscal year 1996 savings
estimated at over $400 million.
Since over 62 percent of the agency's work force is part of what is
referred to as the ``safety work force,'' the downsizing has been
concentrated in the non-safety areas. The non-safety work force has
been reduced by 18 percent through fiscal year 1996.
Some examples of efforts by the agency to streamline and achieve
cost savings are as follows:
--Contracting Out of Level 1 Towers
--85 Towers contracted out
--Additional savings anticipated in fiscal year 1998
--Supported by the NPR
--Airway Facilities (AF) Realignment
--Reduced levels of AF organization in regions and field from 5 to
3
--Nearly 900 supervisory positions eliminated
--Human Resource Management (HRM) Streamlining
--HRM staffing reduced by over 400 positions since fiscal year 1993
--Supervisory ratio increased from 1:5 to 1:15
The FAA is currently in the process of an integrated review of the
agency's structure, processes, and restructuring plans. Contrary to
previous studies that have concentrated on specific areas (e.g.
regional structure, administrative services, etc.), the integrated
review now in process will incorporate plans already in place in the
lines of business as well as a corporate review of the FAA mission,
processes, and structure.
Question. How has the FAA's investment in ATC modernization
increased controller and workforce productivity? Could you discuss how
this investment has reduced or contained personnel staffing levels?
Answer. The ATC modernization has not specifically reduced or
contained air traffic staffing. An increase in controller productivity
may be a by-product of our efforts to adopt new technologies. We hold
technologies we pursue up to the standard of the agency mission: Safe,
Orderly and Expeditious flow of Air Traffic. In the Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System (STARS) program, for instance, we have
required only the capability to replicate our current functionality. In
the pre-planned product improvement area of STARS, we require the
contractor to give us a platform within which additional functionality
can be readily accommodated.
The Display System Replacement (DSR), like the STARS program, has
kept the system as functionally close to today's system as possible.
This was done intentionally to reduce schedule risk and transition and
training impact to the facilities. The system will provide a platform
that has open system architecture and will allow us to integrate new
ATC technologies when they are available.
Among the expected additional functions are data link
communications, surveillance enhancements, surface separation, improved
weather display, Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation (TATCA),
Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS), medium-range conflict probe
and others. The benefits will accrue to FAA customers as a function of
increased performance of the system, a large part of which is enhanced
by controller productivity improvements resulting from better tools.
Question. How will FAA fund Gore Commission recommendations
relating to the acceleration of ATC modernization and improvements to
airport security?
Answer. The White House Commission recommendations are
interrelated. The FFA's ability to accelerate ATC modernization and
improve security will depend upon congressional action on the
recommendation to implement user fees. These fees will provide the
resources needed to address these two areas.
We are currently identifying those specific programs that need to
be accelerated to meet full modernization by 2005. We are considering
not only existing programs, but also identifying possible changes in
how the FAA provides necessary services.
Some modernization efforts are already underway and budgeted,
including development of data link, DSR, STARS, and some of the traffic
management decision support tools. By late April 1997, the FAA expects
to have schedules identified for each program element and refined cost
data to share with the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. The
White House Commission deferred to this body to help define the
alternative financing mechanisms necessary to reach the 2005 goal. The
planning to support full ATC modernization is heavily dependent on the
users equipped with avionics that produce both user and FAA benefits.
Their input to this planning is critical for success and will occur
prior to the July 15, 1997, deadline recommended in the White House
Commission report.
domestic airline competition
Question. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress phased out control of
domestic airline service and relied on market forces to decide fares
and levels of service. Last year the GAO reported that, overall, air
fares have decreased and service has improved since airline
deregulation. However, GAO emphasized that several ``pockets of pain''
exist--that is, a number of smaller communities, particularly in the
Southeast and upper Midwest, have higher fares and worse service today
than under Federal regulation. What steps, if any, can the Department
of Transportation take to ensure that the benefits of deregulation
reach these areas of the country?
Answer. The GAO report identified some small-and medium-sized
communities that had not benefited from deregulation, and they did find
a few that they clearly identified as worse off today. They stated,
``these pockets of higher fares and worse service stem largely from
both a lack of competition and comparatively slow growth over the past
two decades''.
Geography and the size of the local economy are major factors that
determine whether a community can support competitive service. If a
city is relatively small and is located within a reasonable driving
distance from one or more major cities, some of the population that
would normally use the local airport will drive to the larger airports.
This is particularly true if low-fare service is available at the
larger nearby airports. To date, none of the low-fare carriers has
entered a non-hub airport (defined by the FAA as enplaning fewer than
0.05 percent of domestic passengers or 263,028 per year) and only a
handful have entered small FAA hubs.
Under deregulation, the Department does not regulate prices or
service. These decisions are made by the airlines in the marketplace.
However, a DOT study last year showed that the low-cost carriers were
beginning to move into ever smaller markets, and if the growth of low-
cost service resumes its pattern of a year ago, there might be some
low-fare service to smaller cities over time. Another new development
that could change the fortunes of the cities noted in the GAO study is
the spread of the new 50-seat jets that are just beginning to come into
the market. With these new aircraft, it will be feasible to offer jet
service to smaller cities.
Question. What steps can local communities take to improve the
quality of their air service?
Answer. At a round-table discussion about market-based solutions to
local air service problems held in Chattanooga, TN, on February 7,
1997, two important local self-help measures were developed. First, was
consumer education. Because of the importance of affordable air service
to local economic development, local leaders should become more
aggressive in educating consumers about competitive issues facing the
local aviation marketplace. Second, local financial incentives were
discussed. Such incentives can encourage market entry by guaranteeing a
particular level of revenue or providing direct promotional support. In
partnership with local airport authorities, corporations can make
contractual or preferential agreements with interested new entrants or
the most responsive incumbent carriers, steering business toward these
airlines.
Question. GAO also reported last year that barriers to entry
continue to limit competition at several key airports, such as Chicago
O'Hare and New York LaGuardia, to an extent not anticipated by Congress
when it deregulated the industry. The result, according to the GAO, has
been significantly higher air fares at these airports. Do you agree
with GAO's finding and conclusions? If so, what specific actions do you
think are necessary to address these barriers to market entry?
Answer. We do not agree completely with GAO's conclusions. While
fares may be higher in some markets out of these specific slot-
controlled airports, our analysis of fares in Chicago and New York
suggests that average fares for local passengers are not significantly
higher because both cities have alternative airports that are not slot-
controlled: Midway in Chicago and Newark in the New York area. We know,
for example, that fares in the Baltimore-O'Hare market are disciplined
by Southwest's service in the Baltimore-Midway market.
Nevertheless, in response to GAO's report, the Department announced
that it would consider the impact on competition in responding to
requests for exemptions from the slot rule by new entrants. This
represents a new policy that should enable the Department to encourage
new competitive service.
Question. A key barrier to entry that GAO identified was the
artificial limits set by DOT on the number of takeoffs and landings
that can occur at Chicago O'Hare, New York LaGuardia and Kennedy, and
Washington National. Many in the airline industry believe that these
slot controls, established in 1969, are no longer necessary. Do you
plan on re-examining the need for slot controls at these airports
during your tenure?
Answer. Less than two years ago, the Department completed an
exhaustive study of whether slot controls should be eliminated. We sent
that study to Congress for its review. Based on that study, no changes
were made to the slot rule. Because this was studied so recently, we
have no active plan to revisit this issue.
Question. GAO has also identified the perimeter rule at
Washington's National Airport as a barrier to entry. GAO suggested that
Congress consider giving DOT the authority to grant waivers from the
perimeter rule where it could promote competition. What are the
Department's views on this issue?
Answer. The perimeter rule at Washington National was created by
Congress in its oversight capacity over Washington's two local
airports. The Department appreciates arguments for and against
modification of the perimeter rule, and takes no position on whether it
should be modified.
Question. Given that capacity in the air traffic control system and
in the national airport system is available in some sectors and at some
airports, while the system operates at or above capacity (at
significant expense) in others, is there merit in considering a
structure of user fees tied to peak-time pricing concepts on capacity-
constrained airports or sectors on non-origin/destination travelers, to
encourage greater utilization of system capacity by airlines?
Answer. The development of a user fee system will have to take into
account many complicated factors, including peaking issues. DOT at this
point is looking to the recently named National Civil Aviation Review
Commission to sift through the data and arguments in developing a sound
recommendation on user fees.
international aviation
Question. Over the past several years, DOT has been successful in
reaching liberal agreements with other countries that dramatically
increase U.S. airlines' access to those countries' markets.
Unfortunately, DOT has made little progress with our two largest
aviation trading partners overseas--the United Kingdom and Japan. Will
DOT take a different approach toward the British and the Japanese under
Secretary Slater than was taken by his predecessor? If so, how would
the approach differ?
Answer. The goals for our aviation relationships with the British
and the Japanese have not changed. In both cases, the Department is
committed to eliminating the restrictions that limit the ability of
U.S. carriers to structure their services in response to market
demands. With respect to the United Kingdom, the proposed alliance
between American Airlines and British Airways, for which the airlines
are seeking antitrust immunity, has given the British an incentive to
liberalize the air services relationship, and talks to establish an
open-skies aviation regime have begun. Although the pace of
negotiations to establish the new regime has been slow, progress is
being made--most significantly, the British have accepted that the
restrictions on entry to London's Heathrow Airport must be eliminated.
However, further action is unlikely until after the British general
election, which is scheduled for May 1.
With regard to Japan, we have been holding high-level exploratory
discussions aimed at reaching a framework for resuming formal
negotiations. Since the Japanese indicated they were not prepared to
accept implementation of a fully liberal regime at this time, we have
proposed that such a regime be phased in over a reasonable period. We
are continuing to discuss this concept with Japanese officials.
Question. DOT policy has been that the grant of antitrust immunity
to international airline alliances is contingent upon an ``open skies''
agreement removing all restrictions on air travel between the United
States and the other country. During negotiations with other countries,
DOT has used antitrust immunity as a carrot to obtain open skies
accords. Does the current administration agree with this approach?
Answer. The possibility of securing antitrust immunity for an
alliance in which their national carrier participated has provided an
incentive for some U.S. bilateral partners to agree to ``open-skies''
aviation regimes. However, U.S. negotiators have made clear to foreign
partners that an open-skies agreement is a necessary, but not
sufficient, condition for the grant of antitrust immunity. Each of the
immunized alliances was also subjected to in-depth competitive reviews
by both DOT and the Department of Justice. These reviews were conducted
separately from the open-skies negotiations, and as appropriate,
conditions were imposed on the alliance to address competitive
concerns. This approach has yielded valuable new opportunities for U.S.
aviation interests and will be continued.
Question. Two of the world's largest airlines--American Airlines
and British Airways--propose forming a strategic alliance and have
applied to DOT for immunity from U.S. antitrust laws. If the United
States and the United Kingdom are eventually able to reach an agreement
that opens up aviation trade between the two countries and antitrust
immunity is granted to the American/British Airways alliance, do you
believe that other actions will be necessary to ensure adequate
competition? If so, what would those actions be?
Answer. It is the Department's position that an ``open-skies''
agreement with the British is a prerequisite for any decision to grant
antitrust immunity to the proposed American Airlines/British Airways
alliance. Moreover, the agreement must be accompanied by a
competitively effective presence of U.S. carriers at London's Heathrow
Airport. Since the application for immunity is pending before the
Department, it would not be appropriate to comment on how any
competitive concerns might be handled. However, an in-depth review of
the competitive implications of the request for antitrust immunity will
be undertaken by both the Transportation and Justice Departments. That
review will be conducted separately from U.S. and British Government
discussions on open skies.
coast guard mission
Question. The Coast Guard makes a great deal of the multi-mission
environment in which they operate. In light of budgeting constraints
and the increasing mission demands placed on the Coast Guard in drug
interdiction, search and rescue and maritime safety, is a reassessment
of the Coast Guard's workload necessary?
Answer. No, a reassessment of mission workload is not necessary.
The Coast Guard uses the same people and platforms to efficiently and
effectively perform a broad spectrum of missions. The Coast Guard's
authority to move assets between and among missions to meet emerging
and differing national priorities while retaining a core maritime
competence in marine safety, environmental protection, law enforcement
and national defense, makes the Coast Guard a model for efficient
government operations.
Question. Is the Coast Guard overextended? Should consideration be
given to transferring some missions to the private sector?
Answer. No, the Coast Guard is not overextended. The fiscal year
1998 budget request marks the effective completion of the Coast Guard's
Streamlining Plan, which is on track and has reduced the size of the
Coast Guard without reducing services to the public. Over the past four
years, the Coast Guard has saved the American taxpayer nearly $400
million and has reduced approximately 3,500 personnel to the smallest
work force size since 1967. These savings have been achieved by
restructuring, divesting inefficient assets, eliminating expensive
infrastructure, and leveraging technology to reduce administrative
overhead.
There are currently no plans to change or transfer any of the Coast
Guard's primary mission areas of maritime safety, maritime law
enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national defense.
Over the years, Coast Guard missions have evolved and grown through
the addition of new missions that leverage the Coast Guard's core
attributes and multi-mission capabilities against new national
challenges. The Coast Guard is uniquely positioned as a military
service with law enforcement authority as the lead agency for maritime
drug and migrant interdiction and as the lead agency for environmental
protection to advance the President's priorities in the marine
environment, in national security, and environmental protection. The
Coast Guard is constantly reviewing its goals, soliciting feedback from
customers, and evaluating the cost of services as part of a quality
approach to government services.
streamlining the coast guard
Question. For the past several years, the Coast Guard has engaged
in a streamlining effort--how is the plan proceeding?
Answer. The Coast Guard's National Streamlining Plan is proceeding
on schedule and accomplishing projected savings. Coast Guard
Headquarters was reorganized and downsized by 600 people. Coast Guard
District staffs have dropped from 12 to nine, with field command and
control staffing reduced by 374 personnel. Twelve Integrated Support
Commands have been established, allowing operational commanders to
focus on external customer delivery and facilitating field Command and
Control reductions. Four activities prototypes have been established to
test various concepts for greater integration of operations management.
Most Coast Guard functions have moved off Governors Island, New York.
Remaining work is on schedule to place Governors Island's 170 acres and
225 structures in caretaker status by September 30, 1997. Training is
being enhanced by the newly established Performance Technology Center
in Yorktown, VA, and work continues for co-locating and integrating a
Coast Guard-wide Leadership Development Center at the Coast Guard
Academy by the summer of 1998. The Coast Guard has established a number
of Centers of Excellence, including restructuring the Coast Guard's R&D
Program and merging the Civilian Personnel servicing ``hub'' with the
Coast Guard Personnel Command. Finally, work is progressing with the
realignment of specialized command, control and communication (C3);
IRM; and electronics engineering support functions, which are being
relocated from the Electronics Engineering Center, Wildwood, NJ, by the
summer of 1997.
streamlining savings update
Question. In anticipation of possible budget cuts beginning in
fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard developed a national streamlining
plan. The plan focused on reducing headquarters organizational units
and personnel, consolidating field command and control and support,
enhancing training, closing Governors Island, and creating centers of
excellence. When the plan is fully implemented in fiscal year 2000, the
Coast Guard expects to save between $63 million and $80 million a year
and reduce its staffing by 1,300 positions. Conversely, the Coast Guard
anticipates spending approximately $97 million in one-time relocation
and construction costs to implement the streamlining plan's specific
actions. For fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard estimated eliminating
838 positions (555 military and 283 civilians) and saving $36.5 million
in personnel and operations and maintenance costs as a result of
streamlining. Is the estimate of $36.5 million savings in fiscal year
1997, due to actions taken as a result of the national streamlining
plan, still accurate?
Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget request
identified the elimination of 838 positions (555 military and 283
civilians) and $30.7 million in savings associated with the National
Plan for Streamlining the Coast Guard (reference pages 2, 5 and 86 of
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget request). There was also
$701,000 in annualized savings in the fiscal year 1997 budget request
from the consolidation of civilian personnel offices portion of the
national streamlining plan (reference page 92 of the Coast Guard's
fiscal year 1997 budget request).
In addition, to reduce the negative impact on direct operational
services of the $7 million congressional ``general reduction'' to the
Operating Expenses account in fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard
accelerated portions of the national streamlining plan, resulting in
the elimination of an additional 93 military positions, which provided
an additional savings of $3.8 million that was originally planned to be
taken in fiscal year 1998. Therefore, total on-budget national
streamlining plan actions in fiscal year 1997 will result in the
elimination of 931 positions (648 military and 283 civilian), saving
$35.1 million.
An additional $7.9 million in national streamlining plan savings
was reinvested to fund civilian pay raises, thereby bringing the gross
savings to $43.0 million in fiscal year 1997 (reference page 29 of the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget request).
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1997 streamlining
savings:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative FTP Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized fiscal year 1996 actions..... .............. $700,000
Initial fiscal year 1997 actions........ 838 30,700,000
Accelerated fiscal year 1998 actions.... 93 3,800,000
-------------------------------
Total net savings................. \1\ 931 35,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Coast Guard expects to achieve a gross reduction of 931
positions in the Operating Expenses (OE) account as a result of its
national streamlining plan and an additional 218 positions from other
actions in fiscal year 1997. At the same time, the Coast Guard was
required to add some positions in order to staff new and ongoing
projects (e.g., new buoy tenders, Aids to Navigation Team Red River,
Differential Global Positioning System Maintenance Engineering
Facility, Afloat Tactical System project, and Communications Station
Honolulu Transmitter project (reference pages 88-89 and 128-133 of the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 1997 budget request).
Overall, for fiscal year 1997 (in all accounts), the Coast Guard
expects to achieve a net reduction of 910 positions.
coast guard streamlining reductions
Question. Does the Coast Guard expect to achieve a reduction of 838
positions by the end of fiscal year 1997.
Answer. The Coast Guard expects to achieve a reduction of 931
positions (FTP) in the Operating Expenses (OE) account by the end of
fiscal year 1997 as a result of the National Plan for Streamlining the
United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard expects to achieve total net
reductions of 910 positions (FTP) for all accounts by the end of fiscal
year 1997, indicated as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total work Cumulative
Fiscal year force work force
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.................................... -886 -886
1995.................................... -953 -1,839
1996.................................... -818 -2,657
1997.................................... -910 -3,567
1998.................................... +90 -3,477
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
I. 1993 fiscal year baseline: 45,836 FTP
II. The fiscal year 1998 budget request eliminates 508 FTP from
streamlining and other actions, and adds back 598 FTP (net increase of
90 FTP) for drug/LE initiatives, quality of life initiatives, crews
for the new buoy tenders scheduled to be commissioned in fiscal year
1998, and pre-commissioning personnel for the polar icebreaker HEALY.
coast guard streamlining--fiscal year 1998 costs
Question. Of the $97 million in one-time relocation and
construction costs, how much has already been expended and how much is
expected to be expended in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. When the Coast Guard published its National Plan for
Streamlining the United States Coast Guard in 1995, it estimated these
costs at $107 million for fiscal years 1995 through 1999. On page 947
of last year's hearing record, the Coast Guard updated its estimate of
fiscal year 1995 through 1997 streamlining exit costs at $103-$110
million. (Actual costs of $108 million for these fiscal years are in
line with this updated estimate.) Over the next two years, the
remaining streamlining costs are forecasted at $24-$26 million in
fiscal year 1998 and $1.0-$1.5 million for fiscal year 1999. This would
place the total cost of streamlining at $133 million to $136 million.
Significant fiscal year 1998 and 1999 streamlining estimates include
caretaker costs for Governors Island; pier improvements required due to
unavailability of leased piers in Bayonne, NJ; remaining environmental
remediation; and berthing improvements required at the Leadership
Development Center.
streamlining savings estimates
Question. Given the savings estimates of $63 to $80 million were
made in 1996, can you provide a more precise savings estimate now?
Answer. The current estimate for net savings associated with the
National Plan for Streamlining the Coast Guard is approximately $76.8
million, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Net savings Reinvestments Gross savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................................................ $2,100,000 .............. $2,100,000
1997............................................................ 35,100,000 \1\ $7,900,000 43,000,000
1998............................................................ 30,200,000 \2\ 2,100,000 32,300,000
1999............................................................ 9,400,000 ( \3\ ) 9,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 76,800,000 10,000,000 86,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 1997, $7.9 million in national streamlining plan savings was reinvested to fund civilian pay
raises, bringing the fiscal year 1997 savings total to $43.0 million.
\2\ In fiscal year 1998, $2.1 million in national streamlining plan savings was reinvested to provide funding
for the Leadership Development Center (LDC) in New London, CT, bringing the gross fiscal year 1998 savings
total to $32.3 million.
\3\ Fiscal year 1999 reflects annualized savings from closing Governors Island.
coast guard streamlining savings
Question. What have been the total savings to date? (Please display
by fiscal year, with a total). Are there savings anticipated because of
the effort in fiscal year 1998? What are the next steps in this effort?
Answer. From fiscal year 1994 up to and including the fiscal year
1998 budget request, the Coast Guard will have saved $378.1 million
(current year dollars) in gross Operating Expenses (OE) reductions.
This includes approximately $67 million in savings to date from the
National Plan for Streamlining the Coast Guard, and all other Coast
Guard-wide streamlining initiatives and programmatic reductions. The
total savings are not adjusted for inflation. Assuming a 2.5-percent
yearly inflation rate, the Coast Guard will have saved $397.5 million
in constant fiscal year 1998 dollars.
In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard estimates that it will save
approximately $55 million in OE reductions (including approximately $30
million from the national streamlining plan). The fiscal year 1998
budget request marks the effective completion of the Coast Guard's
streamlining plan, which is on track and has reduced the size of the
Coast Guard by approximately 3,477 people without reducing services to
the American public.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Total gross Operating
Coast Guard operating annual expenses Cumulative
Fiscal year operating expenses operating savings operating
expenses enacted expenses adjusted for expenses
reductions reductions savings inflation \1\ savings \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................ ($42.4) ($18.0) ($60.4) ($66.7) ($66.7)
1995............................ (42.6) (23.0) (65.6) (70.6) (137.3)
1996............................ (81.6) (41.2) (122.8) (129.0) (266.3)
1997............................ (54.3) (20.2) (74.5) (76.4) (342.7)
1998 Request.................... (54.8) .............. (54.8) (54.8) (397.5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... (275.7) (102.4) (378.1) (397.5) (1,210.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inflation-Adjusted Savings = Constant fiscal year 1998 dollars at 2.5-percent inflation rate.
\2\ Savings reflects gross Operating Expenses (OE) only.
coast guard real assets
Question. Please provide a comprehensive listing of all Coast Guard
real assets in the Federal inventory.
Answer. The following table identifies the Coast Guard's assets by
Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) and Headquarters (HQ) Unit. Information
provided for the CEUs includes all buildings and structures within
their area of responsibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of
Number of Building buildings and
Unit buildings and square feet structures
structures (thousands) ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEU Cleveland................................................... 9,547 4,133 1,302,452
CEU Miami....................................................... 3,001 4,289 1,275,857
CEU Providence.................................................. 7,952 7,757 1,308,048
CEU Oakland..................................................... 4,911 5,301 1,047,677
CEU Honolulu.................................................... 763 989 271,619
CEU Juneau...................................................... 2,146 3,087 1,683,615
HQ Units:
Academy..................................................... 117 1,315 208,643
TISCOM...................................................... 62 128 18,998
Petaluma.................................................... 235 767 169,271
Yorktown.................................................... 285 717 109,306
Mobile...................................................... 104 367 75,658
Cape May.................................................... 227 1,009 166,637
Yard........................................................ 287 985 173,278
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 29,637 30,844 7,811,059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, ``value'' means ``plant replacement value'' and
is derived by a formula. A listing of Coast Guard-owned properties to
show acreage will be compiled; several months will be required to
complete the task.
sale of coast guard real assets
Question. The Coast Guard fiscal year 1998 request for its
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account is $379
million. Of this amount, $9 million is expected to result from the sale
of selected surplus Coast Guard properties. In developing its budget,
the Coast Guard presented the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
with a list of 29 properties that the Coast Guard expected to be
surplus in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The Coast Guard estimated
the fair market value of these properties to be $19.9 million. Which
specific properties were selected by OMB to be sold to obtain the $9
million to supplement the AC&I account and how were these properties
selected?
Answer. No specific properties were selected. The $9 million level
was established based on forecasts of potential total proceeds, and in
recognition that some properties on the list would eventually be
unavailable for sale. No-cost transfers (from the federally-mandated
screening process) could reduce the proceeds or delay disposal.
coast guard real assets impact of not selling $9 million of real
property
Question. If the Coast Guard falls short of selling the properties
for $9 million, will the Coast Guard reduce its AC&I spending
accordingly or does the Coast Guard expect to spend $379 million for
AC&I whether or not any of the properties are sold?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans on new Budget Authority in fiscal
year 1998 of $379,000,000 for Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) whether or not any of the properties are sold.
environmental cleanup of excess properties
Question. What environmental cleanup issues has the Coast Guard
identified with the $9 million of properties, selected by OMB, and what
are the expected costs of cleaning up those properties?
Answer. The Coast Guard has evaluated the condition of the
properties forecasted for sale in 1997. Two of these sites have been
identified as having environmental cleanup issues. Both are included in
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 Environmental Compliance and
Restoration (EC&R) budget under ``Various Projects under $500,000
each'' (page 338). Cleanup has been essentially completed at LORAN
Station Dana, Indiana. Closure of the site has been requested from the
State of Indiana. Because some additional sampling may be required for
this site, $50,000 has been requested in fiscal year 1998.
At Electronics Shop Major Telephones (ESMT) Portsmouth, NH, $65,000
has been requested to initiate site investigation. Any follow-on
environmental cleanups at this facility depend upon the results of the
site investigation and will likely be budgeted in a future fiscal year.
As of the date of this response, the Coast Guard has not identified
any environmental cleanup issues for the remaining 1997 properties, and
is evaluating potential environmental issues in the properties proposed
for sale in 1998 and 1999.
coast guard real assets--gsa reporting
Question. When does the Coast Guard intend to report the $9 million
in properties to be sold to the General Services Administration to
begin the Federal screening process? What is the process for disposing
of selected surplus property from current status?
Answer. The following table provides the dates when the Coast Guard
expects to report the 1997 properties to GSA. Report dates for
properties to be sold in 1998 and 1999 are being determined.
1997 property Est. date to GSA
Eatons Neck--GRP Long Isl Sound, NY.............. Jan 98
Sta Rockaway, NY................................. Oct 97
Housing--Loran Sta Dana, IN...................... Feb 97
ESMT Manasquan, NJ............................... Sept 97
Marblehead Lt--Ant Huron, OH..................... July 96
Comsta Boston--Marshfield, MA.................... Aug 97
ESMT Portsmouth, NH.............................. Sept 97
Housing--Ft Crockett, TX......................... Sept 96
Highland Light, MA............................... Dec 96
Nahant Rec Facility, MA.......................... Aug 97
Housing--Hyde Park, MA........................... Dec 97
Moorings/Land/Bldg--Petersburg, AK............... June 97
Radar Site--Port Orford, OR...................... Nov 96
Once the Coast Guard declares the property excess to its needs, a
formal Report of Excess is provided to the GSA, which acts as the Coast
Guard's disposal agent. GSA completes the federally mandated screening
of potential government and homeless reuse. If not reused for these
purposes, GSA markets and sells the property for the Coast Guard. The
sale proceeds, less GSA costs, are returned to the Coast Guard.
coast guard real asset reporting
Question. Why is the Coast Guard not reporting all 29 properties to
the General Services Administration as surplus?
Answer. It is anticipated 25 of the 29 properties will be reported
to the General Services Administration as excess. The remaining four
properties are:
--Housing--Wakefield, MA
--Housing--Randolph, MA
--Housing--Nahant, MA
--Air Station--Brooklyn, NY
After further study, the Coast Guard will retain the three family
housing areas to ensure adequate housing for Coast Guard personnel in
the Boston area.
Air Station Brooklyn will be transferred to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
coast guard real assets--operating costs
Question. What is the estimated operations and maintenance costs
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for all 29 of the identified surplus
properties?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 operations and maintenance cost for
the 29 properties is approximately $2,675,000. It is highly probable
that 13 of the 29 properties will be disposed of prior to fiscal year
1999. Of the remaining 16 properties, 3 family housing areas will be
removed from the surplus list and retained by the Coast Guard. The
fiscal year 1999 operations and maintenance cost for the remaining 13
properties is approximately $1,414,000.
coast guard real assets--governors island
Question. What is the current status of removing Governors Island
from the Coast Guard's real property inventory?
Answer. The Coast Guard is required to maintain Governors Island on
its real property inventory until the property is transferred or sold.
Title 41 CFR 101-47.402-1 states that the holding agency (Department of
Transportation) shall retain custody and accountability for excess and
surplus real property pending its transfer to another Federal agency or
its disposal.
The Coast Guard and the General Services Administration (GSA) have
held quarterly partnership meetings to identify the various tasks that
need to be accomplished in an effort to dispose of the island. This is
not a typical disposal, due to the size, historicity, and value of the
facility. The Coast Guard plans to submit the Report of Excess to GSA
in July 1997.
streamlining--maintenance and logistics commands (mlcs)
Question. To develop its national streamlining plan the Coast Guard
established two teams to assess potential organizational consolidations
and training infrastructure modifications. The teams' objectives were
to identify recurring budget savings of $100 million without reducing
services to the public. They identified a variety of options to
streamline the agency. The Coast Guard selected several of the options
which made up the Coast Guard's national streamlining plan. Some of the
options not included in the national streamlining plan were to replace
the Coast Guard's current field structure with a regional structure,
eliminate the two Maintenance and Logistics Commands (centralized
support commands), eliminate one of the two Maintenance and Logistics
Commands by merging them together, and close one of the three training
centers (Training Center, Petaluma, CA) to consolidate training. Why
did the Coast Guard decide not to eliminate the two Maintenance and
Logistics Commands or merge them together?
Answer. Currently, two Maintenance and Logistics Commands (MLCs)
directly support the two Area commands. The following factors
contributed to maintaining the status quo as the most desired
organization:
(1) The Coast Guard relies heavily on its MLCs for technical and
administrative support of operational assets and crews. The disruption
or inefficiencies of consolidation could affect front-line readiness
and degrade vital services the Coast Guard provides the public.
Consolidating both MLCs into one would have created a situation where
the single MLC would have an over-extended span of control and reduced
customer focus, thereby adversely impacting operational capabilities.
(2) Maintaining two MLCs retains the existing strengths of the
current organization. Each has adapted to the unique operational and
support needs of differing geographic regions, and each MLC has a
strong customer focus and familiarity.
(3) The Area/MLC combination links the delivery of support with
operations in each Area. The current alignment maintains unity of
command within each Area.
(4) Maintaining the two-MLC concept provides needed stability in
order to establish the new Integrated Support Commands (ISCs) for
decentralized support delivery. These new ISCs were designed to more
efficiently and effectively provide frontline customer support while
relying on their respective MLCs for resource, technical, and
administrative support. In this sense, the MLCs and their ISCs are an
integrated support system. Eliminating one MLC would necessitate
additional staff for the new ISCs and pose a digression away from one
major Streamlining objective--refining operations and support
activities as core expertise.
streamlining savings--mlcs
Question. What was the estimated savings of (a) eliminating the two
Maintenance and Logistics Commands and (b) merging them together?
Answer. The savings that would have resulted from consolidating the
two Maintenance and Logistics Commands (MLCs) was estimated at 83 full-
time equivalents (FTE). Eliminating both MLCs and distributing their
functions to other organizations was less efficient and had savings
estimated at 64 FTE. In neither case was the level of estimated savings
sufficient to offset the anticipated negative impacts discussed in the
response to the previous question.
streamlining--training centers
Question. Why did the Coast Guard decide not to close one of the
training centers?
Answer. There were three main reasons why the Coast Guard decided
not to close one of its training centers. First, the up-front costs to
close a training center and consolidate functions at other training
centers were substantial. The least-cost option would have required an
additional $20 million to $26 million in Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) funding to accommodate construction requirements.
Second, the significant changes caused by streamlining initiatives
required additional training, not less. Stability in the training
system was imperative to successful streamlining. Finally, the Coast
Guard had concern for the economic impact of closure on the local
community in Petaluma, CA, particularly in view of other significant
downsizing actions.
excess capacity at uscg training centers
Question. How much excess capacity (classrooms, sleeping areas)
currently exists at each of the three training centers?
Answer. The following table shows utilization rates of the three
major training centers in fiscal year 1996 as measured by berthing. In
general, student capacity and classroom utilization are driven by total
beds available for use. It is generally recognized with the training
community that 80-percent loading is an achievable target capacity for
training centers. This achievable level is based on the need for
maintenance, male/female berthing limitations, and berthing constraints
based on rank and/or seniority.
Average Percentage
Utilization Rate
Training Center fiscal year 1996
Yorktown.......................................................... 88
Petaluma.......................................................... 58
Cape May \1\...................................................... 64
\1\ Recruit Training Center Cape May training load is seasonal. Cape May
reaches a utilization rate in excess of 80 percent during the summer,
with substantially lower loading during the winter when recruiting is
more difficult. Total student load at Cape May ranged from a low of
2,355 in fiscal year 1994 to an estimated 4,395 in fiscal year 1997.
Cape May is the Coast Guard's only recruit training center, and as such,
the Coast Guard needs the capacity to handle fluctuating recruiting
demands from year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coast guard capital needs--funding strategies
Question. Over the next ten years, the Coast Guard faces the
prospect of having to replace billions of dollars of assets,
particularly vessels. What are some potential strategies for the agency
and the Department to obtain the necessary funds?
Answer. The Coast Guard has faced similar recapitalization
challenges in previous years. In each case, the Coast Guard provided
sufficient justification to the administration and Congress to support
replacing assets that were essential to maintaining the Coast Guard's
national security capabilities. For example, in fiscal year 1990, when
the Coast Guard needed to replace its polar icebreaking capability and
its aging patrol boats, Congress provided $847 million in Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) funding. Likewise, in fiscal
years 1986 and 1987, when the Coast Guard needed to replace the HH-3F
helicopter with the HH-60, and renovate the 210-foot Medium Endurance
Cutters, Congress provided AC&I funding at a level of about $550
million each year.
In the next few years, the Coast Guard will face similar
recapitalization needs as its long-range cutters and aircraft approach
the end of their service lives. The Coast Guard expects to be able to
provide sufficient justification to support funding an appropriate
level of assets that serve such vital national interests as stopping
the flow of illegal drugs (FRONTIER SHIELD); interdicting alien
migrants (Haiti/Cuba); responding to national security crises (Cuban
shootdown of U. S. civilian aircraft, TWA 800 disaster) and natural
disasters (west coast flood relief); and responding to oil spills
(Rhode Island).
The Coast Guard intends to work with the administration and
Congress to support funding for outyear investment in Coast Guard
assets that serve the national interest.
coast guard capital needs--savings from ac&i projects
Question. The Coast Guard's current fiscal situation may be
worsened by its need to replace an aging fleet of ships, planes and
other assets. The Coast Guard estimates that the total capital
requirements for current and new acquisition projects will increase to
as much as $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2002. This is more than three
times the $370 million the Coast Guard received for capital projects in
fiscal year 1997 and greatly exceeds OMB targets for the agency's
capital needs through 2002. According to Coast Guard managers, their
cost estimates represent the upper limit of future capital needs
because they assume a one-for-one replacement ratio for ships and
planes. Recent acquisitions of such equipment as buoy tenders have
shown that the replacement ratio could be substantially less than this,
however, due to improvements in technological capability. In addition,
alternatives to replacement, such as renovating old assets, using DOD
resources, or leasing rather than buying may also be considered.
Can you give any estimates of the yearly savings through 2002 which
should be achieved because of your AC&I projects? If additional AC&I
funding were identified, are savings possible by virtue of increasing
the size of the buy quantity?
Answer. One of the cornerstones of the Coast Guard's streamlining
philosophy has been to ``invest in Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) to achieve outyear Operating Expenses (OE)
savings.'' That investment strategy is paying more than $5 million in
dividends in the fiscal year 1998 budget. The following
recapitalization projects will save recurring dollars in the OE base
through fiscal year 2002 and beyond. All projects with the exception of
the Seagoing Buoy Tender will be completed and fully operational by
2002.
A. The combined Seagoing/Coastal Buoy Tender projects will reduce
fleet size from 37 to 30 ships and save 500 billets, which will be part
of a total anticipated recurring savings of approximately $12 million
when all of the old ships are replaced with new ones. Project
completion was scheduled for approximately 2002, but has been extended
to 2004-2006 due to funding constraints.
B. The HC-130 Engine Conversion, which replaces old, fuel
inefficient engines that are prone to explosion with safer, more
efficient ones, will save $1.3 million per year when all engines are
converted.
C. The Aviation Logistics Management Information System, which
integrates two separate aviation inventory management systems, is
projected to save 20 billets and yield additional yet-to-be determined
OE savings.
D. The Fleet Logistics System, which will provide an information
system for managing vessel logistics, is projected to save more than $9
million per year in efficiencies and reduced inventory costs when the
system is fully operational.
E. The Finance Center computer consolidation, which replaced
outdated information systems with one fully integrated system, is
projected to save 10 billets and approximately $150 thousand per year
when it becomes operational.
F. Communications System 2000, which converts 8 fully-staffed
communications stations to 2 master stations, 5 remote sites, and 1
stand-alone station, will save approximately $2 million per year when
completed.
G. The Personnel Management Information System/Joint Military Pay
System will save approximately 190 billets and yield yet-to-be
determined OE savings associated with integrating and centralizing the
previously separate pay and personnel systems.
H. Local Notice to Mariners automation, which will integrate 4 non-
compatible aids to navigation information systems into a single
integrated system, is projected to save approximately 12 billets and
yield yet-to-be determined OE savings due to efficiencies gained by the
elimination of redundant processes and reduction of printing and
mailing costs.
If additional AC&I funding was identified, the Coast Guard could
accelerate some of these projects, such as the Seagoing Buoy Tender and
HC-130 Engine Conversion, to achieve savings sooner. For example, the
Coast Guard intends to award a full production contract for 11 Seagoing
Buoy Tenders in fiscal year 1998. The initial strategy was to buy four
ships the first year, four ships the second year, and three ships the
third year. Due to funding constraints, funds were appropriated for
just one ship in fiscal year 1997, and the fiscal year 1998 budget also
includes funds for just one ship. If the Coast Guard had funds to buy
these ships faster, OE savings could be achieved sooner by completing
the project earlier. Cost avoidance would chiefly result from
minimizing inflation costs and reducing the time project management
staff and project resident office personnel remain on the AC&I payroll.
Accelerating other capital investments not mentioned above could
also achieve acquisition savings by increasing the size of the option
awards. For instance, both the Coastal Patrol Boat and Motor Lifeboat
acquisitions have minimum and maximum option quantities offered under
the contract. Were the Coast Guard to purchase the maximum versus the
minimum quantities, these acquisitions could both have been completed
one to two years earlier, saving costs associated with inflation and
personnel required to manage the acquisitions.
coast guard capital needs--actual ac&i needs in 2002
Question. Since your current AC&I estimated needs assume a one-for-
one replacement and, therefore, are probably significantly inflated,
can you estimate what your actual needs might be in 2002?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Capital Investment Plan currently
presumes one-for-one replacement of existing assets for which mission
analysis has not yet been completed. Without a completed mission
analysis, this is the most logical data upon which to base projected
replacement requirements. However, the Coast Guard makes every effort
to reduce acquisition costs through use of mission analysis and by
leveraging technology. The combined Seagoing/Coastal Buoy Tender
acquisitions are good examples where the use of mission analysis/
technology resulted in less than one-for-one replacement. In these
projects, 37 old ships will be replaced with just 30 new ones--a
reduction in combined fleet size of almost 20 percent. However, each
acquisition has independent characteristics, so the 20-percent
reduction cannot be unilaterally applied to every ship construction
project. For example, the Motor Lifeboat project will probably result
in close to one-for-one replacement of the 100 old boats.
The Coast Guard's greatest capital investment need in fiscal year
2002 will be the replacement of its long-range cutters and aircraft.
Mission analysis for this project is complete, and fiscal year 1998
funds are being requested for the concept exploration phase of the
major systems acquisition to replace these vital national assets. Using
fiscal year 1998 funds, the Coast Guard intends to award contracts to
industry and government entities to propose integrated systems to
replace its long-range assets. These integrated systems are intended to
minimize quantity and maximize effectiveness and efficiency of the
Coast Guard's long-range assets. Once the Coast Guard has a better idea
of what and how many assets will be required, acquisition strategies
can be developed to minimize budgetary impact.
Until concept exploration for the long-range cutters and aircraft
replacement is completed, scheduled for the end of fiscal year 1999,
the Coast Guard is unable to give a more accurate estimate of actual
AC&I needs in fiscal year 2002.
coast guard capital needs--impact of flatlined ac&i appropriation
Question. What would the impact be both on costs and on program
performance if AC&I appropriations were flatlined at $370 million
through 2002?
Answer. Capital investments would be deferred, as would resultant
Operating Expenses (OE) savings. For example, the Seagoing Buoy Tender
project would have to be extended, which would further delay the
projected recurring savings of approximately $14 million. This would
also require the extended operation of buoy tenders already 50 years
old. Likewise, the Coast Guard expects to replace its long-range
cutters and aircraft with fewer units, which should result in lower
operating costs. Potential operating savings from this project would
also have to be deferred. Concurrently, as Coast Guard assets age,
particularly the long-range cutters and aircraft, they cost more to
maintain. For example, the cost of each subsequent overhaul of one of
the Coast Guard's oldest HC-130 aircraft increases by $500 thousand. As
new acquisitions are pushed further into the future, their cost will be
higher as a result of inflation.
The Coast Guard is an operating agency that relies upon capable,
dependable assets to carry out its services to the Nation and the
public. As these assets age, their availability becomes less certain as
the ratio of maintenance to operations increases. For example, the
seagoing buoy tenders are already over 50 years old and the 82-foot
patrol boats are over 30 years old.
The most significant adverse impact would be on the future mission
performance of our long-range cutters and aircraft. Some of the HC-130
aircraft are 20 years old, and the 378-foot high-endurance cutters are
approaching 30 years of age and have already been overhauled once.
coast guard capital needs--ac&i
Question. What actions would you have to take to continue
operations if the AC&I appropriation was not increased through 2002?
Answer. The impact of a flatlined AC&I appropriation would fall
heaviest on the largest recapitalization projects--the Seagoing Buoy
Tender replacement, the Coastal Patrol Boat, the National Distress
System (short-range distress communications network), and the Deepwater
Capability replacement (long-range cutters and aircraft). If these
projects were stopped or slowed down through fiscal year 2002, the
Coast Guard would have to perform its missions for 5 or more years
using aging assets at or near the end of their service lives.
coast guard capital needs--acquisition/research & development program
link
Question. How is your AC&I technology improvement project linked to
your research, development, testing, and evaluation projects?
Answer. The Coast Guard's Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) program addresses potential for AC&I technology
improvements in two ways.
The first involves project work that is specifically directed at
acquisition-related technology improvement issues. In fiscal year 1998,
RDT&E's Future Technology Assessment efforts include support for the
Coastal Zone Mission Analysis now being conducted to examine all
missions performed by the Coast Guard in the coastal zone (shoreline to
50 miles offshore). Once current needs in the coastal zone are assessed
and future requirements projected, gaps in capability will be
identified. RDT&E can then provide the technical expertise to conduct
an emerging technology assessment to determine ways to close the gaps
through leveraging technology, uncovering information, techniques, and
alternatives to support appropriate AC&I technology improvement
efforts. If the AC&I technology improvement is a major systems
acquisition, the RDT&E program may also be called upon to assist with
the concept exploration phase.
The second leverages the core expertise and technical knowledge of
the RDT&E personnel to develop new or alternative methodologies for
performing mission analysis using state-of-the-art operations research,
modeling, statistical analysis, and other related techniques. This was
used in the pre-acquisition phase of the Coast Guard's new project to
replace its long-range cutters and aircraft. In fiscal year 1998, RDT&E
personnel will participate as members of acquisition matrix teams
engaged in the concept exploration phase of the long-range cutters and
aircraft replacement project. The RDT&E program will also review
requirements provided by acquisition matrix teams and perform focused
technology assessments.
coast guard vts technical solutions study
Question. Last year, Congress cut the funding for the Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) program and provided $1 million for a study of
available technical solutions which minimize complexity and cost in any
follow-on VTS programs. The President's Budget requests $5.5 million
for PAWSS (Ports and Waterways Safety System), a follow-on to VTS 2000,
to transition from ``requirements development to acquiring an initial
off-the-shelf system component.'' How is the VTS technical solutions
study proceeding, and when might we expect the delivery of a report?
Answer. In response to last year's direction from Congress, the
Coast Guard has held national and local-level public forums to gather
user input on VTS requirements, and hosted technical symposiums to
gather information on off-the-shelf technical solutions. Through this
deliberate process, the Coast Guard and the users are partnering to
define the problem, develop requirements to address the problem, and
devise a mutually-agreed-upon solution. This evaluation process is the
core of the Ports and Waterways Safety System project.
In March 1997, members of the national maritime community provided
input on defining the elements that should constitute a basic VTS. A
users forum in New Orleans is expected to deliver their local
requirements by May 1, 1997.
The Coast Guard held a Technical Symposium in February 1997, where
vendors presented information on commercially available equipment for
use in VTS. The Coast Guard, with the assistance of the Radio Technical
Commission for the Maritime Services, will hold a second symposium
April 28-29, 1997, to allow vendors to demonstrate their equipment.
Using input from these various sources, the Coast Guard will be
able to propose a viable new production program to Congress by October
1, 1997. The input gathered will also be used to define user
requirements and develop a technical specification for acquiring an
initial system in fiscal year 1998.
funding needed for vts program
Question. The Department does not envision the need for the $5.5
million requested in the President's Budget until the study of
available technical solutions is completed, does it?
Answer. The development of VTS requirements is being accomplished
in consultation with the maritime community. The $5.5 million to
initiate installation of VTSs based on the new requirements will be
required once consensus is reached on a VTS solution that realistically
addresses the users' needs and meets the Coast Guard's duty to ensure
waterway safety. Based on the positive progress of consultations at
national and local levels, the Coast Guard fully expects consensus will
be reached in the near future, and that funds will be required in
fiscal year 1998.
domestic icebreaking fees
Question. The Coast Guard provides domestic icebreaking services in
the Great Lakes region and on the East Coast, primarily to assist
commercial shippers and fisherman. These services (particularly in the
Great Lakes) are considered by the shipping community to be essential
services that the Coast Guard provides as part of its mandate to
facilitate commerce. A recent study by the Volpe National
Transportation System Center calculated a cost-benefit analysis for
icebreaking in the Great Lakes region. In this analysis, the cost of
providing icebreaking services in the Great Lakes region was estimated
at $8.8 million per year while the benefit to shippers was estimated at
$78.1 million per year. In light of this significant benefit received
by shippers, and the budgetary constraints facing the Coast Guard, some
investigation of alternative icebreaking options may be warranted. The
Coast Guard is currently studying alternatives to providing icebreaking
services in the Great Lakes region. What conclusions have been reached
in the Coast Guard's analysis?
Answer. While the Volpe study did not provide any formal
recommendations, the economic data presented indicated Coast Guard
services were a vital part of the shipping infrastructure in the Great
Lakes. Consequently, the Coast Guard is currently preparing the Mission
Analysis Report (MAR) and Mission Needs Statements (MNS) for Great
Lakes Icebreaking Capability. This is the process that formally defines
the performance goals, standards, and requirements for the Great Lakes
icebreaking mission. It is being prepared with stakeholder involvement
and is expected to be completed in early summer 1997. This document
does not address ``solutions,'' but does serve as the critical
precursor to the formal, multi-year acquisition process that would then
explore solutions and costs for Great Lakes Icebreaking Capability in
accordance with the formal A-109 Acquisition Process. In the interim,
the Coast Guard has committed to the continued operation of the CGC
MACKINAW.
domestic icebreaking fees criteria
Question. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget indicates that
legislation will be proposed to assess and collect fees from commercial
maritime carriers to recover the Coast Guard's cost of providing
domestic icebreaking services beginning in fiscal year 1999. What would
be the most reasonable and equitable means of charging user fees? What
are the difficulties associated with identifying users and collecting
fees?
Answer. The administration is preparing proposed legislation to
allow the assessment of user fees beginning in fiscal year 1999 for
icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard. The proposed fee
would be assessed to commercial activities consistent with other
applications of user fees, including those for highway, air, and rail.
The fee would not apply to recreational vessels, fishing vessels, fish
processing vessels, fish tender vessels, passenger vessels, ferries,
public vessels, or vessels not traveling to or from a U.S. port.
The proposed user fee legislation establishes a fee level based on
tonnage of cargo that is transported during the ice season through
areas requiring Coast Guard icebreaking services. Since the proposed
legislation specifies those vessels subject to the user fee, as well as
the collection mechanism, no significant difficulties are expected in
identifying commercial users or collecting the user fees.
domestic icebreaking fee alternatives
Question. What alternatives exist to the Coast Guard providing
icebreaking services in the Great Lakes?
Answer. One of the important highlights of the Volpe study was the
clarification that the commercial shipping infrastructure is geared to
a 42-week shipping season. Of those 42 weeks, at least 8 weeks require
icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard.
For industry and commercial shipping, the least-cost alternative to
icebreaking services is increased stockpiling, at a cost of $78.1
million. The second-least-cost alternative was shipment by rail, with a
projected industry cost of $192.02 million. The Volpe study states that
the cost of shipping by rail would be $22.26 per ton, as compared with
current shipping at $6.00 per ton. The third alternative evaluated in
the study was pre-positioning inventory at a Great Lakes location below
the Soo Locks (i.e. Escanaba, MI). The Volpe study states that the pre-
positioning alternative is only feasible when the locks are closed and
the pre-positioning location is still accessible. However, absent the
availability of local icebreaking capability, pre-positioning is not
feasible. Therefore, this is not a viable alternative to icebreaking.
Until such time as industry and commercial shipping can modify
their infrastructure to operate in a shortened season, approximately 34
weeks each year, Coast Guard icebreaking services will be required.
Industry and commercial shipping do not have the icebreaking resources
to facilitate the movement of ships during the ice season.
authorization for inspections of foreign-flagged cruise ships
Question. The multi-billion-dollar passenger cruise market in the
United States is almost exclusively served by foreign-flagged vessels.
There are only two oceangoing U.S.-flagged cruise vessels of any
substantial size. Access to the U.S. market is therefore a very
lucrative privilege, which is made even more so because the vessels and
their crews pay virtually no corporate or personal U.S. income tax. To
ensure adequate shoreside facilities, the safety of U.S. passengers and
property, and enforcement of immigration laws, the Federal Government
has enacted laws and dispersed responsibility for their administration
and enforcement throughout several departments and agencies of the
Federal Government. This raises the question of whether the foreign-
flagged cruise vessels, which are enjoying substantial profits as a
result of their monopoly, are paying their fair share of the cost to
the Federal Government of ensuring that this extremely valuable U.S.
market operates safely and in accordance with our laws and regulations.
In 1996, the Congress authorized the Coast Guard to begin collecting
fees for its inspection services. What is the status of the rulemaking
to implement the authorization to charge user fees for the Coast
Guard's inspection of foreign-flagged cruise ships?
Answer. The rule to set fees for foreign-flagged cruise ships is
still in the conceptual stage. The Coast Guard is currently developing
a work plan that establishes the critical activities and milestones
necessary for this regulatory initiative. The Coast Guard currently
expects to publish a rule by the end of 1998.
fees from foreign-flagged cruise ships
Question. How much does the Coast Guard estimate it will collect
annually for its inspections? How will the collections be made?
Answer. The Coast Guard expects to collect approximately $616,000
per year from the inspection of foreign-flagged cruise ships. This
figure is based on an annual charge per vessel of $4,896 and a foreign-
flag passenger vessel fleet of 126 ships. Fees would be collected in
the same manner as foreign tank vessel examination fees, with fees due
prior to performance of the initial or annual examination. These fees
would cover initial and annual examinations, and subsequent
reexaminations. An average of four examinations/reexaminations are
conducted per year for most vessels.
other potential fees from foreign-flagged cruise ships
Question. Are there any other services provided by the Coast Guard
to foreign-flagged cruise ships for which fees could also be charged?
Answer. There are no other services provided by the Coast Guard to
foreign-flagged cruise ships for which user fees could reasonably be
charged. The Coast Guard was tasked with establishing user fees for
services provided under Subtitle II--Vessels and Seamen--of Title 46
U.S.C. by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 1996 amended Title 46 U.S.C. and removed
prohibitions to the collection of user fees for foreign-flagged
passenger vessel inspections.
drug tonnage reduction under fiscal year 1998 budget request
Question. According to statistics from the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, over 400 metric tons of cocaine enter the U.S. every
year--which far exceeds the estimated annual consumption of cocaine in
the country. The Coast Guard is requesting an additional $34.3 million
to support its anti-drug activities in fiscal year 1998. The Coast
Guard's fiscal year Budget in Brief states that the additional funds
will be used to increase coastal border protection by increasing the
number of hours that cutters patrol maritime areas, increase aviation
capability by reactivating two HU-25Cs, improve training, increase
intelligence, and international treaty support. How large a reduction
in the entry of illegal drugs into the U.S. do you anticipate will
result from the additional money requested by the Coast Guard? What is
the basis for your response?
Answer. The Coast Guard estimates that once all additional assets
requested in the fiscal year 1998 budget are on line, approximately 52
fewer tons of cocaine--an estimated 472 million ``hits'' of cocaine--
will be prevented from entering the U.S. each year. (See pages 454 and
455 of the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 budget request.) The 1998
budget request, however, is the first step in a multi-year strategy to
increase maritime interdiction effectiveness in support of the National
Drug Control Strategy. The basis for the Coast Guard's analysis is a
1989 Rockwell International Study, ``Measuring Deterrence.'' Deterrence
is a major component of the Coast Guard's counterdrug effectiveness.
The Rockwell study indicated that when potential smugglers perceive
a 40-percent probability of interdiction, 80 percent will be deterred
from smuggling. The Coast Guard has used this study as a starting point
for its law enforcement program standards. A deterrence model, based on
these standards, has been used to project effectiveness and formulate
optimal resource requirements included in the 1998 budget request.
Based on a recommendation from The Interdiction Committee, the
Office of National Drug Control Policy is forming a working group to
further investigate the effects of deterrence, and how it can be used
in planning.
results of coast guard anti-drug efforts
Question. What have been the results of the Coast Guard's anti-drug
efforts? How much has been deterred? How much has been interdicted?
Answer. The Coast Guard's transit zone drug interdiction program is
the first and, in many cases, only line of defense against drug traffic
that threatens to enter the United States through maritime routes. The
security of our maritime borders is dependent on the depth and
effectiveness of interdiction resources operating in the transit and
arrival zones.
Based on the analysis cited in the preceding question, the Coast
Guard estimates law enforcement resources deterred an estimated 24
percent of drug traffickers from using maritime routes in the transit
zone last year. This deterrence rate translates to an average of more
than 100 tons of cocaine deterred from maritime routes each year.
Deterrence rates are higher in areas where law enforcement activity is
concentrated, such as the Eastern Caribbean.
In addition, over the past 3 years, Coast Guard law enforcement
resources have seized an annual average of nearly 36 tons of cocaine
and marijuana. Moreover, interdiction forces have disrupted, through
jettisons and aborts, a substantial number of smuggling operations that
further reduce success rates for drug traffickers attempting to export
their illicit cargo to American shores.
In fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard initiated Operation FRONTIER
SHIELD in the Eastern Caribbean to demonstrate that smuggling routes
could effectively be denied to traffickers by increasing resources
committed to drug law enforcement. In the first quarter alone, nearly
14,000 pounds of cocaine were seized and an estimated 17,000 pounds of
cocaine were lost at sea or thrown overboard by traffickers to avoid
arrest. The resources included in the fiscal year 1998 request will
allow the Coast Guard to institutionalize capabilities and strategies
that have proven effective in FRONTIER SHIELD. As a result, the Coast
Guard expects increased seizure totals, disruptions, and deterrence if
funded at the fiscal year 1998 budget request level.
additional personnel and hours with fiscal year 1998 funds
Question. Where will the additional personnel and assets be
deployed? How many additional staff will the additional funds pay for?
How many additional hours will assets be deployed with the additional
funds?
Answer. Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 budget request contains an
additional 251 full-time positions (FTP) for increased drug law
enforcement. Of these, 30 FTP are required to operate two additional
HU-25 Falcon aircraft that will deploy to sites throughout the transit
zone. One HU-25C will be based out of Air Station Miami, and the home
base for the second will be determined by the Atlantic Area Commander.
An additional 105 FTP are necessary to increase C-130 Hercules
aircraft flight hours by 1,600, increase H-65 Dolphin aircraft flight
hours by 1,240, and improve H-60J helicopter deployment capability.
These personnel will be assigned to Coast Guard air stations that
support drug law enforcement.
For cutter initiatives, 24 FTP are intended to establish
Maintenance Augmentation Teams (MATs) in Miami and Puerto Rico to
support 110-foot patrol boats operating in these areas.
Of the 43 FTP intended for increased intelligence collection,
analysis and dissemination, 20 of the intelligence related positions
will be Coast Guard Investigative Service special agents assigned to
existing Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs), High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs), and regional Coast Guard
Investigative Service offices. Two positions would support Defense
human source intelligence programs in locations outside the United
States. The remaining 21 FTP would augment intelligence collection
analysis and dissemination at existing intelligence facilities, such as
the Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC), El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC), and Coast Guard area intelligence staffs.
International Training will be increased by 28 FTP to provide
expanded deployable training teams. Coast Guard training teams provide
experience and expertise to developing nations' maritime forces to make
them better partners in counter-drug efforts. Three more FTP will be
added to the Coast Guard Reserve Training Center to train additional
boarding officers. The Reserve Training Center and International
Training Detachment are located in Yorktown, VA.
Finally, 18 FTP are requested for law enforcement command and
control positions. They will be assigned to Coast Guard units involved
in drug law enforcement to permit more focused strategic and tactical
planning, inter-agency coordination, and execution of the law
enforcement mission. (Please see pages 200-215 of the Coast Guard's
fiscal year 1998 budget request for a detailed description of the drug/
law enforcement initiatives.)
coast guard personnel positions
Question. To what extent could Coast Guard personnel working in
off-line positions be reassigned to on-line positions so that cutters
and aircraft could be deployed a greater number of hours?
Answer. Every position in the Coast Guard contributes to the
overall mission effectiveness of the organization. As such, the Coast
Guard makes no distinction between ``on-line'' and ``off-line''
personnel. The ability of Coast Guard cutters to deploy for the period
of time they do, and for aircraft to fly their program hours, is
contingent on the maintenance, logistics, and administrative support
provided by other entities within the organization.
Coast Guard streamlining, which began in fiscal year 1994, has
eliminated nearly 3,500 positions, and in the process has made the
Coast Guard a much leaner and efficient organization. The Coast Guard
has a diminished ability to surge in support of one mission without
soon affecting the performance of another mission.
Increasing the deployment of existing resources is not simply a
matter of buying more fuel and spare parts for cutters and aircraft.
Resources are acquired, staffed, and funded to provide a specific level
of service over a finite projected service life. Operating assets above
their programmed standard will require more personnel and increased
operations and maintenance funding.
oil spill prevention and response--post-opa 90
Question. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 highlighted many of
this Nation's weaknesses in the areas of preventing and cleaning up oil
spills. Over the recent years, the Coast Guard, along with several
other agencies, has been implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA 90), which the Congress passed to improve oil spill prevention and
clean-up. The recent oil spill in Japan, however, demonstrates once
again the risk associated with the maritime transportation of oil. It
underscores the continuing need to be vigilant to prevent such
occurrences and the difficulty in cleaning up an oil spill. How
confident are you that measures developed as a result of OPA 90 will
avoid another large oil spill, like the Exxon Valdez spill, or mitigate
the environmental loss if one does occur?
Answer. The Coast Guard is confident that a significant discharge
of oil is less likely to occur now that the spill prevention mandates
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) have been implemented. This
is based on a marked drop in the number of medium (less than 10,000
gallons) and major (greater than 100,000 gallons) oil spills per
billion tons of oil shipped since the passage of OPA 90.
The Coast Guard's two-pronged approach to pollution mitigation is
prevention and, if an incident does occur, a successful response. The
multi-disciplined approach to prevention includes double hulls for tank
vessels, operational measures to reduce spills, more vessel traffic
systems, improvements for vessel navigation, and international and
domestic efforts to improve crew competency and qualifications. These
measures, coupled with the Coast Guard's partnerships with industry
organizations such as the American Waterways Operators, the U.S.
Chamber of Shipping, and the American Petroleum Institute, have
increased industry awareness and greatly reduced the chances of a
significant discharge into the marine environment.
If a significant discharge were to occur, the Coast Guard is highly
confident that the OPA 90-driven response and preparedness initiatives
would ensure a rapid response and a successful mitigation of the
spill's environment impacts. Successful responses in Rhode Island,
Texas, and Maine are recent examples of more effective, post-OPA 90
mitigations and cleanups.
The Coast Guard's and the industry's preparedness levels were
greatly increased with the development of vessel and facility response
plans in conjunction with Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). Vessel and
facility operators are required to ``think through'' their response
activities in advance and contract with response resources. The ACPs,
created by local Area Committees, form the shoreside complement to the
vessel plans and provide the mechanism for the necessary advance
coordination and cooperation among the response community, governments,
agencies, industry, and environmental groups.
In addition to increased preparedness, OPA 90 had a positive effect
on Coast Guard and industry response capabilities and resources. An
additional Coast Guard Strike Team, pre-positioned oil spill equipment,
Vessel of Opportunity Skimming Systems (VOSS), and an OPA 90-fostered
growth in the commercial response industry have increased the overall
effectiveness of the public and private sectors to bring appropriate
resources to the scene.
Additionally, the Coast Guard has attained a more robust response
posture with the adoption of the Incident Command System (ICS) as its
response management structure. ICS has been embraced by other Federal
agencies, State agencies and the industry. The Incident Command System
fosters cooperation, communication, and concurrence on important
issues. ICS has proven to be the most flexible and responsive way to
incorporate the multiple governments, agencies, and private entities,
to mobilize and respond effectively to an incident.
additional actions to prevent or mitigate large oil spills
Question. What other actions, beyond the safeguards imposed by OPA
90, would significantly reduce the risk of a large oil spill occurring
or mitigate its effects if one does occur?
Answer. Beyond OPA 90, the Coast Guard is pursuing the application
of advanced technology, increased cooperation with international
maritime interests, and drawing focus on the elimination of human error
to improve mission performance and increase the overall effectiveness
of the prevention and oil spill response programs.
The Coast Guard is actively researching and testing digital-based
charting and computer-assisted waterways management systems. The Coast
Guard has implemented a computer-based decision-support tool, complete
with oil weathering models, dispersant application planners, and a
geographic information system. The Coast Guard has acquired hand-held
infrared cameras to complement its aircraft-deployed Side-Looking
Airborne Radar and Forward-Looking Infrared systems. A command and
control information management system is under development that will
greatly increase the ability to receive, display, analyze, and manage
the large amount of information and data that accompanies a major oil
spill response. Oil spill trajectory models and real-time imagery of
oil spills are part of this system that will begin to be tested in
1998.
The Coast Guard is also working at the international level to
improve the preparedness of the world's tanker fleet to respond to oil
spills. The Coast Guard has been administering and enforcing the
various conventions of the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and participating in the International
Maritime Organization-sponsored convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response, and Cooperation (OPRC).
The Coast Guard's Prevention Through People (PTP) program
recognizes that the majority of casualties are attributed to human
factors, and focuses on improvements based on the human element, the
vessel, and the operating environment viewed together as a system. PTP
is fundamentally a voluntary program and relies heavily on the idea
that increased safety leads to greater competitiveness through fewer
accidents.
average cost to rotate coast guard military personnel
Question. The Coast Guard's current policy is to periodically
rotate all but a few of its military personnel, both officer and
enlisted. Officer rotations vary from 18 months to 5 years, enlisted
rotations vary from 2 to 4 years. Costs to rotate staff in fiscal year
1996 were about $73 million; other costs are also incurred for moving
time and preparing over 19,000 orders annually. Some studies have
questioned whether the Coast Guard should revise rotation practices by
increasing the length of time between rotations and/or eliminating
rotations for certain types of activities. Besides saving money, such a
change could counter a problem pointed out in several studies--the
undesirable effects of frequent rotation on the continuity of
operations and ability to build expertise and knowledge in certain
areas.
Coast Guard officials believe that current rotation policies are
adequate and that they have developed optimum tour lengths that should
not be revised. They said changing current practices would have several
undesirable effects, including adverse effects on multi-mission
capabilities, a smaller and less qualified leadership pool, and less
qualified people because potential recruits may be concerned about
being in undesirable locations for extended periods. The Coast Guard
currently plans no formal study of this issue. What is the total
average annual cost to rotate Coast Guard military personnel, including
moving expenses, idle time, paperwork, and training?
Answer. From fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard
transferred on average 17,400 Coast Guard personnel each year at an
average cost of approximately $63 million. The nature of the volunteer
military workforce means that enlisted personnel contract for periods
of four years. Currently, only 40 percent of the personnel completing
their first 4-year enlistment re-enlist for another term. Officers
enter the Service with either a three-year initial contract or a five-
year commitment, depending on their accession source. Likewise, even
those officers and enlisted who remain beyond their initial career
decision point reach their elected or mandatory retirement date. These
factors alone create a need to recruit, train, and transfer new members
on a continuous basis. Thus, over 50 percent of all transfers were not
discretionary, since they were required by new accessions, retirements,
separations, or training. An additional 25 percent of the transfers
were required due to the arduous nature/remote location of the
assignment, or due to special needs of individuals.
There is no idle time in moving. Members are authorized four days
to physically pack out and unpack their household goods incident to a
change of station. Members are also allowed one day travel time per 350
miles of transfer distance, which averages 2 days per transfer. Members
may also take accrued annual leave in conjunction with their transfers.
Paperwork associated with a relocation involves the member, his or
her command, the servicing Personnel Reporting Unit, and the Coast
Guard Personnel Command. Each of these commands has multiple functions
and responsibilities beyond processing transfers. The time required to
process transfer paperwork varies based on the type of assignment,
location (in or out of the United States), and number of dependents
being moved. Considering the non-discretionary nature of most moves and
the complexities of establishing a standard ``paperwork'' cost of a
transfer, no specific cost study has been conducted to determine the
``paperwork cost per move.'' Similarly, training costs vary widely
depending on the type of assignment, specialties involved, and previous
experience of the individual. No specific study has been conducted to
determine the ``training cost per move.''
in-depth study of lengthening rotations
Question. Why does the Coast Guard believe that an in-depth study
of the merits of lengthening rotations is not needed, given their high
costs?
Answer. In July 1995, the Coast Guard dedicated 10 months to
studying this issue. The end result was the change of two rotation
policies: tour lengths for members assigned in Puerto Rico, Alaska, and
Hawaii were adjusted; and alternate, shorter unaccompanied tour lengths
were eliminated in these same locations. These changes established
closer parity with tour lengths within the continental United States.
Additionally, in August 1993, the Coast Guard developed a
geographic stability policy for enlisted personnel and began
emphasizing voluntary extension of tour lengths and no-cost and low-
cost transfers for both officers and enlisted members. In March 1995,
the Coast Guard increased E-4 and E-5 tour lengths to 4 years for
ashore billets. Finally, during the Coast Guard's streamlining
initiatives, site location that would facilitate geographic stability
to reduce transfer cost was a prominent factor in unit consolidations
and relocations.
The Coast Guard believes these proactive changes, employed since
1993, have responded to the high cost of rotations.
adverse effects of lengthening rotation periods
Question. Would lengthening rotation periods adversely affect the
Coast Guard's performance of its missions? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, lengthening rotation periods would adversely affect
the Coast Guard's performance of its missions. Fifty percent of all
rotations are non-discretionary due to accessions, separations,
retirements, and training. An additional 25 percent are required due to
the remote location of assignment, arduous nature of the assignment, or
by special needs of the member or family. Remote location tours are
those where the military member is unaccompanied by his or her family,
such as assignment to one of three isolated Loran stations in Alaska.
Arduous tours of duty are those tours in which a member is subject to
frequent immediate recall or subjected to harsh physical demands, such
as assignment to one of the Coast Guard's 86 patrol boats. Lastly,
special needs are created when a military member or immediate family
member experiences a change in physical or emotional status, requiring
a move. For example, a special need arises when a spouse dies, creating
a need to relocate a family closer to child care providers. Beyond
these extraordinary assignments, more than 4,800 members are assigned
to major cutters that deploy away from home port more than 185 days per
year. Rotational assignments provide these and other members an
opportunity for greater family stability.
The Coast Guard prides itself in the Service's ability to quickly
and efficiently shift from one mission to the next without a
degradation in mission effectiveness. This multi-mission capability is
gained through the wide experience base of Coast Guard personnel, and
is only achieved through the regular rotation of personnel to different
assignments.
The Coast Guard needs a pool of highly qualified operational
leaders. These leaders--men and women, officers and enlisted--acquire
the requisite experience for command through exposure to different and
increasing operational challenges, achieved by rotational assignments.
An increase in tour lengths will cause a commensurate reduction in
breadth of experience represented in senior leadership positions.
Similarly, lengthening tours will lead to a decreased number of
training opportunities for junior members in afloat, aviation, and
marine science careers.
Finally, from a Service retention perspective, longer tour lengths
decrease the attractiveness of the Service to new accessions. Most of
the Coast Guard's new recruits are attracted by the opportunity to
serve their country, while still gaining life experiences through
operational assignments in different geographic areas, which will make
them valuable contributors to the Coast Guard and the Nation. By
lengthening tours, training and experience opportunities will decrease,
and over-exposure to demanding assignments may further reduce their
propensity to remain in the Coast Guard.
In summation, significant changes to the Coast Guard's rotation
policies would significantly alter multi-mission effectiveness,
leadership development, and retention in the Service.
coast guard rotation policies compared to other military services
Question. How do the Coast Guard's rotation polices compare to the
policies of the other military services?
Answer. The Coast Guard's rotation policy is similar to the
policies of the Department of Defense (DOD). In general, the Coast
Guard's rotation policy for assignments within the U.S. is four years
in shore billets and three years in sea billets, except patrol boats,
which are two-year assignments. In assignments outside of the
continental U.S., tours range from 12 months to 36 months, based on the
arduous nature of the assignment and remoteness of the location.
DOD's rotation policy within the continental U.S. is three years in
both shore and sea billets; however, certain enlisted ratings extend
sea billets to five years. Naval commands, such as combatants based in
foreign countries and fleet marine forces deployed overseas, limit
their tours of duty to two years. DOD shore duty outside of the
continental U.S. ranges from 12 months to 36 months, based on the
arduous nature of specific locations and whether the assignment is
accompanied or unaccompanied.
All of the services make allowances from the general rotation
policy to meet their service needs. For example, command cadre
positions among all of the services tend to be shorter for assignments
ashore and afloat. Additionally, first tour assignments afloat and some
assignments ashore are 18 months to two years. Specific extensions and
reductions are made to member tours based on special needs of the
member or the service.
frequency of rotation
Question. If the Coast Guard were to revise rotation policies, what
programs or missions would lend themselves to less frequent rotations?
For which programs or missions is it critical to maintain the current
rotation policies and why?
Answer. As outlined in the previous questions, the Coast Guard has
recently reviewed and changed tour lengths where appropriate. Also, for
the reasons cited, there will be adverse consequences for making
further changes.
amtrak regional support
Question. Amtrak's financial health is precarious, despite the fact
that its current appropriation level is $843 million (including $175
million just for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program). Amtrak is
the Nation's only intercity passenger rail system. It is burdened with
many expenses over which it has little control, such as railroad
retirement payments for employees of freight railroads as well as its
own employees, six-year labor payments for workers who are laid off,
limited opportunities for contracting out, heavy debt service payments,
and limited opportunities to generate new revenues. Reform legislation
that might have helped to reduce overhead and increase revenues failed
to pass during the last Congress. Amtrak's future is troubled unless
legislation is passed to either reduce its need for Federal subsidy, or
to provide it with a dedicated revenue source, or to privatize it.
The annual appropriations process has been keeping Amtrak on ``life
support'' while Congress and the administration have failed to agree on
long-term solutions to make Amtrak viable, or to privatize it. ``Life
support'' has not helped Amtrak to get stronger, but it has reduced the
funds available for other programs.
What are your views on tapping into regional support for Amtrak
service, whereby States and/or private investors could pay for Amtrak
service?
Answer. The administration believes it is important that States,
localities and the private sector provide support for those Amtrak
services that are important to them. This is already happening. Since
fiscal year 1995, the amount of State operating assistance supporting
Amtrak operations has almost doubled. In addition, several States are
purchasing equipment for enhanced Amtrak service. The Department's
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA)
proposal includes increased flexibility in many programs to permit
States to use Federal funds to provide capital support to Amtrak.
innovative financing for amtrak
Question. Could innovative financing be available to help Amtrak,
such as State Infrastructure Banks or other Federal credit programs
contained in your ISTEA legislation?
Answer. Amtrak capital support would be eligible for State
Infrastructure Banks and the Infrastructure Credit Enhancement program
in the Department's NEXTEA proposal. Amtrak has many capital needs that
do not generate a positive return. It would be counterproductive to
finance these investments. However, last year Amtrak ordered over $1
billion in equipment with the bulk of the financing provided through
vendors and other non-Federal sources.
long-term plan for amtrak
Question. How do you plan to work with congressional authorizing
and appropriations committees this year on resolving Amtrak's long-term
problems? If no legislative changes are made, how long do you think
Amtrak can continue ``business as usual?''
Answer. The Department is committed to working with Congress,
Amtrak management and labor, State governments, and other interested
parties in the coming year to develop an affordable long-range plan
that eliminates Amtrak's dependence on Federal operating subsidies.
Amtrak is an important component of the Nation's intermodal passenger
transportation system. We believe that Amtrak must have a reliable
source of capital investment in the form of contract authority as
requested in NEXTEA to address the previous lack of investment if we
are to preserve the national system and permit Amtrak to achieve its
potential.
regional support for amtrak
Question. Is it more appropriate that States who directly benefit
from regional Amtrak programs--such as the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program--share this burden with the Federal Government?
Answer. As stated earlier, the administration believes it is
important that States, localities and the private sector support those
Amtrak services that are important to them. New Jersey Transit and
Amtrak recently signed an agreement to jointly fund infrastructure
improvements to the Northeast Corridor over the next five years that
benefit both commuter and intercity service. Washington State is
funding track improvements in the Pacific Northwest Corridor.
California, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington have all
acquired equipment for Amtrak's use on intrastate service. The
administration's NEXTEA proposal would offer States greater
opportunities to support Amtrak service important to them.
highway safety issues
Question. Currently, more than 40,000 people die every year on our
Nation's streets and highways, and nearly 3.5 million people are
injured in police-reported accidents. NHTSA Administrator Martinez has
testified that all the ``easy gains'' in reducing fatalities and
accidents and in making vehicles and highways safer have already been
made. Incremental improvements will be much more difficult. What
further gains do you believe that the Department can make, and what
specific plans does the Department have to make these gains? Does DOT
need new legislative authority or changes to existing legislative
authority?
Answer. The Department's overriding goal in NEXTEA is safety, to
reduce deaths and injuries from transportation-related crashes. We have
fashioned a reauthorization proposal that cuts across intermodal lines
to help achieve a safe and secure U.S. transportation system.
The NEXTEA proposals must contend with the fact that motor vehicle
deaths and injuries have increased in recent years, and the traffic
fatality rate has ceased its decline and instead stagnated. A number of
risk factors associated with crashes are evident: the number of older
and younger drivers is increasing; use of alcohol and other drugs is
rising, and the results are showing up in our crash statistics; safety
belt and child seat use is still low; and speeding and other forms of
aggressive driving have increased. We also face higher speed limits and
attempts to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws.
NEXTEA needs to provide a balanced program for NHTSA that addresses
both vehicle and behavioral safety problems, while providing a
foundation for research, crash data and injury prevention activities.
An active technical assistance program is required to support NHTSA's
safety partners in the States and communities, health and business
arenas, educators, and safety advocates.
A critical need in NEXTEA is to make an adequate Federal investment
in highway safety, consistent with the top priority assigned to safety
by the administration. Coupled with this is the Department's proposal
to fund all of NHTSA's program from the Highway Trust Fund. NHTSA and
FHWA incorporated flexibility for States to be able to shift their
infrastructure safety funds to address other critical highway safety
issues.
The goal includes continuing a performance-based Section 402 grant
program that supports basic highway safety programs in States and
communities. The Department's proposal also recommends continuing the
use of incentive grant programs, because incentive grants have proven
effective in motivating States to enact stronger laws and begin better
programs. The proposal recommends incentives for new laws, programs and
safety results in the areas of impaired driving deterrence and
increased restraint usage, plus new initiatives to strengthen State
data systems, and programmatic and legal actions to deter drugged
driving.
Since behavioral programs alone cannot prevent vehicle crashes and
crash injury, the reauthorization needs to provide an adequate resource
base for NHTSA's initiatives in both vehicle safety and consumer safety
information.
A final goal for NEXTEA is to create a foundation of critical
research for pursuing future safety initiatives in vehicle crash
worthiness and crash avoidance, as well as behavioral areas. Priorities
include linking vehicle safety engineering and medical research to
learn more about preventing crash injury. High among the Department's
priorities are promoting improved air bag systems, collision avoidance
under the Intelligent Transportation System program, and intermodal
human factors work using research tools such as advanced motion-based
simulation. Continuation of national crash and injury data systems is
also crucial.
foreign experience
Question. What are we learning from other countries in reducing
accidents and keeping unsafe drivers off the road? What fundamental
societal differences, if any, exist between these other countries and
the United States that would make it difficult to adopt their
successful countermeasures?
Answer. Through bilateral contacts with researchers in most of the
developed world, as well as active participation in international
organizations such as the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and
Traffic Safety (ICADATS), the Department can stay abreast of advances
in other countries. We have international cooperative agreements in
place between NHTSA and Germany and the Netherlands to conduct research
of common interest. In Germany, a series of studies was completed on
the effects of various drugs on driving performance, and in Holland, a
study of the effects of marijuana smoking on driving is underway.
Individual liberties differ greatly between the U.S. and other
countries. For example, some members of the European Union, Australia
and New Zealand more freely allow the use of automated enforcement
devices, and view civil liberties in a different light. In much of
Europe, automated speed enforcement is widespread. In Australia,
besides the use of photo radar, no probable cause is required to compel
a motorist to take a roadside breath test. Many Australian states use
random breath testing, red light cameras, photo radar for speeders, and
strict enforcement of belt use and helmet use laws to reduce crashes
and injuries. These measures have worked and are acceptable to
Australians, but it is doubtful that many of them would pass legal,
constitutional, or political muster in the U.S.
In most countries other than the U.S., national laws, rather than a
myriad of differing State and local laws, prevail. Most European
countries have national police forces or, as in Canada and Australia,
few state or provincial police agencies, instead of over 13,000
agencies as in the U.S. Their systems can often provide greater
national uniformity in legislation, enforcement and adjudication.
The fundamental societal difference in occupant protection is
reflected in the difficulty the United States has experienced in
increasing its national seat belt use rate. Other industrial countries
have not been hampered by the passage of secondary enforcement laws and
the need to pass belt law legislation in a large number of States. An
additional consequence of that process is that each one of these laws
differs in some way from the other State laws. All this tends to erode
the importance of compliance among the general public. Other countries
have been able to raise use rates into the 80-percent range over a much
shorter duration, which has then enabled them to implement stronger
countermeasures involving the assessment of driver points for
violators, and to implement enforcement programs that increase the risk
of apprehension for belt law violations than is able to be accomplished
in this country. The result is that these countries have use rates in
the high 80 to low 90 percentages, while the U.S. has been stagnant at
national use rates of 66 to 68 percent for the past 4 years.
safety belt goal
Question. The Nation has not reached DOT's goal that 75 percent of
all vehicle occupants will use safety belts by 1997. Was this goal too
optimistic? How do other countries achieve 90-95 percent usage rates?
What do you propose to do to increase safety belt usage?
Answer. The usage rate goal of 75 percent by 1997 was not too
optimistic; however, the level set was intentionally challenging
because of the importance of increasing usage as quickly as possible in
order to prevent unnecessary losses.
There are a number of differences between the United States and
other countries that have achieved seat belt usage rates of up to 90-95
percent. These countries have primary enforcement laws and have had
these laws in effect for longer periods of time. Many of the countries
with the highest use rates assess driver's license demerit points, in
addition to fines, for seat belt law infractions. Some countries have
nationwide traffic laws and police agencies. Others (such as Canada or
Australia) have different laws in different states or provinces but
have many fewer such jurisdictions than the U.S., with our 50 States
and over 13,000 law enforcement agencies. This uniformity eliminates
confusion about seat belt use laws, penalties, and enforcement.
The Department proposes a number of actions to increase safety belt
use in the United States. As directed by President Clinton, NHTSA, in
cooperation with the Congress, the States, automobile manufacturers,
the insurance industry and other concerned Americans, has developed a
plan to increase the use of safety belts and child safety seats
nationwide. NHTSA also provided the leadership to establish the Air Bag
Safety Campaign (ABSC, created May 1996). The ABSC is a public-private
partnership including car and safety seat manufacturers, insurance
companies, government agencies and health and safety advocates. The
ABSC is building on three proven NHTSA program initiatives: intensive
public education, occupant protection use law improvements, and high-
visibility safety belt and child safety seat law enforcement programs.
The ABSC is coordinating activities with NHTSA to maximize national
impact.
NHTSA has made extensive efforts to provide States technical
support to upgrade their safety belt and CSS laws. NHTSA has worked
closely with many partners (such as the National Automobile Dealers
Association, National Safe Kids Coalition, Juvenile Products
Manufacturers Association, National Sheriffs' Association,
International Association of Chiefs of Police, AAA, IIHS, and National
Safety Council) and has distributed educational materials (such as
video news releases, satellite media tours, consumer advisories, press
releases, fact sheets and basic tips sheets, articles for magazines,
press interviews, news articles, print ads, educational videos, and
posters) to educate the public. NHTSA is assisting about 18 States to
conduct Special Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPS) thru June 1998 to
increase belt use. In addition, the Department's NEXTEA reauthorization
proposal includes an occupant protection incentive grant program to
encourage States to increase their belt use and improve their occupant
protection laws.
air bag risks
Question. There has been a lot of publicity recently about the
risks of air bags, particularly for young children and small women.
What concrete steps is the Department taking to reduce these risks,
while providing protection for front seat occupants of a car?
Answer. The Department has amended the occupant crash protection
standard to ensure that vehicle manufacturers can quickly depower all
air bags so that they inflate less aggressively. This action is
temporary, and will provide manufacturers with the option of producing
air bags that are less aggressive to small children and small-stature
adults, such as small female drivers who are at risk with current air
bag designs. These amendments became effective March 19, 1997 (62 FR
12960), and manufacturers are expected to take immediate advantage of
the new provisions by planning to install depowered air bags in the
very near future. These provisions apply to any new vehicle
manufactured between March 19, 1997, and September 1, 2001.
consensus on ``smart'' air bags
Question. NHTSA has said there is a consensus that the ``smart''
air bag is the best means for preventing air bag deaths. How was this
consensus determined?
Answer. Automobile manufacturers submitted comments in response to
a ``Request for Comments'' on aggressive air bag deployments in
November 1995 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on options to
reduce adverse effects of air bags in August 1996. Comments to both
these actions indicated that manufacturers are actively developing
improved air bag systems. The essence of an improved air bag is that
the system will provide air bag deployment, when needed, and possibly
at different inflation levels, and will not deploy when sensing a
situation where the occupant will be at risk from the air bag
deployment. The goal is to provide the optimum means for preventing air
bag deaths while providing protection to a wide range of occupants in a
variety of crash circumstances and severity.
technologies for air bags
Question. What efforts has the Department made to encourage the
development of different technologies to solve air bag risks to vehicle
occupants?
Answer. The Department has encouraged advanced occupant crash
protection through direct advisory briefings with the original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and suppliers (e.g. the inflatable knee
bolster, in production by Morton International; and the acoustic/
infrared occupant position sensor produced by Aerojet General [now
owned by Bosch]).
The Department has sponsored, through cooperative agreements, the
following contracts: the assessment of pre-crash sensing technologies
(Romeo Engineering International, Inc.); development and demonstration
of occupant position discrimination through use of ultrasonic
compartment mounted sensors and signal processor (Automotive
Technologies International); and an economical radar system to detect
and identify impending crash and closing speed immediately prior to
impact, thereby providing information to allow earlier air bag
deployment avoiding late deployments where the occupants are too close
to the air bag prior to deployment (Hittite Microwave Corporation). In
addition, a cooperative agreement with Automotive Safety Laboratory is
producing major reductions in the aggressivity of deploying driver air
bags through development of improved air bag inflators and redesigned
air bags, thereby reducing the hazards to out-of-position small-stature
drivers.
The Department also supports an ongoing test program at its Vehicle
Research and Test Center to test and evaluate any new and innovative
air bag systems that reduce the potential for injury and fatalities to
occupants. To date, depowered and alternative inflator systems, along
with a few improved systems using seat sensors, have been tested and
evaluated.
``smart'' air bag availability
Question. When will so-called ``smart'' air bags likely be
available in cars?
Answer. Mercedes Benz has provided improved air bag inflation in
their production cars sold in the U.S. for approximately seven years.
Its air bag deploys at a lower crash severity if the occupant is
unbelted (about 9 m.p.h. crash-induced velocity change) and only at
high crash severity if the occupant is belted (about 16 to 18 m.p.h.).
According to U.S. car producers, improved air bags in their most
simplistic and least sophisticated forms will be introduced in 1999,
and improvements will be produced through the next 5 to 10 years, with
each improvement reducing the air bag threat and increasing occupant
crash protection. Initial systems will include such devices as dual
level inflators, and then evolve eventually into more comprehensive
systems that can discriminate by occupant size, weight and position,
and by crash severity, deploying at differing levels, or not at all,
accordingly.
short-term solutions for air bags
Question. Have other short-term available solutions been explored
that do not require new technology (for example, variable sizes of air
bags, variable deployment speeds, and variable reaction times that
correlate to vehicle speed)? Is the technology for these three examples
currently available? What is NHTSA's position on each of these options?
Answer. Variable sizes of air bags have not been developed outside
Europe, where there is the ``Euro-bag'' or ``face-bag'' for belted
drivers. This is a smaller bag that provides protection to the face and
head in frontal crashes if the occupant is belted. If the occupant is
unbelted, the Euro-bag may provide less chest or lower torso protection
than that afforded by air bags sold in the U.S. NHTSA has found that
nearly three-fourths of the lives already saved by air bags have been
in crashes where the occupant has been unbelted. The Department,
therefore, does not advocate only small air bags.
Variable deployment speeds are the subject of current efforts by
the Inflatabelt Co. and dual-stage air bag inflators are available from
several air bag suppliers (TRW, Morton International and Bendix/Allied
Signal are three of the major suppliers in the industry). Dual-stage
inflators allow a delay between activation of the first and second
stages. The first stage permits an initial, slower emergence of the air
bag, and based on the crash severity or occupant proximity, activation
of the second inflator stage can provide rapid inflation and maximize
gas into the air bag for best crash energy management for the occupant.
Alternatively, the intentional non-activation of the second stage can
provide a compromised, less aggressive deployment that is less likely
to cause serious injury to an occupant who is too close to the air bag.
Implementation of dual-stage inflators and other sophisticated
approaches to achieve variable deployment speeds requires reliable
crash severity sensors and/or occupant position sensors. Such sensors
are currently in various stages of production, prototyping, or fleet
evaluation testing. The Department looks forward to and encourages
manufacturer implementation of such advancements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
roswell radar status
Question. Secretary Slater, over the past six years we have been
working with the FAA to establish a stand-alone Terminal Radar Approach
Control Facility (TRACON) at the Roswell Industrial Air Center Airport
in Roswell, New Mexico.
I appreciate the FAA's monthly updates to the Congressional
Delegation. However, I am very disturbed to learn that completion of
the radar may once again be delayed by the FAA. This is just one more
delay in the long line of similar setbacks in completing this important
project and frankly my concern stems from the FAA's inability to stay
on schedule.
I am continually being forced to readdress this issue during each
appropriation cycle and would very much like to pin down a timetable
and have the FAA's commitment that the project will be completed on
time.
What is the current status of the Roswell Radar project and why are
we once again facing a delay?
Answer. The building construction phase of the project is
approximately 86 percent complete. Duct work and fire alarm systems are
currently being installed in the TRACON building. With the improvement
in the weather, the remote transmitter/receiver (RTR) construction has
resumed and is projected to be completed by September 1997. The ASR-9
radar system was commissioned on March 24, 1997, one month ahead of the
projected schedule. The delay we are experiencing in commissioning the
facility is due to software development and testing difficulties
Lockheed Martin has encountered with the ARTS2E automation system. The
ARTS2E Program Office met with Lockheed Martin on March 20, 1997, and
determined the system can be delivered no later than February 1998.
Question. Would you provide a current schedule for completion of
this project and include any further anticipated FAA delays?
Answer. We do not anticipate any further delays to the following
current timetable:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Function Projected Revised Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roswell ASR-9 Commissioned....... 11/96 4/97 3/97
RTR Construction Completed....... 9/97 9/97 ...........
ARTS IIE Delivery................ 11/97 2/98 ...........
Roswell Controller Training...... 12/97 4/98 ...........
Roswell Ready for Commissioning.. 1/98 5/98 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will you give me your commitment that completion of the
Roswell Radar Project will be a top priority within the FAA and will be
completed according to the schedule you produce?
Answer. The Roswell Radar Project is a top priority in the FAA. We
regret these unavoidable delays and remain committed to completing the
project as soon as possible.
aging aircraft center in albuquerque
Question. Secretary Slater, you are aware of my ongoing interest in
work to ensure the safety of our commercial air fleets. Exciting new
technology is being developed to improve the safety of our aging air
fleet at the Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center (AANC) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. This center has been supported by the FAA for
the past six years and we are seeing substantial progress in developing
new techniques to assess the structural integrity of our commercial
fleets.
In fact, in your budget request, the administration highlights this
new technology by stating it will save over 700 man-hours per aircraft
inspection over current methods. You also acknowledge this new
technology will require less disassembly of the aircraft to conduct the
inspection which reduces the chance for ancillary damage during the
disassembly and reassembly process should no corrosion be detected.
Recently, I requested the Department of Transportation to designate
this center as one of excellence so new technology may be utilized more
extensively.
What is the process followed for a center to be designated a Center
of Excellence by the Department of Transportation?
Answer. Public Laws 101-604 and 101-508 authorize the FAA
Administrator to select and establish Air Transportation Centers of
Excellence (COE) at universities and mandate the following evaluation
criteria:
--Needs of the region for improved air transportation.
--Demonstrated research and extended resources.
--Established air transportation programs.
--National or regional leadership capability in air transportation
solutions and advancements.
--Ability to disseminate results through State or regional technology
transfer and continuing education.
--Proposed projects.
The FAA received approval from the White House Reinvention
Laboratory to award sole source contracts without further competition,
in addition to matching grants--a first in government. This enables
aviation research centers to engage in engineering development and
rapid prototyping, and to provide deliverables as appropriate.
The COE selection process developed by the FAA follows:
Step 1.
Needs Assessment. On an annual basis, the FAA conducts a survey of
organizations to determine interest, need, and anticipated available
funding to support a COE for a period up to ten years.
Following organizational responses, one technology area is
specified and approved as the focus of the new COE, and base funding
levels are solidified.
Draft solicitation is prepared.
Information Meeting. A public meeting is announced in the Federal
Register, and an open session for potential offerors is hosted with the
sponsoring organization(s). A draft solicitation is provided to
attendees for discussion and external input.
Step 2.
Final solicitation is prepared, published and distributed.
Lead universities submit proposals.
Step 3.
Government subject matter technical experts evaluate proposals.
Government management/fiscal team reviews proposals.
Site visits are conducted to inspect facilities as appropriate.
Evaluation package is prepared by the COE program manager for final
review by the FAA Associate Administrator for Research & Acquisition.
FAA Administrator announces selection.
Step 4.
COE program manager prepares cooperative agreement. New COE
prepares for dedication.
FAA/COE define technical projects, and funding levels are
established for matching grants. FAA awards grant at the time of
dedication.
Step 5.
Technical monitor(s) and COE program manager administer grant
awards.
Technical monitor determines need to award contracts and serves as
contracting officer's technical representative.
Reporting requirements: Year 1, Quarterly Reviews; Year 2, Semi-
Annual Reviews; Annual Meeting and Report; and Year 3, Symposium hosted
by each COE, close out initial award, call for audit of matching funds.
Prepare Phase II documents.
Question. Where in the process is the Aging Aircraft Non-
destructive Evaluation Center?
Answer. The Air Transportation Center of Excellence (COE) in
Airworthiness Assurance (AWA) was approved in 1996 for establishment
during fiscal year 1997. It is currently in the final stage of the
selection process. The solicitation closed on February 15, 1997, and an
initial technical evaluation followed. On March 20-21, 1997, the FAA's
COE program manager and the airport and aircraft safety R&D division
mangers hosted a joint meeting at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical
Center. In attendance were representatives from the two proposing
institutions found to be within the competitive range. Technical
debriefings were conducted and an opportunity was provided for
questions and answers.
Question. What would be the next step and a timetable for its
evaluation?
Answer. The proposing universities will be given two weeks to
provide additional questions for clarification and will submit a best
and final proposal to the FAA within the next eight weeks. We
anticipate an announcement in June, and establishment of the new Center
by October. The Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center will
be an integral part of any COE that is established in Airworthiness
Assurance.
aging aircraft research funding
Question. Speaking again of the Aging Aircraft Center, the
administration's budget proposes to reduce the level of funding for
aging aircraft research from $13.9 million in fiscal year 1997 to $13
million in fiscal year 1998. I am puzzled by this administration's
policies regarding aviation safety. On one hand the President
identifies commercial air safety as one of his top priorities, but on
the other hand he produces a budget proposal that once again decreases
funding for one of our most important aviation safety issues. Knowing
that by the year 2000 more than 2,500 commercial aircraft in the United
States may be flying beyond their original design lives, I believe this
is dangerous policy.
Do you believe the administration's current budget proposal is
sufficient to continue our efforts in ensuring aircraft safety?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget request does not represent a
decrease in the aging aircraft program. Rather, it reflects an increase
of $2.4 million in contract funds. The total dollar amount appropriated
in fiscal year 1997 was $13.9 million, which included in-house costs.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request of $13 million reflects contract
funds only, as in-house costs are now part of a separate budget line
item. The budget proposal is sufficient to continue our highest-
priority work in ensuring the safety of aging aircraft.
Question. What current activities will be sustained with these
resources?
Answer. Our highest-priority aging aircraft activities in
structural integrity, and maintenance and inspection in testing,
evaluation, demonstration, and validation will be conducted.
Question. What activities will be reduced or eliminated due to
budget reductions?
Answer. No major activities will be reduced or eliminated at the
proposed $200 million budget level.
Question. What is the administration's proposed budget for the
Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center in Albuquerque?
Answer. The 1998 budget requests approximately $3 million for
inspection technology development and validation.
recommendations of white house commission on aviation safety
Question. Secretary Slater, Vice President Gore's final report from
the Commission on Aviation and Security made several recommendations to
the President on increasing aviation safety and security. I believe
this report has raised several important safety and security concerns
which merit our attention, however, I would like to have your insight
on one recommendation today. The Gore Commission also identifies aging
aircraft as a major concern for aviation safety. In fact, the
Commission recommends expanding the current Aging Aircraft program to
include the effects of age on non-structural components of commercial
aircraft.
Is the administration supportive of expanding the current aging
aircraft safety testing to include non-structural components?
Answer. The FAA, working with the aviation industry, will develop a
coordinated plan to implement the White House Commission
recommendations regarding the effects of age on non-structural
components of commercial aircraft. This partnership approach was used
very successfully in the current aging aircraft program.
Question. Which technologies are the most promising/cost efficient
in accomplishing this recommended goal?
Answer. At this time, the FAA has not identified which technologies
are the most promising/cost efficient in accomplishing the White House
Commission recommendations.
rural roads protection act of 1997
Question. Secretary Slater, one transportation challenge rural
States like New Mexico must face is maintaining and improving our vast
rural road systems. Rural States like New Mexico, with a large land
mass and smaller population, face an uphill battle in meeting the
demands of supporting our transportation infrastructure. For example, I
am sad to say that New Mexico is reported to contain five of the 20
most dangerous roads in the nation. While I understand that every State
is in need of additional highway funding, I believe we need to pay more
attention to the special needs of rural States like New Mexico when
reauthorizing ISTEA. For this reason, I have co-sponsored a bill which
mandates a one-percent set-aside within Federal-aid Highway funding for
rural States. I believe this set-aside is essential to leveling the
playing field for rural States and will be helpful in providing the
necessary funds to ensure safer roads.
Does the administration's NEXTEA proposal contain any provisions
which would assist rural States such as New Mexico to receive
additional highway funding?
Answer. The administration's NEXTEA proposal would authorize $175
billion over 6 years, which represents an 11-percent increase in
funding over ISTEA. In addition, the highway apportionment formulas
included in the proposal to distribute funds among the States attempt
to strike a fair balance between the many diverse States of this
nation. Beyond just the overall funding increase, NEXTEA would provide
States and local governments with greater flexibility through expanded
eligibilities in the core programs, better enabling them to target
NEXTEA funds to the types of infrastructure investments that will work
best for them.
Although we were cautious about proposing new programs in NEXTEA,
the administration's proposal does include a new Border Crossing and
Trade Corridors Program. This program would provide $270 million in
funding over six years to assist States, such as New Mexico, in meeting
needs at border crossings and along trade corridors.
NEXTEA also significantly increases the emphasis on safety with
greater funding levels, better targeted safety programs, greater
emphasis on safety results, and greater flexibility for States to
tailor safety programs to their needs. It eliminates the current STP
ten-percent safety set-aside and replaces it with two new programs: (1)
a new Highway Infrastructure Safety Program ($3.25 billion over 6
years), and (2) an Integrated Safety Fund ($300 million over 6 years).
new mexico spaceport
Question. Secretary Slater, as you are probably aware, New Mexico
has the potential to be one of the leaders in commercial space
launches. The State of New Mexico, through its Office of Space
Commercialization has worked tirelessly to promote this effort
statewide and I am excited about the prospect of bringing commercial
space launches to Southern New Mexico. I believe New Mexico, with its
excellent climate, high altitude, and low population density is well
suited to take advantage of the new opportunities available in
commercial space efforts being put forth by the State of New Mexico.
Currently, the New Mexico Office of Space Commercialization has
submitted an application for a site license to the Licensing and Safety
Division of the FAA, and they are anticipating approval no later than
April 16, 1997.
Would you work to ensure this license is issued to the New Mexico
Spaceport on schedule?
Answer. The New Mexico Office of Space Commercialization (NMOSC) is
utilizing a phased approach to development of a commercial launch site
in New Mexico for the staging of activities involving reusable launch
vehicle technology currently under development. NMOSC is employing a
phased approach as a result of, among other things, the lack of
detailed information on reusable launch vehicles. The FAA is
cooperating with NMOSC's request and has been working closely with the
State of New Mexico to complete a site feasibility review. The
licensing process cannot be completed until the NEPA process is
concluded and the site is finally selected and is under NMOSC's
operational control. We will continue our close cooperative efforts
with the State of New Mexico.
As part of its phased approach, NMOSC has requested a determination
of feasibility of a proposed site in south-central New Mexico from the
FAA, with the understanding that any findings by the FAA are
preliminary, or conditional, in that they are subject to completion of
all environmental reviews required under NEPA as well as acquisition of
the land under consideration. A finding of site feasibility signifies
that, based on NMOSC's planned uses for the site, it is situated in a
manner that can support safe launch activities at the site.
Question. Secretary Slater, the New Mexico Office of Space
Commercialization is currently working with the Department of
Transportation to obtain the notice of availability on the
Environmental Impact Statement it submitted for legal review. This
approval is necessary for the State of New Mexico to begin conducting
public hearings and proceed with future construction plans.
Unfortunately, the DOT has been delayed in performing this important
review for various reasons and currently no date has been set for
initiating the review.
When can the State of New Mexico expect the Department of
Transportation to conduct the legal review and issue a notice of
availability?
Answer. The legal sufficiency review of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Southwest Regional Spaceport has been
completed and review comments have been provided to representatives of
NMOSC for inclusion in the document. Department of Transportation
cognizant personnel received the revised document from NMOSC and it is
now under review. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) have voiced objections regarding the Southwest
Regional Spaceport (SRS) EIS effort undertaken by the FAA. Once the
final review is completed and the issues with BLM and FWS are resolved,
the Notice of Availability will be published shortly thereafter. The
notice should be published within the next two months.
innovative financing and camino real intermodal center
Question. Secretary Slater, the Department of Transportation
recently began utilizing innovative financing initiatives to launch
critical transportation projects nationwide. I have followed this new
program closely and am impressed with its preliminary results. I
believe it is essential for Congress to provide greater flexibility to
States engaging in advanced construction using anticipated
apportionments and private funding alternatives. One pilot project
selected for this new program was the Camino Real Intermodal Center in
Saint Teresa, New Mexico. The New Mexico Department of Transportation
has partnered with a private entity to expedite a needed intermodal
facility to make border crossing more efficient. I must commend the New
Mexico Department of Transportation for being innovative and
resourceful in meeting the increased demands for border crossings due
to the NAFTA free trade agreement.
What effects has this new program had on transportation
infrastructure construction, and do you see innovative financing
provisions to be utilized more rather than less in the future?
Answer. The innovative finance program has created new ways of
thinking about funding transportation projects. Innovative finance
provides the States more incentive to obtain other sources of revenue,
issue bonds, or seek donations. The program also provides more flexible
Federal procedures, allowing States to better tailor finance plans to
meet individual project needs. The result has been an increase in the
non-Federal investment in projects and, for many projects, the ability
to advance the construction schedule by several years. We believe these
provisions will be used more in the future as States become more
familiar their benefits.
Question. Has the DOT discovered any complications or inadequacies
within this new program?
Answer. Certainly, some of the innovative finance provisions are
more complicated to administer than traditional grant provisions;
however, as we become more familiar with the new techniques, the
complexities will diminish.
Question. I understand that within the administration's NEXTEA
proposal, a new Border Crossing and Trade Corridors program is
established to supplement existing funds available for border
infrastructure. Are there provisions within this program which provide
relief funds to States like New Mexico which have already invested
significant highway funds to improve their border crossing stations
such as Santa Teresa?
Answer. The Trade Corridor and Border Gateway Pilot Program
contains three elements: (1) supplementary surface transportation
planning funds for multistate efforts to coordinate trade corridor
development; (2) supplementary surface transportation planning funds to
support binational planning efforts; and (3) a discretionary capital
program directed toward major international gateways with Mexico and
Canada to improve gateway transport efficiency and safety. The capital
improvement program would be restricted to the major gateways
identified in the Department's ISTEA Section 6015 study report,
``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North
American Trade.'' The West Texas/New Mexico gateway is identified in
the Pilot Program as being eligible.
The Pilot Program does not identify prior State and local efforts
to improve gateways as a discretionary grant condition. It establishes
criteria for grants as follows: (1) reduction in travel time through
the gateway; (2) leveraging of Federal funds; (3) improvements in
vehicle and cargo safety; (4) degree of binational involvement and
cooperation, including cooperation with the Federal Inspection Services
(Customs, INS, USDA, etc.); (5) innovation and transferability to other
gateways; (6) local commitment to sustain the effort; and (7) full use
of existing facilities prior to any new construction.
the role of new mexico's national labs in transportation research
Question. Secretary Slater, as you are aware, the State of New
Mexico has two of our national labs. I believe these labs provide this
nation with not only a strong national defense but a valuable resource
for developing new technologies. Both Sandia and Los Alamos National
Labs have permanent departments which research and develop Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) and alternative fuels. As we begin to
debate the reauthorization of ISTEA, I have a strong interest in re-
evaluating the current role our national labs play in transportation
research and development. I believe our nation's transportation
infrastructure is of the utmost importance, and as our transportation
needs continue to grow, I believe our labs can play a significant role
in researching and developing new transportation technologies.
Do you support our national labs playing a significant role in
transportation research and development?
Answer. DOT considers the national labs to be a major technical
resource, for both the public and private sectors of this country. DOT
is an active member, along with many of the Department of Energy (DOE)
labs, in the Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC). The FLC is a
legislatively mandated body that exists to make the technical expertise
of the labs available to solve national problems and support industry
in the development of commercializable products. The FLC has also
proven to be a very effective forum for sharing technical insights
across Federal agency and program lines.
DOT also uses national labs to perform research for it on a
reimbursable basis, with great success. In addition to the work
highlighted in the question, we are particularly proud of the work the
Los Alamos National Laboratory performed to advance the state-of-the-
art with transportation planning tools. An interagency Travel Model
Improvement Program (TMIP) is addressing the linkage of transportation
to air quality, energy, economic growth, land use, and the overall
quality of life. One of the most advanced components of TMIP is the
TRansportation ANalysis and SIMulation System (TRANSIMS). TRANSIMS is a
series of advanced computer models specifically designed to help State
and metropolitan planners meet the analytical requirements of the
planning processes created in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). TRANSIMS was originally proposed by Los
Alamos, and its development and testing is proceeding there.
We have had excellent results with our use of the labs for
transportation R&D, and strongly support their continued use in this
manner.
Question. Do you foresee our labs being utilized more rather than
less in developing new Intelligent Transportation Systems and
alternative fuels?
Answer. On August 6, 1993, the U.S. Departments of Transportation
and Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defining the
working relationship between them for conduct of research on
Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems, or IVHS (a more narrowly defined
concept that has evolved into ITS). The MOU specifically permits DOT to
``use the DOE and its laboratories on a reimbursable basis to conduct
IVHS R&D and operational testing activities, and to transfer the
technologies developed to the commercial sector.'' It highlights
sensors, navigation systems, data fusion, communications, safety
assessments, system concepts, and systems integration as areas for
collaboration.
The Department of Transportation considers the DOE labs a major
resource supporting its ITS program, and will continue to do so in the
future. Moreover, our surface transportation reauthorization proposal
provides opportunities for the Department of Transportation to enhance
its relationship with the national laboratories, and we plan to take
advantage of this opportunity. Their world-class and interdisciplinary
scientific and technical capability in areas such as advanced
materials, manufacturing, energy and environmental technologies (e.g.,
fuel cells and alternative fuels), simulation and modeling, testing,
and electronics, coupled with their ability to prototype and
demonstrate new and innovative concepts to address national problems,
can be a real boon to the civil and commercial transportation sectors.
Question. Does the Department of Transportation recommend any
changes to the current role our labs play in transportation research
and development?
Answer. As mentioned previously, the Department of Transportation
has been very pleased with the performance of the national labs, both
as sources of technical expertise on advanced technologies, and on
actual conduct of R&D. Much of the department's research and
development, historically, has focused on applied research that can be
implemented in the near term. The Intermodal Transportation R&D Program
in our surface transportation reauthorization proposal, with its
emphasis on basic research and longer time horizons, will be an area
where the labs can make significant contributions, and we hope to be
able to draw on their skills more in the future.
process to disconnect air bags
Question. Secretary Slater, recently, both the United States House
and Senate Transportation Committees held hearings on the unintended
consequences surrounding air bag safety devices. Clearly, we have found
that air bags save lives; however, we are now aware these devices
actually pose a life-threatening situation for certain people and their
families. I understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the automobile manufacturers are working to
educate car owners and produce safer air bags. I would like to know
what steps are currently being taken to modify the standard for air bag
deployment and what stage we are currently at regarding new rules for
legal air bag disconnection.
What is the current process a vehicle owner must pursue to obtain
the necessary permit from NHTSA to have their air bag disconnected by
an authorized automobile dealership?
Answer. The vehicle owner should contact NHTSA in writing, asking
for permission to have the air bag(s) disconnected. The letter should
state why the owner wants the air bag(s) disconnected and should
provide any additional information, such as a physician's statement of
medical reason why the air bag(s) could do more harm than good in this
specific case. The letter should be addressed to: Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, Southwest, Washington, D.C. 20590.
timing of new rule on disconnecting air bags
Question. What is the current time line for implementing new
regulations which allow vehicle owners to work directly with the
dealership for air bag disconnection?
Answer. This proposed rulemaking is part of NHTSA's highest-
priority rulemaking actions regarding air bags. The proposals for
deactivation were published in the Federal Register (62 FR 831) on
January 6, 1997. To date, over 500 respondents have replied to this
proposal, with additional comments coming in almost daily. There are
many complex legal issues surrounding this proposal. A final resolution
of these issues is expected shortly.
unbelted testing standard
Question. Are steps currently being taken to modify the testing
standard for air bag deployment to no longer use the unbelted standard
for certification?
Answer. NHTSA is currently responding to a petition from Senator
Dirk Kempthorne to amend the provisions in its automatic occupant
protection standard to place a moratorium on testing with unbelted test
dummies. NHTSA has concluded that Section 2508 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 precludes it from
eliminating the unbelted test requirement. Since NHTSA can recommend
legislative changes to Congress, it is currently seeking public
comments on the benefits and disbenefits of eliminating the unbelted
test. The Request for Comments was published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 8917) on February 27, 1997, with comments due by March 31, 1997.
nafta border crossing and trucking
Question. Secretary Slater, the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) has opened our nation's borders to its neighbors to promote
trade and strengthen our global economy. In 1993, the Senate passed a
resolution which instructed the Department of Transportation to
``uphold all United States truck safety standards, including truck
sizes and weights'' during the negotiations with Canada and Mexico.
Unfortunately, with over a year behind us, this issue of commercial
trucks crossing the Mexican border is still lingering and remains
unresolved.
What is the current status of negotiations regarding the
harmonization of truck safety standards with the Mexican government?
Answer. Since NAFTA was implemented on January 1, 1994, the
Department of Transportation has worked with its counterparts in Mexico
and Canada through the Land Transport Standards Subcommittee (LTSS) to
develop compatible safety and operating standards for motor carriers.
For example:
--Truck Requirements. The three NAFTA countries have adopted a basic
commercial vehicle safety standard as the minimum level of
mechanical fitness to be sustained by all commercial motor
vehicles operating in international commerce. This standard is
based on regulations currently in effect in the United States
and Canada.
--Driver Age and Language Requirements. The three NAFTA countries
have agreed to require that drivers operating in international
commerce be at least 21 years old and be able to communicate in
the language of the country in which they are operating. Thus,
even though Mexico permits drivers to obtain a commercial
license at age 18, only drivers who are at least 21 years old
will be permitted to operate across the border into the United
States. Moreover, those drivers will have to have at least a
basic understanding of English.
--Hazardous Materials Requirements. Mexico requires drivers of trucks
carrying hazardous materials to obtain an endorsement to their
drivers licenses indicating that they have received specialized
training for handling shipments of hazardous cargo, for driving
tank trucks containing bulk shipments of hazardous materials,
and for emergency response. Moreover, Mexico has promulgated
regulations applicable to hazardous materials transportation
that are based on the UN recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods, which is the international consensus standard.
In addition, the three NAFTA countries have published a North
American Emergency Response Guidebook in English, Spanish, and
French.
--Hours-of-Service and Driver Logs. The United States, Canada, and
Mexico have agreed to assure that the duty time of drivers
engaged in cross-border transportation will be recorded and
accounted for. Mexico has already begun to take the steps
necessary to implement a logbook requirement for hazardous
materials and bus drivers. The three countries are developing a
North American logbook that will be modeled on logbooks
currently used in the United States and Canada. In addition,
Mexico has asked that the United States and Canada assist in
completing regulations on hours-of-service for commercial
drivers that Mexico would implement for domestic and cross-
border motor carrier operations.
If the Department were to consider amending existing truck size and
weight regulations, it would follow the normal regulatory procedures
for the issuance of Federal regulations, including ample provision for
public comment on any proposals. Any proposals to change current
vehicle weights and dimensions standards as set forth by statute would
be decided by the Congress. No such recommendations are currently being
considered by the LTSS.
Question. What are the areas of major contention involved in the
negotiations regarding cross-border trucking?
Answer. In negotiations over the past year, the United States,
Mexico, and Canada have discussed developing a strategy to assure that
motor carriers are in compliance with their safety obligations prior to
beginning cross-border operations. These discussions are taking place
in the Land Transport Standards Subcommittee, which was established by
NAFTA to address development of compatible safety and operating
standards for truck, bus, and rail transportation and for the
transportation of hazardous materials.
The three countries have agreed on critical safety areas that will
be reviewed and approved by each country's authorities before a carrier
can begin cross-border operations, including: (1) safety management
systems, (2) driver qualifications, (3) hours of service compliance,
(4) drug and alcohol testing, (5) condition of vehicles, (6) accident
monitoring programs, and (7) compliance with regulations governing the
transportation of hazardous materials. In addition, we have agreed on
several elements that are essential to implementation of a successful
cooperative and coordinated compliance and enforcement program, such as
clear communications between governments and with motor carriers;
development of electronic data bases and exchange of safety information
for companies, drivers, and vehicles; and involvement of State and
local officials.
Discussions with Mexico currently involve implementation of
specific elements of a compliance and enforcement program in Mexico
that will be directed at motor carriers who will be operating across
the border into the United States. This program includes a roadside
inspection program focussed on the northern border, a process for
providing the United States with detailed information on motor carrier
applicants for authority, and a safety management oversight program.
Taken as a whole, this strategy will enable the Department to
evaluate a carrier's safety performance based on verified information
provided by the Mexican government and the carrier itself. Only
carriers with positive evaluations will be approved to operate beyond
the commercial zones. In addition, this strategy will assure that
carriers that receive such approval will be monitored for compliance
with safety and operating regulations by inspectors based both in
Mexico and the United States.
Question. When do you expect to have this issue resolved?
Answer. The Department hopes to have a package that resolves all
outstanding transportation issues between Mexico and the United States
in the near future. Senior officials from the Department and Mexico's
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation have met on many
occasions over the past months to discuss safety issues that led to the
delay of implementation of NAFTA's truck and bus access and investment
provisions.
DOT's major concern is that there be a system in place in Mexico to
independently verify the safety compliance of the carriers that will be
operating across the border into the United States. Thus, officials are
discussing with Mexico implementation of basic compliance/enforcement
program elements for motor carriers granted authority to operate in the
United States. DOT is working with its Mexican counterparts on how best
to implement these measures and to determine a time frame within which
implementation will be possible.
Question. Do you anticipate any further delay in finalizing this
agreement in a timely fashion?
Answer. The United States remains committed to NAFTA and its
promise of economic prosperity for North America. The United States
fully intends to honor its NAFTA commitment to permit Mexican motor
carriers to operate in this country. However, there are a number of
steps that the United States, Mexico, and Canada can take together that
will benefit motor carriers and their customers while enhancing public
safety and security in all three countries. Once the safety concerns
that led to the delay in implementing NAFTA's truck and bus access and
investment provisions have been resolved, the Department of
Transportation will begin processing applications from Mexican motor
carriers to operate in the U.S. border States. The Department hopes to
have a package that resolves all outstanding transportation issues
between Mexico and the United States in the near future.
nondestructive evaluation and testing
Question. Secretary Slater, the administration puts an increasing
emphasis on the use of technology in transportation in its fiscal year
1998 budget request. You know of my interest in the work that is being
done by the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC),
which is supported by the Federal Aviation Administration. This
collaboration has been very successful. Several years ago, the
Department helped fund the use of such techniques on two bridges in New
Mexico that were scheduled to be demolished. This project provided
valuable information on the utility of these techniques to
transportation.
The Department's budget request now includes $10 million for
advanced research through the Federal Highway Administration to
investigate new, emerging or advance technologies which have the
potential for long-range application in highway engineering, safety,
and traffic research and development. Throughout this initiative,
nondestructive testing and evaluation is a component.
Mr. Secretary, can you please characterize the Department's current
initiatives that focus on nondestructive evaluation and testing
techniques or technologies and their contribution to the mission of the
Department?
Answer. The contribution of FHWA's current initiatives in
nondestructive evaluation to the Department's mission can be summarized
in two words: safety and efficiency. The FHWA's current safety-related
initiatives include projects to develop new and better technologies to
detect and evaluate fatigue cracks in steel bridges; projects to
evaluate bridges where the depth and condition of the foundations below
ground are unknown; projects to ensure that the cables supporting large
bridges are intact; projects to ensure that the highly stressed, yet
hidden, tendons supporting prestressed concrete bridges are intact; and
projects to facilitate the quantitative load testing of bridges. The
FHWA is also developing nondestructive evaluation technologies which
support rapid, efficient, and quantitative condition assessment in
support of modern bridge management systems. The FHWA is developing new
technology to rapidly and quantitatively evaluate the condition of
bridge decks without the need to stop traffic. This particular project
is highly significant because half of the bridge deck area in the
United States is covered by asphalt and cannot be adequately evaluated
using visual inspection. The FHWA is developing other devices to
quantitatively measure overloading, fatigue loading, and corrosion
rates in passive non-invasive ways. The FHWA is developing new tools,
technologies, and methods to manage the Nation's bridges with factual
objective data, in addition to subjective visual inspection.
Question. What is currently underway at the Department to assess,
for example, the structural integrity of bridges? What are the
components of this program?
Answer. A large component of FHWA's NDE research and development
program specifically addresses structural integrity of bridges. In
addition to the specific projects mentioned above, FHWA has developed a
laser-based bridge deflection measurement system that quantitatively
measures the three-dimensional deflection response of highway bridges
to load. The system provides the ability to accurately and precisely
measure deflections at hundreds of points on a bridge. This global
assessment technology can rapidly detect pathologic conditions such as
corrosion or fatigue weakened girders that could compromise structural
integrity.
The FHWA has also developed wireless telemetry systems that greatly
facilitate the ability to assess bridge structural integrity through
diagnostic and proof load testing of highway bridges. FHWA is also
closely coordinating, cooperating, and co-sponsoring bridge health
monitoring technologies with its State partners. Several large-scale
bridge instrumentation projects are underway in Ohio, New Mexico,
Connecticut, California, and New York--all intended to develop systems
to ensure structural integrity by measuring the dynamic and static
response of highway bridges using sophisticated computer-based sensor
and telemetry systems.
Question. What are the research goals of the proposed new program?
Answer. The goals of the Advanced Research Program are to improve
the long-term safety, durability, mobility, efficiency, environmental
impact, and productivity of highway and intermodal transportation
systems. Certainly, Advanced Research has long been one of the
cornerstones of the R&T programs in FHWA. During FHWA's outreach
meetings in preparation for development of NEXTEA, we consistently
heard from States that Advanced Research needed to be done by the FHWA.
One top official, reflecting on the need for a national focus on
Advanced Research said, ``If not by FHWA, then who?''
There are elements of the more basic scientific research in all of
our research categories (i.e., Pavements, Safety, ITS, Structures,
etc.). However, the proposed initiatives are directed to five areas
that have crosscutting applications. These five areas are:
--Diagnostic Methods: advanced sensors to nondestructively measure
the ``health'' of the physical infrastructure (roads and
bridges). Diagnostics lies at the intersection of three fields:
nondestructive testing, material science, and computational
structural mechanics.
--Materials Characterization: better understanding of the chemistry
and microstructure of major highway materials (cement, asphalt,
steel, etc.) will permit the engineering of materials to
produce the macroscopic properties (strength, stiffness,
toughness) that yield better performance. Many scientists
believe this is the field with the greatest potential for
dramatic improvements.
--Modeling and Simulation Methodologies: through the use of advanced
computer assisted modeling, we can better understand multi-
faceted relationships and can better predict the consequences
of changing variables. This technology supports ITS, Safety,
Materials, and Traffic Assignment. Effective modeling focuses
the research and is perhaps one of the best investments we can
make in terms of conducting research.
--Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics: developing, testing, and
evaluating the reliability and robustness of software for many
traffic, safety, structural conditions and other technologies
requires advanced mathematical concepts such as expert systems,
neural networks, voice recognition/synthesis, pattern
recognition, advanced visualization, and related statistical
and computational methods.
--Advanced Sensor and Commutations Technology: traffic control and
vehicle surveillance systems are keys to the safe and efficient
operation of most major urban highways in the next century.
Development of ``smart'' detectors for highways, building on
aerospace and military technologies, will leverage this
investment.
Question. Is this a multi-year effort, and what are the outyear
projected budgets for this advanced research program?
Answer. This program is proposed at a budget level of $10 million
for fiscal years 1998-2000, and then at a level of $20 million for
fiscal years 2001-2003. There is a need to ``grow'' staff and research
management in several of these sophisticated areas, and prudent
judgment suggests starting with a good foundation. As basic research
flows through the R&D pipeline, experience has taught us that the
heaviest demand is several years after the initial investment if we are
to capitalize on our investment.
Question. How does the Department propose to implement this new
initiative?
Answer. No increase in staff is proposed. We intend to lead this
advanced research program using the much more effective Broad Agency
Announcement device for acquisition of research. This approach permits
FHWA to select several contractors with several different concepts from
the same advertisement. Also, we would continue to utilize Cooperative
Agreements and, when appropriate, grants to public agencies to leverage
research providers such as the national laboratories. Internally we
will continue to utilize NSF post-doctorate individuals, graduate
research fellows, and loaned staff from States, other countries, and
universities. As existing staff retire or resign, we will investigate
filling of each vacancy so as to maximize the effectiveness of the
total R&D program.
highway funding request
Question. Secretary Slater, the President's Budget proposes that
total highway spending for programs authorized under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) will be reduced from
their 1997 level of $20.5 billion to $19.9 billion in 2002.
The aggregate reduction, when compared to a current law spending
path, is $3.9 billion over this five-year period.
Do you personally think such a reduction is possible, especially in
2001 and 2002, given the level of support here in the Senate for
highway spending?
Answer. The administration is committed to the overall effort to
balance the Federal budget, and all spending decisions should be made
in that context. As we all know, hard choices are necessary to achieve
a balanced budget. If we are to achieve a balanced budget, increased
highway spending translates into decreases elsewhere. If both Congress
and the administration are willing to make hard choices, then this
spending level is realistic. But you may, of course, decide to pursue a
different approach. We submitted a proposal that makes a serious effort
to address the concerns of the Senate and others about achieving a
balanced budget. It should also be noted that the $600 million
reduction in obligations cited in the question is less than the $745
million reduction in highway demonstration obligations from fiscal year
1997 to fiscal year 2002.
highway funding needs
Question. Do you also believe such a reduction can be achieved
given the latest USDOT Conditions and Performance Report, showing a
shortfall of $11 billion in local, State, and Federal highway funding
just to maintain current highway conditions across the Nation?
Answer. The administration's reauthorization proposal seeks to
maximize the overall level of funding for the transportation program
within the framework of a balanced budget. We must work within the same
financial constraints facing every other Department in trying to meet
growing needs with limited Federal resources. To that end, we have
initiatives designed to leverage the Federal dollar and increase
private sector participation in transportation investment.
Specifically, our budget proposal will provide sufficient revenue,
when combined with State and local match and expected State-only
programs, to allow us to (1) continue improving the pavement conditions
on our Nation's arterial system, including the National Highway System;
(2) continue the reduction in the number of structurally deficient and
some functionally obsolete bridges; (3) improve roadway surfaces,
alignments, shoulders, sight distance, and other road related factors
that contribute to continued reduction in highway fatality rates,
including efforts to effect driver behavior that influences safety; and
(4) continue making capacity and operational improvements to address
the congestion problems associated with increasing highway travel
demand.
administration's reductions to the faa
Question. Secretary Slater, the President's Budget proposes that
total FAA spending will be increased from its 1997 level of $8.5
billion to $9.3 billion in 2002. This increase represents a 1-percent
reduction when compared to a current law spending path over this five-
year period.
Do you personally think such a reduction is possible, given the
increased demands put on FAA, especially in light of the recently
released report from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security?
Answer. The Operations, Facilities and Equipment, and Research,
Engineering, and Development accounts will grow at a current services
spending path over the five-year period ending in 2002. Only the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) will be held constant at its fiscal
year 1998 level. It is due to the lack of growth in the AIP account
that the overall FAA budget appears to grow at a rate lower than
current services
The five-year budget assumes a transition to full user-fee funding,
which was endorsed by the White House Commission. The overall spending
in the outyears will depend on FAA needs and users' willingness to
finance those needs.
need for further aviation user fees
Questions. Will additional user fees, above those recommended from
1999 through 2002 in the President's Budget, be needed to meet the
funding needs of the FAA?
Answer. Generally no; however, user fees are proposed to recover
100 percent of the FAA's budget, so any change in cost from current
forecasts will result in adjustments to the user fee proposal.
faa cost-based user fees
Question. Secretary Slater, the President's Budget proposes that
beginning in 1999, the aviation excise tax will be replaced with a
cost-based user fee system, raising $36 billion between 1999 and 2002.
How would these user fees be collected and how would they be
assessed on the traveling public and the aviation industry?
Answer. The procedures for billing and collecting user fees in
fiscal year 1999 to 2002 will depend on the specific fees that will be
charged. The specific fees to be charged have not been determined and
will be influenced by the recommendations of the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission. How the user fees are assessed and
collected will be based on several considerations, including whether
the fees are paid before, after, or concurrent with the provision of
services; the volume of payments to be made; and the size of individual
payments.
Question. If these decisions have not been made, how did USDOT and
OMB arrive at these revenue figures?
Answer. Projected revenues were based on the recovery of FAA's
costs to provide service to users and are independent of how the fees
would be assessed and collected.
Question. Would it have been more advantageous for the
administration to wait for the final report of the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission before making FAA user fee proposals in its
budget submissions to Congress?
Answer. The administration is assuming that the work of the
Commission will be completed by the end of this year and
recommendations provided to Congress and DOT. This will allow time to
make any necessary changes in the proposal to establish and implement
user fees.
outyear faa funding
Question. Secretary Slater, the President's Budget proposes that
beginning in 1999, the aviation excise tax will be replaced with a
cost-based user fee system. However, the President's Budget is silent
on where increases and reductions should be made in the FAA beyond
1998. Each account is zeroed out and total FAA spending is replaced by
user fee revenues. There are no specific assumptions how these revenues
should be spent.
In what accounts of the FAA budget between 1999 and 2002 will these
user fee revenues be spent? How much will be spent for FAA operations,
research, facilities and equipment, and the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP)?
Answer. User fees will provide funding for all FAA programs.
Estimates for the specific accounts in future years reflect 3-percent
annual growth except for the Airport Improvement Program, which remains
constant at $1 billion.
Question. If these decisions have not been made, how did USDOT and
OMB arrive at the total funding level for the FAA between 1999 and 2002
shown in the President's Budget?
Answer. Using 1998 as a baseline, a 3-percent inflation factor per
year was applied to operations, facilities and equipment, and research.
AIP was straight-lined at $1 billion. As the President formulates his
budget each year, decisions will be made on a year-to-year basis to
update these assumptions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Specter
foreign oil dependency and transit
Question. As co-chair of an informal Senate Transit Coalition, I am
very concerned that the administration's fiscal year 1998 budget
request proposes only $4.3 billion for Federal transit programs,
essentially a freeze from fiscal year 1997. You have proposed to
eliminate Federal operating assistance for public transportation and
the capital budget would not grow under your proposal despite available
surpluses in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and a
widely recognized need to invest more in our transit systems. Coupled
with Federal mandates and funding pressures at State and local levels,
Federal cutbacks have already resulted in some combination of fare
increases and transit service cuts in many Pennsylvania communities.
At a time of instability in the Middle East (particularly Saudi
Arabia) and a growing U.S. dependence on foreign supplies of oil, isn't
it essential that we focus our resources on public transportation,
which saves million of gallons of gasoline annually and has
corresponding environmental benefits as well?
Answer. Yes. Transit reduces auto fuel consumption by nearly two
billion gallons annually, lowering the Nation's trade deficit and
reducing dependence on foreign oil. The energy and environmental
benefits of transit are another example of what occurs when people are
given transportation choices. Today's transit investments will reduce
our dependence on foreign oil in the future and deliver other important
benefits.
pennsylvania transit funding
Question. A survey by my staff of nearly 20 small and mid-sized
transit systems across Pennsylvania shows that 27 percent of their
annual budgets comes from Federal sources. In Pittsburgh, the figure is
even higher, at 22 percent of their $376 million annual budget. How do
you envision these systems responding to the growing needs from their
communities when we are curtailing the Federal Government's support?
Answer. We support continued stable funding levels for transit as
reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget and the NEXTEA reauthorization
plan. In addition to stable funding, our proposals would increase
transit agency flexibility in spending Federal transit dollars,
allowing them to target resources to pressing needs. For example, the
fiscal year 1998 budget merges Bus Discretionary funding and the Fixed
Guideway Modernization grant program into Formula Programs. This
increases the Formula Programs funding level from $2.1 billion in
fiscal year 1997 to $3.3 billion in fiscal year 1998. This improvement
gives transit agencies the ability to continue using former Bus
Discretionary funds for bus purchases and Fixed Guideway Modernization
funds for rail improvements and rolling stock, but the funds can also
be used for any other eligible Formula purpose selected by the transit
agency.
Another measure in the fiscal year 1998 budget and the NEXTEA
proposal delivers relief to transit agencies through a redefinition of
operating and capital expenses. Our proposal would eliminate operating
assistance in urbanized areas over 200,000 population while providing
relief by redefining capital to include maintenance expenses. This will
match the transit definition of capital to the definition in the
Highway program.
In areas under 200,000, all Urbanized Area Formula funding would be
eligible for operating or capital expenses at the operator's
discretion.
The proposed redefinition of preventive maintenance as a capital
expense builds upon the measure endorsed in last year's Appropriations
Conference Committee Report whereby a portion of transit vehicle
overhauls can be reclassified from an operating to a capital expense.
FTA analysis indicates that the proposed capital redefinition will
effectively offset the elimination of operating assistance. For
instance, PAT, the Pittsburgh-Port Authority of Allegheny County, will
be able to reclassify from operating to capital expenses over 8 times
more in expenditures than its Federal operating assistance cap.
FTA will take all necessary measures to inform grantees of the
change and will assist agencies in fully using the new provisions.
The combination of funding stability and increased flexibility will
continue to provide transit agencies in communities of all sizes with
important Federal support for transit. Federal transit funding
leverages State and local support, and our proposal will continue this
important Federal role.
adequacy of proposed highway spending
Question. Highway spending authorized in the 1991 ISTEA law is
limited by the annual obligation ceiling set in the appropriations
bill, which is in turn a function of the 602(b) allocation received by
your Subcommittee. In practical terms, this means that Pennsylvania is
entitled to $750 million for fiscal year 1997 through formulas but can
only spend $670 million, which is its share under the national
obligation ceiling. Do you think that the $18.2 billion obligation
limit on Federal-aid highway spending is sufficient, given the
significant surpluses in the Highway Trust Fund? In Pennsylvania, for
example, last year the State had to announce delays in construction of
nearly 80 highway projects due to a projected lack of funds. As a
result of the current obligation ceiling, Pennsylvania lost an
estimated $80 million in fiscal year 1997 that it was entitled to spend
through the apportionment formulas.
Answer. We realize that the Highway Trust Fund can support a higher
level of funding. However, the administration's reauthorization
proposal must be looked at within the framework of the entire Federal
budget. The administration is committed to balancing the budget, and
all spending and taxing decisions must be considered in that context.
The reauthorization proposal seeks to maximize the overall level of
transportation funding while still remaining within an overall balanced
budget.
amtrak service cuts and prognosis
Question. The Amtrak Board has taken a number of steps to improve
the financial situation of our national railroad, including a number of
cuts in routes and service in Pennsylvania and other States. For
example, the Board proposed eliminating the local Philadelphia-
Harrisburg ``Keystone Service,'' which was saved in part by a
commitment by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to assume
more of the costs. What is the status of the cuts in routes and service
proposed by the Amtrak Board? What steps has the administration taken
to work with the States to preserve routes and segments wherever
possible? What is your prognosis for Amtrak?
Answer. Amtrak's Board proposed the termination of service on four
routes effective November 10, 1996, which was postponed for a period of
six months. These routes were the Boston to Albany segment of the
``Lake Shore Limited,'' the St. Louis to Dallas ``Texas Eagle,'' the
Salt Lake City to Portland ``Pioneer,'' and the Salt Lake City to Los
Angeles ``Desert Wind.''
The Massachusetts and Texas State Departments of Transportation
have developed a proposal that would, if approved by the State
legislatures, continue service on the ``Lake Shore Limited'' and the
``Texas Eagle'' through October 1, 1997, during which time Amtrak and
the States would work together to develop other concepts to make these
trains commercially viable. It presently appears that the other trains
will terminate service on May 10, 1997. The Department strongly
supported the efforts of Amtrak and the States to identify means to
provide the financial assistance necessary to preserve these trains.
With regard to Amtrak's future, the Department is committed to
working with Congress, Amtrak management and labor, State governments,
and other interested parties in the coming year to develop an
affordable long-range plan that eliminates Amtrak's dependence on
Federal operating subsidies. Amtrak is an important component of this
Nation's intermodal passenger transportation system. We believe that
Amtrak must have a reliable source of capital investment through
contract authority proposed in the administration's NEXTEA bill over
the next several years to address the previous lack of investment if we
are to preserve the national system and permit Amtrak to achieve its
potential.
amtrak budget needs
Question. As someone who rides Amtrak at least two times a week, I
know that a safe, convenient and effective national passenger rail
system is not a luxury, but a basic component of our modern economy and
society. Amtrak also offers a viable alternative to congested highway
and air travel.
What impact will the administration's budget request have on
Amtrak's ability to provide intercity rail service in the future? How
has the administration responded to the cost of replacing and
modernizing Amtrak's physical assets (maintenance facilities, train
equipment, and support assets), which represent a key challenge to the
viability of the railroad?
Answer. The administration is committed to a long-term vision of
Amtrak as an important component of this Nation's intermodal, intercity
passenger transportation system. Amtrak must have the tools to develop
into a self-sustaining competitive player. One tool that Amtrak must
have is a reliable source of capital investment to address the previous
lack of investment. The administration's NEXTEA proposal includes
authorization of over $3.4 billion over the next 6 years to further
progress the recapitalization of Amtrak.
The Department is committed to working with Congress, Amtrak
management and labor, State governments, and other interested parties
in the coming year to develop an affordable long-range plan that
eliminates Amtrak's dependence on Federal operating subsidies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
airport improvement program reductions
Question. During your nomination hearing before the Senate Commerce
Committee last month, as well as your written responses to submitted
questions, you continually emphasized this administration's commitment
to record amounts of dollars for infrastructure investment in the
United States over the past four years. At the same time, however, the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget submission lowers funding for the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) by over 30 percent--from an fiscal
year 1997 enacted level of $1.46 billion to a proposed $1.0 billion in
fiscal year 1998. This is not a new trend. When President Clinton took
office, AIP was a $1.9 billion program. Every year since then, the
administration has asked for less airport construction money than did
the previous administration.
Regarding the Airport Improvement Program--not infrastructure as a
whole--but the Airport Improvement Program specifically, can you tell
me how the President continues to justify spending fewer dollars on
aviation infrastructure when just yesterday, you released a statement
from the Annual Commercial Aviation Forecast Conference that ``an
unprecedented 605 million people flew on the nation's air carriers in
1996 with enplanements expected to grow to nearly one billion by
2008?'' Does the President believe that aviation infrastructure will
magically regenerate itself without capital investment?
Answer. It is important to remember that the AIP is not the only
source of funding for airport improvements, nor the only FAA program
involved with aviation infrastructure. In fact, the majority of airport
development dollars (75 to 80 percent) come from sources other than the
AIP. Likewise, the FAA also administers funds for significant
infrastructure programs such as the Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
program. Although the ultimate ``owner'' of the F&E improvements, such
as airport control towers and navigation aids, is the FAA, nonetheless
nearly $1.9 billion is recommended for this aviation infrastructure
program for fiscal year 1998.
Although certain programs are recommended to be reduced as part of
the effort to balance the Federal budget, we believe that other funding
sources, such as bond sales by airport sponsors and Passenger Facility
Charges (PFCs), will be available to continue needed airport
development. The FAA will, of course, continue to provide aviation
design and operational standards to foster systemwide safety.
funding puget sound regional transit
Question. As you are aware, the voters of a three-county region
approved a $3.5 billion bond measure last November to construct a
regional transit system in the Puget Sound area. The plan, called Sound
Move, envisions a mix of light rail, commuter rail, High Occupancy
Vehicle expressways and regional bus routes. Commuters would some day
be able to travel through all portions of the system with a single
ticket. Specifically, it calls for: a 25-mile light rail line with 26
stations between Seattle's University District and the City of SeaTac
via downtown Seattle and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; a
1.6-mile light rail line between downtown Tacoma and the Tacoma Dome
train station; and an 81-mile commuter line using existing freight
track between Everett and Lakewood, via Seattle and Tacoma, with at
least 14 stations. Of the total cost, the planners of this system will
be asking for $737 million from your Department of Transportation to
cover the Federal share of the project.
In the President's fiscal year 1998 Federal Transit Administration
budget, however, not only has the President shifted all of Section 3
discretionary money back into formula grants, but more importantly for
this project specifically, the President has eliminated funding for all
future ``new start'' projects. The proposed budget, as you know, only
provides money to continue funding existing full-funding agreements.
How do you suggest that I explain to my constituents the President's
desire, through his fiscal year 1998 budget submission, to look past
the specific needs of the Puget Sound region as it relates to this
specific project?
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration's policy, as found in
its annual Report on Funding Levels and Allocations of Funds (the
``3(j) Report''), is that transit major capital investments (or new
starts) funding shall only be proposed for projects that will be
construction-ready in the budget year. A project such as Puget Sound's
should be funded with planning or formula funds until it is
construction-ready.
Regarding the possibility of receiving funding in the next several
years, NEXTEA provides $5.7 billion in budget authority for major
capital investments over 6 years. Of this, $3.7 billion will be
required for projects under existing or pending Full Funding Grant
Agreements, using virtually all the funding under obligation
limitations proposed by the administration. Those obligation
limitations reflect our commitment to help balance the Federal budget.
If the economic and budget environment improves during the NEXTEA
years, the obligation limitations may be increased, and as much as $2
billion may become available for additional projects like Puget
Sound's.
Funding for additional new starts is also available through FTA's
innovative finance initiatives, as well as the flexible funding
provisions contained in ISTEA and broadened in NEXTEA.
clinton ferry terminal in washington
Question. Three weeks ago, I sent you a letter regarding the
utilization of fiscal year 1997 funds for a ferry terminal project in
Washington State, and to date, I have not received a response from your
office. Accordingly, because you are here today, I would like your
thoughts on this situation. Let me explain the details of this matter.
On Wednesday, November 13, 1996, representatives from the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) received the first faxed
notice of the fiscal year 1997 allocations of discretionary funds from
the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Olympia, Washington,
Division Office. WSDOT officials were very pleased that two of the
smaller local ferry systems in Washington State are scheduled to
receive funding from the ISTEA Section 1064--Construction of Ferry
Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities--discretionary account. They were
dismayed, however, to find that the Clinton Ferry Terminal was not
included on the list.
A detailed analysis of the entire national listing of all
discretionary funding categories for fiscal year 1997 also failed to
show any funding for the Clinton Ferry Terminal. Upon further review,
it appears that Washington State was overlooked, in spite of language
in the Senate's fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Report 104-325. Could you please explain how the FHWA
has overlooked the Senate report language and neglected to provide
funding for this project?
Answer. The FHWA was aware of the Senate report, but also aware of
the language in the Conference report (House Report 104-785) stating
that the conference agreement deleted the Senate references of priority
designations and set-asides within the FHWA's discretionary grant
programs. As a result, all candidates for discretionary ferry boat
funding were equal from a legislative standpoint. In choosing among the
many worthwhile candidates submitted nationwide, funds were not
available to finance many excellent candidates, including the Clinton
ferry terminal project. However, as you have noted, two other projects
in the State were selected for ferry boat discretionary funding in
fiscal year 1997.
highway/rail grade crossings separation
Question. The following is an issue that you and I discussed during
your nomination hearing, and I appreciate your willingness to help on
this matter. As you know, with automobile and railroad traffic
increasing in the Puget Sound region, the Port of Seattle, the Port of
Tacoma, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and the Washington State
Department of Transportation are currently working on a project to
construct grade separations at existing street-level railroad crossings
for both safety and traffic efficiency reasons. To date, this group has
identified approximately 70 street-level crossings along the north-
south corridor between Everett and Tacoma that should be grade
separated. Unfortunately, this would have to be done at a cost
exceeding $1.5 billion.
While grade separation and freight mobility are extremely important
issues for the ports, they are also important in light of Burlington
Northern-Santa Fe's decision to reopen Stampede Pass, a major east-west
corridor in Washington State. Initially, BNSF projects that it will
operate 10 to 12 trains per day during 1997, but will increase that
number to 18 to 20 operations by 1998. With this new traffic moving
through the Central Puget Sound region, cities from Auburn, Kent, and
Maple Valley to Ellensburg and Yakima will be affected.
In your previous response to this question, you expressed your
openness to ``help develop consensus regarding the scope, cost and
financial support needed to implement the rail improvements'' in the
region. Do you have any specific ideas on how funding for this project
may be addressed within the context of ISTEA? Clearly, innovative
financing is one possibility, but are there either existing alternative
sources of funding or new programs that could be utilized to find
funding for such a major project?
Answer. To implement the improvements envisioned along the Puget
Sound rail corridor will require a public-private partnership among
regional, State and Federal interests. The current ISTEA framework
provides several flexible programs through which grade crossing
eliminations can be funded. These programs include the National Highway
System (NHS), the Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), as well as Railway-Highway Crossing
and Hazard Elimination funds. The administration's NEXTEA proposal
would continue these programs, and in some instances specifically
extend eligibility to publicly-owned rail infrastructure.
These programs are funded, of course, from State allocations and
spent according to local priorities. NEXTEA would establish two
additional programs that might provide alternative sources of funding.
First is the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
Program, which would provide grants (up to 20 percent of total cost) to
assist in the funding of nationally significant transportation projects
that otherwise might be delayed or not constructed at all because of
their size and uncertainty over timing of revenues. The program's goal
is to encourage the development of large, capital-intensive facilities
through public-private partnerships consisting of State or local
governments with private business. The program would require a public
agency to acquire and operate the rail facility, as is being done in
California's Alameda Corridor.
Second is the permanent establishment of the State Infrastructure
Bank (SIB) program. SIBs offer a menu of loan and credit enhancement
assistance, such as direct loans, interest rate subsidies, lines of
credit and loan guarantees. States can capitalize their SIBs using
funds from regularly apportioned ISTEA categories and from a
discretionary $150 million annual DOT fund for seed money. The program
was originally limited to ten pilot States, but NEXTEA offers all
States the opportunity to establish a SIB.
aviation user fees
Question. As the new Chairman of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee
of the Commerce Committee, I have heard from many people who are very
concerned with the $300 million in new user fees to be assessed as
proposed in the President's Budget. Could you please specifically
identify what types of activities these user fees will be assessed for?
Answer. The following fees are assumed in the budget request for
fiscal year 1998:
--Security User Fee
--International AirCargo User Fee
--General Aviation (GA) Turbine Engine Airplane User Fee
The expected revenue in fiscal year 1998 from the three user fees
is approximately $300 million. The charge rates and annual revenue from
each fee have not yet been determined. The cost of service for each fee
will be determined from the fiscal year 1995 Cost Allocation Study and
supplementary analyses.
A more detailed list of services for which fees would be assessed
follows:
Security: Services include the security inspection of domestic/
foreign air carriers, inspections of hazardous materials, processing of
application amendments for airport and air carrier security programs,
testing and approval of advanced technology security equipment, and
provision of aviation security technical assistance, education and
training.
International Air Cargo: International air cargo is transported by
domestic and foreign all-cargo carriers and in the belly of domestic
and foreign passenger airplanes. The U.S. currently imposes no tax or
fee on cargo transported by air into or out of the U.S. Airplanes
carrying cargo to/from foreign countries receive terminal and enroute
air traffic services from FAA. Services include domestic departures and
domestic and oceanic fly-overs provided by enroute centers, and
terminal radar approach control facility services. Service recipients
are foreign and U.S. cargo carriers (direct service recipients) and
cargo shippers (indirect recipients).
General Aviation Turbine Engine Airplane: Services include the
provision of enroute and terminal air traffic services to turboprop and
turbojet airplanes operated in non-commercial service which fly under
instrument flight rules. Service recipients are GA turboprop and
turbojet airplane operators.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
preservation of rail rights-of-way for transit
Question. The 1997 transportation appropriations bill included a
``New Start'' appropriation ($2 million) for the Triangle Transit
Authority's plans to build a light rail system in Raleigh-Durham, North
Carolina.
This system will use existing tracks and possibly build a limited
number of additional tracks. The plan thus avoids much of the expensive
right-of-way acquisition that drives up project costs. Their foresight
will save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
Is the policy of the DOT to encourage planning and construction of
fixed-guideway transit systems before these rights-of-way are
developed, sold, or otherwise lost for this use?
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) encourages the
consideration of fixed-guideway transit systems only when the local
planning process identifies the need for a significant transportation
investment, a wide range of multimodal alternatives to meet this need
are systematically evaluated, and the ongoing financial support of such
a system is adequately demonstrated. Such evaluation may in fact show
that a fixed-guideway transit project on an existing rail right-of-way
would be lower in cost than alternative rail alignments, and would have
a greatly reduced environmental impact on the community in terms of
noise, displacement, neighborhood traffic, safety problems, and
destruction of parks and natural areas. However, the costs, benefits,
and impacts of other mode and alignment alternatives must also be
evaluated as part of this local process before a decision is made on
the selection of a locally preferred alternative.
Question. What does the Department plan to do to encourage this
advance planning?
Answer. FTA supports the preservation of transportation corridors
through the local planning process. FTA will participate in the advance
acquisition of railroad rights-of-way for future transit projects when:
(1) the long-range metropolitan transportation plan for the area
identifies a future need for fixed guideway transit in the corridor;
(2) funding for the acquisition has been programmed in the metropolitan
and statewide transportation improvement programs; and (3) the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding
the consideration of alternatives prior to commitment to a particular
project can be satisfied. In many cases, a NEPA categorical exclusion
can be granted when a railroad right-of-way is merely changing
ownership without any near-term change in its use.
airport construction
Question. The administration budget cuts the funds for the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), which funds airport construction and
improvements, from its current $1.45 billion to $1 billion. (Asheville
Airport and Sanford-Lee County Airport submitted applications to the
FAA for funds through this program).
AIP funding is at the lowest level in years. The administration
requests $1 billion for 1998. In the past four years, annual airline
passenger traffic is up 16 percent while investment in airport
development has already decreased 23 percent. I know that State and
local governments can now collect passenger fees, but I wonder about
the lack of Federal participation. In fact, in my State, we have a
number of airport expansion programs that the State is undertaking
without substantial Federal aid, and I wonder if this is the future
trend. Have we been spending too much on airports, or is the
President's Budget underfunding our airport needs?
Answer. Like many other Federal programs, the requested AIP level
has been reviewed carefully to help the administration and Congress
balance the Federal budget. The ability to collect and use Passenger
Facility Charge funds will continue to provide an important supplement
to Federal grant funds, and we hope the newly authorized demonstration
program for innovative financing will help airports do more with the
Federal funds that are made available to them.
We are optimistic that the work of the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission will produce recommendations for long-term funding of
airport infrastructure, as well as other aviation programs. The Federal
Aviation Administration will continue to place the highest priority on
attaining adequate funding for the most critical system needs
nationwide.
faa mismanagement
Question. Coopers & Lybrand just released its financial assessment
of the FAA. The report concluded that ``the FAA's core program managers
have not demonstrated an understanding of financial management.''
Last year, the FAA told this subcommittee that the congressional
budget resolution for 1996 to 2002 left the FAA some $12 billion short
over that time period, and this figure became known as ``the gap.''
I believe that the national air traffic control system is clearly a
Federal responsibility. I believe that the FAA needs a stable and
reliable source of funds. I look forward to that debate later this
year.
However, I am concerned when the FAA points to a projected multi-
billion funding dollar ``gap,'' while I see no real movement towards
internal reforms to promote efficient operation of the FAA.
Clearly, we will debate FAA reorganization at some point this year,
and this will be a major issue for some Senators. However, meanwhile,
what tangible steps have you taken to ensure that the taxpayers see an
improved level of financial management at the FAA?
Answer. The FAA has taken numerous steps in the last three years to
reduce personnel costs and reduce FTE levels as called for by the
National Performance Review (NPR). Through the end of fiscal year 1996,
the agency has been able to reduce overall FTE usage by 11.7 percent or
6,324 FTE. Cumulative savings as a result of FAA's downsizing exceed $1
billion through fiscal year 1996, with fiscal year 1996 savings
estimated at over $400 million.
Since over 62 percent of the agency's work force is part of what is
referred to as the ``safety work force,'' the downsizing has been
concentrated in the non-safety areas. The non-safety work force has
been reduced by 18 percent through fiscal year 1996. Prior to the
downsizing, administrative personnel accounted for only four percent of
the total work force, which was already the lowest percentage among the
departments of the Federal Government.
Some examples of efforts by the agency to streamline and achieve
cost savings are as follows:
--Contracting Out of Level 1 Towers
--85 Towers contracted out
--Additional savings anticipated in fiscal year 1998
--Supported by the NPR
--Airway Facilities (AF) Realignment
--Reduced levels of AF organization in regions and field from 5 to
3
--Nearly 900 supervisory positions eliminated
--Human Resource Management (HRM) Streamlining
--HRM staffing reduced by over 400 positions since fiscal year 1993
--Supervisory ratio increased from 1:5 to 1:15
FAA is continuing efforts to implement a cost accounting system by
the end of this fiscal year. Work on this new cost accounting system
began before the results of the Coopers & Lybrand assessment were
available. The basic system will be in place by September 30, and
continuous improvements will be made to the system to strengthen
financial management in FAA.
Question. As you know, FAA procurement and personnel practices were
relaxed last year, and this was intended to let the FAA modernization
program move ahead. Was this a mistake in light of these studies and
their conclusions about mismanagement?
Answer. The new personnel and procurement flexibilities provided to
FAA have been beneficial. FAA has implemented the initial phase of new
personnel policies and processes. Development of completely new
personnel programs to replace the existing systems must be done in a
thorough, systematic manner to ensure that new programs support the
underlying objectives of reform, properly address problems with the
existing system, and ensure fiscal responsibility. Procurement
flexibility has allowed new contracts to be awarded in less time than
under the previous system. This will result in avoiding cost growth due
to longer program schedules.
highway allocation error at department of treasury
Question. The DOT 1997 supplemental budget request includes $318
million to correct a Treasury Department accounting error that affected
States' highway allocations. North Carolina lost $15 million in
obligation authority due to this error. How hard will the
administration push for this additional money from the Congress?
Answer. The administration believes this error should be rectified
and is asking Congress to fund the correction.
management of high-cost highway projects
Question. As you know, the costs of large-scale highway projects
continue to grow. The Boston Central Artery/Tunnel project is expected
to top $10.4 billion.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) just released a report that
encouraged the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to spread cost-
containment strategies to State departments of transportation. The
report concluded that FHWA was in a good position to spread the
successful strategies to the States that lag behind in this area.
Do you agree with this conclusion?
Answer. The Department's surface transportation reauthorization
proposal requires States to prepare financial plans as part of cost-
containment for all projects estimated to cost $1 billion or more.
Administratively, the FHWA has required financial plans on the Central
Artery project and the I-15 projects in Utah, and will continue to
monitor costs on these projects.
Question. What steps will you take to implement these
recommendations?
Answer. The FHWA will work with the States to implement these
provisions and will share best practices of cost-containment as they
are identified.
inaccurate dot statistics
Question. When the so-called Baucus amendment was on the Senate
floor last summer, many of us relied on charts prepared by the DOT. As
it turned out, Department of Transportation charts and Federal Highway
Administration charts conflicted in their data, and the final chart was
admittedly wrong. As we move forward on the surface transportation
reauthorization bill, we will again rely on DOT and FHWA charts.
What tangible steps have been taken to assure the accuracy of the
DOT and FHWA charts that many of us will rely on?
Answer. The Department recognizes the importance of timely and
accurate assistance to the Congress as it considers the complex issues
associated with the distribution of funds among the States under
reauthorized surface transportation assistance programs. In order to
ensure that our technical assistance meets the standards we have set
for ourselves and that you expect from us, FHWA has reorganized its
technical assistance support staff to handle requests in a more timely
and professional manner. An Apportionment Analysis Group has been
established in the Office of Budget and Finance, with direct reporting
links to the Acting Federal Highway Administrator.
FHWA also recently hired an outside contractor with expertise in
this area to develop and operate a new model to analyze the
distribution of highway funds among the States based on various
proposals. We are now using that model, and believe it enhances our
ability to serve the technical assistance needs of our many customers.
FHWA receives numerous requests for technical assistance on
legislative proposals that often differ greatly in their basic program
structure and design. This requires that FHWA utilize models that
provide maximum flexibility to respond to many different highway
program specifications. Given the importance to members of Congress of
the computations of State-by-State shares under alternative program
proposals, authorizing committee leadership (Chairman Chafee and
Ranking Member Baucus of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, and Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) asked the
Comptroller General in a February 6, 1997, letter to validate the
computer model being used by FHWA to provide technical assistance to
the Congress. We welcome this review, which is currently underway, as
we believe it will verify that the new model we are using contains all
the attributes necessary to carry out this vital function.
section 402 highway safety grants
Question. I understand that the Section 402 Formula Grants for
highway safety are among the most successful such programs. I note that
the proposed budget freezes this appropriation at $140.2 million. The
budget proposal increases other safety programs, such as anti-drunk
driving initiatives and the National Motor Carrier Safety Program, so I
wonder if this is a judgment on the Section 402 grant program.
What is your assessment of the Section 402 program?
Answer. The Section 402 program has been extremely successful in
enabling all States to implement critical highway safety programs.
Grants have leveraging effects and benefits far beyond their original
amount. A recent assessment indicated that Federal funds have been
vital for starting new programs aimed at improving traffic safety: 90
percent of the projects in 4 States were started entirely or partly
with Federal grants as seed money. Every occupant protection project,
every Community Traffic Safety Program, and each project to modernize
traffic records began with Section 402 funds. Then, States and
communities elect to take over the responsibility for projects begun
with Federal funding. The assessment showed that 75 percent of the
safety projects eventually obtained partial or complete funding from
non-Federal sources and that 78 percent were eventually expanded to
other areas of the State.
In addition, the Section 402 program is a major tool in the effort
to reduce economic costs and reduce the Federal deficit. The benefits
of traffic safety programs exceed their costs by very large ratios, up
to 31-to-1. Even without factoring in pain and suffering or loss of
life, the economic benefits of traffic safety programs exceed their
costs by a 9-to-1 ratio.
In NHTSA's fiscal year 1998 budget request, the consolidated
Section 402 highway safety grant program, including formula and
incentive grants, increases to $183.2 million from $165.2 in fiscal
year 1997 ($140.2 million for formula grants and $25.0 million for
Section 410 incentive grants).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
international overflight fees
Question. Last year, the Congress gave DOT the authority to assess
a user fee for international overflights, with the proceeds to help
fund the EAS program. The legislation anticipated that these fees would
not be levied on any flight with an origination or destination in the
United States. It is my understanding that the administration is
considering levying these fees on domestic Canadian flights and
domestic Mexican flights that transit United States airspace. Is this
accurate? When is the rule expected out?
Answer. The interim final rule was published in the Federal
Register on March 20, 1997. Aircraft operations that transit U. S.-
controlled airspace and do not land in, nor take-off from the United
States, will be charged fees to recover the costs of providing air
traffic control (ATC) and related services. Currently, overflights
contribute nothing to the provision of FAA ATC and related services.
The overflight fee for Canada-to-Canada operations is deferred until
October 1, 1997. The deferral was given to allow time for U.S.-Canada
consultations and NAV CANADA (the air traffic control agency of Canada)
to implement its planned en route charge system, minimizing temporary
disruption of air traffic due to the introduction of charges. No
deferral was given to Mexican overflights. Given the pattern of Mexican
aircraft operations, air traffic disruptions are not expected.
Question. Has the administration considered that the Canadian and
Mexican governments might levy similar overflight fees on domestic U.S.
flights that transit their airspace if we go down that path? Do you
anticipate exempting domestic Canadian flights and domestic Mexican
flights from this fee?
Answer. The administration does anticipate that Canada will levy
overflight fees on U.S. domestic flights. Within the next two years,
NAV CANADA will be required to become a fully user-fee-funded entity.
Consequently, NAV CANADA will be required to recover all of its costs,
including the cost of providing air traffic control services to U.S.
domestic flights. The Canadian Government has presented a Note to the
Department of State proposing consultations in early May to discuss
overflight fees. We are in the process of setting a mutually
satisfactory date for those discussions.
wind profiling research
Question. I've recently been briefed by representatives of the FAA
and other organizations about some anemometer and wind profiling
efforts that are ongoing in Juneau, Alaska. The effort that is underway
will allow carriers to use the Gastineau Channel routes in a way
previously not possible in ground-induced turbulence conditions,
improving safety, and addressing the wind speed concerns that have led
to a number of flight delays and cancellations. What the FAA is
pursuing with Alaska Airlines and the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) is similar to what NCAR and the FAA did for the new
airport in Hong Kong. This project should fit nicely with the HALASKA
initiative, and I commend the effort to your attention and look forward
to working with the Department to develop this new capability.
Does this particular initiative fit into the HALASKA effort, or
more broadly, the Free Flight 2000 initiative?
Answer. While this capability is not specifically one of the free
flight capabilities planned for Flight 2000, we are currently
developing a program plan that will include weather initiatives, and
this capability will be considered. The program plan is scheduled to be
completed by the end of June.
free flight
Question. The term ``Free Flight'' has been discussed in many
aviation publications in the past several months. In your view, how
will this initiative provide the architecture and the tools to meet the
projected 40-percent increase in flight operations by the end of the
decade--and what shifts of resources will it require within the FAA?
Answer. The free flight initiative consists of an operational
concept and a joint government/industry consensus list of 46
recommended actions necessary to evolve toward a mature free flight
environment. These recommendations provided focus to the development of
a complete architecture and a set of technologies and procedures
necessary to meet the increased demand for services. This is outlined
in the proposed FAA Architecture Version 2.0. The current FAA/industry
review of Version 2.0 will help identify the appropriate shifts in
resources necessary to gain free flight efficiencies in the earliest
possible time frame. The architecture will implement the free flight
enhancements recommended through the government/industry consensus
process necessary to meet the projected traffic growth through the end
of the decade and the 40-percent increase in passenger enplanements and
the resulting 15-percent increase in air traffic operations forecast by
the year 2006.
commuter rule
Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to draw an FAA rule to your
attention that has a dramatic effect on Alaska. The rule is known as
the ``Commuter Rule,'' and requires that all airlines with scheduled
service using planes with 10 or more seats conform to Part 121
requirements--the same rules that apply to jetliners. For almost all
Alaska's air transportation markets, the increased economic burden
represented by this rule renders 10- to 19-seat aircraft non-economic.
At present, most carriers with scheduled service in Alaska operate
under Part 135--which is a much lower level of regulatory burden. The
preamble to the ``Commuter Rule'' stated that ``there are scheduled
operations using airplanes of less-than-10 passenger seats conducted
under Part 135, but they typically occur in geographic areas such as
Alaska and Hawaii where air transportation is virtually the only
feasible mode of transportation and where the operational environment
is unlike other air transportation environments.'' Alaskan air
operations with 10- to 19-seat aircraft are typically short-haul
operations often carrying only 4 to 6 passengers--the additional
aircraft capacity is utilized for cargo movement, mail movement,
medivac evacuations, and other special needs that are unique to Alaska.
They resemble air taxi operations more than commuter operations even
though the flights are scheduled.
By comparison, the FAA's ``Commuter Rule'' was designed to cover
operations for lower-48 carriers that either already operated under
Part 121, or whose operations certainly resemble the operations of the
large national carriers more than they do the typical Alaskan operation
with 10- to 19-seat aircraft.
Last year, Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young, and I had a series
of meetings with then-FAA Administrator Hinson about this matter. We
informed him that over half the fleet of 10- to 19-seat aircraft had
already been removed from service in Alaska--even though the rule was
not in full effect--and that the other half of the fleet was
anticipated to leave scheduled service by March of this year. We
provided discretionary authority that would allow the FAA to view
Alaska differently as they considered rulemakings. Unfortunately, the
FAA has failed to use that authority.
While the FAA contends that the Commuter Rule will lead to greater
safety nationwide in the 10- to 19-seat aircraft category, for every
one of the 10- to 19-seat aircraft that leaves the fleet mix in Alaska,
twice the number of flight operations must be made with less-than-10-
seat aircraft (which still operate under Part 135) to move the same
amount of people and cargo as would otherwise be moved in 10- to 19-
seat aircraft. The net effect of this rule has been to reverse a 20-
year trend toward the use of turboprop aircraft in Alaska--turboprop
aircraft are more technologically advanced, better suited for the
terrain, and the shifting weather conditions that characterize many
areas of my home State.
Further, the safety record of 10- to 19-seat aircraft is the best
for any category of aircraft operating within the State. The new
commuter rule will require the increased burden of new dispatch rules,
new communication protocols, new maintenance manuals, new operational
manuals. In Alaska, many of the communications requirements are not
possible--a fact that FAA has conceded as well as some other
maintenance items. However, they refuse to modify the rule to save this
class of aircraft operations in Alaska.
Given the safety record of these aircraft, I would really like to
know how many of the accidents over the last several years in Alaska
would have been prevented by the application of the Commuter Rule.
Mr. Secretary, rural Alaskan consumers are beginning to lose
service with these larger turboprop aircraft, because the FAA
regulations are forcing aircraft choice on carriers. This is really the
wrong way for equipment decisions to be made, and may have significant
safety consequences for Alaska.
My question is, have you had an opportunity to look into this
situation? Do you have any thoughts for me as to how the FAA may
proceed in this arena?
Answer. First, the Commuter Rule was designed to cover ALL commuter
operations, including those in the State of Alaska. This rulemaking was
based, in part, on safety recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). These recommendations included
Alaska commuter operations, although specific site visits were not
conducted in Alaska as part of the NTSB's study. Many exceptions were
provided for the 10- to 19-seat fleet based on specific comments from
Alaska carriers and the Alaska public. These comments were provided to
the regulatory docket.
During the implementation period, specific issues were raised by
Alaska carriers that were resolved through exemption relief, operation
specifications, or regulatory amendments. Examples of these include
relief to use the Part 135 weather reporting and visibility minimums in
remote areas, relief from some of the dispatch enroute communications
requirements due to lack of infrastructure in parts of Alaska, and
relief to carry personal medical oxygen by passengers in Alaska.
The statement that over half the fleet of 10- to 19-seat aircraft
had already been removed from service in Alaska is not supported. A
review and survey of all carriers shows that some carriers did go out
of business in Alaska, but these actions were due to bankruptcy or lost
leases or other financial reasons independent of and before the
commuter rulemaking. Five carriers were in business and impacted by
this rule in Alaska. The following represents the status of those
carriers:
1. Pen Air. This carrier was the first in the country to transition
to Part 121. Since their transition, they have added one, and are in
the process of adding a second, 30-seat Saab aircraft, resulting in
increased passenger seat availability. Exemption relief was provided
for the carriage of medical oxygen. Actions are currently being taken
to accelerate the installation of Automated Weather Observing Station
weather reporting in Atka to meet the weather reporting requirements
for this carrier.
2. Seaborne. This is a seasonal carrier that operates in Alaska
during the summer months. Seaborne completed the recertification and
did not require/request any exemption relief. They will conduct
additional validation flights upon their return to Alaska in the May
time frame.
3. ERA. This carrier completed the recertification. They did
request, and were given, specific dispatch and some weather relief for
their Bethel remote area operations. There was no loss of passenger
seat availability or service in remote areas.
4. Frontier. This carrier did not meet the recertification deadline
but is continuing the recertification efforts. The FAA has dedicated a
team of inspectors to assist in these efforts. Exemption relief for
remote area operations will be provided.
5. Cape Symthe. This carrier withdrew its transition plan. They
operate a fleet of 9- or fewer-seat airplanes in addition to 3 turbine-
powered Beech 99 airplanes. They are continuing to operate these three
turbine-powered airplanes, but have removed seats to operate them in
the nine- or fewer-seat configuration. The carrier states that
operations with more than nine seats represents less than two percent
of their operation. The FAA will continue to work with this carrier if
it elects to transition and similar exemption relief will be provided.
The net effect of this rule is provision for the highest level of
safety of operations in the United States, including Alaska. The agency
has used the legislation provided for regulatory amendments,
exemptions, or operations specifications relief for Alaska commuter
operations. This legislation has also been used to address the needs of
other Alaska carriers. It formed the basis for the Single Engine
Instrument Flight Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that addresses the
needs of on-demand operations in single-engine airplanes. This
rulemaking directly responds to requests from the Alaska Air Carrier
Association and to the NTSB safety study in Alaska.
The FAA is also working with the above groups to study safety
policies and regulations dealing with in-flight icing. The FAA has
already issued several airworthiness directives that address in-flight
icing for turbo-propeller aircraft and has also issued operational
bulletins to this part of the industry. Also, as part of the FAA's in-
flight icing efforts, the FAA has developed an in-flight icing plan
that outlines several recommendations to improve safety for inadvertent
flight into icing conditions. The FAA plans to implement as many of
these recommendations as possible prior to the 1997-98 winter season.
dot resources devoted to commuter rule rulemaking
Question. Please provide a breakdown of the OST/FAA FTEs and budget
authority that can be attributed to the ``commuter rule'' rulemaking.
Answer. The FAA and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
accumulated costs of approximately $3.5 million in developing the
commuter rule, beginning with the initial drafting of the rule in
December 1994. Costs include dedicated rulemaking teams in the FAA
headquarters, the regional offices, and field personnel involved in the
data gathering; drafting of the rule; legal and economic support;
public meetings; developing guidance for the FAA inspector workforce
and industry; and working on implementation issues. The Department
estimates that in the period between December 1994 and final
implementation of the rule in March 1997, a total of 30 full-time
equivalent staff were devoted to the commuter rule.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
dot stance on 0.08 blood alcohol content laws
Question. When it comes to determining the appropriate Blood
Alcohol Content (BAC) level for prosecuting drunk drivers, NHTSA has
determined that drivers become significantly impaired at 0.08 BAC.
NHTSA also found that the risk of being in a crash rises gradually as
the BAC level increases, but then rises very rapidly after a driver
reaches or exceeds 0.08 BAC.
Don't you think we need to take a more aggressive stance to get the
States to adopt 0.08 for prosecuting drunk drivers?
Answer. Yes. NHTSA has been actively working to get States to adopt
0.08 BAC laws to reduce drunk driving. NHTSA has employed convincing
research and timely technical assistance combined with public education
and public support. Efforts such as these have resulted, for example,
in Idaho becoming the 14th State to adopt a 0.08 BAC law. NHTSA will
continue to provide useful support like the new publication ``Setting
Limits, Saving Lives--The Case for .08 BAC Laws'' to its public
partners to inform, educate and encourage the adoption of lower BACs in
the States. In addition, the Department's reauthorization proposal in
NEXTEA includes an alcohol incentive grant proposal that rewards States
for enacting a 0.08 BAC law.
incentive grants for 0.08 bac
Question. Current law provides incentive grants to States that
adopt 0.08 BAC. Even so, only 13 States have adopted this standard
since it is fiercely opposed by the restaurant and tavern lobby. Now,
your ISTEA proposal expands the existing incentives for going to 0.08
BAC.
Are you confident that expanded incentives will do the job in
getting more States to adopt 0.08 BAC?
Answer. The Department has learned that incentive grants are
effective in encouraging States to pass critical laws to reduce drunk
driving. Since the passage of the amended Section 410 program in ISTEA
in December 1991,
--Nine States have enacted 0.08 BAC laws. (A total of 14 States have
0.08 BAC laws.)
--34 States plus the District of Columbia have enacted 0.02 BAC laws
for drivers under age 21. (A total of 37 States and DC have .02
BAC laws for drivers under 21.)
--Ten States have enacted administrative license revocation (ALR)
laws. (A total of 39 States and DC have adopted some form of
ALR.)
The Department believes that the new alcohol incentive grant
proposal contained in NEXTEA places more emphasis than the current
Section 410 program on adoption of 0.08 BAC laws as a means to receive
funds. Under the current program, States can qualify for grant funds by
implementing five out of seven laws or programs designed to reduce
drunk driving. One of the seven requirements calls for a 0.10 per se
law, and only after three years of grants is a 0.08 per se law
required; therefore, States had many other options and several years of
funding before considering passage of 0.08 laws as a route to receive
incentive funds. Under the new proposal, there are three options for a
State to qualify for funding--one option is by implementing four out of
five specified laws and programs, the second is demonstrating specific
performance, and the third is by enacting only two key laws:
administrative license revocation and 0.08 BAC. States can qualify for
funding under one, two, or all three options. However, this third
option will more clearly focus State attention on 0.08 BAC laws as a
means to qualify than the Section 410 approach.
highway funding sanctions to achieve 0.08 bac standard
Question. We have seen that highway sanctions HAVE done the job
when it comes to getting States to do the right thing regarding drunk
driving. And while I do not usually propose legislation that could
possibly sanction my own State's highway funds, I am prepared to do so
to push New Jersey to do the right thing.
What would be your view of a bill that sanctioned highway funds
from States that do not adopt 0.08 BAC after a reasonable period of
time?
Answer. The Department supports 0.08 BAC. While the Department has
witnessed success through the use of incentive grant programs to
encourage passage of such legislation, the Department is open to
considering a full range of options.
sanctions versus incentives
Question. In your formal opening statement, you correctly point out
that we face a daunting challenge in reducing the fatality rate on our
Nation's highways. A prestigious researcher at Boston University
recently compared the number of alcohol-related deaths in the first
five States that lowered their BAC limit to 0.08 to five nearby States.
He found clear evidence that lowering BAC levels to 0.08 reduced the
number of alcohol-related fatalities. Indeed, he estimated if all
States lowered their BAC limits to 0.08, alcohol-related highway deaths
would decrease in the United States between 500 and 600 per year.
Wouldn't you conclude that a sanction that pushed the States to
adopt 0.08 would have a more immediate effect in saving lives than
continuing or expanding incentive grants?
Answer. The Department has observed that incentive grant programs
have been successful in pushing States to pass life-saving highway
safety laws.
faa personnel reform and new york-new jersey controller staffing
shortages
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your formal opening statement, you call
attention to the fact that the FAA personnel reform authority, which we
included in the 1996 appropriations bill, has enabled you to hire the
best people possible in the most effective way.
However, when we agreed to grant the FAA these personnel reform
measures, it was in part with the intent of giving the agency the tools
to get the right people in the right place at the right time. For years
now, I have been frustrated with the FAA's inability to get the
authorized numbers of air traffic controllers in place at the several
air traffic facilities in my region.
Notwithstanding promises to the contrary, the number of controllers
at the air traffic control tower and Newark Airport are almost ten
percent below the authorized level. The same is true for the New York
area TRACON, and staffing at the New York Air Traffic Control Center.
It is 12 percent below the authorized level.
Given the far-reaching personnel reforms that we granted to the FAA
in 1996, what explains these continued delays in getting the right
number of controllers in the right place as soon as possible?
Answer. There are delays, unrelated to the personnel rules,
associated with the recruitment, testing and selection of controller
candidates. Overall controller hiring will be at an even rate of about
85 per month starting in April 1997. Newark Tower is scheduled to
receive seven controllers in fiscal year 1997, four of whom are already
onboard. Similarly, New York Air Traffic Control Center is scheduled to
receive 42, of whom at least 12 are onboard. New York TRACON will
receive a total of 22 in fiscal year 1997, of whom at least 4 are on
board. All current and future hiring will be accomplished in a manner
that allows sufficient time for required facility training.
Question. We continue to hear reports that trainees at these
facilities cannot get fully qualified in the jobs that they are there
to study because all available controllers are handling aircraft, and
do not have the time to perform their training functions.
What is being done to address this problem?
Answer. We are implementing plans to increase staffing at New York
area facilities. In addition, we have recently increased overtime
funding for New York Center by $735,000 to optimize the on-the-job
training of new hires.
In addition, we have developed some management controls at New York
Center, such as: (1) the establishment of a stand-alone training
department; (2) a staff manager for training; (3) assignment of two
training specialists and two data analysts to the training department;
and (4) six operations supervisors (one from each area to assume
collateral training duties).
Question. What is your target date to get all of the facilities in
my region staffed to the area called for by the FAA's own staffing
plan?
Answer. The projected date to reach targets for full-proficiency-
level controllers is September 30, 1998.
direct air links between new jersey and japan
Question. Mr. Secretary, in March of 1996 United Airlines canceled
the only non-stop service from Newark International Airport to Tokyo.
Last year, over 85,000 passengers flew between New Jersey and Japan.
New Jersey exported over $1.5 billion worth of goods to Japan's
markets. Newark should have non-stop service to Japan.
What can you do to replace this critical air service with a carrier
like Continental that has a vested interest in serving the Newark-Tokyo
market?
Answer. Under existing aviation agreements with Japan, the United
States does not currently have the right to designate a new carrier
like Continental to serve the Newark-Tokyo market. However, we are now
engaged in exploratory talks with Japan that we hope will lead to
formal negotiations and an agreement that will open up additional
opportunities for U.S.-Japan air services, including the opportunity
for carriers like Continental to enter the Newark-Tokyo market.
Question. As an interim step would you consider allowing a carrier
to take over the service as a replacement carrier?
Answer. Until the U.S. succeeds in negotiating additional rights,
the only U.S. carriers authorized under the U.S.-Japan aviation
bilateral agreements to operate nonstop Newark-Tokyo services are
United Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Federal Express. Although these
three airlines are authorized to serve the New York (Newark)-Tokyo
market, we cannot require that any of these airlines serve a particular
market. It is up to airline management to decide what markets it will
serve.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
highway trust fund balances
Question. The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1991 saw to it that an
additional two-and-a-half cents of the Federal gas tax began being
deposited in the Highway Trust Fund at the beginning of fiscal year
1996. These new deposits, in combination with the increased amount of
gas consumption, have substantially increased the balances of available
resources in the Highway Trust Fund.
Under your budget proposal, how much will those balances grow over
the six years of the next highway bill?
Answer. Under our NEXTEA and budget proposals and planning numbers
for FYs 1998 through 2003, at the end of fiscal year 2003, the
termination date for the reauthorized program, the cash balance in the
Highway Trust Fund will be $48 billion, an increase of $24 billion from
the $24 billion balance projected for the end of fiscal year 1997. We
are proposing authorization levels in NEXTEA that are higher than
outyear planning numbers in the budget. If the economic and deficit
pictures improve beyond current projections, actual obligation levels
might be higher than current planning levels and, as a result, Trust
Fund balances could be lower than these projections.
use of two-and-a-half cents
Question. Is it correct to say that the two-and-a-half cents that
began being deposited in the Highway Trust Fund at the beginning of
last year will not even be used under the highway spending figures
assumed in your budget request?
Answer. Yes.
appalachian highway system
Question. Several weeks ago, the Chairman of the House Budget
Committee held a press conference with other Members where they
identified several Federal programs as ``corporate welfare.'' I was
astounded to learn that this group identified the Appalachian
Development Highway System as an example of corporate welfare. The
Appalachian Highway System was conceived to bring economic development
to some of the most isolated and impoverished communities in the United
States.
Mr. Secretary, can you imagine any definition of the phrase
``corporate welfare'' that can be made to include the Appalachian
Highway System?
Answer. The Appalachian Highway System is a strong supporter of
industry and tourism and enables the region's residents to move freely
between their homes and jobs, schools and other public facilities. It
is quite opposite of welfare in that it has enabled the creation of
many new jobs and increased the ability of the Appalachian people to
compete for jobs wherever they choose to work and live.
Question. I am grateful that you accepted my invitations to tour
segments of the Appalachian Highway System in West Virginia. What were
your personal observations during your tour of the Appalachian Highway
System in West Virginia regarding the economic benefits that the
Appalachian Highway System has brought to the region?
Answer. I was impressed by the beauty of the region, but also by
the difficulty of construction. Significant economic benefits were
evident both in the Corridor D area adjacent to Parkersburg and along
Corridor G from Charleston to Williamson, including a new development
near Charleston called Southridge, construction of another large
development in the Logan area, and, in general along both corridors,
considerable traffic volumes and residential and business development.
emergency relief program funding
Question. Mr. Secretary, the recent tornados in Arkansas, as well
as the severe flooding in my region of the country, come on the heels
of earlier floods that impacted California, the Pacific Northwest, as
well as the Midwest. Absent any supplemental funding, your Department
will be limited to $100 million in emergency relief funding for this
fiscal year.
Can you give us a preliminary assessment of the needs for emergency
highway relief funding at the current time? What's the available
balance in the Highway Emergency Relief sub-account?
Answer. The administration has submitted a fiscal year 1997
supplemental emergency funding request of $291 million for the
emergency relief program. All available emergency relief funds have
been allocated to the States.
Question. At present, do you expect to have sufficient funds to
cover all of the highway restoration projects eligible for emergency
relief for this fiscal year?
Answer. No. A supplemental appropriation will be needed.
Question. Do you have a sense of what amount of emergency
supplemental funds will be needed?
Answer. The administration has submitted a fiscal year 1997
supplemental emergency funding request of $291 million.
Question. Do you know if and/or when the administration plans to
seek an emergency supplemental for highway restoration funds?
Answer. The supplemental was submitted March 19, 1997.
performance of automated surface observing system at airports
Question. Mr. Secretary, on February 19, I sent a letter asking you
to suspend the removal of contract weather observers from airports in
West Virginia until you can certify that safety would not be
compromised once they are removed. As I said in that letter, I have
heard a number of complaints from airports in my State regarding the
poor performance of the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).
These automated weather observation systems are intended to replace
these contract weather observers. However, they have been consistently
reporting inaccurate weather conditions, especially during inclement
weather.
What can you tell me regarding how the ASOS systems are performing
across the country?
Answer. There are 389 commissioned ASOSs, sponsored by FAA or the
National Weather Service (NWS), operating at airports throughout the
Nation. Fifty-six additional systems are in the evaluation phase that
precedes commissioning. ASOS observations comply with Federal aviation
requirements.
A 6-month demonstration conducted at 22 operational ASOS locations
in 1995 showed ASOS performance to be comparable with that of human
observers in all critical aviation weather elements. This demonstration
was sponsored by the FAA and NWS with participation by controllers,
observers, and pilots.
The FAA is actively pursuing improvements and advances in ASOS
sensor technology. Testing of an independent thunderstorm and lightning
detection/reporting capability that will interface with ASOS is
expected to be complete in late summer 1997, with national
implementation planned by December 1997. Sensors that detect freezing
precipitation have been purchased and are being installed. Additional
enhancements are being included through a product improvement program.
In August 1996, the FAA began implementation of new Aviation
Service Standards at airports with a commissioned ASOS. Developed in
conjunction with industry and the NWS, the standards define four
categories of aviation weather service. The standard level of service
to be provided at an airport will be based on the occurrence of
significant weather, aviation activity, distance to the nearest
suitable alternate airport, and critical airport characteristics.
Service provided under the new standards will range from ASOS operating
in a ``stand-alone'' mode at low-activity airports, to ASOS operating
with full-time augmentation and back-up at the high-activity major
airports.
Question. Have you heard similar complaints regarding the ASOS
systems from airports in other regions of the country?
Answer. The National Weather Service is responsible for the
performance, maintenance, and logistical support of ASOS. The FAA's
primary focus has been on operational issues that address user
perceptions of ASOS and the acknowledged and truly distinct differences
between human observations and those provided by automated systems.
The FAA has received a number of complaints from individuals
employed as contract weather observers. A significant number of these
complaints focus on the differences between reports generated by ASOS
and those prepared by human observers or weather parameters that are
not reported by ASOS. Complaints of this nature will be a major focus
in the upcoming 120-day evaluation of ASOS at selected locations.
Question. What is your schedule for evaluating the capability of
the ASOS systems in West Virginia?
Answer. The FAA will conduct a 120-day assessment of the ASOS
system at selected locations, including all of the sites in West
Virginia. The assessment will focus on sites with contract weather
observers and the comments generated by those individuals over the past
year. The assessment performed will include some combination of the
following:
--field comparison of ASOS observations and manual observations for a
length of time at each test site and analysis of discrepancies
between the two observation types;
--pilot and airport operator feedback from user meetings at each test
site; and
--evaluation of pre-commissioning certification data performed by the
NWS for each test site.
ASOS commissionings in West Virginia have been placed on hold and
the contract weather observers will be retained at all locations within
the State, at least until the assessment is completed.
The selected test sites will include all sites at which contract
weather observation was scheduled to be terminated within the next 120
days. We intend to address the perception of ASOS inadequacy, identify
corrective measures where necessary (possible relocation of sensors,
changes to software, etc.), and education of users on ASOS reporting
capabilities.
Concurrent with this performance evaluation, the FAA will conduct
an overall availability assessment by remotely gathering information
from a representative sample of commissioned ASOS sites. This
assessment will address site technical data such as system and sensor
availability, frequency of augmentation by weather parameter, and
frequency of backup by sites and by weather parameter.
The information gathered from these two assessment activities will
be utilized in the overall annual Aviation Service Standards review to
determine needed changes in weather elements reported at each service
level, any change in ranking criteria, airport operations data or
airport characteristics, and to identify, prioritize, and develop
action plans to resolve personnel or equipment performance or
procedural problems. The annual review will cover all ASOS sites,
commissioned or not commissioned, whether they belong to the FAA or the
NWS. An industry/government workshop will be conducted in April to
present the plans for assessment and to obtain feedback from industry
representatives on the implementation of the Aviation Service Standards
over the past year.
Question. At this point, are you confident that the contract
weather observers can eventually be removed from West Virginia airports
and the ASOS systems will serve as adequate replacements for the
contract weather observers without safety being compromised?
Answer. Yes. The ASOS provides observations in full compliance with
documented Federal aviation requirements. The four parameters required
for an instrument landing are wind, visibility, altimeter, and time of
observation. The ASOS goes well beyond these requirements by also
providing precipitation type and accumulation, cloud height,
temperature, dew point, and selected significant remarks such as
variable cloud height. Freezing rain sensors are being deployed at
qualified sites, and FAA will begin to implement a thunderstorm
reporting capability later this year.
The FAA is confident that the combination of service standards,
product improvement plans, and an effective quality control program
will address the concerns that have been raised regarding the
performance and reliability of ASOS. Safety is and will remain the
FAA's number-one priority.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
reductions in airport improvement program
Question. The President has proposed a funding level of $1 billion
for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in fiscal year 1998, $460
million or 31 percent below the fiscal year 1997 level. The proposal
includes increases for FAA safety personnel--air traffic controllers,
safety and certification inspectors--yet decreases AIP, the core
program of Federal investment in our aviation system and our primary
mode of assisting those at the front line, the men and women
responsible for day-to-day operations, safety and security at airports
across the country.
My State of Wisconsin received approximately $20 million under the
AIP formula and discretionary accounts in fiscal year 1996. Fiscal year
1997 figures are not yet available; however, the Wisconsin Department
of Transportation predicts that Wisconsin airports could face
precipitous and unforeseen reductions of $7 to $10 million under the
President's proposal for fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Secretary, would you please take a moment to discuss the AIP
reduction in the context of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) vision for the whole aviation system? In particular, how does DOT
expect airports to cope with such significant reductions in core
funding at a time of increased security requirements and record levels
of passengers?
Answer. I agree that AIP is an important program, but the reduction
of AIP does not mean that safety and security needs will go unmet, or
even that all construction on airports will stop. The airport industry
generally has the ability through its own revenue production
activities, the collection of Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), and
other financing options, to continue needed airport development in the
face of a smaller AIP. In making the hard budget choices, one
consideration was these other sources of funding for airport
development.
In contrast, we believed it necessary to maintain levels of funding
for programs that do not have as well-developed alternative methods of
funding, such as FAA's Facilities and Equipment program, personnel and
operations funding, and our Research, Engineering and Development
program.
The majority of airport development dollars (75 to 80 percent)
traditionally come from sources other than the AIP. We believe that
other fund sources, such as issuance of bonds by airport sponsors and
PFCs, in addition to the AIP level we have proposed, will be available
to undertake needed airport development.
coast guard icebreaking user fees
Question. The President's Budget instructs the Coast Guard to
formulate a user-fee system for domestic icebreaking by fiscal year
1999. As you know, annual domestic icebreaking occurs almost
exclusively on the Great Lakes and is crucial to both the regional and
national economies. The Great Lakes region comprises nearly half of our
national industrial and agricultural output and approximately one-third
of our population. Without seasonal icebreaking, the economic impact
would be felt across the country--in steel mills lacking iron ore,
public utilities waiting for coal shipments, and all the world markets
that rely upon the export of Midwestern grain. Icebreaking is also
necessary in other areas of the country such as on the Hudson River or
the Boston Harbor, and is only one of many services provided by the
Coast Guard. Other Coast Guard services include such services as buoy
tending and other navigational aid maintenance, vessel traffic control
services, and many others.
I have strong concerns about the President's icebreaking proposal.
As I've mentioned, the Coast Guard provides a whole host of services
across all port ranges, and very few of these services are funded by
user fees. It seems highly inappropriate for one narrow service to be
singled out in this manner, especially when it would have such a grave
impact on the economic viability of one specific port range.
Can you explain the administration's rationale for singling out
Coast Guard icebreaking services to be funded through a user fee, when
most other Coast Guard services are funded through regular
appropriations? For the record, could you provide the Subcommittee with
a list of all services provided by the Coast Guard, and itemize which
of these services are funded through user fees? Have you consulted with
the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, another agency under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to better
understand how this proposal would affect their efforts to attract
vessels to the Great Lakes?
Answer. The administration intends to propose legislation to allow
the assessment of user fees beginning in fiscal year 1999 for domestic
icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard. The administration's
proposal is consistent with other applications of user fees where
discrete services are provided to an identifiable commercial activity
user group that benefits from the service. In this case, the user group
is commercial vessels operating during the ice season in the Great
Lakes and northeastern U.S., and the commercial activity is the
transport of cargo. The following vessels are excluded from the
proposed fee: recreational vessels, fishing vessels, fish processing
vessels, fish tender vessels, passenger vessels, ferries, public
vessels, and vessels not traveling to or from a U.S. port.
Services provided to the public by the Coast Guard are categorized
within seven major program areas: Search and Rescue; Enforcement of
Laws and Treaties; Marine Environmental Protection; Marine Safety; Aids
to Navigation; Ice Operations; and Defense Readiness. Services funded
through user fees are listed in the Coast Guard User Fee Report, which
is submitted to Congress annually. Of these existing user fees, nearly
all fall within the marine safety mission area.
As the legislative proposal is developed, consultations are in
progress with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
concerning the user fee legislation and the impact of the legislation
on the Corporation's efforts to attract vessels to the Great Lakes.
transit formula factors
Question. The President's Budget contains a number of significant
changes to the Mass Transit Account. Most notably, transit
discretionary grants have been folded into the formula program, and
transit operating assistance has been eliminated for all but the
smallest systems. It is my understanding that formula grants are
currently distributed according to several factors, including
population density, population and vehicle miles traveled (for the
larger systems).
In addition, under the Federal Transit Administration, the
President has requested $100 million for transportation assistance to
welfare recipients. This effort to address one of the most crucial
elements of successful welfare reform--transportation--is to be
commended. Finding a job is only meaningful and sustainable progress if
a person can get to work on time and secure a ride home once that work
is done. For example, according to the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, in Milwaukee's central city, 64 percent of the
residents do not have access to an automobile, and 17 percent of
residents do not even have a valid driver's license. These figures
demonstrate the vital importance of mass transit options in securing
mobility for all. I look forward to working with you and the
administration on implementing this new program.
On the other hand, I am concerned about the proposed compilation of
transit distributions under the formula program. My State of Wisconsin
has 1.6 percent of the urbanized-area population nationally, yet under
the transit formula program, in fiscal year 1997 Wisconsin received
only 1.2 percent of the formula distribution. That difference, 0.5
percent, may seem small, but in dollars it translates to $7.7 million,
a very significant amount of money for Wisconsin's transit systems.
Mr. Secretary, would you please explain what factors are used to
determine transit formula distributions and the respective weight of
each individual factor? Also, would you please explain the role of
population density as a criteria for transit formula distributions?
Specifically, why does population density play a role for areas with
populations over 200,000, even though it is not considered when
determining distributions for areas with populations below 50,000, or
transit assistance for the elderly and disabled?
Thank you again for your consideration. Again, I look forward to
working with you on these and other issues.
Answer. The Urbanized Area Formula Program is distributed by a
statutory formula based on urbanized area and transit service
characteristics. It is designed to provide assistance based on relative
needs for transit.
Of the funds provided, 9.32 percent is allocated to areas of under
200,000 population. Of this amount, 50 percent is apportioned based on
urbanized area population, and 50 percent based on urbanized area
population weighted by population density (population per square mile).
The remaining 90.68 percent is allocated to areas over 200,000
population. Of this amount, 33.29 percent is allocated by a formula
reflecting fixed guideway needs. The fixed guideway tier has two parts.
The first 95.61 percent of the fixed guideway tier is allocated 60
percent based on fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and 40 percent
based on fixed guideway route miles. The remaining 4.39 percent is
allocated by an incentive formula designed to reward service efficiency
and effectiveness. This allocation is based on fixed guideway passenger
miles weighted by fixed guideway passenger miles divided by fixed
guideway operating costs.
The remaining 66.71 percent of the funds for areas over 200,000 is
allocated by a formula reflecting bus needs. The bus tier also has two
parts. The first part is the basic formula, which comprises 90.8
percent of the bus tier funds. Of the basic bus tier amount, 73.39
percent is allocated among areas over 1,000,000 population, of which 50
percent is based on bus revenue miles, 25 percent is based on
population, and 25 percent is based on population weighted by
population density. The remaining 26.61 percent of the basic bus tier
is allocated to areas under 1,000,000 population, of which 50 percent
is based on bus revenue miles, 25 percent is based on population, and
25 percent is based on population weighted by population density. The
second part of the bus tier is the incentive tier, and is allocated
based on bus passenger miles weighted by bus passenger miles divided by
bus operating costs.
In summary, population density is used to weight population in
allocating 50 percent of the funds for urbanized areas under 200,000
(which account for 9.32 percent of the total), and 25 percent of the
basic bus tier funds for areas over 200,000, (which account for 54.93
percent of the total). Thus, population density-weighted population is
a factor in 18.39 percent of the allocation.
Population density is used as a factor to account for the greater
transit needs in dense urban areas. Fixed-route transit works best when
population densities are high, since traffic congestion is generally
higher in such areas and additional population density results in a
higher number of potential transit riders. Population density is not
used in the non-urbanized and specialized program formulas, since their
services are generally provided on a demand-responsive basis where
population density is substantially less important. Instead, these
programs are allocated based only on non-urbanized area population, and
numbers of elderly and disabled persons, respectively.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
flex funding possibilities
Question. I wanted to first thank Secretary Slater and tell this
committee how I met our new Secretary. He had been in office less than
a week when he traveled unexpectedly, over 3,000 miles to the most
remote corner of our mainland, to join myself, Commandant Kramek and
the community of La Push, Washington. In an emotional farewell, the
Secretary honored three Coast Guardsmen who lost their lives rescuing a
distressed sailboat off the Washington Coast. I can tell you, Mr.
Secretary, that your remarks and presence there that day are
immeasurable. It meant so much to the families of these heros, the
entire Coast Guard community and the Quillayute Indian Tribe who shares
this community.
Mr. Secretary, I also wanted to commend the work of your deputy
assistant secretary John Horsley. John was a long-time County
Commissioner from the State of Washington and has been a tremendous
asset to your Department.
Mr. Secretary, as you flew over the Olympic Peninsula in my State,
you had the opportunity to view its natural beauty. This area
surrounding the Olympic National Park is an unspoiled treasure and has
become a destination for cyclists from around the State and Nation.
However, logging trucks and cyclists do not mix well and we have
witnessed unfortunate tragedies over the last few years. I have been
working with 7 different communities around this Peninsula who are
voluntarily constructing a 360-mile bike trail. We have used Scenic
Byway funds and hope to expand these dangerously narrow road shoulders.
I wanted to get your sense of Enhancement and CMAQ funds, along with
future possibilities for safety improvements that can be used by our
communities in a flexible manner.
Answer. Washington State has received $404,539 in Scenic Byways
discretionary funds for the construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities along Highway 101. The administration's surface
transportation reauthorization proposal continues the National Scenic
Byways program. There would be $15 million available each fiscal year
to fund eligible scenic byways.
Several categories of Federal-aid funds are available for
development of bicycle facilities and improving their safety. These
facilities are one of the eligible activities under the transportation
enhancement provisions of ISTEA. ISTEA provided that ten percent of the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding was to be used for ten
specific activities identified in the legislation; bike and pedestrian
facilities are part of that list.
Under the administration's proposal for NEXTEA, we continue to fund
project activities for transportation enhancements to the same or
greater extent as we have done under ISTEA. We have found the program
to be a major contributor to our efforts to participate in the
President's initiative to sustain our communities through a variety of
measures that will spur economic development while maintaining the true
sense of community connectivity.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is another
source of funds that could be used for bicycle and pedestrian trails,
provided the project is located in a nonattainment area and the project
results in an improvement in air quality. However, the Olympic
Peninsula is not a nonattainment area, so these funds would not be
available for this bike trail project.
funding puget sound regional transit
Question. Mr. Secretary, you are probably aware that the voters of
the Puget Sound Region recently approved a Regional Transit Plan that
has a 50/50 match. It's a mix of commuter rail, HOV lanes, express bus
service and highway improvements to relieve congestion in such sites as
Bellevue's crowded I-405. My constituents are excited about this
proposal, but very skeptical that our shrinking budget and backlog of
projects will prevent us from ever getting off the drawing board. Can
you comment on the future of rail new starts in relation to projects
currently underway and suggestions for my State as we begin this
process?
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration's policy, as found in
its annual Report on Funding Levels and Allocations of Funds (the
``3(j) Report''), is that transit major capital investments (or new
starts) funding shall only be proposed for projects that will be
construction-ready in the budget year. A project such as Puget Sound's
should be funded with planning or formula funds until it is
construction-ready.
Regarding the possibility of receiving funding in the next several
years, NEXTEA provides $5.7 billion in budget authority for major
capital investments over 6 years. Of this, $3.7 billion will be
required for projects under existing or pending Full Funding Grant
Agreements, using virtually all the funding under obligation
limitations proposed by the administration. Those obligation
limitations reflect our commitment to help balance the Federal budget.
If the economic and budget environment improves during the NEXTEA
years, the obligation limitations may be increased, and as much as $2
billion may become available for additional projects like Puget
Sound's.
Funding for additional major capital investments is also available
through FTA's innovative finance initiatives, as well as the flexible
funding provisions contained in ISTEA and expanded in NEXTEA.
airport improvement program
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have stated that your foremost concern
is safety. I remain concerned that we may compromise that safety by
targeting the Airport Improvement Program for nearly half a billion
dollars in cuts. Many of our airports are suffering, particularly rural
areas who depend upon AIP funds for their survival and safety. How can
our airports absorb these cuts?
Answer. A reduction in funding for AIP does not mean that safety
and security needs will go unmet or that new construction at smaller
airports will stop. The larger airports generally have the ability
through other financing options, such as Passenger Facility Charges, to
continue needed airport development if lower funding levels are
provided for the AIP. The proposed budget will allow safety, security
and high-priority capacity development to continue at the smaller
airports.
highway/rail grade crossings separation
Question. As you know, the West has experienced tremendous growth,
particularly in regards to freight rail as we move goods to the West
Coast for shipment abroad. A new rail corridor has just reopened
through the middle of Washington State. Unfortunately, many communities
are now watching freight trains daily cross their front yards. I am
hopeful that we can work together and with these communities in helping
to fund grade separations that mitigate some of the impacts this new
rail corridor brings.
Answer. ISTEA provides a flexible framework of programs through
which grade crossing eliminations can be funded, such as the National
Highway System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Railway-Highway Crossing and
Hazard Elimination funds.
The administration's NEXTEA proposal would continue these programs
and, in some instances, specifically extend eligibility to publicly-
owned rail infrastructure. These programs, of course, are funded from
State allocations and spent according to local priorities.
NEXTEA also establishes two additional programs that might provide
alternative sources of funding:
--The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program would
provide grants (up to 20 percent of total cost) and encourages
public-private partnerships consisting of State or local
governments with private business. (Note: the program would
require a public agency to acquire and operate the rail
facility, as is being done in California's Alameda Corridor.)
--A permanently established State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program
makes possible an array of loan and credit enhancement
assistance, such as direct loans, interest rate subsidies,
lines of credit and loan guarantees. States can capitalize
their SIBs using funds from regularly apportioned ISTEA
categories and from a discretionary $150 million annual DOT
fund for seed money.
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. This will conclude the hearing. The hearing
of the Subcommittee on Transportation is now recessed.
The next subcommittee hearing is scheduled to be held on
Thursday, March 20 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 192. The topic then of
the hearing is transportation infrastructure financing. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., Thursday, March 6, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:05 a.m.,
Thursday, March 20.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Bennett, Faircloth, Stevens,
Lautenberg, Byrd, Kohl, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GEORGE REAGLE, OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIERS
PETER J. BASSO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
Thank you for coming today, Ms. Garvey, Mr. Linton, and Dr.
Martinez. We will get into some of the funding implications of
the administration's NEXTEA proposal in a few minutes, but I
want to discuss briefly with you some of the administration's
priorities in light of the funding constraints we are likely to
face for fiscal year 1998.
In addition, I want you to have the benefit of hearing from
the subcommittee membership about their particular priorities
in this funding cycle and for them to have the benefit of your
expertise on the administration's reauthorization proposal
which will ultimately influence our appropriations bill.
I think that the most important goal of the reauthorization
legislation is to help States find the tools and the
flexibility to address their specific transportation needs.
Clearly the types of transportation infrastructure investment
needed in the Nation's urban centers differs significantly from
the needs of rural communities or areas of the country that are
experiencing high growth rates.
My State transportation officials tell me that ISTEA has
complicated their lives and made it more difficult to meet
Alabama's transportation needs. In short, they want more money
and fewer categories.
Many States would like to see a more equitable return of
what they pay into the highway trust fund. I agree with them
and have supported proposals that would ensure that States
receive at least a 95-percent return on the payments they make
to the highway trust fund. I believe we must help them to make
the Federal investment in this program more effective.
Today, I am interested in exploring with you and with the
users group panel that follows you as many of the following
issues as time permits, such as, how is NEXTEA more flexible
and simpler to utilize than ISTEA?
How has the intelligent transportation systems program's
evolution affected the administration's funding priorities?
How can we better focus our infrastructure investments on
national priorities and on projects with significant economic
returns?
What is the administration proposing in terms of financing
programs and toll programs?
And in light of the severe constraints facing the transit
new starts program under the 1998 budget, what does the
administration's reauthorization proposal anticipate for the
program over the life of NEXTEA?
And how has the administration restructured the safety set-
aside program for rail-highway crossings and hazard
elimination?
Over the next several months, the authorizing committees
will struggle with allocation formulas, policy and equity
issues, and reviewing whether the current funding categories
have fulfilled the promise of ISTEA. The Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee will struggle to stretch its
limited Federal resources among the competing priorities
articulated in current law and in forthcoming authorization
legislation.
The current budget environment further complicates our
task, but it is critical that we focus our limited Federal
resources on projects that create jobs, create opportunities,
create economic activity, and improve mobility. As we complete
the rest of our hearings and as a budget resolution takes
shape, we will have a better idea of the funds available for
transportation.
I can assure you that we all want more money for specific
programs, projects, or initiatives. There are no easy choices.
I remain dedicated to continuing in the search for more
efficient, less costly ways to deliver transportation services,
to work with the authorization committees to improve programs
by enhancing their flexibility, and reallocating funds from
lower to higher priority activities.
I hope the discussion we have today will be candid and
productive and that we can start to focus on our highest
priorities and needs as we move to appropriate Federal
resources for the surface transportation program.
Prepared Statement
Before I ask you to summarize your opening statement for
us, I want to first recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Shelby
Thank you for coming today, Ms. Garvey, Mr. Linton, and Dr.
Martinez. We'll get into some of the funding implications of the
Administration's NEXTEA proposal in a few minutes, but I want to
discuss with you some of the Administration's priorities in light of
the funding constraints we are likely to face for fiscal year 1998. In
addition, I want you to have the benefit of hearing from the
Subcommittee membership about their particular priorities in this
funding cycle and for them to have the benefit of your expertise on the
Administration's reauthorization proposal which will ultimately
influence our appropriations bill.
I think that the most important goal of the reauthorization
legislation is to help states find the tools and the flexibility to
address their specific transportation needs. Clearly, the types of
transportation infrastructure investment needed in the nation's urban
centers differs significantly from the needs of rural communities or
areas of the country that are experiencing high growth rates. My state
transportation officials tell me that ISTEA has complicated their lives
and made it more difficult to meet Alabama's transportation needs--in
short, they want more money and fewer categories. Many states, like
Alabama, would like to see a more equitable return on what they pay
into the Highway Trust Fund. I agree with them and have supported
proposals that would ensure that states receive at least a 95-percent
return on the payments they make to the Highway Trust Fund. We must
help them to make the federal investment in this program more
effective.
Today, I'm interested in exploring with you, and with the user
group panel that follows you, as many of the following issues as time
permits:
--How is NEXTEA more flexible and simpler to utilize than ISTEA?
--How has the Intelligent Transportation Systems program's evolution
affected the administration's funding priorities?
--How can we better focus our infrastructure investments on national
priorities and on projects with significant economic returns?
--What is the administration proposing in terms of financing programs
and toll programs?
--In light of the severe constraints facing the transit new starts
program under the fiscal year 1998 budget, what does the
administration's reauthorization proposal anticipate for the
program over the life of NEXTEA?
--How has the administration restructured the safety set-aside
program for rail/highway crossings and hazard elimination?
Over the next several months, the authorizing committees will
struggle with allocation formulas, policy and equity issues, and
reviewing whether the current funding categories have fulfilled the
promise of ISTEA. The transportation appropriations subcommittee will
struggle to stretch its limited federal resources among the competing
priorities articulated in current law and forthcoming authorization
legislation. The current budget environment further complicates our
task, but it is critical that we focus our limited federal resources on
projects that create jobs, create opportunities, create economic
activity, and improve mobility. As we complete the rest of our hearings
and as a budget resolution takes shape, we will have a better idea of
the funds available for transportation. I can assure you that we will
all want more money for specific programs, projects, or initiatives.
There are no easy choices. I remain dedicated to continuing the search
for more efficient, less costly ways to deliver transportation
services; to work with the authorization committees to improve programs
by enhancing their flexibility, and reallocating funds from lower to
higher priority activities.
I hope the discussion we have today will be candid and productive--
and that we can start to focus on our highest priorities and needs as
we move to appropriate Federal resources for the surface transportation
program. Before I ask you to summarize your opening statement for us, I
would ask the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg,
if he has an opening statement that he wishes to make?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I also
want to welcome our witnesses from the administration. They are
three very capable administrators, and I am pleased again to be
able to have you in front of this subcommittee.
We are examining, as everyone is aware, the details of the
administration's NEXTEA proposal, the proposal for the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act.
Let me also commend you, Mr. Chairman, for structuring this
hearing the way that will allow us to discuss NEXTEA
simultaneously with our Highway Administrator, Transit
Administrator, our Highway Safety Administrator because it is
in keeping with the spirit of ISTEA which is to structure
generally an intermodal system and this, thusly, I think we can
call it an intermodal hearing because we have all the parts as
we would like to review them.
I recall vividly--I didn't say fondly, Mr. Chairman--my
experience 6 years ago when I served as chairman of this
subcommittee while working on the authorization of ISTEA as a
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr.
Chairman, it will be a real challenge to accommodate, as you
said in your remarks, three Senate authorizing committees,
while producing an appropriations bill that stays within our
ceiling and maintains our role in overseeing and directing
transportation expenditures. But it is a critical task for our
country's future and I pledge my best efforts to work with you.
ISTEA was a bold and innovative step toward launching
America's transportation system into the next century. The last
6 years demonstrated that it works. It increased planning and
flexibility, put power in the hands of local planners,
encouraged new technology, and prioritized the mitigation of
transportation-related pollution in congested areas.
While the Nation's existing infrastructure continues to
decay and we face reduced budgets, economic competition demands
ever greater efficiency. We need to build upon ISTEA's
successes to prepare for more intense global competition. We
should retain ISTEA's intermodal system and its flexibility to
let State and local officials use Federal assistance in the
manner that is most appropriate for their needs.
In many ways my State, New Jersey, is a national microcosm.
We have densely populated areas, sprawling suburbs, rich
farmlands, and vast protected, open spaces. New Jersey is a
corridor State linking commerce and travel between the
Northeast and the rest of the country. No State is more
intermodal than New Jersey. From the moment goods arrive in the
ports of Elizabeth and Newark, they are loaded onto rail cars
or trucks and they are distributed to the rest of the country.
Goods traveling just 24 hours on a truck from New Jersey will
reach a market of 40 percent of the total population of the
United States and Canada, over 100 million people.
New Jersey is also a very heavily commuting State. There
are more cars per mile on New Jersey roads than any other State
in the country, but in many areas there is no place else to put
down more concrete, to open new roads. We cannot build
ourselves out of congestion and we are heavily reliant on new
technology, mass transit, and Amtrak to reduce congestion.
ISTEA's focus on moving goods and people efficiently has
given States and localities greater latitude in deciding which
transportation system works best for them. The flexibility
provisions contained in ISTEA undeniably improve the efficiency
of our Federal transportation spending.
My State has enthusiastically opted to use over $163
million of ISTEA highway funds for mass transit. That is the
choice that we made. That is where it serves us best. Other
States have used transit formula funds to build highways, and
we should continue to advance the agenda of balance and
flexibility.
We must also acknowledge that Amtrak is a critical part of
our national transportation network. It needs the kind of
capital investment that is necessary to improve its bottom
line, its operating efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that Amtrak will be called to
testify before us at a later subcommittee hearing, but I want
to note today that one of my greatest disappointments during
the ISTEA conference 6 years ago was that my provision to allow
States the flexibility of using their Federal ISTEA funds for
Amtrak's expense was dropped.
Finally, I want to underscore the need to promote safety on
our highways. After several years of steady improvement, we are
now seeing a tragic increase in deaths associated with drunk
driving. These are preventable deaths and we should insist on
making our highways safer.
I look forward to discussing with our witnesses this
morning how we can enhance the efficiency and safety of our
Nation's transportation system. ISTEA has worked for our
cities, our country, our environment, and our economy. The
subcommittee's responsibility must be to build on the success
of the past and not turn the clock back on transportation
progress.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to
Senator Stevens first.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. You were here first, Senator. I will be
glad to wait. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd. Well, I thank you.
Mr. Chairman----
Senator Shelby. The former chairman yielding to the current
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That is good. Then
yielding back. That is good. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, the soon-to-be chairman again.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. I knew a revolution was coming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. Thank you very much, and let me commend you,
Senator Shelby, for proceeding with these important hearings on
the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act.
The crafting of a new surface transportation bill may well
be the most important legislative challenge that we will face
in this congressional session. While the surface transportation
bill is an authorizing measure in the jurisdiction of three
different Senate authorizing committees, I think it is wholly
appropriate and indeed necessary for this subcommittee to
review the administration's reauthorization proposal which has
come to be known as the National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act [NEXTEA], for it will be the
actions of this subcommittee that will determine whether the
Federal Government will continue its ill-advised trend of
disinvestment in our surface transportation infrastructure or
whether we will make positive strides to replace our aging and
inadequate highways and transit systems.
It will be this subcommittee that will determine whether
the dozens of authorizations included in the surface
transportation bill will be funded. What will really matter to
the health of our national transportation enterprise is whether
this appropriations subcommittee can increase substantially the
annual obligation limitations that pertain to our surface
transportation program.
Budget realities over the last 6 years have meant that all
of the promises contained in ISTEA--at least some of the
promises--were not met, and without adequate resources over the
next 6 years, the promises of NEXTEA will not be met either.
One does not have to look past the administration's NEXTEA
proposal to observe this disconnect between legislative
authorizations and actual resources. Our very able
Transportation Secretary, Rodney Slater, testified to this
subcommittee that the administration's NEXTEA bill would
authorize a total of $174 billion, or an 11-percent increase
over ISTEA funding levels, but a review of the actual budget
submitted by the administration clearly asks the Appropriations
Committee to impose a freeze on the annual obligation
limitation for the core Federal-aid highway programs for each
of the next 6 years. There will be no increase in highway
funding under the administration's budget, and the budget
request calls for similar freezes for the next 6 years when it
comes to transit and highway safety funding as well.
This would fly in the face of the most recently published
Federal Highway Administration study which indicates that it
would require an additional $15 billion each year just to
maintain the current inadequate condition of our Nation's roads
and bridges.
So, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will all work hard to
ensure that transportation infrastructure is granted the
highest priority in our annual budget deliberations, and toward
that end, I was pleased to join with 55 of my Senate colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in writing to the distinguished
chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, to request that
sufficient resources be allocated to the Environment and Public
Works Committee to authorize the $26 billion annual highway
program.
But we will be doing a great disservice to our States, our
communities, and the driving public if we go forward and
authorize a substantial increase in Federal highway spending
but constrain the Appropriations Committee so tightly as to
eliminate any hope of an actual increased obligation over the
next 6 years.
So, I urge my 55 colleagues who wrote and those who did not
write in support of a $26 billion highway program to join in
seeking to secure sufficient domestic discretionary outlays in
the upcoming budget resolution to support such an increased
level of highway spending.
And I join with my colleagues in welcoming our witnesses
here this morning, Acting Federal Highway Administrator Jane
Garvey, Federal Transit Administrator Gordon Linton, and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Dr. Ricardo
Martinez.
I am especially glad to welcome Dr. Martinez because I
think it is critical that the issue of safety be prominent in
each and every decision that we make in the development of a
new highway bill. And as we discuss highway safety this
morning, I remind my colleagues, if I needed to, that our
highway construction agenda and our highway safety agenda must
not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Indeed, one of the most
important ways we can improve safety on our highways is to
modernize them.
For this Senator, the most important safety provision in
the administration's NEXTEA legislation is the proposal to
grant a predictable source--a predictable source--of funding
from the highway trust fund for completion of the Appalachian
Development Highway System. The unfinished segments of the
Appalachian Highway System are among the most dangerous roads
in my State. And the same is true across the entire 13-State
Appalachian region. The unfinished segments of the Appalachian
Highway Corridor System often consist of undivided, two-lane
roads that twist and turn around dangerous mountain curves with
little or no shoulder room and very little or very poor
visibility. This makes for a very dangerous situation in light
of the fact that these inadequate highways must be shared
simultaneously by family vehicles, school buses, and heavy
commercial vehicles loaded with coal, timber, and other
products.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I commend the administration
and the witnesses for their efforts in presenting to Congress,
which they will do, the administration's proposed ISTEA
reauthorization measure. I look forward to working closely with
them and with the President in achieving much needed
improvements in the areas that I have set forth in my remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will always defer to my good friend, Senator Byrd. I
think he is the person who has the institutional knowledge for
our guidance, and I am pleased to hear what he said.
Ms. Garvey, Mr. Linton, and Dr. Martinez, I have some
questions I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, so I will not
go into those.
But I come from a State that will be just 40 years old next
year, and it is sad for me to have to try to explain to my
people why there are more Federal highways in Puerto Rico than
there are in Alaska. Alaska is one-fifth the size of the Union.
It stretches from Maryland to California and from Duluth to New
Orleans in distance, and we have the same amount of roads by
mile in Alaska today that we had when we were admitted to the
Union.
I have decided to commit myself to change that now, and
that is why I did not sign the Senator's letter because it is
not enough. I do not know why rural America has been neglected
so much. It is not your errors. It is the past errors of our
society.
But, for instance, we have 80 percent of the national park
acreage in our State and we have fewer access roads to those
parks than exist in the Nation's Capital for the National
Capital parks.
Now, we have very few transportation links between our
cities and now the Congress is telling us that there will no
longer be any subsidy for air mail which in Alaska is our
lifeline, and we can get subsidies on the roads. But that is
the catch-22. There are no roads.
So, what I would like to urge for you to do is to keep in
mind that we are going to have to find some way to work
together. I know that there are many people here who talk about
the donor theory to the trust fund. I wonder what their
predecessors would have thought in the days when General
Eisenhower, then Colonel Eisenhower, devised the Interstate
Transportation System, he had decided that only those States
that paid taxes into the fund would receive highways. We are
still part of the growth of America in Alaska and several other
States I can think of that are rural States. And I do believe
we have to find some way to bring a balance back to this
system.
I have asked you for some specific answers to specific
questions, so I might address some amendments.
As Senator Byrd says, it is our joint intention that we
will monitor the expenditures of moneys under these
authorization bills to assure the balance that the Senate is
capable of bringing about. We are the focus of that balance in
the historic compromise that formed this country. One of the
Senate's most important functions is to bring about the balance
in terms of States versus the population centers of the
country.
So often I have witnessed the changes in the road systems
of our neighboring State of the State of Washington. Again,
there are twice as many roads in King County, WA, as there are
in its northern neighbor, Alaska, which is 40 times the size of
that State.
I want to emphasize to you that I intend to work with my
friend from West Virginia. We share common thoughts, I think,
with regard to the application of these funds, and I see no
reason to put more and more money into these circular roads
that go around population centers and not have the access for
the rural people to get to those centers. It is a time for us
to rethink this highway situation and NEXTEA is going to be the
time we get to do that.
So, I look forward to working with you. I look forward to
the answers to my questions so I might properly frame the
amendments I intend to offer. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very much aware that this subcommittee is not going to
be involved in the efforts to rewrite the new surface
transportation bill, but I am pleased and I think it is proper
that we examine the issues here.
North Carolina is one of the largest donor States, and we
have traditionally been receiving 87 cents on the dollar return
of our money. We have lived with that for a number of years,
but under NEXTEA, that would go down.
Now, I am not the only North Carolinian committed to the
fact that there should be a more equitable distribution. I am a
strong supporter of Step 21 which returns 95 percent to each
State. I know that, Mr. Chairman, you are a sponsor of the same
bill. For too long money has been pulled out of the Southeast
and fed into the Northeast.
But now the Interstate System is complete, virtually, and
there is no reason for the big discrepancy between donor and
recipient States because the maintenance of the Interstate
System is going to be the major expense on the highway system
of all States.
Early parts of the Interstate System were very inadequately
built. There was no way to convince in the 1960's the Federal
Bureau of Public Roads that you had to drain a roadbed before
you built the road, and they were built without proper
drainage, subsoil, and they are giving away in many, many
places. In fact, some of them have long since given away. So,
there is going to be additional drainage and a lot is going to
have to be done.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, would the Senator yield?
Senator Faircloth. Yes.
Senator Byrd. This again points out the fact that we do not
pay enough attention to history. The Romans knew better than to
do that. They knew that it was important to drain the roads.
Senator Faircloth. Well, you are absolutely right, Senator.
What happened was nobody ever got reelected because he built a
superior road, but he got reelected because he built a lot of
roads, so he built more mileage out there.
The German Autobahn was well drained and it has held up
much, much better with the proper drainage. But you have no
strength. The surface of a road is merely to keep it dry
whether it is asphalt or concrete. There is really no basic
strength. The strength is in the sub-base and we simply did not
drain it. It popped and it is falling apart.
But I believe that the role of the Federal Government in
transportation must be an equitable one and the States need
some ability to respond to local needs. And this is one of the
important things so that we can either go to new roads or to
repair of existing ones.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and look
forward to participating.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Prepared Statement
Senator Kohl. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
statement which I will include in the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it will be so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kohl
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
Welcome Administrators Garvey, Linton and Martinez, and all
those who will be joining us on the second panel. We appreciate
your continued help and input with our work on transportation
appropriations for this year and a transportation policy
framework for the next six years.
It is my hope, which you no doubt share, that together we
can do more in the next six years than we did under ISTEA. The
number one message we hear about transportation and ISTEA
reauthorization is that we are not doing enough--that our
current investment in transportation infrastructure is not
sufficient.
Fortunately, we all agree that investing more and investing
it more wisely is imperative to ensuring economic growth, and
improving transportation safety and the livability of our towns
and cities.
Thank you all for coming, and I look forward to hearing
your thoughts on how we might best achieve those goals. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Introduction of witness
Senator Shelby. Do you have anything else?
Senator Kohl. No.
Senator Shelby. Again, I want to join and welcome Jane
Garvey, the Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration; Mr. Gordon Linton, Administrator, Federal
Transit Administration; Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Your written
statement will be made part of the record.
Ms. Garvey, if you will proceed as you wish.
Statement of Jane F. Garvey
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
very brief opening statement, if I could.
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify here this morning on the administration's proposal
for reauthorization.
A few weeks ago, Secretary Slater appeared before this
subcommittee and provided an overview of the Department of
Transportation's fiscal year 1998 budget request. He described
our transportation network as the envy of the world and, simply
stated, he said that transportation is critical to the economic
growth of this country. It is critical to sustaining our
quality of life.
We are now, as so many of you have suggested, at an
important juncture as Congress considers reauthorization of the
Nation's surface transportation program. In a sense ISTEA
transformed transportation decisionmaking. It was a sea change.
It was a revolution.
The administration's reauthorization proposal reflects the
message that we have heard from our stakeholders, the message
that we have heard from our customers. Stay the course of
ISTEA. Tune it. Do not toss it.
When the administration's NEXTEA proposal was submitted to
Congress last month, it defined several of the Secretary's key
national transportation priorities. These priorities include
strategic investment in infrastructure to support economic
growth, safety programs that will help reduce highway crashes,
and a commitment to commonsense government and innovation.
I would like to very briefly describe the key themes from
the Federal Highway perspective.
First of all, the administration's reauthorization proposal
includes program increases for the core programs, the core
programs that are clear national priorities. That means
interstate maintenance, the National Highway System, and the
surface transportation program. And when combined with the
other provisions, it will allow States and MPO's to use their
Federal transportation funds strategically and more flexibly.
Our proposal builds on the record level of Federal investment
over the past 4 years. Indeed, NEXTEA increases transportation
authorizations by 11 percent over the $157 billion authorized
by ISTEA.
In the highway formula area, we have sought to strike a
fair balance among the many diverse transportation needs in the
Nation.
Included in the Department's proposal is $20 billion in
obligations for the Nation's highways and bridges.
We realize that we need to say right up front that these
proposed funding levels do not fully meet the needs of the
Nation's highway systems, but the levels do reflect the
continuing commitment of both the President and the Congress to
balance the budget and to reduce the Federal deficit. Our
spending decisions have been made within the context of a
balanced budget.
We are, however, proposing contract authority levels in our
NEXTEA proposal that are higher than the proposed obligation
level for 1998. We are doing this because if we have an
improved economic condition, then we have room in our program
to grow.
Secretary Slater has said that transportation safety is his
highest priority. Our proposal in the 1998 budget provides the
resources to fight and improve the highway safety and improve
the fatality trends that we are seeing in our country. Our
proposal builds on the strong components of the existing law.
It streamlines programs, for example, by combining the NHSTA
and the FHWA section 402 safety programs and consolidating the
safety construction category.
We are also proposing incentives to encourage agencies to
work closer together in dealing with their safety problems.
A cornerstone for the future is a strong shift of resources
and energies to innovation, innovation that would provide for a
greater return on our investment. For Federal Highway, this
moves us from a traditional oversight role to one of proactive
leadership and it makes technology and innovation in the
broadest sense a leading element in the transportation system
for the 21st century.
NEXTEA proposes a $100 million a year transportation credit
enhancement program, a program that really has three goals: to
leverage Federal dollars, to encourage private sector
investment in projects of national significance, and to move
projects into construction sooner.
Our reauthorization proposal also would continue the
funding for State infrastructure banks with a level of $150
million a year.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we examine the Federal role in
transportation and as we continue to work to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of our Government, Federal Highway
has undertaken a comprehensive set of streamlining actions to
support Department initiatives.
We look forward to working with Congress and we look
forward to working with this subcommittee in particular to
further the advances launched in ISTEA. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Garvey. We have the combined
statement of Ms. Garvey, Mr. Linton, and Dr. Martinez, and it
will be made part of the Record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey, Gordon J. Linton, and Ricardo
Martinez
istea reauthorization
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of the Administration's proposal for
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) and for our respective agencies' budget requests.
overview
A few weeks ago, Secretary Slater appeared before this subcommittee
and provided an overview of the Department of Transportation's fiscal
year 1998 budget request. He told how our transportation network is the
envy of the world, and how it has made us the most mobile society on
earth. His message is that safety is our number one priority and that
transportation is critical to economic growth and to providing our
citizens with the mobility on which they have come to rely to sustain
their quality of life. And it is about showing that safe and efficient
transportation and a clean environment can go hand in hand. We
Administrators of the DOT agencies most concerned with ISTEA are here
to reinforce that message and to provide details about our
reauthorization proposal.
We are now at a critical juncture as we examine ways to reauthorize
the surface transportation program this year and to continue to improve
our transportation systems. The Administration seeks to build upon the
ISTEA foundation in the six-year, $175 billion authorization proposal
announced by the President, Vice President, and Secretary Slater last
month--the National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1997 (NEXTEA). In the President's words, ``we're taking the next big
step to maintain and modernize our transportation system, and to make
sure it is the best in the world.'' He also emphasized that NEXTEA is
``one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation that
will be considered by the Congress in the next two years.''
When the Administration's NEXTEA proposal was submitted to Congress
last month, it demonstrated several of the Secretary's key national
transportation priorities. These priorities include strategic
investment in infrastructure to support economic growth and enhance
U.S. global competitiveness; safety programs that will improve the
public health and safety of the Nation by reducing highway crashes and
resulting injuries and deaths; an Access to Jobs and Training program
to help ensure that welfare reform works; help to communities to
balance mobility needs with environmental protection and enhancement,
and a commitment to common sense government and innovation. Included
among the innovations in NEXTEA are proposals for (1) innovative
financing to ensure that Federal resources stretch as far as possible,
(2) innovation in technology to accelerate advances that close the gap
between state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice, and (3) innovation
to implement common sense government in order to provide the people we
serve with programs and organizations that work better and cost less.
strategic investment in infrastructure and safety
The Nation's surface transportation system, particularly the
National Highway System and its intermodal connectors, is essential to
economic development, to providing Americans with greater mobility, and
to national defense. Clearly, sustained Federal support for
infrastructure is critical to the health of the economy. The challenge
we face today is to improve our existing transportation network and to
provide for continuing economic growth within constrained resources and
environmental priorities.
National and regional economic growth relies heavily upon a well-
functioning surface transportation system. For example, the payoff
relating to highway transportation spending levels goes well beyond the
actual infrastructure itself and is reflected in the contribution of
the public infrastructure to private sector employment and private
sector productivity. At stake are jobs and the economic productivity of
the Nation. Our highways and their interconnectors to other systems are
the lifeline of the Nation.
The Administration's reauthorization proposal and fiscal year 1998
budget strategically allocate our limited resources, with major
increases for the National Highway System, Interstate Maintenance,
Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement, and safety programs--clear national priorities.
When combined with other provisions in our reauthorization proposal
that improve States' ability to use their Federal transportation funds
more flexibly, NEXTEA will enable States to better target their funds
to the types of infrastructure investments that will work best for
them--whether traditional highway investments, transit or rail
projects, safety improvements, ITS technologies, environmental needs,
or new intermodal facilities to handle growing intermodal demands.
One example of the improvements our proposal would make is
amendment of the definition of transit capital to include maintenance
as an eligible expense. Such an approach would parallel the eligibility
for Federal-aid highway projects. This would allow local transit
operators to make better decisions on whether to invest Federal funds
to prolong the life of existing assets, or to invest in new vehicles,
facilities and equipment. In addition, transit providers in urbanized
areas under 200,000 in population would also be given the flexibility
to use all their transit funds for any eligible transit purpose--
including operating expenses.
The Administration's reauthorization proposal and fiscal year 1998
budget for the Department aim to build on the record level of Federal
investment over the past four years. Indeed, NEXTEA increases surface
transportation funding by $17 billion, or 11 percent, over the $157
billion authorized by ISTEA.
We propose authorization levels higher than the proposed obligation
levels so there will be flexibility to increase transportation funding
within a balance budget if economic conditions improve in future years.
With multi-year authorizing legislation, such as our ISTEA
reauthorization, we believe it is important that the contract authority
levels are set at appropriately high levels. This allows for growth in
the program in the outyears, if the budget picture permits such growth.
And in the apportionment formulas that we have proposed to distribute
Federal highway funds among the States, we have sought to strike a fair
balance among the many diverse transportation needs of this Nation.
However, we understand that there will be considerable debate over this
matter and we offer our proposal as a starting point.
highway investment
Included in the Department's overall fiscal year 1998 program
levels is $20.2 billion in obligations for the Nation's highways and
bridges. This includes a Federal-aid highway obligation ceiling of
$18.17 billion, which is approximately the same level as enacted in
fiscal year 1997. The total contract authority proposed for fiscal year
1998 is $22.8 billion, up from $22.5 billion in fiscal year 1997.
All States have benefited from ISTEA infrastructure programs such
as Interstate Maintenance, the National Highway System, the Surface
Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) and the Bridge Program. These core Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) programs are not only retained in NEXTEA,
but, in the aggregate, authorizations would increase by 33 percent over
ISTEA levels. The proposed funding levels for the highway program are
sufficient to fund system maintenance and preservation costs and some
capacity improvements. Yet these levels also reflect the continuing
commitment of both the President and the Congress to balance the budget
and reduce the Federal deficit.
Our NEXTEA legislation also includes more than $2 billion from the
Highway Trust Fund for the continued construction of the Appalachian
Development Highway System (ADHS) in the 13 States that comprise the
Appalachian region. The ADHS is now 76 percent complete. In the past,
this system of highways has been funded from the General Fund through
various appropriations and authorization acts. Our NEXTEA funding
proposal would promote much-needed economic development in the
Appalachian region and throughout the entire eastern United States,
because more than 92 percent of the Appalachian Development Highway
System is located on our Nation's most critical and well-traveled
highways--the National Highway System.
transit investment
We propose budget authority in fiscal year 1998 of $5.1 billion,
and a $4.4 billion obligation level. Within the fiscal year 1998
obligation level, our budget makes available $4.2 billion for capital
investment in mass transportation. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, we
are proposing to fund the entire $31 billion, six-year transit program
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Additionally,
in fiscal year 1998, we are proposing that discretionary bus and bus-
related funding and fixed guideway modernization funding, be rolled
into Formula Programs.
NEXTEA proposes to combine some transit program categories to make
the program simpler to understand and manage, at the Federal level as
well as at the State and local levels. Our proposal would provide
simpler, and more flexible program-wide definitions of eligible capital
costs, matching ratios, and grant requirements. We would also expand
the transferability of funds among the Urbanized, Non-Urbanized and
Specialized formula programs.
NEXTEA proposes having a much larger proportion of the transit
program go out by formula, rather than on a discretionary basis. This
will help local agencies plan by reducing uncertainty over funding
sources and earmarking, and will improve the equity by which the funds
are distributed. It will also enhance the possibility of using
innovative financing techniques to leverage the use of Federal funds.
New transit lines or significant upgrades to existing service can
be more effective in some cases in addressing congestion than new or
expanded highway capacity. Recent research by the firm Hickling-Lewis-
Brod examined major transportation corridors and determined that high-
quality transit significantly improves the overall door-to-door travel
time for both transit riders and highway users. As motorists switch
from automobile commuting to mass transit, congestion on highways
lessens and highway travel time improves. Increased transit investment
in these corridors is an effective use of transportation revenues that
clearly benefits motorists.
Since January 1993, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has
signed Full Funding Grant Agreements for 19 new or expanded fixed
guideway projects totaling $7 billion. When State and local funds are
also considered, these projects will result in the investment of over
$12 billion in new mass transit infrastructure in metropolitan areas
from coast to coast. These actions continue FTA's successful strategy
of employing the mechanisms provided in ISTEA to execute long-term
contracts and maintain the Administration's strong support for mass
transit.
In addition, NEXTEA builds on the efforts in ISTEA to strike a
balance between existing infrastructure and the need to build new
systems. We recognize the need to balance new system construction with
support to ``older rail cities.'' Such support funds the replacement
and rehabilitation of the existing rail fleet and the restoration of
rail facilities such as stations, track, and yards and shops, as was
guaranteed in ISTEA.
Our proposal provides an equal amount, $634 million, for major
capital investments and fixed guideway modernization. That level for
major capital investments over six years is sufficient to sustain the
Federal commitment to all existing and expected FFGA's. The amount for
Fixed Guideway Modernization will be funded under the Formula Programs
and distributed by the current statutory formula for fixed guideway
modernization.
safety investment
Secretary Slater has set transportation safety as his highest
priority. Federal safety programs have contributed to real progress in
highway safety. Safety belt use has grown from 11 percent in 1982 to 68
percent in 1996. Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes has dropped from
57 percent to 41 percent over this same 15-year period. The highway
fatality rate has declined steadily since 1966, now at the all-time low
of 1.7 per hundred million miles traveled.
Despite this significant progress, a look at recent statistics
reveals that there is no room for complacency. After years of steady
decline, the total number of highway deaths increased from 1992 to
1995. Motor vehicle crashes are still the leading cause of premature
death of our Nation's youth. Safety belt use has grown by only two
percentage points since 1993. In 1995, the number of alcohol-related
fatalities increased for the first time in 9 years. In 1996, 41,500
people died and over 3 million more were injured in police-reported
crashes. Although our fatality rate remains at an all-time low, highway
crashes still cost the Nation $150 billion per year. Taxpayers share in
these costs through Medicare, Medicaid, and income support programs.
Twenty-four percent of all medical care costs associated with motor
vehicle crashes are covered by public revenues (14 percent from federal
revenues and 10 percent from State resources). In 1994, highway crashes
cost taxpayers $13.8 billion, the equivalent of $144 in added taxes for
each household in the U.S.
Improving air bag safety is a top priority. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has initiated a comprehensive
effort to realize more fully the life-saving attributes of current
driver and passenger air bag systems, and to pave the way for the
introduction of improved air bags in the near future. Our budget
request contains an increase of about $8 million for air bag
initiatives, a top-priority increase for fiscal year 1998.
Another major priority is to work with Governors and State
legislatures to encourage the enactment of stronger safety belt and
child safety seat laws. We will be implementing a Presidential safety
belt plan to increase the use of these vital life-saving devices. We
have a number of efforts underway to improve passenger safety of our
children.
Speeding--exceeding the posted speed limits, or driving too fast
for conditions--is a problem on all roads. The human and economic costs
of speeding are staggering. In 1995, speeding was a factor in 31
percent of all fatal highway crashes, at a cost to society and the
economy of more than $29 billion. Currently, 34 States have increased
their speed limits beyond what would have been allowed under the former
national maximum speed limit law, and 23 of these 34 States have
increased their speed limits to 70 miles per hour or greater. NHTSA and
FHWA have jointly developed and continue to implement a Speed
Management Plan combining research, enforcement, roadway engineering
and public education.
Recent surveys indicate that aggressive driving, a behavior often
marked by excessive speed, has become the driver behavior that most
concerns the motoring public. NHTSA's activities to combat aggressive
driving include public information and education, demonstration
programs in major urban areas to identify effective enforcement
techniques, and research to determine the relationship between specific
unsafe driving acts and crash involvement.
NHTSA programs have been highly cost effective. The number and
costs of fatalities and injuries would be significantly higher if not
for the effectiveness of these programs. Since 1992, safety belts,
child safety seats, motorcycle helmets, and the age-21 minimum drinking
age laws under have saved over 40,000 lives. Air bags have saved more
than 1,850 lives.
ISTEA recognized the importance of the Federal-State partnership in
highway safety. We believe that the status quo is not sufficient to
accomplish what must be done. The successor to ISTEA must continue to
look at new ways to advance this essential partnership and secure the
safety of those traveling on our Nation's roads. Our reauthorization
proposal builds on the strong components of the existing law, but
streamlines programs, creates new flexibilities, and provides linkages
among other highway safety programs to move our safety programs forward
in a coordinated manner to address national priorities.
Our NEXTEA proposal is designed to help the States deter drunk and
drugged driving and to encourage increased use of safety belts and
child safety seats. It includes authorizations for significantly
increased safety funding with greater emphasis on incentive programs.
The flexibility inherent in these incentive programs, which give States
the ability to chose whether to implement suggested legal and program
criteria, has proved very successful in motivating States to make
greater efforts in highway safety.
New incentives within the framework of our Section 402 State and
community highway safety program will give added momentum to the
program, at the same time that State and local attention is focused on
high priority safety needs. Thus, in addition to the Section 402
performance-based grant program, NEXTEA provides authorizations for
four carefully crafted and targeted incentive grant programs:
--an enhanced drunk driving prevention program to help States enact
and enforce tough drunk driving laws;
--a new occupant protection program to encourage States to increase
safety belt use--the single best way to protect the occupants
of a vehicle;
--a new drugged driving program, a Presidential initiative to help
States enact and enforce tough laws to prevent drug-impaired
driving; and
--a new State highway safety data improvement program to encourage
States to improve the data they use to identify the priorities
for their highway safety programs.
NEXTEA increases authorized funding for NHTSA by about 25 percent,
to $392 million in fiscal year 1998. Within the Department's overall
fiscal year 1998 program levels is $333 million in obligations for
NHTSA, about 11 percent more than the amount provided in fiscal year
1997. This greater amount reflects the high priority both this
Administration and the American public give to highway safety. This
funding level will provide a balanced program in fiscal year 1998--to
address both vehicle and behavioral safety areas and to carry out
essential safety research, including how to reduce crash injuries. We
have a strong behavioral program that balances our regulatory mission
in motor vehicle safety.
Under our reauthorization proposal, highway safety programs would
become more flexible and streamlined in a number of areas. We have
retained the railroad/highway grade crossing program, but would make
funds under this program available to address noncompliance of grade
crossing devices. We have combined the FHWA and NHTSA portions of
Section 402 program so there is one allocation to the States; and we
have proposed a reduction in the number of separate motor carrier
program elements. We believe that our jointly administered safety
delivery program is working well.
We have also created incentives for State safety agencies to work
closer together in dealing with their safety problems. For example, if
a State has an integrated safety planning process in place that deals
with three major safety areas: roadways, drivers, and commercial
vehicles, then they will have the ability to spend funds from both the
STP and hazard elimination program for any of those three safety areas,
as well as be eligible to tap into a new Integrated Safety Fund; again
for use within any of the three safety areas.
We believe that with the increased funding and flexibilities which
are being proposed, the States will be in a much better position to
identify and resolve their safety problems. Our reauthorized program
also includes a major safety research focus within the Intelligent
Transportation Systems program for the development and testing of
intelligent vehicle systems, which will include collision avoidance and
in-vehicle information systems, and which promise dramatic safety
improvements.
Our motor carrier safety program also retains its important role in
our NEXTEA bill and our fiscal year 1998 budget request. For the last
three years, the number of fatal crashes involving trucks has been
higher than the number of such crashes in 1992. This follows the three-
year decline in fatal involvements prior to 1992. The FHWA's budget
request and NEXTEA proposal include $100 million annually for motor
carrier safety, a 27 percent increase over the fiscal year 1997 level.
The increased funding will be used to make improvements to driver
safety programs, information systems and data analysis, and evaluation
of all aspects of driver performance and 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. States will be given the opportunity
to strengthen enforcement activities by investing in areas with the
potential for crash reduction based on their own circumstances. 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. Within NHTSA, research
will be continued to improve heavy truck safety, primarily in the areas
of braking, rollover stability, tires and cab integrity.
innovation in financing
As we administer transportation programs that will carry the nation
into the 21st century within tight budgetary constraints, we must
continue to ask ourselves how we can do it better. That is, how can we
be more efficient, more innovative in the delivery of transportation
services?
Government cannot meet all of the Nation's infrastructure
investment needs alone. This Administration has strongly supported and
encouraged creative financing solutions and more private sector
involvement in infrastructure improvement and management of America's
transportation system.
Our reauthorization proposal and our fiscal year 1998 budget would
continue funding for State Infrastructure Banks (SIB's) at the fiscal
year 1997 level of $150 million but funding would come from the Highway
Trust Fund. This program had previously been funded from the General
Fund.
In addition, we would continue to focus on new methods of improving
the way available resources are used and maximizing their benefits. We
are promoting new financing techniques that have the added benefit of
leveraging still further resources, including those of the private
sector, and bringing them on line for much-needed infrastructure
investment. Our reauthorization proposal proposes a new $100 million a
year Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program to
leverage Federal dollars and encourage private sector investment in
transportation projects of national significance that may otherwise be
delayed or not constructed at all because of their size and uncertainty
over timing of revenues. With this new program, the Department will be
able to make grants that, along with supplemental contributions by
States and other entities, will comprise a Revenue Stabilization Fund
for projects to secure external debt financing, or to be drawn upon if
needed to pay debt service costs in the event project revenues are
insufficient.
To maximize the impact of every dollar spent on transit, the FTA is
working to introduce various innovative financing methods to the
transit community. Since 1994, FTA has reviewed and approved 22
innovative financing transactions involving over $2.2 billion in
Federally-supported assets. These included cross-border leases, sale/
leasebacks, bond issues for construction, and leveraging of soft match.
Altogether, these transactions netted over $143 million in additional
private investment for the transit systems.
Innovative financing is but one of many efforts to expand funding
availability for transit. Other initiatives include facilitating joint
developments to attract private partners for transit infrastructure
projects, and developing ways to better coordinate funding between
Federal programs. For example, some Community Development Block Grant
funds may be expended in support of transit projects in redevelopment
communities. Also, FTA is Co-Chair of the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council
on Human Services Transportation, which seeks to link transportation
delivery through multiple programs (Medicaid, elderly transportation,
public transit) at the local level. Our Access to Jobs and Training
initiative will also be an important tool in this regard.
focusing on people and communities
ISTEA focused on transportation's bottom line: making America a
better place to live. It emphasized consideration of how transportation
investment and policy choices affect safety, community quality of life,
and the environment.
One of the most pressing problems today in light of the new welfare
legislation is making the reforms work. Nationally, only six percent of
those on welfare own an automobile. A person can't get a job if a
person can't get to a job. In response to this problem, FTA has
proposed a new initiative called ``Access to Jobs and Training.''
Transit is the ``to'' in ``Welfare to Work.'' The President alluded to
this initiative in his State of the Union Address. Under this new
program, governors, units of local government and nonprofit agencies
will be able to compete for resources. The funds will be used to plan
and implement the best methods of solving local transportation problems
related to getting people off the welfare rolls and into jobs or
training needed to enter the work force. Although it is our intent that
funding will primarily support operating and capital costs for service
start-up, other eligible costs include collaborative planning to assess
employment transportation needs and develop service strategies,
integrating transportation and welfare planning, the coordination of
existing service providers, the development of long-term financing
strategies, promotion of employer-provided financing, administrative
costs associated with the program, and evaluation activities.
In addition, the proposed programmatic changes and expanding the
definition of capital projects for mass transportation will give
operators added flexibility within the transit programs to provide
needed support for transit service to meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
environment
Under NEXTEA, the basic program structure of our environmental
programs remains unchanged from ISTEA. Our proposal also continues
ISTEA's commitment to inclusive transportation planning which will
enhance State and local decisionmakers' ability to consider the
environmental impacts of their transportation investment decisions.
Although our communities have made significant progress in improving
air quality in recent years, we still face environmental challenges,
not just to improve our air but to enhance our communities.
The CMAQ program has proven to be ISTEA's most flexible program,
representing more than half of all flexible funds used for transit
purposes ($1.7 billion of $3.0 billion). Other non-highway projects
that assist areas in improving air quality are receiving an increasing
share of CMAQ funds as well. Through 1996, over $500 million in CMAQ
funds were used to establish or expand rideshare services, promote
demand management, and support bicycle and pedestrian travel. CMAQ
flexibility has allowed States to fund new innovative efforts such as
vehicle emission inspection and maintenance programs, alternative fuel
conversions and refueling facilities and the purchase of clean fueled
buses and electric vehicles.
The congestion relief benefits of the CMAQ program have also been
substantial. Houston's TransStar traffic management and control system
uses cutting edge technology to manage over 300 miles of freeway and
over 100 miles of high occupancy vehicle lanes. CMAQ has also funded
many other congestion mitigation projects, including HOV lanes in Los
Angeles, shared-ride services in Virginia and New Hampshire, and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Montana. The benefits of promoting
alternative travel options as envisioned by the Congress in ISTEA have
clearly been realized through the CMAQ program.
Under NEXTEA, we will build on this success. The Department
proposes an increase in the average CMAQ program funding authorization
under ISTEA from $1.0 billion annually to $1.3 billion under NEXTEA, an
increase of 30 percent. Funding eligibility would be expanded in
several ways. These include providing funds on the basis of a State's
maintenance, as well as nonattainment area, populations; clarifying
that nonattainment areas for particulate matter (PM) are explicitly
eligible and adjusting the funding formula accordingly; and including
programs to reduce extreme cold starts (where the majority of vehicle
emissions are generated) and to ``buy back'' or scrap higher-polluting
pre-1980 vehicles. Also, with EPA's proposal to revise the national
ambient air quality standards, the Department recognizes the need to
extend funding to any areas newly designated under the new standards.
We therefore propose that CMAQ funds be available to these areas after
a State has submitted its implementation plan addressing the new
standards to EPA.
NEXTEA also continues investment in bicycle paths, scenic byways,
and recreational trails that cost relatively little but which greatly
improve the quality of our lives. While bicycle and pedestrian projects
can be funded under all of the major ISTEA funding programs,
transportation enhancement (TE) funds have accounted for 75 percent of
funding for these projects.
Transportation enhancements are transportation-related activities
that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and
environmental aspects of our transportation system. Such projects have
become an important part of our commitment to the redevelopment and
sustainment of communities through a variety of transportation related
activities, from the renovation of historic rail depots, such as the
Lafayette Depot in Lafayette, Indiana to the rehabilitation of the
historic Stone Arch Bridge in Minneapolis and funding for the
Schuylkill River Park and Trail in Philadelphia. Because of the success
of this program, in NEXTEA, we propose to retain the current TE
provisions of ISTEA with continued funding from a 10 percent set-aside
from STP funds, resulting in a funding increase of over 30 percent. We
also included a provision that codifies the requirement that TE
activities have a direct link to transportation.
innovation in technology
As we began strategically planning for a post-ISTEA era, one of our
goals was to create a fundamental cultural change both within the
Department and the transportation community as a whole that would
provide a foundation for the next century. One of the cornerstones for
the future is a strong shift of resources and energy to technological
innovation--innovation that would provide for a greater return on our
investment. This change would also move us from a traditional oversight
role to one of proactive leadership, and make technology, in the
broadest sense, a leading element in the transportation system for the
21st century.
To make this happen, we are proposing significant increases in
programs which support the advancement of technological innovation. Our
reauthorization proposal and fiscal year 1998 budget request recognize
that a strong Federal transportation research and technology program is
not a trade-off with infrastructure funding, but is instead a powerful
tool to ensure that innovation is incorporated into the multi-billion
dollar infrastructure program.
Within the FHWA fiscal year 1998 budget request, our proposed
research and technology programs would be funded through a combination
of direct contract authority and the administrative takedown from the
Federal-aid highway program. Technology deployment and technology
transfer programs--those elements of the research and technology
program most closely aligned with program delivery and professional
capacity building--would be supported through their own contract
authority and not be a part of the administrative takedown. This would
include activities such as ITS deployment, a proposed National
Technology Deployment Initiatives program, the Local Technical
Assistance Program, the National Highway Institute, and University
Transportation Centers.
Funds to support pure applied research including basic ITS research
and technology, and highway research and development, would be funded
from General Operating Expenses as part of an administrative takedown
as has been the case in the past.
infrastructure and traffic safety
FHWA is answering our Nation's challenge to make roads better. One
of our active research and development programs is defining ``better''
to mean highways that are safer and operate more efficiently. The
annual cost of traffic crashes is $150 billion and growing, and
congestion costs U.S. businesses up to $40 billion per year. The need
to explore innovative solutions to our highway safety problems has led
to productive partnerships with NHTSA and the private sector.
New approaches to modeling and computer simulation of vehicle and
roadside hardware are being funded jointly with NHTSA and have
participation from the automotive industry. The use of these powerful
simulation tools will enable us to design future roadside hardware that
will perform at higher levels and reduce the severity of crashes.
Helping drivers to see pavement markings at night and in times of bad
weather is another promising area of technology.
Research in the Automated Highway System (AHS) will reach a
significant milestone this August when its technical feasibility will
be demonstrated in San Diego. The Department is also planning to link
more closely the near term benefits of NHTSA's work in Crash Avoidance
Systems with the research that has been carried out for the AHS. A
major program review of the AHS will help us focus our resources so
that we will be able to deliver sooner the benefits of integrating
several collision avoidance systems into smart vehicles so we can
reduce crashes while improving the efficiency of our existing highway
system. The resulting Intelligent Vehicle program will capitalize on
the synergisms that have been created through the public-private
partnerships of the National Automated Highway System Consortium and
the more than 100 public and private organizations who are
participating as associate members. NHTSA's continuing basic
development and integration work will help ensure that intelligent
systems are fully integrated within the vehicle, are useful to the
driver, and work in concert with the highway system to produce
significant safety improvements.
infrastructure materials and technologies
Building and upgrading the physical transportation infrastructure,
principally the pavements and bridges across America, requires a major
use of federal-aid transportation program dollars. The challenge we
face is to make these roads better. This challenge is being addressed
by applying technologies developed by the FHWA which can now make
better pavements, such as ones called Superpave that will last longer;
better bridge decks that last two to three times longer using epoxy
coated reinforcement bars and fly ash concrete; and better bridge
coatings that will last three to five times longer than previous
systems. For example, FHWA-led research in High Performance Concrete
(HPC) is helping to construct bridge structures that will accommodate
loads twice as large as before. In 1996, this was demonstrated on a
bridge in Houston, Texas. In 1997 we are working with more than 12
states to build more HPC bridges. Longer spans, fewer girders or beams,
and longer life cycles, will result in substantial first cost savings
at well over 1 million dollars for every 10-15 bridges built.
The FHWA will use requested resources to continue to develop,
transfer, and implement technology through alliances with our partners
and the international community. We will use research and technology
dollars to improve the quality of infrastructure projects and reduce
life-cycle costs in these times of limited funds.
mass transportation research
In the area of mass transportation research, a major accomplishment
was the roll-out, in October 1996, of the first prototype of the
Advanced Technology Transit Bus (ATTB). The ATTB incorporates aerospace
construction, accessible design and hybrid-electric propulsion into a
single vehicle design.
FTA has been increasingly entering into joint sponsorships with
other government agencies at the Federal, State and local levels, and
partnerships with consortia formed by transit industry suppliers,
transit agencies, national laboratories and universities. These
partnerships can increase competition and leverage funding. Examples of
programs involving such partnerships include the Advanced Public
Transportation Systems program (APTS) and the Fuel Cell Transit Bus.
Federal transit research has played a key role in maintaining the
Nation's global competitiveness in developments such as electronic
farecards and transit vehicles powered by low-polluting fuels, hybrid
electric buses, fuels cells and battery powered propulsion systems. The
United States must continue devoting resources to this area to ensure
that emerging technologies are developed for markets both domestic and
international.
innovation for today and tomorrow--its
In 1991, under ISTEA, the Department initiated the Intelligent
Transportation Systems program to research, operationally test and
promote the application of computer and communications technology to
our surface transportation system, in part, to address the growing
gridlock in our Nation. Over the past five years, we have learned
through our research efforts, that an intelligent transportation
infrastructure applied to our surface transportation can improve
efficiency, productivity, and safety. We are now ready to support
deployment of integrated, interoperable ITS infrastructure, while
continuing to conduct research in critical program areas. Consistent
with the conclusions of a recent GAO review of the ITS program, we will
also continue to provide deployment assistance directly to State and
local agencies through technical assistance, guidance, training, and
development of standards.
ITS research is already providing benefits related to improved
efficiency of the surface transportation system by helping system
operators monitor system performance, quickly identify and effectively
respond to problems that develop, and provide timely, accurate
information to travelers. Freeway management systems have increased
throughput by up to 22 percent, while also increasing travel speeds and
reducing accidents. Several locations utilizing ITS infrastructure
freeway management systems in such states as Washington, Illinois, New
York, Virginia, Minnesota, and California show reductions in total
crashes from 15 percent to 50 percent. In San Antonio, Texas, reports
show a 30 percent reduction in secondary crashes and a 35 percent
reduction in total crashes. Based on DOT research, electronic toll
collection systems can move 200-300 percent more vehicles per lane than
conventional systems.
Our fiscal year 1998 budget requests a funding level of $150
million for ITS research. This research will focus on a number of areas
with high potential benefits such as advanced traffic control
strategies, effective transit management techniques, and collision
avoidance technologies.
It is estimated that widespread deployment of three basic crash
avoidance technologies--rear-end crash warning systems, roadway
departure warning systems, and lane change/merge crash avoidance
systems--beginning in the next five years, could ultimately reduce
crashes by 17 percent and save $26 billion per year. The results of ITS
research can also be applied to allow more efficient and accurate
automated safety inspections of commercial vehicles, further enhancing
safety.
States are beginning to experience reductions in the cost of
regulating motor carrier safety through the use of automated
registration, fuel tax reporting, and weight screening processes. Such
deployments can also significantly improve productivity for commercial
carriers by reducing time and effort needed to prepare necessary
paperwork, and can reduce the time now wasted while manual weight
screening is done and manual safety inspections are performed.
ITS infrastructure consists of a series of elements, such as smart
traffic signals, advanced traffic management systems, and more. This
infrastructure allows the public to travel more efficiently and safely.
Over the last five years we have learned that this system works best
when the components are interoperable, or ``can talk to one another.''
In order to jump start State and local government involvement in
deploying ITS in an integrated manner, consistent with standards and
within the bounds of the national ITS architecture, we are proposing an
incentive program. Our reauthorization proposal would authorize this
ITS Deployment Incentives Initiative and provide $100 million per year
to fund this effort over the life of NEXTEA. This deployment incentive
program will focus on integrating existing intelligent transportation
infrastructure elements in metropolitan areas, including those elements
installed with other Federal-aid funds. It will also focus on
installing, as well as integrating, the various elements of an
intelligent transportation infrastructure for commercial vehicle
projects, and projects outside metropolitan areas.
We believe that the timing of deployment is critical. At the
moment, elements of the intelligent transportation infrastructure are
being deployed piece by piece, with no guarantee of interoperability.
State and local governments will then have to live with a stove-piped
infrastructure, one in which components do not form a system and are
not necessarily efficient. We believe this program gives state and
local governments an incentive to cooperate with agencies,
jurisdictions, and the private sector, to achieve fully integrated ITS
deployment in accordance with the national ITS architecture and
established ITS standards and protocols.
innovation--implementing common sense government
Secretary Slater has emphasized common sense government and
innovation as being among his top three priorities and it is reflected
in our reauthorization proposal. Let me provide some specific examples:
--In our planning provisions in NEXTEA, we propose to simplify the
planning factors, in order to focus States and MPO's on 7 broad
goals rather than the 16 to 23 that are included in the
statewide and metropolitan planning provisions of ISTEA.
--In the STP, we propose eliminating the quarterly, project-by-
project certification of each state's STP projects and instead
establishing an annual, program-wide approval for each state's
STP program.
--Also for all projects off the NHS, we would reduce DOT oversight,
replacing it with State oversight (except for environmental,
labor standards, and similar laws which must remain a Federal
responsibility).
--For transportation enhancements, we retain the simplification
provisions in the National Highway System Designation Act of
1995--and we commit emphatically to doing everything we can
administratively to carry out the letter and spirit of these
provisions. In response to the NHS Act, we have already put in
place provisions to allow for the use of donated funds,
materials, and services as a State's match; allowed for advance
payment options for cash-pressed localities; streamlined
environmental documentation through the use of categorical
exclusions; made changes in response to Uniform Relocation Act
concerns; and are completing procedures to trim review time
where historic preservation issues are involved.
--Across our entire program, we propose removing a variety of
restrictions on reimbursement of State and local government
costs, and eliminating requirements that State and local
governments ``turn in'' to the Federal government revenues that
they gain from Federal-aid highway projects, permitting States
and localities to retain those revenues as long as they use
them for title 23 purposes.
--For the Section 402 highway safety grant program, we will be
expanding to all states the performance based management
process begun as a pilot in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Grant
management will be simplified and states will have increased
flexibility.
We are also working diligently with our partner agencies to ensure
that we efficiently deliver ``seamless'' transportation service to our
customers. In February 1996, the FHWA, FTA, NHTSA and Federal Railroad
Administrators submitted a joint field restructuring proposal to former
Secretary Pena. While each agency retained its existing identity and
reporting relationships, renewed emphasis was placed on the spirit of
intermodalism embodied in ISTEA. Headquarters and field officials of
the four surface transportation modes and the Research and Special
Programs Administration have been actively engaged in creating a new
model--one which focuses on the complementary relationships of the
surface transportation modes, as opposed to viewing them as separate
and unrelated entities. The new model seeks to ensure seamless,
intermodal, customer-friendly delivery processes through shared
technical and administrative resources, while realizing reduced
operating costs.
For example, in the planning area, one of the Department's more
significant accomplishments includes the establishment of Intermodal
Planning/Transportation Groups in each region which include
representation from each of the surface transportation modes, RSPA, and
other DOT modal administrations. Many of the regional groups also
include representation from outside the Department, including the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. These
planning groups serve as vehicles for developing and overseeing agendas
and carrying out specific initiatives related to transportation
planning activities.
conclusion
In implementing ISTEA, our efforts have focused on redefining and
strengthening old partnerships and building relationships with new
partners. From a program standpoint, we have emphasized the sustained
economic growth that results from sound and substantial investment in
transportation infrastructure, particularly the National Highway
System, from programs that reduce costs to business and average
citizens by enhancing highway safety, and from investment in research
and technology innovation that will make our investments more efficient
and effective. We look forward to working with the Congress to further
the advances launched in ISTEA as our surface transportation programs
are reauthorized to move us into the next century.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
STATEMENT OF RICARDO MARTINEZ, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR
Senator Shelby. Mr. Linton, do you or Dr. Martinez have any
statement?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir; I have a short statement.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Dr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today,
and I appreciate your opening comments.
NHTSA is essentially a public health agency. Our goal is to
prevent or lessen the consequences of motor vehicle crash
injury. Our mission is to provide people with the tools they
need to take responsibility for addressing injury prevention
and improving safety.
We have made fairly good progress in this over the years.
In the last 10 years, we have seen seatbelt use grow
dramatically. We have seen drunk driving deaths drop
dramatically and since 1992 have saved over 42,000 lives.
But despite this progress, things are slowing down. Our
recent statistics show no room for complacency. The total
number of deaths has been going down. Now it is beginning to go
back up as the economy expands. Our fatality rate has been
going down but has flattened in recent years. Seatbelt use has
gone up and now that has flattened somewhat. Drunk driving has
gone down and actually, as pointed out by Senator Lautenberg,
went up last year for the first time in 10 years.
We have a lot of challenges. The second baby boom is
coming. We have aging of the population. We have speeds going
up on the highways. So, we have a lot of things to do to make
sure that we can continue to protect people.
In 1996, over 41,500 people died on the highways and 3
million more were injured. This is a huge burden to our health
care system. The economic costs to the Nation exceed $150
billion a year.
But we are poised to meet these challenges. We continue to
have strong support for our activities and have built new
partnerships in the States. And I want to point out that with
each one of the States represented here today on the
subcommittee, we have strong partnerships. We have also
expanded partnerships with health care, education, and business
sectors. We see a growing demand for our role and the ability
to work with more partners. Our programs have been very cost
effective.
We are requesting additional funding this year, 11 percent
more than we received in 1997. Our top priorities are airbag
safety and our budget contains an increase of $8 million for
airbag work. My top priority is to get this increase and use it
to improve airbag safety.
We have redone the section 402 formula based grant program
to provide authorization for four new programs. No. 1 is to
enhance the alcohol-impaired driving program, and we have
increased funding for that program by 60 percent. That has been
a very effective incentive program. We have a new occupant
protection incentive program to encourage States to increase
seatbelt use, which we think is one of the most important
things we can do. We have a new drug-impaired driving program
as a Presidential initiative to help States enact and enforce
tough laws to prevent drug-impaired driving.
We are also proposing a new State highway safety data
improvement incentive grant program to become effective in
1999. One of the things we want to do is have the States and
the communities take ownership of the problem by collecting
data and identifying problems. We have to get States and
communities able to find their problem, so we can come in and
partnership as a resource to help them attack the problem. I
want to point out that each one of the States represented here
today have safe community programs that we started and are
using this sort of approach.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the subcommittee
to improve highway safety and to answer questions in the time
ahead. Thank you.
Federal Transit Administration
STATEMENT OF GORDON J. LINTON, ADMINISTRATOR
Senator Shelby. Mr. Linton.
Mr. Linton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
pleased to be here today to join with my colleagues, Dr.
Martinez and Jane Garvey, in testifying on behalf of the
administration's reauthorization proposal.
We at FTA believe that ISTEA works and that the proposal we
are putting forward builds on the success that we have had over
the last several years. We recognize that transit is a critical
element in our overall transportation system and that the goal
of every Federal transit program is to optimize the benefits of
transit using commonsense Government and Government that costs
less and does more.
These benefits that we plan to optimize include: basic
mobility for millions of Americans; congestion relief that
eases gridlock and makes the country more productive; and
increased access to transit and other services which improve
the quality of life in making our neighborhoods more livable.
We have developed our NEXTEA proposal around four key
themes: flexibility, streamlining, predictability, and
innovation.
flexibility
First, flexibility. Flexibility in local decisionmaking has
been one of the hallmarks of ISTEA. NEXTEA includes provisions
to make the transit program even more flexible, thus further
enhancing local decisionmaking.
One, we are proposing to allow urbanized areas under
200,000 in population to use all their transit funds for any
eligible purpose. That is including operating assistance
without limit.
More importantly, we are proposing to make preventive
maintenance eligible as a capital expense, as it is now in the
highway program. This change would give local transit operators
the option to invest Federal funds to prolong the life of
existing assets or to invest in new vehicles, facilities, and
equipment. This change would also help to replace operating
assistance for those systems in areas over 200,000 in
population.
streamlining
Second, streamlining. NEXTEA would combine some transit
program categories, thus making the program simpler to
understand and manage at the Federal level as well as the State
and local level. Specifically, NEXTEA would combine the fixed
guideway modernization and bus discretionary program into the
urbanized area formula program. NEXTEA would also provide
simpler and more flexible programwide definitions of eligible
capital costs, matching ratios, and grant requirements. And
NEXTEA would also expand the flexibility between the urbanized,
nonurbanized, and specialized formula programs.
predictability
Third, predictability. Under NEXTEA, a larger proportion of
the transit program would go out by formula rather than on a
discretionary basis. This would not only reduce uncertainty, it
would also enhance the possibility of using innovative
financing techniques to leverage the Federal funds. We propose
to continue to fund new starts using the full funding grant
agreements approach, as we have over the last several years.
In addition, NEXTEA would fund the entire transit program
from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund at an
authorized level of $5.1 billion per year.
innovation and welfare reform
Four, innovation. We are proposing a series of initiatives
which will enhance the ability of State and local governments
to provide safe and efficient transit service by focusing on
new methods designed to meet new as well as old problems.
We are particularly proud of our effort in the area of
welfare reform. We in the Department of Transportation, as well
as across the Nation, have recognized that transit is, in fact,
the to in welfare-to-work. If we are going to make a successful
transition of those now on welfare into the work force, we must
make sure that transportation services they need are in place,
and that the local transit agencies are involved. We have
included in our NEXTEA proposal a new access to jobs and
training program of discretionary grants to expand
opportunities to help meet that new market.
NEXTEA also proposes to continue and strengthen our
research efforts. We are very proud of these programs which
recently saw the rollout of the advanced technology transit bus
[ATTB]. This bus would incorporate aerospace construction,
accessible design, and hybrid electric propulsion in a single
vehicle. The ATTB is a solid example of our defense-related
technologies converted to transit use.
In closing, NEXTEA seeks to build on the success of ISTEA
in meeting the President's goal of balancing the budget by
2002. NEXTEA provides substantial funding for transit, plus
gives State and local decisionmakers better tools to meet the
transportation challenges ahead.
I stand, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to
answer the questions that you may propose.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
gas tax revenues
Ms. Garvey, Mr. Linton, Dr. Martinez, I am going to ask
this question to all of you. Are you supportive of moving the
4.3 cents of gas tax revenues currently dedicated to general
revenues to the highway trust fund? Ms. Garvey.
Ms. Garvey. I hope we all give the same answer. [Laughter.]
Let me say that the administration has not been supportive
in the past of moving the 4.3 cents back into the highway trust
fund. The spending decisions that we make are all within the
context of trying to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
I know this is an issue that Congress is going to look at and
it is going to be, I know, hotly discussed through the next few
months.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Linton, is your answer the same?
Mr. Linton. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I believe you all had a breakfast meeting.
[Laughter.]
Do you oppose moving the transportation funds off budget?
Ms. Garvey.
Ms. Garvey. The answer is essentially the same, that the
administration has not in the past supported that because of
again the implications for the budget and for reducing the
deficit and balancing the budget.
Senator Shelby. The same for you, Mr. Linton?
Mr. Linton. Ditto, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. You all had two breakfast meetings.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for leading
with me. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. Thank you. You are doing well on behalf of
the administration thus far.
Senator Byrd. They had chicken for breakfast. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. Chicken for breakfast, Senator Byrd says.
Probably had a lot of it.
transit funding under nextea
Mr. Linton, the transit program is the only major component
of the administration's NEXTEA bill whose overall funding
authorization was cut as compared to ISTEA. Specifically
transit was cut $1 billion, from $31.5 billion to $30.5
billion, over the 6 years. Is the administration sending
Congress a signal that transit is less of a priority than it
was under ISTEA?
Mr. Linton. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, considering
this issue of fairness, I think transit will, in fact, get its
fair share under the NEXTEA proposal. Although it may appear
that transit is getting a reduction, actually under NEXTEA
transit will get a 4 percent higher amount than it received
under ISTEA. After you adjust for the--there is a bubble that
was placed in the authorization ceiling in the last year that
makes it appear as if transit gets less funding.
Senator Shelby. How large a bubble? Do you know or do you
want to furnish that for the record?
Mr. Linton. I can submit that to you for the record, but it
is clear that the bubble in the authorization ceiling makes it
appear as if there is less money for transit. But it is clear I
believe that the NEXTEA will provide a 4 percent higher
allocation for transit than was the case under ISTEA.
[The information follows:]
ISTEA authorized $5.1 billion each year for fiscal year
1993 through fiscal year 1996, and then jumps to $7.2 billion
in fiscal year 1997. This is a ``bubble'' of $2.1 billion in
fiscal year 1997. Without this ``bubble'', the total ISTEA
authorization would have been $29.4 billion. This when compared
to the $30.5 billion proposed in NEXTEA would mean a 4 percent
increase.
new starts
Senator Shelby. Mr. Linton, currently there are 13 transit
new starts with full funding grant agreements and 2 more,
Sacramento and San Francisco BART, awaiting FFGA's. If the two
additional projects receive their FFGA's, for a total of 15
projects, please describe for the committee how much new start
funding would be available for other projects under the $634
million level proposed in the President's budget. How much
would be available if new starts were to be funded at the high
authorization levels proposed in NEXTEA?
Mr. Linton. Our authorization level for the NEXTEA proposal
is $5.8 billion in budget authority. If we look at our
commitments to the existing full funding grant agreements, we
would have assumed $3.7 billion of that. That will provide
about $2 billion additional available under the authorization
of NEXTEA for additional projects.
Senator Shelby. But that would really cripple new starts in
that area, would it not, if all these were fully funded that
you have on the board.
Mr. Linton. Well, it will mean that it will be difficult to
meet all the demands in the country for new start projects, but
clearly we have followed the path that was established in ISTEA
in terms of authorizing the projects that we worked on, as well
as the earmarks by the Congress. That has led us to the $3.7
billion figure that we will be working with into NEXTEA.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Linton, I understand that yesterday,
April 9, you wrote to the chairman of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority and essentially informed him
that you plan to rewrite the full funding grant agreement
regarding the troubled Los Angeles rail system. Evidently you
found serious deficiencies and questionable assumptions in the
recovery plan proposed by Los Angeles. Your letter states--and
I quote:
We're incredulous that despite the engineering and
financial difficulties on the construction already underway,
the board is contemplating even more requests to the Congress
about various costly extensions to your rail system.
If you rewrite the FFGA, the grant, for Los Angeles, will
you free up more contingent commitment authority to be used for
other FFGA's, other projects?
Mr. Linton. I am amazed how quickly my letters get around.
Senator Shelby. They came over the transom. [Laughter.]
Mr. Linton. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that quite
frankly we have had some concerns over the years with the
project in Los Angeles. We did send a letter, as you indicated,
to the chairman of the board, and we did call for rewriting the
full funding grant agreement.
However, in our rewrite of the full funding grant
agreement, what we are attempting to do is segment MOS-3 into
three separate legs, primarily for administrative funding/
programmatic reasons so that we can better monitor how much the
Federal share is committed to each one of the legs and to also
make sure that we can monitor how the local share is being
provided by Los Angeles.
However, in that rewrite of the FFGA, we do not see where
there will be any additional contract authority available
because the three segments of the project will still be called
for in MOS-3.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
highway apportionment formulas
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we all are aware, the challenge to existing formulas is
developing, and one of the things that I want to point out is
that though we talk about a return of dollars to particular
States based on their contribution, I think if we extend that
proposition, we have got to look at what return we get overall
from the Federal Government based on contributions that we
make. I would quickly point out that unfortunately New Jersey
gets 68 cents on the dollar for all Federal programs, 68 cents
on the dollar that we send down to Washington. So, we will have
to look very carefully at this change in formula that is
contemplated.
Now, I would ask you, given our need to conserve fossil
fuels and the direct link between gas consumption and
pollution, why do you choose to continue the practice of
distribution of large sums of highway money to States based on
their consumption of gasoline?
Ms. Garvey. I think the formula is the most difficult issue
that we face. It is certainly among the most difficult issues.
In the area of the STP program, we have included population
as one of the factors. VMT is still a factor. You are right,
Senator. And that seemed to be from our perspective one of the
best ways to at least gain some equity.
Senator Lautenberg. Because I think realistically what it
does is it penalizes those who choose to invest in energy
efficient systems and trains, buses, et cetera, at their peril.
Ms. Garvey, in examination of the 25 busiest airports in
the United States, 4 of them are used regularly by my
constituents. That includes Newark, La Guardia, Kennedy, and
Philadelphia. These four airports contribute a very high
percentage of the ticket tax revenues that go to the airport
grants program.
Well, do you think we should guarantee each airport a grant
equal to 90 percent of the revenues that they contribute toward
grant programs no matter what their needs are? You are just
getting ready for a whole series of questions I know.
[Laughter.]
I want to give you some practice.
Ms. Garvey. I was not prepared for an airport question,
Senator. [Laughter.]
If you give me overnight, Could I get back to you tomorrow
on that one?
Senator Lautenberg. I am willing to do that because it is a
little bit out of left field.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, if you would yield. I
assure you we will get together, the two of us, and put
together a hearing if you would like that, on this subject.
Senator Lautenberg. Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. You see the South and North come together here very
quickly. [Laughter.]
And I like that. I have found that to be with Chairman
Shelby. We work together on other committees too.
Well, if we distribute Federal airports--funds, rather--
airports. Boy, that would be a good subject--based on needs
rather than contribution, again why recommend that we do the
reverse when it comes to distributing Federal highway funds? It
is fairly simple, is it not? We will talk about that at a later
date too I assume.
its technology
Up through fiscal year 1997, we have provided almost $1.3
billion in funding to explore and apply new intelligent
transportation systems [ITS]. These technologies are expected
to improve the performance of roads and transit systems and
increase capacity while protecting or improving safety.
Based on your most recent evaluation of this program, can
you point to any concrete benefits that the Nation's taxpayers
have received from this investment?
Ms. Garvey. I think there are several areas. Starting with
safety--and Dr. Martinez may want to talk about this more
specifically, but in the area of safety, I think ITS has been
enormously successful. One of the lessons that we are hearing
and one of the observations that we have made in looking at the
operational tests and also looking at the GAO report is that
integration is key. When you look at ITS, it is most successful
when it is integrated. That is really the emphasis that we are
focusing on as we look at NEXTEA. Where can we deploy ITS in an
integrated fashion to improve safety, to improve capacity. I
think managing the systems we have built, ITS is key for that.
There are some applications even in the rural areas. We
have a mayday system that works very well by identifying where
there are accidents using ITS. Tourist information is another
area that both rural and metropolitan areas find ITS very
successful.
So, integration is important, training of State DOT's----
Senator Lautenberg. By integration, you are saying safety,
efficiency bring forward the elements, or are you talking about
a system that has an automobile link to a central data system
that includes not only perhaps mapping, emergency calling? What
is the----
Ms. Garvey. The second part of your response, Senator, is
the emphasis that we see or the area that has the most
potential.
Dr. Martinez.
Dr. Martinez. We look at three phases of a crash: avoiding
the crash to begin with, what happens during the crash, which
is our vehicle standards, and after the crash which is why we
actually have such a strong role in EMS. But interestingly
enough, after the crash also has a role with ITS.
The biggest bang for the buck from our perspective with ITS
is the crash avoidance itself. Ninety percent of these crashes
are human factors related, not vehicle related. So, therefore,
we are seeing programs come on board the car to help with
hazard warning, control of the vehicle, fatigue issues, et
cetera. Some of them actually are already coming into the
marketplace. We see that as the fastest way to get ITS into the
marketplace as the infrastructure is being built. We see a huge
payoff with ITS in terms of benefits for the dollars spent.
its role in transit
Mr. Linton. If I may add, I think that ITS probably has the
most applications in the transit industry, particularly in the
areas of fleet management. We see a number of opportunities
there to reap savings to our systems as we look at issues such
as welfare to work and trying to create opportunities to move
people from job sites to training sites as well as to their
homes.
We see opportunities for things such as route deviation
where you can use the ITS technology to take buses off route,
to pick individuals up when they are not on a fixed-route
system.
We see its uses in paratransit where you need to have an
individual response to individuals.
We also see it in customer service. It enables customers to
know what time vehicles are arriving so that they can better
plan their time and their day.
ITS technology is valuable in emergency response by
identifying where vehicles are located in case of accidents. It
also provides information when there are security incidents on
buses and rail vehicles; the ITS control center is used to get
that information to police and other emergency personnel. So,
it is very effective in transit.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
zero tolerance law
Senator Byrd. Dr. Martinez, the zero tolerance provision,
which I included in the National Highway System Act, will
implement sanctions on States' Federal highway funds beginning
in October 1999 if they do not pass a law requiring that youths
under the age of 21 be prosecuted for drunk driving if they
have an amount of alcohol above .02 in their system. At the
time we passed that law, about 24 States had this policy in
place.
What can you report to this subcommittee regarding the
other 26 States and how many of them have implemented a zero
tolerance law since passage of the National Highway System Act?
Dr. Martinez. Well, that is a success, I think, of zero
tolerance. It was accompanied with a Presidential radio address
that talked about how simple it was, the concept that if you
cannot drink under 21, you should not be able to have any
alcohol in your system under age 21. I can tell you that as of
June 10, 1995, 13 States have enacted zero tolerance laws, 13
additional States added to the 24 that already had that law.
Senator Byrd. What do you see for those that have not
implemented this?
Dr. Martinez. Well, we have a very large coalition that is
working with the States to have them move forward. There are
other States who have discussions under way I believe right
now. I believe at least three States are looking to change
their law in order to come into compliance with that zero
tolerance provision. Our hope is that all States have zero
tolerance in the next few years and that it becomes the law of
the land.
Senator Byrd. Are you pushing hard for that?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Or are you just hoping?
Dr. Martinez. We are pushing hard. We think that seatbelt
use and drunk driving are two very important issues. We have a
big focus not on just drunk driving but drunk driving and
youth, and it is not just a matter of talking about zero
tolerance, but the ability to enforce those laws. We are
working also with the judicial system and with law enforcement
because one of the problems we find, for example, in the
younger groups under 21 that cannot get their alcohol as
readily in bars and restaurants, what they do is purchase it at
convenience stores or have someone else purchase it. They
consume it in other places such as parks or river fronts, et
cetera. So, you have to have special patrols for that.
I think that we are seeing, not only the continuation of
efforts from us with our coalitions built throughout the States
to pass the laws, but also to make sure those laws are seen by
the youth as being effective, and they will be complied with.
Senator Byrd. Do you anticipate that any of the States will
not be in compliance beginning in October 1999?
Dr. Martinez. I think that is a distinct possibility, but
it is something that we do not hope will happen. What we have
done is create a program called Partners in Progress to not
only expand the partnership but also to find ways to move this
into the States. Our hope is that most all the States--or all
the States would address this issue and respond to this issue
within the next 2 years.
Senator Byrd. What are your impressions as to how the law
has aided our efforts to minimize drunk driving by our Nation's
youth?
Dr. Martinez. We have found that zero tolerance laws are
effective in decreasing fatalities and decreasing crashes in
youth. It sends a very strong message. Youth are the highest
risk drivers. They also have crashes at lower BAC. So, it is a
triple win in our opinion. We find variation in the amount that
it decreases. It has decreased fatalities as much as 16 percent
in some places. We are excited about that.
We also know that just raising the age to 21 has dropped
deaths by 50 percent over the last 10 years in that age group.
We think this adds a significant margin of safety to that
young, inexperienced driver.
aggressive driving
Senator Byrd. Does your administration have any ideas or
proposals that would promote zero tolerance of aggressive
reckless driving?
Dr. Martinez. Yes, sir, we do. That is an area of
tremendous concern for us. Just in local surveys in this area,
we found that people are more concerned about aggressive
driving than they are about drunk driving, because they see it
so much more often. They can see that on the highway every day
going back and forth to work, and it is certainly an area of
anxiety.
What we are doing is working with 21 States right now in
order to increase awareness, and at the same time increase the
enforcement. One of the areas we find of greatest benefit is to
increase or have highly visible law enforcement for aggressive
driving.
One of the concerns we have is that over the last 10 years
we have seen an increase in traffic on the highways by 35
percent. Yet, we have seen no commensurate increases in law
enforcement.
We have programs ongoing in four or five States to look at
how they are going after aggressive driving and evaluating
those and then bringing those to other States in our role of
trying to find best practices. But it is an area of extreme
importance for us.
Senator Byrd. An aggressive driver may be drinking.
Dr. Martinez. Absolutely and not wearing their seatbelt and
following too closely and many other things. High risk
behaviors link.
The other thing I will point out is that we found that by
going after aggressive drivers, you also pick up a lot of other
criminal behavior. I think North Carolina with their Click It
or Ticket campaign has shown a tremendous correlation between
people with outstanding arrest warrants, lack of seatbelt use,
and other behavior just from going after those without
seatbelts.
Senator Byrd. Should we consider legislation to encourage
States to toughen their laws and their enforcement of those
laws to vigorously prosecute these reckless, aggressive
drivers?
Dr. Martinez. We certainly think that is an option. What we
have done right now is to begin the research aspect on it, on
what we need to do to attack the problem.
One of the other areas I am concerned about is whether or
not the sanctions are strong enough. Are we giving the tools to
the law enforcement and to the judicial system to be able to
prosecute and send the right message to people? So, I would
expect in the next year or so, as we finish up our studies and
our evaluations, we will be able to come forward with some very
solid recommendations.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
use of its technology in the trucking industry
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, I noticed that the NEXTEA, the administration's
reauthorization proposal, is committed to the promotion of
intelligent transportation systems. Amongst other tools, this
is the transponders on trucks to identify where they are, which
can let them move nationwide and bypass weigh stations. If they
have been weighed in Virginia, for example, they do not have to
be weighed in North Carolina.
You are encouraging the use of these systems. Is that
right?
Ms. Garvey. For safety reasons, yes. Yes.
Senator Faircloth. All right. The companies put in this
expensive system, the transportation, the trucking companies,
and now you are attempting to use them as an enforcement tool.
Is that not in a direct opposition to encouraging them for
safety, encouraging them to put them in? And then you turn
around and use it as an enforcement tool, and the trucking
company that does not have it simply does not come under the
enforcement rule. The one that does have does. If I ever saw a
reason not to put one in, you are giving it to them. Besides
that, you say you are encouraging them to do it.
Ms. Garvey. We are encouraging them through some incentive
programs for safety reasons, and Senator, I think the point you
raise in terms of enforcement, could it be abused, for
example--we are working very closely with the trucking industry
to establish some guidelines that works for them and works for
us as well. A number of the trucking companies that we have
worked with, obviously, are also very, very concerned with the
safety benefits of some of the technology that we are
suggesting.
Senator Faircloth. You are missing the point. You say that
you are encouraging the use of ITS for safety, but when you
subpoena records, it is a strong disincentive to all companies.
We can't lose focus of the need for safety and these subpoenas
don't help.
Ms. Garvey. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. And then you turn right around and
subpoena the records. So, the trucking companies are abandoning
the whole system. Now, which way are you headed?
Ms. Garvey. We are heading toward using it for safety and
working with the trucking companies to establish the
appropriate guidelines for enforcement.
Senator Faircloth. What are trucking companies telling you?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. George Regal, from our motor carriers
office is here, who has worked very closely with ATA and with a
number of the trucking companies, I would like for him to
respond more directly.
Mr. Reagle. Senator, I think in the past our enforcement
people have in some cases been overzealous.
I think you have two things happening. You have technology
emerging which we see can really help us with safety and the
companies do as well.
Senator Faircloth. Who are you with?
Mr. Reagle. I am with the Office of Motor Carriers under
Ms. Garvey.
Senator Faircloth. OK, you are with the----
Ms. Garvey. Federal Highway.
Mr. Reagle. And so I think you have two things emerging.
You have companies using technology for safety which is a plus.
You have our enforcement people who in some cases--and I know
the particular case you are talking about--where they in fact
may have been overzealous.
What we have tried to do--we have a draft proposal now that
I would like to outline for you. One, it would create
incentives for companies to use this technology by reducing the
paperwork burden. Now, that was not the case with the specific
case you are talking about.
Senator Faircloth. Well, which one am I talking about?
Mr. Reagle. Well, I think there was a case in North
Carolina where we subpoenaed records.
Senator Faircloth. How about the Ohio one?
Mr. Reagle. In the past, because we have not had a policy,
I believe in some cases we may have been overzealous.
Senator Faircloth. What does overzealous mean?
Mr. Reagle. Well, where we have gone in and instead of
working with the company to improve their safety management
oversight, we have just subpoenaed records and done those kinds
of things.
Senator Faircloth. Throwing your weight around.
Mr. Reagle. Well, that may be the right term. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Reagle. So, what we are trying to do is, one, create
incentives for companies to use technology by in turn reducing
their paperwork burden.
Two--and I think this will alleviate the problem--the
methodology we use to go audit a company in the first place has
been changed, and now almost exclusively, we would go into
companies whose accident rates were above the average. So, we
would be visiting companies who in our view would be bad
carriers.
And two things could occur. If one of those bad carriers,
in fact, did not have technology and our safety investigator
went in, one of the suggestions he would make would be you
might want to acquire technology to help you have a better
safety management oversight system. Where the rubber sort of
hits the road is that if we go into a company that has poor
results, but it also has technology, we would want to look at
that kind of technology and see how it is being used for safety
purposes.
I think this policy will really go a long way in
alleviating the problem you have talked about, sir.
Senator Faircloth. All right. My time is about out. I will
pass it on.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Kohl.
NEXTEA Formulas
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, as you may know, my State of Wisconsin
contributes more to the highway trust fund than we receive.
Under ISTEA, Wisconsin and other donor States, as you know,
have relied upon equity adjustments to address this problem.
For example, in January of this year, Wisconsin received a one-
time adjustment to compensate for its poor return in previous
years. While we certainly appreciate the help, 1 good year out
of 6 is still not acceptable. In reauthorization, we need to
put more fairness in ISTEA's core program formulas.
NEXTEA does not provide the kind of comprehensive formula
reform that I am advocating. So, how do your proposals ensure
that States like my own can count on equity promises being kept
every year throughout the life of the bill?
Ms. Garvey. As I mentioned earlier, Senator, I do believe
that the formula issue, as you have suggested, is among the
most difficult.
What we have done or tried to do certainly with our
formulas is to strike a balance among the many competing needs.
We have updated the formulas and the factors that are used. For
example, population factors are the most current and will be
updated annually as will the contributions to the highway trust
fund.
In a couple of categories, we left the formulas as is. The
bridge category and interstate maintenance are left as is. The
NHS we have changed somewhat and also STP.
But I think you are absolutely right. Trying to find the
right balance and strike the right balance is very challenging.
We are certainly willing. We have put our formulas forward,
tried to address all the needs across the Nation, but we are
certainly willing to work with Congress and individual Members
to try to formulate an even better formula if there is one.
Senator Kohl. OK.
Changes in Definition of Capital
Administrator Linton, NEXTEA proposes changes to the
primary transit programs including rolling discretionary
accounts into formula, phasing out operating assistance, and
expanding use of capital assistance, all at a time when welfare
reform will only increase demands for alternative modes of
transportation. Although you proposed a separate welfare-to-
work program, the transit changes appear to be a repackaging of
same much needed funds.
Do you feel that the current transit formulas reflect the
emerging needs of urbanized areas of all sizes throughout the
country, and how do your proposed structural changes help
transit systems cope with declining resources?
Mr. Linton. Thank you very much. Actually we think the
proposed changes that we are making in our formula funds and
our structuring of our program will enhance transportation
services available throughout the Nation, as well as urban
centers. We are going to provide more flexibility, specifically
by changing the definition of capital to include preventive
maintenance. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, that
definition will make our program similar to Federal Highway's.
I will give you an example. If you paint a bus today, that
is considered operating cost. If you paint a bridge, that is
considered capital. And there are a number of examples of that.
If you operate a traffic control center, that is considered
capital. If you operate a similar center on the transit side,
it is considered operating.
So, what we are trying to do is change the definition of
capital so that it is consistent with the highway programs, so
we will have similar definition across our surface
transportation programs.
We also think that by changing the definition and moving
our bus discretionary program into a formula fund, you allow
systems to have a steady stream of revenues on a consistent
basis. We would be able to formulize those funds and,
therefore, transit operators would have those funds readily
available for innovative financing and be able to leverage
funds from other financial sources.
We think this proposal provides more flexibility, more
predictability, and, therefore, will aid those local transit
systems in better meeting local needs.
Welfare Reform and Coordination Between Agencies
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
The administration has proposed an initiative to help
States and localities move people off welfare into jobs. We are
pleased that you have given special attention to transportation
as an integral aspect of welfare reform.
My State of Wisconsin has been a leader in welfare reform
initiatives, as you know, and next month the State department
of transportation and local transit authorities are scheduled
to conclude a comprehensive study on transportation components
of welfare reform. When released, I would like to share the
results with you.
For today I am encouraging you to make access to jobs
responsive to States and localities that have already begun
tackling this issue.
My question is, To what extent do you perceive performance
under other welfare reform initiatives playing a role in this
program?
Mr. Linton. Well, we are very excited about the Access to
Jobs and Training Program that you mentioned, but what we are
also doing is working with programs such as Bridges to Work
which is a program that is funded under HUD and which we were
involved in at the very beginning. Over the last several years,
we have been doing new initiatives which we call livable
communities in which we have been doing things like
incorporating training facilities, day care centers, et cetera,
within the same locations of transit stations.
What we are trying to do across the Government is, working
with our other partners, like the Department of Labor and the
Department of Health and Human Services, to make sure that we
have coordinated services to meet these emerging needs that
will develop as a result of people moving from welfare to work.
So, we are trying to work across Departments and also to
take that across-Department approach to State governments. We
are working with the National Governors Association through a
grant to allow them to begin to work with their State
departments of labor, transportation, and welfare so that they
can also move the resources that we provide on the Federal
level to more effectively target them on the State level as
well.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Utah I-15 Project
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take
the opportunity to thank Ms. Garvey and Mr. Linton for the
personal interest that they have taken in Utah. They have been
to the State of Utah. They have taken a look at some of our
problems there. Like everyone, we think our problems are
unique. So, we are grateful that they are willing to take a
look at it.
I want to touch on two Utah issues and get some comments
and reactions from them as a result of their visit there.
The first one is the Olympics. I think we have finally
recognized in this Nation that with the Olympics having
achieved the level of international interest and complexity
that they have, that a city can no longer host the Olympics. A
State can no longer host the Olympics. A nation must be
involved in hosting the Olympics, and as we learned in Atlanta,
many of our problems relating to hosting the Olympics are
transportation problems.
So, these Administrators, Mr. Chairman, have been to Utah
to deal with preliminary planning on the Olympics and we are
very grateful for their willingness to do that.
And we would appreciate any comment they might have about
the activity going forward in the House that would indicate
that any American city--this is not Utah-specific--that ends up
as a host city for the Olympics would have flexibility under
ISTEA legislation to have transportation support coming from
the Federal Government.
And then to get the second question down so that you can be
thinking about it while answering the first, I understand that
the rebuilding of Interstate 15 along the western front of the
Wasatch Mountains, Salt Lake County in Utah, Salt Lake County,
Utah County, Davis County, and so on, is the largest design-
build project ever undertaken and that DOT is watching this
very closely to see how it works out on the assumption that if
we get what we think we are going to get, you will learn things
that will allow you to save substantial sums when faced with
similar design-build opportunities in other places.
Could you comment on both of those rather parochial
interests of mine?
Utah Design-Build
Mr. Linton. Sure, Senator. Let me start and I will leave
the design-build on I-15 to Jane Garvey, but I can talk a
little bit about design-build in transit.
Let me just say, Senator, I will be leaving here about 6
o'clock to once again go to Utah. I will be traveling there
this evening. We will have a ground breaking tomorrow for your
light rail system, as well as announcement of additional
resources for bus fleet expansion from the current 1997 grant.
Senator Bennett. If I could just interrupt you, you do
remind me I have the same interest the chairman has with
respect to full funding grant agreements and what would happen
to diluting existing ones. So, when you are out there looking
at our program and cutting the ribbon for it, keep that in
mind.
Olympics
Mr. Linton. We have no desire or plan to dilute your full
funding grant agreements. Let me be clear about that right now.
But let me just say that I will also be meeting with
members of the Olympic committee as well as Mayor Cordini
tomorrow and looking at continued efforts on our part to work
with them as they pursue the implementation of the 2002 Olympic
games.
We have learned a lot from Atlanta. We have learned that
Olympics is a major national event. It requires additional
resources, but it also provides opportunities for the Nation in
terms of putting our Nation and our Nation's cities on front
stage, allowing us to benefit from that event by increasing
business opportunities and increasing tourism. So, as a result
of that, we think it is more than just a local event. It is a
national event.
However, that means there has to be a partnership, a
partnership between private providers who the Olympic
committees generally are, and State and local government, as
well as Federal Government. We think the reauthorization
proposal does give some attention to the significance and the
uniqueness of the Olympics. And many of our cities around the
country are looking forward to competitively competing for
Olympic games in the years to come and they are looking for
some flexibility within the reauthorization that will allow us
to work with them as better partners.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey. Very quickly. I-15 is the largest design-build,
and we are watching it very closely. We are greatly encouraged
by the creativity that I think Utah's DOT has brought to this
issue, and we will learn a lot both in terms of new ways of
contracting, innovative contracting, financing--we are working
very closely with Utah's DOT to think of new ways to finance
this project--and also streamlining some of the Federal
processes. And I was reminded of this when the chairman raised
some of the comments earlier, that we really need to look at
ways to streamline and to be more efficient.
In a project that is very large and complex, we were able
to get the environmental work done, very quickly and it is
because people came around the table, all the Federal agencies,
the State agencies, and really hammered out some agreements and
some understandings very early on in the process. So, I think
those are the lessons that we can apply to other projects as
well.
While design-build may not be the answer for every project,
it certainly is useful for large and interesting complex
projects like this one.
Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
Ferryboat Funding
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you too, Ms. Garvey, for the work you have done within my
home State of Washington. You have really been a leader in
innovative financing and helping us finding some solutions to
our infrastructure problems, and we appreciate it.
One concern that has been voiced by many of my constituents
is the loss of the ferry fund. This is a very small source of
funding but it is invaluable to my State and to many of the
coastal States as well. We kind of see the water in my home
State as an extension of the highway system, and, in fact,
there are 24 million passengers who travel by ferry every year
in my home State, many of them from their home to their job.
Can you share with us what the administration's reason is
for eliminating this fund and possible alternatives for these
commuters?
Ms. Garvey. That was a difficult decision and discussion
within the administration, and it was really an effort to scale
back on some of the number of discretionary programs. But I
know you are absolutely right. Your State has done a wonderful
job in addressing water transportation as a key component.
The eligibility of STP has been expanded and a number of
those projects can be funded through the STP program which will
be significantly larger under NEXTEA. And again, that increased
flexibility will give the State an option to choose water
transportation just as they might choose highway or other modes
of transportation as well under the STP program.
Puget Sound Regional Transit Plan
Senator Murray. OK, I appreciate that. I would like to
continue to work with you.
I believe you are aware of the Puget Sound regional transit
plan that was passed by voters in my State overwhelmingly
provides a 50-50 funding match and it mixes commuter rail, HOV
lanes, and express bus service. I know you are working through
a backlog of transit projects. Can you give me an idea of what
kind of chance this stands under the NEXTEA plan?
Mr. Linton. Well, as we stated earlier, we do have an
authorization level under NEXTEA of about $5.8 billion and
about $3.7 billion of that will be absorbed by existing
programs. I have had a chance to meet with many of the
supporters from your area. My regional office and I are going
to be working very closely with them in looking at the major
opportunities that will come about as a result of the passing
of your local tax initiative.
I have been impressed with the corporate and business
involvement in the projects, and we are looking to work with
them to see how we can move this through as we go through each
stage of the project. But I am very impressed with the broad
based support, including support from the corporate sector, and
with the local initiative itself. I think it is a marvelous
model for how we can develop projects in the country.
Senator Murray. And very supported. So, I look forward to
working with you on that.
Secretary Slater is going to be in Seattle this Monday. He
is looking at the fast rail corridor that is going to go
through the heart of Washington State. This is an exciting
project, much needed for our economy, but it also brings some
problems with it. I wanted to ask you for your thoughts on some
innovative financing that will help us supplement grade
separation projects and other challenges we face as this goes
into place.
Ms. Garvey. We certainly would be very happy to work with
you. We have a great innovative financing team at Federal
Highway. It may be possible to use some of the CMAQ funds to
seed or to act as a loan. We can certainly look at a number of
proposals with you. State infrastructure banks is another
possibility. Washington has some good and interesting ideas in
that area as well.
Senator Murray. OK, great. I look forward to working with
you.
CMAQ Flexibility
One final question. I think we all recognize that safety is
a priority for any piece of legislation, and I have been
working with seven different communities around the Olympic
Peninsula in my home State. We are trying to expand
recreational opportunities in an area that is also very reliant
on our roads for commerce.
Essentially what is happening is our logging trucks and our
cyclists have been debating who is going to get the roads in
that region, and we have had a number of tragedies that have
resulted because of that.
We have previously used scenic byway funding to expand some
of our road shoulders, but that funding is very limited and we
have 360 miles of very dangerous highway around the Olympic
Peninsula right now.
Can you comment on the flexibility of CMAQ funding,
enhancements, or other resources that we might look to in the
future for this project?
Ms. Garvey. Both the CMAQ and the transportation
enhancement are increased under the President's proposal. That
may be good news for projects like that.
Senator Murray. And there will be flexibility within that
too?
Ms. Garvey. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Murray. OK. I appreciate it.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd, do you have any second round
questions?
Appalachian Corridors
Senator Byrd. I have proposed that States with Appalachian
corridors that remain to be completed be allowed to draw from
the highway trust fund on the basis of contract authority so
that those States are not dependent upon appropriations from
the general fund which appear as demonstration projects.
It seems to me that if we are going to emphasize safety, we
should keep in mind that in these 13 States of Appalachia, 24
percent of the corridors remain to be completed. In West
Virginia, 26 percent has not yet been constructed. So, West
Virginia is behind the region.
I have noted that some of these roads in my State are among
the most dangerous and produce more accidents and fatalities
than any other highways. It seems to me that if we really want
to improve the overall safety of drivers, we ought to work with
a will in completing the construction of these corridors.
Do you have any comment?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I think your point about the need to
address safety through the infrastructure investments along the
corridor that you are speaking about is absolutely right on
target. I think it is also true for a number of other rural
roads as well and it is why the administration has really felt
a commitment to the Appalachian corridor and obviously previous
administrations as well. I agree wholeheartedly.
Appalachian Development Highway System
Senator Byrd. Some weeks ago the chairman of a committee--
we have rules which preclude our naming names, although some
Members disregard the rules, but the chairman of a certain
committee held a press conference where he identified dozens of
Federal programs as corporate welfare, and one of those
programs was the Appalachian Development Highway System.
How can the Appalachian Development Highway System be
regarded as corporate welfare in your estimation?
Ms. Garvey. I would not describe it that way.
Senator Byrd. Pardon me?
Ms. Garvey. I would not describe it that way, Senator. I
think the points that you made earlier about the need to
improve the highway both for safety reasons as well as even
economic development reasons are positions that the
administration would share.
Senator Byrd. You see, in West Virginia we cannot resort--I
wish we could--to mass transit. We cannot have these high-speed
rail systems, and we cannot depend upon aviation and airport
grants. We have to depend upon highways. That is all we have.
So, I think it is very important from the standpoint of safety
if for no other reason that we finish construction of the
Appalachian Highway.
Corridor L, for example, runs from Beckley in Raleigh
County, southern West Virginia, and joins up with I-79 around
Sutton. Tourists and travelers from Canada and from the
Northern States and from the Southern States use this corridor,
and it has been two-lane, beautifully scenic. Two lanes. Very
dangerous. Very dangerous. There have been a lot of fatalities
on it.
First of all, I have assisted in completion of the
construction of that highway, at least in appropriating all of
the Federal funds under a matching system that would be
required to finish it. Now, that would improve the safety of
driving on the highways for out-of-State drivers, as well as
for in-State drivers.
It seems to me if we would press harder to complete these
systems--it is not easy to appropriate moneys for construction
of highway corridors. It has been becoming more difficult all
the time. So, that is why I suggested to the President that we
initiate a program whereby these corridor States can, through
contract authority, get money from the trust fund which would
not compete with their other moneys that they ordinarily get
through other formulas and so on so that those highways can be
completed.
The people in Appalachia were promised these corridors over
30 years ago. I was around as I was around when we initiated
the Interstate System.
The Senator from Alaska was here a little earlier talking
about the needs in Alaska. I am the only remaining U.S. Senator
who voted to admit Alaska into the Union. So, I have seen the
need for this improvement of our way of funding the
construction of corridors, leaving aside the economic impact
that such completion would have, just talking about safety
only.
I hope that we will redouble our efforts to help to see the
completion of these corridors in these 13 States.
Now, if we want to really mean what we say, we ought to
forget all this business about a tax cut. Forget it. It is no
time to cut taxes. Of course, it is something I like to vote
for. I have been voting for over 50 years, and that is about
the easiest vote I have ever cast is a vote to cut taxes. But
it is folly for the administration or for the other party to
advocate a cut in taxes. I know it has a great political appeal
out there, but we cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth
and be believed and be seen as having any integrity. This is no
time to cut taxes.
That money ought to be put on infrastructure, building up
our country's infrastructure, so that we can compete in world
markets, so that our children, our future citizens, will have
an infrastructure that will enable them to improve their way of
living and to increase the opportunities for jobs.
So, I know this is not in your grade level, but I hope the
President and others will hear what at least one Senator
thinks. It is absolutely folly to talk about cutting taxes at
this period. Our unemployment is the lowest it has been in a
long time. If we are not going to use the money that would
otherwise go to pay for a tax cut, if we are not going to use
that to lower our deficits, at least put it into
infrastructure. I can think of no better way to spend it.
So, I am glad to hear you say that you think that
completing the construction of these highways, making them four
lanes and divided would be one of the foremost ways that we
could advocate when it comes to improving safety.
My time is up.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Byrd, I was just wondering, did Strom vote not to
let Alaska in?
Senator Byrd. Well, you know, I do not like to talk about
somebody else's voting record. [Laughter.]
I can only tell you that this Senator is the only Senator
who is still around who voted to admit Alaska and Hawaii into
the Union. So, you will have to figure for yourself the answer
to your question. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I think the Senator from North Carolina
figured it out the first time. [Laughter.]
Interstate Reimbursement Costs
Senator Faircloth. Ms. Garvey, ISTEA sent $3.6 billion to
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and certain other States. It
was supposedly to pay them for having built the New Jersey
Turnpike, the New York Thruway, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and
some other preinterstate roads. I thought it was the most
ridiculous and ludicrous thing I had ever heard of in my life.
Now I see you are sending them $6 billion more in NEXTEA.
Will you tell me why?
Ms. Garvey. I am going to turn to Jack Basso who is here
with us who has developed some of the formulas and worked with
Bud Wright.
Senator Faircloth. I am sure he is looking forward to it.
Ms. Garvey. I bet he is. Do you think so? [Laughter.]
Sometimes it helps to be in charge and you can ask those
guys to help you out a little bit.
Senator Shelby. If the Senator from North Carolina would
yield. When you are answering that, could you tell us what
years this was done too?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. What years what was done?
Mr. Basso. I think the chairman is asking what year this
money was incorporated and maybe I can tell a little bit about
the system.
Senator Faircloth, I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs for the Department. Let me just make a
couple of observations on that.
There has been obviously some significant debate about
reimbursing for components of the system that really were built
pre-1955. The administration's rationale has been that those
were parts of the system that are the oldest parts of the
system, are parts that did not have to be built and paid for at
that time, and therefore----
Senator Faircloth. Let me ask you this.
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Was the administration's rationale that
they are going to turn all the tolls collected since 1940 over
to the Federal Government?
Mr. Basso. No, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Well, if they are going to keep the
money--the Pennsylvania Turnpike was with bonds, was it not?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, it was.
Senator Faircloth. Those bonds have long since been paid
off, have they not?
Mr. Basso. I really do not know, but I assume that is
correct.
Senator Faircloth. When was it built?
Mr. Basso. It was built in the late 1940's and early
1950's.
Senator Faircloth. All right. So, you are talking about 50-
plus years.
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. So, the bonds were not issued in excess
of 50 years.
Mr. Basso. I understand.
Senator Faircloth. So, they have been paid off or are in
default.
Mr. Basso. Sure.
So, again----
Senator Faircloth. So, here is a highway that the traveling
public has paid for totally, completely with a return to the
investors on the bonds, and we are going to send them billions
of dollars.
Mr. Basso. Yes, Senator; and let me just again comment that
our view was that those particular funds represented a decision
the Congress made in 1991 to address an older segment of the
system to provide basically costs, as they existed from a 1980
study, if I remember correctly. And the administration has
decided, in submitting its bill, to propose to the Congress to
continue that reimbursement.
Senator Faircloth. How long do you think we might continue
that reimbursement? How long do you think we ought to continue
to pay for a highway that has been built and paid for by the
traveling public for 20 years and we are going to continue to
pay them for it?
Mr. Basso. I think beyond the life of NEXTEA, you know, it
is very hard for us to anticipate what that might be. But
clearly in this case, we have come forward with a proposal that
will be debated in the Congress and decided. Senator, your
position is respectfully understood by all of us who have dealt
with this for a long period of time, sir.
Senator Faircloth. What do they do? Plan to cancel the
tolls as soon as they get this money?
Mr. Basso. Well, sir, I do not know about that. I could not
answer that.
Senator Faircloth. What do you think?
Mr. Basso. My opinion would be, based on----
Senator Faircloth. Do you think they are going to take down
the toll booths on the New Jersey Turnpike?
Mr. Basso. No, sir; I would be disingenuous to you if I
told you I thought they were, and I do not think they would.
Senator Faircloth. Well, you could dance this around most
any way you want to, but what it amounts to is $6 billion to
these States, just extra money, totally pork barrel money.
How much did it cost to build the Pennsylvania Turnpike?
Mr. Basso. I could get that figure for you for the record,
Senator. I do not know right off of the top of my head what the
cost was.
Senator Faircloth. Well, assuming that the split here would
be about $2 billion, you are paying them about seven times what
it cost to build it originally in reimbursement.
Mr. Basso. As I said, the numbers that have been put forth
for the reimbursement are based, as I recall, on a study that
was done and completed in 1980 and it looked back at the
original cost of the system. But I would be happy to get any of
that information for you.
Senator Faircloth. You mean the $6 billion that we are
giving them now was based on a study done in 1980?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir; it was. In fact, the 1991 legislation,
the factors that were derived for each of the States was based
on that same legislation except that one-half of 1 percent was
guaranteed to each of the States without regard to whether they
participated in this program or not.
Interstate Tolls
Senator Faircloth. Well, let me ask you one more thing. The
proposal to put tolls on the Interstate System--tell me about
that.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
The proposal that the administration has put forward is an
option for States. It is not something that is required. It is
something that States can choose to use or not to use, whatever
the case would be. It would involve public participation
obviously, and it is just one more option for States to have,
not a requirement at all.
Senator Faircloth. It is a tax increase.
Ms. Garvey. It is an option, Senator, that would be a tax
increase.
Senator Faircloth. Who would set the rate or the amount of
the toll?
Ms. Garvey. That would be decided at the State level
through the planning process that is in place.
Senator Faircloth. Well, what if we put a $100 per car toll
on I-95 through North Carolina? What would be the response to
the Federal Highway Administration?
Ms. Garvey. Well, to be honest, I cannot imagine the State
DOT, with public participation, would be involved in something
like that.
Senator Faircloth. We might just put it on interstate cars
going from Virginia to South Carolina.
Ms. Garvey. Again, it is an option for States to use.
Senator Faircloth. So, what you are saying is the States
could put any sort of exorbitant toll on a highway they might
see fit. Of course, I was making a ludicrous example, but for
the Federal Highway Administration to say that States can put a
toll on a highway that has been paid for by Federal money and
the--this is a form of raising revenue.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, the way the language is worded, it
would have to be tied to the rehabilitation of that facility.
So, in other words, if you wanted to rehabilitate a section
between point A and point B, a State could elect to do that. My
experience in the last few years with States is that they
approach those things very cautiously. It is an option that
they have. ISTEA gave the option for bridges and tunnels, and
States have, for the most part, chosen not to use that.
Senator Faircloth. Well, we have never had a toll road in
North Carolina.
Senator Shelby. If the Senator from North Carolina would
yield for an observation. If we could follow some of the
suggestions of the Senator from West Virginia and properly fund
the Appalachian corridor the way the East got funded, there
would probably be more equity there. The sum of $6 billion
would do a lot I think for the Appalachian area, including most
of the Southeast.
I would hope that we would have the administration's
support in that regard. I know that Senator Byrd has toiled for
years and years as he has pointed out, and this would affect
not only West Virginia but North Carolina, Alabama, you name
it. And $6 billion would do a lot for our area too, and I am
sure that with the wisdom of Senator Byrd, we are going to
pursue that till we get it.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend to
pursue opposing $6 billion to subsidize 50-year-old highways
that have been paid for many times.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am cognizant of
the fact that we have a vote coming, so I will not pursue all
my time. But I would like to make a couple of philosophical
statements.
I have not been around as long as Senator Byrd has, but I
do go back a little ways. I served in the Nixon administration
in the Department of Transportation, so I have some
institutional knowledge of the Interstate Highway System and
the philosophy behind it.
As we get into this debate about formulas, I would just
share with you this concept that came from another official in
the Nixon administration when I was there, a young adviser to
the President by the name of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said
that nothing that had been done in this country had had the
impact on the way we live approaching the impact of the
Interstate Highway System.
I remember the speech which he gave to us where he said
Eisenhower has been categorized as a passive President, whereas
Kennedy and Johnson were active Presidents. But historically
nothing down in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations
approached the impact of the Eisenhower decision to proceed
with the Interstate Highway System, that this passive President
had had more effect on Americans and the way they lived.
And the philosophy behind the Interstate Highway System was
that it was national. It was truly an interstate system, and
just because, to pick a State out of the air, Utah happens to
have more miles than people in it and, therefore, more highway
building than, say, a small State like, to pick another one out
of the air, New Jersey, the impact on the Nation as a whole for
the system to be able to provide free transportation of goods
throughout the country affects everybody. It transformed the
railroads, not necessarily for the good from the standpoint of
railroad investors, but the creation of an interstate network
transformed everything for everybody, including fruit shipped
from California to New Jersey, and in order to get there, they
have to go through Utah.
If we start carving up the money on the basis of artificial
boundaries that says, OK, this State is going to get so much
money and if their highways break down and their infrastructure
does not work, the folks on the east coast are going to feel
that even though they say it is unfair for us to have paid for
it.
So, I would hope you would keep that view in mind as you go
through this.
The only other comment--and I probably should not say it,
but I will--I am reading NEXTEA, and I will just highlight a
few comments and then make an editorial comment.
It starts out, ``President Clinton will announce.'' Then on
page 4, ``When President Clinton promised to rebuild America 5
years ago,'' and then it goes on. Page 7, ``President Clinton
recognized this in his January.'' Then page 8, ``Under
President Clinton, America is once again.'' Under Page 9,
``President Clinton proposes to build, to support his
comprehensive welfare program.'' Under page 10, ``President
Clinton has taken advantage of ISTEA's landmark to reduce,'' so
on and so forth.
My only comment is, the election is over. This is an
official document. Let us not use it for political campaigning
purposes.
With that, I will go save the Republic, along with my
chairman.
Senator Shelby. I thank the Senator from Utah.
Submitted Questions
I have a number of written questions for the record and the
record will also stay open for other members of the committee
that might have questions of the first panel.
All of you, I appreciate you coming. I wish you had not
eaten breakfast together twice earlier. [Laughter.]
But you did and I understand that. I am sure that all of
you will abide by the decision of the Congress in its wisdom,
whatever we do up here, regarding legislation that would affect
you and the American people.
I am going to go vote and we are going to have to recess,
and then we will come back to the second panel. I thank all of
you on the first panel.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. We will stand in recess for about 10
minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
enhancing safety with roadway improvements
Question. Under ISTEA, rail-highway crossings and other roadway
hazard elimination projects were funded from a 10 percent safety
apportionment from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) account.
Because of the set-aside nature of the program, as the highway
obligation ceiling went up, the State apportionments increased from
$353 million in fiscal year 1992 to $600 million in fiscal year 1997.
The comparable NEXTEA ``flexible highway infrastructure safety''
program is a fixed-rate program, totaling $3.25 billion over the six-
year authorization.
Does structuring rail-highway crossing and hazard elimination
funding in a fixed-rate program preclude growth in this area if more
highway funds are made available?
Answer. The Infrastructure Highway Safety Program (IHSP) provides
funds to: 1) eliminate hazards on public roadways other than the
Interstate, and 2) improve the safety of rail/highway grade crossings.
The Rail/Highway Grade Crossing program receives a straight-line $165
million per year while the Hazard Elimination program receives the
balance of IHSP funding, increasing from $335 million in fiscal year
1998 to $410 million in fiscal year 2003. These two programs no longer
receive their funding through a percentage takedown from the STP. Under
ISTEA, if increased funding were made available to STP, both Rail/
Highway Grade Crossing and Hazard Elimination funding would increase.
Under NEXTEA, unless more highway funds are made available specifically
to the IHSP, funding for Rail/Highway Grade Crossing and Hazard
Elimination programs would remain at NEXTEA authorized levels. The
NEXTEA proposal allows states to shift hazard elimination funds to non-
infrastructure safety programs, such as NHTSA's section 402 public
education program or FHWA's motor carrier safety program.
Question. Do you believe that highway safety education and
enforcement programs are more effective at preventing accidents and
saving lives than correcting road hazards, separating grade crossings,
and installing warning devices?
Answer. We believe both are necessary and effective. Under NEXTEA,
States would be granted greater flexibility to use funding where they
believe they can leverage the greatest results in grade crossing
safety. Certainly, the safest crossing is one that does not exist.
However, crossing safety is in most cases a local safety challenge that
warrants diverse local solutions. That is why the Department initiated
the multi-faceted Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan in 1994, and
unveiled with Operation Lifesaver, Inc., the Always Expect a Train
public awareness campaign in 1995. Since the Department instituted
nationwide and multi-faceted safety initiatives, there has been a four-
year downward trend in fatalities.
Question. I have heard that the administration is considering a new
bill to amend or ``fine tune'' the safety section of NEXTEA. Can you
confirm this? What programs are being reworked?
Answer. On April 17, Secretary Slater transmitted to Congress the
``Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997.'' This constitutes Part II
of NEXTEA. Title IX--Traffic Safety, which contains certain amendments
designed to enhance the safety provisions of NEXTEA. This title further
encourages States to increase safety belt use by adopting primary
enforcement of safety belt use laws; increases the number of new motor
vehicles that may be exempted from compliance with Federal motor
vehicle safety standards on the basis that they possess innovative
safety features; closes a loophole in the vehicle safety statute by
prohibiting retailers of motor vehicle equipment from selling defective
items of equipment; clarifies the Secretary's authority to engage in
harmonization activities that promote the worldwide improvement of
motor vehicles; encourage new efforts to achieve uniformity in State
laws regulating the titling and control of severely damaged passenger
motor vehicles; and includes several regulatory reform proposals. The
key provisions are:
Primary Safety Belt Use Laws: The Administration's NEXTEA proposal
includes incentive funds to help States increase belt use. Primary
enforcement is the most important life-saving aspect of belt use laws,
adding significantly to the rate of belt use. This bill would establish
a date certain by which all States would be required to have enacted
primary safety belt use laws. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, a State
that has failed to enact such a law would have a percentage of its
highway construction funds transferred to its section 402 highway
safety program. However, the transfer of funds would not apply to a
State in a fiscal year beginning after fiscal year 2003 if the State
has a statewide belt use rate of 85 percent or higher in both front
outboard seating positions in all passenger motor vehicles.
Motor Vehicle Equipment Safety Defects: Closes a loophole by
prohibiting all retailers, not just auto dealers, from selling
defective items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child safety seats,
that have been recalled.
Safety Compliance Exemptions: Increases the number of new motor
vehicles that may be exempted from compliance with Federal standards on
the basis that they possess innovative safety features.
International Harmonization: Clarifies the Secretary's authority to
engage in harmonization activities that promote the worldwide
improvement of motor vehicle safety without any diminution of U.S.
safety performance standards.
Titling: Encourage new efforts to achieve uniformity in State laws
regulating the titling and control of severely damaged passenger motor
vehicles. The new program would ensure that these vehicles are
inspected for applicable safety and anti-theft standards.
Question. The NEXTEA proposal allows states to shift hazard
elimination funds to non-infrastructure safety programs, such as
NHTSA's section 402 public education program or FHWA's motor carrier
safety program. Do you believe that highway safety education and
enforcement programs are more effective at preventing accidents and
saving lives than correcting road hazards, separating grade crossings
and installing warning devices?
Answer. Both infrastructure and non-infrastructure safety programs
are important. Our proposal gives states the flexibility to use their
hazard elimination funds for non-infrastructure if the state has an
integrated highway safety planning process and established goals and
benchmarks for safety improvements.
Between 1992 and 1995, since ISTEA was enacted, the use of safety
belts and child restraints has saved 35,000 lives, the use of
motorcycle helmets has saved 2,155 lives, and age 21 drinking laws have
saved 3,300 lives. Costs of highway crashes would have been $30 billion
higher in 1994 (versus 1990) had it not been for injury rate reductions
due to these and other safety countermeasures. Clearly behavior change
can make a significant difference. Safety belt use has grown from 11
percent in 1982 to 68 percent in 1996. Alcohol involvement in fatal
crashes has dropped from 57 percent to 41 percent over this same 15-
year period. The President has set a national goal of 85 percent safety
belt use by 2000, and 90 percent by 2005. NHTSA estimates that
increasing belt use from the present 68 percent to 90 percent would
save 5,500 lives per year. FHWA and FRA have estimated that during the
period 1992 through 1995, hazard elimination saved 6,200 lives and
highway-rail grade crossing safety programs saved 1,700 lives.
Risk factors are increasing that require renewed efforts in
education and enforcement. The number of youngest and oldest drivers
will significantly increase between now and 2005. The use of alcohol
and drugs is on the rise and has begun to show in highway fatality
statistics. Combined risk factors pose threats and challenges:
aggressive driving, drivers who speed, run red lights, disregard
traffic signs, drink, and don't wear their safety belt. Due to the
aging infrastructure, safety features need to be added and upgraded,
e.g., guardrails replaced, signs upgraded, new pavement markings, and
hazards eliminated. Clearly highway safety must be attacked on all
fronts.
financing and toll programs
Question. What is the difference between State Infrastructure Banks
and the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program?
Answer. State Infrastructure Banks (SIB's) are State-level
investment funds which are capitalized, in part, with Federal funds and
offer loans and other types of financial assistance to transportation
projects. Loan repayments and credit fees from the SIB's customers are
used to replenish the funds and permit them to become self-sustaining
financial institutions devoted to transportation investment. The
Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program, on the other
hand, represents direct Federal assistance to specific projects. Rather
than simply allowing States to use a portion of their Federal highway
and transit grant funding to capitalize SIB's, this initiative would
provide Federal assistance directly to projects of national
significance--those projects with national economic benefits and
financing requirements that exceed the capacity of SIB's and States'
regular transportation programs. Under the credit enhancement program,
the Administration's reauthorization proposal, $100 million per year
would be used to capitalize revenue stabilization funds for one or more
such projects of national significance to enable them to access the
capital markets for most of their financing. These revenue
stabilization funds would be used to secure external debt financing and
if needed, to pay debt service costs in the event project revenues are
insufficient.
Question. Since the SIB's program was authorized in the 1995
National Highway System Designation Act, what has the track record been
for the program? How many of the 10 pilot states have secured federal
loans?
Answer. The results to date for the SIB pilot suggest that the
program will complement the regular Federal-aid program by serving
certain local and state-wide projects that have access to dedicated
revenue streams, but need flexible financial assistance to get
underway.
With just four months having passed since most States signed
cooperative agreements with FHWA and FTA to create their SIB's,
financial activity has gotten underway with two loans from the Ohio
SIB, each for $10 million, to support a $100 million bond issuance by
Butler County for a toll road. A $1.18 million loan has also been made
by the Missouri SIB for a debt service reserve fund to support a $17
million bond issue by the Springfield Transportation Commission.
Ultimately the bond issue will support a variety of street and
intersection improvements including some overpass work.
Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon intend to make
additional project loans by October 1997. To date, $80 million in
Federal funds have been transferred to States to capitalize their pilot
SIB's. By October 1998, the initial 10 SIB's are expected to have
provided various types of loans totaling $324 million supporting 1.6
billion in total project construction.
Question. The SIB's pilot projects financial condition report was
due to Congress March 1st. When will this report be submitted?
Answer. The draft report is in the final review stage and should be
issued soon.
Question. The primary barrier to implementing SIB's has been the
low number of revenue-generating projects that will then be able to
repay loans made by SIB's. In the Department's experience, what are
possible ways for states to generate revenue in order to repay their
SIB loans?
Answer. There are a variety of ways SIB loans can be repaid.
Currently, the primary repayments being considered by the pilot states
include user fees such as developer impact fees, tax increment
financing, and dedicated local sales taxes. Repayments can include
traditional tolls (potentially made more acceptable to the public
through the use of automatic toll collection technology). In addition,
SIB loans can be repaid with a dedicated portion of a State or
locality's gas tax or future federal apportionments.
Question. If the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program is
established, what projects now underway would be eligible for funding?
Would San Francisco's BART extension qualify? Boston's Central Artery
project? Or the Woodrow Wilson Bridge?
Answer. Any type of surface transportation project that is proposed
to be eligible for Federal assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of
title 49 in the Administration's reauthorization proposal would be
permitted to receive a Revenue Stabilization Fund grant, as long as it
satisfied the program's eligibility criteria. To meet those criteria,
the project must: 1) be of ``national significance'' in terms of moving
people or goods more cost-effectively (the Secretary will establish
specific guidelines concerning improved productivity, cost-benefit
analysis, job creation, and other factors); 2) be unable to obtain
adequate financing on reasonable terms elsewhere; 3) be included on the
State's transportation plan, and, if in a metropolitan area, be
approved by the metropolitan planning organization; 4) have its
application for assistance be submitted by a State or local government;
5) cost at least $100 million or an amount equal to 50 percent of the
State's annual Federal-aid apportionments, whichever is less; and 6) be
supported at least in part by user charges or other dedicated revenue
streams.
Projects meeting these threshold criteria then would be evaluated
by the Secretary based on a qualitative analysis of their credit-
worthiness, degree of leveraging private capital, use of innovative
technologies, and other factors. This program is intended to help large
revenue-generating projects obtain private financing by enhancing their
external debt. Projects already underway, such as the BART extension
and the Central Artery, presumably have already secured the necessary
financing or identified future funding sources and should not need such
revenue stabilization funding. (The Central Artery project's current
finance plan does not contemplate additional Federal assistance outside
the State's regularly apportioned Federal-aid funding.) Based on the
eligibility criteria, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge would be a candidate
for direct Federal assistance under this program.
airbag safety
Question. NHTSA recently announced initiatives to improve air bag
safety especially with respect to children and smaller-sized adults.
For example, air bag deployment speeds are proposed to be lowered by up
to 35 percent. Please describe NHTSA's efforts to make air bags safer
for drivers and passengers.
Answer. On November 27, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule
requiring vehicles equipped with air bags to be equipped with very
obvious warning labels for parents and care-givers.
On January 6, 1997, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice
proposing procedures to allow auto dealers or repair shops to
disconnect air bags, at the request of vehicle owners, without
requesting special permission from the Federal government. The public
comment period closed on this proposal on February 5, 1997. Final
decisions will be made soon.
On March 19, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule amending the
occupant protection standard to allow vehicle manufacturers to quickly
depower all air bags. For the unbelted occupants, the regulation now
allows a vehicle sled test to measure the performance, rather than the
full-frontal barrier test. The agency and the vehicle manufacturers
estimate this will allow air bags to be depowered by 20 to 35 percent.
This interim solution will significantly reduce the risk to children
and small statured adults.
In addition, NHTSA plans to propose mandating improved, advanced
air bag technology. NHTSA believes that advanced air bags will provide
greater safety in frontal crash protection for all size occupants.
Advanced air bags will preclude air bags from deploying under unsafe
conditions or effectively tailor the speed of the deployment to match
the size of the occupant and the crash circumstances.
The agency has formed an Advanced Air Bag Technology Working Group
under the Crashworthiness Subcommittee of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC) with participants from NHTSA,
automobile manufacturers, automobile air bag suppliers, public health
care professionals, and academia. The agency will use this working
group's expertise to provide input to the agency on advanced air bag
issues through MVSRAC. In addition, the agency is forming a team to
work on the development of test procedures and performance requirements
of advanced air bags. The agency also has a contract with the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to assess the state-of-the-art in advanced
air bag technology and the time-frame that will be necessary to bring
these technologies to the market. A Final Report of the JPL work is due
in October 1997.
Concurrent with all of these vehicle changes, the agency continues
to work to increase safety belt use and to educate the public that
children need to be placed in the back seat. President Clinton and
Secretary Slater announced an initiative to increase the safety belt
use to 85 percent by the year 2000. This is in addition to the ongoing
nation-wide public initiative of the Air Bag Safety Coalition being
conducted by the National Safety Council, in cooperation with NHTSA and
other partners.
Question. NHTSA has a process to permit air bags to be deactivated
upon application to the agency. What criteria does NHTSA use in
deciding whether to approve an application? How many applications have
been approved?
Answer. Although there is a statutory prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122)
against commercial entities knowingly making inoperative any device or
element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), NHTSA is not enforcing
this prohibition with respect to air bag deactivation in the following
cases:
a. The vehicle's owner or lessee submits a doctor's statement that
the owner, lessee, or any other person 13 years or older who is a
driver or passenger of the vehicle has a medical condition that
justifies deactivation of the driver or passenger air bag or both;
b. With respect to a child age one to 12 years old who must sit in
the vehicle's front passenger seat because of a medical condition, if
the vehicle's owner or lessee submits a doctor's statement that the
child has a medical condition that justifies deactivation of the
passenger air bag;
c. The vehicle owner must transport an infant in the front seat of
a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag, either because the infant has
a medical condition necessitating that the infant be frequently
monitored or because the vehicle lacks a rear seat that can accommodate
a rear-facing child restraint; or
d. The vehicle owner has a frequent need to transport children
under 12 in the vehicle and does not have enough seating positions in
the rear to accommodate all children who must be transported.
From October 1, 1996, through April 29, 1997, NHTSA has received
6,039 deactivation requests, of which 1,897 have been granted.
Approximately 80 percent of the grants were for adult medical
conditions, while approximately 20 percent involved children, including
both children with medical conditions and children riding in vehicles
lacking a rear seat capable of accommodating a rear-facing infant seat.
The ten most often cited medical conditions for which requests have
been granted are, in approximate order of frequency: Osteoporosis/
osteogenesis imperfecta/brittle or thin bone disease; Pacemakers;
Heart/thoracic surgery; Breast cancer surgery/breast reconstruction,
Tinnitus/hyperacusis; Emphysema/asthma/pulmonary conditions; Fractures
(neck, back, ribs, etc.); Arthritic conditions; Dwarfism; and Previous
air bag-related crash injuries.
In addition, a small number of requests have been granted for
persons 4'6" or shorter with no medical conditions, who would be unable
to maintain a safe distance from the air bag.
safety challenges
Question. A number of trends, demographics, and other issues
comprise safety challenges facing NHTSA. Please give us your view on
where highway safety is heading.
Answer. Despite significant progress, a look at recent statistics
shows no room for complacency. After years of steady decline, the total
number of highway deaths increased from 1992 to 1995. Motor vehicle
crashes are still the leading cause of premature death of America's
youth. Based on preliminary estimates the number of fatalities and the
number of alcohol-related fatalities decreased slightly in 1996, but
the number of crashes and non-fatal injuries increased yet again.
Key risk factors between now and the early 21st century are:
The number of youngest and oldest drivers is increasing. Between
1996 and 2005 the 15 to 24 year old age group will increase 14 percent,
compared to an overall population increase of 7.8 percent, and the
population over age 75 will increase 17 percent.
The use of alcohol and other drugs is rising. In 1995, the number
of alcohol-related fatalities increased for the first time in 9 years.
These fatalities still number over 17,000, even with the one percent
estimated decrease in 1996.
Safety belt and child seat use is still low. Safety belt use has
grown by only two percentage points since 1993; it stands at 68
percent. Agency checkpoints show that up to 80 percent of child safety
seats are misused, and statistics show that every day an unrestrained
child under the age of 5 is killed in a traffic crash.
Speeding and other forms of aggressive driving are increasing.
Exceeding the posted speed limits, or driving too fast for conditions,
is a growing problem on all roads. In 1995, speeding was a factor in 31
percent of all fatal highway crashes, at a cost to society and the
economy of more than $29 billion. Currently, 34 States have increased
their speed limits beyond what would have been allowed under the former
national maximum speed limit law, and 23 of these 34 States have
increased their speed limits to 70 miles per hour or greater. Recent
surveys indicate that aggressive driving, a behavior often marked by
excessive speed, has become the driver behavior that most concerns the
motoring public.
The repeal of motorcycle helmet laws is becoming a reality. The
motorcycle helmet law in Texas was recently repealed and there are
moves in several other states to repeal.
A robust economy has been historically correlated with short-term
increases in highway fatalities. While continuation of an expanding
economy is a good thing overall for society, we must address the
resulting increases in highway safety risk, e.g., higher number of
miles driven for recreation at night, which is associated with higher
risks; increased commercial traffic, which affects the vehicle mix on
the road.
The vehicle mix on the road has been changing and will continue to
change.
Sales of light trucks and vans have been increasing significantly,
compared to sales of passenger cars. Since 1992 there have been more
fatalities in car/light truck collisions than in car/car collision.
Eighty percent of the fatalities are occupants of the passenger car.
Question. Safety belt and child seat use are low and drunk driving
remains a major problem. How do you address these issues in the
reauthorization and do you expect to be successful?
Answer. Included in the Department's NEXTEA legislation is a
proposed incentive grant program designed to stimulate increased safety
belt and child safety seat use. In addition, the Department's NEXTEA
legislation includes a proposed incentive grant program designed to
encourage states to implement laws and programs to combat alcohol-
impaired driving. The program is intended to build on the successes of
the Section 410 alcohol incentive grant program.
The Department expects these new programs to be successful. Just as
in the Section 410 incentive grant program, where the number of
qualifying states, including the District of Columbia, rose from 19 in
fiscal year 1992 to 32 in fiscal year 1996, NHTSA expects the
incentives offered will spur states to implement the laws and programs
needed to meet grant criteria. In addition, participation in the
occupant protection program will be accelerated as a result of the
Presidential initiative to increase safety belt use rates nationwide.
Question. What are NHTSA's top priorities?
Answer. NEXTEA needs to provide a balanced program for NHTSA that
addresses both vehicle and behavioral safety problems, while providing
a foundation for research, crash data and injury prevention activities.
An active technical assistance program is required to support our
safety partners in the states and communities, health and business
arenas, educators, and safety advocates. This is consistent with
NHTSA's role as a public health agency.
Top priorities include:
Air bag safety:
In November 1996, we issued a rule requiring clearer and more
precise air bag warning labels in both the passenger vehicle and on
child safety seats.
In January 1997, we issued a rule extending the period for
permitting air bag cut-off switches for passenger side air bags in
vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats that are too small to
accommodate a rear-facing child safety seat.
We issued two other proposals in January 1997: 1) to ensure that
vehicle manufacturers can depower all air bags so that they inflate
less aggressively; 2) to make it possible for vehicle owners to have
their air bags deactivated by vehicle dealers and repair shops.
In February 1997, we issued a proposal to require that motor
vehicles and add-on child restraints be equipped with uniform
anchorages to secure the child restraints to vehicle seats.
In March 1997, we issued a final rule on air bag depowering,
effective immediately, which allows the manufacturers to proceed with
their depowering plans.
A comprehensive research effort to realize more fully the life-
saving attributes of current driver and passenger air bag systems, and
to pave the way for the introduction of improved air bags in the near
future.
Occupant protection--Use of safety belts
Safety belts are the most effective means of reducing fatalities
and serious injuries in traffic crashes, saving an estimated 9,500
lives in America each year. Our research has found that lap/shoulder
belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injuries to front seat
passenger car occupants by 45 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-
critical injury by 50 percent. Child safety seats are the most
effective occupant protection devices used in motor vehicles today. If
used correctly, they are 71 percent effective in reducing fatalities to
children under the age of five and 69 percent effective in reducing the
need for hospitalization.
--President Clinton feels strongly that more needs to be done to
encourage the use of these life-saving devices. On April 16,
Secretary Slater responded to the President's call and released
a national strategy to raise U.S. safety belt use to 85 percent
by the year 2000. By 2005, our goal is to get 90 percent of the
nation's vehicle occupants to use safety belts.
--Currently, with an estimated 68 percent of America's vehicle
occupants buckling up, seat belts are saving about 9,500 lives
a year. Going to 85 percent seat belt use would boost the
annual number of lives saved in U.S. highway crashes by 4,194,
and reduce crash-related medical costs by $6.7 billion a year.
If 90 percent of vehicle occupants used their belts, 5,536 more
lives would be saved annually and medical-related costs would
be cut by $8.8 billion.
--Actions include: Building partnerships between government and the
private sector to help America reach its potential of saving
lives and preventing injuries through the use of seat belts and
child safety seats; enacting State laws for primary (standard)
seat belt enforcement and comprehensive child passenger safety;
conducting active, high visibility law enforcement of State
seat belt and child safety seat laws; and expanding well-
coordinated, effective public education programs.
--Under NEXTEA, a new occupant protection incentive grant program, to
encourage States to increase safety belt use, and a proposed
transfer of highway construction funds to occupant protection
programs to encourage enactment of primary safety belt laws.
Occupant protection--Child safety:
In February 1997 we issued a proposed rule for a universal child
safety seat attachment system. The agency also has intensified its
efforts to educate the public about air bag performance and to properly
restrain children. We also have set a goal of reducing child occupant
fatalities (0-4 years) 15 percent by 2000, and 25 percent by 2005.
Reduce alcohol-impaired driving among the population at large and
especially for young drivers. Alcohol is the drug abused most
frequently by our children, and is responsible for 35 percent of the
highway deaths among our youth, ages 15-20. Forty-one percent of all
fatal motor vehicle crashes continue to be alcohol-related, and 32
percent of these fatal crashes involve a drunk driver or pedestrian
with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC greater than 0.10
percent).
NHTSA's ISTEA Section 410 Impaired Driving Incentive Grant Program
provides financial incentives to States to encourage improvements in
laws and programs dealing with impaired driving. Since the passage of
ISTEA, 37 States plus the District of Columbia have qualified for one
or more years of incentive grants.
``Zero tolerance'' laws make it illegal for a person under 21 to
drive a motor vehicle with any measurable blood-alcohol content. In
June 1995, President Clinton called on Congress to make zero tolerance
the law of the land. Congress responded by including the provision in
the NHS Act. These laws are very effective, reducing alcohol-related
crashes involving teenage drivers by as much as 10-20 percent.
NEXTEA proposes an enhanced drunk driving prevention incentive
grant program, to help States enact and enforce tough drunk driving
laws and a new drugged driving incentive grant program, a Presidential
initiative to help States enact and enforce tough laws to prevent drug-
impaired driving
Crash avoidance research, conducted under DOT's Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) program
The goal of this research is to demonstrate that improved crash
avoidance performance of vehicles can be achieved through the
application of advanced sensing and communication technologies to motor
vehicles. Achievements in this area require that these sensing and
communication technologies are matched to the limitations and
capabilities of all drivers without any diminution to safety.
Our near-term goal is to equip vehicles with several collision
avoidance systems, in partnership with industry, to demonstrate their
feasibility and safety potential. We estimate that if all vehicles were
equipped with just three of the primary ITS crash avoidance systems
(rear-end, roadway departure, and lane change/merge) 1.2 million
crashes (one out of ever six) could be prevented annually, saving
thousands of lives and $26 billion a year.
Giving states the flexibility to address their most critical highway
safety problems
Under NEXTEA a new State highway safety data improvement incentive
grant program, to encourage States to take effective actions to improve
the data they need to identify the priorities for State and local
highway safety programs
Full implementation of the new performance-based Section 402 state
grant program.
Under NEXTEA, a program to encourage integrated safety planning and
increased flexibility in the use of FHWA safety infrastructure funds
for states to address their critical safety problems.
nhtsa's role in reducing head injuries and assisting ems personnel
Question. Please describe NHTSA's role in working with EMS
programs. Are EMS personnel the most likely health professionals to aid
victims of motor vehicle accidents? How can NHTSA help improve the
services provided by EMS personnel, especially with regard to head
injuries?
Answer. NHTSA serves as a national leader, coordinator, facilitator
and technical resource for EMS programs. The agency develops products
and services and facilitates national consensus on issues which are
more efficiently or effectively addressed at the national level than by
individual states. Examples of agency programs include development of a
national Standard Curricula for emergency medical providers and
delivery of technical workshops on issues such as trauma system
development, data management and quality improvement.
EMS personnel are typically the first health professionals to care
for motor vehicle crash victims. NHTSA's central effort to improve the
effectiveness of these professionals is the EMS Agenda for the Future,
a vision and plan for EMS that provides guiding principles for the
continued growth and evolution of EMS in a rapidly changing health care
environment. The EMS Agenda addresses each of the critical aspects of
emergency medical systems, assessing the current national status,
projecting a vision of future performance, and recommending specific
actions for realizing the vision. An implementation plan for the EMS
Agenda for the Future is now being developed and will be published
later this year.
Question. People injured in car crashes in rural areas may have to
be transported long distances to reach trauma centers that can provide
appropriate care. I understand that victims of head injuries, in
particular, might be spared life-long disabilities if EMS providers
could improve their emergency response protocols for brain trauma. Is
NHTSA working with EMS programs to improve the treatment of head
injuries?
Answer. NHTSA is currently updating the National Standard
Curriculum for the Emergency Medical Technician--Paramedic. This
curriculum includes both classroom and clinical instruction concerning
patient assessment, injury mechanisms and head injury. The complete
curriculum involves about 1,000 hours of instruction. In addition to
the education of EMS providers, the agency also provides technical
assistance for the development of regional trauma systems. These trauma
systems utilize triage protocols that are designed to accurately assess
the condition of trauma patients and efficiently direct their transport
to facilities with appropriate resources. An effective trauma system
greatly improves the outcome of patients with severe trauma, such as
head injury, by providing the best care in the least time.
Question. Each year we spend billions of dollars for long term
medical and assisted living care of head-injured patients. Do you think
that significant savings would be achieved by better EMS response to
head injuries?
Answer. We believe that significant savings can be realized by
better EMS response to all types of severe injuries, including head
injuries. The outcome of severely injured patients is largely dependent
on the amount of time between injury onset and appropriate
stabilization and treatment. As the first link in the continuum of
trauma care, the EMS system can influence patient outcome with a quick
response, appropriate stabilization and rapid delivery to an
appropriately equipped hospital emergency department.
intelligent transportation systems (its)
Question. Ms. Garvey, the ITS program appears to be starting an
evolution into a different program. To this point, IVHS, now ITS, has
been a program focused on research and demonstration projects. The
Administration's budget and NEXTEA reauthorization proposals anticipate
beginning a shift in focus to include a $100 million annual deployment
program and a 6 year total contract authority funding level increase
from $659 million in the last authorization bill to almost $1.3 billion
in the NEXTEA proposal.
Despite this new push to deployment, a number of obstacles must be
overcome before ITS technology is widely deployed and integrated. These
obstacles include the lack of a working knowledge of the systems
architecture, technical standards to integrate individual ITS
technologies, technical knowledge at the state and local level, and
cost-benefit data on ITS.
What are the reasons for doubling the contract authority for the
ITS program?
Answer. Contract authority is being requested for those portions of
the ITS program which would most benefit from a long-term, predictable
source of funds. These program areas include the ITS Deployment
Incentives Program, crash avoidance research, the Advanced Vehicle
Control and Information Systems program area, the operational test
program, the architecture and standards program, and major portions of
the mainstreaming program area (technical assistance, planning/policy
issues, and training). These represent program areas which we know will
be viable and in need of substantial funding support throughout the
period covered by the reauthorization of ISTEA. Program areas with
resource needs which may vary widely in amount and technical content
from year to year, such as most of the research program areas, will
continue to be justified and requested on an annual basis through the
appropriations process.
It should also be noted that the proposed ITS Deployment Incentives
program, which is designed to help spur integrated, intermodal
deployment of ITS technologies and strategies, accounts for a total of
$600 million of the contract authority being requested. The remainder
of the contract authority being requested for research and technology
transfer activities totals $678 million, an amount comparable to the
amount received for similar activities under ISTEA.
Question. Are ITS technologies ready for widespread deployment in
light of the numerous obstacles?
Answer. First, ITS technologies are not only ready for widespread
deployment, but are being deployed. As of 1995, we have counted ITS
deployments nationwide as follows: 41 freeway management centers, 39
advanced public transportation management systems, 57 centralized
traffic signal control systems, 39 ITS incident management systems, and
28 electronic toll systems. In fact, about $1 billion a year of regular
Federal aid funds is being spent on three of the nine ITS components
that we track on our financial system. In the nation's 75 largest
metropolitan areas, deployment of eight of the nine items is underway
in most of them.
However, this deployment is taking place with little regard to
intra-regional compatibility let alone the interoperability called for
in the national architecture--thereby losing the potential of the ITS
infrastructure to bridge the modal and institutional fragmentation and
enable seamless system management. Thus, in NEXTEA, we propose a
deployment incentives program to ensure progress to integration. We
have proposed a very small incentive program, the majority of which
would be used for integration of ITS infrastructure in metropolitan
areas where ITS infrastructure deployment is already underway. It would
also provide incentives for deployment of the commercial vehicle ITS
infrastructure and rural ITS applications. Several legislative changes
are also proposed to clarify the eligibility of all ITS applications
for regular Federal-aid funding.
Second, we view the primary obstacles to broader ITS deployment as
the lack of the following: adopted standards, expertise among state and
local officials, cost/benefit data, and available funds. In our NEXTEA
proposal, we address many of these ``barriers'' to deployment.
A significant portion of our proposed research funding would be
devoted to facilitating development of industry consensus on well over
100 standards. While the process will take some five years, we expect
that draft standards critical to integration will be available in the
next two years. None have been completed, and four more draft standards
will be done by the end of the year. And we believe that we, will have
agreement on one of the most critical standards that underlie the tag
and reader technology in automatic toll collection before the end of
the summer.
We also have proposed training for state and local officials.
Deployment of ITS is not unlike the transition FAA went through when it
went from a civil engineering organization that oversaw the building of
airports to one that dealt with management of assets and airspace. For
that purpose we have developed a five-year strategic plan, that is now
being translated into a business plan and we have asked for significant
funds--some $10 million in fiscal year 1998. Recently, we launched the
program with the first of 70 overview seminars that will be given to
our staff and partners across the United States in the coming few
months.
In these courses, we will cover in considerable detail the costs
and benefits that have been documented for this program. An impressive
quantity of cost-benefit data has been presented to Congress and the
nation at large. For example: Buying smarter by deploying intelligent
transportation systems infrastructure reduces the need for new roads
while saving taxpayers 35 percent. A comprehensive study by NHTSA has
estimated crash avoidance countermeasures can yield a 17 percent
reduction in all accidents, resulting in a net savings of up to $26
billion per year. A study by the FTA suggests that ITS can save transit
authorities between $4 billion and $7 billion over the next decade.
What is not available to local officials are the analytic tools
necessary to demonstrate those benefits, because to date all of our
analytic tools have focused on capital decisions with long range
horizons. We are in the process of developing those tools now for use
by states and metropolitan areas across the country.
appalachian development highway system
Much is made of the need to upgrade Appalachian Development Highway
System roads because of the economic development benefits for the parts
of the country that these roads serve, but I do not want you to lose
sight of the safety implications of failing to bring these corridors up
to divided four lane standards. So I commend you for the commitment
that the Administration's NEXTEA proposal makes to Appalachian
Development Highways--more needs to be done--but it is a step in the
right direction.
Question. In your review of the ITS program and as you consider the
future of that program, have you identified rural safety applications
from the research that has already been done? Please elaborate on these
rural safety applications. What projects are currently funded and
underway? What potential projects are being considered?
Answer. The Department has recently completed strategic and program
plans for the Rural ITS Program which detail how we will allocate the
increased resources of the rural program. Our needs analysis identified
safety as the primary goal of the rural program. We have grouped the
applications into seven critical program areas:
(1) Traveler Safety and Security Services such as wide area
dissemination of safety information (weather and road conditions),
site-specific safety advisories to alert travelers of near-term
problems, safety surveillance and monitoring of rural transit vehicles,
and vehicle or infrastructure based systems that prevent roadway
departure crashes, animal-vehicle collisions, and high speed collisions
between vehicles and farm equipment.
(2) Emergency Services such as May Day systems, and advanced
dispatching and emergency vehicle based response systems which will
reduce response times.
(3) Infrastructure and Fleet Operations and Maintenance Services
which will reduce weather-related accidents and warn motorists of road
work or other road hazards.
There are 11 active ITS program funded projects. But, there have
been over 50 rural ITS projects funded from various private, state and
Federal sources. A list of these projects can be provided upon request.
The Federal ITS projects can be grouped into three areas: Research of
safety information collection technologies (e.g., weather and road
hazards), operational testing of May Day systems, and operational
testing of safety information dissemination systems (e.g., in-vehicle
displays or AM and FM subcarrier systems). In fiscal year 1997 we will
initiate research and operational testing on Traveler Safety and
Security Systems to investigate the most promising technologies that
will reduce the most prevalent accident types. The focus will be on
infrastructure based systems that do not duplicate the efforts of the
collision avoidance program. Technologies may address the following
issues: animal/vehicle collisions; low cost run-off road collision
avoidance system; low cost vision enhancement system; and high speed
farm equipment/vehicle collisions. We will also initiate research and
operational testing of Emergency Response Systems. This effort will: 1)
resolve the interface issues between the Public Service Answering Point
and the Independent Service Providers; 2) investigate advanced
applications beyond automatic collision notification which provide
detailed information to emergency care givers in order to improve
accident site care; and 3) investigate systems for achieving blanket
communications for May Day services. It should be noted that a minimum
of 10 percent of the proposed ITS Deployment Incentives program is set
aside for the deployment and integration of rural ITS technologies.
Question. Most of the fatalities on rural roads are from single
vehicle accidents. This would seem to me to be an area that Advanced
Highway System research may have a significant life-saving application.
I welcome your thoughts and comments.
Answer. The majority of rural single vehicle accidents are roadway
departure collisions. The ITS program is working with industry on
systems that will greatly reduce this accident type and that will be
available in five to 10 years. Under the Intelligent Vehicle Program,
we are developing a roadway departure collision avoidance system which
automatically detects if a vehicle is leaving the lane, as well as a
driver inattention detection systems and human factors guidelines to
reduce driver workload. These applications will produce commercial
products within five to 10 years. Deployment of these products will
enable this accident type to be reduced much sooner than the AHS
products will be available.
contract authority and obligation limitation disconnect
Question. In looking at the Administration's Budget submission and
the NEXTEA reauthorization proposal, there appears to be a disconnect
between the Contract Authority that the Administration is requesting
for fiscal year 1998 and the Obligation Limitation level requested in
the Administration's budget. Please explain the relationship between
contract authority, obligation limitation, and liquidating cash.
Answer. Contract authority refers to the type of funding provided
for the highway program. The authorizations contained in highway acts,
such as ISTEA, set the amounts of funds that are available for use for
the entire highway program. These authorizations, which are contract
authority, represent the upper limits on the obligations that can be
made by the Federal government. Sums authorized in Federal-aid highway
acts, because they are contract authority, are made available for
obligation without appropriations action.
An obligation is a commitment of the Federal government to pay,
through reimbursement to the States, the Federal share of a project's
eligible cost. Obligation is a key step in financing. Obligated funds
are considered to be ``spent'' even though no cash is transferred,
since an obligation is a legally binding commitment on the part of the
Federal government to reimburse the State. As a result, obligations are
usually the step in the financial process that are controlled in the
Federal budgeting process. A limitation on obligations acts as a
ceiling on the sum of all obligations that can be made within a
specific time period, usually a fiscal year, and thereby controls
spending. The limit is placed on obligations that take place within the
specified time period, regardless of the year in which the contract
authority was made available. Since the appropriations process has been
the traditional way to control Federal expenditures, obligation
ceilings are usually established in the annual appropriations act and
are set at a level consistent with annual spending limits that are
driven by the effort to reduce the Federal deficit.
By definition, contract authority is unfunded and a subsequent
appropriations act is necessary to liquidate (pay) the obligations made
under contract authority. This authority to pay obligations is referred
to as liquidating cash.
Question. Why is the contract authority request for fiscal year
1998 $2.45 billion more than the total of the requested mandatories
plus the requested obligation limitation?
Contract Authority...................................... $22,480,000,000
Highway obligation ceiling.............................. 18,170,000,000
Mandatory highway programs.............................. 1,510,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total highway budgetary resources................. 20,030,000,000
Answer. The contract authority and obligation limitation amounts
for our reauthorization proposal have been set at the maximum levels
allowable within the overall budget targets. These levels reflect our
continuing commitment to both balance the budget and invest in
transportation. While the obligation level is lower than the contract
authority for fiscal year 1998, we are hopeful that budgets in future
years will permit the use of the funds that cannot be used this year.
With multi-year authorizing legislation, such as our ISTEA
reauthorization, we think it is important that the contract authority
levels are set at the highest levels possible. Since unused contract
authority can be carried over to future years, this allows for growth
in the program in the outyears, if the budget picture improves. We
think that our proposal is the best way to adhere to the financial
concerns of today while still looking forward to the program needs of
the future.
nextea flexibility
Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the State of
Alabama views ISTEA as constraining them more than empowering them to
meet their highway needs. I understand that there is a significant
amount of flexibility in the current program, but that in many ways
ISTEA is an overly complicated structure for administering funds to
your State partners. What additional program flexibility has the
Administration proposed in the NEXTEA submission, and what program
delivery streamlining is envisioned?
Answer. NEXTEA proposes to build on the flexible programs and
provisions of ISTEA to allow the States to put their funds into the
surface transportation modes and project types that meet their own and
the Nation's needs.
NEXTEA expands and clarifies eligible activities for all core
Federal-aid programs, including the National Highway System (NHS),
Interstate Maintenance, the Surface Transportation Program (STP), and
the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Added or
clarified eligibilities include preventive maintenance; Interstate
reconstruction; intercity passenger rail capital investment; bridge
scour countermeasures; intelligent transportation system capital,
operations, and maintenance; and intermodal activities.
Transferability provisions among the various programs and surface
transportation modes allow States to put their money where their
surface transportation needs are. Alabama took advantage of this
feature and transferred ISTEA Surface Transportation Program funds to
support transit in Montgomery and Birmingham.
NEXTEA also proposes several streamlining measures. Changes are
proposed to make STP operate more like a block grant program while
retaining accountability. NEXTEA establishes annual program-wide
approval for non-NHS STP projects, rather than the current quarterly
project-by-project certification and notification.
NEXTEA permits merger of plans, specifications and estimates
approval and project agreement execution and provides for obligation of
the Federal share on a project when the project agreement is executed.
NEXTEA expands flexibility to States and FHWA to determine mutually
the appropriate level and extent of State and FHWA oversight on NHS
projects. NEXTEA provides that FHWA's oversight responsibilities shall
not be greater than they are under Certification Acceptance and ISTEA,
unless the State and FHWA mutually decide otherwise. NEXTEA also
provides that State must assume Title 23 oversight responsibilities on
non-NHS projects.
value pricing pilot program
Question. What projects were implemented/completed under ISTEA's
congestion pricing pilot program? What have been the results of these
programs in terms of improved traffic volume and air quality and the
availability of new funds for transportation programs?
Answer. Projects included under the Pilot Program, as well as
congestion pricing projects in other parts of the world, are beginning
to provide new, and sometimes surprising, evidence about the potential
benefits of congestion pricing. Our projects are just in the beginning
stages, and the evidence is necessarily preliminary, but we can provide
some indication of how these programs can be expected to affect
traffic, air quality, and revenue availability. We might also note that
for all the implementation projects, local interest and support for
congestion pricing has been quite strong.
For instance, in San Diego, where excess capacity on the I-15 HOV
lanes is being sold to HOV's, the initial sale of 500 express lane
passes at $50 each sold out in the first 6 hours of availability. In
February of 1997, 200 subscribers were added to the original 500, for a
total of 700 ExpressPass holders. In March, 1997 the monthly fee was
increased to $70, and in April, an additional 200 customers may be
added for a total of 900 ExpressPass holders allowed on the HOV
facility. Despite a price increase from $50 to $70, 80 percent of the
original customers opted to remain with the pilot program. Data is
being collected to gauge price elasticity and the effects of raising
the tolls on traveler behavior. One of the surprising findings from the
early evidence on this project is that in the initial months of the
pilot's operation, carpools on the HOV lanes have increased by 5
percent from 86 to 91 percent, while the rate of unauthorized users of
the HOV facility has decreased from 14 percent to 4 percent due to
increased enforcement. This important finding suggests the HOV Buy-In
concept can be a ``win-win'' for mobility and the environment.
All reports have been strongly positive for the innovative pricing
project on State Route 91 in Orange County, California. This project, a
privately-designed, constructed, financed and operated project, opened
in December of 1995. The State Route 91 ``Express Lanes'' constitute
the country's first variable priced and fully-automated facility. This
$126 million project has added four new lanes of capacity termed
``Express Lanes'' along 16 kilometers (10 miles) in the median of the
highway. While this project is not a Federal-aid project, and is
therefore not one of FHWA's pilot projects, Pilot Program funds are
being used to support the California Department of Transportation's
monitoring and evaluation study of this pathbreaking project.
In the first year of operation, public response to the Express
Lanes has been excellent, with a steady increase of patronage to 25,000
daily customers. A recent opinion poll conducted by the California
Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo indicates that the project is
viewed favorably by 65 percent of the Express Lanes customers, 62
percent of the free, HOV Express Lanes users, and 53 percent of the
drivers in the adjacent freeway lanes. Express Lanes users reportedly
can save up to 20 minutes in commute time, and the diversion of single-
occupant vehicles to the priced lanes has made a noticeable improvement
in traffic flow in the general purpose lanes. According to local
transportation officials, the State Route 91 highway is running more
smoothly today than at any time since 1980. Carl Williams, Deputy
Secretary for Transportation for the State of California, reports that
at the end of the first three months of operation, the roadway was
covering the facility's operating costs. By December, 1998, the company
expects to cover operating costs as well as meet their debt service.
Williams also reports that HOV-3 vehicles account for 44,000 out of the
166,000 weekly trips on the express lanes. As an incentive to encourage
ridesharing, vehicles with three or more passengers are exempt from the
Express Lanes tolls, while all others are charged for Express Lanes
usage. The costs vary with time, ranging from $.50 to $2.75 per trip.
Frequent users can opt to pay a $15.00 monthly fee and receive a $.50
discount per trip, independent of time of day. All fares are
automatically deducted from each customer's pre-paid account using
electronic ``read-write'' transponders mounted on the car windshield.
Currently, over 50,000 motorists have established an Express Lanes
account and are equipped with transponders.
According to Gerald Pfeffer, Senior Vice President of United
Infrastructure, an official of the State Route 91 Express Lanes owner/
operator consortium, preliminary reports indicate that the majority of
Express Lanes customers use the facility on a discretionary basis,
rather than on a daily basis. Express Lanes customers represent all
income levels, thereby dispelling the notion that only higher income
motorists benefit from congestion pricing. Apparently, the facility is
attracting a broad array of commuters including: contractors; plumbers;
office workers; and parents. This finding is not surprising given the
demographics of the population in that area. Affordable housing in the
suburbs surrounding the State Route 91 facility attracts large numbers
of lower to middle income residents who commute to employment centers
in adjacent counties.
By all accounts, this project has been considered an initial
success. While long-term success is yet to be determined, preliminary
reports indicate that the capacity increase gained by the addition of
two new toll lanes in each direction has substantially reduced peak-
period congestion. Waiting times at entry points to the State Route 91
facility have been significantly reduced.
Other projects nearing implementation after initial pre-project
studies under the Pilot Program are in Lee County, Florida, where off-
peak toll discounts following an across-the-board toll increase in late
1995, will be used to try to divert traffic away from the most
congested time periods. This project will be implemented within the
next several months. In Houston, Texas, a pricing project about to get
underway will sell excess capacity on an existing HOV-3 lane on
Interstate 10 to HOV-2 vehicles. Both of these projects are expected to
provide new evidence on the response of travelers to the pricing of
highway facilities. In Los Angeles, a just completed report on the
first phase of the Southern California Association of Government's
congestion pricing pilot study includes recommendations by a local task
force of business, environmental and transportation interests for
implementation of a HOT (High Occupancy Toll)-lane project in the Los
Angeles area. Further study of specific routes will be pursued prior to
implementation.
Question. What level of funding did the projects under the
congestion pricing pilot program receive and spend?
Answer. A total of $30,613,479 of program funds were obligated
prior to the rescission of unobligated balances and transfer of
authorizations for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 to other
programs. Of this amount, $24,108,000 went to implementation projects
in San Diego ($7,960,000), Lee County, Florida ($16,000,000), and to
support the California Department of Transportation's monitoring study
of the private sector project on State Route 91 in Orange County,
California. Another $5,414,386 went to support pre-project efforts in
San Francisco, Minneapolis, Houston, Boulder, Portland, and Westchester
County, New York. An additional $1,091,093 was used by FHWA to conduct
research and public outreach in support of local project efforts.
Question. To what extent has FHWA been able to overcome the
reluctance of elected officials and policy makers to establish these
programs?
Answer. We believe that significant progress has been made in
bringing pricing to the forefront for consideration as a demand
management tool in metropolitan areas across the U.S. Transportation
officials, business interests, environmental groups, and others have
begun to discuss the possibilities for road pricing solutions to
congestion and air pollution problems. The progress that has been made
flows out of the pre-project efforts that FHWA has supported, as well
as FHWA's public education efforts, but is largely due to the efforts
of FHWA's project partners at the State and local level. They have been
on the front lines of introducing pricing concepts into the local
context, and their efforts, following guidelines established by FHWA,
have brought the participation of a wide variety of local interest
groups into the development of local project proposals. Recent interest
in road pricing has been spurred by the initial success of the
privately-sponsored road pricing project on State Route 91 in Orange
County, California, and by the early stages of our pilot project in San
Diego. Our pre-project efforts in Florida, Texas, New York, Minnesota,
Colorado, and Oregon have also generated considerable interest.
We recognize that much remains to be learned about the role that
pricing can play in improving the efficiency of urban transportation
systems but believe that carefully designed pilot projects, conceived
and developed with full public participation, can play a positive role
in improving urban transportation service. We recognize that the path
to implementation will not be a smooth one, and any new projects will
need to be developed slowly, with due regard to potential equity and
other state and local concerns. Still the Department needs to be ready
and able to provide support to state and local efforts when it is
needed. The Value Pricing Pilot Program will provide a way for State
and local governments and toll authorities to continue to experiment
with congestion pricing solutions, using the Pilot Program both for
financial and technical support. It will also provide a way of
demonstrating Federal backing of these efforts.
Question. Why does the administration believe there is sufficient
interest in congestion pricing to support the value pricing pilot
program? How many projects are currently ready to take advantage of
these funds?
Answer. We expect there to be considerable interest in this program
in major metropolitan areas where concern with environmental problems
and growing traffic congestion have led many to look for new and
innovative solutions. As indicated by the activity on current pilot
projects, and by the overwhelmingly positive response to FHWA's
regional workshops on congestion pricing, very active interest in
congestion pricing has been stimulated in several cities, including
some of those facing the nation's worst air quality and congestion
problems. The first workshop, held in Claremont, California in
September, 1995, had 60 participants. In October, 1995, the second
workshop, held in Philadelphia, had 80 participants. The Chicago
workshop, held in May, 1996, had 104 participants, and 130 people
participated in the Houston workshop in November, 1996. At our latest
workshop, held in Tampa, Florida, in April 1997, approximately 80
attendees discussed recent and potential future applications of pricing
in the U.S. Very active discussions by a wide variety of agencies
represented at these workshops showed a very high level of interest in
the potential of pricing solutions to congestion and air quality
problems. A spur to the interest in pricing as an air quality tool will
be the Environmental Protection Agency's soon to be issued guidance
document on ``Use of Market Mechanisms to Reduce Transportation
Emissions,'' which will describe how cities and states can gain SIP
credits for the adoption of market-based transportation demand
management measures.
Several of our current project partners, including Caltrans and the
Southern California Association of Governments, the State of Minnesota,
and Boulder, Colorado, should be ready to move forward with specific
implementation proposals in fiscal year 1998. Portland, Oregon, and
perhaps another project in Texas may be ready for implementation by
fiscal year 1999. New York may be further from actual implementation,
but this could change quickly depending on local conditions. The same
can be said for possible pricing projects in the San Francisco area.
Even though we believe there is sufficient interest to justify our
proposal, we also recognize that interest in the value pricing program
and concept does not necessarily translate into a State and local
commitment to implement value pricing projects. For this reason, FHWA
has proposed to limit the risk of program funds not being used by
incorporating into the Reauthorization proposal a ``rolling lapse''
provision, under which unused program funds would become available for
redistribution to the States if they remain unused for congestion
pricing purposes after four years of availability.
Question. What criteria will FHWA use to select the pilot projects?
Answer. As we did for the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program, FHWA
will listen carefully to current and potential project partners in
developing guidelines for program participation. We intend to be
flexible and responsive to local needs, while maintaining sufficient
oversight to ensure that projects will provide new and useful
information about the potential of congestion pricing as a tool of
transportation demand management. One of our goals will be to encourage
broader applications of pricing, including new and innovative types of
parking pricing, as we move forward under the Value Pricing program. We
will continue to try to support pricing innovations by existing toll
authorities, and we will continue to look for new and innovative
applications of pricing that meet local needs and conditions.
infrastructure credit enhancement program
Question. The grant amount is limited to $100 million per year, far
less than many large projects. The Alameda Corridor project, for
example, which meets DOT's criteria under the legislation and received
a $400 million federal loan this year, could have absorbed the
Program's resources for 4 of the program's 6 fiscal years. How does the
Secretary intend to maximize the value of the program to a large
project or projects?
Answer. The Alameda Corridor project will receive direct Federal
assistance in the form of a loan, not a grant as contemplated under the
proposed credit enhancement program. Unlike other forms of Federal
spending, the Federal budgetary cost of such a loan is based on the
estimated net present value of the cash inflows and outflows associated
with the loan. Alameda Corridor will receive a $400 million Federal
loan this year; however, that loan requires only $59 million of budget
authority (appropriated in the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-208) to fund the estimated subsidy
costs.
The Secretary intends to maximize the value of the Transportation
Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program by using grants (limited to
20 percent of project costs), together with any supplemental
contributions by States and other entities, to establish a Revenue
Stabilization Fund for each project which will be used to secure
external debt financing or drawn upon, if needed, to pay debt service
costs in the event project revenues are insufficient to meet annual
debt service requirements. These grants could be most effective if they
secured smaller, junior lien bond issues which in turn helped
facilitate the issuance of larger, senior lien bond issues not directly
assisted by the program.
Question. How and why did the program evolve from a loan program
(outlined in the fiscal year 1998 budget request) to a grant program
(NEXTEA legislation)? Has the intent of the program changed from the
initial version of the proposed program, which was modeled in part on a
$400 million direct federal loan to the $2 billion Alameda Corridor
project? Would the program likely be used to assist projects as large
as the Alameda Corridor project, or would it be limited to somewhat
smaller projects?
Answer. The program evolved from a loan program to a grant program
in order to address concerns raised by the Department of the Treasury.
Although the Treasury Department shares DOT's view that large projects
of national significance require additional forms of assistance, on
fiscal policy grounds it favors grants over direct lending techniques
to enhance a project's financing. The Administration's NEXTEA proposal
synthesizes DOT's programmatic objectives of encouraging innovative
finance and private sector participation with Treasury's preference for
using grant mechanisms.
Question. In addition to using grants for credit enhancement
purposes, does the Department also intend to pursue credit enhancement
in the form of direct loans similar to the Alameda Corridor project
loan in the future outside the Credit Enhancement Program? If so, will
the Department have the discretion to do so based on its authority
under NEXTEA?
Answer. The Administration's reauthorization proposal (NEXTEA)--
including the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
Program--does not contain the legislative authority to make direct
loans (such as that received by the Alameda Corridor) or provide other
forms of credit assistance. The Department cannot provide such
assistance without legislative authority to do so.
Question. The Secretary is given the authority to select projects
for Credit Enhancement Program grants. DOT has had inquiries from
states, including small or rural states, and has noted that 18 states
have projects costing less than $100 million that would qualify for
Credit Enhancement Program grants. What projects in which states would
qualify? What projects in which states would qualify for the program
with projects at or over $100 million?
Answer. DOT has not made any determinations about the eligibility
of specific projects for assistance under the proposed credit
enhancement program. Of several threshold criteria relating to national
significance, one addresses project scale. It would require a project
to cost at least $100 million or 50 percent of the State's most recent
annual apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds, whichever is less.
The Department has noted that, based on fiscal year 1997
apportionments, there are 18 States that could potentially qualify
projects costing less than $100 million for credit enhancement grants
under this criterion.
Question. If this program is established, would projects now
underway be eligible for funding? Would projects qualify such as the
Boston Central Artery? San Francisco's BART extension? Has the
suggested freight tunnel beneath New York Harbor been suggested as a
potential grant recipient?
Answer. Any type of surface transportation project that is proposed
to be eligible for Federal assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 of
title 49 in the Administration's reauthorization proposal would be
permitted to receive a Revenue Stabilization Fund grant, as long as it
satisfied the program's eligibility criteria. To meet those criteria,
the project must:
a. be of ``national significance'' in terms of moving people or
goods more cost-effectively (the Secretary will establish specific
guidelines concerning improved productivity, cost-benefit analysis, job
creation, and other factors);
b. be unable to obtain adequate financing on reasonable terms
elsewhere;
c. be included on the State's transportation plan, and, if in a
metropolitan area, be approved by the metropolitan planning
organization;
d. have its application for assistance be submitted by a State or
local government;
e. cost at least $100 million or an amount equal to 50 percent of
the State's annual Federal-aid apportionments, whichever is less; and
f. be supported at least in part by user charges or other dedicated
revenue streams.
Projects meeting these threshold criteria then would be evaluated
by the Secretary based on a qualitative analysis of their credit-
worthiness, degree of leveraging private capital, use of innovative
technologies, and other factors. This program is intended to help large
revenue-generating projects obtain private financing by enhancing their
external debt. Projects already underway, such as the BART extension
and the Central Artery, presumably have already secured the necessary
financing or identified future funding sources and should not need such
revenue stabilization funding. (The Central Artery project's current
finance plan does not contemplate additional Federal assistance outside
the State's regularly apportioned Federal-aid funding.)
To our knowledge, no proponents of the New York Harbor freight
tunnel project have approached the Department about seeking assistance
under the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program. If
the project satisfied the proposed eligibility criteria, it could seek
funding under this program. Its application would be evaluated along
with those of other applicants.
Question. Beyond the basic eligibility criteria, what expectations
does the Administration have about the type of public-private
partnerships that the Secretary would select for the Program to assist?
Has DOT made any estimates on the amount of private capital that the
Program might attract?
Answer. The goal of the program is to encourage the development of
large, capital-intensive infrastructure facilities through public-
private partnerships consisting of a State or local government and one
or more private sector firms involved in the design, construction or
operation of the facility. It will encourage more private sector and
non-Federal participation, and build on the public's willingness to pay
user fees to receive the benefits and services of transportation
infrastructure sooner than would be possible under traditional funding
techniques. DOT has no preconceived notion of how these arrangements
should be made. The program should be flexible enough to allow the
public and private entities to structure their partnerships as
effectively as possible according to their needs.
The credit enhancement program could effectively help these large
projects access the capital markets if the Revenue Stabilization Funds
were used to enhance junior-lien debt, which is difficult to sell. If a
Revenue Stabilization Fund secured junior-lien bonds financing 33
percent of project costs, and if the reserve equaled 20 percent to 25
percent of the issue size, you might achieve a 12:1 to 15:1 leveraging
ratio. Thus, annual budget authority of $100 million used in connection
with junior lien bonds in this manner could support private financing
of $1.2 to $1.5 billion a year. That would be only one project of a
scale equal to the Alameda Corridor, but could represent a few projects
of smaller scale.
Question. What entities will be able to apply for funding of these
publicly owned facilities--private organizations, cities, states,
metropolitan planning organizations?
Answer. A project sponsor may be a corporation, partnership, joint
venture, trust, or governmental entity or instrumentality. If the
entity is not a State or local government or any agency thereof, the
project it is undertaking must be publicly owned and sponsored--meaning
that it satisfies applicable Statewide and metropolitan planning
requirements and that a State or local government or agency thereof
submits its application to the Secretary.
congestion mitigation and air quality (cmaq)
Question. What type of projects were predominately funded out of
the ISTEA CMAQ funds, e.g. HOV lanes, transit stops, etc.?
Answer. Since its introduction in 1991 as a major transportation
program under ISTEA, the CMAQ program has steadily evolved to become an
important component in the funding of State and local transportation
projects and programs. Projects which are eligible for funding under
the CMAQ program include: transit improvements, traffic flow
improvements, shared ride/demand management programs, bicycle/
pedestrian projects, alternative fuels, inspection and maintenance
programs and others with air quality benefits.
The overall obligation rates for CMAQ projects for fiscal years
1992-1995 are as follows:
--$1,267,000,000 (46.8 percent) for transit including bus and vehicle
purchases, new bus and rail services;
--$835,000,000 (30.9 percent) for traffic flow improvements including
HOV lanes, traffic signal synchronization and turning lanes;
--$206,000,000 (7.6 percent) for rideshare/demand management programs
including carpool and vanpool programs, guaranteed ride home
programs, etc.;
--$74,000,000 (2.7 percent) for bicycle/pedestrian projects including
new pedestrian and bike paths, pedestrian bridges and walkways,
bike lockers and storage, etc.;
--$130,000,000 (5.0 percent) for other transportation control
measures (TCM's) including inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs and other projects not classified by the above; and
--$193,000,000 (7.0 percent) for STP/CMAQ obligations in States with
no nonattainment areas which may use CMAQ funds for STP-
eligible purposes.
Question. Were the projects funded under the CMAQ program part of
the States' transportation plans prior to passage of ISTEA or were they
new projects? What are some examples of innovative projects built to
help improve air quality? What air quality gains have been realized
from the past six years of CMAQ projects?
Answer. The ISTEA charted a new course in flexible funding
transportation programs with the creating and funding of the CMAQ
program. The focus of CMAQ as an air quality improvement program is
unique as a transportation funding program. In the early years of the
program, it is likely that the projects funded under CMAQ had been
developed prior to ISTEA and already were ``in the pipeline,'' as it is
sometimes referred. As the program evolved, other innovative
alternative fuel projects, inspection and maintenance programs and
freight improvements have been developed to meet the goals the CMAQ
program, and funded under the broad eligibility allowed only under the
CMAQ program. Transportation and environmental organizations contacted
during a 1994 program review reported that many of the projects now
funded under the CMAQ program would not have been funded under other
programs.
The CMAQ program has funded some exemplary projects such as:
--The Intermodal Transportation Center in Worcester, Massachusetts.
The intermodal transportation center will assist Worcester in
encouraging the use of mass transit by providing easy access to
rail, bus and shuttle services, enhancing bicycle and
pedestrian access and improving traffic flow in the downtown
area.
--The Transtar facility in Houston, Texas, is an advanced intelligent
transportation management system which monitors traffic
conditions and notifies authorities of freeway accidents and
congestion problems. The center improves accident response time
and reduces the blockage time on area freeways.
--A transit operating assistance project in Ventura County,
California, represents an outstanding example of a cooperative,
grassroots effort to implement a transportation/air quality
strategy that benefits the local entities as well as the larger
region. The county instituted new intracounty bus routes and
linked the new routes to existing city-run services, allowing
improved access to major activity centers throughout the
county, and connections to existing dial-a-ride services in
rural parts of the county.
In 1995 alone, CMAQ funded projects accounted for reductions in
carbon monoxide of 431 tons per day, in volatile organic compounds of
170 tons per day, and in oxides of nitrogen of 113 tons per day. These
benefits will continue for the life of the project.
While most CMAQ-funded projects are small relative to the size of
the transportation infrastructure and yield benefits commensurate with
that size, some projects yield considerably greater benefits.
Inspection and maintenance programs have been funded under CMAQ
programs in at least 5 States yielding between 2 tons per day to more
than 20 tons per day.
CMAQ-funded projects are critical for some nonattainment areas to
demonstrate conformity of their transportation plans and programs, thus
allowing States and local areas to continue their federally funded
programs. In these and other areas, CMAQ funding also has been
necessary to ensure funding for transportation control measures
contained in the State air quality implementation plan, or SIP.
Finally, the benefits of CMAQ funded projects should not be
restricted only to air quality benefits when evaluating this program.
Transportation projects usually meet multiple objectives, and this is
true of CMAQ projects as well. In addition to air quality benefits,
these projects have served to help provide congestion relief,
environmental mitigation, economic development, and have assisted in
meeting other environmental goals and objectives.
intermodal issues
Question. Has DOT conducted a comprehensive assessment of
intermodal needs, with specific attention on freight infrastructure
requirements? If so, what are the conclusions of this assessment?
Answer. In creating the National Highway System (NHS), the States
and MPO's identified the critical highway connections to major
intermodal terminals, including freight facilities, based on criteria
established by the Secretary. This effort documented the major public
and public/private intermodal connections affecting the efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the nation. This information
was sent to Congress on May 24, 1996, for approval as part of the NHS
and will be used in the future to identify the condition and
infrastructure needs of these connections.
Very large container ships are about to be placed in service on
major shipping routes connecting U.S. ports to the global marketplace.
To assess their impact on waterside and port infrastructure as well as
landside transportation facilities, the Department of Transportation is
conducting four outreach meetings during the spring and summer of this
year that will involve representatives of shippers, transportation
providers and pubic transportation agencies responsible for freight
movement. This activity is jointly sponsored by the Office of the
Secretary and the modal administrations within the Department involved
in goods transportation. Its goal is to bring consensus within the
Department and the freight community on the potential impacts on
transportation infrastructure occasioned by these ``big ships'' as well
as to provide sufficient time prior to these vessels common use to
permit a coordinated response by those responsible for making
transportation investments.
FHWA has undertaken a multi-year research project to study and
document impediments to intermodal freight efficiency. Phase I of this
research has concluded, and a two-volume report was produced in 1996.
The report is titled ``Intermodal Freight Transportation.'' Volume I,
discusses impediments, data sources, and provides a detailed
bibliography.
Volume II presents an intermodal impediments fact sheet and an in-
depth discussion of the federal-aid eligibility of intermodal freight
projects. The impediments identified include physical, regulatory,
technical, facility, financial, labor, institutional, and operational
barriers and impediments for port, rail/truck, and airport facilities.
The one major conclusion of this research is that impediments to
intermodal freight transport are widespread and diverse.
Phase II of the intermodal impediments project, currently underway,
looks at strategies for overcoming the impediments identified in Phase
I. The project will produce a primer for transportation planners on how
to overcome impediments, along with detailed case studies of intermodal
projects and processes in the U.S.
Question. Since DOT does not propose to fully fund NEXTEA and
relies on the States and the private sector to provide funding through
other financing methods and State Infrastructure Banks, does DOT have
evidence that this approach will be adequate to meet intermodal needs?
Answer. NEXTEA's innovative finance programs expand the financing
capabilities of States in order to complement DOT's traditional grant
programs. State Infrastructure Banks ( SIB's), for instance, offer a
menu of loan and credit enhancement assistance that can tailor public
funds for specific project needs, thereby increasing the effectiveness
of an overall transportation program.
Our evidence indicates that most states intend to incorporate
innovative finance techniques. DOT's solicitations for State
Infrastructure Banks have received strong response. A pilot round in
1996 selected ten states for SIB designation. Our second round has
attracted 26 new proposals from 29 states. From this experience alone,
we can conclude that at least three-fourths of the states believe that
SIB's offer the potential to improve their transportation programs.
Intermodal projects may indeed be well-suited for innovative
finance and private sector participation. Most freight-related projects
are linked to privately-owned or privately-operated facilities and thus
offer the potential for significant private financial participation. On
the other hand, a strictly passenger-oriented intermodal project
frequently lends itself to private investment. Many passenger
terminals, for example, provide retail and commercial opportunities
that can attract private funds as part of an overall financial package.
Question. What steps is DOT taking to ensure that intermodal
issues--particularly freight concerns--receive attention and action in
the Department?
Answer. The Department has taken several steps to raise the profile
of intermodal freight within the Department. It has sponsored several
Freight Planning Seminars across the nation for Metropolitan Planning
Organization, State, and federal transportation planners which
highlight the many issues related to intermodal freight and adequately
planning for freight.
In addition, the modal administrations have participated in two
National Freight Planning Conferences (Albuquerque, NM, in September
1995 and San Antonio, TX, in October 1996) which provided forums for
the discussion of the many facets of freight planning. Two additional
National Conferences are being planned. These conferences draw
attendees from various levels of government throughout the country,
including the various modes at the U.S. DOT, as well as representatives
from the private sector freight community.
The FHWA also sponsors, the Freight Stakeholders National Network,
a consortium of the nation's eight major freight-related trade
associations, which promotes more effective interaction between the
public and private sectors on infrastructure planning and investment
throughout the U.S. As part of this effort the modal administrations
contribute articles to a bi-monthly newsletter called Intermodal
Connections. This newsletter presents information on intermodal issues,
including freight-related issues, to a wide range of transportation
professionals.
The Department also has developed a course on ``Landside Access for
Intermodal Terminals'' to address surface transportation infrastructure
issues created by increasing volumes of maritime and air traffic. This
three-day course focuses on the methodologies and design elements for
improving landside access to seaports and airports and presents tools
and techniques necessary to define challenges and make improvements.
There have been 10 presentations of this course at major port cities
around the country.
Question. How does DOT's current and proposed research support
intermodal policy and infrastructure needs? Which modal administrations
are conducting intermodal research and/or demonstration projects? What
results are expected from this research and demonstration? What
percentage of DOT's total research budget does this represent?
Answer. In addition to the specific courses, conferences, and
publications referenced in the responses to questions 1 and 3 above,
the following ``general'' research activities within DOT have resulted
in applications that support intermodal policy and infrastructure
needs.
--Applications of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program
technologies.
--Compendium of Intermodal Freight Projects, examples from throughout
the U.S. of innovative projects and funding mechanisms.
--Freight Forecasting, development of a quick-response freight
forecasting system, manual, and course.
--Public-Private Freight Planning Partnerships, research and
documentation of the state-of-the-art in bringing the public
and private sectors together to properly plan for freight.
--Tools for transportation planners, including the Characteristics of
Urban Freight Systems (CUFS) manual, documentation of The Use
of Intermodal Performance Measures by State Departments of
Transportation, guidelines for public-private freight planning,
and freight data handbook.
Many of the US DOT efforts to support intermodal transport through
research, education, information services, and technology applications
have been cooperative efforts involving multiple modal administrations
and the Secretary's Office of Intermodalism. Examples of these
cooperative endeavors are:
--Landside Access to U.S. Ports, 1992, study by Transportation
Research Board (TRB): MARAD, FHWA, FRA co-sponsorship
--Report on Intermodal Activities in the Department of
Transportation, 1993: Office of Intermodalism, FHWA, FRA,
MARAD, FTA, FAA co-sponsorship
--Intermodal Technical Assistance for Transportation Planners and
Policymakers, 1994: Office of Intermodalism, FHWA, FRA, MARAD,
FTA, FAA co-sponsorship
--Intermodalism--Making The Case/Making It Happen, national
conference and proceedings convened and compiled by TRB, 1995:
Office of Intermodalism, FHWA, FRA, MARAD, FTA, co-sponsorship
--Setting An Intermodal Research Agenda, national conference and
proceedings convened and compiled by TRB, 1996: Office of
Intermodalism, DOD co-sponsorship.
The results of this research are outlined in responses to this
question and to questions 1 and 3.
Although actual figures are not available, it is estimated that
less than one percent of DOT's total research budget is specifically
directed to supporting intermodal policy and infrastructure needs.
Since intermodal transport makes use of individual modes'
infrastructure, research directed to making the respective modal
policies and infrastructure more user-friendly generates considerable
benefits for intermodal transport.
fhwa research and technology programs
According to DOT, ISTEA provided $87 million for FHWA research and
technology programs. The Administration's NEXTEA proposal authorizes
$1.6 billion for the highway research program and includes $420 million
for a new program entitled the ``National Technology Deployment
Initiatives'' whose goal is to significantly expand the adoption of
innovative technologies by the surface transportation community.
Question. What are the major elements of the substantially
increased research program? What are the highest priorities of the
expanded research program? Which ISTEA research programs is DOT
proposing to keep and which is it eliminating? How will research
programs be evaluated?
Answer. The major elements of the research and technology program
included in NEXTEA are the 1) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),
2) National Technology Deployment Initiative, 3) Professional Capacity
Building and Technology Implementation Partnerships, 4) Long-Term
Pavement Performance (LTPP) and Advanced Research, and 5) State
Planning and Research Program.
The highest priorities of the research and technology program are
to continue exploration, evaluation, and deployment of ITS
technologies; deliver significant, tangible benefits to transportation
users through acceleration of the deployment of all technologies;
provide comprehensive technology training and education initiatives
that yield the required competency to apply the technologies; initiate
exploratory long-term research which involves more uncertainty and
risk, but holds the potential for great payoffs; continue the LTPP
program which was initiated by Congress; and provide funds to the
States so that they may address research and technology transfer
activities that are relevant to their needs.
The FHWA's Research and Technology Program consists of
complementary elements of research, technology transfer, and deployment
activities, reaching a range of partners and audiences--such as State
and local governments, academia, Native American tribal governments,
private industry, and others--with different services--research,
development, technology implementation, technical assistance, training,
test and evaluation, incentive funding, technology exchange, etc.
Solutions to national issues of infrastructure quality and mobility lie
in innovations and new technologies. Discovering and refining
technologies and then transferring, promoting, and integrating them
into the national transportation systems requires a multifaceted
program such as is proposed for the FHWA's Research and Technology
Program under NEXTEA.
NEXTEA includes a number of programs that are included under ISTEA.
Intelligent Transportation Systems, National Highway Institute, Local
Technical Assistance Program, Eisenhower Fellowship Program, University
Transportation Centers, University Research Institutes, Long-Term
Pavement Performance Program and the State Planning and Research
Program were included in ISTEA and are also proposed in NEXTEA. The
National Technology Deployment Initiative is modeled closely after the
Applied Research and Technology Program which was included in ISTEA.
Also, the Technology Implementation Partnerships is modeled after the
SHRP Implementation subsection which was included in ISTEA. The
Advanced Research Program, a new element, focuses on exploratory, long-
term research, which involves more uncertainly and risk than
traditional applied research, but holds the potential for great
payoffs.
The ISTEA research and technology programs which are not included
in NEXTEA include the Highway Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration
Program, Applied Research and Technology Program, Seismic Research
Program, and Fundamental Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts.
The FHWA Research and Technology Program is developed through an
internal and external review process, including technical, program, and
executive levels, considering needs within the highway system,
``customer needs,'' highway community priorities, funding availability,
and other issues. Projects are aligned with identified high priority
areas to ensure that the program focuses where the needs are greatest.
This review process continues through the technology transfer,
deployment, and training stages to similarly ensure that the programs
focus where the needs are greatest. Research is evaluated through a
variety of means, selecting the most appropriate methodology to meet
the circumstances. For example in ITS, we have used extensive field
measurement techniques, robust integrated methodological processes, and
peer review by practitioners and scientists, for field operational
tests, model deployment, and the entire advanced transportation
management research program, respectively.
It appears that in the opening paragraph to this question, the $87
million under ISTEA and the $1.6 billion under NEXTEA, including the
reference to the $420 million for the National Technology Deployment
Initiative, is a comparison of 1 year under ISTEA to 6 years under
NEXTEA; neither of these figures includes ITS. In addition, some of the
proposed funding under the Research and Technology Program under NEXTEA
previously was General Operating Expenses (GOE) funds received by the
Federal Highway Administration under the annual appropriations process.
Question. What has the ISTEA highway research program taught DOT
about deploying new technologies in the field? How have these lessons
learned been incorporated into the NEXTEA proposal? How will innovative
technology information be disseminated and what tools will be used to
significantly expand the use of innovative technologies?
Answer. During the years of ISTEA, closer ties and partnerships
have been established throughout the transportation community. One very
good example of this tighter association is the Priority Technology
Program under the Applied Research and Technology program (ISTEA
Section 6005); this program includes projects identified in the field
and uses Federal/State/industry/academic partnerships to fund and
conduct the projects as a means of increasing ``ownership'' among the
partners and facilitating the movement of the technology into use.
Superpave technology is being implemented through a Federal/State/
industry partnership that has provided significant acceleration of the
technology. More than two-thirds of the States are already using the
Superpave binder specification, and most of the remaining States will
make the switch this year. The Superpave second goal, implementation of
the volumetric mix design procedures by 2000, is also well on its way;
two-thirds of the States were already using, during the 1996
construction season, equipment and techniques associated with this
stage. The Superpave regional centers, formed through similar
partnerships, will continue to help State, county, and local
governments and others with their implementation of this technology.
The National Technology Deployment Initiatives (NTDI) under NEXTEA
will focus resources on a distinct set of priority goal areas which
directly address the concerns of the traveling public. The NTDI was
developed as a result of extensive outreach and discussion among major
stakeholders within the surface transportation community. For delivery
of NTDI resources, special emphasis will be placed on getting projects
using innovative technologies ``on the ground'' through direct support
to States and other implementors with funding and deployment support
for individual projects. These projects will provide valuable insight
to advance the state-of-the art, and with more widespread confirmation
of the benefits of use of innovative technologies through the NTDI
program, there will be significantly greater use of regular Federal-aid
and other funds for technical innovation by the States and others.
Similarly, the Technology Implementation Partnerships program will
facilitate the formation of partnerships and advanced implementation
for products from the Strategic Highway Research Program as well as
other high profile technologies that will benefit from a focused
implementation effort. Individual organizations do not usually possess
a ``critical mass'' of skills and financial resources to independently
implement most advanced technologies; this program will facilitate
bringing key partners together in a cooperative effort to plan and
execute actions needed to expand adoption of innovation.
The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program, a 20-year effort
under the Strategic Highway Research Program created in 1987, will be
continued through partnerships with users such as State highway and
transportation agencies, contractors designing and building roads, and
international transportation interests. This long-term program has the
unique challenge of testing, in actual service, performance of various
pavement designs and materials in different conditions, resulting in a
comprehensive national data set for analysis and ultimate improvement
in pavement performance. The reauthorized LTPP will emphasize the
creation of products to continue to fulfill the original LTPP program
objectives and to meet future pavement technology needs.
Other Research and Technology elements similarly are designed to
integrate a connection with the user community early in the process to
facilitate adoption of innovative technologies. Means for dissemination
include training, test and evaluation, deployment projects, technology
exchange, hands-on demonstrations, or other means. A variety of
traditional and advanced media are used to disseminate technologies and
information about technologies, including classroom instruction,
satellite broadcasts, mobile laboratories, computer disks, CD-ROM
packages, and Internet-based instruction, to provide the highway
community with the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to
effectively implement and adopt the innovative technology.
Question. What are the indications that the surface transportation
community will benefit from the $420 million National Technology
Deployment Initiatives program? What methods will the new initiative
use to increase the use of innovative technologies at the state and
local levels? How do these differ from the training and technical
assistance provided through the Local Technical Assistance Program--
whose NEXTEA funding is $72 million? How is the National Technology
Deployment Initiatives program linked to the ITS deployment activities?
Answer. Along with the other research and technology elements of
NEXTEA, the National Technology Deployment Initiatives (NTDI) has been
developed as a result of extensive outreach and discussion among major
stakeholders within the surface transportation community. For delivery
of NTDI resources, special emphasis will be placed on getting projects
using innovative technologies ``on the ground'' through direct support
to States and other implementors with funding and deployment support
for individual projects. These projects will provide valuable insight
to advance the state-of-the art, and with more widespread confirmation
of the benefits of use of innovative technologies through the NTDI
program, there is expected to be significantly greater use of regular
Federal-aid and other funds for technical innovation by the States and
others.
The NTDI will focus resources on a distinct set of priority goal
areas which directly address the concerns of the traveling public;
including improved safety, reduced delay, extended infrastructure life
through use of high-performance materials and innovative preservation
techniques, enhancement of the environment, and reliable system
operation. Coupled with uses of advanced materials and construction/
maintenance processes, we hope to foster increased use of innovative
contracting procedures where valuable to the overall goals and will
look to maximize flexibility in project administration to meet the need
of implementing agencies. In addition, training will be combined with
other methods, such as demonstration projects, to create a synergistic
approach to each technology deployment area.
This focus on achieving actual deployment of innovative
technologies in selected goal areas through funding and other direct
support, predominately to State departments of transportation and
highway agencies, is the key unique feature of the NTDI program. This
contrasts with the Local Technical Assistance Program, for example,
which provides technical training and assistance on a wide spectrum of
transportation issues to city and county staff. In addition, the NTDI
is not linked to the ITS deployment funding proposal, which will focus
on integrating existing ITS components (such as traffic management
systems, transit information systems, and traveler information systems)
in metropolitan areas, and deployment and integration activities in
rural areas and for commercial vehicle operations projects. We believe
that the various elements of our proposal are very complementary, and
each addresses an important Federal role in support of innovation.
intelligent transportation systems (its) authorized funding
ISTEA established the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
Program, and authorized funding of $659 million from 1992 to 1997. The
administration's reauthorization proposal would provide $1.278 billion
over six years--a 94 percent increase in contract authority. From 1992
to 1997, the ISTEA authorized funds were supplemented with $602 million
through the annual appropriations process.
Question. What are the reasons for the doubling of contract
authority for the ITS program?
Answer. Contract authority is being requested for those portions of
the ITS program which would most benefit from a long term, predictable
source of funds. These program areas include the ITS Deployment
Incentives Program, crash avoidance research, the advanced vehicle
control and information systems program area, the operational test
program, the architecture and standards program, and major portions of
the mainstreaming program area (technical assistance, planning/policy
issues, and training). These represent program areas which we know will
be viable and in need of substantial funding support throughout the
period covered by the reauthorization of ISTEA. Program areas with
resource needs which may vary widely in amount and technical content
from year to year, such as most of the research program areas, will
continue to be justified and requested on an annual basis through the
appropriations process.
It should also be noted that the proposed ITS Deployment Incentives
program, which is designed to help spur integrated, intermodal
deployment of ITS technologies and strategies, accounts for a total of
$600 million of the contract authority being requested. The remainder
of the contract authority being requested for research and technology
transfer activities totals $678 million, an amount comparable to the
amount received for similar activities under ISTEA.
Question. Does DOT expect that the ITS program will continue to be
significantly supplemented with additional funds through the annual
appropriations process?
Answer. As noted above, we expect to continue to request funding
through the annual appropriations process for activities such as
research, program assessment, and program support. Our fiscal year 1998
budget request for these activities totals $54 million, which is less
than half the amount received through the appropriations process in
fiscal year 1997 ($122 million). If the contract authority available to
the ITS program is increased as requested, and is not earmarked for
specific projects, we expect annual appropriations requests for the
program to remain relatively modest.
its deployment incentives program
During fiscal years 1991 through 1997, the Congress has provided
the ITS program with about $1.3 billion for research and development,
operational testing of ITS technologies, and various activities to
support deployment. In its NEXTEA proposal, DOT is refocusing the
program to place a greater emphasis on deployment. DOT proposes a $100
million annual deployment incentives program, that would be used to
integrate individual components of metropolitan areas' ITS systems.
Despite this new push to deployment, DOT must overcome a number of
obstacles before ITS technologies are widely deployed and integrated.
These obstacles include: the lack of a working knowledge of the systems
architecture, technical standards to integrate individual ITS
technologies, technical knowledge at the state and local level, cost-
benefit data on ITS, and funding in light of other priorities.
Question. The results of the model deployment programs will not be
known before DOT begins distributing up to $65 million in deployment
incentive funds for metropolitan areas. To what extent should DOT first
complete and assess the model deployment program before it distributes
deployment incentive funds?
Answer. Although we expect to learn a great deal from the
implementation and evaluation of the four metropolitan area model
deployment projects, the primary purpose of these projects is to serve
as showcases of the integrated, intermodal deployment of technologies
and strategies which we already know to be very effective. The model
deployments will help convince transportation decision-makers that
integrated, intermodal ITS deployment is viable, practical, and cost
effective. There is no need to wait for the completion and evaluation
of the model deployment projects to help metropolitan areas which have
already made a decision to deploy integrated, intermodal ITS
infrastructure get started with seed funding through the proposed ITS
deployment incentives program.
Question. According to the Administration's proposal, recipient's
of the ITS deployment incentive funds will be required to conform to
national ITS standards, yet many of the ITS standards will not be
completed until 2001. How will recipient's conform to non-existent
standards?
Answer. As noted in the section by section analysis accompanying
the Administration's NEXTEA proposal, it is expected that the Secretary
would determine on an annual basis which ITS standards would be used to
fulfill the requirements of this provision. Only standards which were
sufficiently mature in the development and adoption process would be
included in this determination. It should be noted that, although some
lower priority standards development and adoption activities may extend
until 2001, we expect to have nearly all of the high priority standards
in place well before then. Substantial progress is already being made.
There are currently nine applicable standards which have been formally
approved:
--SAE J1708, Truck & Bus Practice Serial Data Communications Between
Microcomputer and Heavy Duty Vehicle Applications
--SAE J1663, Truth-In-Labeling Standard for Navigation Map Databases
--SAE J1761, Information Report on ITS Terms and Definitions
--SAE J1763, A Conceptual ITS Architecture: An ATIS Perspective
--NEMA TS-3.1 NTCIP Overview
--NEMA TS-3.2 Simple Transportation Management Protocol
--NEMA TS-3.3 Class B Profile
--NEMA TS-3.4 Global Object Definitions
--NEMA TS-3.5 Actuated Controller Unit Object Definitions
Four standards are currently in the review and approval processes
within the standards development organizations:
--Message Set for Commercial Vehicle (CV) Safety & Credentials
Information (TS 285)
--IEEE P1404, Guide for Microwave Communications System Development:
Design, Procurement, Construction, Maintenance and Operations
--IEEE P1454, Recommended Practice for the Selection and Installation
of Fiber Optic Cable in Intelligent Transportation Systems'
(ITS) Urban, Suburban, and Rural Environments as well as
Transportation Operating Centers and Associated Campuses
--Surface Vehicle Information Report: SAE J2355, ITS Data Bus
Reference Architecture Model
Sixteen additional standards are under development, 13 of which
should have usable products by the end of the 1997:
--NEMA TS-3.6 Variable Message Sign Object Definitions
--NEMA TS-3.x Ramp Meters Object Definitions
--Message Set for CV Credentials (TS 286)
--Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Protocol--Physical Layer
--DSRC--Data Link Layer
--DSRC Message Sets for CV Operations and Electronic Toll Collection
--Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) Core Message List and
Data Dictionary
--In-Vehicle Navigation and Related ATIS Communications Device
Message Set Standard
--Message Set for May Day Alert
--Location Referencing
--In-Vehicle Databus Interface
--Standard for Data Dictionaries for ITS
--Standard Message Set Template for ITS
--Message Set for External TMC Communication
--Navigation & Route Guidance (N&RG) Function Accessibility
--N&RG Transactions
Question. To what extent do you believe that transportation
agencies at state and local levels have sufficient technical expertise
to effectively use the Deployment Incentive Program funds for ITS
system integration? Is there a risk that these funds will either go
unused for some years as state transportation engineers begin to
develop sufficient technical expertise, or that officials unfamiliar
with ITS and systems integration will not make the best use of
deployment funds?
Answer. Certainly, we do not contend that all States and
metropolitan areas will be able to effectively use ITS deployment
incentive funding during the first year or two of the program. However,
we do believe that sufficient expertise does exist in many progressive
States and metropolitan areas to make full and prudent use of the
available funds at the beginning of the program. And as States and
metropolitan areas increase their level of expertise, partially through
the training and technical assistance activities sponsored through the
ITS program, the pool of qualified applicants for ITS deployment
incentive funds will grow. It should also be noted that we have
specified very precise eligibility criteria for the ITS deployment
incentives program, which would need to be satisfied before an
application for funds would be favorably considered. Detailed knowledge
of ITS and systems integration principles will be required to
successfully satisfy these criteria.
its research and program support activities
In addition to providing funds for the deployment incentive
program, the NEXTEA proposal includes $678 million over six years for
carrying out multi-year research and operational tests of promising ITS
technologies. These funds will be used to explore developing
technologies, including the automated highway system (AHS) under which
a computer and telecommunication network assumes the normal tasks of
driving.
Question. What information does the Department have regarding the
willingness of the public to accept the AHS concept, including their
willingness to surrender control of their vehicles to a central
computer system?
Answer. It is too early to tell how widely acceptable automated
control will be. However, driving simulator experiments in the U.S. and
Europe indicate that driver comfort with automated systems increases as
the accuracy and reliability of the control system increases and as the
drivers gain experience. Additionally, the 1997 Demonstration will
provide a rich opportunity for passenger feedback on automated
operations.
Question. What portion of these funds does DOT expect will go to
further development of the AHS and related technologies?
Answer. As explained in the proposed NEXTEA legislation, the
Department has integrated the AHS, collision avoidance and driver-
vehicle interaction programs into the Intelligent Vehicle program. This
program will shift resources to working with industry to develop
integrated driver warning and assistance systems that will improve
safety and mobility. Part of the Intelligent Vehicle program will
investigate extending the capabilities of vehicle-based collision
avoidance and driver information systems through interaction with the
infrastructure. This is expected to yield improved safety and mobility.
The only specific AHS work that remains is about $2 million per year to
develop an AHS concept which evolves from the vehicle-and
infrastructure-based systems resulting from the Intelligent Vehicle
program.
Question. At the end of the six year authorization period, where
does DOT expect the AHS concept to be and how much more money will be
needed to advance full deployment?
Answer. At the end of the authorization period, US DOT will
demonstrate an ``intelligent vehicle'' which will use on-board and
limited infrastructure cooperative systems that will increase the
driver's safety and efficiency but leave control of the vehicle in the
driver's hands. We will also evaluate specific applications of trucks
and buses where infrastructure cooperative automation yields
substantial safety and mobility benefits. Potential applications
include longitudinal and lateral control of transit buses in narrow
tunnels and lateral control of snow plows to assist in finding the road
edge. The AHS concept will be defined by the end of the authorization.
But because full deployment is at least 50 years away, U.S. DOT has not
estimated the cost nor do we plan to request additional funding in the
near future.
national technology deployment initiatives
Question. Section 6004 of the administration's proposal would
establish the National Technology Deployment Initiatives program, with
funding for $420 million over the 6 year period. According to the
proposal, the program is intended to significantly expand the adoption
of innovative surface transportation technologies. Goals include
improving safety, environmental protection, and reduced delay in
construction zones. As written, the proposal could extend to ITS
applications. Will ITS projects be eligible for funding under this
program? If so, doesn't this appear to conflict with the ITS Deployment
Incentives Program restriction on deployment funding only for
integration of existing or planned systems, and not new ITS systems in
metropolitan areas?
Answer. In general, ITS projects envisioned by the Intelligent
Transportation Infrastructure Deployment Incentives Program (NEXTEA
Sec. 6057) will not be eligible for National Technology Deployment
Initiative (NTDI) program funds. However, certain projects sometimes
identified as ITS-related or non-ITS based traffic management concepts
within the scope of the NTDI goals may indeed be supported with NTDI
funds. An example would be Road-Weather Information Systems (RWIS),
which have great value as a potential information source to both
metropolitan and rural traveler information systems. RWIS's primary
objective is to provide for more effective winter maintenance
operations by guiding the timing, location, and extent of anti-icing
and snow plowing forces, which can significantly aid safety and
mobility. Innovations in RWIS and other winter maintenance techniques
are expected to be advanced and deployed with NTDI funds, and this will
enhance the value of traveler information in these areas.
woodrow wilson memorial bridge
Reconstruction of the federally-owned Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge is estimated to cost nearly $1.5 billion--about $400 million for
the bridge and $1.1 billion for the adjacent roadways and interchanges
in Maryland and Virginia. As specified in the Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge Authority Act of 1995, the federal government will fund the
reconstruction of the bridge, while the non-federal Authority
(established by Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia) will
assume ownership of the bridge and undertake the reconstruction
project. Accordingly, the NEXTEA proposal includes $400 million for
bridge reconstruction.
Question. When will the Authority be ready to start design and
construction?
Answer. Maryland and Virginia have passed enabling legislation to
enter into an interstate agreement or compact to legally establish the
Authority, but the District of Columbia has not. There also is no
agreement among all involved parties on the project implementation
schedule. The Woodrow Wilson Coordinating Committee plans to proceed
with development of the project by the issuance of a design request for
proposals upon the selection of a management consultant for the project
and the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the
Record of Decision. This is with the anticipation of the having all
outstanding issues resolved so that design can start in 1997 with
construction being completed in 2004.
Question. Has a finance plan been developed, including specific
sources of funding for roadways and interchanges? If the federal
government is paying for the bridge, how will the roadways and
interchanges be funded?
Answer. To date basic financial analyses have been performed for
the total project to evaluate the various alternatives on an equal
basis using different funding sources including tolls. If the federal
government funds the bridge portion of the project, then the roadways
and interchanges could be funded from a variety of sources including
tolls, regular federal-aid apportionments, dedicated state highway
revenue, and bonding which could be financed over a long term period.
Question. Should the project be allowed to progress without a
finance plan?
Answer. Once the outstanding issues are resolved the project should
proceed to construction with any necessary additional financial
analyses being performed as appropriate. Due to the condition of the
structure it is imperative that the project moves forward and final
financing be completed as soon as possible.
Question. Will tolls be established for the bridge? If so, what
amount of toll is being considered? Will travelers divert to the
western half of the beltway to avoid paying tolls, thus worsening
congestion in that area? Was the western half of the beltway
constructed to accommodate the truck traffic that may use that section
of the beltway to avoid tolls?
Answer. All of the replacement alternatives considered assumed
tolls on the bridge. Only a reconstruction of the existing six lane
facility would be toll free. The replacement alternatives considered
tolls in the range of $1.00 to $2.00. Most of the truck traffic is
local, so it is unlikely many of these trucks would divert to the
western half of the beltway simply to avoid toll on the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge; the distance is too long to offset the cost of the toll. Most
of the western half of the beltway, including the American Legion
Bridge crossing the Potomac River, has eight lanes.
Question. Is the $400 million federal contribution fixed? Has the
federal government pledged to pay any cost increases that might occur
on the bridge reconstruction?
Answer. The Administration has recommended that the federal
contribution to the cost of the total project be the ``minimum federal
share'' as defined in the NHS Designation Act of 1995 ($400,000,000).
This recommendation coincides with the amount specified in the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget as well as the
Administration's reauthorization proposal, introduced as S. 468. There
has been no federal pledge to pay any cost increases beyond
$400,000,000. The FHWA expects that the difference between the
$400,000,000 Federal share and the total estimated reconstruction costs
of $1,500,000,000 would be made up through a mix of sources--a portion
financed with long-term, tax-exempt debt backed by user or other
special fees, and a portion from the States which could include
allocations of some part of their annual apportionments of Federal-aid
highway funds available through reauthorization.
engineering cost estimates
Question. Will States continue to use 15 percent of construction
costs as a basis for estimating the construction engineering component
of an individual project's total costs? If not, how will States
estimate the construction engineering cost component of total costs for
any individual project?
Answer. Construction engineering costs can vary considerably from
project to project, for example, engineering costs as a percentage of
construction may be greater on a bridge construction project than on a
highway rehabilitation project. FHWA has encouraged States to estimate
engineering costs based on the type of project. The States have
considerable information on actual engineering costs which can be used
to develop more accurate project cost estimates.
Question. Will FHWA develop guidance on how to estimate costs, or
will it be up to individual States to develop their procedure?
Answer. The States are in a much better position to estimate costs
than FHWA. Since costs vary from State to State, estimates would be
more accurate if developed by individual States. The States are
responsible for estimating the total costs of the project, including
design, right-of-way purchases, and construction so it is logical that
they also be responsible for estimating engineering costs.
Question. What effect will removing this requirement have on
construction engineering estimates and estimates for the total costs of
individual projects?
Answer. Removing this requirement should have no effect on
estimates. The 15 percent requirement does not apply to individual
projects, but to the total program, therefore, any State currently
using 15 percent as a standard estimate of a project's engineering cost
is doing so on its own accord.
rail-highway crossing program
Question. According to FHWA, in 1994 the states used Section 130
funds to improve about 800 railroad crossings. Given the limited number
of railroad crossings that can be improved with section 130 funds, to
what extent does FHWA believe that states will use NEXTEA railroad
safety funds to support education and enforcement initiatives?
Answer. Under the NEXTEA grade crossing allocation formula, 23
States will gain funds and 27 States and the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico will lose funds in fiscal year 1998 compared to their ISTEA
allocation formula. (This analysis does not include hazard elimination
funds which also can be used for grade crossing. If this is factored
into the equation, 32 States and Puerto Rico gain and 18 States plus
D.C. lose.)
States with increased funding are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Wisconsin.
States with decreased funding are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming,
Puerto Rico.
Question. What are the reasons for expanding the section 130
program to allow the states to improve crossings on private property?
How will the public benefit from federally-funded infrastructure
improvements at these crossings?
Answer. Safety improvements at private grade crossings have the
potential to decrease crashes and fatalities at these crossings. The
safety problem at private highway-rail crossings has been a small but
constant source of collisions and casualties over the years. In the
last two years (1995 and 1996), there were 942 collisions resulting in
94 deaths and 261 injuries. This problem surfaced and was emphasized
during public hearings which the Department held early in 1996.
Crossings where the public would benefit would include those open to
public travel and where the public is often not even aware they are on
private property; for example, residential, recreational and industrial
crossings. These categories comprise about 40 percent of all private
crossings. (The remaining 60 percent are farm crossings.) However,
about two-thirds of the collisions, occur at these non-farm crossings.
On a collisions per crossing basis, the most hazardous appear to be
recreational crossings with residential and industrial crossings
following a close second and third. Another major concern are the
nation's passenger and potential high-speed rail corridors, where the
public benefit accrues more to the rail passengers and crews. The
intent of expanding this program to private crossings is to provide the
State program manager the option of addressing these problems where and
when there will be a public benefit. The State program manager will
weigh these benefits against benefits which would be realized by other
options and will select accordingly.
Question. To what extent, will NEXTEA require states to update rail
and motor vehicle traffic information in the inventory when they
improve the physical characteristics of a crossing? Will states be
allowed to use rail-highway crossing funds to update the national
inventory? With only 800 crossings improved annually, how will DOT
ensure that the entire national inventory is updated?
Answer. Currently, and since 1975, updating the National Inventory
has been a volunteer effort. Most states and railroads do update the
file, some more regularly than others. In an average year, the Federal
Railroad Administration processes between 80 and 100 thousand changes
into the data base. We have proposed that the allocation of funds for
crossing safety improvements be predicated (partially) on the number of
public crossings and the type of warning devices installed at those
crossings. The provision requiring states to post information on safety
improvements made with Federal funds is intended to provide
accountability and to insure that annual allocations are able to take
into account improvements already paid for. We would expect that when a
state posts changes or improvements to warning device information they
will also update traffic counts. Highway planning and Section 402 funds
are already available, and have been available, which may be used for
updating the National Inventory, and Rail-Highway Crossing Funds could
be used under this Administration's proposal.
Question. Will states that currently do not have many railroad
crossing accidents and thereby cannot demonstrate a reduction in
accidents be allowed to transfer all their railroad crossing funds to
the hazard elimination program?
Answer. States will be able to transfer grade crossing funds to
hazard elimination after they reduce public grade crossing accidents
compared to the average experienced in calendar years 1994, 1995, and
1996. This does not preclude a State with a very small number of grade
crossing accidents from transferring funds. For example, if over
calendar years 1994-96, a State has an average of 4 crashes at public
grade crossings per year, and then has only 2 such crashes in calendar
year 1998, it can transfer 50 percent of its grade crossing funds into
hazard elimination.
Question. NEXTEA also allows states to transfer up to 100 percent
of hazard elimination funds to NHTSA's State and Community Highway
Safety grant Program (also known as the section 402 program) or its
motor carrier safety allocation. What is the potential impact of this
transfer on the railroad crossing program?
Answer. The safety impact on the grade crossing program itself
should be minor. Flex into the 402 program does not preclude
expenditures on grade crossings. Grade crossing safety information
campaigns are eligible for Section 402 funding. States would not have
been permitted to flex their funds into hazard elimination unless they
had already demonstrated a measurable decline in number of crashes, and
then transfer is permitted only in proportion to the decline in
crashes. NEXTEA proposes allowing transfer of funds out of the program
only to the extent that the number of crossing collisions has been
reduced. This, and the needs-based formula distribution of funds, will
reduce both the number of states and the amount of funds likely to be
transferred out of the program. The formula uses as a baseline the
average number of collisions between 1994 and 1996. A rolling three
year count is used in order to dampen any potentially erratic shift
that an anomalous good or bad year could have on the distribution of
funds. If a state has an average of one accident or less, they will be
allowed to transfer the funds.
However, under NEXTEA, States would be provided more flexibility to
address a wider variety of crossing safety improvement options as it
broadens program eligibility to include education and enforcement
programs, trespass prevention programs and improvements at private
crossings when there will be a public benefit. Private crossing
eligibility could be significant for those states developing high-speed
rail corridors. Therefore, even a limited amount of funding could be
used to leverage significant results in areas such as public awareness
campaigns or enforcement programs, previously not eligible for the
program's funding.
NEXTEA also retains 100 percent funding eligibility for projects
which close or eliminate one or more crossings, and retain the $7,500
per crossing bonus program eligibility for communities that close
crossings (when bonus is matched by the railroad).
Question. How will state's apportionments for the Rail-Highway
Crossing Program under NEXTEA compare to their apportionment under
ISTEA? Which states will gain funds and which states will lose funds?
Answer. Under the NEXTEA grade crossing allocation formula, 23
States will gain funds and 27 States and the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico will lose funds in fiscal year 1998 compared to their ISTEA
allocation formula. (This analysis does not include hazard elimination
funds which also can be used for grade crossing. If this is factored
into the equation, 32 States and Puerto Rico gain and 18 States plus
D.C. lose.)
States with increased funding are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Wisconsin.
States with decreased funding are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming,
Puerto Rico.
financial planning
Question. DOT's NEXTEA proposal will require a financial plan for
any project with an estimated total cost of $1 billion or more. Does
DOT have any specific requirements for the form content and scope of
such financial plans? If so, when will they be published? If not, does
DOT plan to implement this requirement on a case-by-case basis?
Answer. The FHWA does not currently have any specific requirements
for form, content or scope of a financial plan. If the provision for a
financial plan becomes law, FHWA will develop guidelines or regulations
for this requirement.
Question. Currently there are no federal requirements for preparing
a cost estimate. On what cost estimate will this requirement be based--
an estimate prepared during an environmental impact statement process
or some other specific estimate?
Answer. With the aging of Interstate highways, States are
initiating some large scale reconstruction projects in urban areas
costing billions of dollars, such as I-15 in Salt Lake, UT and Central
Artery in Boston, MA. The FHWA required the States to develop plans for
these two projects to outline the financial resources that would be
available for the projects. These financial plans contain cost
containment provisions and are updated at specified intervals as
appropriate. As with the provision in the NEXTEA proposal requiring a
financial plan for all projects estimated to cost $1 billion or more,
FHWA would expect the State to use the most reliable estimate at the
time it develops a plan. The FHWA also may require periodic updates of
the plan.
Question. If a project is initially estimated to cost less than $1
billion, but then costs increase, will this requirement then apply?
Answer. The primary purpose of a financial plan is to serve as a
cost containment strategy, therefore FHWA would expect the states to
develop a financial plan for any mega-project that has the potential
for reaching the $1,000,000,000 threshold.
its mainstreaming
Question. Provide examples of some of the tangible results that can
be expected from the ITS mainstreaming program. What measures of
success does DOT use to estimate the benefits from the mainstreaming
projects?
Answer. The purpose of the mainstreaming program is to make
integrated, interoperable, compatible ITS infrastructure deployment as
``normal'' a part of the federal-aid highway and transit planning,
development and funding processes, as construction of highway and mass
transit facilities is today. That will require 1) technical assistance
from headquarters until it can be delivered as a part of regular
services provided through field offices. 2) guidance development on
architecture, best practices, and the over 100 standards expected to
support ITS deployment; 3) extensive training of FHWA and FTA staff as
well as state and local staff working in this area. That will begin
with an awareness of benefits and move to building key skills. In the
short term our measures will be of ``activities''--number of guidance
documents, extent of distribution, number of courses, number of
attendees etc. A more meaningful measure is the desired outcome of a
surface transportation industry that routinely deploys ITS
infrastructure as appropriate in a particular locality, existence of
regional frameworks that are consistent with the national architecture,
use of standards, and routine inclusion of ITS in the planning process
(which now includes operations planning.)
The tangible results that can be expected from the ITS/CVO
mainstreaming program are institutional processes that lead to
deployment of CVISN throughout the country by 2005. These processes
consist of state ITS/CVO business plans which document the goals and
components of a state's program, and regional business plans that
integrate the business plans of the states to promote overall
interoperability. Additional tangible results are expected through
regional champions to help lead the deployment agenda and the
mainstreaming forums which will focus on lessons learned and reduce the
trial and error time that it takes to implement CVISN. The measures of
success that DOT is using are the cooperative linkages that result
between state agencies to allow CVISN to operate in an integrated
fashion, and the level of technical readiness of the states to
implement CVISN.
Question. The fiscal year 1998 request for the mainstreaming
category is twice the size of the fiscal year 1997 funding. Why the
substantial increase? What activities will this funding be spent on?
Answer. The total fiscal year 1997 investment in the Mainstreaming
program area is approximately $13.5 million, including $2 million in
training activities being funded under the Operational Tests program
area. The request in fiscal year 1997, however, was for $21.7 million,
because of the urgency of carrying out technology transfer and
training. The GAO reflected the same urgency in it recent findings.
This year, our Mainstreaming funding request mirrors our previous
request. Our top priority is training, which will now be expanded to
included state and local staff and more specialized skill building.
Another activity being substantially increased is the Planning/Policy
area, which is proposed to grow from $1 million in fiscal year 1997 to
$4 million in fiscal year 1998. The increased funding for this program
area will be used to continue and expand efforts to coordinate regional
planning functions with State and local traffic operations and
maintenance functions to foster an integrated approach to operations
planning and deployment of ITS infrastructure to achieve transportation
system operations and management objectives.
Question. How will this program make use of the results from
projects such as the Model Deployment Initiative and Commercial Vehicle
Information System Networks (CVISN)?
Answer. We have recently received an extensive case study of the
Atlanta Showcase effort which has provided us and those developing the
training curricula with an excellent set of detailed lessons learned.
Likewise we expect that both the quantitative information emerging from
both the CVISN and metropolitan area model deployments as well as the
institutional lessons learned will become case studies used in numerous
seminars, college curricula and our own training courses.
national scenic byways program
Question. How has DOT used the funding provided under ISTEA, and
how successful has DOT been in meeting the program's goals and
objectives?
Answer. The Scenic Byways Program Grant activities show that the
States and local communities have achieved significant accomplishments,
both in initiating new programs as well as strengthening existing
programs through a variety of scenic byways projects. The Scenic Byways
discretionary grant funds are serving as seed money for the States and
local communities to conserve the unique qualities while developing
economic resources along their byways. These funds have also provided
an opportunity for the States and communities to work as partners in
reaching common goals.
Consistent with ISTEA, scenic byways funds have been used to
provide technical assistance to the States for the development and
enhancement of scenic byways programs. Technical assistance activities
have included workshops, conferences, and technical research to provide
educational awareness to related scenic byways concerns. Additionally,
a National Scenic Byways Clearinghouse as well as a World Wide Web site
(Internet) have been established to allow the States and the public to
have national/international access to current scenic byways
information.
Question. What types of projects have been funded in this program
during ISTEA? Has this led to a significant increase in the number of
States implementing a scenic byways program?
Answer. Overall, $74,300,000 in Scenic Byways Program discretionary
grant funds were awarded to 37 States, including Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia, for 552 projects. There were six categories of
eligible project types outlined in ISTEA. The following identifies each
project category, the funds awarded, and the total number of projects
in each category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project category Awards Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning, design, and development of State
scenic byway programs....................... $22,600,000 186
Making safety improvements to byways......... 782,000 2
Construction along the scenic byway (ranked
in order of greatest number of projects to
least: Interpretive Facilities, Pedestrian &
Bike facilities, Turnouts & Overlooks, Rest
Areas, and Shoulder Improvements............ 38,900,000 202
Improvements to enhance recreation area
access from byways.......................... 1,500,000 26
Protecting historical, archaeological, and
cultural resources adjacent to by- ways.... 665,000 6
Developing and providing tourist information
to the public about byways.................. 8,900,000 130
--------------------------
Total.................................. 74,347,000 552
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen (18) States previously had no State scenic byways and
program took advantage of Scenic Byways funding to establish one.
Eleven (11) additional States used Scenic Byways grant funds to improve
and upgrade their existing programs.
Question. What evidence does DOT have that projects funded with
scenic byway program funds would not have otherwise been funded by
States and localities using other Federal-aid funds?
Answer. Demand for projects funded with Scenic Byways Program funds
exceeded the total available by 145 percent. While the States had the
opportunity to use Transportation Enhancement funds (TE) to undertake
these byway projects that were unable to be funded under the National
Scenic Byway Program, generally they did not. This limited use of TE
funds is due in large part to the significant demands placed upon TE
funds for other purposes, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration project
Question. When does the FHWA plan to make available application
forms for the operators of light trucks that are eligible to enroll in
the FHWA's Motor Carrier Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration
Project?
Answer. On August 28, 1996, the FHWA published a Notice of Intent
which outlined our proposed project plan. After the comment period,
modifications were made and a draft Notice of Final Determination was
prepared. This Notice of Final Determination, to be published soon,
will contain the application requirements.
Question. NHTSA has made wearing safety belts the centerpiece of
its strategy to save lives on our Nation's roads and highways. For a
number of years safety belt usage was on the increase on a nationwide
basis. NHTSA has reported nationwide rates of safety belt use of 62
percent in 1992 and 67 percent in 1994. During hearings last year the
Department once again reported that the rate was 67 percent. DOT's
stated goal for some time has been to achieve 75 percent usage rate by
1997. In your current budget submission you indicate that your new goal
is 80 percent by 1999. The 1999 goal appears very ambitious based on
past accomplishments. Why does the Department keep raising the goal
when it has yet to achieve past goals?
Answer. Safety belt usage rate goals established by the Department
are ambitious, but achievable, when compared to historical data and our
experience of what is necessary to meet these goals. Looking
historically at safety belt usage rates, between 1982 and 1992 usage
rates increased from 11 percent to 59 percent. This increase of almost
50 percentage points was due primarily to the passage of state seat
belt laws. From 1991 through 1996, overall usage increased an
additional nine percentage points as a result of increased enforcement
and public education.
In response to the President's new initiative to increase belt use,
on April 16, 1997 the Department submitted a plan to the President
entitled The National Strategy to Increase Seat Belt Use in the United
States. In addition to outlining a new four point strategy to increase
safety belt usage, the plan calls for even more ambitious goals of 85
percent usage by the year 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. As compared to
previous goals, the Department believes these new goals are achievable
based on the Administration's support of the issue, our knowledge of
what works in the states to significantly increase safety belt usage,
and growing public and private sector support, such as the Air Bag
Safety Campaign. Specifically, we now know that the combination of
primary seat belt legislation, increased enforcement of existing laws,
ongoing public education, and the establishment of public and private
sector partnerships will dramatically increase usage in the U.S.
Question. What are the chances of achieving the nationwide rate of
75 percent during 1997?
Answer. In 1996, seven states reported a usage rate at 75 percent
or above. California reported the highest rate at 87 percent. Overall,
the national average for 1996 is 68 percent. NHTSA expects several
additional states to raise their safety belt usage rates above the 75
percent goal during 1997; however, it is unlikely that the national
average will increase seven percent points within one year.
NHTSA believes that it is realistic to expect that the United
States will achieve President Clinton's new goals of 85 percent safety
belt usage by the year 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. NHTSA believes
these new goals are achievable based on the Administration's support of
the issue and our knowledge of what works in the states to
significantly increase safety belt usage. Specifically, we now know
that the combination of primary safety belt legislation, increased
enforcement of existing laws, on-going public education, and the
establishment of public and private sector partnerships will
dramatically increase usage in the U.S.
Question. How many states currently have a safety belt usage rate
of 75 percent?
Answer. As of 1996, seven states reported safety belt usage rates
at 75 percent or higher. These states are: California (89 percent),
Hawaii (80 percent), Iowa (75 percent), New Mexico (85 percent), North
Carolina (82 percent), Oregon (82 percent), and Washington (84
percent).
Question. How many states have achieved an 80 percent rate and
which states are they?
Answer. As of 1996, six states reported safety belt usage rates at
80 percent or higher. These states are: California (87 percent); New
Mexico (85 percent); Washington (84 percent); North Carolina (82
percent); Oregon (82 percent); and Hawaii (80 percent).
Question. What is the current range for the lowest usage rate and
the highest?
Answer. Based upon 1996 data reported by the States, safety belt
use rates range from 43 percent in North Dakota to 87 percent in
California.
Question. What safety initiatives is the department planning
between now and 1999 that will help it achieve a nationwide average of
80 percent when only a few states now enjoy that level of
accomplishment?
Answer. On April 16, 1997, Secretary Slater submitted a plan to
President Clinton, entitled The National Strategy to Increase Seat Belt
Use Nationwide, which outlines a new strategy to achieve the
Department's goals for safety belt use. This plan combines many of the
highly effective current activities and initiatives with a new four
point strategy for fiscal year 1998 and beyond. The plan is based on
building public-private partnerships, enacting strong legislation,
embracing high visibility law enforcement, and conducting coordinated
public education. The plan builds upon existing programs and activities
such as the Special Traffic Enforcement Programs and the Air Bag Safety
Campaign partnership that have been so successful.
The plan also includes two new initiatives to help increase seat
belt use. The first, included in the Department's reauthorization
proposal, provides incentive grants to encourage states to improve
their occupant protection laws and enforcement (sample criteria include
enacting primary belt laws, requiring a fine of at least $25 for each
safety belt or child seat violation, and conducting special enforcement
programs). Alternatively, states can qualify if they meet belt use rate
goals. The reauthorization proposal also includes a provision which
would transfer funds from highway construction to occupant protection
programs if a state does not meet belt use goals by 2002. The second
initiative is a new Executive Order, signed by President Clinton on
April 16, 1997, that requires all Federal employees to wear seat belts
while on duty, requires belt and child seat use in National Parks and
on Department of Defense installations, and encourages Tribal
Governments and Federal contractors and grantees to adopt seat belt
policies and programs
national advanced driving simulator (nads)
Question. NADS will be located at the University of Iowa in Iowa
City, IA. As envisioned, NADS will represent the state-of-the-art in
driving simulation, exceeding the capabilities for realism of the
Daimler-Benz Driving Simulator (DBDS)--the most advanced driving
simulator in the world--and the Iowa Driving Simulator (IDS)--the most
advanced driving simulator in the United States. NADS is currently
scheduled to be completed and operational in May 1999. TRW, the
contractor building NADS, plans to begin fabricating the various
simulator components (vision system, motion system, etc.) after the
critical design review is completed in March 1997, the University of
Iowa will award the contract to build the facility in June 1997. All
components are scheduled to be completed before the end of 1998. The
total estimated cost to build NADS now stands at $49.3 million--an
increase of $17.3 million from NHTSA's original 1989 estimate. The
Department of Transportation (DOT) approved NADS contingent upon NHTSA
obtaining a one-third cost-sharing commitment from non-DOT sources. As
a result, DOT will be responsible for paying $32.9 million toward the
project, with the remaining $16.4 to be paid by non-DOT sources. To
date, the University of Iowa and the State of Iowa have contributed
$11.6 million, and TRW has contributed $3.6 million, for a total of
$15.2 million, leaving NHTSA in search of an additional $1.2 million in
cost sharing. Once operational, NADS will become the second driving
simulator owned by DOT. FHWA currently has a driving simulator, called
HYSIM, at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, VA.
HYSIM was built in 1983 to study human factors issues relating to
highway signs and markings, roadway geometry and in-vehicle displays.
What research does DOT plan to perform on NADS that cannot now be
performed on IDS or HYSIM, and how will this research benefit the
Department?
Answer. Due the extremely limited motion cuing available from
either the HYSIM or the IDS, neither of these devices is capable of
realistically simulating hazardous driving situations that precede or
precipitate vehicle crashes. Only the NADS, with its large excursion X-
Y motion base (62 feet by 62 feet) and large yaw rotation capability
(plus or minus 330 degrees) can provide the necessary motion cues that
are generated by vehicles in pre-crash maneuvers. Without this level of
motion cuing fidelity, the results of simulations in this regime of
vehicle operation would be highly questionable. The extreme high
fidelity of the NADS cuing systems will allow NHTSA to analyze with
confidence the complex driver-vehicle interactions that occur during
crashes. This will lead to the development of advanced driver aids and
information systems to assist drivers in avoiding crashes.
Question. What would be the effect of DOT moving the FHWA research
now being conducted at HYSIM so that it would be performed using NADS?
Answer. The FHWA research being conducted at HYSIM serves several
critical functions to the overall research program in highway safety.
The importance of maintaining the HYSIM at TFHRC is highlighted by the
fact that the HYSIM:
--is closely integrated with in-house research conducted in other
TFHRC laboratories;
--provides a flexible test bed in which research questions generated
by contract research can be refined or extended;
--includes the Dynasign, which is a unique system of presenting
highway signs and provides the means to evaluate signage in a
dynamic driving environment quickly and flexibly;
--is in close proximity to FHWA highway engineers, who comprise the
primary customer base for human factors research;
--is used as a demonstration and training tool for junior highway
engineers and other FHWA customers.
Moving the research program to NADS would be deleterious to the
FHWA research in highway safety and would destroy the critical daily
interaction with FHWA engineers and human factors professionals
required for conceptualizing, developing, and conducting highway safety
research efforts.
Further, a move would:
--deprive FHWA engineers of human factors insights into every day
safety issues, and result in the fractionation of highway
safety concerns;
--decrease the efficiency of industry professionals who must work
closely with both engineers and human factors researchers on
the same project;
--disrupt in-house FHWA human factors research at a critical point in
ITS and safety research restart-up time;
--postpone for several years the deployment and operational testing
of ITS and safety systems;
--result in the loss of a critical number of experienced human
factors FHWA professionals.
Question. DOT currently estimates a total project cost for NADS of
$49.3 million. Through fiscal year 1997, NADS has received $27.8
million from DOT, $11.6 million from Iowa and $3.6 million from TRW--
for a total of $43 million. However, NHTSA officials stated that NADS
will need about $16.5 million in additional funding for it to be
completed. If so, it appears NADS' total cost will be about $59.5
million. Please explain why it appears NADS needs about $10.2 million
more than the $49.3 million estimate?
Answer. The estimate for the NADS Facility Development Cost of
$49.3 million was provided to Congress in briefings to the House and
Senate staff in January 1996 and has always been distinguished from the
NADS Total Project Cost. The NADS Facility Development Cost ($49.262
million) is the cost of the Phase II construction contract ($34.105
million) plus the total of all cost sharing contributions ($15.157
million). The NADS Total Project Cost is the NADS Facility Development
Cost plus costs associated with the Phase I design competition, Phase
III transition of the NADS operation to Iowa, program planning and
management support including cost accounting, Iowa management support,
Iowa technical support, and Congressionally mandated studies including
the TRB utilization study and the contractor evaluation of Iowa
contributed software. The following table provides consolidated costs
for the total project:
NADS Total Project Cost Estimates
Project phase Project cost
Phase I Design Competition.............................. $7,827,000
Phase II--NADS Facility Acquisition:
TRW Contract........................................ (34,105,000)
University of Iowa Cost Share....................... (11,530,000)
TRW Cost Share...................................... (3,627,000)
Subtotal Phase II....................................... 49,262,000
Phase III--Transition................................... 1,800,000
Office Support.......................................... 950,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost................................ 59,839,000
Question. DOT approved NADS contingent upon NHTSA obtaining a one-
third cost-sharing commitment from non-DOT sources. If FHWA received
the $12 million requested for fiscal year 1998, DOT's actual
contribution would be $39.8 million, or about 67 percent of NADS' total
project cost, which appears to be about $59.8 million. The Iowa and TRW
contributions total $15.2 million, or about 26 percent of the total
cost. What is NHTSA doing to obtain the additional non-DOT cost sharing
(about $4.5 million) it needs for NADS construction?
Answer. The Department approved the NADS project with the condition
that one-third of the acquisition cost of the NADS would have to be
cost shared by non-DOT sources, not one-third of the total project
cost. Thus, the one-third non-DOT cost sharing requirement is based on
the $49.3 million or $16.4 million. The total cost sharing that is in
place to date is $15.2 million, leaving a balance of $1.2 million yet
to be secured. To date NHTSA has received no firm commitments for
additional non-DOT cost sharing. However, NHTSA is currently exploring
cost sharing with a major truck manufacturer. Preliminary discussion
indicate that the manufacturer may be interested in providing the
required truck cab and vehicle engineering and dynamics data.
Question. Other than NHTSA, has anyone made actual dollar
commitments to pay for operating time on NADS?
Answer. At this time, NHTSA does not have any firm dollar
commitments to pay for operating time on the NADS. This is not
surprising, since users are unlikely to make such firm commitments 2
years before the simulator is built. However, NHTSA continues to
believe in the overall finding of the TRB evaluation of the potential
utilization of the NADS; i.e., the NADS will have an 80 percent
utilization rate within 2 years of becoming operational.
transit new starts program
Question. The transit program is the only major component of the
Administration's NEXTEA bill whose overall funding authorization was
cut as compared to ISTEA. Specifically, transit was cut by $1 billion--
from $31.5 billion to $30.5 billion--over 6 years. Is the
Administration sending Congress a signal that transit is less of a
priority than it was under ISTEA?
Answer. The NEXTEA funding level reflects a more realistic level of
increase for the program. ISTEA authorized $5.1 billion each year for
fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996 with a large increase in
fiscal year 1997. It is proper only to compare ISTEA to NEXTEA without
the $2.1 billion ``bubble'' provided in fiscal year 1997 Budget
Authority. Therefore, NEXTEA represents an increase of $1.2 billion or
4 percent over six years. Transit remains the same high priority under
NEXTEA as it did under ISTEA.
Question. Currently, there are 13 transit new starts with full
funding grant agreements and two more, Sacramento and San Francisco
BART, awaiting Full Funding Grant Agreements. If the two additional
projects receive their FFGA's for a total of 15 FFGA's, please describe
how much new start funding would be available for other projects under
the $634 million level proposed in the President's budget? How much
would be available if new starts were to be funded at the high
authorization levels proposed in NEXTEA?
Answer. The outyear funding schedules for the BART and Sacramento
projects have been accommodated in the President's budget at the $634
million level. The President's budget for fiscal year 1998 proposes to
fund the existing 13 existing FFGA's plus the BART and Sacramento
projects. No funding is proposed for other projects in fiscal year
1998. It is anticipated that there will be no projects ready to receive
an FFGA until next fiscal year.
To complete current and proposed FFGA's will require about $3.7
billion. NEXTEA would authorize $5.8 billion thereby leaving about $2
billion for additional projects.
Question. Will FTA be able to provide full funding grant agreements
for the projects that will be requesting them in the next few years?
Answer. Assuming the authorization levels proposed in NEXTEA, FTA
would be able to provide full funding grant agreements for additional
projects.
Question. What impact will there be on the cost and schedule of
these projects should federal funding not be available for 6 or more
years?
Answer. Should federal funding be limited to the extent that no new
FFGA's could be issued during NEXTEA, projects seeking new starts
funding would likely face the following options: 1) cancellation; 2)
delay until the next authorization period [with attendant cost
increases and unknown scheduling adjustments]; 3) secure a combination
of local and/or State, and non-new start Federal funding [Urban
Formula, STP, CMAQ] to finance the project; 4) employ innovative
financing techniques to leverage stable Federal revenue streams; or 5)
use existing funds to raise bonds to finance construction.
To the extent that project sponsors delayed the initiation of the
projects until Federal funding became available, the project costs
would most likely escalate due to inflation, although the rate of
increase might be mitigated by a more favorable bidding climate in the
future.
Question. The President's budget generally freezes transit funding,
except for the new starts program which was cut by about 17 percent.
Thus, the budget proposes only $634 million per year in actual spending
for new starts. The six-year NEXTEA bill proposes new starts funding
that begins at $800 million in fiscal year 1998 and grows to $1.03
billion by fiscal year 2003. Since these additional new starts funds
are not in the budget, where are they to come from?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 President's budget proposes funding
for 15 projects for which Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA's) are in
place or pending. Our proposed outyear funding is sufficient to cover
funding requirements for these 15 projects. Our reauthorization
proposal includes a higher level of contract authority which could
become available dependent upon future Federal budget decisions.
Question. Mr. Linton, I understand that on April 9th, you wrote to
the Chairman of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority and essentially informed him that you plan to re-write the
full funding grant agreement regarding the troubled Los Angeles rail
system. Evidently, you found ``serious deficiencies and questionable
assumptions'' in the recovery plan proposed by Los Angeles. Your letter
states that: ``We are incredulous that, despite the engineering and
financial difficulties on the construction already underway, the Board
is contemplating even more requests to the Congress for various costly
extensions to your rail system.'' If you re-write the FFGA for Los
Angeles, will you free-up more ``contingent commitment authority'' to
be used for FFGA's for other projects?
Answer. As part of my intensive effort to assist the LACMTA to
manage this vital project, I intend to treat the three components of
MOS-3, North Hollywood, East Side and Mid-City, as three separate legs.
I will issue revised FFGA's for each of these legs with the overall
Federal commitment for MOS-3 remaining unchanged. However, the MOS-3
outyear funding schedule will be revised to reflect cash flow
requirements for each leg or segment. This will involve some reordering
of the funding schedule. To the extent that outyear requests will be
adjusted, some additional short term funding may become available. I do
not anticipate that this will be a substantial amount and the final
amounts will, of course, be contingent on the cash flow requirements
analysis conducted by my staff for each segment.
We believe LACMTA's revised recovery plan, currently under
preparation, will furnish a blueprint for ensuring that MOS-3 is
completed in a timely and effective manner and for fully accomplishing
LACMTA's other substantial responsibilities.
transit formula program funding
Question. The FTA is proposing that, beginning in fiscal year 1998,
the discretionary bus and bus-related funding and fixed guideway
modernization funding be rolled into the Formula Program. FTA Officials
state that funds from these categories will be available to be spent
for any eligible purpose, as opposed to being limited to specific
categories. FTA's most recent needs report painted a bleak picture as
to the state of the nation's transit inventory. The report noted that
over 13,000 buses were in excess of the useful life guidelines
established by FTA and that over 3,800 rail transit vehicles were in
excess of the minimum useful life guidelines. The cost to replace these
vehicles could be in the billions of dollars. What is FTA hoping to
achieve by moving funding for these categories into the Formula
Program?
Answer. The significant transit needs are the primary reason for
consolidating two categorical programs into a more flexible Formula
program. Merging the Fixed Guideway Modernization and Bus grant
programs into the Urbanized Area Formula program will provide transit
operators with greater flexibility in targeting Federal funding to
locally determined needs. Under this proposal, the formula funding
level would increase from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $3.4
billion in fiscal year 1998. Fixed Guideway Modernization resources
will still be apportioned using the ISTEA formula, but once made
available, these funds, as well as all other formula funds, may be used
for any eligible purpose. This will help local agencies plan by
reducing uncertainty, and will improve equity by distributing more
funds by formula. It will also enhance the possibility of using
innovative financing techniques to leverage the Federal funds.
Question. Under FTA's new funding proposal, what assurance is there
that available funding will not be mostly directed to one category at
the expense of the other?
Answer. This proposal places the responsibility for local
decisionmaking where it belongs--in local hands. Local officials will
be free to determine where their greatest needs lie, and direct Federal
funding to eligible purposes as appropriate.
Question. What are FTA's long-range plans for replacing buses and
rail cars that have exceeded their useful lives? Should we focus
Federal funding more on the replacement and maintenance of the existing
transit inventory and less on new starts systems?
Answer. We believe that State and local officials will act in the
most cost-effective manner if given the authority. The flexibility
inherent in the proposed merging of programs will enable local
decisionmakers to tailor a larger pool of Federal funds to their
specific needs. If the greatest need is bus replacement, funds can be
targeted for bus replacement. If the greatest need is for rail vehicles
or facilities, funds can be targeted for those purposes.
This flexibility is especially important given the differing life
cycles between buses and railcars. Under the current division of
programs, a transit operator that receives fixed guideway modernization
funds cannot use those funds for new buses, even though the bus fleet
may exhibit the greater need. By combining these programs, funds can be
used for bus replacement/rehabilitation when needed, and railcar
replacement/rehabilitation when needed.
We recognize the need to balance new system construction with
support to ``older rail cities'' for the replacement and rehabilitation
of the existing rail fleet and restoration of rail facilities. Our
budget provides $634 million, the same amount as for major capital
investments, to be distributed by the current statutory formula for
fixed guideway modernization.
access to jobs and training
Question. How long will it take for these projects to be
implemented and begin assisting welfare or previous welfare recipients?
Answer. We anticipate funding the programs that are ready to be
implemented to meet the needs of those transitioning from welfare to
work. Although the funds are flexible and can be used to plan welfare
to work activities, we are urging states and localities to plan and
develop their strategies now, so that when funding becomes available,
they may move to implement services quickly. The time constraints
associated with welfare reform requires speedy action.
Question. Provide an example of the type of project this program
will support.
Answer. Localities are free to develop the services and service
strategies which the participating stakeholders agree are needed.
Strategies may range from conventional bus services to flexible
paratransit, including ridesharing strategies. We believe intelligent
transportation technologies will allow for more effective coordination
of service provided by transit agencies and other providers. The
program criteria require that a mechanism be established to coordinate
transportation and human service planning and to coordinate existing
service providers in developing new service strategies. Therefore,
participating transportation agencies, existing transportation
operators, welfare agencies, employment training and other human
service entities working with employers and community stakeholders are
in the best position to develop appropriate service strategies. A
funded program can incorporate several different services and types of
providers working together to meet unmet needs. The program that is
developed is meant to be derived from a comprehensive assessment of
needs and must be programmed within the existing MPO and state
transportation programming process. We would expect to receive a single
application to support a comprehensive program, not fragmented pieces
from different local applicants.
Question. How many projects will $100 million support?
Answer. The number of projects would depend on whether projects
receive a single grant for the entire period or phased funding over
several years. This issue has not yet been resolved. We expect projects
to occur in each state where welfare-to-work problems exist. In general
we would not expect grants to exceed $3-4 million for individual areas.
washington metro
Question. Administrator Linton's testimony before the House
Appropriation, Subcommittee on Transportation noted that the Washington
Metrorail system continues on its fast track program for completion of
the 103-mile system. His testimony also noted that the accelerated
construction schedule, which continues to receive an annual
appropriation of $200 million, is expected to save as much as $600
million. What does FTA base this savings on and is it true costs
savings or expected savings from avoiding out-year inflation increases?
Answer. The fast track accelerates the construction schedule and
completes the system five years earlier than originally planned. The
estimated savings were based on the avoidance of out-year inflation
increases.
Question. Washington Metro recently decided to extend the 103 mile
system in Largo, Maryland. Have federal funds been provided to this
project? If so, were they provided under a separate appropriation or as
part of the $200 million annual appropriation?
Answer. No federal funds have been provided to extend the Metro
rail system beyond 103 miles.
bureau of transportation statistics
Question. Since NEXTEA proposed a doubling of the BTS budget,
please describe BTS' success stories that would warrant such a large
increase in its budget.
Answer. The six-year total for NEXTEA is double the six-year total
for ISTEA, but is a 24 percent increase in annual spending over the
final year of growth in the ISTEA authorization. BTS started in the
first year of ISTEA with a budget of $5.0 million, and grew
incrementally pursuant to ISTEA to $25.0 million in fiscal year 1997.
The proposed budget in fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent year is
$31.0 million, which covers in addition to the Bureau's original
responsibilities the airline and motor carrier programs not anticipated
by ISTEA. Since its inception, BTS has been able to:
--Conduct the Commodity Flow Survey in 1993 and get the 1997 edition
into the field, providing the first benchmarks in nearly two
decades of what is shipped, its origin and destination, and how
it moved. This was the first successful effort to measure
shipments from non-manufacturing establishments and to estimate
``bridge traffic'' through each state.
--Conduct the American Travel Survey in 1995, providing the first
detailed benchmarks of who travels, by which means, for what
purposes, and between what locations.
--Complete three Transportation Statistics Annual Reports, including
special analyses of transportation and economic performance and
of transportation and the environment. The fourth edition,
featuring transportation and mobility, is in the final stages
of completion.
--Make foreign trade statistics more useful to the transportation
community by splitting commodity flows across the US-Canadian
and US-Mexican borders by mode and publishing the results on a
monthly basis.
--Assemble and publish the National Transportation Atlas Database, a
compilation of data on the location, connectivity, and other
attributes of the highway, rail, waterway, fixed guideway
transit, and airway networks.
--Initiate an interagency agreement with the Bureau of Economic
Analysis to more precisely identify the resources consumed by
the transportation sector, the quantity of transportation
consumed by other sectors of the economy, and the contribution
of transportation to the costs of products.
--Conduct a major study through four universities to ascertain the
impacts of the Northridge Earthquake on the transportation
system of Los Angeles, and the economic consequences of those
impacts.
--Establish award winning programs to make DOT's data accessible. BTS
has published 18 major CD-ROM titles, and has created an
Internet site that serves over 9,000 customers per week with
documents and data from BTS, the rest of the Department, state
and local transportation agencies, universities, and
international organizations.
--Initiate cooperative programs with transportation and statistical
agencies in Canada and Mexico to establish a continental
perspective on transportation.
--Absorb the Office of Airline Information and improve the time
between data collection and release.
--Absorb the Motor Carrier Financial and Operating Statistics program
from the Interstate Commerce Commission and initiate a process
to streamline and modernize the program.
--Launch the coordination and standards setting activities listed
under a subsequent BTS question.
The proposed NEXTEA funding will meet growing demand for these
services, both those initiated under ISTEA and those subsequently added
to the Bureau's portfolio. The funding request will also allow pilot
and proof-of-concept studies for the new initiatives indicated under
the last BTS question as submitted by the Senator.
Question. What progress has BTS made in coordinating Departmental
data collection efforts?
Answer. BTS is mandated by ISTEA to encourage coordinated data
collection, but is precluded by ISTEA from requiring cooperation from
other parts of the Department and other federal agencies unless
authorized by the Secretary. BTS has been given responsibility within
the Department to review all Office of Management and Budget clearance
requests involving surveys to assure they maintain good statistical
practice. BTS has also coordinated its own intermodal data collection
programs with the other modal administrations and other federal
agencies to maximize data collection effectiveness and minimize
respondent burden and unwarranted program duplication. In compiling the
National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD), BTS assembled disparate
spatial databases from other DOT agencies, established standard formats
and metadata documentation that complies with the recommendations of
the Federal Geographic Data Committee, and implemented procedures for
ongoing maintenance and dissemination. The NTAD represents the first
integrated set of spatial transportation networks useful for both
national policy studies and intermodal analyses.
Question. What progress has BTS made in setting data collection
guidelines and standards for the Department?
Answer. In spite of the limitations cited under the preceding
question, BTS has successfully completed several standards-setting
activities. BTS represented the transportation community in developing
of the North American Industrial Classification System (which is
replacing the Standard Industrial Classification system); updating the
Standard Occupational Classification System; and the establishing the
Standard Classification of Transportable Goods. The last item had been
identified as a major need by the Department in 1969, and was
accomplished when BTS took the initiative and won the cooperation of
the Bureau of the Census, Statistics Canada, and Transport Canada. BTS
is also the lead agency in ongoing work to establish standards for
geographic data related to ground transportation as part of the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure under the Federal Geographic Data
Committee, as well as an effort to modernize the Standard Land Use
Coding Manual. Most recently, BTS has been asked by the Department to
review the feasibility and reliability of proposed output and outcome
measures by each modal administration for compliance with the
Government Performance and Results Act.
Question. What activities are planned for BTS over the 6 years of
the NEXTEA proposal?
Answer. Most of the NEXTEA budget will be consumed by continuing
those services required by ISTEA and those later transferred to the
Bureau without funding (i.e., the Office of Airline Information and the
Motor Carrier Financial and Operating Statistics program of the
Interstate Commerce Commission). In response to customer demands, BTS
also proposes building upon its initial products and services with
three major initiatives. These initiatives include expanded programs of
data collection and integration involving international transportation;
expanded services to state, local, and private sector decisionmakers,
including a grant program to enhance data collection and sharing
throughout the transportation community; and a program to develop
performance measures in DOT and support performance measurement by
state and local agencies. Pilot and proof-of-concept activities would
be initiated in each of the following areas under the proposed NEXTEA
funding levels.
Transportation in a Global Economy
The initial BTS focus on domestic transportation must be expanded
to reflect the increasing importance international trade has on the
economic health of the Nation and its individual communities. This
expansion includes:
--The domestic transportation of international trade and travel. BTS
proposes to work with the Customs Service and the Bureau of the
Census to determine where and how international trade and
travel passes through the domestic transportation system. Such
data are key to understanding the impact of NAFTA and other
trade policies on the demand for domestic transportation
facilities and services, and to identifying regional and local
opportunities to compete in world markets. BTS has assessed
major shortcomings in existing data as part of the Bureau's
Transportation Statistics Annual Reports.
--The condition, performance, and use of transportation links to
other nations. BTS proposes to assemble information on
transportation facilities and services that link us to other
nations, paralleling the Department's ongoing efforts to
measure the condition, performance, and use of transportation
within the U.S. The requisite work involves acquiring
commercial data sources, maintaining data programs of agencies
(such as those of the Maritime Administration) that may be lost
with institutional change, and data integration.
--The International Transportation Database. BTS proposes to build a
database that supports understanding of international issues,
such as the role of transportation in global warming; provides
comparative data to inform domestic policy with the experience
of other countries with transportation; and contains basic
information on international markets for U.S. economic
interests.
Enhancing Relevance of National Transportation Statistics for State,
Local, and Private Sector Decisions
The DOT budget is less than a fourth of all government spending in
transportation, and only 5 percent of spending by the public and
private sectors combined. For BTS to enhance the effectiveness of
transportation decisions, the Bureau's national programs must be made
relevant to the state, local, and private sectors that are the dominant
stakeholders. The Bureau must improve the timeliness and geographic
specificity of its data programs through increased sample sizes of data
collections, the development of monthly transportation indicators, and
the development of innovative analytical programs. To minimize cost and
burden of these initiatives, BTS must also develop more efficient and
less obtrusive methods for data collection, such as through capture of
information from Intelligent Transportation Systems and administrative
records. To maximize the effectiveness of these initiatives, BTS must
also provide technical and financial assistance to organizations that
integrate local data collections and analyses with national
counterparts. Such activities are already taking place with respect to
spatial data. BTS is actively participating in the development of the
transportation framework layer of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI), which relies on the integration of databases
developed at the state and local levels to provide the most accurate
and up-to-date spatial data which can be used nationwide. The demand
for these activities is underscored by the Bureau's successful
participation in the White House Economic Briefing Room, and by a
policy statement passed unanimously by the Board of Directors of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that
states ``the U.S. Department of Transportation should encourage and
support the further development of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, a continuation of the dialogue between the Bureau and the
states, and an exploration of the Bureau's services to the states,
including the potential for increased technical assistance.''
The Bureau's proposal recognizes that America is being wired for
better communication and offers several programs to begin effectively
using the new telecommunications technologies. Inherent in the BTS
proposal is a plan for managing an integrated information
infrastructure for the transportation community. The plan consists of
expanding the National Transportation Library and establishing a series
of partnerships with state and local agencies, universities, and trade
associations. These partnerships will focus on improving the efficiency
of data collection and increasing the exchange of information
throughout the community. The Bureau is proposing a grant program to
work with non-federal professionals as they begin to collect data
through Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies, to work with
universities and others as they begin to build repositories of
transportation data and information on the Internet, and to work with
the private sector to ensure that the Department provides American
businesses with the right information at the right time in the right
format so they can successfully compete in the global economy.
Performance Indicators
BTS plans to work with other DOT modal administrations to develop
effective performance measures for transportation to support the
Government Performance and Results Act. In response to requests from
state and local agencies, BTS also proposes to help state departments
of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to develop
performance measures for their own purposes.
safety issues related to antihistamines
Question. The Committee is aware that NHTSA is currently developing
a national public education program to combat the effects of fatigue,
sleep disorders, and inattention on motor-vehicle crashes to be
implemented and evaluated in 1998. This is a critical undertaking since
in recent years, fatigue and drowsiness have been identified by experts
as major causes of lost worker productivity, workplace injuries, and
transportation-related accidents. This problem has been further
compounded by the fact that many persons suffering from seasonal
allergies self-medicate with over-the-counter (OTC) sedating
antihistamines. Such reaction-impairing medications were reported to be
factors in a recent Connecticut truck accident involving the death of
an 11-year-old girl as well as a metro train accident in San Francisco
that injured five people. With the 1998 public campaign, which was
funded by this committee in fiscal year 1996 and 1997, will there be a
specific focus on the dangers of driving while using sedating
antihistamines, or will the campaign just have a general warning about
driving while using impairing substances?
Answer. The development of the campaign is still in its early
stages, so it is too soon to know exactly how it will address
medications in general, and sedating antihistamines in particular. Both
the target audiences and specific content of this public education
program are established by a panel of nationally recognized experts in
the areas of sleep and sleep disorders, education, and traffic safety.
This panel is convened by the National Center on Sleep Disorders
Research. At this time, the panel has recommended a focus on young male
drivers and shift workers, two groups that appear to be over-
represented in fatigue-related incidents. While the panel's
recommendations are not yet final, they do not currently include
recommendations to create a specific focus on sedating antihistamines.
Rather, medication is one of several issues of which the panel believes
that the motoring public should be aware.
Question. You have indicated that you have yet to find evidence
that sedating antihistamines, or, for that matter, any OTC drugs,
contribute to a substantial number of crashes and that it would,
therefore, be inappropriate to issue warnings to the public about the
use of sedating antihistamines. This is troubling because, as you know,
such ``evidence'' is nearly impossible to collect since the information
about falling asleep at the wheel, or information about any specific
causes for such drowsiness, cannot be collected at the scene of an
accident unless it is volunteered by the driver. And as you also know,
independent research projects have concluded that the slowed reaction
time experienced by a person using a sedating antihistamine is
comparable to the delayed reaction of a person with a blood alcohol
content (BAC) of .05. So, if it is inappropriate to issue warnings
about sedating antihistamines based on a dearth of ``evidence,''
wouldn't it be appropriate then to take the more positive tack of
actively encouraging the nation's allergy sufferers to use non-sedating
medications while driving, particularly given that such antihistamines
are available?
Answer. This question implies that there is no evidence on the
involvement of antihistamines in crashes. This is not the case. In a
1990 study of the incidence and role of drugs in fatal crashes, the
Agency found that only 0.6 percent of drivers had any amount of
antihistamine in their blood, compared with 51.5 percent showing
measurable amounts of alcohol. This evidence suggests that
antihistamines are not involved in a significant number of fatal
crashes. While this does not mean that this issue is not important to
recognize and address, it is important to concentrate resources on
those issues that most demonstrably affect safety. NHTSA includes
messages warning against impairment due to over-the-counter medications
in its materials on drugged driving and driver education.
Question. For example, in 1993, the FAA approved the use of
loratadine, a non-sedating antihistamine, by most pilots and air
traffic controllers with allergies. Given that the FAA has recognized
and addressed this safety issue, does any other agency in the DOT offer
similar guidance in this area, such as the Coast Guard to its pilots
and cutter commanders?
Answer. In general, the U.S. Coast Guard does not provide
instruction as to the clinical treatment or therapy for specific health
problems, including those requiring use of antihistamines. The over-
arching policy is that all Coast Guard members must be ``fit for full
duty''. This means that any health problem and its respective treatment
must keep the ``fit for full duty'' concept in the forefront. Competent
medical authorities (i.e., medical officers) make decisions as to the
fitness for duty, using their clinical judgment, operational
experience, input from supervisors/command, and guidance set forth in
various Coast Guard instructions. Advisory information on the use of
specific medication in aviation is made available to medical officers
through several publications including the Coast Guard ``Flight
Surgeon's Guide''.
The Federal Railroad Administration also does not offer specific
guidance on sedating antihistamines. It publishes medical regulations
and conducts training for railroad company medical officers. FRA
reviews the periodic training and testing of operating personnel
conducted by the railroads.
The Federal Highway Administration issued a report in 1991 that
states that ``for treatment [of allergic rhinitis], only non-sedating
antihistamines or intranasal steroid sprays should be used to prevent
sedation that occurs with conventional therapy.'' A condensed version
of the report states that commercial motor-vehicle drivers ``should
avoid potentially sedating antihistamines.'' This condensed report is
included in FHWA's standard medical information package, which is sent
to medical practitioners who request information regarding medical
fitness qualifications for commercial drivers.
The Secretary of Transportation has reinforced modal efforts to
urge caution regarding the use of medications by promulgating a policy
strongly urging ``all transportation industry employers to include in
their employee training materials appropriate information to address''
both over-the-counter and prescription medications for persons
performing safety-sensitive duties. In addition, the policy encourages
``employers to reiterate with their employees the need to report use of
such medications when required by applicable DOT rules or by company
policies.''
Question. How does the FAA disseminate to medical directors at the
air carriers information about the directive concerning the use of non-
sedating antihistamines? Is this an adequate public information
mechanism, and if so, could it be a model for NHTSA or other modes in
the DOT which might consider adopting a similar advisory?
Answer. FAA provides medical advisory information including
information on non-sedating antihistamines to aviation medical
examiners (AME's), libraries, medical professional groups, aviation
user groups, and others. This information is disseminated by the Office
of Aviation Medicine (AAM) through the Federal Air Surgeon's Medical
Bulletin, which is published quarterly and distributed to approximately
6,000 physicians. In addition, AAM has widely distributed information
on the use of over the counter medications to both physicians and
airmen.
The bulletin and other pamphlets such as Medical Facts for Pilots
are prepared by the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute with policy
guidance and support from AAM. AME's and other authors submit articles
and photos for publication in the bulletin.
We believe that this is an adequate public information mechanism
since all airmen are required to undergo periodic physical examinations
by AME's. AME's are required to be knowledgeable of FAA policies and
practices regarding the acceptability of medications in the performance
of airman duties. Publication of pamphlets and distribution of
informational material to libraries, medical professional groups, user
groups, and others could, however, be effectively used by other modes
of DOT.
Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not
have regulatory control over motor-vehicle operators, it does not have
a network of medical examiners through which to disseminate such
information. Other modal administrations that have regulatory authority
appear to use methods similar to the FAA.
Question. What plans does NHTSA have for the development of a
safety standard in this area which could or should be applied to the
surface transportation modes as well, particularly rail, transit and
motor carriers?
Answer. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to promulgate a
standard that would have any binding effect on motorists or on State
and local governments. In the past, the agency has issued guidance
about the negative effects that over-the-counter drugs and other drugs
can have on driving behavior. As more information is developed in this
area, the agency will issue additional guidance to the States and the
public as the need arises.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
air bags
Question. Administrator Martinez, I understand that last month,
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) published a new
rule allowing vehicle manufacturer's to depower air bags so that they
inflate less aggressively. NHTSA believes ``this is a short-term
solution to the problem of fatalities and injuries that current air
bags cause to children and the elderly in low speed crashes.'' What
trade-offs result from this depowering decision? That is, if the
depowering decision makes air bag deployments safer in low speed
crashes, are vehicle occupants less safe in high speed crashes?
Answer. Based on the ``Final Regulatory Evaluation, Actions to
Reduce the Adverse Effects of Air Bags, FMVSS No. 208, Depowering,''
NHTSA, February 1997, the agency has estimated the benefits and
tradeoffs of depowering air bags.
Assuming no changes are made in where children sit in vehicles,
restraint usage rates, and no changes are made to the current air bags,
an estimated 140 children, 25 drivers and 7 adult passengers would be
killed in low speed accidents by air bags over the lifetime of one
model year's fleet if all vehicles in that model year had driver and
passenger side air bags. Of these, an estimated 47 children's lives,
and a large portion of the 32 adults could be saved by depowering. For
higher speed accidents, analyses based on test results and modeling
indicate that depowering could save 4 to 22 belted passengers.
Analyses based on test results and modeling indicate that in higher
speed accidents 16 to 151 drivers (comprised of 13 to 110 belted
drivers and 3 to 41 unbelted drivers) would not be saved and 34 to 280
unbelted adult passengers lives would not be saved as a result of
depowering every vehicle in the fleet.
Based on limited crash data on one less aggressive depowered air
bag, an air bag on a General Motors designed Holden vehicle in
Australia, an estimated 643 lives of belted occupants could be saved by
having depowered air bags like the Holden bag in every vehicle.
Question. I understand that a new air bag technology, based upon
compressed-gas inflation mechanism, has recently been developed and is
much safer than currently installed air bags. I further understand
that, last December, the federal government's Transportation Research
Center in East Liberty, Ohio conducted a series of tests with this new
technology. How many and what type of tests were conducted? How do the
test results compare to test results for currently-installed air bags?
Answer. Air Belt Systems Inc. has made claims that their air bags
are safer than conventional systems. The agency conducted over 175
tests on various production and depowered air bag systems. These tests
included static (stationary vehicle) simulations of out-of position
children, and 30 mph crash simulations of adult occupants. Eleven of
these tests were conducted with air bags provided by Air Belt. The
tests revealed that Air Belt's air bags are very similar to more
conventional depowered air bags. With current technology, including Air
Belt, a trade-off must be made between adult protection at higher
speeds and minimizing injury to small children who are unrestrained.
This trade-off can only be overcome with advanced occupant sensing,
used in concert with computational algorithms and advanced multi-stage
or variable inflators such as the Air Belt inflator.
Question. How does this alternative technology compare with
depowered air bags? Would vehicle occupants be more safe with this new
technology than with a depowered air bag?
Answer. Systems from several vehicle and component manufacturers
were tested to assess aggressiveness of production systems and the
potential benefit of air bags with less energy. Included in these tests
were air bag systems supplied by Air Belt Systems, Inc. These systems
were different from production air bags because they utilize un-heated
gas and fast acting valves rather than chemical reactions and heated
gas to deploy the air bag. The Air Belt air bag inflator has an output
similar to depowered air bags with an additional low onset pressure
rise-rate. The agency's test results showed the Air Belt design of air
bags to be similar in performance to depowered air bags from other
sources. Consequently, the agency does not believe that the present Air
Belt air bag system is a total solution to the child and small adult
injury problem, just as the agency does not believe depowering is the
total solution.
Question. Are there other tests that NHTSA needs to perform with
this new air bag before it can be safely installed in vehicles? Which
tests and when, if appropriate, can NHTSA arrange to test fully this
system?
Answer. The agency believes that the Air Belt system, together with
other air bag systems, has the potential for future development toward
advanced air bag systems. This development will require sensors and
algorithms to tailor the air bag deployment in each particular crash
based on occupant, crash and vehicle characteristics. The agency
estimates three to five years before sensors and algorithms are
sufficiently developed and tested to be ready for production vehicles.
The agency believes that Air Belt Systems Inc. needs to conduct the
necessary research for development and integration of such advanced air
bags into production vehicles. The agency does not know if the design
of the Air Belt system inflator will be superior to other inflators in
developing smart air bag systems. Consequently, any developmental
testing should be conducted in collaboration with auto manufacturers
and air bag component suppliers to ensure a competitive market that
brings forth the optimum solutions for ``smart'' air bags.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
intermodal safety
During both Secretary Slater's confirmation hearing in the Commerce
Committee, as well as the first hearing of this subcommittee, I asked
Secretary Slater about his thoughts/comments/suggestions on possible
programs to help alleviate the freight mobility and passenger traffic
congestion in the Puget Sound.
With automobile and railroad traffic increase in the Puget Sound
region, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, the Puget Sound
Regional Council, and the Washington State Department of Transportation
are currently working on a project to construct grade separations at
existing street level railroad crossings for both safety and traffic
efficiency reasons. To date, this group has identified approximately 70
street level crossings along the north-south corridor between Everett
and Tacoma that should be grade separated. Unfortunately, this would
have to be done at a tremendous cost.
While grade separation and freight mobility are extremely important
issues for the ports, they are also important in light of Burlington
Northern-Santa Fe's decision to reopen Stampede Pass, a major east-west
rail corridor in Washington state. Initially, BNSF projects that will
operate 10-12 trains per day during 1997, but will increase that number
to 18-20 operations by 1998. With this new traffic moving through the
Central Puget Sound region, cities from Auburn, Kent, Maple Valley, to
Ellensburg and Yakima will be affected.
As I see it, I believe this matter of freight and passenger
mobility raises two important issues. First is safety. While we have
been fortunate thus far, with over 70 grade crossings between Everett
and Tacoma, something has got to be done to ensure that the Puget Sound
does not witness a train-car type of accident at one of these at-grade
crossings in the future. From my perspective, with more trains and more
passenger vehicles operating in the same limited amount of space, an
accident is almost destined to occur if nothing happens to rectify this
problem. Secondly, freight mobility in the Puget Sound area, unlike
other regions in the country, relies on an equal balance of rail, truck
and passenger traffic. Accordingly, it would seem that something has to
be done to ensure that all three operations--rail, commercial vehicle,
and passenger traffic--can all coexist in an efficient and safe manner
to ensure that the Puget Sound can maintain its standing as the second
largest import/export port on the West Coast.
Question. How would the President's NEXTEA proposal be able to
address this issue of Safety? What other types of funding mechanisms
would you recommend to fund a project that could potentially cost
nearly $2.0 million?
Answer. The Department's NEXTEA proposal contains an Infrastructure
Safety Program, funded at $500 million in 1998 growing to $575 million
by 2003, which provides funds to eliminate hazards on public roadways
other than the Interstate, and to improve the safety of rail/highway
grade crossings. It replaces the STP safety set-aside program. The
rail/highway grade crossing portion of the program is funded at $165
million per year, but additional infrastructure safety funds can be
used for grade crossing improvements if the State decides it has the
need. This program continues to be a 90 percent Federal share matching
program.
In addition, NEXTEA would authorize an additional $50 million per
year for an Integrated Safety Fund. This is a new incentive grant
program designed to foster integrated, results-oriented safety
planning. Where states implement an integrated safety planning process,
additional funds will be provided that can be used for any purpose
permissible under the various DOT auto, traffic safety or motor carrier
programs.
Other sources of funding are: Surface Transportation Program (STP)
funds and National Highway System (NHS) funds if the crossing is on the
NHS. The State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Program may also be an option
if the projects are eligible under Title 23. The SIB program would
require matching funds from the State and private sectors. In addition,
the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program may be an
option. If the project satisfies the proposed eligibility criteria,
which include national significance, it could seek funding under this
program. Its application would be evaluated along with those of other
applicants.
Together, we believe these programs provide states, like
Washington, the tools they need and the funding sources to enable them
to address the grade crossing safety problems they face.
elimination of 1064 program
Question. The President's NEXTEA proposal eliminates funding for
the 1064 program--the ``construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities'' account. While I recognize there are several states that
do not utilize this funding source because they do not operate a ferry
system, that is true for many transportation programs. Respectfully
using my friend and colleague from West Virginia as an example, few
Washingtonians utilize the Appalachian Highway System, yet, I recognize
the needs of that region and the importance in maintaining that
program. How did the Administration justify eliminating the 1064
program when there are the Coastal and Great Lake state, each with
unique marine transportation needs, that have used this program quite
successfully to meet the transportation needs created by each state's
marine environment?
Answer. During the outreach for the development of the ISTEA
reauthorization proposal, there were two resounding points FHWA heard.
One, ISTEA is working, it needs some minor adjustments, but it does not
need to be restructured. Two, there are too many funding categories,
and programs should be streamlined and consolidated. The FHWA had to
strike a balance in responding to these points when formulating the
program structure in the NEXTEA proposal. As a result, the NEXTEA
proposal would eliminate selected relatively small discretionary
programs, including the 1064 program. Ferry boats and ferry terminals
are activities that a State can fund using Surface Transportation
Program funds, National Highway System funds, or Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program funds, as appropriate. Accordingly,
even if the ferry discretionary program is no longer funded, Washington
and other Coastal and Great Lake states, can use their regular Federal-
aid highway funds for improvements to their ferry system.
border gateway crossing pilot program
Question. The President's NEXTEA proposal provides $270 million for
a Border Gateway Crossing Pilot Program. As you know, Washington State
has been a national leader in working with its Canadian counterparts to
develop an efficient flow of goods and people across the Northern
border of Washington State, both through intelligent transportation
systems, as well as the PACE program. Two questions--how do you
envision this NEXTEA program being operated, and what type of State or
local projects do you foresee as being worthy of funding from the
Administration under this program?
Answer. The Trade Corridor and Border Gateway Pilot Program
provides planning funds for multi-State corridor and binational
transportation and program funds for improvements to border crossings
and approaches. This program facilitates corridor development and
border planning, and addresses the transportation impacts of NAFTA and
international trade growth. It provides supplementary planning and
program support to coalitions of States and transportation and economic
development partners to encourage innovation and cooperation in dealing
with these issues. The program provides specific sums for planning and
coordination purposes with all remaining funds used for project
implementation.
Corridor and border planning.--The program provides $3 million/year
supplemental planning funds to States engaged in multi-State
transportation corridor planning. Grantees must submit plans and
implementation schedules for corridor improvements. It provides $1.4
million/year for border planning grants to States and MPO's. Under this
program grants may not exceed $100,000 for any State/MPO in any one
year, but grants can be made annually through the reauthorization
period. Grantees must commit to joint planning with counterparts in
Mexico or Canada.
Border Gateway Pilot Program.--This program provides discretionary
funding to States or other implementing authorities to improve the
safety and efficiency of international border gateways, through a
combination of infrastructure, operational, institutional, and/or
regulatory improvements. Selection Criteria for grants include: (1)
reduction in travel time through the gateway; (2) leveraging of Federal
funds; (3) improvements in vehicle and cargo safety; (4) degree of
binational involvement and cooperation, including cooperation with the
Federal Inspection Services (Customs, INS, USDA, etc); (5) innovation
and transferability to other gateways; (6) local commitment to sustain
the effort; and (7) full use of existing facilities prior to any new
construction.
The program authorizes eight projects, including at least two each
on the Canadian and Mexican borders, with no project receiving more
than $40 million from this program through the reauthorization period.
The proposal intentionally does not specifically identify types of
activities for which funds would be eligible to allow for a broader
consideration of types of activities to address improved thruput.
Generally speaking, the following would be eligible for the
infrastructure elements of a border gateway pilot program, although the
list is not definitive:
--Construction, reconstruction, safety improvements, or capacity
additions to roads, bridges, and ramps connecting directly to a
border crossing, either for the purpose of improving overall
thruput or to separate commercial and non-commercial vehicles
to expedite border clearance.
--Commercial vehicle inspection/enforcement facilities, used directly
to process commercial vehicles within or approaching a major
gateway.
--Grade separations for major border approaches.
--Telecommunications infrastructure dedicated to improvements in ITS/
CVO and related EDI measures to expedite commercial thruput
and/or coordinate binational border clearance procedures.
--Intermodal facilities that improve commercial and non-commercial
thruput. Major rail freight relocations would be eligible only
to the extent that they are also made eligible under other
provisions of NEXTEA.
ferry discretionary program
Question. In February, I sent a letter to Secretary Slater
requesting assistance in resolving a funding dispute between the FHWA
and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). In the
fiscal year 1997 Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee report,
I specifically included language directing the FHWA to provide $2.5
million in fiscal year 1997 funds for a ferry terminal in Clinton,
Washington. On November 13, 1996, however, representatives from the
WSDOT received a faxed notice that the allocation of FHWA's fiscal year
1997 discretionary money did not include the Clinton Ferry Terminal. I
would like your clarification on two matters regarding this issue.
First, can you tell me why the FHWA chose to disregard the Senate
report language that I included on the Clinton Ferry Terminal, which
specifically designated $2.5 million for the project. Second, can you
tell me why, after two months, I have not received either a telephone
call or a letter from the Department of Transportation on this matter?
Answer. The FHWA was aware of the Senate report, as well as
language in the Conference report stating that ``[t]he conference
agreement deletes the Senate references of priority designations and
set-asides within the Federal Highway Administration's discretionary
grant programs;'' see p.45, Report 104-785, to accompany H.R. 3675.
Based on the later direction from the Conference report, all candidates
for discretionary ferry funding were treated equally. In choosing among
the many worthwhile candidates submitted, there was insufficient
funding to allocate discretionary funds to many excellent candidates,
including the Clinton ferry terminal project. The formal response to
your letter is under review and should be sent soon.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
federal lands highways
Question. Alaska, as you may know, has significant lands held by
Native Corporations, some of the largest and most visited national
parks in the county, has more public lands than any other state, and
the largest forests in the United States. However, I'm told by my staff
that last year Alaska received next to nothing under these programs.
Can you explain this to me?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, several items impacted the amount of
funds which were provided for transportation projects under the Federal
Lands Highway Program. These included a $32.1 million reduction
required by Section 1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 and a $0.32 million reduction required by
Section 31002 of the Omnibus Consolidated Recision and Appropriations
Act of 1996. Also, the State of Alaska decided not to request any
Public Lands Highway Discretionary funds in fiscal year 1996. The
following amounts of Federal Lands Highway Program funding by category
was provided for transportation projects in Alaska. A total of $28.5
million was allocated for projects in State of Alaska. This amounted to
7.5 percent of the program and is one of the largest percentage of
Federal Lands Highway Program funds allocated for projects in any one
State:
Fiscal year 1996
Federal Lands Highway Program Funding Category Allocation
Indian Reservation Roads................................ $16,500,000
Forest Highways......................................... 12,200,000
Park Roads & Parkways................................... 200,000
Public Lands Highway Discretionary......................................
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,500,000
ferries
Question. In NEXTEA, the Administration has deleted the ferry
discretionary program, know as Section 1064 of ISTEA. This program
provided tremendous benefit to Alaska and other States, whose
communities rely on ferries as their only form of transportation
between communities. In Alaska alone, the public ferry system provides
services to twenty percent of Alaska's population, with its eight ships
stopping at 35 ports. There are 3,700 route miles, including 1,911 that
are designated National Highway System miles. The ferry system also
provides jobs for marine and shore-side labor, marine engineers and
employees in shipbuilding industry. These jobs are in and outside of
Alaska. What was the rationale behind deleting this critical program?
Answer. Under NEXTEA, no new authorizations would be provided for
several discretionary programs, including the ferry discretionary
program. This reflects input received during the outreach and focus
group meetings held by the FHWA during the development of the NEXTEA
proposal, where it was recommended that discretionary programs be
eliminated or significantly reduced in number. One major concern is
that funding of discretionary programs reduces funding available for
core programs shared in by all States. In the case of ferry boats and
ferry terminals, these are activities that a State can fund using
Surface Transportation Program funds, National Highway System funds, or
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds, as
appropriate. Accordingly, even if the ferry discretionary program is no
longer funded, the State of Alaska can use its regular Federal-aid
highway funds for improvements to its ferry system.
highway formula
Question. In the Administration's NEXTEA proposal, the highway
funding formula is structured so that States without a large
population, high traffic count, or high road mileage are put in a hold
harmless situation. It appears that the highway funding formula seems
to favor States with developed highway infrastructure because much of
the apportionment is based on the amount each State pays into the
Highway Trust Fund. Have you considered including in the funding
formula base factors such as: 1) predominance of Federal lands; or 2)
underdeveloped highway infrastructure as compared to other States?
Answer. In arriving at our formula proposal, we considered a large
number of factors in the context of the program elements contained in
our NEXTEA proposal, and the criticisms of the ISTEA formula factors
identified in the General Accounting Office (GAO) 1995 report,
``Highway Funding: Alternatives to Distributing Federal Funds.'' This
report criticized many aspects of the ISTEA formulas as being archaic,
obscure and irrelevant.
For land area, in particular, the GAO report pointed out that this
factor, while once felt to be an adequate proxy for potential highway
development, no longer bears a close relationship to future highway
needs, namely the need for new construction, since the highway system
is no longer growing rapidly throughout the country. Consideration of
development needs is another possible factor, and, while this might be
done by developing some measure of ``highway underdevelopment,'' we
felt that targeting funds to meeting defined national highway program
goals would best serve for the economic development needs of the
Nation.
In recognizing the need to replace outdated and outmoded
apportionment factors, we have proposed Highway Trust Fund
apportionment formulas that we believe are fair to all States, yet
relate well to the objectives of the basic program elements and satisfy
the overall goal of the Federal-aid program to meet the Nation's need
for the safe, efficient, and environmentally sound movement of people
and goods. While we believe we have a strong formula proposal, one that
takes into consideration the needs of both donor and donee States,
while providing protection from rapid disruptions in program
apportionments, we fully understand that there is no one ``right
answer'' to the question of apportionment formulas, and we will be
working with the Congress to develop apportionment formulas that will
best meet all competing demands.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
nextea formula changes
Question. The Administration created a great deal of nervousness
when it was revealed that you would be proposing formula changes in
your NEXTEA proposal. New Jersey will receive the same percentage of
the total program under your proposal but this is certainly not the
case for every State. Given the controversy surrounding the ISTEA
formulas, what criteria did you bring to bear in developing your new
formula proposal?
Answer. While recognizing the need to replace outdated and outmoded
apportionment factors, we have proposed apportionment formulas which we
believe are fair to all States, yet relate well to the objectives of
the basic program elements and satisfy the overall goal of the Federal-
aid program to meet the Nation's need for the safe, efficient, and
environmentally sound movement of people and goods.
In developing the proposed apportionment factors, we attempted to
choose factors that would satisfy individual program goals, such as
maintaining and improving the NHS, as well as overall Federal-aid
program goals such as maintaining and improving human and natural
environments and conserving energy. Additionally, we considered such
questions as, ``Is the data for these factors current, readily updated,
dependable, and easily understood by those affected?'' As such, many
factors were considered, both system-related such as lane miles and
VMT, as well as broader economic and demographic factors such as
population, in attempting to satisfy these many, competing goals. We
believe that the factors contained in the our formula proposal, while
individually not meeting all the varied goals and criteria set forth in
our effort, do collectively, as part of the overall program structure,
effectively address the multiple goals of the Federal-aid highway
program.
Also, we recognize that a sudden change to new formula factors
could be disruptive to State programs, and therefore, have proposed
certain equity adjustments to ease the transition to a more sound,
logical basis for the apportionment of Federal highway dollars.
Specifically, three different equity adjustments have been included in
our proposal. The first adjustment, similar to the current Minimum
Allocation program, is based on 90 percent of a State's percent
contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. The
second adjustment is based on 90 percent of a State's prior year
apportionments. The third is a final adjustment designed to protect
State's from too rapid a disruption in apportionment dollars by
ensuring that each State's share of NEXTEA annual apportionment dollars
must equal at least 95 percent of its average ISTEA (fiscal year 1992-
97) percent apportionments throughout all NEXTEA years. Since the
equity calculations are done sequentially, each equity adjustment is
affected by subsequent equity adjustments.
In presenting these factors for consideration, we understand that
there is no one ``right answer'' to the question of apportionment
formulas, and we look forward to working with the Congress to develop
apportionment formulas that will best meet all competing demands.
Question. Given our need to conserve fossil fuels and the direct
link between gas consumption and pollution, why did you choose to
continue the practice of distribution of large sums of highway money to
states based on their consumption of gasoline?
Answer. While we recognize that using factors such as VMT and
Highway Account Contributions to the HTF may reward fuel consumption
and thereby raise concerns about air quality and energy conservation,
we believe there are several sound reasons for incorporating these
factors into our proposed apportionment formulas. First, while these
factors may appear inconsistent with national air quality and energy
conservation goals, they do help to achieve other important Federal-aid
program goals such as mobility enhancement and economic productivity.
Additionally, these factors are effective in helping to achieve
program-specific goals, such as maintaining and improving the
Interstate and the NHS, by accounting for the use and extent of each
respective system.
It should also be noted that these factors, while important, are
only part of our complete formula proposal and the Administration's
overall NEXTEA package. In addition to these factors, we are proposing
the use of population as a factor in apportioning 30 percent of STP
funds, because we believe this factor effectively represents the multi-
modal goals of the STP program. Additionally, our Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program incorporates factors for
newly-designated attainment areas, so that those jurisdictions recently
achieving the national ambient air quality standards can continue
receiving CMAQ funds and remain in attainment. Lastly, we have proposed
increasing CMAQ funding by over 25 percent, increasing transportation
enhancements spending by more than 25 percent, and continuing funding
for National Scenic Byways, recreational trails, bicycle
transportation, and pedestrian walkways as part of our NEXTEA proposal.
In developing the proposed apportionment factors, we attempted to
select factors that would satisfy as many of the competing goals as
possible. While we believe that we have selected factors which
effectively meet many of these goals, we also fully understand that
there is no one ``right answer'' to the question of apportionment
formulas, and we look forward to working with the Congress to develop
apportionment formulas that will most effectively meet all competing
demands.
Question. Doesn't this factor reward States that have high gasoline
consumption and penalize those who choose to invest in energy efficient
modes of travel, such as buses, commuter rail and carpooling?
Answer. While we recognize that using Highway Account Contributions
to the HTF as a factor may reward fuel consumption, which is
inconsistent with national air quality and energy conservation goals,
we selected this factor because it helps to achieve other important
Federal-aid program goals such as mobility enhancement and economic
productivity. Additionally, this factor is effective in helping to
achieve program-specific goals, such as maintaining and improving the
Interstate and NHS, by accounting for the use and extent of each
respective system. Also, the data for this factor is considered highly
reliable, readily updated, and easily understood by those affected.
It should also be noted that this factor, while an important
element of our formula package, is only part of the complete formula
proposal and the Administration's overall NEXTEA package. In addition,
we are proposing the use of population as a factor in apportioning 30
percent of STP funds, because we believe this factor effectively
represents the multi-modal goals of the STP program. Additionally, our
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program
incorporates factors for newly-designated attainment areas, so that
those jurisdictions recently achieving the national ambient air quality
standards can continue receiving CMAQ funds and remain in attainment.
Lastly, we have proposed increasing CMAQ funding by over 25 percent,
increasing transportation enhancements spending by more than 25
percent, and continuing funding for National Scenic Byways,
recreational trails, bicycle transportation, and pedestrian walkways as
part of our NEXTEA proposal.
We believe the formula factors we have proposed need to be reviewed
within the context of our complete NEXTEA proposal, including the
various environmental provisions contained in the package, as well as
the increases in funding for environmental programs we propose. We
believe our NEXTEA proposal does satisfy the national goals of mobility
enhancement and environmental quality maintenance.
chafee-bond proposal
Question. My colleagues, Senators Chafee and Bond, have introduced
legislation that would develop a new budgetary category for the Highway
Trust Fund. Under their proposal, overall highway funding would
automatically be set at the level equal to the receipts of the Highway
Trust Fund for the prior year. Their proposal, however, does nothing to
guarantee either mass transit or Amtrak the privileged status that
would be granted to highways. Mr. Linton, if we follow the
Administration's recommendation to fund mass transit entirely from the
mass transit account of the trust fund, what would be the impact if we
gave transit the identical treatment that is granted highways under the
Chafee-Bond proposal?
Answer. If the Chafee-Bond proposal was applicable to Federal
Transit funding there would be significant short-falls in comparison to
the proposed NEXTEA budget authority. Beginning in fiscal year 1998 FTA
proposes to fund all of the transit programs from the Mass Transit
Account at the proposed appropriation and obligation limitation level
of $4.4 billion. The fiscal year 1997 estimated revenue into the Mass
Transit Account is $3.2 billion. Therefore, in fiscal year 1998 alone
there would be a shortfall of over $1 billion under the Chafee-Bond
proposal.
Our authorizing legislation, NEXTEA, proposes a total of $30.8
billion for transit, while estimated revenues from Treasury are about
$3.0 billion a year straight-lined into the future. Therefore, over six
years only about $18.6 billion can be supported by yearly revenues into
the Mass Transit Account. This would create a shortfall of over $12
billion that would not be available for transit programs.
Question. Wouldn't highway funding see a substantial increase while
transit funding endured a significant cut?
Answer. Yes, this is true. The Federal transit funding would be cut
by over $1.2 billion a year compared to the current fiscal year 1997
funding level of $4.4 billion. As for highways, revenue estimates are
over $22 billion a year. This amount is over $4 billion higher than the
fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation placed on the Federal highway
programs. In addition, the Chafee-Bond bill does not address funding
for Amtrak for which our authorization proposes to fund at
approximately $800 million a year from the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund.
cmaq
Ms. Garvey, we have both heard assertions that the congestion
mitigation air quality program has not really served its purpose of
minimizing congestion and bringing about a decrease in the pollutants
put into our environment.
Question. What hard evidence do you have that the CMAQ program has
succeeded in minimizing congestion and pollution?
Answer. The CMAQ program has two requirements that other ISTEA
programs do not have--air quality analysis of projects funded under the
program and annual reports which document the emission benefits of
funded projects. The most recently available annual report prepared
jointly by FHWA and FTA indicates that about 75 percent of the reported
CMAQ funded projects included quantitative data on air quality
benefits; 1995 CMAQ Annual Summary of Activities. Generally, reported
data on the air quality benefits of projects funded under the CMAQ
program show that the benefits are commensurate with the size of the
projects funded. Some projects, such as educational and outreach
programs, marketing and advertising programs, do not lend themselves to
quantitative analysis, and there are no hard data available for these
projects.
It is important to recognize that transportation and air quality
improvement projects are continuing and long-term efforts, and
resulting emissions reductions may take years to materialize. CMAQ
funded projects are important components in the challenge to improve
the nations' air quality. While projects and programs funded under CMAQ
will not solve the nation air quality or congestion problems, FHWA
believes that many of these projects will make long-term contributions
to cleaning up the nations' air through innovative programs; for
example, inspection and maintenance programs which can yield more that
20 tons per day in emission reductions.
Question. Do you have hard data as to the amount of pollutants that
have not been released into our atmosphere as a result of the
transportation projects funded through the CMAQ program.
Answer. The CMAQ program has a requirement that projects which
receive funding under the program provide an air quality analysis and
supporting data which document its emission benefits. The air quality
analysis allows FHWA and FTA to track and compile data on the emission
reduction benefits of the CMAQ program. The information contained in
these reports include: the distribution of funding among project types,
an assessment of emissions reductions analyses as required under the
program guidance including estimated emission reduction benefits data
in kilograms/per day for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter
PM-10) for each project, and comments on the reported data trends.
In 1995 alone, CMAQ funded projects accounted for reductions in
carbon monoxide of 431 tons per day, in volatile organic compounds of
170 tons per day, and in oxides of nitrogen of 113 tons per day. These
benefits will continue for the life of the project.
While most CMAQ-funded projects are small relative to the size of
the transportation infrastructure and yield benefits commensurate with
that size, some projects yield considerably greater benefits.
Inspection and maintenance programs have been funded under CMAQ
programs in at least 5 States yielding between 2 tons per day to more
than 20 tons per day.
CMAQ-funded projects are also critical for some nonattainment areas
to demonstrate conformity of their transportation plans and programs,
thus allowing States and local areas to continue their federally funded
programs. In these and other areas, CMAQ funding also has been
necessary to ensure funding for transportation control measures
contained in the State air quality implementation plan, or SIP.
Finally, the benefits of CMAQ funded projects should not be
restricted only to air quality benefits when evaluating this program.
Transportation projects usually meet multiple objectives, and this is
true of CMAQ projects as well. In addition to air quality benefits,
these projects have served to help provide congestion relief,
environmental mitigation, economic development, and have assisted in
meeting other environmental goals and objectives.
Some project-level information is available on the congestion
relief benefits of CMAQ funded projects, for example:
--Region wide signal-timing in Denver, CO reduced 34,000 hours of
delay and 13,500 gallons of fuel;
--Vanpooling in San Diego eliminated 1,000 vehicles per day from the
road network;
--Parking management in Glendale, CA eliminated 140,000 car trips
annually;
--Freeway Service Patrol in San Francisco, CA reduced delays by
90,000 hours Region wide; and
--NYC/NJ Barge removed 54,000 truck trips annually.
intelligent transportation systems
Up through fiscal year 1997, we have provided almost $1.3 billion
in funding to explore and apply new Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) technologies. These technologies are expected to improve the
performance of roads and transit systems and increase capacity and
safety.
Question. Based on your recent evaluations of this program, what
concrete benefits has the nation and the taxpayers received from this
investment?
Answer. Several DOT reports have shown how ITS technologies can
favorably impact transportation efficiency, productivity, safety, user
satisfaction, and the environment. The following tables document the
findings of eleven of the most recent major studies sponsored or
performed by DOT. Research on the public benefits of ITS establish
compelling national interest in deploying ITS technologies and
infrastructure. Below are highlights of ITS benefits documented by DOT:
ITS Provides Better Traffic Management
Abilene, Texas replaced outdated signals with a computer-based
traffic signal system and realized $8-11 in benefits from travel time
savings, delay reduction and increases travel speed for each dollar
invested.
The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) program
controls traffic flow between freeway and parallel arterial streets in
Los Angeles, California and surrounding areas. The program has reduced
fuel usage by 12.5 percent, hydrocarbon emissions by 10 percent, and
carbon monoxide emissions by 10 percent.
ITS Benefits Transit Agencies
Four hundred New Jersey Transit buses are able to alter their
routes and stay on schedule using real-time information they receive
about traffic conditions.
Baltimore, Maryland and Portland, Oregon cut travel time by 10-18
percent, using vehicle locating technology to re-route buses and
dispatch additional vehicle buses to keep their services on schedule.
Kansas City, Missouri was able to eliminate 7 buses from its fleet
of 280 by implementing advanced transit fleet management systems.
ITS Reduces the Costs of Toll Collecting
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority saves about $160,000 annually by
switching from a manual to electronic toll lane. The Authority incurred
an annual cost of $176,000 to operate an attended toll lane vs. $15,800
to operate an automated electronic toll lane.
ITS Can Improve Safety
Just three crash avoidance systems alone could eliminate more than
17,500 fatalities, prevent 1.2 million accidents, and save $26 billion
each year. (By comparison, seatbelts and airbags save 10,500 lives per
year.)
Incident management programs could prevent 50 to 60 percent of the
accidents precipitated by traffic delays and congestion.
ITS Increases Traveler Convenience
As part of the Los Angeles Smart Traveler project, information
kiosks were located in office lobbies and shopping plazas. Between 20
and 100 users accessed these kiosks daily, with more than half
requesting freeway maps and bus and train information.
Given traveler information, almost 50 percent of those surveyed in
Seattle and Boston indicated that they changed their travel route and
time of travel. Five to 10 percent indicated that they changed travel
mode. Even if only 30 percent of travelers change travel plans daily,
harmful emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and
nitrogen oxides would be reduced by 33, 25, and 1.5 percent,
respectively.
Question. What is the ratio of cost per benefit from these systems?
Answer. While our level of knowledge is growing rapidly as more and
more projects are implemented, ITS has already received more cost-
benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis than almost any other public
program. This effort is important both to provide guidance for state
and local agencies as they implement ITS and for national policy
regarding investment decisions. A recent comprehensive study by ITS
America and U. S. DOT of the potential benefit cost of deploying ITS
infrastructure in the nearly 300 metropolitan areas in the U. S. found
an overall benefit cost ratio of 5.7:1. In the 75 largest metropolitan
areas, the ratio was 8.8:1.
It is particularly interesting to note the composition of the
benefits in this study. Conventional transportation capacity
investments, such as lane widening, result in benefits dominated by
congestion reduction--an average of 90 percent of all investment
benefits. ITS investments, on the other hand, yield a more balanced
outcome by both reducing congestion and increasing safety. These
systems do so by reducing accidents, smoothing traffic flow, and
reducing emergency response time. Thus, beyond being more cost-
effective than traditional capital-only solutions, ITS projects
increase safety. Some examples of benefit-cost ratios for individual
ITS deployments which reflect the variation of local costs and local
benefits are presented below.
Synopsis of Selected Benefit-Cost Ratios for ITS Deployments:
The Maryland CHART program is in the process of expanding to more
automated surveillance with lane sensors and video cameras. The
evaluation of the initial operation of the program shows a benefit/cost
ratio of 5.6:1, with most of the benefits resulting from a 5 percent (2
million vehicle-hours per year) decrease in delay associated with non-
recurrent congestion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ COMSIS Corporation, ``CHART Incident Response Evaluation Final
Report,'' Silver Spring, MD, May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Abilene, Texas, installed a closed-loop computerized
signal system. Their report \2\ indicates an overall decrease in travel
time of 14 percent, a decrease in delay of 37 percent, and an increase
in travel speed of 22 percent. Phase I of a Texas state program called
Traffic Light Synchronization (TLS) involving 44 cities, has installed
arterial and network signal system projects affecting 2,243 of the
approximately 13,000 traffic signals in the state. An additional 73
systems were installed in phase II. TLS analysis shows a benefit/cost
ratio of 62:1,\3\ with a majority of the benefits being travel time
reduction. ITE estimates of reduction in travel time from traffic
signal improvements range from 8 percent to 25 percent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Orcutt Associates, ``Evaluation Study, Buffalo Gap Road,
Abilene Signal System,'' prepared for the City of Abilene, Texas, 1994.
\3\ Benefits of the Texas Traffic Light Synchronization Grant
Program I; Volume I, TxDOT/TTI Report #0258-1, Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, Texas, October 1992.
\4\ Meyer, M., ed., A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HELP/Crescent Project on the West Coast and Southern border
states represented the final stage of the HELP program that evaluated
the applicability of four technologies to services including roadside
dimension and weight compliance screening, pre-screening of vehicles
with proper documents, government audit of carrier records, government
processing of commercial vehicle operator documents, government
planning, and industry administration of vehicles and drivers. The
technologies included automatic vehicle identification, weigh-in-
motion, automatic vehicle classification, and integrated communications
systems and database. The benefits data are developed as a projection
of experience from the project and from other databases rather than
direct measurement by the project.\5\ Impact of hazardous material
incidents could be reduced $1.7 million annually per state. Estimates
of reductions in tax evasion range from $0.5 to $1.8 million annually
per state. Overweight loads could be reduced by 5 percent leading to a
savings of $5.6 million annually. Operating costs of a weigh station
could be reduced up to $160,000, with credentials checking adding $4.3
to $8.6 million and automated safety inspection adding $156,000 to
$781,000 in savings due to avoided accidents annually per state. A full
implementation of services examined in the Crescent project would yield
a benefit/cost ratio of 4.8 for state government over a 20-year period.
Less complete implementations range in benefit/cost ratio from 0 up to
12:1 for the government. The COVE Study \6\ estimates a benefit/cost
ratio to the government of 7.2 for electronic clearance, 7.9 for one-
stop/no-stop shopping, and 5.4 for automated roadside inspections.
Another study finds that administrative compliance costs for
Massachusetts carriers could be reduced by $2.4 million annually using
ITS techniques.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Crescent Project: An Evaluation of an Element of the HELP
Program, The Crescent Evaluation Team, Executive Summary and Appendix
A, February 1994.
\6\ Study of Commercial Vehicle Operations and Institutional
Barriers, Appendix F, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, McLean, VA, November
1994.
\7\ Kiley, K., Massachusetts Metro Transportation Association,
Presentation at the ITS America Sixth Annual Meeting, April 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An extensive benefit/cost analysis of CVO user services effects on
regulatory compliance cost of motor carriers predicted a range of
benefits. The study segmented the motor carrier industry into small
firms (1-10 power units), medium-sized firms (11-99 power units), and
large firms (100 or more power units) and analyzed each user service
from the perspective of each market segment. The predicted benefit cost
ratios are generally larger for larger firms. The benefit/cost ratio
for commercial vehicle administrative processes range from 19.8:1 to
1.0:1. For electronic screening the benefit/cost ratio ranges from
6.5:1 to 1.9:1. The benefit/cost ratio for automated roadside safety
inspection ranged from 1.3:1 to 1.4:1. The benefit/cost ratio for on-
board safety monitoring ranged from 0.49:1 to 0.02:1. For hazardous
materials incident response, the benefit/cost ratio ranged from 2.5:1
to 0.3:1.\8\ The narrow definition of benefits examined in this study
indicate that these benefit estimates are conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Assessment of Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial
Vehicle Operations Users Services: ITS/CVO Qualitative Benefit/Cost
Analysis--Executive Summary,'' American Trucking Associations
Foundation, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Information Exchange for fare payment and screening of
commercial vehicles represent areas of high benefit potential. The
Detroit, Michigan, to Windsor, Ontario, Canada, area experiences about
22 million border crossings annually, with roughly 75 percent of the
crossings being made by daily crossers.\9\ The NAFTA and development of
local attractions such as the Windsor Casino are likely to cause
significant increases in demand. Implementation of Automated Vehicle
Identification (AVI) for use with Electronic Toll Collection and
Customs and Immigration automation has the potential to benefit both
the toll authorities and the Customs offices with payback on electronic
equipment investment in less than five years for toll authorities and
less than ten years for customs. If potential economic development is
included, government payback is in one year. For auto users, delay
costs would repay investment in about 2 years. Commercial vehicles
would get a benefit/cost ratio of over 4:1 in a single year, again
primarily due to delay reductions. Additional benefits would accrue in
ability to defer infrastructure investment, with benefit/cost ratio
estimated at between 25:1 and 34:1 depending on estimate of traffic
growth.\10\ The Minnesota Highway Helper Program \11\ reduces the
duration of a stall (the most frequent type of incident representing 84
percent of service calls) by 8 minutes. Based upon representative
numbers, annual benefits through reduced delay total $1.4 million for a
program that costs $600,000 to operate. This represents a benefit/cost
ratio of 2.3:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Study of Institutional Impacts of New Technology Applications:
St. Clair and Detroit Rivers Highway Border Crossings, Marshall Macklin
Monaghan Limited with KPMG, JHK, & Constance Consultants, May 1994.
\10\ Zavergiu, R., Intelligent Transportation Systems--An Approach
to Benefit-Cost Studies, TP12695E, prepared for Transportation
Development Centre, Transport Canada, May 1996.
\11\ Minnesota Department of Transportation, ``Highway Helper
Summary Report--Twin Cities Metro Area,'' Report #TMC 07450-0394, July
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS implementation is expected to improve the safety record of
motor carriers. Electronic screening and improved inspection procedures
will help to eliminate major causes of accidents through better use of
communications and information technology. Evidence of future success
is indicated by ongoing motor carrier safety programs including the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and federal safety
audits. The benefit/cost ratio of these programs has been estimated as
2.5 while yielding a reduction of 2,500 3,500 accidents annually.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Moses, L. and Savage, I., ``A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Programs, 3rd Version,'' Department of
Economics and the Transportation Center, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What obstacles lie ahead before these ITS improvements
can be more widely implemented? How does DOT plan to overcome these
obstacles?
Answer. The primary obstacles to broader ITS deployment are the
lack of expertise among State and local officials, cost/benefit data,
available funds, and standards. Overall, the ITS section of NEXTEA
addresses these obstacles. In addition, we have gathered an impressive
array of cost-benefit data, described below. Specifically:
--Training. We have requested annual authorization of $96 million in
ITS Research, Training, and Technology Transfer funding. A
significant portion of that will go to a five year professional
capacity building effort aimed at our own staff, as well as our
state and local partners. Deployment of ITS is not unlike the
transition FAA went through when it went from a civil
engineering organization that oversaw the building of airports
to one that dealt with management of assets and airspace. We
have developed a five-year strategic plan that is now being
translated into a business plan and have asked for significant
funds--some $10 million in fiscal year 1998. Recently, we
launched the first of 70 overview seminars that will be given
to our staff and partners across the United States in the
coming months.
--Standards. A significant portion of this authorization would be
devoted to facilitating development of industry consensus on
well over 100 standards. While the process will take some five
years, we expect draft standards critical to integration to be
available within the next two years. None have been completed,
four more draft standards will be done by the end of the year.
In addition, we will probably have agreement on one of the most
critical standards that underlies the tag and reader technology
in automatic toll collection before the end of the summer.
Cost-Benefit Data. In addition, we have provided to Congress and
the nation at large an impressive quantity of cost benefit data:
--Savings of 35 percent nationally in the cost of providing future
capacity to our nation's surface system.
--Potential savings of 17 percent in accidents from intelligent
vehicles.
--A study by the FTA suggests that ITS can save transit authorities
between $4 billion and $7 billion over the next decade.
--Savings in government costs related to toll collection, truck
regulation, and transit operations.
The benefits are there. What is not available to local officials
are the analytic tools necessary to demonstrate those benefits, because
to date all of our analytic tools have focused on capital decisions
with long range horizons. We are in the process of developing those
tools now for use by States and metropolitan areas across the country.
Finally, our proposal to provide an incentive to those metropolitan
areas and states willing to deploy integrated ITS infrastructure, takes
a scalpel approach to the funding issues, in this era of constrained
resources. For this six year period of time only, we would offer a
small incentive to states and metropolitan areas to go the extra mile
to integrate ITS components, consistent with the National Architecture
and national standards. By the end of that period we will have the
standards program complete and will mainstream the ITS infrastructure
program into existing funding categories, linking the use of federal
funds to adopted standards. We have also made ITS infrastructure an
eligible element in virtually every category of Federal-aid funding.
elimination of transit operating assistance
Question. New Jersey relies heavily on mass transit to provide
essential transportation service to a great number of our citizens.
Under transit formula grants, your NEXTEA proposal calls for Transit
Operating Assistance to be virtually eliminated while funding for
capital assistance would increase. Your proposal also calls for the
permissible uses of transit capital assistance to be expanded to
include regular maintenance activities.
Since your budget calls for transit formula assistance to be
essentially frozen, what is the rationale for eliminating operating
assistance and expanding the purposes of capital assistance?
Answer. We seek to replace the concept of operating assistance with
a redefinition of capital which would include preventive maintenance as
an eligible expense. Operating expenses would no longer be eligible for
Federal reimbursement for areas over 200,000 in population.
The changes in the reauthorization proposal provide flexibility and
consistency that will benefit the transit industry. This change would
bring consistency between the Federal highways and transit definitions
of capital. That is, both capital definitions would now include
preventive maintenance. At present, painting a bus is considered
operating assistance under the transit program, but painting a bridge
is considered capital under the highway program.
The NEXTEA approach increases flexibility of grantees and
simplifies the management of their programs. Operating assistance will
no longer have to be tracked separately on grant applications and
reports and more expenses can be considered within the one category of
capital.
Further, much debate takes place each appropriations and
authorization cycle on the Federal role in funding operating
assistance. The NEXTEA proposal will help us focus on capital needs and
the funds necessary to protect those assets.
Question. Two years ago, you requested a sizable cut in transit
operating assistance and you asked us to expand the uses of capital
assistance to include certain bus maintenance activities. At the time,
you testified that the change in uses of capital assistance would
eliminate the impacts of your proposed cut in operating assistance.
Almost no one in the transit industry agreed with you, however. Can you
assure me that this new proposed change in the use of transit capital
assistance will completely mitigate the elimination of operating
assistance?
Answer. FTA analysis indicates that virtually all areas over
200,000 in population will benefit from the proposed changes. These
areas are currently reporting a level of maintenance expenses that,
when reimbursed at the 80 percent capital rate, will exceed their
current operating assistance caps. Likewise, areas under 200,000 in
population will also benefit. These smaller operators will have total
discretion in using their Federal assistance for capital, planning, and
operating assistance, without having to manage within a specific cap on
operating expenses.
highway safety and drunk driving measures
Question. In 1984, President Reagan signed into law my bill
establishing a national 21 minimum drinking age, which imposed
sanctions on states that did not adopt the law. In 1995, President
Clinton signed into law the NHS bill which contained Senator Byrd's
provision imposing sanctions on states that did not adopt ``zero-
tolerance'' legislation for underage drinking and driving. Do you
believe that these sanctions have been effective in changing state
policies for the better?
Answer. State laws setting age 21 as the minimum drinking age and
establishing ``zero tolerance'' for underage drinking and driving
clearly are effective, life-saving policies. Minimum drinking age laws
have reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities among teenagers by 13
percent. NHTSA estimates that minimum drinking age laws saved 15,667
from 1975-1995. A NHTSA evaluation of Maryland's ``zero tolerance''
(.02) law showed an 11 percent decrease in the number of drivers under
age 21 involved in crashes who police reported as ``had been
drinking.'' A recent study of 12 states that enacted ``zero tolerance''
laws found a 16 percent reduction in single vehicle nighttime fatal
crashes that involved young drivers, compared to a 1 percent increase
in 12 comparison states.
As a result of the National Minimum Drinking Age Law enacted in
1984, all states and the District of Columbia now have laws
establishing 21 years old as the minimum drinking age. When the NHS
bill was enacted in November 1995, imposing sanctions on states that
did not adopt ``zero-tolerance'' legislation for underage drinking and
driving, 27 states and the District of Columbia had ``zero tolerance''
laws; since then, 12 states have enacted such laws. The remaining
states are working to have .02 laws before the sanction provisions take
effect at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 (October 1, 1998).
Question. The NHS bill repealed the federal sanctions requiring
states to adopt laws requiring motorcycle helmets. Since that time,
several states have moved to repeal existing helmet laws because the
sanction has been lifted. Dr. Martinez, why does your NEXTEA proposal
only use financial incentives to strengthen state drunk driving laws
rather than the imposition of sanctions?
Answer. NHTSA's alcohol incentive grant program builds upon the
successes gained from the Section 410 program. In addition, the States
and safety interest groups support incentive grant programs as
evidenced at the Department of Transportation reauthorization hearings.
Given the present rate of progress of states enacting .08 BAC laws, the
Department did not see it necessary at this time to adopt measures
other the incentive program that we have proposed Incentive programs
provide States with the utmost flexibility. States have the option to
apply for these grants or not. If a State chooses to pursue a grant,
the State may choose which legal and program criteria to implement. The
alcohol incentive grant program proposed in NEXTEA is modeled on
current and past successful incentive grant programs--most notably the
Section 410 alcohol incentive grant program. The Department has learned
that incentive grants are effective in encouraging states to pass
critical laws to reduce drunk driving. Administrative license
revocation (ALR), .08 BAC, and .02 BAC laws are criteria for Section
410 basic grants. Since the passage of the amended Section 410 program
in ISTEA in December 1991:
--9 states have enacted .08 BAC laws. [A total of 14 states have .08
laws.]
--36 states plus DC have enacted .02 BAC laws for drivers under age
21. [A total of 39 states and DC have .02 laws for drivers
under 21.]
--10 states have enacted ALR laws. [A total of 39 states and DC have
adopted some form of ALR.]
Question. As you know, I have introduced legislation that would
establish a national drunk driving limit of .08 Blood Alcohol
Concentration--BAC. Both laboratory and real world testing have proven
that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drivers, are
significantly impaired at .08 with regard to the critical factors in
vehicle control-braking, steering, turning and overall judgment. Thus
far, only thirteen states have adopted the .08 BAC as law. But these
states have experienced a significant reduction in alcohol related
fatalities. Given that NHTSA, the insurance industry, highway safety
advocates and highway safety users support lowering the limit to 0.08,
why are so many states dragging their feet in enacting 0.08 BAC as law?
Answer. There have been active efforts to pass 0.08 laws in several
states this year, and Idaho has already enacted its 0.08 law. Opponents
of 0.08 laws say that these new laws divert attention from the ``real''
drunk drivers at 0.15 and above, while attempting to penalize social
drinkers who are not impaired. However, states that have passed 0.08
laws have seen reductions in alcohol-related fatalities at all BAC
levels. In addition, performance on driving-related tasks decreases
substantially at 0.08, and crash-risk increases substantially at 0.08.
Also, there is organized opposition to passage of these laws from some
members of the alcohol and hospitality industries.
Question. Given the states' slow pace in adopting .08, why do you
think that financial incentives will be more effective than sanctions
in getting the states to move?
Answer. Given the present rate of progress of states enacting .08
BAC laws, the Department did not see it necessary at this time to adopt
measures other the incentive program that we have proposed. Through the
Section 410 alcohol incentive grant program, the Department has learned
that incentive grants are effective in encouraging states to pass
critical laws to reduce drunk driving. Since the passage of the amended
Section 410 program in ISTEA in December 1991:
--9 states have enacted .08 BAC laws. [A total of 14 states have .08
laws.]
--36 states plus DC have enacted .02 BAC laws for drivers under age
21. [A total of 39 states and DC have .02 laws for drivers
under 21.]
--10 states have enacted administrative license revocation (ALR)
laws. [A total of 39 states and DC have adopted some form of
ALR.]
The new alcohol incentive grant proposal contained in NEXTEA places
more emphasis than the current Section 410 program on adoption of 0.08
BAC laws as a means to receive funds. Under the current program, States
can qualify for grant funds by implementing 5 out of 7 laws or programs
designed to reduce drunk driving. One of the 7 requirements calls for a
0.10 per se law, and only after 3 years of grants, is a 0.08 per se law
required; therefore, states had many other options and several years of
funding before considering passage of 0.08 laws as a route to receive
incentive funds. Under the new proposal, there are three options for a
state to qualify for funding--one option is by implementing 4 out of 5
specified laws and programs, the second is demonstrating specific
performance, and the third is by enacting only two key laws (1)
administrative license revocation and (2) 0.08 BAC. States can qualify
for funding under one, two, or all three options. However, this third
option more clearly focuses state attention on 0.08 BAC laws as a means
to qualify than the old Section 410 approach.
Question. I understand the Administration will soon send up a
separate safety title as part of your NEXTEA proposal. When will that
come up?
Answer. The Secretary submitted the Administration's ``Surface
Transportation Safety Act of 1997'' on April 17, 1997.
Question. I understand the Administration will soon send up a
separate safety title as part of your NEXTEA proposal. Will it include
any sanction programs, perhaps for seatbelts, or will it only provide
more incentive programs?
Answer. The Administration's ``Surface Transportation Safety Act of
1997'' would establish a date certain by which all States would be
required either to have enacted a primary safety belt use law or to
have achieved a statewide seat belt use rate of 85 percent or higher.
In fiscal year 2003, a State that had failed to enact such a law or to
achieve such a seat belt use rate would have 1.5 percent of its highway
construction funds transferred to its section 402 occupant protection
program. The amount transferred would increase to 3 percent for later
years.
new welfare to work incentive
Question. Given the millions of welfare recipients across our
nation that we are trying to move into paying jobs, how will this $100
million initiative be targeted to assist those individuals that are
most in need?
Answer. We recognize that this $600 million initiative, which makes
available to states and localities $100 million annually, cannot fill
all the transportation gaps that exist in meeting the transportation
needs of those who will be transitioning from welfare to work. This
number is estimated at 2 million persons over the next five years.
However, the criteria for selection spell out several indicators that
will help us address the most severe transportation needs. The project
selection criteria include: (1) the severity of the welfare
transportation problem, (2) the need for additional services to
transport economically disadvantaged persons to specified jobs,
training and other support services, and the extent to which proposed
services will address these needs, and (3) the extent to which the
applicant's program addresses a comprehensive assessment of access to
work transportation needs.
Question. What will be the requirements for the states to
participate in this initiative? Will they have to match any of the
federal funds?
Answer. We anticipate that states will act as applicants for areas
with populations of 200,000 or below. This is consistent with current
procedures for other Federal transit programs. In areas above 200,000,
the lead agency will be chosen through the metropolitan planning
process by the stakeholders involved. Applications submitted by states
will be subject to the same selection criteria as other applicants.
States and other applicants must match Federal funds made available by
the Access to Jobs program. However, Federal funds flowing to state and
local agencies from Federal programs funded by DHHS, DOL, HUD and other
agencies can be used as part of the local match. In fact, one criterion
for award is the extent to which the local share demonstrates a
financial partnership with human resource agencies. These partnerships
are an essential element of the Access to Jobs program.
Question. Do you expect this to be a one-time initiative, or a
continuing part of the DOT budget for the next several years?
Answer. The Access for Jobs & Training is proposed to be available
at $100 million annually over the life of the reauthorization,
anticipated to be six years.
Question. Is this initiative going to be limited to mass transit,
or will there be steps taken to recognize that many welfare recipients
do not have access to adequate transit opportunities?
Answer. The intent of this legislative proposal is to develop
additional public transportation services to meet gaps where there is
not adequate transit service available. Service strategies may be broad
based, including ridesharing program, employer-provided services, human
service transportation, private paratransit service, and community-
based transportation arrangements as well as services directly provided
by the transit agency. Since transit agencies have the infrastructure
and experience with the Federal Transit Administration grant programs,
it is likely that they may serve as the lead local agencies in are as
above 200,000.
insufficient funding for new starts
Question. What should each of these transit systems conclude about
the Federal Government's commitment to completing these major transit
projects?
Answer. The Federal government is committed to fully funding the
new fixed guideway systems that are currently under, or proposed for,
Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA's). FTA's budget provides $634
million for Major Capital Investments. This amount reflects budgetary
pressures, and while this is not the annual amount for fiscal year 1998
in the current FFGA's signed by FTA, our proposed outyear funding is
sufficient to cover funding requirements for these 15 projects, and our
reauthorization proposal includes a higher level of contract authority
that could become available dependent upon future Federal budget
decisions.
Question. If you could do it over again, would you have signed
fewer full funding grant agreements?
Answer. Given the large number of worthy projects which were
seeking federal funds, I would, without hesitation, proceed on the same
path that I chose over the last four years. These meritorious projects
will result in a wide spectrum of benefits to users and non-users
alike.
Question. Are you sure that your cuts in this area will not result
in construction delays, making the total cost of the project more
expensive than it would otherwise be?
Answer. The budget request reflects current budget pressures.
Nevertheless, it will allow these projects to initiate and continue
scheduled start-up and/or construction activities without incurring any
consequential delays. Localities have a variety of mechanisms which can
successfully address any short term funding shortfall which might
occur. These reductions, when viewed on a project-by-project amount, on
average, to only 1.7 percent of the total project cost.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
streamlined and strengthened planning process
Question. In what ways does NEXTEA streamline and strengthen the
planning process?
Answer. ISTEA continued the basic State and local decisionmaking
framework for transportation planning adopted in the early 1970's.
ISTEA strengthened the transportation planning process by putting
increased emphasis on public involvement and fiscal constraint which
have made the decision process more open and inclusive and financially
realistic. ISTEA also strengthened the role of State and local
officials in the decisionmaking process. NEXTEA would continue this
same basic framework and supports the decision making efforts of State
and local officials in the accomplishment of challenging investment
trade-offs.
ISTEA called for greater involvement by more interested
stakeholders earlier in the transportation investment decision making
process. This earlier and more meaningful involvement in both the
statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes should
ultimately pay-off in reduced time for project level implementation
efforts where delays have often occurred. NEXTEA would continue the
philosophy that involving folks early in a meaningful way results in
resolving troublesome issues early thereby accelerating the overall
time frame for successfully implementing a transportation project.
Simplification of the planning process was behind the effort in
NEXTEA to replace the transportation planning factors (16 metropolitan
and 23 Statewide) in ISTEA with seven goals which states and
metropolitan areas should consider as they develop their own goals and
objectives around which their own transportation planning process will
be structured. The FHWA and FTA remain committed to the continued
identification and implementation of streamlining opportunities.
bridge replacement program
NEXTEA generally maintains the Bridge Replacement Program in the
current form. Naturally, we all agree with the wisdom and necessity of
replacing unsafe and unstable bridges across the country. On the other
hand, transportation officials in my State have raised concerns that
the ISTEA bridge formula actually provided a disincentive for States to
invest in bridge repair. They argue that we worked at cross purposes by
distributing bridge replacement program funding based on need, but then
allowing States to transfer those needs-based funds to other non-bridge
uses.
Question. Does the NEXTEA modify the Bridge program in any way to
ensure that Bridge replacement funds are used to meet the needs for
which they have been distributed, rather than transferred to other
accounts?
Answer. Yes. While the NEXTEA proposal continues the flexibility
for the States to transfer 50 percent of the Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation Program funds to the NHS or STP, it would required
that funds transferred out of the bridge program in fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2002 must be restored by the State to their bridge
apportionment by the end of fiscal year 2002. Any amounts not restored
would be deducted from the total cost of deficient bridges for that
State in fiscal year 2003, thus reducing that State's fiscal year 2003
bridge apportionment.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF DARREL RENSINK, DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come back to order.
The second panel. We have with us the surface
transportation user groups. Darrel Rensink. Is that correct?
Mr. Rensink. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. Iowa Department of Transportation,
president, also of the American Association State Highway
Transportation Officials; Mr. William D. Fay, president and
CEO, American Highway Users Alliance; Mr. John Collins, senior
vice president, government affairs, American Trucking
Association; Mr. Frederick Gruel, president and CEO, AAA New
Jersey Automobile Club, American Automobile Association; Mr.
William W. Millar, president, American Public Transit
Association; and Harry Blunt, Jr., president, Concord Trailways
New Hampshire, vice chairman of the American Bus Association.
Welcome, gentlemen. I know you waited a while. It was a
longer panel than usual, a lot of interest in the first one.
All of your written statements will be made part of the
record in their entirety, and if you will just take a few
minutes, because there are other meetings going on, and sum up
what you are going to tell us for the record. Then I will keep
the record open for a lot of questions for the record that the
staff and other members, including the chairman, will be
wanting to ask you. We will try to expedite this as much as
possible.
Mr. Rensink.
Statement of Darrel Rensink
Mr. Rensink. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I am Darrel Rensink, president of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials and also director
of the Iowa Department of Transportation.
On behalf of AASHTO, I am pleased to accept your invitation
to testify on issues regarding reauthorization of the Federal
surface transportation programs.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are conducting this hearing
demonstrates that you and others on the committee are well
aware of both the benefits from and the need for transportation
as we head into the 21st century. The appropriations bill you
will be considering is vitally important to the people of
America. As members of the Appropriations Committee, you are
faced with a difficult task of directing Federal resources
among programs which directly affect all Americans, decisions
which will please some and upset others.
No other Federal investment has such far-reaching
implications. The influence on the quality of our lives by our
transportation systems is significant. The intermodal network
serves all our citizens daily as they travel to their jobs, day
care, and the market. It provides a way to move goods to
wholesale and retail outlets. We are able to pursue recreation,
education, and community activities.
America's transportation network has played a major role in
our Nation's economic success. Just as in our Nation's past,
the future is greatly dependent on how well we support our
transportation system. Most importantly, transportation is the
backbone of our State, national, and international trade
economies. Transportation is our Nation's economic engine and a
key component to our global competitiveness. Industry, relying
heavily nowadays on just-in-time delivery of raw materials,
must have an effective and efficient transportation system.
Central to the debate on reauthorization will be the level
of funding and the funding formulas which distribute funds
among the States. As the debate begins, we must remember that
without modern transportation, our quality of life would
suffer, economic development would slow, and our future would
look rather bleak.
I often hear that to compete in the global economy, we need
a good transportation system, and I included that concept in my
formal testimony submitted to your committee. However, merely
competing in the world economy is not good enough. As in
sports, we can compete and still lose. We cannot afford to lose
when it comes to our transportation systems. This Nation must
be the leader and to lead we must have a transportation system
that is the very best. To be in the forefront, we must invest
in our transportation systems.
Mr. Chairman, the need for investments to adequately
support the Nation's surface transportation system is well
documented and far exceeds the current investment level. AASHTO
analyzed the investment requirements of our transportation
systems based on the information received from the U.S. DOT.
This analysis is detailed in our report, ``The Bottom Line:
Transportation Investment Needs 1998-2002.'' Copies have been
provided to the committee.
To briefly summarize the report, total highway investment
over the next 5 years to maintain current conditions and
performance capabilities is $264 billion. An additional
investment of $94 billion is needed to improve the condition
and performance of this essential system, for a total
investment of $358 billion; transit needs identified as $39
billion to maintain and $33 billion to improve service, for a
total of $72 billion over 5 years.
While the estimated amounts to improve and maintain our
highway and transit system are daunting, significantly more
funding is being collected from highway users that is not
available for transportation. If we could use all the funds
flowing into the highway trust fund and the 4.3 cents per
gallon now supporting general fund programs, we could at least
maintain the current conditions of our surface transportation
system. AASHTO and the National Governors Association share
this recommendation to fully place highway user fees on
transportation purposes.
Mr. Chairman, we know the budget resolution will impact the
amount of transportation appropriations you can approve. We
hope the budget level will reach levels I have discussed.
Beyond that, we encourage this subcommittee to recommend that
all funding is released without obligation ceilings to help
meet our transportation needs.
With regards to the administration's transportation
reauthorization proposal, an AASHTO task force is currently
analyzing the bill and comparing it to AASHTO's adopted
policies.
Our major issue of concern to AASHTO is the inadequate
level of funding. The proposal has been described as providing
$175 billion for surface transportation, an increase over
ISTEA, but when the differences between the proposed
authorization and proposed spending levels are analyzed, actual
investment would be substantially less than the $175 billion.
On the positive side, many ISTEA provisions which improved our
ability to provide better transportation are continued in the
administration's transportation reauthorization proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about up, so in conclusion
as president of AASHTO, I am eager for Americans to see
transportation's potential to make a positive impact over the
next 5 years. I have initiated discussions between AASHTO and
the National Governors Association to convene a national
transportation summit this spring or summer. Our goal is clear:
to bring together State, Federal, and local officials, along
with the users of transportation to highlight transportation in
the future and the future of this Nation.
Prepared Statement
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and we thank you
very much for the invitation to present our views. I would be
pleased to answer any questions or respond in writing. Thank
you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darrel Rensink
Mr. Chairman, my name is Darrel Rensink. I am President of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and
Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation. On behalf of AASHTO,
I am pleased to accept your invitation to testify concerning
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA), and the Administration's proposal, which is titled the
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997
(NEXTEA).
Mr. Chairman, we commend you and the Subcommittee for looking at
the appropriations needed for our surface transportation program. We
have provided to the Subcommittee copies of the documents that AASHTO
has prepared outlining our policy on many of the issues that we will be
addressing. In my comments today I will summarize the Association's
views and respond to any questions that you may have.
aashto's reauthorization recommendations
AASHTO has been working on ISTEA reauthorization issues since 1994
through its Reauthorization Steering Committee, on which all states as
well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are represented. With
respect to our recommendations for reauthorization, I want to refer you
to our Transportation for a Competitive America report, copies of which
have been provided to the Subcommittee. This report details our
recommendations, which are summarized in four key recommendations:
--The maintenance needs of the nations's highways and transit systems
outstrip the funds currently available. The 4.3 cents per
gallon in user taxes collected from motorists should be
deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and be spent on system
maintenance, rather than diverted to the General Fund.
--State and local governments should be given more flexibility in
determining how, when, and where transportation resources are
spent, to maximize the benefit to mobility, safety, and the
environment.
--Many of the key concepts of ISTEA, such as State and local
cooperation, intermodal planning, and public participation,
should be retained.
--Burdensome and unnecessary provisions imposed by ISTEA and earlier
laws should be eliminated or reduced. The National Highway
System Designation Act was a first, and major, step in this
direction.
To further explain AASHTO's position on issues in reauthorization
of the Federal highway and transit programs, we refer you to the
attached one-page document ``Summary of AASHTO Recommendations on the
Reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway and Transit Programs,''
which was included in a brochure we recently sent to all members of the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, for the record I want to state that AASHTO is making
no recommendations as to funding formulas, leaving this to the
Congress.
Turning to our recommendations, the first of the four overall
recommendations just cited is perhaps the most important, since it
addresses the funding levels needed to adequately support our nations's
surface transportation program.
highway and transit funding
AASHTO has comprehensively analyzed the investment requirements of
our transportation systems, based on information received from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, including its 1995 report titled ``The
Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: Condition and
Performance''. This analysis is detailed in the AASHTO report titled
The Bottom Line: Transportation Investment Needs 1998-2002, copies of
which have also been provided to the Subcommittee.
To summarize the AASHTO report, over the next five years, total
highway investment requirements just to maintain the current condition
and performance of the system are $264 billion. An additional
investment of $94 billion is required to improve the condition and
performance of this essential system, for a total investment
requirement of $358 billion over five years. Transit investment
requirements to maintain and improve are identified as $39 billion and
$33 billion, respectively, for a total of $72 billion over five years.
Simply stated, our need for investments to adequately support the
nation's surface transportation system far exceeds current investment
levels.
Attached are three pages from the folder AASHTO recently sent to
members of Congress, titled ``Our Transportation Needs.'' They provide
more details on our findings, with the third page displaying the
summary information in graphic form.
While the estimated amounts to maintain and improve our highway and
transit systems are daunting, the situation is made troublesome because
significantly more funding is being collected by the Federal government
from highway users than is being made available for transportation. If
we could fully utilize the funds already going to the Highway Trust
Fund, it would improve the situation. If we could also add to this the
4.3 cents per gallon now used to support general fund programs, as
shown on the attached bar graph we would then just have enough funding
to maintain current highway and transit conditions.
Highway users who are paying fuel and other taxes into the Highway
Trust Fund ask, why we do not have access to all the funding that is
being collected, when our transportation investment needs far exceed
current funding levels? If we could simply have access to all the
funding flowing into the Highway Trust Fund and the revenue from the
4.3 cent tax, we could at least maintain current conditions.
AASHTO commends Senators John Warner and Max Baucus and the many
Senators, some of whom are on this Subcommittee, who joined them in
writing to Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee, seeking a highway program level of $26 billion, which has
been demonstrated to be sustainable by the Highway Trust Fund. We also
commend Senators Alfonse D'Amato and Daniel Patrick Moynihan for their
similar letter, which also urges a transit program of $5 billion.
AASHTO hopes that these funding levels will be approved, and that
the revenue from the 4.3 cent fuel tax will be placed in the Highway
Trust Fund and utilized to meet our highway and transit investment
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, we know that the budget resolution will impact on the
amount of transportation appropriations you can approve, and we hope
that the budget level will reach or at least approach the levels I have
discussed. Beyond that, we hope that this Subcommittee will recommend
that all of that funding, whatever the amount, is released without
obligation ceilings, to help meet our transportation needs.
aashto and the governors agree
AASHTO's member departments are not alone in making this plea from
the States. The nation's Governors have also spoken out about the need
to increase funding for surface transportation, and to fully utilize
all available funding.
When the nation's Governor's met in Washington in February, they
addressed the transportation funding situation and adopted resolution
EDC-21, ``Surface Transportation Financing.'' It included the following
paragraphs, and a full copy of EDC-21 is attached:
``Growing Highway Trust Fund revenues will permit
significantly higher federal spending for transportation
programs over the next five years. A much greater share of
Highway Trust Fund revenues can and should be spent for
transportation investments than is implied in recent
Congressional and Administration budget proposals. Governors
are aware of and support the movement in Congress for increased
transportation spending.''
``Governors are aware that Federal fiscal circumstances
require prudence in setting spending priorities and continue to
support efforts to balance the budget. However, reducing
federal transportation investment and allowing our nation's
transportation infrastructure to fall further into disrepair
will result in lost profits, jobs, and productivity, and
ultimately lower tax revenues to the federal government.''
The NGA resolution then goes on to urge that the Federal
government:
``Reinstate the nation's long-standing policy of dedicating
federal transportation-related motor fuel taxes and excise
taxes exclusively for transportation purposes. If the 4.3 cents
per gallon of fuel tax that is currently being used for General
Fund purposes continues to be assessed, it should be deposited
in the Highway Trust Fund and used for transportation purposes.
``Restore the integrity of the dedicated trust fund. All
dedicated user fees and the interest accrued on trust fund
balances should be promptly distributed for their intended
purposes.''
Testimony by representatives of the National Governors' Association
(NGA) to a joint House and Senate Budget Hearing on March 12, 1997
indicates that ``steadily growing user-tax revenues can support
significant and much-needed increases in federal transportation
investment. In highways alone, the annual dedicated revenues could
support a funding level of $26 billion per year through the year 2002;
and an additional $5 billion for mass transit programs could be
supported by these growing revenues.'' AASHTO joins the nation's
governors in their call for setting annual highway and transit funding
and spending levels as high as possible.
the benefits of transportation investments
As members of the Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee, you
are well aware of both the benefits and needs of transportation funding
into the 21st century, so what I am about to say will come as no
surprise. However, the importance of transportation for a competitive
America and for the nation's future requires that we continue to focus
our attention on transportation funding.
America's transportation network has played a major role in our
nation's economic success. Just as in the past, the future of America
will depend to a great extent on how we support our transportation
system. The appropriations bill you will be considering is therefore of
great importance to the people of America as we approach the 21st
century.
Perhaps no other federal investment has such far-reaching
implications on every aspect of our quality of life. Transportation
serves all of our citizens daily in traveling to their jobs, day care
centers and markets; in providing goods to wholesale and retail
outlets; in traveling to recreational activities; and in a variety of
other activities in which we all participate. Welfare reform will only
succeed when wage-earners have access to places of employment. Quality
health care depends upon the ability of the patient and the care-giver
to come together.
Most important, transportation is the backbone for our State,
national and international economies. Transportation is our nation's
economic engine which is built on an efficient transportation system, a
key component to our global competitiveness. Industry, much of which
now relies on ``just in time'' delivery of raw materials, must have an
effective and efficient transportation system. Such a system requires
funding to the levels I have discussed.
the administration's transportation reauthorization proposal
With regard to the Administration's transportation reauthorization
proposal, Mr. Chairman, one major issue that concerns AASHTO is its
inadequate level of funding. The proposal has been described as
providing $175 billion for surface transportation. But if the
differences between proposed authorization and their proposed spending
levels is analyzed, actual funding under would be substantially less
than $175 billion. In addition, some of the $175 billion would be spent
on programs that are not now funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, such
as the Appalachian Highway Program and Amtrak, and for programs not
directly related to meeting our transportation needs.
Even if a full $175 billion were to be provided in the legislation
and expended on our identified highway and transit requirements, it
would fall far short of the funding levels recommended in U.S. DOT's
own investment requirement findings, its 1995 report titled ``The
Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: Condition and
Performance''.
Again, Mr. Chairman, AASHTO supports efforts to get annual
transportation funding as high as possible. The Administration's
transportation reauthorization proposal does not do this.
Spending down the balances in the Highway Trust Fund would permit
an additional $4 billion annually in highway funding levels. Including
the 4.3 cent per gallon tax in the Highway Trust Fund rather than using
it for general fund purposes would add another $7 billion. AASHTO
supports spending the Highway Trust Fund balances and efforts to
deposit the 4.3 cent per gallon to Highway Trust Fund purposes.
With regard to other components of the Administration's
transportation reauthorization proposal, a task force of the AASHTO
Reauthorization Steering Committee is currently analyzing the
Administration's bill and comparing it to AASHTO's adopted policies.
This analysis will be provided to the Subcommittee in the near future.
For now, let me address a few program areas of concern to AASHTO.
--AASHTO supports continued funding in the ISTEA reauthorization for
safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and research,
and we are pleased to see these programs contained in the
Administration's proposal. Safety issues are of paramount
importance to state transportation departments and should
continue to be funded. Regarding ITS, AASHTO has joined with
ITS America and the U.S. Department of Transportation and other
public and private organizations in endorsing the ``National
Goal for Intelligent Transportation Systems,'' to complete
deployment of basic ITS service for passenger and freight
transportation across the nation by 2001 (PR-1-96).
--With regard to research, AASHTO continues to support the highway
and transit research programs that are funded in ISTEA. Also,
AASHTO supports federal funding for transportation data
services, and therefore supports continued funding for the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics in the ISTEA
reauthorization (PR-12-96). These are also included in the
Administration's transportation reauthorization proposal.
--With regard to the revenue side of transportation funding, AASHTO
recognizes the success of the federal countermeasures to the
theft of motor fuel excise taxes, and urges that FHWA's Joint
Federal/State Motor Fuel Tax Compliance Project be reauthorized
at least at its current funding level. Further, AASHTO urges
that legislation be enacted that would allow a state
transportation agency, at its option, to expend up to one-
fourth of one percent of its federal-aid highway apportionments
on motor fuel tax theft countermeasures.
--In addition, AASHTO supports legislation directing the Federal
Highway Administration to expend no more that $15 million for
the development of a computerized system to account for the
import and refinery production of motor fuels to their
deliveries in accordance with the needs of the Internal Revenue
Service (PR-19-95).
The Administration's transportation reauthorization proposal
recognizes the need for these programs.
Where I have referred to AASHTO resolutions, they are identified in
parentheses, and copies of them are attached.
The enacted Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) was important legislation, and it improved our ability to
provide better transportation in many ways. The planning and decision-
making processes for surface transportation were changed by the ISTEA,
to move more decision making to States and localities and to encourage
looking intermodally at the whole system. Greater flexibility in
utilizing Federal funding was provided under the ISTEA, allowing States
and localities to better target transportation facilities they and
their citizens determine are priorities. And very importantly, the
National Highway System sought by AASHTO's member departments was
authorized in the ISTEA, and has been established by Congress with the
enactment of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
These concepts and features have increased our ability to address
the nation's transportation needs, and AASHTO believes that the
reauthorization legislation should continue to support them. At the
same time, AASHTO believes there are a number of areas that can be
improved as the Congress considers the reauthorization of ISTEA. These
areas are described in the policy documents we have provided to the
Subcommittee.
transportation trends for america
Mr. Chairman, we believe strongly that the next reauthorization
bill and the funding it provides must recognize and help meet the
transportation trends we see, looking ahead into the start of the next
century.
The most important of those transportation trends is that
transportation will continue to play a major role in the well-being of
this nation. This role is demonstrated by the growth we have seen in
the number of drivers, vehicles and passengers on our highway and
transit systems and the reliance of industry and economic development
on the availability of efficient transportation.
Vehicle miles of travel on our highways increased 40 percent in the
1980's. If the 1990 to 1994 trend continues, total miles traveled may
increase by more than 20 percent in the 1990's. At the present time
over 6 billion miles of vehicle travel are logged on the nation's
highways every day. The number of passengers utilizing transit services
has also increased with over 6.8 million Americans using mass transit
each day, with over 30 million people depending on it.
Just-in-time production is one of the most significant trends in
U.S. manufacturing in recent years. This trend has allowed many
businesses to sharply reduce or eliminate inventories. In 1990 just-in-
time manufacturing accounted for 18 percent of U.S. production; by 1995
this percentage had increased to 28 percent. Just-in-time production
and reduced inventories require dependable and efficient transportation
facilities, and are major sources of increased productivity in our
economy.
These trends are expected to continue, placing an ever increasing
demand on our transportation systems.
Our highway system is suffering from increased congestion in many
areas of the nation. The urbanization of America is creating new
challenges for urban areas while at the same time rural transportation
needs are continuing to increase. New demands are being placed upon the
highway system by shifts in both the volume and direction of world
trade. For example, the focus of our major highways are essentially
east-west, in keeping with the movement of goods between the east and
west coasts. However, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
has required us to evaluate and improve our systems to accommodate an
increasing number of north-south transportation patterns.
Our nation's transit systems remain vital in most areas of the
nation. Today, a variety of passenger mobility needs, and efforts to
solve our air quality problems across America, require transit to do
even more.
In short, Mr. Chairman, while our nation still has the best
transportation system in the world, current trends demonstrate that it
is aging and is not keeping up with the mobility needs of our citizens,
our commerce, our industries and our economy.
Throughout the history of our nation, transportation has been a key
driving force in building and maintaining our economy. In recent years
some have requested documentation of this statement, and in particular
have asked whether or not our nation is receiving a fair return on its
investment in our highway system. In response, AASHTO, through our
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the Federal
Highway Administration, and other transportation agencies have
sponsored many efforts to determine the economic value of
transportation, and investments in our highway system.
A copy of Chapters I and II of a report prepared under AASHTO's
sponsorship by the NCHRP entitled The Economic Importance of
Transportation: Talking Points and References is attached, without the
voluminous materials of Chapters III and IV. The following are a few of
the significant findings in this report, all of which demonstrate the
benefits of transportation to our economy:
--Reliable transportation is essential for America's businesses to
achieve their objectives of reduced inventories and improved
distribution systems. It is estimated that logistics and
transportation account for 20 to 25 percent of the value of a
product on the shelf.
--Wal-Mart has become the largest retailer in the U.S. by demanding
that manufactures deliver products reliably and ready for the
selling floor. Wal-Mart has only about 10 percent of their
square footage devoted to inventory compared to 25 percent for
the average retailer.
--To remain competitive, American companies and businesses demand
quick turnaround and are reducing the time it takes for
products to reach their markets.
The NCHRP report refers to recent studies of the economic effects
of highway investment conducted by Professor Ishaq Nadiri of New York
University. Professor Nadiri's work indicates that investments in
highways have a strong effect on productivity. He found that
transportation improvements lower distribution costs, allow the
shrinking of inventory that saves money, improves firms' access to
labor, and lowers production costs. Overall, Professor Nadiri's studies
show a 28 percent return per year between 1950-1989 for total highway
capital.
In addition to the efficiency and production benefits for the
manufacturing sector, investments in transportation are important for
job creation. The Federal Highway Administration's most recent report
on job generation for highway investment finds that every $1 billion of
investment in the Federal highway program supports more than 42,000
full-time jobs.
Also, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every
dollar invested in the highway system will return more than $2.60 in
benefits to the economy.
As indicated in the few examples shown above, investing in the
nation's transportation facilities is important to ensuring long-term
economic growth. Americans have long believed this, and we are now
finding through research work by several economists and other experts
that what we intuitively believe is in fact true.
other transportation issues
Mr. Chairman, I would like to identify a few additional
transportation funding issues of concern to AASHTO. These are beyond
the ISTEA reauthorization legislation, but are important to our members
and fall within the responsibilities of your Subcommittee.
AASHTO supports a multi-year reauthorization of the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) at a minimum of $2 billion (PR-2-96).
However, AASHTO opposes the use of AIP funds to pay for airport
security measures identified by the Gore Commission on Airport Security
(PR-13-96).
AASHTO also supports continuation of the Essential Air Service
Program (A-7), with reasonable subsidy limits and other appropriate
criteria geared toward a more efficient and productive expenditure of
federal funds.
AASHTO urges the Congress to permanently reauthorize and provide
for an annual appropriation of funds to the Local Rail Freight
Assistance program (PR-14-95).
The respective AASHTO resolutions are again shown in parentheses
above, and copies of these resolutions are attached.
summary
In summary, AASHTO believes that there will be no more important
legislation before this Congress for the future of America than the
reauthorization and adequate funding of our surface transportation
program.
We must either meet our investment needs, or face a decline in
American mobility as we enter the 21st century.
We have provided you with AASHTO's recommendations for
reauthorization and stand ready to provide any further information
which would be of assistance as you move forward in the legislative
process.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Again, thank you for the
invitation to present our views and we will be pleased to respond to
questions now or in writing.
[Clerk's note.--Due their length, the attachments referred
to in Mr. Rensink's statement do not appear in the hearing
record but are available for review in the subcommittee's
files.]
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. FAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE
Senator Shelby. Mr. Fay.
Mr. Fay. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify
here today. My remarks will focus first on key issues and then
on the administration's NEXTEA proposal.
The Highway Users is like a consumers group. Our members
are motorists and truckers who, as you know, are driving now
more than ever. Our members willingly pay taxes in proportion
to their driving, but they expect that those taxes will be
reinvested in safe and efficient roads and bridges.
If FHWA's needs report is correct--and that report found
that 28 percent of our Nation's roads are in poor to mediocre
condition, and 32 percent of our bridges are deficient--then
these highway consumers are being ripped off.
You know, Senator Faircloth mentioned that the Interstate
Highway System is complete. That may be so but let us not
forget that the Interstate System was designed in the 1950's to
meet the needs of a 1950's economy. Nonetheless, that Federal
creation constitutes our Nation's safest and best roads.
The NHS, which was overwhelmingly enacted in 1995, is the
Interstate Highway System of the 21st century. It bespeaks
nationalism. Four percent of all roads bearing 40 percent of
all traffic, 75 percent of commercial truck traffic, and 80
percent of tourist traffic. These are our most vital roads and
they draw our Nation together, boost economic productivity and
competitiveness, create jobs, and enhance our quality of life.
Through the NHS, the Nation can meet the exploding economic and
interstate commerce needs of the 21st century.
We strongly disagree with those who say that the Federal
role should be ended and that we should go back to before 1956
when vision did not extend beyond a State's boundaries. But
that said, we also believe that the Federal program must
readdress itself to defining and then adequately funding
national priorities.
America's highways are in the midst of a funding and safety
crisis. The needs report that Mr. Rensink referred to
documented roads and bridges crumbling from underinvestment.
Forty percent of the NHS roads are still two lanes. They are
bearing interstate traffic loads without the benefit of
interstate safety design.
And our highway death toll has been on the rise since ISTEA
took effect in 1992. Last year nearly 42,000 Americans lost
their lives on our roads. The FHWA also reported that road
design and conditions contributed to 30 percent of these fatal
crashes.
So, our Government is saying, No. 1, our roads are bad, and
No. 2, bad roads kill. Now, you would think that with those two
studies alone, we would embark on an urgent improvements
program, one that at least maintains the current conditions,
but in spite of those very powerful reports, the
administration's budget actually cuts highway investments.
These funding and safety problems are not the result of
insufficient revenues. Only 58 cents of every dollar of highway
taxes is actually returned to the States for roads and bridges.
Our problems are the result of insufficient dedication and
conviction.
Increased funding then has to be our top priority.
Referring to the President's inadequate highway funding level,
Senator Bob Graham of Florida recently said that ``starvation
brings out the worst in all of us.'' The formula debate will
only be salved if we first return a larger share of the money
that each State's motorists pay in highway taxes.
Without additional funding, our Nation simply cannot meet
our road and bridge needs. The needs report says that we have
to invest $20 billion more each year just to maintain the
current conditions of our roads and $40 billion more to improve
them. If you bridge that gap in this committee by making the
needed capital investments for our roads and bridges, the
dividends will be evident from a stronger economy, more jobs,
productivity gains, fewer fatalities, and a greater overall
quality of life.
That is why we applaud the 59 Senators, including 8 members
of this subcommittee, who asked the Budget Committee for a $6
billion increase in highway funding, bringing it to $26 billion
which is the level the CBO says we can sustain with no
additional tax revenues.
Next Monday Governors, labor, and industry will convene on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference urging you to maximize
transportation funding.
In a nutshell, the Highway Users proposal will do basically
four things.
The first is to deposit the 4.3 cents into the highway
trust fund.
Second, we would fund the highway program at the maximum
level the trust fund can support. Including the 4.3 cents, that
could be as high as $34 billion a year.
Third, we would target 85 percent of the highway funds
toward the NHS, bridges, safety, research and development, and
roads on Federal lands, five programs that we think are truly
national in scope.
And last, we would give State officials maximum flexibility
by eliminating most Federal mandates and set-asides and
distributing the remaining 15 percent of highway funds to the
States under a streamlined STP account.
If you are looking for a plan that is the opposite of the
proposal you just heard, you have NEXTEA. NEXTEA provides too
little funding for too many Federal programs with too many
strings attached. It is the opposite of a program that is
focused on a few clear national priorities and on a commitment
to invest in them. NEXTEA offers something for everyone with
too little for anyone.
For example, the President authorizes only $22 billion a
year, but he makes several new programs eligible for this
money. But as you know, authorizations are like monopoly money.
The President's budget actually cuts highway funding by one-
half of a billion dollars, and under his plan the surplus in
the trust fund will grow to a $48 billion level by 2002. In
other words, motorists will continue to be taxed to support
road and bridge repairs, but a substantial portion of their
taxes will either sit in the trust fund or be diverted to pay
for other Federal programs.
And the President would finance Amtrak out of the highway
account. He would expand the list of eligible projects that
highway funds could be used for. He would continue the Federal
funding set-asides that limit flexibility. He would allow tolls
on the interstates and he would make truckers and bus operators
subsidize their competitors: freight, rail, and Amtrak.
Prepared Statement
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
present the Highway Users views on NEXTEA and the
reauthorization of the Federal program. We do need more money.
As Mr. Rensink, we stand ready to assist you in any way that we
can over the next little while.
Senator Shelby. I agree with you we need more money and we
are going to try to get it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Fay
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today and the opportunity to present
our views on S. 468, the Administration's proposed ``National Economic
Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act'' (NEXTEA), recently
introduced by Senators Chafee and Moynihan.
I am Bill Fay, President and CEO of the American Highway Users
Alliance. The Highway Users represents a broad cross-section of
businesses and individuals who depend on safe and efficient highways to
transport their families, customers, employees, and products. We
support a strong federal role in transportation policy and the prudent
investment of scarce highway use taxes in those programs that enhance
our economic productivity, improve roadway safety, and contribute to
the enviable quality of life Americans enjoy.
Our view of NEXTEA and the other major reauthorization proposals is
based on an understanding of the appropriate federal role in
transportation and what that role means with respect to highway funding
and eligible uses of Highway Trust Fund dollars. I will begin today by
outlining The Highway Users' perspective on these ``big picture''
issues and finish with our specific comments on NEXTEA.
federal transportation policy at the crossroads
federal role
Since 1956, the federal highway program has been largely focused on
constructing the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways. Now that the Interstate System is virtually
completed, some have questioned whether the federal government should
continue to play a significant role in highway transportation policy.
These same objections were raised two years ago by opponents of the
National Highway System (NHS) legislation, and Congress answered them
decisively with its overwhelming vote for final passage of the National
Highway System Designation Act. With NHS designation, Congress
recognized the federal government's continuing responsibility to foster
interstate commerce and economic growth by ensuring that our most basic
transportation infrastructure is maintained and improved.
Without the NHS, many U.S. businesses could not compete in national
and international marketplaces, military readiness would be put at
grave risk because of the inability to mobilize quickly, and the
ability of individual Americans to travel where they want, when they
want would be severely hampered. To put it another way, a strong
federal role in the development and maintenance of highways and bridges
is essential to support economic growth, to enhance individual freedom,
and to sustain our quality of life. Few other federal programs can
claim such a sweeping national impact.
But there is a lot of work ahead to make the promise of the NHS a
reality. The nation will not only have to invest substantial financial
resources, but invest them wisely, in order to ensure that this small
but important network of highways becomes the engine for economic
growth, greater personal freedom, and safer travel that we all hope it
will be.
funding
Funding, then, has to be the top priority issue. Members of this
subcommittee understand the critical importance of increasing our
nationwide investment in highways. As Congress works to reauthorize the
federal highway program this year, the issue takes on even greater
significance. First, returning to the states more of the money
motorists pay in highway taxes will certainly help resolve many of the
difficult issues involved in the formula debate. Second, and of equal
importance, without additional funding our nation cannot meet its
documented need for increased road and bridge investments.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 253,629 miles
of Interstate and non-Interstate roads (29 percent of total pavement
miles eligible for federal funds) are in poor to mediocre condition,
and 186,559 bridges (32 percent of bridges over 20 feet) are deficient
and in need of repair or replacement. We are presently investing $20
billion per year less than is needed just to maintain current
conditions, and a staggering $40 billion per year less than is needed
to leave a better network of highways for the next generation.
This startling gap between actual highway investments and the
amount we should be spending has enormous implications for our economy,
our travel safety, and our overall quality of life:
--Economy--A recent study commissioned by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) indicates that between 1950 and 1989,
investments in non-local roads yielded production cost savings
of 24 cents for each dollar spent. Amazingly, those road
investments paid for themselves in just over four years because
of the economic gains they made possible. If we fail to
maintain those roads, however, the gains realized could soon
disappear.
--Safety--Highway fatalities have been on the rise over the past four
years, reversing the steady improvements of the prior four
years. When ISTEA took effect in 1992, 39,250 Americans died on
our highways. Since then, fatalities have climbed to 40,150 in
1993, 40,676 in 1994, and 41,798 in 1995. 1996 fatalities are
projected to be about the same as 1995. Substandard road
designs and poor road conditions are a factor in nearly 30
percent of fatal crashes, according to FHWA. Our failure to
invest in better highways will only make travel more dangerous
in coming years.
--Quality of Life--Underinvesting in highways will make it more
difficult for working parents to get from the job site, to the
day care, to the grocery store, to home; will make vacations
more time consuming and expensive; and will make medical care
less accessible for many rural Americans.
For the sake of our continued economic growth, the driving public's
safety, and maintaining our standard of living, Congress must increase
overall highway funding this year. That's why we applaud the 59
senators, including eight members of this subcommittee, who signed a
letter to the Budget Committee requesting that the highway program be
funded at $26 billion in fiscal year 1998, a $6 billion increase over
this year's spending level. As the letter indicates, the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund could sustain a program funded at $26
billion through at least fiscal year 2002 with no additional taxes.
The nation's governors have amplified the call for increased
federal investment in transportation. Testifying on behalf of the
entire National Governors' Association at a recent joint meeting of the
House and Senate Budget Committees, Governors Paul Patton of Kentucky
and Ed Schafer of North Dakota expressed their strong support for the
highway funding increase requested by a clear majority of the U.S.
Senate. Next Monday, those two governors will be back on Capitol Hill,
joined at a press conference by industry and labor representatives, to
reiterate the consensus among state and local governments and the
private sector that transportation funding must be a top priority in
the federal budget.
America's motorists should be able to count on their highway taxes
being used for road improvements. Highway users today are paying
substantially more in taxes than the federal government is spending on
highway and bridge investments. In 1996, motorists paid $31.5 billion
in federal highway use excise taxes. Yet, highway funding for this year
is set at just over $20 billion.
Of course, the major reason for this disparity between what highway
users pay and what they receive from the federal government is that not
all of the taxes collected from highway users are deposited in the
Highway Trust Fund, much less in the highway account of the trust fund.
Taking the 4.3 cents per gallon tax that currently goes to ``deficit
reduction''--which simply means the use of a regressive excise tax to
fund general government programs--and depositing it in the Highway
Trust Fund would go a long way towards keeping faith with the American
driving public.
focus the federal program
Just as we should increase overall highway funding this year, we
must ensure that those limited resources are wisely invested in
programs of vital national interest. Guided by two overriding national
goals--improved interstate mobility and safer travel--The Highway Users
recommends a simplified highway program that targets federal funds
towards five program accounts. They are:
--The National Highway System--While the NHS constitutes only 4
percent of the nation's road mileage, it carries over 40
percent of all highway travel, 75 percent of commercial truck
travel, and 80 percent of tourist travel. The NHS is the 215'
Century successor to the Interstate System and has the
potential to build dramatically on the national contributions
made by the Interstates over the past 40 years. To maintain
these vital interstate connectors, the FHWA estimates we should
be investing $18 billion annually and $24 billion annually if
we want to improve their condition. Yet the current federal
highway program provides only $6.5 billion per year for NHS
improvements.
--Bridges--Both on and off the NHS, bridges are high-cost, crucial
links in our nationwide highway network. The FHWA reports the
country would need to spend $5.1 billion annually to maintain
current bridge conditions and $8.9 billion to improve them. The
current federal highway program budgets only $2.8 billion per
year for bridge work. If the Administration and Congress
seriously wish to build a bridge to the 21st Century, they will
have to provide more adequate funding.
--Safety--For reasons I have already discussed, we must make a
renewed commitment to safety if we hope to curb the tide of
rising highway deaths. The federal government currently invests
$700 million annually in highway safety programs. As Americans
continue to travel more miles than ever by highway, we must
focus more attention and resources on safety improvements. It's
a nationwide challenge requiring a greater financial commitment
from the federal government.
--Research and Development (R&D)--The federal government currently
invests approximately $400 million annually in R&D activities
to develop new technologies, construction materials, and
construction techniques that will ease congestion, make travel
safer, and prolong the usable life of roads and bridges. By
providing up-front financing, coordinating research activities
at sites around the country, and transferring information and
technologies among interested parties in the public and private
sectors, FHWA programs reduce the cost and enhance the benefits
of the nation's highway-related R&D activities.
--Roads on Federal Lands--The federal highway program provides
approximately $500 million per year to improve roads on federal
lands, such as national parks. This program is essential to
provide public access to these areas and should be retained.
By targeting at least 85 percent of federal highway funds to the
above five program accounts, The Highway Users believes the federal
government would significantly improve both safety and interstate
mobility. Such a federal highway program would ensure we make
investments in projects of truly national significance.
streamlined stp
While The Highway Users seeks to target federal highway funds on
programs of national interest, we also advocate giving state and local
officials the latitude to plan for their regional transportation needs
and the flexibility to direct federal highway dollars towards the
programs they identify as priorities. The Surface Transportation
Program (STP) was established in ISTEA to provide state and local
governments that flexibility. While ISTEA is more flexible in terms of
expanding the opportunities to use federal highway funds on non-highway
projects, two of the new funding accounts established in ISTEA--
transportation enhancements and the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
improvement program (CMAQ)--are quite inflexible in terms of the
discretion granted to state and local officials to set their own
transportation priorities.
Specifically, 10 percent of STP funds must be set-aside and used
only for transportation enhancement activities, such as pedestrian or
bicycle facilities, landscaping and beautification, rehabilitation and
operation of historic buildings, or other non-highway projects. The
CMAQ program directs highway money, $6 billion over six years, towards
urban areas that do not meet Clean Air Act requirements. These funds
generally cannot be used for highway construction and maintenance,
except High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
The Highway Users recommends that Congress continue the eligibility
of CMAQ and transportation enhancement projects under a streamlined
Surface Transportation Program account. The streamlined STP would allow
state and local officials to weigh all transportation needs--air
quality, highway capacity, historic preservation, mass transit capital,
safety, etc.--and establish priorities without the current funding
constraints of ISTEA. By continuing the eligibility of CMAQ and
transportation enhancement projects but eliminating the specific
funding categories, Congress would allow those local projects to be
funded in areas where they are truly a priority.
highway users program summary
Our proposal for the reauthorized federal highway program can be
summarized as follows:
--Fund the highway program at the maximum level the Highway Trust
Fund will support.
--Deposit the 4.3 cents per gallon federal fuel tax in the Highway
Trust Fund.
--Target the bulk of federal highway funds toward the NHS, bridges,
safety, R&D, and roads on federal lands.
--Distribute the remaining federal highway funds to the states under
a streamlined STP account in which state and local officials
would be allowed to establish their own local transportation
priorities without the constraints of ISTEA's multiple funding
categories.
nextea
How does the Administration's proposal rate when measured against
our reauthorization priorities? In a word: poorly. NEXTEA provides too
little funding for too many federal programs with too many strings
attached. Where we were hoping for a program focused on a few, clear
national priorities and a commitment to invest in them, NEXTEA offers
something for everyone with money enough for no one.
nextea: funding
``Show me the money.'' That line from a popular movie might also be
the headline for a review of NEXTEA. Despite the fact that many in
Congress and all of the nation's governors are calling for a $26
billion per year highway program, NEXTEA authorizes only $22.7 billion,
on average, including funding for several new programs not previously
financed out of the Highway Trust Fund.
And as members of this subcommittee certainly know, authorizations
are akin to ``Monopoly'' money. You can't spend an authorization. The
real money for NEXTEA is in the President's budget, which was
transmitted to Congress in February.
The President's budget actually cuts highway spending (i.e.,
obligation authority) by $500 million from this year's $20.3 billion
level. While annual tax deposits (not including interest) to the
highway account are roughly $22 billion and growing, the Administration
proposes to hold highway funding well below that level. And of course,
Administration officials have publicly stated the President's
opposition to depositing revenues from the 4.3 cents per gallon motor
fuel tax into the Highway Trust Fund.
If highway funding is limited to the level recommended in the
President's budget, the cash balance in the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund would rise from the current $13 billion to more than
$35 billion in five years. Motorists would continue to be taxed to
support road and bridge repairs, but a substantial portion of their
taxes would actually be diverted to pay for other federal programs.
As outrageous an abuse of the taxpayers' trust as that is, the cash
balance sitting in the highway account five years from now would be
even larger if the President were not also proposing to finance Amtrak
entirely out of the highway account. The unprecedented proposal to pay
the full $4.8 billion, six-year subsidy to Amtrak out of the Highway
Trust Fund helps the Administration keep the trust fund's total
projected cash balance below the $50 billion mark at the end of 2002.
The Highway Users strongly opposes subsidizing Amtrak with highway
taxes that are desperately needed to improve roads and bridges.
nextea: focus the federal program
What does NEXTEA do to focus the federal highway program on clear
national priorities? The legislation would continue funding for the
NHS, bridges, safety, research and development, and roads on federal
lands. Less than 60 percent of the highway funds authorized in NEXTEA,
however, are dedicated to these top priority programs.
In addition to targeting too small a portion of highway funds
toward these five important program areas, the Administration also
proposes to greatly expand the list of eligible projects for which
these limited highway funds can be used. Both Amtrak and certain
freight rail facilities would become eligible for funds that should be
reserved for badly needed road safety, maintenance, and capacity
projects, particularly on NHS routes.
nextea: streamlined stp
With respect to our third priority--a streamlined Surface
Transportation Program--the Administration simply does not propose to
give state and local officials greater authority to establish their own
transportation priorities. Instead, NEXTEA would continue the funding
set-asides for CMAQ and transportation enhancement activities which, in
both cases, limit the potential use of these funds primarily to non-
highway projects. Again, we recommend instead that Congress continue
the eligibility of CMAQ and transportation enhancement projects under a
streamlined STP account, thus allowing state and local officials to
weigh all their transportation needs when making funding decisions.
In addition, we have two specific recommendations about CMAQ and
transportation enhancement eligibility requirements. First, the CMAQ
program to date is focused almost exclusively on air quality projects
with very little emphasis laid on congestion mitigation. Federal
highway funds certainly ought to be available to improve freeway
interchanges and other traffic bottlenecks and for simple projects such
as lane widening or shoulder improvements that can substantially
improve traffic flow and reduce congestion. We urge Congress to allow
the states to more fully utilize their federal highway funds for
congestion mitigation projects.
Second, the transportation enhancement eligibility requirements
have been written and interpreted so broadly that many projects funded
to date have no transportation elements or connection. We think these
eligibility standards should be tightened considerably. We hope to have
completed a report in April that will highlight the extent to which
transportation enhancement funds have been spent on non-transportation
projects. We will deliver the report to members of this subcommittee as
soon as it is available.
nextea: other specific issues
I can summarize our comments and concerns with other specific
elements of NEXTEA, as follows:
--Safety--As I indicated previously, highway fatalities have
increased in recent years, and highway accidents result in
millions of injuries annually. Those traffic crashes also drain
over $150 billion per year from our economy, primarily by
increasing medical costs and lowering productivity.
The Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), chartered by the American
Highway Users Alliance to reduce the frequency and severity of
crashes by improving the safety of roadways, recently released
a report on roadway safety problems and potential solutions.
The report cites four major roadway safety problems, including
run-off-the-road crashes made more severe by roadside hazards,
poor quality pavements, narrow lanes and shoulders, and narrow
bridges.
Those problems can be mitigated in a variety of ways--widening
lanes and adding or widening shoulders; ensuring that bridge
widths are commensurate with the width of approach lanes;
better pavement marking, traffic signs, and reflective devices;
creating open space adjacent to the roadway (clear zones) that
will allow motorists to regain control of their vehicles. Some
of these safety improvements are relatively simple; others are
more complex. All of them require a commitment of financial and
human resources.
Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal would allow states
to shift up to 100 percent of their Hazard Elimination funds
away from these life-saving roadway improvements into Section
402 public education and information safety programs instead.
(The Administration does not propose allowing states to shift
funds for the ``soft safety'' education programs into the
``hard safety'' hazard elimination projects.)
All safety programs are important, and The Highway Users supports
a substantial increase in overall funding for highway safety.
The Administration's proposal, however, would take money away
from projects for correcting road hazards that today contribute
to more than 12,000 highway fatalities per year. We believe
that is bad public policy, and we urge Congress to retain
existing programs to fund both rail/highway grade crossing
improvements and hazard elimination projects.
We are pleased that the Administration proposes funding for data
collection in Section 402(n), State Highway Safety Data
Improvements. Currently, law enforcement officers at the scene
of a crash are sometimes unable to identify the precise
location or the presence of roadside obstacles or other roadway
dangers such as sharp curves. This makes it difficult for
states and localities to identify roadway dangers and eliminate
them.
The $12 million authorized for data collection in NEXTEA,
however, is simply not enough to do the job. In addition to
higher funding, this section should include language
specifically identifying roadway-related data as a priority for
collection. The data should include a precise description of
the crash location, the type of crash--rollover or collision
with roadside obstacles--and the presence of other roadway
hazards such as sharp curves.
--Tolls--NEXTEA would eliminate the long-standing prohibition against
tolls on existing toll-free Interstate highways. We strongly
oppose this provision of NEXTEA. Taxes paid by motorists built
the Interstates and continue to fund improvements to Interstate
routes. The Administration's proposal is akin to asking a
person to pay rent on a home she already owns. Administration
officials say this is just one more tool to help states raise
funds for road improvements. We think the federal government
should fully utilize the taxes already being collected from
motorists before anyone starts talking seriously about
additional tax raising schemes.
--Amtrak and Freight Rail Subsidies--I've already indicated our
opposition to the Administration's proposed direct subsidies to
Amtrak out of the Highway Trust Fund. We also strongly oppose
making Amtrak and freight rail facilities eligible for NHS or
other highway funds. Bus operators and truckers should not be
required to subsidize their competitors.
conclusion
Again Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present The
Highway Users' views on NEXTEA and reauthorization of the federal
highway program. Obviously, we think the Administration's proposal
falls short of the mark in several key areas. Whatever one's point of
view may be with respect to the policy issues I have addressed, it is
clear that this subcommittee can do a lot to help smooth the
reauthorization process by providing an adequate amount of funding for
the highway program. We look forward to working with you and members of
the full committee toward that important end.
[Clerk's note.--The Final Report--Improving Roadway Safety:
Current Issues will not appear in the hearing record, but is
available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. COLLINS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for the
opportunity to be here. My name is John Collins. I am senior
vice president for government affairs of the American Trucking
Associations.
ATA represents the Nation's trucking industries. We employ
about 9 million people. We pay about 43 percent of the total
amount of money that goes into the Federal highway trust fund.
We have only about 10 percent of the vehicles. So, we are big
payers in. We are not the largest users of the system out
there. Those are really the auto users.
Mr. Chairman, the American Trucking Associations and our
industry believe that the current level of funding for roads,
bridges, and highways is inadequate and that the
administration's NEXTEA proposal is really a next toll
proposal. It asks for more money in the way of tolls, while not
really spending the amount of money we are already putting into
the system.
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee who
have joined in calling for a $26 billion per year program.
Senator Bond is leading a separate effort to increase available
funds for highways, and Senator Byrd is leading an effort to
bring 4.3 cents back into the highway trust fund. I think those
represent a growing consensus that there is a need for more
money, as you just said, Mr. Chairman, to go into the highway
program and there is also a will to get it done.
The ATA proposal is very similar to the Highway Users
proposal. We would go straight out for a $34 billion annual
program which could be supported with the existing tax
structure without any tax increases. With that program, we
would see basically a two-part program. There would be a core
program that would target money at those interstate facilities
that are most important for moving people and moving freight,
and then there would be a block grant proposal that would be
turned back to States dollar for dollar for their other
transportation needs. The vast majority of the funds would be
dedicated to the core highway program.
The trucking industry is very skeptical of the
administration's reauthorization proposal. Their proposal and
their fiscal year 1998 spending level would propose $11 billion
less than the level that could be supported out of a fully
funded highway trust fund program.
Basically the highway program has been moving along at $20
billion per year. They, in 1998, would propose to cut that $500
million to $19.8 billion, but in fact the overall highway
program that could be maintained would be about a $34 billion
level.
We strongly oppose--and Senator Faircloth I think said this
very eloquently about the problems of putting tolls on the
Interstate Highway System. To charge a toll for something we
have already paid for is absolutely a travesty.
I would like to talk to you about three things that concern
us, and that is safety, jobs, and international
competitiveness.
Safety. Nearly 42,000 people die on the Nation's highways
each year, and the trucking industry takes little comfort in
the fact that in 88 percent of those, there is not a truck
anywhere nearby. So, this is not a problem caused by the
trucking industry, but we are concerned obviously with safety
on the Nation's highway.
We are spending billions of dollars to make our trucks
safer, to make our drivers safer, and we need Congress' help to
make the roads safer. We have all been on the highway where we
have been driving down the road and suddenly the person in
front of us swerves irrationally and it turns out they swerved
to avoid a pothole. That is the kind of thing that creates
havoc with the truckdriver who is trying to drive straight down
the road and safely. We have got to put the money back into the
infrastructure to take those kinds of problems away from us.
We think about this is as a shopping list. For each $1
billion that Congress can put into the highway system, that
could upgrade 1,300 miles of rural roads into interstate
quality roads, roads in Alabama where you could cut the
fatality rate in half by making that kind of improvement.
You could resurface interstate highways and rural roads,
and by resurfacing them and getting rid of the potholes, you
could reduce accidents by 20 or 25 percent.
An important issue--and you certainly see it in Alabama--is
the relationship of highways to jobs. You need good highways to
get good jobs. Seventy-seven percent of the communities across
America have their freight moved only over highways. The
airplane does not land at the plant. The rail is an important
asset but it does not bring the cargo directly to the person
who needs it.
And it is fashionable in some quarters to say that the
Interstate System is built, we can pull back the Federal
commitment to highways. But that is like saying our schools
have been built and the textbooks have been bought and we do
not need anything new.
Every year in this country we add about 2.3 million people
to our population, and by the year 2004, we will add 8 million
more cars to our highways and rack up 30 percent more miles in
demand for services from trucks. So, our surface transportation
system needs every bit of money we can put into it for
modernization.
In international competitiveness, the FHWA has said that
every $1 billion invested in the NHS, the National Highway
System, creates a $240 million reduction in manufacturing
production costs per year. So, there is a real payoff between
the investment and the payoff back.
Prepared Statement
It involves safety, jobs, and competitiveness, and really
the challenge is to this Congress and to this committee through
its appropriations efforts to make that money available. This
Congress has a wonderful opportunity to earn a legacy as
builders, builders of a better, safer, and more prosperous
America, and I urge you to provide the funding to make that a
reality.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John J. Collins
i. introduction
ATA Represents the Trucking Industry
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) is the national
trade association of the trucking industry. ATA's membership includes
affiliated associations in every state, and 13 specialized national
associations. ATA represents every type and class of motor carrier in
the country. We are a federation of over 36,000 member companies and
represent an industry that employs over nine million people, providing
one out of every fourteen civilian jobs. We are a highly diverse
industry, but we can all agree that a good system of roads is crucial
both to our bottom line and to the safety of all drivers, including
millions of truck drivers who deliver to all Americans their food,
clothing, finished products, raw materials, and every other item
imaginable. Actions that affect the trucking industry's ability to
perform these services have significant consequences for Americans to
do their job well and to enjoy a high quality of life.
Current Spending Levels Cannot Support a Safe and Efficient Highway
System
The trucking industry contributes over $11 billion each year to the
Federal Highway Trust Fund, about 43 percent of total receipts. As
such, we expect a return on our investment. The user fees that we
contribute to the trust fund should be invested in a manner that makes
our highways both safer and more efficient.
Investing all revenues collected is especially important given the
tremendous pressures our highways and bridges will face in the future,
when population and economic growth will spur tremendous increases in
the demand for freight transportation. In 1994 the revenue generated by
the trucking industry was $362 billion and is projected to reach $437
billion in 2004. By this same date, the total volume of freight carried
by trucks will reach 6.5 billion tons, 19 percent more than in 1994.
Both the total number of miles driven and the total volume of ton-miles
will grow 29 percent. Over the same period, more than half a million
more trucks will be needed to meet these increased demands. This
assumes that we will be successful in increasing intermodal business
substantially to $12.9 billion-a 150 percent increase over today's
levels. The safety and efficiency of the freight industry will depend
in no small measure on the actions of this committee and the 105th
Congress.
ii. current funding levels are insufficient
There are numerous Congressional initiatives underway to
significantly increase investment in our nation's transportation
systems. These efforts indicate both a recognition of the severe
investment shortfall facing our transportation infrastructure and the
emergence of broad consensus that something can and should be done to
correct this situation. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
spending all highway user fee revenues and drawing down the balance in
the Highway Trust Fund, could support an annual program of $34 billion,
without increasing taxes.
Current Spending will not Sustain Highway Infrastructure
The trucking industry is prepared for the tremendous challenges
posed by ever increasing demands for more efficient freight service to
facilitate our nation's growing population and economy. However, if
under-investment in our highways continues, it may be impossible for
the industry to meet these challenges. The resulting productivity
losses will take a severe human toll as stiff competition from abroad
wipes out existing jobs and reduces the ability of our economy to
create new jobs for an expanding population. To simply maintain
conditions and performance on the 162,000-mile National Highway System
(NHS), an annual Federal investment of $15.6 billion is needed. The NHS
carries 40 percent of all traffic and 75 percent of truck traffic. Yet
the Federal government makes just $9 billion available annually for
funding of these most important highways. This is only 58 percent of
the Federal investment necessary just to maintain the status quo.
This dismal level of spending has contributed to the situation now
faced by users of the system. The NHS has been allowed to deteriorate
to the point where nearly half of urban Interstate miles are congested
during peak periods. Forty percent of travel on urban NHS routes takes
place under such congested conditions that even a minor incident can
cause severe traffic flow disruptions and extensive queuing.\1\
Congestion on urban Interstates increased from about 55 percent of peak
hour travel in 1983 to approximately 70 percent in 1989, remaining
relatively constant since then.\2\ Travel delays in the nation's fifty
largest urban areas as a result of increased congestion costs society
an estimated $50 billion every year.\3\ Congestion increases the risk
of accidents and interferes with our ability to serve our customers'
``just-in-time'' delivery needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FHWA 1995 Conditions and Performance Report, pp. 105-109
\2\ Ibid, p. 110.
\3\ Urban Roadway Congestion--1982-1993, Vol. 1: Annual Report,
David Shrank and Timothy Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University, Aug. 1996, p. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Investment Saves Lives
Adequate highway funding allows states to make roadway improvements
that increase safety. Improved roadway characteristics such as 12-foot
lanes and ample shoulders, gentler curves, and improved median and
median barriers, can significantly reduce the number and severity of
accidents.\4\ One 1995 study estimated that full funding for the NHS
over a 10-year period would prevent 720 fatal crashes, 55,000 personal
injury crashes, and 120,000 property damage crashes on the NHS
alone.\5\ The report estimated average annual societal savings of $800
million as a result of the accident prevention. Additional funding for
other roads would increase these savings even more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ McGee, H.W., W.E. Hughes, K. Daily, Effects of Highway
Standards on Safety, Final Report to National Cooperative Research
Program, Project 17-9, Bellomo-McGee, Inc., Dec. 1994.
\5\ Safety Effects Resulting from Approval of the National Highway
System. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Bellomo-McGee, Inc., July
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to keep in mind that 43 percent of the NHS includes
two-lane roads. These roads often have no median separation to prevent
head-on collisions. Although lanes, shoulders and clear zones can
provide motorists with the critical space to recover if they lose
control of their vehicles, these features are inadequate or nonexistent
on many NHS routes. These two-lane roads may have very tight curves
with few warning signs and poor visibility to alert motorists before it
is too late to adjust. FHWA crash statistics confirm the danger posed
by the hazardous conditions on these narrow roads. While the Interstate
System has the lowest fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, NHS routes not on the Interstate have a death rate twice that
of Interstates.\6\ Other Federal aid highways not on the NHS take an
even higher toll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FHWA, Highway Statistics, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional funding will allow us to make needed highway safety
improvements. Illustratively, consider what just $1 billion dollars in
additional highway construction investment could achieve:
--upgrade 1,300 lane-miles of off-interstate rural principle
arterials to interstate standard,\7\ potentially cutting the
fatal accident rate on these roads in half; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System Database, 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--add 500 new lane-miles to existing urban freeways, or 3,300 new
lane-miles to existing rural interstates,\8\ relieving
congestion and reducing accidents; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--resurface 9,800 lane-miles of rural interstate or 5,900 lane-miles
of urban freeway,\9\ reducing accidents on these roads by 20 to
25 percent; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--build 170 new truck safety inspection stations, helping to get
unsafe vehicles off the highway; or
--add 50,000 truck parking spaces at highway rest areas, allowing
truck drivers to pull over to a safe place when they get
tired.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ATA Foundation, Inc. No Room at the Inn, May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot afford to become complacent. In 1995, 41,798 people died
on our nation's highways. The vast majority of these fatal crashes
involved cars, motorcycles, and pickup trucks. This is equivalent to a
Valuejet crash every single day! Safety must be given the highest
priority, and the Federal commitment must be demonstrated through
adequate funding and strong leadership.
Highway Investments are the Key to Economic Development and Employment
Growth
According to a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report,
investment in the nation's highways stimulates job growth.\11\ The
report states that for each $1 billion in highway investment, 42,100
full-time jobs are created and supported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Federal Highway Administration. Highway Infrastructure and Job
Generation: A Look at the Positive Employment Impacts of Highway
Investment, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States productivity improvements are the key to global
competitiveness, rising standards of living, and economic growth.
Investing in the NHS results in significant, nationwide improvements in
productivity.\12\ In fact, every billion dollars invested in the NHS
results in a $240 million reduction in overall production costs for
U.S. manufacturing. These productivity improvements allow U.S. industry
to sell more goods and services at lower prices both at home and
abroad. More people can be employed at higher wages. Since salary
increases are firmly tied to the increase in the amount of goods and
services each worker produces, living standards are improved. In
addition, these real wage increases result in elevated tax revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Nadiri, M. Ishad and Theofanis Mamuneous. Highway Capital and
Productivity Growth, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through new innovations such as just-in-time delivery, the trucking
industry has played a vital role in improving U.S. productivity. This
would have been difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without an
efficient network of good roads that connects markets, centers of
industry, and multi-modal transportation facilities. A 1994 study of
five diverse U.S. companies demonstrates the importance of
transportation to American businesses' daily operations.\13\ For
instance, a reliable system of roads allows Saturn Corporation, which
has its manufacturing and assembly plant in Spring Hill, TN, to utilize
a just-in-time strategy. Saturn's just-in-time approach to its
inventory control system, combined with the company's advanced
communications system and a safe, well-functioning highway network, has
allowed the company to reduce order cycle times and inventory costs by
holding down in-plant inventory to an average of two days' stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Apogee Research, Inc. The Economic Importance of the National
Highway System, Feb. 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Minimum of $34 Billion Annually Can and Should be Available for
Investment
Although the fees paid into the Highway Trust Fund are sufficient
to improve conditions and performance on the National Highway System
and related roads, not enough of the funds are being spent to even
maintain the status quo, the status quo itself is unacceptable. If all
funds coming into the Highway Trust Fund are spent in a timely manner,
a $26 billion program could be sustained. A slow drawdown of the
existing balances in the trust fund would increase revenues by
approximately $2 billion annually, allowing a $28 billion program.
Ensuring that all highway user fees are dedicated to transportation
improvements, including the 4.3 cents now deposited in the General
Fund, would make a $34 billion annual program possible. This level of
investment would stop the deterioration of our highways and bridges,
allowing our nation's economy to move forward, renewing our commitment
to safer, more efficient, and less congested highways, and improving
our quality of life. Another important benefit of a higher funding
level is that it would diminish the contentious and divisive debate
over funding formulas. We all support a better surface transportation
system, and this issue is a barrier to achieving our common goals.
Given the tremendous economic and social benefits of highway
investment, it is illogical to fail to spend the highway user fees
collected to correct the many deficiencies of our highways and bridges.
By the end of the 1997 fiscal year, the unspent balances in the Highway
Trust Fund may exceed $22 billion. Extending the Administration's
budget proposal for fiscal year 1998, that figure could reach nearly
$50 billion in just five more years. For many years the trucking
industry has been a steadfast supporter of the user fee system.
However, support for that system and the Federal program will erode if
the balances in the Trust Fund continue to rise or if user fees are not
invested in highways in a timely manner. We urge the committee to
restore trust in the Highway Trust Fund by investing the maximum amount
available with a minimum of diversions.
iii. the administration's proposal is inadequate and unacceptable
During recent testimony, Secretary Slater declared that ISTEA's
successor must be judged by how it affects ``the lives of our people,
the health of our economy, and the welfare of our Nation . . .'' I am
sorry to say that the Administration's proposal for reauthorization,
which is called NEXTEA, will fall far short of meeting these laudatory
criteria.
The Administration's fiscal year 1998 $22.8 billion budget
authority for the Highway Account falls over $3 billion short of where
it could be under current revenue circumstances and is $1 1 billion
short of where it would be if the Administration made changes that
restored the honesty and integrity of the user fee system. In addition,
any potential for reducing highway infrastructure deterioration is
obliterated by programmatic changes that further dilute highway
investment. Instead of targeting limited funds where they can most
effectively address national highway needs, NEXTEA diverts an
additional 25 percent of user fees to programs, such as the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and Transportation
Enhancements Program (TEP), that will not reduce highway fatalities.
NEXTEA also includes funding for passenger and freight rail
facilities and operations. ATA opposes funding Amtrak operations out of
the Highway Account because Amtrak expenditures do not measurably help
reduce highway fatalities or reduce congestion. Moreover, Federal
decisions to allocate funds to Amtrak create a new class of donors and
donees--with most of the states being losers.
Some short line railroads are proposing to fund private rail
freight projects out of the highway account. The trucking industry has
to pay for our vehicles, terminals and operating costs out of our
pockets. Our competitors should not have their private costs paid out
of the highway account. This is especially true since truckers
typically earn two cents on the revenue dollar while some railroads
often earn 15 cents or more. If the railroads want public funding, they
also should pay a reasonable fuels tax and create a railroad trust fund
account. Each one cent would raise around $30 million dollars.
Finally, the administration has proposed turning its back on 40
years of history by allowing tolls on the Interstate Highway System.
Charging highway users to rent what we have already bought is a
travesty. We are already paying more in highway taxes than we get back.
Moreover, putting tolls on free Interstate Highways will force cars to
slow from freeway speed, adding to safety, congestion, air pollution,
and noise problems.
iv. ata's proposal for highway reauthorization
ATA's proposal is a comprehensive plan which ensures that the
national interest in a safe and efficient system of highways is
preserved. We propose an annual $34 billion total funding level, which
includes $25 billion for a Core Highway Program and $9 billion for a
highly flexible State Block Grant Program (See appendix). We propose to
invest highway user fees in a targeted set of programs which serve
important national needs. Our proposal creates a flexible state Block
Grant Program and ensures that the Trust Fund balances are spent down.
The Core Highway Program would include the NHS, a Bridge Program, a
Federal Lands Program, a national highway safety program, and a
Research & Technology Activity program. Investment in these areas
ensures the preservation and improvement of a seamless national highway
network that benefits all Americans. Funding distribution, therefore,
would be based on national need, rather than on contributions to the
Trust Fund.
Concentrating funds on a Core Highway Program ensures that projects
with national significance are given priority. The current program's
structure fails to meet this test. For instance, the state of Alabama
received an estimated apportionment of $270 million in fiscal year
1996. Eighty-eight million dollars, a third of Alabama's total
apportionment, was subject to suballocation under the Surface
Transportation Program (STP). Of that, $11 million was suballocated to
large urban areas. At the end of fiscal year 1996, however, $13 million
in this category remained unobligated, a full 121. percent of the
fiscal year 1996 funding to that category (some carries over from
previous years). Prohibitions against apportionment transfers within
the STP program mean that Alabama may not be able to use $13 million of
its Federal-aid highway dollars.
ATA's proposed Block Grant Program gives states and localities the
flexibility to select and fund highway and transit capital projects, as
well as congestion mitigation and air quality projects. This
flexibility allows them to address their unique needs in a manner best
suited to their circumstances. Funds now available for suballocation
would continue in the same proportion. Funds in the block grant would
be distributed to states in exactly the same proportion as the dollars
are collected from the states, so that there would not be any donors or
donees.
v. other reforms will increase safety and productivity
Several other important issues are likely to be subjects for
discussion during reauthorization, and I will touch on them briefly.
--The freight planning process which ISTEA set in motion needs to be
improved.
--Many Metropolitan Planning Organizations have not fully addressed
the essential freight planning needs that are important to
freight mobility both in their own communities and as a link in
the national supply chain.
--Current hours of service regulations, many of which have been on
the books since the 1930's, are too are flexible and outdated.
While we are not sure at this point whether a legislative or
regulatory approach is preferable, a new option should be
developed that improves highway safety, as well as industry
productivity and efficiency.
--Truck drivers suffered inequitably from the cutback in the meal
deduction, and this should be corrected.
--States should be given more flexibility to determine the most
appropriate regulations governing the size and weight of trucks
on highways within their jurisdiction.
Recent research revealed a nationwide shortfall of 28,500 truck
parking spaces in public rest areas.\14\ When truck stops are full,
truck drivers have little choice but to either park illegally--which
can create a severely hazardous situation--or to continue driving,
possibly breaking hours-of-service laws or becoming so fatigued that
they put themselves and other motorists at risk of an accident. Neither
choice is acceptable. The total nationwide cost to develop the
necessary parking spaces is estimated to be $489 million to $629
million. We will request funding eligibility for rest area
construction, expansion, improvement, and access under all major
categories of the Federal-aid highway program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The ATA Foundation.Inc. No Room at the Inn, May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA will also request funding eligibility under all major
categories for state enforcement of Federal truck size and weight
regulations at weigh stations, including construction of safety
inspection and weight enforcement facilities. In addition, we will
request the same eligibility for states' procurement and operation of
portable weigh scales. These investments are essential to states'
ability to ensure that unsafe and illegal trucks are taken off the.
Finally, ATA plans to work with the U.S. Department of
Transportation to develop a multi-year highway safety program designed
to further promote the safe operation of commercial motor carriers and
maintenance of equipment through education, research & development, and
technology transfer activities. This program also will require Federal
funding.
vi. conclusion
A few weeks ago, Deputy Transportation Secretary Mort Downey
testified that, given current investment levels and travel growth
projections, 9,500 more people will die on our nation's highways in
2005 than in 1996. In the face of such a grim statistic, the
Administration offers a proposal that would decrease funding for
investment in highways and increase diversion of highway user fee
revenues to non-highway purposes, further straining the highway
system's ability to safely transport people and goods. This, despite
the fact that sufficient revenue is readily available. ATA's proposal
makes targeted, nationally significant investments which would both
improve highway safety and spur economic growth It also gives states
and localities unprecedented resources and flexibility to address their
unique surface transportation needs in the most creative and effective
manner possible.
I look forward to working with the members of this committee as you
strive to meet the many challenges ahead. I hope ATA's proposal can
serve as a basis for discussion during reauthorization of the highway
program. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP10.001
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK L. GRUEL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AAA
NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE CLUB
Senator Shelby. Mr. Gruel.
Mr. Gruel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I am Fred Gruel, president and
chief executive officer of the AAA New Jersey Automobile Club
and vice chair of AAA's Public and Government Relations
Committee. Today I bring you the views of the entire American
Automobile Association, a federation of 99 independent clubs
across North America with nearly 40 million members.
I want to briefly review AAA's position on the
reauthorization of ISTEA with a focus on the tolling provisions
in the administration's NEXTEA proposal.
First, AAA strongly believes funding levels for highways
and bridges should be significantly increased.
AAA also believes that a strong but responsible Federal
role in transportation policy and financing should be
maintained. The preservation of a national transportation
system is in everyone's interest. That is why we have serious
concerns about proposals to turn back or devolve Federal taxing
authority to the States.
Safety is another key component that should be improved in
the next ISTEA. We urge you to consider an increase in overall
safety investments.
In addition, the majority of AAA members oppose any
congressional change in the size and weight of trucks and
support the continued freeze on longer combination vehicles.
This leads me to a final issue that is of concern to AAA
during ISTEA reauthorization and that is tolls.
One of the most controversial provisions of NEXTEA would
allow a State to finance the reconstruction of a previously
free interstate highway with tolls. The interstates were built
with highway user gas taxes. Now the administration is asking
these users to pay again with a toll even though there is $20
billion sitting unused in the highway trust fund.
AAA opposes toll roads as a general principle, believing
that to the maximum extent possible, all highway facilities
should be toll free. This position is not a new one. In 1936,
AAA's bill of rights for motorists referenced tolls. It said we
must have roads suitable and adequate for the movement of
modern motor traffic with safety. They must be free and not
toll roads. As early as 1940, AAA policy vigorously opposed the
levying of tolls on existing free highways.
AAA policy remains the same today: The use of tolls results
in the double taxation of motorists, once in the form of
gasoline taxes and again when motorists drive on a toll road.
For over 80 years, the underlying principle of the Federal-
State highway program has been developing and preserving this
Nation's vast network of quality, toll-free highways. Proposals
to toll existing Federal-aid highways, including the Interstate
System, represent a major change in course. Instead of a pay-
as-you-go highway network based on fuel taxes already collected
from motorists, responsibility for funding highway maintenance
and construction would be loaded onto future trips of highway
users--build now, pay now, and pay later.
AAA has some specific concerns about the use of tolls and
toll roads. I will outline them for you briefly.
They are expensive.
They represent a breach of trust.
They are inefficient.
They are inconvenient.
They delay the movement of people and goods.
And they offer little choice to the consumer as to
available services.
AAA believes that if Congress adopts the administration's
toll proposal for interstates, it could destroy the user fee
structure that has brought our Nation the best and safest
highway system in the world.
AAA believes most Americans consider their freedom of
mobility as a constitutional right. Telling Americans that they
have to pay tolls on interstates they have already paid for
does not meet their idea of freedom of mobility. In fact, AAA
surveys consistently find more than 70 percent of drivers
oppose tolling.
AAA would like to propose an alternative to tolls. Take the
highway trust fund off budget and transfer the 4.3 cents per
gallon to the highway trust fund. If these two steps were
taken, we would not need to toll our interstates.
A total of 59 Senators, 8 from this subcommittee, have
signed the Warner-Baucus letter to the Budget Committee
Chairman Domenici requesting an annual investment of $26
billion in highways. That is the minimum required to fix our
Nation's highways and bridges to make them safer. Taking the
highway trust fund off budget and transferring the 4.3 cents
per gallon gas tax to the trust fund could provide more than
$30 billion annually.
Prepared Statement
Rather than asking AAA members and all motorists for more
money in tolls, AAA asks you to invest the money we have
already paid on what you told it would be used for. Fix our
highways and bridges and invest our gas taxes in safety.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick L. Gruel
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Fred Gruel,
president and chief executive of ricer of the AAA New Jersey Automobile
Club and Vice Chair of AAA's Public & Government Relations Committee.
Today I bring you the views of the entire American Automobile
Association. AAA is a federation of 99 independent clubs across North
America with nearly 40 million members.
I want to briefly review AAA's positions on the reauthorization of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) with a
focus on the tolling provisions in the Administration's NEXTEA
proposal.
First, AAA strongly believes funding levels for highways and
bridges should be significantly increased. An increase in funding could
be facilitated by taking the Highway Trust Fund ``off-budget,'' as
Congressman Shuster's bill H.R. 4 would do; by investing the unspent
balance in the Fund on transportation; and by redirecting to the
Highway Trust Fund the 4.3 cents per gallon motor fuels tax now going
to deficit reduction.
AAA also believes that a strong but responsible federal role in
transportation policy and financing should be maintained. The
preservation of a national transportation system is in everyone's
interest. That's why we have serious concerns about proposals to ``turn
back'' or ``devolve'' federal taxing authority to the states.
Safety is another key component that should be improved in the next
ISTEA. We urge you to consider an increase in overall safety
investments.
In addition, the majority of AAA members oppose any Congressional
change in the size and weight of trucks and support the continued
freeze on longer combination vehicles (LCV's).
This leads me to a final issue that is of concern to AAA during
ISTEA reauthorization--and that is tolls.
One of the most controversial provisions of NEXTEA would allow a
state to finance the reconstruction of a previously free Interstate
highway with tolls. The Interstates were built with highway user gas
taxes. Now, the Administration is asking these users to pay again with
a toll. Even though there is $20 billion sitting unused in the Highway
Trust Fund.
AAA opposes toll roads as a general principle, believing that to
the maximum extent possible, all highway facilities should be toll-
free. This position is not a new one. In 1936 AAA developed a ``Bill of
Rights'' for motorists that included a reference to tolls. It said,
``We must have roads suitable and adequate for the movement of modern
motor traffic with safety. There must be multiple-lane highways with
opposing traffic streams divided. They must be free and not toll roads.
. . .'' As early as 1940, AAA policy . . . ``vigorously oppose(d) the
levying of tolls on existing free highways . . . privately-owned toll
roads, and transcontinental toll superhighways. . . .'' AAA policy
remains the same today: The use of tolls results in the double taxation
of motorists, once in the form of gasoline taxes, and again when
motorists drive on a toll road.
For over 80 years, the underlying principle of the federal-state
highway program has been developing and preserving this nation's vast
network of quality, toll-free highways. Proposals to toll existing
federal-aid highways--including the Interstate System--represent a
major change in course. Instead of a pay-as-you-go highway network
based on fuel taxes already collected from motorists, responsibility
for funding highway maintenance and construction would be loaded onto
future trips of highway users--``build now, pay now, and pay later!''
AAA has some specific concerns about the use of tolls and toll
roads. I will outline them for you briefly:
--They are expensive: Toll road construction will probably cost as
much as three to four times as much as free roads because of
bond interest charges and toll collection costs.
--They represent a breach of trust: Highway users have already paid
hundreds of billions of dollars to construct one of the world's
finest highway networks. Why should they, and their children,
now be charged to use it?
--They are inefficient: About fifteen percent of toll revenues are
needed for the collection process while only about one percent
of motor fuel taxes are devoted to that purpose.
--They are inconvenient: Toll roads often provide few entrances and
exits in order to minimize the number and thereby the costs of
toll personnel. Users are limited to those on or off ramps
which may not be near where they want to go.
--They delay the movement of people and goods in two ways: First, by
slowing the flow of traffic, leading to aggravation and
possible safety hazards, and second, by causing congestion at
toll plazas.
--They offer little choice to the consumer: Toll roads are often
locked into higher-priced service stations, food establishments
and other services. The highway user has little choice among
concessionaires and prices.
--They can be self-perpetuating: It's rare that tolls are ended after
the debt service is retired.
AAA believes that if Congress adopts the Administration's toll
proposal for Interstates, it could destroy the user fee structure that
has brought our nation the best and safest highway system in the world.
AAA believes most Americans consider their freedom of mobility as a
``constitutional right.'' Telling Americans that they have to pay tolls
on Interstates they have already paid for doesn't meet their idea of
freedom of mobility. You may be interested to know that AAA surveys
consistently find more than 70 percent of drivers oppose tolling.
AAA would like to propose an alternative to tolls: Take the Highway
Trust Fund off-budget and transfer the 4.3 cents per gallon to the
Highway Trust Fund. If these two steps were taken, we wouldn't need to
toll our Interstates.
Fifty-seven Senators--eight from this subcommittee--have signed the
Warner/Baucus letter to Budget Committee Chairman Domenici requesting
an annual investment of $26 billion in highways. That is the minimum
required to fix our nation's highways and bridges to make them safer.
Taking the Highway Trust Fund off-budget, and transferring the 4.3 cent
per gallon gas tax to the trust fund, could provide more than $30
billion annually.
Rather than asking AAA members and all motorists for more money--in
tolls--AAA asks you to invest the money we have already paid what you
told us it would be used for. Fix our highways and bridges and invest
our gas taxes in safety.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Millar.
Mr. Millar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I am very pleased
to be with you today. I am William Millar. I am the president
of the American Public Transit Association, and I appear here
today on behalf of our 1,100 member organizations from
throughout the United States and Canada.
We believe very strongly that there needs to be a continued
strong Federal role in a balanced transportation system for all
Americans.
We believe, as my colleagues have spoken here today, that
we simply have to have an increased investment in our surface
transportation system, that the money we are spending now is
simply not enough for our Nation.
And finally, we believe that proper investment in the
infrastructure will allow for a growing economy and to meet the
variety of Federal objectives that the Congress has set out for
us over the years.
You invited us here today to comment on the
administration's NEXTEA proposal, and I want to describe to you
the criterion we have used in evaluating their proposal and
that we would use in evaluating any other proposals.
First, we believe that ISTEA has worked well and,
therefore, we consider the preservation of the general program
structure, including giving States and localities flexibility
in how they spend their funding, to be an essential part of any
new legislation.
Second, we believe that any new legislation, as you said,
Mr. Chairman, has to include adequate funding levels for both
transit formula, transit discretionary programs, and flexible
funds.
Third, we believe there has to be fair and equitable
treatment for transit agencies and communities of all sizes as
we look at the distribution of funds.
Let us take these principles, apply them to the
administration's NEXTEA proposal, and see how we measure up.
On the first principle with regard to program structure and
flexibility, we believe generally their proposal does a good
job in adhering to this principle. We think it recognizes that
there are strong Federal reasons through strong national
objectives to keeping Federal involvement in surface
transportation, and we believe that their proposal retains some
of the planning requirements and some of the decisionmaking
processes and State allocations that have been useful and have
been used in innovative ways. So, in general, on the first set
of criterion, we believe that the administration's proposal
does pretty well.
However, the second set of principles that relate to the
need for additional investment in surface transportation we
believe the NEXTEA proposal falls far short of this. It simply
does not provide for even the minimum levels of funding the
administration's own studies show. I would agree with Mr.
Rensink's determination and the information he put in the
record about the need for additional investment. The
administration proposal does not even measure up to that, and
their measurements are very, very conservative indeed.
While the administration proposal could conceivably make at
least a little bit of money more available for highways, it in
fact, as one of the earlier comments from one of the earlier
Senators had said, would decrease the funding for public
transit if you look at the authorized levels. We think that is
not fair. We think that is not appropriate.
Finally, although the administration claims that NEXTEA
would increase formula capital funds, for example, once you
take certain proposals of theirs off the top, for example, the
access to jobs, which we generally support, and the fixed
guideway modernization programs that are moved over into a new
category--once you--you may take apples and oranges and now
make them apples and apples. There really is not any increase
of any significance in funding for public transit. So, we think
that on this second basis, the administration's proposal fails
rather miserably, to be honest about it.
We do strongly support the administration's proposal to
switch from a Rostenkowski test to a Byrd solvency test as far
as public transit money goes. We think that is important in the
mass transit account and speaks to equity between highways and
transit. We would like to see that the revenues that are
collected, as my colleagues have said, from the American people
for surface transportation be spent on surface transportation.
We would strongly support the effort to bring the 4.3 cents
over from deficit reduction and put it in the highway trust
fund and allocate it to the various accounts as would be
appropriate under the traditional relationships.
And we support efforts to move the trust fund off budget so
that we can get on with the business of measuring
infrastructure in multiyear segments as the capital
improvements that they really represent. So, we think that that
is pretty important to do.
With regard to our third principle of fair and equitable
treatment of transit agencies, large and small, we think the
NEXTEA proposal has a mixed record in that regard. We oppose
the elimination of the bus discretionary program. It is
particularly important to smaller communities that they have
the opportunity to, let us say, have a sufficient amount of
money for a major bus purchase or a major facility improvement
that they would not get through a formula.
We oppose the folding of the fixed guideway formula into
the traditional urban formula. We think that makes an
unwarranted shift from bus to rail investment and throws a
number of the relationships in the bill out of kilter, so to
speak, on that.
And we are particularly concerned about rural transit
providers. We think the NEXTEA proposal may put their customers
at risk simply by reduced authorizing levels, as well as a
lower percentage of the formulas that are going to be there,
and then finally, it would take away certain guarantees that
rural communities now have. So, we are very concerned about
that.
As I conclude, I must say on the positive side, we agree
strongly with the administration's proposal on expanding the
definition of capital when dealing with the operating
assistance issues. We agree strongly with the research proposal
that is there. We agree strongly with further investment in an
intelligent transportation system and the State infrastructure
bank program.
Prepared Statement
We believe that it is the basis for a good discussion, but
it is a bill that should not be passed in its entirety at the
moment. We look forward to working with you and the committee
and everyone in Congress in making improvements to that
proposal so we can get a good reauthorization of the ISTEA
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William W. Millar
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) appreciates the
opportunity to testify on the Administration's ISTEA reauthorization
proposal, the National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency
Act (NEXTEA). But first, Mr. Chairman, we want to commend you for your
leadership in holding this hearing. Because the Congress is likely to
pass the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations Act before it
finishes action on legislation to reauthorize ISTEA, it is particularly
important that you now gather views on that important legislation.
overview
APTA supports ISTEA. We supported its enactment in 1991 and over
the last six years our experience has demonstrated that it provides the
benefits we had hoped for. Toward this end, APTA has adopted a
comprehensive ISTEA reauthorization working proposal that would
preserve and build on the ISTEA and transit program structures, expand
opportunities for flexible funding--both highway to transit and transit
to highway--and support ISTEA's planning provisions and transit
research and development.
At the same time, we oppose efforts to repeal federal gas taxes
that support investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure,
or to eliminate the existing federal partnership with state and local
governments. We are not opposed to efforts to modify the highway
funding formula, but we believe that a fair distribution of highway
funds can be accomplished within the current ISTEA program structure.
We also strongly support the ``level playing field'' provisions between
highway and transit investments established under ISTEA, including the
roughly four to one funding ratio. Without these provisions, modal
balance--an important ISTEA hallmark--will be jeopardized.
nextea: an assessment
There are three primary principles that APTA uses to evaluate the
merits of NEXTEA and other reauthorization proposals. They are: 1)
preservation of ISTEA's program structure and flexible funding
provisions, 2) provision of adequate funding levels for transit formula
and discretionary programs, and 3) provision of fair and equitable
treatment for transit agencies of all sizes.
NEXTEA Preserves the ISTEA Structure and Flexible Funding Program
The first principle is important because ISTEA's program structure
and flexible funding provisions promote balanced investment among modes
and require a coordinated approach to major transportation investments.
APTA firmly believes that federal interests are best served by a
balanced transportation system. ISTEA's program structure and flexible
funding provisions allow federal, state, and local resources to be used
on a range of transportation alternatives, which permits state and
local authorities to choose alternatives that best meet their
particular objectives. This structure also allows transportation policy
to address national and local needs while recognizing that
transportation is linked to other factors that affect each community's
economy and quality of life.
NEXTEA generally does a good job adhering to the first principle.
It retains a strong federal role in surface transportation and in
assuring minimum investment levels for all transportation modes by
maintaining most of the current ISTEA program structure and
requirements. It retains current flexible funding programs, the
existing planning and decision-making process, and current metropolitan
suballocations. Furthermore, NEXTEA would expand the size of the
flexible Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs, and make intercity passenger rail
service an eligible expense under surface transportation programs. In
addition, the federal share of most transit capital expenditures would
remain at 80 percent and at 90 percent for Clean Air Act and Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance efforts.
NEXTEA's Transit Funding Levels Fall Short of ISTEA Levels
The second principle is critical because additional investment in
the nation's surface transportation network is necessary to provide a
solid foundation for economic growth. For instance, in Paul Weyrich's
recent analysis of mass transit, he notes that transit investment has
generated substantial economic benefits, including increased tax
revenues, jobs, and related development. An adequate federal
commitment, along with efficient management and state and local
participation is the key to these results.
NEXTEA falls short in addressing this second principle. The problem
is underinvestment in our nation's transportation infrastructure. The
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that more than $400
billion in capital funding is needed over six years just to maintain
the current systems. The Administration's response is to provide flat
funding. The NEXTEA proposal would authorize $166 billion to meet
highway and transit needs over six years.
Additionally, NEXTEA authorizes $30.5 billion for transit, a three
percent drop from ISTEA's six-year total of $31.5 billion. In contrast,
the highway program would receive $135.8 billion over six years, up 10
percent from ISTEA's $123.3 billion.
APTA's reauthorization proposal would respond to these needs by
providing increased resources. Our proposal deposits revenues from the
``deficit reduction'' 4.3 cents gas tax into the Highway Trust Fund and
calls for the use of existing balances in the MTA to meet these needs.
It also maintains some general fund support for transit activities.
Formula funding under NEXTEA would appear to increase as a share of
total transit program funding, but several caveats are in order. First,
each year, $100 million would be taken off the top for a new Access to
Jobs and Training Program. Second, the Fixed Guideway Modernization
(FGM) Program would be funded at the same level as the New Start
program, but would be shifted to the formula program. Formula funding
would be distributed under the current formula. It should also be noted
that the current discretionary bus/bus facilities grant program (funded
at $360 million in fiscal year 1997) is eliminated and funding that
previously went to that program is apportioned under the urban formula
program. In short, funding for the current urban formula program would
barely change. ISTEA authorized $17.46 billion in formula funds over
six years; NEXTEA would authorize $17.55 billion in formula funds over
six years once the Access to Jobs and FGM funds are taken off the top.
If the discretionary bus program were not incorporated into the formula
program, formula funding would actually decline.
We strongly support the Administration's proposal to switch from
the Rostenkowski Highway Trust Fund solvency test to the Byrd solvency
test for gauging the commitments from the Mass Transit Account (MTA) of
the Highway Trust Fund. This change would apply the same spending test
to the Mass Transit and Highway Accounts and permit additional spending
from the MTA. We have some concerns about the proposal to fund the
entire transit program from the Mass Transit Account, because the
revenues now deposited in the MTA would not sustain current program
levels--let alone increases--for the transit program. While APTA also
supports the use of existing balances in the MTA, these balances could
be spent down quickly and current revenues dedicated to the MTA cannot
meet the long-term funding needs of the federal transit program. More
funding must be placed in the MTA.
NEXTEA Would Modify the Transit Program Structure
NEXTEA does a mixed job of meeting the third principle, provision
of fair and equitable treatment for transit agencies in large, medium-
sized, and small urbanized and in rural areas. APTA fully supports the
existing funding ratios within the ISTEA transit program. First, we
support the current ratio of $1.36 in formula funding for every $1 in
discretionary funding. This provides an equitable distribution among
all transit needs. In addition, APTA urges Congress to retain the
existing distribution of funds within the discretionary capital
program. Current law dictates that 40 percent of this program goes to
new rail starts, 40 percent goes to rail modernization, and 20 percent
goes to the bus/bus facilities.
We oppose the proposal to eliminate the Bus Discretionary program
and to fold the Fixed Guideway Modernization program into the formula
program. Moving the Bus and Fixed Guideway Modernization programs into
the formula program would upset the current relationship among new
starts, rail modernization, and bus under the current discretionary
capital program. These programs address special needs, have worked
extremely well in their current form, and do not need to be changed.
Also shifting the rail modernization program to the formula program
would change the allocation of funds between bus and rail, increasing
the latter at the expense of the former.
On the positive side for urbanized areas of all sizes, NEXTEA would
expand the definition of eligible capital expenditures to be more
consistent with permissible expenditures in the highway program,
including preventive maintenance. These changes, along with certain
changes that would permit the use of capital funds to meet ADA costs,
would allow elimination of operating assistance for areas of 200,000 or
more in population.
APTA also strongly supports the provision to permit urbanized areas
(UZA's) with less than 200,000 in population to have the flexibility to
use formula funds for capital or operating purposes at their
discretion.
For rural transit providers the NEXTEA proposal reduces authorized
funding and places service to customers at risk. The Non-urban program
(formerly section 18) would receive 3.75 percent of an expanded formula
program--a lower percentage than the current 5.5 percent of the
combined total for urban and rural formula funds. Of the total, 4
percent would go to the Rural Transportation Assistance Program, which
is now funded through the Research program. The elimination of the Bus
Discretionary Program would take away a guaranteed 5.5 percent share of
that program for rural communities.
Other NEXTEA Provisions
The NEXTEA proposal includes a $100 million per year Access to Jobs
and Training Initiative. In general we support this program, but oppose
taking the funding as a takedown from the existing formula program.
Such an important national priority deserves new resources. We also
support NEXTEA's Intelligent Transportation System provisions and
proposed expansion of the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program that
would allow all states to participate, although we do note that
flexible highway funds placed in the SIB can only be used initially for
highway projects, which is inconsistent with the ``level playing
field'' principles of ISTEA. In addition, we support the creation of a
new Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program to encourage public-
private partnerships to speed the completion of major highway, bridge,
transit, and rail projects.
the apta proposal
We have previously submitted to you APTA's reauthorization proposal
and we are pleased to note that many of APTA's recommendations,
including elimination of the operating cap for small urbanized areas
and inclusion of an expanded definition of what constitutes a capital
expenditure, are included in the NEXTEA proposal. We would be pleased
to provide you with additional copies of our detailed proposal.
Expand Opportunities for Flexible Funding
The APTA proposal also calls for an increase in the authorized
funding level for the Surface Transportation Program using resources
from the Highway Trust Funds's Highway Account (HA) and Mass Transit
Account (MTA). After the transit core program has been funded at our
recommended level of $6.25 billion in fiscal year 1998, additional MTA
funds would go to a new STP-transit program. For each $1.00 of MTA
funds that go to the STP-transit program, an additional $2.00 in
Highway Account funds would go to the STP-highway program. Funding for
each program would be apportioned in the same manner as the existing
STP program, would include metropolitan area suballocations, and would
be subject to the same planning standards.
4.3 Cents/Gallon Revenue
Additional resources for the expanded STP program would be provided
by depositing revenue from the 4.3 cents per gallon ``deficit
reduction'' motor fuels tax into the Highway Trust Fund and by applying
the Byrd rule solvency test to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway
Trust Fund. APTA's proposal would allocate one-half-cent of the 4.3
cents per gallon gas tax revenue for a new intercity passenger rail
account and the revenue from 20 percent of the remaining 3.8 cents to
the Mass Transit Account.
Fixed Guideway Modernization Program Recommendations
APTA's proposal calls for a modification of the existing Fixed
Guideway Modernization formula. The Fixed Guideway Modernization
program should be retained as a distinct program within the Major
Capital Grant program (formerly Section 3). This program addresses a
specific need to modernize aging fixed guideway systems. Funding levels
for the New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus/Bus
Facilities programs should be funded on the current 40/40/20 basis,
with funding for the Fixed Guideway Modernization program set at $1
billion in fiscal year 1998.
With regard to the distribution of Fixed Guideway Modernization
funds we have a detailed proposal that would largely retain the current
formula distribution, with some modifications, up to the current
funding level of $760 million, but would increase the share of
modernization funds that goes to areas with newer fixed guideway
systems as funding rises above the current level. We will submit to the
Committee under separate cover copies of our Fixed Guideway
Modernization proposal.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, APTA strongly supports a continued federal role in
funding surface transportation. ISTEA has worked well and must be
continued. While we recognize the need to control spending and reduce
the deficit, increased investment in the transportation infrastructure
is needed to facilitate economic growth, international competitiveness,
successful welfare reform, and other national goals. Putting off
necessary investment will only increase federal costs in the long run.
We urge this Committee to support authorization levels that reflect
these important policy goals by appropriating federal user taxes the
American people are already paying. The Administration's NEXTEA
proposal is a good start, but does not include adequate funding levels
for surface transportation in general and public transportation in
particular.
STATEMENT OF HARRY W. BLUNT, JR., PRESIDENT, CONCORD
COACH LINES, INC., VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN
BUS ASSOCIATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Blunt.
Mr. Blunt. Thank you, Senator. On behalf of the American
Bus Association, I think we can address the core issues of
ISTEA reauthorization quite quickly.
We support the administration's proposal on the National
Highway System Program. Two years ago we were active in the
passage of the NHS legislation. For the first time the focus
was on connectability in our transportation system. The bus
industry fought to get our terminals onto the NHS system map.
The administration proposal under NEXTEA will now make funding
available for intermodal terminal facilities. We think that is
very important.
Second, we support the administration's proposal in the
surface transportation program to make capital funds available
to bus companies to acquire vehicles and to enhance public
transportation over the highway network.
Third, ABA opposes the administration plan to eliminate the
rural intercity bus program contained in section 18(i) of the
Federal Transit Act. Our industry is beginning to work with
many States to help provide essential ground transportation to
small rural communities through 18(i) funding. This is a very
small piece of the overall funding. Yet, the administration has
chosen to take it out. We think this is wrong. If this funding
is lost, communities in small rural America will lose all
connection to any public transportation.
Fourth, ABA supports removing the highway trust fund from
the unified budget and believes that all funds that are
collected should be used as promised to the American taxpayer
for highway transportation systems. We oppose the diversion of
highway trust fund revenues to nonhighway users.
ABA supports the repeal of 4.3 cents per gallon Federal
fuel tax that presently goes to the general fund for deficit
reduction. However, if these funds were placed in the highway
trust fund, we would support that. We just do not believe that
the highway trust fund should be used for budget balancing.
We support a continued role in highway planning and funding
on behalf of the Federal Government. Our highway system is a
national system with regional and national interests that must
play a role in its operation.
ABA takes no position on the various proposals to amend the
current formula funding for distribution of Federal highway
funds to the States. Our concern is to increase the overall
level of funding in the program and to address the
deteriorating infrastructure of our National Highway System.
In closing, let me speak for a minute about a positive. I
arose this morning at 4:20 a.m. in New London, NH, a city that
is over 500 miles from here. I took a quick shower, grabbed a
cup of coffee, and jumped in my car. In 5 minutes I was in a
park-and-ride lot where I got on a bus that took me directly to
Manchester Airport. I was in Washington at quarter of 8 and in
center city Washington by 10 after 8. In just under 4 hours, I
was from the shower to the Senate, an amazing feat in this
Nation.
Prepared Statement
We are the envy of the world in our transportation system,
and I strongly urge you to continue to support that and fully
fund it.
Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry W. Blunt, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Harry
Blunt. I am the President of Concord Coach Lines, Inc., of Concord, New
Hampshire. I also serve as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
for the American Bus Association (ABA), and I am here today to present
ABA's views on reauthorization of the federal aid highway and highway
safety programs as proposed in the Administration's National Economic
Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA).
ABA is the national trade association of the intercity bus
industry. We have about 3,000 members, some 700 of whom are bus
operators. They offer a variety of bus services:
--regular route intercity service between fixed points on set
schedules;
--charter service, where a group of passengers (such as a church or
organization) purchases all of the seats on a bus for exclusive
use on a particular trip;
--tour service, which usually includes stops for sightseeing and
recreational purposes;
--commuter bus services, generally from the suburbs into urban areas;
and
--special operations, which is scheduled service to enhance public
transportation systems (such as bus service from a city to an
airport), or may be connected with a special event or
attraction at the destination.
The rest of ABA's members include representatives of the travel and
tourism industry, and the manufacturers and suppliers of products and
services used by the bus industry.
Intercity bus service is the primary system of low cost intercity
passenger transportation in this country. In rural areas, bus service
is virtually the only transportation network available to the public.
Yet public policy as set out in the federal-aid highway and mass
transit programs over the years has not reflected the overriding
importance of the bus industry in passenger transportation, and in
fact, has discouraged low cost bus transportation in favor of higher
cost alternatives. This must change; Congress must give the intercity
bus industry a more central role in providing essential intercity
public transportation.
ABA's positions on the core funding issues in the reauthorizing
debate can be summarized as follows:
1. ABA supports removing the Highway Trust Fund from the unified
budget as a mechanism to ensure that monies collected for highway
construction, maintenance and repair, and highway safety programs are
spent as promised.
2. ABA supports increased funding for highway programs to address
the deteriorating infrastructure of our national highway system.
3. ABA supports the Administration's proposal in the National
Highway System Program to make funds available for capital investments
in publicly-owned intercity bus or intermodal terminals.
4. ABA also supports the Administration's proposal in the Surface
Transportation Program to make capital funds available for privately-
owned intercity bus companies to acquire vehicles and facilities.
5. ABA opposes the Administration's proposal to eliminate the rural
intercity bus program contained in section 18(i) of the Federal Transit
Act as amended by the 1991 Intermodal surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) (49 U.S.C. 5311(f)).
6. ABA supports repeal of the 4.3 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax
that presently goes into the general fund. Alternatively, ABA would
support placing these revenues in the Highway Trust Fund to be spent on
highway programs.
7. ABA opposes the diversion of any Highway Trust Fund revenues for
non-highway purposes.
8. ABA supports continued federal role in highway planning and
funding, and opposes efforts to return the federal-aid highway system
to the states.
9. ABA takes no position on the various proposals to amend the
current funding formulas for distribution of federal highway funds to
the states--our concern is to increase the overall level of funding in
the program.
Several salient statistics underscore the obvious importance of bus
travel in the national transportation network when compared to
transportation by Amtrak or commercial airlines, its two modal
competitors for intercity public transportation of passengers.
Intercity buses serve many more points than either Amtrak or
airlines.--Table 1 shows, on a state by state basis, the number of
communities served by the intercity bus industry as compared with
Amtrak and commercial airlines. In every state, the bus industry serves
many more cities and towns than the competing modes. In my home state
of New Hampshire, for instance, Amtrak serves one point and the
airlines serve three points, while the bus industry serves 33
communities with scheduled service. In your home state of Alabama, Mr.
Chairman, Amtrak serves ten points, the airlines serve nine points, and
the bus industry serves 110 communities with daily service.
Figure 1 is a bar graph showing the number of communities served
nationwide by Amtrak, the airlines, and the bus industry. Cumulatively,
Amtrak serves 511 communities, the airlines serve 758 communities, and
the intercity bus industry serves 4,274 communities on a daily basis
with scheduled regular route service.\1\ (This bus figure does not
include ``flag stops,'' at which a passenger may flag down a bus to
stop for embarking passengers even though no stop is scheduled at that
point.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources: Amtrak Schedule, Official Airlines Guide for North
America, and Russell's Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity bus service is much more frequent than Amtrak or airline
service.--Generally, buses not only serve more points than their
competitors, but where the modes do compete the bus service is much
more frequent than either Amtrak or airline service.
Intercity bus service is the most affordable transportation.--Bus
service is also generally less expensive than Amtrak or the airlines.
Even with discount fares, Amtrak and the airlines cannot compete on
price with intercity bus service, which remains the most economical
method of transportation. For example, on the Birmingham-Atlanta route,
Delta Airlines quotes an unrestricted round trip fare of $550.00, and
Amtrak's regular round trip fare is $78.00, while Greyhound's regular
round trip fare is $47.00.
Low cost service is why buses are the mode of choice for the
elderly, students, members of the military, and those at the lower end
of the income spectrum. Greyhound Lines, Inc. has discovered through
surveys that some 44 percent of its passengers have annual incomes of
less than $15,000.
In other words, buses are the only mode that take you where you
want to go, when you want to go, and at a price you can afford.
Notwithstanding the essential nature of the bus industry compared
to other modes, and the fact that buses carry the old, the young, the
poor, and those in rural America, federal transportation programs have
ignored the bus industry while heavily subsidizing our competitors. The
bus industry receives no direct operating subsidies, and very little
federal support of any kind.
Robert R. Nathan Associates Inc. has conducted an exhaustive study
of the total federal subsidies, net of user fees, received by each
passenger transportation mode from 1960 through 1993.\2\ This study
aggregated outlays from federal funds and trust funds for each major
passenger transportation system--air, highway, intercity rail, and mass
transit, according to the cost responsibility of each mode. In
addition, the study attributed receipts into the Airport and Airways
Trust Fund and the Highway Trust Fund paid by airlines and the bus
industry, respectively, and into the general fund by all modes.
Subsidies were then measured by subtracting the allocated receipts from
the allocated federal outlays for each mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Impact of Higher Motor Fuel Taxes on the Intercity Bus
Industry, Robert R. Nathan Associates, Arlington, Va. (July 1995). This
was an update of an earlier work, Federal Subsidies for Passenger
Transportation. 1960-1988: Winners, Losers, and Implications for the
Future, Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., Arlington, Va. (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results are striking. As shown in Figure 1, from 1960 to 1993,
measured in constant 1993 dollars, mass transit has received a net
subsidy of $91.2 billion, aviation has received a net subsidy of $104.5
billion,\3\ and Amtrak has received a net subsidy of $24.6 billion. The
intercity bus industry, in marked contrast, from 1960 through 1993
received a net subsidy of only $600 million. While Amtrak and the
commercial airlines combined received more than $79 billion in net
subsidies from the federal government, the bus industry received less
than one percent of that amount. Yet the bus industry is expected to
compete on an equal footing with air and rail transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Of this total, $52.3 billion of the net subsidy went to
commercial air carriers and $52.2 billion of the subsidy went to
general aviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disparity in federal subsidies by mode is even more outrageous
when viewed per passenger trip. Figure 2 shows that commercial airline
passengers have received a net subsidy of $6.38 per trip, mass transit
passengers have received a net subsidy of $0.33 per trip, Amtrak
passengers received a net subsidy of $54.88 per trip, and intercity bus
passengers received a net subsidy of five cents per trip. Bus
passengers get a nickel from the federal government while Amtrak
passengers get $54.88 from the federal government for every trip they
take.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A recent study by the Cato Institute estimates an even higher
per passenger subsidy for Amtrak riders. According to Jean Love,
Wendell Cox, and Stephen Moore, ``Amtrak at Twenty-Five, End of the
Line for Taxpayer Subsidies,'' Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 266,
Washington, D.C. (December 19, 1996), the average taxpayer subsidy per
Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per passenger cost. On
some of the long-distance routes, such as Los Angeles to New York, the
study found that the per passenger subsidy exceeds $1,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is public policy at its worst. The federal government should
not pick and choose winners in the passenger transportation industry
any more than it should determine winners and losers in any other
markets. Yet by heavily subsidizing Amtrak and commercial airline
passengers, but not bus passengers, federal policy has created an
atmosphere so financially skewed that bus operators find it extremely
difficult to compete effectively with other modes.
Reauthorization of ISTEA presents an opportunity to level the
playing field for passenger transportation. ISTEA as enacted in 1991
began this process. The intercity bus industry made considerable gains
as a result of that legislation, but they represent only a start. The
Administration's NEXTEA proposal builds on this beginning by expanding
the scope of intercity bus projects eligible for federal funding.
intermodal transportation centers and rolling stock acquisition
The intercity bus industry's greatest need, and the most promising
area for public policy successes, is the continued development and
funding of intermodal transportation centers. ISTEA contained several
provisions that allow states to fund intermodal transportation centers.
Section 133 of title 23, United States Code currently permits states to
obligate funds apportioned under the Surface Transportation Program for
capital costs for ``publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals
or facilities.'' Additionally, section 134 of title 23 directs
metropolitan planning organizations to develop plans and programs to
provide for facilities that will function as an ``intermodal
transportation system'' for the state.
There have been some success stories as a result of these
provisions. South Station in Boston shows the promise of becoming a
highly efficient intermodal transportation facility. The station serves
Amtrak as well as my bus company, Concord Trailways, along with
Greyhound Lines, Peter Pan Trailways, Bonanza Bus Lines, and Plymouth &
Brockton Street Railway Company (another bus carrier). The bus portion
of the terminal opened on November 1, 1995, and the bus carriers now
provide connecting service to the Amtrak schedules, and vice versa. In
addition, there is a subway stop on the MBTA line at the station, and
the station is also a terminal for intracity transit buses.
When the Central Artery project in Boston is completed, there will
also be a direct shuttle bus service from South Station to Logan
Airport, using a new tunnel under Boston Harbor.
At present, the South Station is a tremendous improvement over the
prior connections. Previously, bus carriers had to park vehicles and
discharge passengers across the street from the train station. When the
South Station is completed, bus passengers will be carried on a people
mover to the train portion of the station, for easier connections
without going out into the elements.
South Station is also a success because of the federal-state
partnership that funded and developed the project. In addition, the
fact that the station is operated by the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority eliminates the competitive concerns about
terminal access and rent that plague carrier-owned and operated
stations where competitors rent space and services from other carriers.
Multi-purpose stations, run by state or local government entities, with
access for all modes, in a favorable location close to highway, rail
and air connections, are the best possible method of achieving the goal
to facilitate intermodal passenger transportation as set out in ISTEA.
The reauthorizing bill should continue this approach.
These facilities are win-win-win scenarios. The public sector wins,
because the carriers pay rent to fund the capital investment necessary
to build the structures. The private sector wins, because the carriers
do not need to generate the substantial amounts of construction
capital. And the passengers win, because they benefit from improved
service and streamlined connections.
The only problem with South Station is that there are not more
examples of this facility built as a result of ISTEA funding and
directives. Under Sec. 1003(a)(4) of the Administration's NEXTEA
proposal, ``publicly owned . . . intercity passenger rail or bus
terminals'' would be eligible for capital funding in the National
Highway System program. ABA supports this proposal, but encourages
Congress to do more to ensure that a portion of state funds allocated
under this program be used to construct, maintain and operate
intermodal passenger facilities. The metropolitan planning
organizations need some incentives or directives to include intermodal
facilities in their plans, and Congress should plainly provide that
federal funds are to be used for such projects.
Moreover, the National Highway System funds should be available for
privately owned and operated terminals as long as the operator grants
access to all carriers, whether or not competitors, without
discrimination, as allowed by space constraints. The private sector can
effectively leverage federal funds to construct, maintain and operate
intercity passenger terminals for bus and rail transportation. With
adequate federal supervision, there is no compelling policy reason to
exclude privately-owned facilities from receiving funds under this
program as well.
ABA further supports the Administration's proposal in Sec. 1014(a)
of NEXTEA to expand the funding eligibility in the Surface
Transportation Program to include privately-owned intercity bus
companies to acquire vehicles and facilities on the same basis as
capital projects under the current 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5302(a)(1). This will
encourage private sector intercity bus companies to develop additional
service in conjunction with rail and intracity passenger transportation
providers.
section 18(i) intercity bus transportation funding
Section 18(i) of the Federal Transit Act, as amended in ISTEA,
directs states to spend 15 percent of their rural transit funds each
year to ``develop and support intercity bus transportation.'' See 49
U.S.C. Sec. 5311(f). This was the first time that states were actually
directed by Congress to expend highway funds to promote intercity bus
service. Under that provision, however, a state need not spend these
funds on bus transportation, if the Governor of the state certifies to
the Secretary of Transportation that ``the intercity bus service needs
of the State are being adequately met'' in that particular fiscal year.
ABA does not believe that there are any states in which there are
no unmet intercity bus service needs. Nevertheless, in the first few
years under ISTEA many states routinely certified that there were no
unmet intercity bus service needs, and therefore avoided using the
section 18(i) funds for intercity bus purposes. ABA member companies
have begun an educational process in many states to discuss their rural
transportation needs, and the results are encouraging.
In Texas, for example, the Governor certified for several years
that there were no unmet intercity bus service needs, even though Texas
has one of the largest populations of rural, poor bus passengers in the
country. A couple of years ago, Kerrville Bus Company in Kerrville,
Texas began meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation to
explore ways to use the section 18(i) funds as Congress intended. As a
result of those meetings, three new bus terminals are either operating
or under construction in rural areas.
The Brazos Valley Transit Authority used a section 18(i) grant to
purchase a property and building in Lufkin, Texas and converted it into
a combination transit and intercity bus terminal. Similarly, the City
of Del Rio, Texas used state funds under section 18(i) to construct a
combination bus terminal. The City of Fredricksburg, Texas is also
using section 18(i) funds to build a combination terminal, and
Kerrville Bus Company is contributing $20,000 of its own capital
towards the construction costs. Of course, Kerrville will also pay rent
to use these facilities, and the bus passengers in rural Texas have
three new terminals for intercity service.
ABA strongly supports continuation of the section 18(i) set aside
program in the reauthorization legislation. Some $17 million was
appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1997, which is de minimis in
the context of the entire transit appropriation, but tremendously
important to those passengers who depend on intercity bus
transportation.
The Administration has proposed to eliminate the section 18(i) set
aside program, citing the expanded eligibility for facility and vehicle
funding under the National Highway System and Surface Transportation
Programs as an adequate replacement.
Without a specific set aside, intercity bus carriers in many states
will not be able to beat competing interests for these funds, and the
needs of rural passenger transportation will not be met. Although the
Administration's bill does expand the types of projects eligible for
federal funds, there is no assurance that these projects will actually
be funded. The section 18(i) set aside was the only program that
directed states to spend money on rural intercity bus transportation,
and, as outlined above, many states have avoided funding intercity bus
projects even under that program. ABA urges Congress to retain the
section 18(i) program.
highway trust fund issues
ABA supports congressional efforts to take the Highway Trust Fund
off the unified budget so that the annual trust fund surplus is not
used to mask the size of the federal budget deficit. The Highway Trust
Fund taxes were not intended to serve as general fund taxes that might
be raised or lowered according to overall spending needs. Rather, the
Highway Trust Fund taxes were intended to support a federal-aid highway
and bridge program that benefits all highway users and serves as a
catalyst for national economic growth.
Since the inception of the Interstate Highway System in 1956, all
federal fuel taxes were paid into the Highway Trust Fund and then
disbursed to the states for highways and bridges. Highway users,
including the intercity bus industry, were willing to pay their federal
fuel taxes as an investment in the nation's infrastructure. This trust
fund system has provided a nationwide highway system that has played a
critical role in the economic development of this country and
contributed dramatically to the mobility of Americans.
By refusing to spend some of the trust fund revenues, Congress and
the Administration have transformed the Trust Fund into a general fund,
to be spent or not spent as other federal budget priorities dictate.
This breaks the faith with all highway users who pay into the Trust
Fund, only to see their tax dollars spent on projects other than the
highway program. ABA urges Congress to restore the Trust Fund concept
by removing the Fund from the unified federal budget, and allowing all
highway tax revenues to be spent for highway purposes.
ABA also strongly opposes continuing the 4.3 cents per gallon tax
on diesel fuel if the revenue flows into the general fund for deficit
reduction purposes. The intercity bus industry pays approximately $7.4
million per year in additional taxes because of the 4.3 cents per
gallon surtax.\5\ This money is not being used for highway purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The intercity bus industry operates approximately 945 million
bus miles and consumes about 172 million gallons of diesel fuel per
year. The number of gallons multiplied by 4.3 cents per gallon yields
an annual tax revenue of $7.4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trust fund concept was again breached in 1993 by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA), which imposed the 4.3 cents per
gallon federal fuel tax but diverted the revenue to the general fund to
reduce the size of the federal budget deficit.
If the highway system were in adequate repair, this diversion might
not present such a critical issue to the intercity bus industry and
other highway users. But by any measure, the infrastructure of highways
and bridges in this country are deteriorating, and the trust fund
spending is falling farther behind investment needs each year.
ABA believes that all revenues from federal fuel taxes on highway
vehicles should go into the Highway Trust Fund to ensure that the
investment in the nation's highway system does not fall prey to short
term attempts to reduce the federal deficit. Moreover, Congress and the
Administration have failed to spend the full amount of highway tax
revenues collected in the Highway Trust Fund, thereby generating a
substantial surplus in the Trust Fund. It makes no sense to impose a
4.3 cents per gallon surtax on highway users when the other highway tax
revenues are not fully allocated for their intended purpose each year.
For these reasons, ABA supports repealing the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel
tax for deficit reduction. As an alternative, ABA would support placing
the revenues from this 4.3 cents surtax into the Highway Trust Fund.
Finally, ABA strongly opposes the Administration's proposal for
operating grants to Amtrak out of the Highway Trust Fund. The
Administration proposes a grant of $344 million in fiscal year 1998
alone, and total grants of $1.354 billion in operating subsidies over
the six-year life of the program. In addition, the Administration
proposes capital investment grants for Amtrak out of the Highway Trust
Fund in the amount of $423,450,000 per year for six years, and
supplemental capital investment grants totalling $874 million over the
life of the program.
As discussed in detail above, the intercity bus industry competes
directly with Amtrak for passengers on all routes and in all corridors.
Over its 25-year history, Amtrak has received an extraordinary federal
subsidy for both capital and operating costs. Now the Administration is
proposing a further capital and operating subsidy for Amtrak out of
Highway Trust Fund revenues. If this provision were enacted, a portion
of the intercity bus industry's federal highway use taxes would be used
to subsidize a competitor instead of being spent, as intended
initially, on highway construction, repair and maintenance.
ABA opposes funding Amtrak out of Highway Trust Fund revenues, and
at the very least recommends that the intercity bus industry be
exempted from paying taxes that would be used to support competition
from Amtrak. Alternatively, ABA supports a dedicated source of funding
for Amtrak only through a Surface Transportation Trust Fund in which
the intercity bus industry is eligible for similar types of capital and
operating grants. Further, any monies expended for Amtrak should be
subject to annual appropriations, and not the contract authority
envisioned in the Administration's bill.
In addition to Amtrak, the intercity bus industry must also compete
with commercial airline service that has been subsidized under the
Essential Air Service program for almost 20 years. In the Federal
Aviation Authorization Act of 1996, Congress directed that $50 million
be set aside and made available to carry out the EAS program for fiscal
year 1997.
funding formula issues
ABA takes no position on the various proposals for changing the
allocation formulas under which states receive federal-aid highway
money. As stated above, ABA's primary concern is that the amount of
money expended on highways increases to keep pace with infrastructure
needs.
ABA does, however, believe that there is a need for a fundamental
federal role in the highway program, and that the entire authorization
and taxation program should not be merely turned back to the states as
a means of avoiding the allocation debate.
The federal government has played a guiding role in establishing a
national infrastructure of highways and bridges. There is no guarantee
that states would cooperate sufficiently to maintain such a system. Nor
is there any assurance that if the federal highway taxes were repealed
or reduced that the states would be able to raise their state taxes
correspondingly to account for the revenue shortfall. The federal-aid
highway program has a long history of success that should not be
ignored merely because of issues regarding the proper allocation
formulas.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this legislation, and I
will attempt to answer any questions you might have or supply you with
any additional information you might need.
TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES SERVED, BY MODE, BY STATE, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity Commercial
State bus Amtrak airlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 110 10 9
Alaska........................... n/a ........... 236
Arizona.......................... 77 10 15
Arkansas......................... 82 6 9
California....................... 277 128 32
Colorado......................... 80 11 15
Connecticut...................... 25 9 5
Delaware......................... 16 1 ...........
Florida.......................... 131 37 22
Georgia.......................... 111 5 10
Hawaii........................... n/a ........... 12
Idaho............................ 47 7 6
Illinois......................... 65 34 19
Indiana.......................... 64 11 9
Iowa............................. 44 6 10
Kansas........................... 88 7 11
Kentucky......................... 32 4 4
Louisiana........................ 107 4 4
Maine............................ 34 ........... 8
Maryland......................... 27 6 4
Massachusetts.................... 77 7 7
Michigan......................... 137 23 20
Minnesota........................ 141 7 15
Mississippi...................... 99 14 9
Missouri......................... 77 14 9
Montana.......................... 90 13 14
Nebraska......................... 38 5 11
Nevada........................... 42 9 6
New Hampshire.................... 33 1 3
New Jersey....................... 90 5 4
New Mexico....................... 76 8 12
New York......................... 361 31 24
North Carolina................... 121 17 13
North Dakota..................... 47 7 8
Ohio............................. 58 8 8
Oklahoma......................... 71 ........... 5
Oregon........................... 116 14 7
Pennsylvania..................... 234 18 17
Rhode Island..................... 5 1 3
South Carolina................... 53 11 6
South Dakota..................... 41 ........... 9
Tennessee........................ 60 3 6
Texas............................ 440 20 28
Utah............................. 30 6 7
Vermont.......................... 50 10 2
Virginia......................... 73 15 7
Washington....................... 57 21 23
West Virginia.................... 16 11 8
Wisconsin........................ 94 10 12
Wyoming.......................... 30 8 10
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 4,274 \1\ 619 \2\ 758
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Russell's Guide, 1996; Amtrak Summer Schedule, 1996; and
Official Airline Guide, North American Ed., May 1, 1996.
\1\ Includes 108 points served by Amtrak contract bus service.
\2\ Includes the two airports serving the District of Columbia.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP10.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP10.003
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Senator Shelby. That is an amazing morning. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gruel, Senator Lautenberg wanted me to tell you that he
very much--he was here earlier, as you will recall--wanted to
be here for your testimony, but he is required to be--he is a
senior member of the Budget Committee--in some meetings with
the White House. He wanted to say this to you.
Mr. Gruel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. I have got a statement.
And I am going to keep the record open because I have a
number of questions to all of you for the record and I know
Senator Byrd, Senator Lautenberg, and others would too. And we
will move on with the panel from there.
The six of you here represent a significant portion of the
surface transportation industry in America, and I want to take
this opportunity to draw to your attention an effort that I
would encourage all of you to explore and see if there is a way
that your groups might get involved. A lot of you are probably
already involved.
And the effort is the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, and they are people who place the pictures
of missing children on milk cartons, on the flyers you receive
in the mail--we are all aware of this--on the kiosks, and some
of our transportation hubs. And it is working. It is working
for parents. It is working for children. It is working for all
America.
Transportation, as you know from being here today, can play
a significant role in identifying and recovering missing
children. Transportation touches virtually every American's
life on an almost daily basis, and if we, through the
transportation system that you represent, can encourage people
not to forget these missing and exploited children, we might be
able to find more of those lost children.
I know you would join me in this effort because you
together can make a difference and are probably already making
a difference collectively. I know a number of your
organizations and member companies are already participating in
this effort, and I want to commend you for it, congratulate you
for it. But if there are ways to take advantage of the
communication channels that you already utilize to your
membership, to your passengers, to your customers, it is really
worth looking into because all Americans will benefit from
this. I think it is a very worthy project, and you have seen
the results from it.
If you have, I commend you. If you will consider it, I
congratulate you because it will make a difference in families'
lives and children's lives if we can do it.
I appreciate all of you coming here. I am sorry that this
went on so long this morning.
Subcommittee Recess
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation is now
recessed. The next subcommittee hearing will be held on
Wednesday, April 16, at 10 o'clock in Dirksen 124. The topic of
the hearing will be aviation safety and security.
Thank you, gentlemen.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., Thursday, April 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:01 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 16.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF HEARING
[Clerk's note.--The following material was not presented at
the hearing, but was submitted to the subcommittee for
inclusion in the record subsequent to the hearing:]
Association of American Railroads
Prepared Statement of Karen Borlaug Phillips, Senior Vice President
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Karen
Phillips. I am Senior Vice President of the Association of American
Railroads (AAR).\1\ I appreciate the opportunity to present this
statement to the Subcommittee concerning AAR's views on the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act
(ISTEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AAR is a trade association whose members account for 75 percent
of total rail line-haul mileage, produce 93 percent of total rail
freight revenues, and employ 91 percent of the freight railway work
force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to discuss four particular issues of significant
concern to the railroad industry. The first of these issues is one of
overriding interest to all of us--transportation safety, and in this
instance safety at highway-rail grade crossings. The second issue
involves an essential element in any serious effort to continue to
improve the movement of freight in this country and in the global
marketplace--intermodalism, and specifically the important connections
between different transportation modes. Third, I would like to address
the roles of States and MPO's in effective transportation planning,
and, finally, I will briefly discuss the important issue of federal
truck size and weight standards.
highway-rail grade crossings
There has been an extremely successful partnership among federal
and state governments, the railroad industry, and other transportation
safety interests for many years. This partnership has resulted in a
reduction in annual public grade crossing accidents of over 65 percent
since the early 1970's. This success has been accomplished primarily as
a result of engineering improvements carried out under the federal
Section 130 Program, and the driver education/public information and
traffic law enforcement efforts of the Operation Lifesaver Program. In
fact, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that the Section 130
Program and Operation Lifesaver efforts have prevented over 8,500
fatalities and 38,900 serious injuries since 1974.
Despite the impressive safety improvement, the record of 3,697
accidents and 432 fatalities at public grade crossings in 1996 is
unacceptable. More must be done to eliminate these tragic accidents,
and the partnership among the involved interests must be strengthened.
AAR is proposing four initiatives which it believes will result in a
significant improvement in highway-rail grade crossing safety:
1. The federal government should continue and increase funding for
the Section 130 Grade Crossing Improvement Program.--The historic
Highway Safety Act of 1973 created and funded a national highway safety
program specifically dedicated to enhanced safety at highway-rail
crossings by providing for needed engineering and warning device
improvements (Section 130 Program). In fiscal year 1997, approximately
$150 million in highway user revenues was apportioned to the states to
carry out this important program. As mentioned earlier, as a direct
result of the earmarked federal funding for highway-rail crossing
improvements, the annual crossing accident rate has been reduced by
over 65 percent. This substantial reduction in accidents has occurred
despite significant increases in both highway and rail traffic.
Without funding dedicated or earmarked for the Section 130 Program,
crossing projects rarely compete successfully with more traditional
highway needs, such as highway capacity improvements and highway
maintenance. In fact, this problem was the primary reason a separate
crossing improvement program was established in 1973. Despite the
proven success of the Section 130 Program, however, many states
continue to assign an extremely low priority to crossing improvement
projects. Through the end of 1996, over $227 million of Section 130
Program funds remained unspent by the states, and approximately $230
million had been transferred to other federal-aid highway program
categories.
Earmarked funding for the Section 130 Program should be continued,
and the annual funding level should be increased to at least $185
million. The ``Rail-Highway Crossing Study'' completed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation in 1989 found that:
``For warning systems, an estimated annual investment of $185
million in improvements is necessary to maintain current
overall safety performance. . . . An initiative to cost
effectively reduce current accident levels would require
another $30 million annually.''
Additionally, in order to increase state priority for Section 130
Program projects and assure crossing improvement spending, the
authority to transfer Section 130 Program funds to other federal-aid
highway program categories should be restricted and obligation
authority should be specifically reserved for the Section 130 Program.
2. The federal government should establish a national mandate and a
uniform process for closing unnecessary public grade crossings.--
Highway and rail safety officials have long advocated the closure of a
large proportion of the public highway-rail grade crossings in the
United States. Many grade crossings are redundant, serve no significant
transportation mobility or access purpose, and continue to constitute a
rail and highway safety hazard.
However, closing grade crossings is often not an objective
transportation safety decision because the issue causes local
emotional/political confrontations. The railroads support the
establishment by Congress of a federal crossing closing program
implemented through a uniform nationwide process. Such a process should
require state transportation agencies to identify and evaluate
candidate crossings for closure, utilizing uniform criteria established
by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and to develop and implement a
statewide crossing closing plan. Active participation in this National
Grade Crossing Closure Program should be required of all states. DOT
should also develop guidelines which states would be required to follow
in deciding whether to permit the opening or creation of any new grade
crossings.
3. The federal government should finance a multi-year national
grade crossing safety education and public awareness campaign to be
conducted by Operation Lifesaver. Inc.--Since motorists frequently are
unaware of the grave dangers of their behavior, government should take
responsibility for a major, multi-year public awareness campaign
designed to illustrate the life-or-death consequences of motorists'
behavior at grade crossings. ISTEA authorized $300,000 annually for the
National Operation Lifesaver Program to increase public awareness of
the grade crossing safety problem. Additional funds to support
Operation Lifesaver are generally included in annual Federal Railroad
Administration appropriations. However, a substantially increased
commitment of resources is required to ensure the broadest
understanding of the inherent danger of highway-rail grade crossings
and the critical responsibility of motorists and the public to exercise
appropriate care.
This expanded national Operation Lifesaver campaign must garner the
same universal recognition and acceptance that Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD), for example, enjoys for its attack on drunk driving.
The need to ``Look, Listen . . . and Live'' at grade crossings must be
as familiar to the general public as ``Friends Don't Let Friends Drive
Drunk''.
As an example of a possible component of such a national campaign,
Operation Lifesaver--joined by FRA and various state agencies--is
sponsoring a national campaign called ``Highway or Dieways.'' AAR is
giving significant support to this campaign. This is a very graphic and
hard-hitting public service advertising campaign promoting highway-rail
grade crossing safety. The campaign consists of television and radio
spots, print advertising, and billboards. The strategy is to introduce
the campaign in every state through Operation Lifesaver state
coordinators. Begun in 1996, it has been introduced in five states,
Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Missouri, and has received
significant media interest. The campaign will also will begin this
month in Ohio and California.
4. The federal government should create a national grade crossing
warning device problem alert system.--Despite regular and thorough
grade crossing warning device testing, inspection, and maintenance
conducted by railroad personnel, the industry has occasionally
experienced problems in receiving timely and accurate notification when
warning device problems occur. To address this problem, in 1982, the
Texas legislature created the Texas 1-800 Number Rail-Highway Crossing
Notification Program. Texas has installed signs at public crossings
encouraging the public to call the 1-800 telephone number in the event
of a crossing warning device problem. The calls are received by the
Texas State Police, which in turn alert the appropriate railroad
personnel.
The railroad experience with the Texas 1-800 System has been
generally positive. Although occasional ``crank'' calls are received
and the public's perception of a warning device problem may be
inaccurate, the system continues to provide valuable and timely
information concerning warning device problems to appropriate railroad
maintenance personnel.
The railroad industry supports the creation of a publicly funded,
nationwide grade crossing warning device problem alert system operated
by appropriate state agencies. The federal government should evaluate
the feasibility of a variety of possible nationwide alert systems, and
adopt and implement an effective system.
These four grade crossing safety initiatives will significantly
enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings and strengthen the
essential partnership between the railroad industry and government. I
urge the Congress to include these recommendations in ISTEA
reauthorization legislation.
intermodal connectors
I would now like to discuss briefly the second issue of concern to
the railroad industry--intermodalism and intermodal connector highways.
In ISTEA, Congress declared that:
It is the policy of the United States to develop a National
Intermodal Transportation System . . . The National Intermodal
Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in a
unified, interconnected manner . . .
In an effort to achieve that important objective, the Congress
established the National Highway System, and determined that:
The purpose of the National Highway System is to provide an
interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will
serve major population centers, international border crossings,
ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other
intermodal transportation facilities . . .
The importance of the interconnectivity of our transportation modes
and systems was subsequently underscored by the National Commission on
Intermodal Transportation when it found that:
Barriers to safe and efficient movement of freight occur at
connections between modes . . . For example, inadequate roadway
access to freight terminals is a barrier to the intermodal
freight system and a major contributor to urban congestion. The
lack of adequate connectors between the interstate highway
system and the Nation's port, rail, airport, and truck
terminals results in urban congestion, air pollution, negative
impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and delivery delays for
shippers.
On May 24, 1996, then-Transportation Secretary Pena sent to the
Congress a recommended list of highway connectors to major intermodal
freight and passenger terminals. In his letter of transmittal,
Secretary Pena observed:
The Congress, in creating the NHS, recognized that the
Nation's transportation infrastructure must be viewed as a
single system with each mode complementing the others. With the
NHS and its connections to major intermodal terminals as the
united force, our national transportation network will sustain
economic growth, increase our competitiveness in the
international marketplace of the 21st century, and enhance the
personal mobility of every American.
Representing our major freight railroads, I can assure you that
these observations and findings concerning intermodal highway
connectors are absolutely correct. These essential highways are the
glue that holds much of this country's intermodal transportation system
together. Without first rate connections, trains, trucks, barges, and
planes are condemned to operate separately and inefficiently.
Government and America's private transportation companies can provide
the finest transportation systems and services in the world--and that
is occurring--but a completely efficient intermodal transportation
system can never be realized without quality connections.
During ISTEA reauthorization these important intermodal connectors
are to be considered for inclusion on the National Highway System
(NHS). AAR enthusiastically supports improvement of intermodal
connectors and urges their addition to the NHS.
transportation planning
ISTEA attempted to establish a new approach to transportation
throughout the country, by striving to break out of traditional, but
limiting, perspectives. Transportation after ISTEA would no longer
suffer from historic compartmentalization. The interests and concerns
of both public and private providers of transportation facilities and
services would be considered jointly and cooperatively. Passenger and
freight transportation needs would both receive adequate attention and
an appropriate allocation of resources. State, local, and metropolitan
transportation interests would each have an appropriate and important
role in planning and resource allocation. These goals of ISTEA have not
yet been achieved, but that should in no way tarnish the vision or
diminish our efforts.
Private railroads are working closer than ever, and more
successfully, with states and MPO's to develop effective transportation
plans and programs. It has been an evolutionary process, primarily
because all participants have had a great deal to learn about each
other and about just how to integrate our respective interests and
needs into a truly comprehensive transportation planning process. But
the learning and improving is happening, and transportation in this
country is winning as a result.
truck size and weight
AAR supports the status quo on truck size and weight limits. Of
particular concern are any efforts which may be made to thaw or
otherwise modify the freeze on the expanded use of longer combination
vehicles (LCV's) \2\ that was included in ISTEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Longer combination vehicles, or LCV's, include three main truck
types: triple 28 foot trailer combinations or triples; twin 48' or 53'
tractor trailer combinations, also knows as long or turnpike doubles;
and Rocky Mountain Doubles, combinations with one long and one short
trailer. The 1991 ISTEA defines LCV's as combinations with two or more
trailers operating at weights above 80,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The railroad industry has, of course, a vital stake in truck size
and weight policy. Larger, heavier trucks--especially LCV's--would
cause serious traffic and revenue losses to the U.S. railroad industry.
This is obviously a grave concern for the railroad industry. This vital
interest extends not just to the rail companies themselves, but also to
the 213,000 rail employees, rail shippers, and the railroad supply
industry. Additionally, there is strong evidence that heavy trucks pay
user charges far less than the costs they impose on our highways and
our society. This underpayment enables them to reduce rates and divert
traffic from railroads. In the absence of full cost recovery, the
further diversion from rail that will result from expanded use of LCV's
is likely to mean a significant net economic loss not only to
railroads, but also to society.
The public strongly supports federal truck weight standards. Sixty-
eight percent of Americans endorse a federal weight freeze on trucks,
according to a April, 1995, nationwide poll conducted by The Tarrance
Group. Further, by exercising control over the nation's infrastructure
through continuation of current truck size and weight standards and the
LCV freeze, Congress can prevent highway infrastructure damage and
congestion, increased highway safety problems, and exacerbated harm to
the environment.
Advocates of increased LCV use are now proposing a ``State Option''
regime in place of the current federal LCV freeze. Under ``State
Option'', States without LCV's would come under intense pressure to
allow bigger trucks as they spread to neighboring jurisdictions.
Stopping this ``upward ratchetting'' of truck size and weight limits
was the reason for the 1991 LCV freeze. Ending the current freeze
through such a ``State Option'' approach would mean a rapid spread of
LCV's throughout the United States.
The truck size and weight status quo--including the LCV freeze--is
also threatened by the negotiations on standardizing truck size and
weight limits which are being held with our NAFTA partners, Canada and
Mexico. Last summer, 57 members of the Senate and 232 House members
signed a letter to then-DOT Secretary Pena, urging him not to allow the
NAFTA negotiations to be a vehicle for truck size and weight increases
in the United States. AAR commends those members who signed the letter
to the Secretary and the railroad industry hopes that Congress will
continue to oppose larger and heavier trucks not just in NAFTA
negotiations, but also in the ISTEA reauthorization.
In conclusion, ISTEA is working, because all parties are truly
working together. AAR is convinced that America must continue the
progressive agenda established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act into the 21st Century.
Thank you for allowing me to present the AAR's views on ISTEA
reauthorization.
______
National Association of Independent Insurers
Prepared Statement of Gerald W. Bell, Director, Commercial and Property
Lines
The National Association of Independent Insurers is the nation's
leading property casualty insurance company trade association with more
than 560 member companies which write about one-third of the private
passenger and commercial automobile insurance in the country. NAII is
an active member of the American Highway Users Alliance and Roadway
Safety Foundation, and we endorse the AHUA testimony supporting
reauthorization of the federal highway program with increased funding
for highway building, roadway maintenance, and safety programs. NAII is
submitting this additional written statement to highlight the need for
adequate funding to assist border states for infrastructure and
inspection systems to assure highway safety once Mexican and Canadian
trucks are permitted to operate fully in this country as a result of
NAFTA.
The NAII is greatly concerned that unless the Congress approves, at
a bare minimum, 100 percent of the appropriation proposed by NEXTEA
under Title IV--Motor Carrier Safety, the economic downside to the
nation will be even more costly for Americans.
Increased Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding
must be provided so that officials can recruit, train, and deploy
greatly increased numbers of motor carrier safety enforcement personnel
to the United States-Mexican border states of California, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas. The number of vehicle inspections possible with
current physical and manpower resources is insufficient to act as a
deterrent to those who would scoff at current statutes and regulations.
It is essential that vehicles entering the United States commercial
zone are in full compliance with all applicable vehicle and driver
safety requirements before any serious thought can be given to lifting
the moratorium and allowing non-complying vehicles ever farther into
the U.S. interior.
NAII supports the Preamble and Objectives (Part One, Chapter One,
Article 102) of the NAFTA. Nonetheless, our Association is greatly
concerned that the current reality falls alarmingly short of these
stated ideals . . . short enough, in fact, to conclude that it would be
irresponsible to lift the moratorium at this time. The threats to life
safety, the environment, and the infrastructure are simply too great.
The NAFTA requires the parties to work together to enhance the
level of safety and of protection of human, animal and plant life and
health, the environment and consumers (Article 906.1). Compatibility of
standards is to be achieved to the greatest extent possible, without
reducing the level of safety (Article 906.2.). In other words, as The
Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair, House Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy and Trade said in her March 5th statement
before her Subcommittee, ``[T]he minimum requirement of NAFTA, and of
any other trade agreement that the U.S. enters into, is that it `do no
harm'--that is, even if the U.S. does not benefit from it, at least it
should not suffer for it.'' Unfortunately, without greatly augmented
U.S. border resources Americans will be harmed.
Parties to the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee and to
its Technical Advisory Groups have worked diligently to negotiate
agreements and to achieve compatibility on many issues. That is
laudable. However, the reality is that the level of safety has not been
significantly enhanced since the NAFTA went into effect three years
ago.
The United States General Accounting Office testified on March 6th
before the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations that, ``[F]rom January through November 1996, federal
and state officials carried out more than 20,000 inspections of trucks
entering from Mexico resulting in about 45 percent of the vehicles
being placed out of service for serious safety violations. Our ongoing
work shows that, while the number of truck inspectors at major southern
border crossings has increased and two large permanent inspection
facilities have been opened, the results of increased inspections do
not show a clear trend that Mexican trucks are becoming safer.''
Let's look at some facts:
Over 11,000 trucks enter the United States border zone each day.
They cross at any of 28 highway points of entry. More than 4,000 of
those trucks enter at Laredo, Texas, the busiest point. Concern about
the potential environmental impact of a hazardous material spill from
incoming Mexican trucks is so great in Laredo, Texas, that the local
television stations run frequent public service videos warning
residents about the threat.
The United States Department of Transportation has once again
entered into agreement with Mexican officials to provide training for
Mexican enforcement personnel regarding U.S. motor carrier standards
for vehicles and operators. A February 1996 General Accounting Office
report advises that since 1993 U.S. officials trained 285 Mexican
personnel to inspect trucks. Those personnel were to have become the
trainers in Mexico, but most have left the program according to Mexican
officials. Why should we believe that this new effort will bear a
different result?
The Governors of the four U.S. border states have widely proclaimed
that their states are ready for the moratorium to be lifted and that
unsafe Mexican trucks will be weeded out, but we are not convinced that
effective systems are in place yet to assure safety. None of the border
states appear to have the requisite number of enforcement personnel to
assure that even the majority of unsafe Mexican trucks will be weeded
out.
--If the four border state governors are correct about their
collective resources to assure motor carrier safety then why
did 201 bipartisan House lawmakers (34 Republicans, 167
Democrats) send a letter to President Clinton on March 21st
warning him not to open the U.S. border until a stronger safety
regime is in place?
--More than 20,000 inspections of trucks entering from Mexico
resulted in about 45 percent of the vehicles being placed out
of service for serious safety violations. This compares
unfavorably to the 28 percent out-of-service rate for U.S.
trucks inspected in the United States. This begs the question:
if the December 18, 1996 joint letter from Governors Bush (TX),
Johnson (NM), Wilson (CA), and Symington (AZ) is correct in
claiming ``that there is no reason for further delay in lifting
the moratorium,'' why doesn't the data show that incoming
trucks are becoming safer?
--Texas Attorney General Dan Morales reported in early 1996 that of
the 5,000 commercial vehicles entering Texas each day that only
about 150 are stopped and inspected by Texas Department of
Public Safety troopers.
--Karen Hughes, a spokesperson for the Governor, is quoted in the
November 30, 1996, Fort Worth Star Telegram as saying, ``The
Texas Department of Public Safety is fully prepared to make
sure that all the trucks meet safety standards.'' Ms. Hughes
remark seems inconsistent with a comment by the Governor on
January 28th that 109 additional troopers will be added to the
Public Safety Department in order to enforce safety and weight
laws.
Even Mexican business community spokespersons are having second
thoughts about the NAFTA.
--On February 3rd, Alfredo Cardenas, Vice President of Mexico's
National Chamber of Cargo Transport was quoted by Reuters News
Service as saying, ``I believe it will be negative to open the
border because the economic conditions between the countries
are very different.''
--The news service also quoted Cardenas, speaking in his capacity as
director of Mexico's fourth-largest trucking company, as
saying, ``It will damage Mexicans because no Mexican can
compete with the Americans. It should wait until our economy
recovers in three to five years more.''
--Bernardo Lijtzain Bimstein, President of the Mexican national
trucking association known as CANACAR, was quoted by the
Journal of Commerce as saying, ``We are not in a position to
compete with the Americans. The longer the opening is put off,
the more time we have to prepare.''
The true economic impact of the NAFTA must take into consideration
the costs expended by the federal and state governments to enforce
vehicle and driver safety standards.
--The state of California constructed new Highway Patrol Inspection
facilities at Otay Mesa and at Calexico at a cost of $30
million.
--Texas is adding 109 State Troopers at a cost estimated to exceed $4
million.
--The United States Customs Service has installed the world's largest
(and presumably among the most expensive) X-ray machines at its
Otay Mesa facility, capable of X-raying an entire 53 foot semi-
trailer at one time.
--Texas has constructed a new roadside enforcement facility at El
Paso at an estimated cost of $700 thousand.
--New Mexico has constructed a new inspection facility at Anthony at
an approximate cost of $9 million.
The NAFTA provides that each party will comply with the laws of its
tri-lateral trading partners. These include laws relating to commercial
motor vehicle, drivers, and the environment. The reality however is
that Mexican trucks and their operators enter the U.S. out of
compliance with applicable statutes and regulations with relative
impunity. While the training and proficiency of U.S. and state
enforcement personnel is high they are dangerously understaffed. Only a
minuscule number of Mexican trucks can be inspected each day--too small
a percentage to serve as a deterrent to those who see the chance of
their getting caught to be minimal.
--The maximum legal weight limit for a truck engaged in interstate
commerce is 80,000 pounds. Rob Harrison, associate director of
the transport research center at the University of Texas is
quoted in the January 17, 1997, Journal of Commerce as saying,
``Some loads entering the border zone approach 150,000
pounds.'' It has long been reported that Mexican officials have
not aggressively enforced weight limits. Roadside scales are
virtually nonexistent.
--Mexican environmental law provides for a maximum sulfur content in
diesel fuel. The national oil company, Pemex, produces diesel
containing 50 percent more sulfur content than permitted by
Mexican law (300 percent more than permitted by U.S.
standards). Pemex is the sole source of diesel fuel in Mexico.
Trucks incoming from Mexico will be belching their hazardous
fumes into the U.S. environment, thus exacerbating existing
acid rain, respiratory, and other health concerns.
--The Otay Mesa port of entry is the busiest in California. From the
seven month period December 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996,
250,613 Mexican trucks passed through the California Highway
Patrol Inspection Facility. All vehicles passed over the
scales. However, only 5,744 trucks (2.3 percent) were
physically inspected. Of these 5,744 inspections, 3,567 (62
percent) resulted in citations for one or more violations.
1,412 (25 percent) of the inspected vehicles were placed out-
of-service on the spot.
--At the Calexico, California, port of entry the percentage of
inspected commercial vehicles placed out-of-service is 30
percent according to Vince Calderon, a California Highway
Patrol inspection officer.
Were the NAII to issue a NAFTA report card, these would be the
grades: `A' for good intentions, desires, determinations, resolutions,
agreements, alliances, accords, assurances, and promises. `F' for
significant results that currently reduce the quadruple threats . . .
life safety, environment, infrastructure, insurance cost escalation.
In conclusion, NAII urges Congress to closely monitor the
implementation of NAFTA to assure safety is not compromised. We also
urge Congress to assist the states financially as they seek to build
the necessary infrastructure and safety inspection teams for border
crossings so we can be certain that Mexican trucks coming into the U.S.
will pose no greater threat to safety than U.S. trucks.
______
American Association of Port Authorities
Prepared Statement Kurt J. Nagle, President
Please accept this statement for the record for the Subcommittee's
April 10 hearing on fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations. The
American Association of Port Authorities was founded in 1912 and today
represents more than 140 public port authorities in the United States,
Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America. The following represents the
views of our U.S. members.
U.S. public port authorities have for years expressed concerns that
critical transportation infrastructure needs have not been adequately
recognized through federal transportation funding. Although the
authorization of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 initiated for the first time transportation planning that includes
planning for goods movement in addition to people movement, in reality,
ISTEA had many shortcomings in meeting the needs of the freight
community. A copy of AAPA's Platform on ISTEA is enclosed.
The reauthorization legislation for ISTEA should improve upon the
positive policy changes made in the first ISTEA, but should also seek
to address ISTEA's shortcomings in meeting the needs of America's
freight community, which provides great economic benefit to the country
and its consumers. Following the unveiling of the Administration's
proposal to reauthorize ISTEA (NEXTEA), U.S. members of the American
Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) indicated strong support for
provisions designed to maintain the intermodal focus of the bill and
expand eligibility and funding opportunities for port access and
freight mobility projects. AAPA is encouraged that the Department of
Transportation has cited specific ideas to improve the transportation
planning process.
U.S. ports are particularly pleased with several features in
NEXTEA,including (1) designation of intermodal connectors as part of
the National Highway System (NHS), (2) NHS eligibility for publicly-
owned intermodal surface freight transfer facilities, including
publicly-owned rail access lines or roads to a seaport, (3) Surface
Transportation Program Fund eligibility for publicly-owned rail freight
facilities, (4) expansion of the State Infrastructure flank program,
and (5) creation of a Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
Program to benefit large, capital-intensive projects.
Under the proposal, state and metropolitan transportation planning
would consider the economic viability of the state or metropolitan
area, especially global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency,
as well as how to enhance the integration and connectivity of
transportation across and between modes for people and freight. It
specifically provides that state transportation plans be developed in
consultation with freight shippers as well as other interested parties.
Although AAPA agrees with these policy changes, public ports do not
feel that the Administration's proposal for the reauthorization of
ISTEA is sufficiently funded. AAPA supports legislation to take the
four transportation trust funds off budget, providing much needed
funding for harbor maintenance as well as surface transportation for
port access. The U.S. lags far behind its trading partners in
infrastructure investment, and as such, AAPA supports legislation to
provide for full funding of transportation programs.
Thank you for your consideration of the views of the public port
industry regarding this important issue. We look forward to working
with you toward the development of a national transportation bill that
effectively addresses the nation's needs.
AAPA Platform on ISTEA
U.S. public ports strongly supported the provisions of ISTEA that
recognize the need to expand the scope of U.S. transportation planning
and funding to include the needs of intermodal freight transportation
as incorporated in the goals and provisions of ISTEA. Economic growth
and quality of life are dependent upon a transportation system that
moves people and goods efficiently. Public ports provide the nation
with its highways to the world, linking every community in the U.S. to
the world market. In 1994, ports and port users generated 15.9 million
jobs, contributed $783 billion to the Gross Domestic Product, and
provided $210 billion in taxes at all levels of government. Ports
provided these benefits in 1994 while themselves investing over $929.6
million in new and modernized terminal facilities to better serve
businesses and consumers in the global marketplace. Planning for
landside access to U.S. ports is a key component of the nation's
ability to compete globally and ultimately provides for maximum trade
and economic growth.
Yet with ISTEA up for reauthorization in 1997, ports are finding
that freight projects, particularly those meeting regional or national
transportation needs, still are not competing well for a fair
allocation of ISTEA funding. A recent General Accounting Office report
identified that freight projects received less than 1 percent of the
total highway and nontransit infrastructure money apportioned to states
during the first 4 years of ISTEA. (Intermodal Freight Transportation;
Projects and Planning Issues, GAO/NSIAD-96-159.)
The need to increase the focus on freight and afford it the
priority it deserves was clearly voiced in Department of Transportation
outreach meetings on ISTEA held last year as well as in 1993. A March
1994 report issued by DOT summarizing the first round of ISTEA outreach
meetings states that ``[t]hroughout the country, the message was clear:
freight movement must be given a higher priority in the planning and
funding allocation process under ISTEA.''
AAPA will support continuation of the structure envisioned by
ISTEA, with decisionmaking authority primarily at the local level, if
changes are made to permit freight projects to fairly compete for
funding. It must be recognized that local decisionmaking favors
passenger needs, and that freight projects, particularly those meeting
regional or national needs, have difficulty obtaining finding. The
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation's 1994 report found
that ``ISTEA's emphasis on local and State decisionmaking means that
projects of national significance, which sometimes largely provide
benefits beyond local or State jurisdictions, may not receive
appropriate funding priority.''
AAPA strongly supports full funding of ISTEA and investigating new
funding sources to increase available resources, as well as taking
trust funds off budget in order to ensure that transportation user fees
are used for infrastructure, not deficit reduction. Providing funding
for adequate transportation infrastructure investment protects the
nation's competitive position in the global marketplace and provides a
local economic return on investment. To maintain a modern and
competitive transportation system, Congress should:
--Provide full funding to transportation legislation, including
ISTEA's successor.
--Take Transportation Trust Funds off-budget so that funding may be
allocated in a way which provides the greatest economic benefit
for the investment.
There is clearly a vital role for USDOT in freight projects that
cross multiple jurisdictions and that meet regional and national needs.
To reinforce the national interest in such projects, the next
generation of ISTEA should accomplish the following:
--Enhance the ability of the Federal government to provide innovative
financing for projects of regional and national significance,
including highway corridors of national significance under
section 1105 or other major freight projects.
--Break down the Administration's modal walls and create an
Intermodal Transportation Administration with a specific goods
movement of rice. At a minimum, the role of the Office of
Intermodalism should be enhanced to include advocacy for
freight needs.
ISTEA should provide for goods movement to be an integrated
component of transportation system planning. Despite public
participation provisions, freight interests are not at the table and
project selection criteria often do not take freight mobility into
account. In order to ensure that effective transportation planning be
conducted, ISTEA's successor should:
--Specify that project selection criteria to be used by States and
MPO's must fairly consider freight projects and must include
direct and indirect economic benefits, job creation, congestion
reduction, and enhancement of freight mobility.
--Require MPO's to develop a 5-year capital improvement plan to
identify high priority freight mobility projects, including an
implementation schedule, within two years after ISTEA is
reauthorized. Plans would have to be approved by the USDOT, and
USDOT would have to report back to Congress on the progress in
this area. Plans must be developed in conjunction with local
freight interests and must include a market analysis as the
basis for determining the need for improvements. Corridors of
national significance should be included. If a plan is not
submitted as of the statutory deadline, states should lose a
portion of their funding. The capital improvement plan must be
updated every year.
--Stress that transportation planning at the state and local level
should consider waterside access as an integral portion of the
system to be connected.
--Require metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), or appropriate
transportation funding agencies, if not the NIPO, with a public
port authority within their boundaries to include the port
agency as a voting member of the MPO, as are numerous other
state and local public agencies.
--Require MPO's to have freight interests of all modes represented on
their policy and technical committees, and encourage the
creation of goods movement task forces. Stress the need for
MPO's to actively seek public participation by freight
interests and to educate themselves about goods movement.
AAPA supports policy changes in ISTEA reauthorization that provide
for the selection of the best mode of transportation for the most
efficient movement of goods. AAPA also supports the objectives of
environmental and sound economic development. In line with increased
flexibility of funding, ISTEA's successor should accomplish the
following:
--Expand the eligibility and flexibility of ISTEA funding to include
rail freight and other intermodal projects which reduce
congestion and create economic benefits.
--Enhance flexible funding for port infrastructure projects by
expanding the use by public agencies of tax exempt bond
authority for cargo transportation purposes. Proposals in 1996
included H.R. 1790 (Hoary, R-CA) and S. 1199 (Boxer, D-CA),
legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit the
use of private activity bonds to finance trackage and rail
facilities, in addition to docks and wharves, in [united
circumstances.
Founded in 1912, the American Association of Port Authorities
(AAPA) represents virtually every U.S. public port agency as well as
the major port agencies in Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean.
This policy paper reflects the views of the AAPA's United States
delegation.
______
National Association of Railroad Passengers
Prepared Statement of Ross B. Capon, Executive Director
Our non-partisan association--whose members are individuals--has
worked since 1967 towards development of a modern rail passenger
network in the U.S. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our views
for the record. The subcommittee has heard oral testimony from some
organizations strongly opposed to federal funding for Amtrak. We
request a similar opportunity to testify at the earliest possible
opportunity.
We support NEXTEA's overall general approach to transportation. We
applaud giving states the right to use flexible gasoline-tax funds for
intercity passenger rail. We support creation of a dedicated funding
source for Amtrak, such as through S. 436 (including the earmarking of
1 percent of the funds for states with no Amtrak service). We think the
public wants the enhanced travel choices and balanced transportation
system such legislation would promote. Section IV (pages 4-6) lists
benefits of intercity passenger rail. Finally, we endorse Amtrak's
appropriations request.
i. poll by bruskin goldring research
On May 19-21, 1995, in a national probability sample of 1,006
adults (524 women, 482 men), age 18 and over--by telephone--Bruskin
Goldring Research, Inc., of Edison, New Jersey, found:
--63 percent support for earmarking a full penny of existing federal
gasoline tax ``to create a trust fund to pay for long-term
Amtrak improvements''; and
--63 percent support for letting states ``use, for intercity rail
passenger service, a portion of their federal transportation
funds now restricted to highways, mass transit and recreational
trails.''
(See Appendix I for the full text of the poll questions.)
It is noteworthy that:
--``Yes'' responses were the majority in all geographical sections of
the nation, even where Amtrak service is sparse. The ``yes''
showing ranged from 58-59 percent (penny/flexibility) in the
South to 70-67 percent in the Northeast.
--For both questions, only 10 percent of women and 16 percent of men
were ``strongly'' opposed.
The poll suggests to us that the public does not view gasoline
purchases strictly as votes for more roads. America is in love with
travel, not with the automobile. In spite of a woefully inadequate
advertising budget, and competition from airlines whose huge ad budgets
are mutually reinforcing, modern passenger trains of all types are well
used in most places where they exist.
Americans often ask why ``we can't have a train network as good as
they have in Europe.'' One answer: you get what your leaders buy. The
U.S. spends far more of its gas taxes on roads than do many other
countries. Netherlands and Great Britain spend about 25 percent--most
other European countries about 33 percent--of road taxes on roads
(National Transportation Strategic Planning Study, U.S. Department of
Transportation, March 1990). At the same time, intercity passenger rail
investment is tiny and has been declining, both in absolute terms and
as a share of federal transportation spending (see appendices).
ii. the public votes with its feet
The traveling public generally responds positively whenever modern
intercity passenger rail is provided (see table on next page). The most
up-to-date statistics also are encouraging. Compared with the year-
earlier months, during the first six months of Fiscal 1997 (October-
March), travel is up 3 percent systemwide and 5 percent at the
Intercity unit (which operates most long-distance trains and all
Chicago-based corridors). [The percentage changes are of passenger-
miles. A passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one mile.]
Much has been made of Amtrak's small share of total intercity
travel. However, this should not obscure the critical role that Amtrak
plays where it operates and the fact that this role will become even
more critical in the future (see #1, section IV). Amtrak handles about
44 percent of air-plus-rail traffic in the New York-Washington city-
pair market; this figure rises to about 70 percent if we include
intermediate points--such as Philadelphia, Baltimore and Wilmington.
However, Amtrak's share is impressive even as a per cent of total
travel: Amtrak has 23 percent of all Philadelphia-Washington travel, 16
percent of New York-Washington and 13 percent of New York-Albany, the
latter despite an average speed of just 58 mph (vs. 76 and 66 mph,
respectively, on most New York-Washington Metroliners and conventional
trains). The auto market share is 70 percent in the two shorter
markets, 50 percent New York-Washington. Investments under way will
bring similar benefits to the Boston-New York corridor. Currently,
Amtrak has only 7 percent of all travel in the New York-Boston city-
pair market; today's average speeds range from 45 to 54 mph.
AMTRAK USAGE--RIDERSHIP ON SELECTED CORRIDOR SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Route 1982 1996 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest............................................... 73,670 303,700 +312.2
San Joaquin Valley.............................................. 181,074 567,400 +213.4
Chicago-Milwaukee............................................... 142,350 320,200 +124.9
Metroliners (New York-Washington)............................... 1,060,098 2,011,200 +89.7
San Diego-Los Angeles (-Santa Barbara).......................... 1,190,287 1,565,700 +31.5
New York-Albany-Buffalo......................................... 768,071 978,900 +27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSENGER-MILES
[Billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change
Segment 1982 1996 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide...................................................... 4.2 5.1 +21
Long-Distance Trains Only....................................... 2.5 2.8 +13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by National Association of Railroad Passengers, 2/97.
iii. the half cent: higher ridership, lower federal operating grant
The half cent and the ability to spend it would enable Amtrak to
improve service quality and to provide more service. New rolling stock,
improved maintenance facilities and stations, more track capacity (a
new siding on the single-track Los Angeles-San Diego line, for example)
and completion of the Boston-Washington high speed project would
directly benefit passengers and increase ridership. Rehabilitation of
the New York-Washington electrification is necessary to retain existing
ridership. New mail-and-express facilities also would enhance Amtrak's
efforts to meet its zero-operating-grant-by-2002 goal.
iv. benefits of amtrak
1. In crowded corridors, passenger trains represent vital people-
moving capacity and help relieve air and road congestion. This benefit
will grow over time as travel demand continues to grow while airport
and highway construction face more intense local opposition and ever-
tighter limits on funding and sheer availability of land.
2. Amtrak is far safer than auto travel.
3. During inclement weather, Amtrak is safer and usually more
reliable than airplanes and buses.
4. Amtrak is 45 percent more energy-efficient than domestic
commercial airline service (2,351 BTU's per passenger-mile v. 4,304.2)
and 76 percent more energy-efficient than general aviation (9,825 BTU's
per passenger-mile). Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 16, July 1996. This 1994 data
understates Amtrak's efficiency because it:
--reflect operation of a large fleet of old, relatively energy-
intensive cars, almost all of which Amtrak has since retired.
--do not reflect Amtrak's positive impact on energy-efficient
downtown development and mass transit (see #6, below).
[Note: Earlier Oak Ridge reports included Northeast Corridor
electricity consumed by Maryland, SEPTA and New Jersey Transit commuter
trains using Amtrak-owned tracks but excluded the passenger-miles those
trains generated. This partly explains Amtrak's relative improvement
from, say, 1992, when Amtrak was ``only'' 42 percent and 70 percent
more energy-efficient than commercial and general aviation,
respectively.]
5. Amtrak is much less polluting than airplanes. (Energy efficiency
is a good proxy for air pollution--see #4, above.)
6. In most cities, Amtrak helps mass transit, downtown areas and
transit-dependent people by serving--and increasing the visibility and
economic viability of--transit-accessible downtown locations. Amtrak
feeds connecting passengers to transit. Amtrak shares costs with
transit at joint-use terminals and on joint-use tracks. Positive
impacts have been observed even in small cities with minimal Amtrak
service. Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Mississippi--on Amtrak's
New York-Atlanta-New Orleans run, with but one train per day in each
direction--says property values have tripled in recent years around the
railroad station, where a new intermodal terminal is under
construction.
By contrast, new airports intensify energy-inefficient suburban
sprawl and stimulate auto-dependent development. This leads to the
social costs of getting transit-dependent people to work, or the need
to address the consequences of their not working.
7. Amtrak serves many communities where alternative transportation
either does not exist, is not affordable or only serves different
destinations. Trains can make intermediate stops at smaller cities at
minimum cost in energy and time. This is apparent in corridors--where
benefits go to such cities as Jefferson City, Lancaster, Trenton,
Kalamazoo, Wilmington, Bloomington/Normal and Tacoma. It also means,
for example, that the Empire Builder can stop at eight small cities in
Washington (plus Seattle and Spokane), 12 in Montana and seven in North
Dakota without compromising the train's appeal to those riding between
Chicago or Minneapolis and Seattle or Portland. Similarly, the
California Zephyr serves five Colorado points (plus Denver) and five
points each in Iowa and Nebraska. Also, Amtrak serves 14 North Carolina
points.
Here is one example of long-distance travel that I encountered on
the Southwest Chief in March, 1995: a mother and her 14-month-old child
rode from Garden City, Kansas, to Barstow, California. The family was
moving to California; the husband was driving the U-Haul; the wife and
child were on the train ``so the move would not be so traumatic'' for
the child. They did not consider the plane because they felt it would
be too cramped for the child. Also, the Garden City-Ontario, California
air fare was $450 round-trip with a change of planes in Denver; the
train was $188 round-trip (in coach) and went direct.
8. Amtrak is important to those who cannot fly due to temporary or
permanent medical problems, and to those for whom physical and
financial considerations rule out driving long distances, for example,
seniors and students. (The editor of Frequent Flier, forced by doctor's
orders to take the train to Florida, wrote a favorable column about the
trip.) Nonetheless, a large proportion of Amtrak riders do own cars or
could fly but instead chose the train.
9. Thanks to a growing array of connecting buses available with
train travel in a single ticket transaction, Amtrak puts people on
intercity buses who would not otherwise have considered using them.
This trend first developed in a big way in California, where the state
underwrites an impressive network of dedicated, feeder buses. (The
Winter 1996-97 Bus World cover article, ``Amtrak California's Buses,''
reports: ``Currently, there are contracts with six independent bus
operators operating 16 routes. . . . About half of the San Joaquin
train riders use a bus for part of their journey.'')
However, for a growing number of bus connections across the nation,
the private bus companies bear any financial risks themselves. These
companies highly value their Amtrak-related revenues. Another article
in the same Bus World, ``Training Greyhound,'' states: ``Former
antagonists--Greyhound and Amtrak--are cooperating to combat the real
competitor, the private automobile.'' The article says ``six
significant bus enhancements to the Amtrak timetable'' took effect
November 10, linking Amtrak to such places as Cocoa and Melbourne,
Florida; Macon, Georgia; Louisville, Kentucky; Columbus, Ohio; and
Laredo, Texas. A link to Key West was added earlier last year.
10. Amtrak is part carrier (like United and Greyhound) and part
infrastructure. Thus Amtrak provides important passenger-moving
capacity, unlike airlines and bus companies. In much of the Northeast
Corridor and a few other places, Amtrak is the rail equivalent of the
air traffic control system, airport authorities and airlines. (Among
the ``other places'': the Chicago terminal, part of the Chicago-Detroit
line and the track between Albany, New York, and the Massachusetts
state line.) Elsewhere, Amtrak is the only carrier with legal access to
freight railroads' tracks--a quid pro quo for relieving the railroads
of their passenger-train obligations in 1971.
11. Amtrak over much of its network enables one to enjoy gorgeous
scenery in total comfort. Some examples: the Connecticut and California
coastlines, the Hudson River in New York, the Colorado Rockies, the
mountains of Vermont and northern New Mexico, Glacier Park in Montana
and West Virginia's New River Gorge.
12. Amtrak's long-distance trains are transportation ``melting
pots.'' The majority of passengers on these trains ride coach. Surveys
have indicated that, for 30 percent of coach passengers traveling over
12 hours, average income is less than $20,000 (for 11 percent, it is
less than $10,000). Obviously, most standard- and deluxe-room sleeping
car passengers have considerably higher incomes and pay much higher
fares. Nonetheless, anyone who characterizes these trains as land
versions of cruise ships should try walking the coaches, especially at
night.
13. Trains, especially on longer trips, offer a form of social
contact almost lost in this country today--the opportunity to meet and
relax with total strangers that one may or may not ever see again.
v. of trust funds and subsidies
Today's transportation system is largely a function of the policies
of years past. Some salient parts of that history follow:
1. Railroad passengers paid $2.0 billion (not inflation-adjusted)
in federal ticket taxes from 1942 to 1962, money that simply went to
the U. S. Treasury (general revenues). The Doyle Report to the Senate
Commerce Committee (National Transportation Policy, June 26, 1961)
cited this tax as ``one of the factors under Federal control which
favors the growth of private transportation and makes the preservation
of public service more difficult.'' Had this rail passenger tax been
earmarked for rail passenger improvements, it is unlikely that the
business would have fallen to the depths it reached by the time Amtrak
began operating in 1971.
2. Federal aviation subsidies through mid-1988 totaled $32.8
billion, as follows:
--``Airport and airway development costs incurred prior to the
assessment of user charges in 1971 have been treated as sunk
costs, none of which have been or will be paid for by air
carriers and other system users . . . these sunk costs total
$15.8 billion.'' Source: Study of Federal Aid to Rail
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, under
President Ford's Secretary Coleman, January 1977.
--From the time aviation user charges were imposed (1971) through
mid-1988, private-sector air system users ``received a general
fund subsidy of $17 billion, which is equal to the difference
between the private-sector share of FAA spending and aviation-
related excise taxes since the start of the trust fund.''
Source: The Status of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,
Congressional Budget Office special study, December 1988.
3. Federal transportation taxes are mode-specific, except that--in
recent years--certain highway taxes have gone to mass transit and,
since 1991, to recreational trails. Intercity passenger rail has been
completed excluded, although the original, Senate-passed ISTEA in 1991
would have corrected this. The selective imposition of mode-specific
taxes biases policy makers at all levels of government in favor of more
roads and airports. Road and aviation investment goes forward absent
analysis of the merits of intercity passenger rail improvements and the
impact they might have on road and air needs.
4. Federal matches are at 80 percent plus for most highway and
aviation projects. State and local officials are eager to maximize
federal aid. There is no serious accounting of the huge external costs
of air and especially highway transportation. The result is an
overwhelming incentive for states and cities to invest in aviation and
highways, regardless of the merits of intercity passenger rail. That so
many states nevertheless make some rail investments is encouraging, but
such investments generally will be aimed only at projects or routes
where the benefits are largely or exclusively within one state.
In short, today's transportation system reflects the manipulation
of free market forces almost to the point of strangling the passenger
train. The half cent and full funding of Amtrak's appropriations
request would help offset this manipulation.
Thank you for considering this statement. I would be pleased to
provide any further information the committee might request.
appendix i
Poll by Bruskin Goldring Research
Question one: Amtrak was created by Congress to provide intercity
rail passenger service. Amtrak currently receives passenger fares and
federal grants. You currently pay a federal fuel tax, most of which
goes to the Highway Trust Fund to be spent on roads and mass transit.
The need for a more stable funding source for Amtrak--comparable to the
highway and aviation trust funds--has prompted a proposal that one
penny of the fuel tax be used to create a trust fund to pay for long-
term Amtrak improvements. This would not result in your paying any
additional taxes, but would reallocate a small percentage of the total
funds to Amtrak. Please tell me which of the following best describes
your feelings about this proposal.
Percent
Support........................................................... 63
Oppose............................................................ 26
No opinion........................................................ 11
Question two: It also has been suggested that states be allowed to
use, for intercity rail passenger service, a portion of their federal
transportation funds now restricted to highways, mass transit and
recreational trails.
Percent
Support........................................................... 63
Oppose............................................................ 27
No opinion........................................................ 10
appendix ii
APPROPRIATIONS AND OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS IN FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACTS
[Dollars in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail as
percent of
Highways Aviation Amtrak/H.S.R. road-air-rail
total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................ $20.365 $8.489 $0.867 2.9
1996............................................ 19.970 8.216 .774 2.7
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (319.970) (8.216) (.774) ..............
1995............................................ 19.879 8.392 1.017 3.4
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (20.440) (8.629) (1.046) ..............
1994............................................ 19.938 8.645 .912 3.1
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (21.082) (9.141) (.964) ..............
1993............................................ 18.254 8.862 .896 3.2
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (19.795) (9.610) (.972) ..............
1992............................................ 18.585 8.887 .860 3.0
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (20.757) (9.926) (.961) ..............
1991............................................ 15.088 8.137 .815 3.4
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (17.359) (9.362) (.938) ..............
1990............................................ 13.560 7.141 .629 2.9
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (16.257) (8.562) (.754) ..............
1989............................................ 12.242 6.390 .604 3.1
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (15.470) (8.075) (.763) ..............
1988............................................ 11.967 5.714 .609 3.3
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (15.851) (7.569) (.807) ..............
1987............................................ 13.035 5.170 .619 3.3
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (17.980) (7.132) (.854) ..............
1986............................................ 13.562 4.640 .603 3.2
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (19.390) (6.634) (.862) ..............
1985............................................ 14.189 5.184 .712 3.5
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (20.663) (7.550) (1.037) ..............
1984............................................ 13.259 4.065 .816 4.5
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (19.997) (6.131) (1.231) ..............
1983............................................ 13.465 4.031 .815 4.5
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (21.184) (6.342) (1.282) ..............
1982............................................ 8.533 2.930 .905 7.3
(In 1996 dollars)........................... (13.856) (4.758) (1.470) ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change 1982-97, current dollars (percent)....... +138.7 +189.7 -4.2 ..............
Change 1982-97, in 1996 dollars--a reflection of
purchasing power (percent)..................... +47.0 +78.4 -41.0 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: For each year shown, first line is for current year dollar amounts. Second (in parentheses) line is the
same amount in 1996 dollars.
Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation Budgets in Brief, 1982-96. Prepared by the National Association of
Railroad Passengers.
appendix iii
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP10.004
appendix iv
Passenger rail usage did not decline mid-century just because
people suddenly ``decided'' trains were passe, and other modes were
better. Government policy played a tremendous role in travelers'
decisions. This chart shows that as road spending (annual dollars per
capita, all levels of government, adjusted for inflation) grew, so
did--not coincidentally--passenger rail (intercity and commuter)
passenger-miles per capital decline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP10.005
appendix v
World Mainline Rail Capital Spending Per Capita
[Selected Countries, U.S. Dollars, 1994 Spending by Central Governments
and/or Public Sector Railways] \1\
Switzerland................................................... $228.29
Sweden........................................................ 146.55
Austria....................................................... 132.03
Germany....................................................... 110.84
Netherlands................................................... 84.97
Denmark....................................................... 79.97
Norway........................................................ 58.27
Finland....................................................... 51.85
France........................................................ 51.48
Portugal...................................................... 40.34
South Korea................................................... 31.36
Belarus....................................................... 25.96
Greece........................................................ 24.23
Hungary....................................................... 24.19
Botswana...................................................... 22.65
Ireland....................................................... 18.38
Britain....................................................... 13.74
Slovakia...................................................... 13.61
New Zealand................................................... 6.23
Latvia........................................................ 5.93
Belgium....................................................... 4.89
Bulgaria...................................................... 4.62
Venezuela..................................................... 4.20
Indonesia..................................................... 4.00
Iran.......................................................... 4.00
Namibia....................................................... 3.71
South Africa.................................................. 3.58
Colombia...................................................... 3.38
Mexico........................................................ 3.24
Myanmar....................................................... 2.53
India......................................................... 2.27
Thailand...................................................... 2.07
Guinea........................................................ 1.80
Bolivia....................................................... 1.75
United States................................................. 1.64
Turkey........................................................ 1.43
Canada........................................................ 1.16
Malawi........................................................ 1.02
Romania....................................................... .88
Zimbabwe...................................................... .88
Albania....................................................... .45
Bangladesh.................................................... .45
Pakistan...................................................... .30
Phillipines................................................... .29
\1\ Does not include private sector spending, which is more important in
the United States and Canada than elsewhere.
Sources: National Association of Railroad Passengers, International
Railway Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Transportation Engineers
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is an organization
of over 15,000 transportation professionals in some 80 countries. On a
day-to-day basis ITE's 11,500 U.S. members are responsible for keeping
the nation's surface transportation systems operating in the safe,
efficient, and reliable fashion which our mobile society demands.
ITE members plan, design, operate, maintain, and build the
infrastructure that supports 17 percent of America's gross national
product. The Institute has members working for virtually every state
Department of Transportation, almost 600 municipalities, over 175
counties, and some 100 metropolitan planning organizations. In
addition, ITE members are employed by hundreds of consulting firms,
universities, and equipment manufacturers and suppliers throughout the
United States.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991 has been a success, and it should be reauthorized without radical
changes to its existing programs. Enhancement of ISTEA programs can be
achieved by moving away from a system that is driven by process to one
that is driven by results. Transportation programs should not be judged
on how they are carried out, but rather on what they accomplish and
contribute toward a national intermodal transportation system that is
safe, economically efficient, and environmentally sound.
ITE believes that the Administration's National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) is a solid step towards a
reauthorization bill that will effectively carry the nation's
transportation system into the 21st Century. However, while the
Institute was generally pleased with the overall structure of the
Administration's reauthorization proposal, it was disappointed with the
overall funding level included in the proposal.
The Institute believes that NEXTEA should set a highway trust fund
spending level of at least $26 billion. ITE believes that this funding
level will help provide transportation professionals with resources
necessary to meet the nation's future transportation needs.
The critical importance of transportation should not be lost as
Congress and the Administration struggle to balance the federal budget.
With NAFTA passed and a western hemisphere free trade agreement in the
works, the U.S. transportation system will be even more vital to the
delivery of goods and services. The European Commission is taking an
increasingly stronger role in ensuring a seamless and more efficient
transportation system throughout Europe. The U.S. can do no less.
ITE encourages Congress and the Administration to recognize that
money spent on our nation's transportation systems is in fact an
investment in the American economy. This investment not only directly
puts people to work, but through improving the efficiency and safety of
moving our workers and our products, it enhances the productivity and
competitiveness of America's businesses. The resulting economic
vitality creates a positive return on investment to the federal
government and its citizenry.
About $57 billion should be invested annually in roads, bridges,
and transit capital just to keep the systems performing at their
current level of service. Unfortunately, the United States is actually
investing less than $41 billion each year, only two-thirds of the
nation's needs. As a result, the transportation infrastructure is not
able to keep up with demand. Cutting transportation funding will not
cut transportation needs. Providing funding levels to maintain current
conditions should be the minimum goal for lawmakers.
To ensure an adequate and predictable revenue stream for
transportation investment, Congress should consider:
--Funding ISTEA 2 programs entirely from transportation user fees.
--Shifting the 4.3 cents per gallon motor fuel tax currently going to
deficit reduction to the highway trust fund.
--Removing the highway Oust fund from the unified federal budget.
--Adopting a federal capital budget and/or other measures to achieve
this objective.
--Expanding efforts to combat motor fuel tax evasion.
--Giving state and local agencies increased flexibility to implement
innovative financing mechanisms.
--Requiring that any revenue from tolls on any highway facility be
used solely for surface transportation purposes.
--Eliminating the practice of specifying funding for specific
projects in federal transportation legislation.
In addition to increasing the overall funding level available for
transportation investment, lawmakers must find ways to make those
investment more productive.
The Administration's NEXTEA expands the eligible uses of
transportation funding to include operations and maintenance costs that
were not included under ISTEA. ITE supports these efforts.
Transportation efficiencies cannot be realized if transportation
facilities and equipment are not properly operated and maintained.
The Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) program is a good next step in a program
that holds significant benefits for the nation's transportation system.
With some changes, ITE recommends that the Administration's ITS
proposal contained in NEXTEA be accepted by Congress. However, while
ITE generally supports the structure of the ITS program as developed by
the Administration, the Institute believes that annual funding of the
program at $250 million is not sufficient considering the benefits the
program has to offer. Therefore, ITE recommends that the committee
increase funding for the Administration's ITS proposal to $400 million
per year.
In addition, ITE recommends that Congress not accept limitations on
the federal match for ITS projects that the Administration would set at
no greater than 80 percent. The U.S. DOT estimates that, over the next
20 years, ITS will be able to meet two-thirds of the nation's highway
capacity needs at one-fifth the cost of building additional capacity.
One way that the federal government can encourage swift implementation
of ITS is by allowing ITS projects to be eligible for 100 percent
federal funding. This incentive is needed in order to help level the
playing field for ITS projects as they compete for funds with more
visible construction projects.
Transportation efficiencies are also impacted by safety. The
Institute supports reauthorization of the current 10 percent set-aside
of the Surface Transportation Program (STP); however, the
Administration has chosen to replace this program with a set $3.2
billion Infrastructure Safety Program.
During fiscal year 1997, states will receive a total of some $601
million in safety set-aside apportionments. NEXTEA is a retreat on
current funding levels under this program. In addition, removal of
safety funding as a percentage of the STP program eliminates the
possibility of future funding growth for safety in the event of
increased out-year transportation investments. For instance, over the
last five years, annual safety set-aside apportionments have increased
$180 million.
This funding reduction could be exacerbated if states are allowed
to shift funding out of the new highway infrastructure safety program
to the extent that the number of rail crossing collisions are reduced.
The shifting of safety funds away from safety initiatives should not be
allowed. While safety improvements are somewhat invisible compared to
most capital projects, their impacts are significant and extremely cost
effective.
Finally, ITE opposes NEXTEA provisions that would allow the use of
safety funds for uses beyond those allowed under the existing STP
safety set-aside program. Every transportation project has an element
of safety involved. Current guidelines discourage the use of safety
funding for these normal activities and encourage safety enhancement
activities that might not have been undertaken without the STP safety
set-aside incentive. Using highway safety funds for non-traditional
purposes, such as structural repairs to bridges, may improve the
structural safety of these facilities, but it does not have a direct
bearing on highway safety.
The Institute supports the creative financing provisions in NEXTEA
and notes the efforts that this committee has taken in the past to
promote creative financing proposals. ITE hopes that support will
continue.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers appreciates the
opportunity to submit these comments to the committee as it examines
the funding requirements for reauthorization of the nation's surface
transportation system. While Americans do want streamlined and better
government, they do not want crumbling highways and bridges, broken
down buses, or more accidents. Americans expect that their government
will provide proper levels of investment in capital, operations, and
maintenance programs, as well as encourage and promote ways to expand
existing resources and protect the driving public.
Along with this testimony, the Institute has provided the committee
with copies of ``Recommendations for ISTEA 2.'' This document outlines
in detail all the Institute of Transportation Engineers'
recommendations for reauthorization of the nation's surface
transportation programs. It is provided for the committee's
information, and it is not necessary to be published in the record.
The Institute appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony
to the committee. Questions relating to this testimony should be
directed to Mr. Thomas W. Brahms, Executive Director of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers at 202-554-8050 ext. 111 or to Russell
Houston, ITE's Government Relations Associate at ext. 144.
______
NATSO, Inc.
Prepared Statement of W. Dewey Clower, President and CEO
On behalf of the 1,100 NATSO member travel plazas and truckstops
nationwide, I respectfully request this correspondence be submitted for
the April 10, 1997, hearing record on fiscal year 1998 transportation
appropriations.
During the hearing before your subcommittee, John Collins, Senior
Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations,
testified that there is a nationwide truck parking space shortage. As
the largest provider of truck parking in the country, NATSO believes
our industry's perspective is valuable to any discussion of this issue.
First, there is no nationwide parking shortage. Mr. Collins
testified there is a 28,500-space shortfall, as estimated by a 1996
federally-funded report entitled ``Commercial Driver Rest & Parking
Requirements: Making Space for Safety,'' prepared by the American
Trucking Association's Trucking Research Institute. The report counted
the number of rest area parking spaces available for trucks, but did
not consider even one of the private sector spaces when formulating the
rest area parking demand model.
Using the ``American Trucker's Guide to Truckstops,'' published by
Interstate America, NATSO estimates that truckstops provide nearly
220,000 truck parking spaces nationwide. ATA acknowledges private
truckstops plan to increase their parking by 28,000 spaces over the
next three years. Why should the federal government pay to build these
spaces when the private sector, according to the ATA's own research,
plans to increase parking by that same amount?
There may be parking problems in certain areas of the country,
especially near metropolitan areas, where drivers of all types of
vehicles experience difficulty finding a place to park. Contributing to
this problem is the trucking industry's need for a place to ``stage''
trucks, since many companies require truck drivers to make their
deliveries within a narrow time frame. This practice requires a truck
driver who arrives near his destination (often an urban area) to wait
hours or days before making his delivery. While this may be a dilemma
for the trucking industry, we do not feel it justifies federally funded
parking lots.
Second, no link has been established between truck parking and
fatigue-related accidents. The Trucking Research Institute's study
identified the number of parking spaces available at public rest areas;
it did not study the causes of fatigue-related truck accidents. There
is absolutely no evidence to suggest that parking has any effect
whatsoever on these accidents. In fact, a National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) report (NTSB/SS-95/01) on 113 heavy truck accidents
never once cited a lack of parking as a contributing factor in fatigue-
related accidents. The NTSB's comprehensive list of suggested solutions
does not include increasing truck parking. The NTSB stated that while
they commend efforts such as this truck parking study, ``the Safety
Board believes that the results of this study [the NTSB study] of
actual accidents provides concrete evidence of the measures that affect
fatigue in the accident environment.''
ATA further maintains that public safety is compromised when truck
drivers seek parking along highway shoulders and exit ramps. However,
the report's direct observation of a 200-mile segment of I-81
contradicts this conclusion. The parking study found that Large numbers
of trucks parked illegally on shoulders and ramps of rest areas. This
often occurred before the corridor [I-81] reached capacity and even
when legal parking spaces were available at a rest areas This suggests
there could be convenience-based reasons for a driver choosing to park
on a shoulder at an exit ramp.
Third, the overwhelming majority of truck drivers have no interest
in using public rest areas for anything but a quick nap, so more money
for rest area parking will be a waste of valuable transportation
dollars. Perhaps the most sensible reason for not building more truck
parking is that drivers simply won't use them. The Trucking Research
Institute's rest area study found that 85 percent of drivers prefer
truckstops to meet their long-term rest needs over public rest areas.
Only 15 percent of these drivers expressed a preference to rest or
sleep long-term at public rest areas.
NATSO believes that investing in more truck parking at rest areas
is a colossal waste of money that will do nothing to increase public
safety. In this era of fewer dollars, there are many other projects
that are more deserving of federal funding.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Gorton, Bennett, Lautenberg, and
Byrd.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
STATEMENT OF JAMES EVAN HALL, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
VERNON ELLINGSTADT, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
TOM HAUETER, OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
In 1996 we saw the highest fatality rate for commercial air
passengers in the last 15 years. Two of the worst air crashes
in aviation history occurred. First the ValuJet crash into the
Florida Everglades on May 11 where 110 people were killed, and
then the TWA Flight 800 explosion on July 17, which left 230
dead in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island.
In response to these tragedies the White House Commission
on Aviation Safety and Security, chaired by Vice President
Gore, was chartered in August 1996 to conduct an extensive
inquiry into civil aviation safety, security, and air traffic
control modernization. Twenty commissioners and staff from a
broad range of aviation specialties, Federal agencies, consumer
groups, and the industry, worked to form a set of
recommendations to improve the safety and the security of the
Nation's air transportation system.
The Gore Commission agreed on 53 recommendations in four
areas: One, improving aviation safety; two, making air traffic
control safer and more efficient; three, improving security for
travelers; and four, responding to aviation disasters. About
one-half of the recommendations are solely within the FAA's
area of responsibility. The rest of the Gore Commission's
recommendations are either jointly shared with other
departments which include Defense, Justice, Energy, NASA,
Treasury, or industry. Or these recommendations are tasked to
non-DOT agencies such as the FBI, Postal Service, Customs
Service, or NTSB. Very few of the recommendations require new
legislation.
We are pleased to welcome Mr. Carl Vogt, who with short
notice, has made time in his busy schedule to join us here
today. Mr. Vogt served as Commissioner on the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. From 1992-94 Mr.
Vogt was Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Filling out our first panel we are joined by the current NTSB
Chairman, Mr. Jim Hall. I want to thank you both for being here
today.
Between the two aviation safety experts, I expect that the
first part of today's hearing will provide a clear picture of
the status of safety and security on America's air
transportation system. I hope that both Mr. Vogt and Mr. Hall
will tell the subcommittee what they view as the most pressing
improvements that need to be made.
The second panel is made of Federal Aviation Administration
officials, all of whose jobs relate in some way to ensuring
safety. We will discuss with the six FAA witnesses the
contributions toward improved safety and security that are made
by each of the offices represented. Specifically, we will talk
about how the recommendations of the Gore Commission and the
NTSB's most wanted safety recommendations are being implemented
in each of these offices, how these initiatives affect the way
FAA does its job, and how much it will cost to do that job.
The agency is undergoing many changes, both in its
organization and personnel. Most dramatically, FAA has been
without an Administrator since November 8, 1996. This
committee's job is to make sure that FAA is given the funding
it needs in order to run a sound and effective aviation
management system.
But money alone does not buy good management, nor does
money necessarily buy safety. That takes an organized systemic
approach, with clear goals and benchmarks along the way. It is
the agency's job to show Congress that the funds requested by
the administration will go forward toward this kind of
successful organization.
Safety is an integral part of the jobs of all the panelists
we will hear from today. Mr. Hall is tasked with investigating
the failures of our transportation system and suggesting
measures to improve it. Mr. Vogt most recently served on the
Gore Commission, which was tasked with looking at changing
security threats to air passenger safety, examining changes in
the aviation industry, and looking at the technological changes
coming to air traffic control, with an eye to improving
aviation safety and security.
The FAA offices represented by the panel we will hear from
today deal with safety in complementary and interdependent
ways. If we lack sufficient resource commitment for any of
these offices, airport security, research and acquisition, or
regulation and certification, the entire system is compromised.
All these areas are vital to ensuring the long-term safety of
the system.
This now brings me to user fees. The subcommittee will be
holding a separate hearing on May 7 regarding transportation
infrastructure financing, including the many user fee proposals
contained in the President's fiscal year 1998 DOT budget
request. New FAA user fees are projected to offset $300 million
of the agency's cost of operations. Now, this subcommittee has
had a little experience with FAA user fees, since we included
the $75 million FAA operations user fees in the 1997
transportation appropriations bill for foreign carrier
overflights of U.S. traffic control space. This user fee
requested by the FAA was signed into law September 30, 1996.
According to FAA, the overflight fee will be instituted on
May 19. FAA will not be able to collect anywhere near $75
million in the reigning 4.5 months of fiscal 1996. Now FAA is
asking for the authority to collect $300 million in new user
fees. What are these fees? We do not know. We will not know
until later this summer at the earliest, if the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission completes a draft proposal for long-
term financing of FAA operations and modernization by that
time.
These new fees would then be subject to authorization. At
what point during fiscal year 1998 will these fees be
authorized and instituted by the FAA? How much of the $300
million projected will the agency actually be able to collect?
And I will not even mention that the administration's 5-year
budget plan suggests by the year 2002 FAA will completely fund
its entire $8 billion-plus budget from user fees. As chairman
of this subcommittee I will be taking a long, hard look at the
FAA's budget request to ensure that important safety
initiatives and the funds to implement these initiatives are
included in that budget in a systematic and logical way.
Prepared Statement
I look forward to hearing your testimony, and having a
frank and candid exchange of views here. We must always keep in
mind, I believe, that the aim of every witness and member
present today is ensuring the very highest level of safety and
security for the American citizen traveling by air.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Shelby
Good morning. This hearing will now come to order.
In 1996, we saw the highest fatality rate for commercial
air passengers in the last fifteen years. Two of the worst air
crashes in aviation history occurred--first, the ValuJet crash
into the Florida Everglades on May 11, where 110 people were
killed, and then the TWA flight 800 explosion on July 17, which
left 230 dead in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. In
response to these tragedies, the White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security, chaired by Vice President Gore,
was chartered in August 1996 to conduct an extensive inquiry
into civil aviation safety, security, and air traffic control
modernization. Twenty commissioners and staff from a broad
range of aviation specialties, federal agencies, consumer
groups, and industry worked to form a set of recommendations to
improve the safety and security of the nation's air
transportation system. The Gore Commission agreed on 53
recommendations, in four areas: (1) improving aviation safety;
(2) making air traffic control safer and more efficient; (3)
improving security for travelers; and (4) responding to
aviation disasters.
About half the recommendations are solely within the FAA's
area of responsibility. The rest of the Gore Commission's
recommendations are either jointly shared with other
departments (Defense, Justice, Energy, NASA, and Treasury) or
industry; or are tasked to non-DOT agencies, such as the FBI,
Postal Service, Customs Service, or NTSB. Very few of the
recommendations require new legislation.
We are pleased to welcome Mr. Carl Vogt, who has made time
in a busy schedule on short notice to join us here today. Mr.
Vogt served as a Commissioner on the White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security. From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Vogt was
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Filling
out our first panel, we are joined by the current NTSB
Chairman, Mr. Jim Hall. Thank you both for being here today.
Between these two aviation safety experts, I expect that the
first part of today's hearing will provide a clear picture of
the status of safety and security on America's air
transportation system; and that both Mr. Vogt and Mr. Hall will
tell the subcommittee what they view as the most pressing
improvements that need to be made.
The second panel is made up of Federal Aviation
Administration officials, all of whose jobs relate in some way
to ensuring safety. We will discuss with the six FAA witnesses
the contributions toward improved safety and security that are
made by each of the offices represented. Specifically, we will
talk about how the recommendations of the Gore Commission and
the NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' safety recommendations are being
implemented in each of these offices; how these initiatives
affect the way FAA does its job; and, how much it will cost to
do that job.
The agency is undergoing many changes, both in its
organization and personnel. Most dramatically, FAA has been
without an administrator since November 8, 1996.
This Committee's job is to make sure that FAA is given the
funding it needs to run a sound and effective aviation
management system. But money alone doesn't buy good management,
nor does money necessarily buy safety. That takes an organized,
systemic approach, with clear goals and benchmarks along the
way. It is the agency's job to show Congress that the funds
requested by the administration will go toward this kind of
successful organization.
Safety is an integral part of the jobs of all the panelists
we will hear from today. Mr. Hall is tasked with investigating
the failures of our transportation system and suggesting
measures to improve it. Mr. Vogt most recently served on the
Gore Commission, which was tasked with looking at changing
security threats to air passenger safety, examining changes in
the aviation industry, and looking at the technological changes
coming to air traffic control, with an eye to improving
aviation safety and security.
The FAA offices represented by the panel we will hear from
today deal with safety in complementary and interdependent
ways. If we lack sufficient resource commitment for any one of
these offices--airports, security, research and acquisition, or
regulation and certification--the entire system is compromised.
All these areas are vital to ensuring the long-term safety of
the system.
Which brings me to user fees. The subcommittee will be
holding a separate hearing on May 7th regarding transportation
infrastructure financing, including the many user fee proposals
contained in the President's fiscal year 1998 DOT budget
request. New FAA user fees are projected to offset $300 million
of the agency's cost of operations. Now, this subcommittee has
had a little experience with FAA user fees, since we included a
$75 million FAA operations user fee in the fiscal year 1997
transportation appropriations bill for foreign carrier
overflights of U.S. air traffic controlled space. This one user
fee, requested by the FAA, was signed into law September 30,
1996. According to the FAA, the overflights fee will be
instituted on May 19, 1997. FAA won't be able to collect
anywhere near $75 million in the remaining four and a half
months of fiscal 1997.
Now, FAA is asking for the authority to collect $300
million in new user fees. What are these fees? We won't know
until later this summer at the earliest, if the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission completes a draft proposal for long-
term financing of FAA operations and modernization by that
time. These new fees would then be subject to authorization. At
what point during fiscal year 1998 will these fees be
authorized and instituted by the FAA? How much of the $300
million projected will the agency actually be able to collect?
And I won't even mention that the administration's 5-year
budget plan suggests that by the year 2002, FAA will completely
fund its entire $8 billion plus budget from user fees.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I will be taking a long,
hard look at FAA's budget request, to ensure that important
safety initiatives--and the funds to implement these
initiatives--are included in that budget in a systematic and
logical way. I look forward to hearing your testimony, and
having a frank and candid exchange of ideas. We must always
keep in mind the aim of every witness and member present here
today--ensuring the very highest level of safety and security
for the American citizens traveling by air.
Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening statement you'd
like to make?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I commend you for getting this subcommittee hearing going,
because a primary subject for us and the entire country has to
be our progress in aviation safety. And this is an oversight
responsibility that is important and worth the subcommittee's
time and effort.
The Federal Aviation Administration has provided us with
the safest air transport system in the world. But there are
still, as we say, holes in the safety net. The tragic, highly
publicized aviation accidents of the last year sparked
considered scrutiny by the administration, Congress, industry,
and academia on how FAA does business and the steps necessary
to strengthen the safety net.
The FAA concluded a 90-day safety review following the
ValuJet crash, which was supplemented by reports from the GAO,
the inspector general, Coopers & Lybrand, and the National
Transportation Safety Board, among others. In wake of the TWA
800 tragedy, Vice President Gore's Aviation Safety and Security
Commission provided further momentum for aviation safety
enhancements. And I was very supportive of the Commission's
mandate, and pleased that the President accepted every one of
the recommendations of the Gore Commission.
Since serving on the Aviation Security Commission after Pan
Am 103, I have sought to ensure that adequate attention and
funding were focused on aviation security. Unfortunately, it
took the tragedy of TWA 800 to once again bring these concerns
to the forefront. Between the recommendations of the NTSB, the
Gore Commission, the Administrator's 90-day safety review
panel, and other studies, we are knee-deep in suggestions on
how to improve our aviation system. And this subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, has been aggressive in following up.
Even after we completed action on the fiscal year 1997
transportation appropriations bill last year, this subcommittee
added more than $225 million to the CR, to the continuing
resolution, to fund recommended enhancements for aviation
safety and security. This funding provided for additional
inspectors, explosives detection equipment, aviation security
specialists, and individual airport threat assessment. It was
added on top of increased funding in the regular appropriations
bill for additional air traffic controllers.
Mr. Chairman, the FAA has been given significant resources
to enhance safety, and it is now up to the FAA and the industry
to implement improvements in the shortest possible time. In
this regard, I am disappointed that FAA is still without
permanent leadership, either at the Administrator or Deputy
Administrator level. And I want to add that those folks, Mr.
Valentine and others, who are filling in at these posts are
doing an excellent job. The question is what do we do in terms
of fulfilling our long-term policy commitment to aviation
safety and development of this very important department? I
hope that the President will act expeditiously to select
nominees, get them to the Hill as soon as possible.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you also for having
Mr. Hall and Mr. Vogt here. These are two very experienced
people, and we are pleased to see them as witnesses.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
statement.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg.
Thank you for convening this very important hearing on the
safety of our aviation system. In West Virginia we have always
faced natural challenges in maintaining the highest levels of
safety, challenges such as unpredictable weather, where fog and
freezing rain can roll in taking a pilot's visibility down to
zero with little or no warning. We face the natural challenges
posed by our mountainous terrain. In order to build one of the
principal airports in our State we were required to level off
several mountains and dump the earth into the adjacent valleys,
simply to create a sufficient stretch of land for the runway.
But these natural challenges to safety may have been
exacerbated over the last decade or so by the changes in the
quality and the mix of aviation services in my State. Over the
last 10 years the Nation has seen air passenger traffic
increase almost 50 percent. When one looks at the components of
this increase, one will see that emplanements on major
airliners have gone up roughly 39 percent, while emplanements
on commuter aircraft has grown by over 150 percent.
Over the last 10 years, total emplanements in West Virginia
have actually declined over 6 percent, and this decrease is
comprised of an almost 50 percent cut in the number of
passengers traveling on larger airplanes, while the number of
passengers required to fly on smaller commuter aircraft has
grown by over 100 percent.
Looked at in another way, the forces of the market in an
unregulated aviation industry have resulted in my constituents
being increasingly relegated to smaller commuter aircraft. And
it is for that reason that I was pleased with the initiative of
the Clinton administration to finally require one level of
safety on the part of all passenger aircraft. I doubt that the
average passenger on a 20-seat commuter aircraft appreciated
the fact that that aircraft was being held to a lesser standard
of safety by the FAA than the standard applying to a larger
aircraft, perhaps 37-seat aircraft.
The FAA's requirement for a single level of safety was
implemented in the wake of some notable commuter aircraft
accidents. When the initiative was announced at the end of
1995, the commuter aircraft industry was given a period of time
to come into full compliance with the more stringent safety
standard. The deadline for full compliance by the commuter
airline came less than a month ago. So now is the time to ask
our Federal officials whether we have seen the full benefits of
one level of safety, whether we have seen a lesser number of
incidents and accidents involving commuter aircraft. Perhaps we
have not had enough time pass.
Based on the FAA's own assessment of its deficiencies
issued in the wake of the ValuJet tragedy, I think it is
appropriate to ask whether our inspection system is adequate to
determine whether all commuter operators are indeed in full
compliance. Are the FAA's inspections of these aircraft
diligent and thorough, or do they take the form of just another
paperwork exercise that masks the true problem? Is the safety
oversight of the commuter industry within the FAA adequately
financed?
When we speak of the importance that critical spending by
the FAA is within our budget, many individuals talk of the
investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in new high
technology air traffic control equipment or the construction or
expansion of airports like Denver International and Dallas-Fort
Worth. When I talk of critical aviation spending, I am talking
about inspectors, weather forecasting capabilities, and small
capital improvements at airports with names like Greenbriar
Valley, Wood County, Beckley, Bluefield-Princeton, Elkins,
Clarksburg, Huntington, and Morgantown, and so I am especially
glad that we will hear testimony this morning from the chairman
of the National Transportation Safety Board, Mr. Jim Hall.
The Safety Board is charged with evaluating the FAA's
performance and regulations with single criterion in mind--
safety. So I look forward to hearing his views on the safety of
the commuter aviation industry, as well as the views of our
representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration this
morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF JAMES EVAN HALL
Mr. Hall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg,
Senator Bennett, Senator Byrd. It is a pleasure to have the
opportunity to appear before you today. Joining me in the
audience are two individuals from the Safety Board, Dr. Vernon
Ellingstadt, who is the head of our Office of Research and
Engineering, and Mr. Tom Haueter, who is Deputy of our Office
of Aviation Safety. I may ask them to join me at the table if I
find that they can provide a more complete answer than I can to
any of the questions that the committee may present.
Senator, let me say how much I have appreciated working
with the staff of this committee, particularly since TWA 800,
on the very difficult situation regarding extraordinary costs
associated with that accident. Your staff has been most
cooperative, and most interested in this investigation, and I
would like to extend to the members of this committee an
invitation for any of you that would choose to do so to please
come to Calverton and visit the reconstruction that is
presently underway. We would be glad to make that arrangement
at any time.
It goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that last year, as
you referred, was dominated by catastrophic transportation
accidents that have required extraordinary efforts by the
Safety Board and have strained the agency's resources more than
any time in history. I just might add that in addition to the
high-profile aviation accidents that the committee is probably
well familiar with, we had a number of major transportation
accidents in rail, marine, and pipeline last year, as well.
The TWA Flight 800 investigation has been the Safety
Board's most costly and complex in terms of dollars spent for
wreckage search and recovery and the level of investigative
staff work. Mr. Chairman, the TWA investigation, I believe,
provides dramatic testimony to the wisdom of Congress 30 years
ago when it established a multidisciplined, independent
accident investigation agency which was initially affiliated
with the Department of Transportation with the mission to
promote transportation safety by conducting independent
accident investigations and by formulating safety improvement
recommendations. And of course, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman,
we were made totally independent from the Department of
Transportation under the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974.
The independence of the Safety Board and its clear mandate
to conduct indepth objective investigations, draw conclusions
from its findings, and make recommendations to improve safety
without bias or undue influence from industry or other
Government agencies is essential to maintaining the safety of
the American traveling public. It is not unusual for the Safety
Board to address safety issues that are controversial or that
may be critical of Government or industry standards or
operations. Since the Safety Board started investigating
accidents it has made more than 10,000 safety recommendations
to prevent accidents, save lives, and reduce injuries. While
every recommendation from the Board is developed to help
improve safety and prevent accidents, some have a greater
potential to save lives than others.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the
NTSB to formulate recommendations to those parties that can
effect improvements in transportation safety. But it is a
responsibility of the FAA and other agencies to determine how
best to implement those changes. In the last 5 years the FAA
has adopted 84 percent of our recommendations. We harbor no
illusions that the FAA should adopt all of our recommendations,
nor do we seek to have our recommendations mandatory. Frankly,
Mr. Chairman, if the FAA adopted all of our recommendations,
then we would not be asking for enough.
There are bound to be some areas where the regulatory
agency honestly believes that a recommended change is not cost
effective. Remember, the FAA must conduct cost-benefit analysis
of any proposed changes, or that a better alternative can be
found. That is not to say that we do not strongly disagree with
some of their actions or inaction, and that, of course, is what
the most wanted list is designed to at least partially address.
I would like to point out, by the way, that the Gore Commission
on which I was proud to serve recommended that cost benefit
analysis, while useful, should not be the driving force in
determining the value of proposed safety improvements.
Most Wanted
In order to identify those recommendations with the
greatest potential to improve transportation safety that have
not yet been acted on, the Board adopted its most wanted
program. Recommendations added to that list will receive more
intensive followup activity in order to encourage Government
agencies and industry to act on the recommendations as quickly
as possible.
Currently on the Safety Board's most wanted list are five
aviation-related issues that include: First, requiring the
installation of expanded flight data recorders with an
increased number of parameters; second, installing airport
runway incursion avoidance systems; third, reviewing safe
separation distances between larger and smaller following
aircraft; fourth, installing Mode C instrument alert systems
for airport terminals; and fifth, sharing pilot background
information between airlines. All of these recommendations are
the fruits of years of research by investigators of the NTSB,
an Agency that makes its mark felt to a far greater degree than
its size. I never hesitate to point out that we are just 360
employees. At a cost of just 15 cents a citizen I think the
Safety Board is one of the best buys in Government.
TWA Flight 800
As I mentioned to you, the investigation of TWA Flight 800
is the most extensive and costly in the Safety Board's history,
and I might ask if Paul could show a couple of charts for the
committee while I continue my testimony.
On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 tragically crashed into
the Atlantic off the coast of Long Island. Wreckage was located
at a depth of over 120 feet, and the thousands of pieces were
spread over 5 square miles. Based on the condition of the
wreckage from the center forward section of the plane,
including the center wing tank, our investigators have
determined that a fuel air explosion took place. The origin of
that explosion is not known. However, with over 90 percent of
the plane recovered, there is no physical evidence of a bomb or
a missile.
Based on the examination of the wreckage and other
evidence, on December 13, 1996, the Safety Board issued four
safety recommendations to the FAA aimed at reducing the
flammability of the ullage in the airliner's center wing tanks,
with specific emphasis on the Boeing 747 center wing tank.
Supplemental Request
Mr. Chairman, let me briefly address some financial issues
that are important to the Safety Board. As you know, the 1997
enacted appropriation level for the Safety Board is $42.4
million and 370 FTE's. Not included in this amount is the $6
million supplemental earmarked primarily for reimbursement to
the U.S. Navy for TWA Flight 800 recovery costs. In the spring
of 1997, we requested an additional TWA 800-related
supplemental of $23.2 million. This would have covered
investigative expenditures through the end of the fiscal year,
as well as allowing us to start our family assistance efforts.
OMB approved $20.2 million.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, this is not a budget hearing, but
I do want a chance to make our case. Our $1 million emergency
fund is used to pay for extraordinary recovery and
investigative tasks. OMB has approved expanding the fund next
year to $2 million. The simple truth is this fund does not
begin to cover the extraordinary costs of our investigations.
Aircraft tragedy investigative costs are usually borne by
both the Federal Government and the carrier through its
insurance underwriters. If the aircraft crashes on the land,
the carrier is generally responsible for wreckage recovery and
removal. If we deem that the wreckage is vital to our
investigation we see that the critical parts or all of the
wreckage are removed to a secure sight for examination. In
general, payment for this is made by the insurance
underwriters.
In accidents occurring over water or where the probable
cause may be criminal in nature, the responsibilities are not
so clear. For example, in the TWA Flight 800 investigation I
asked for the early financial participation of the carrier,
manufacturers, and engine suppliers. All of them declined. The
Federal Government has, in fact, borne all of the extraordinary
costs in this investigation outside of the party's
participation.
I would also be remiss if I did not finally mention the
outstanding work of the State and of local authorities and
agencies at the accident scenes. In New York, Florida, and in
Michigan, costs have been incurred because of the accidents
that are currently being borne by the States and localities.
They are not insignificant, and I believe that a system or
process needs to be put in place to address the legitimate
local costs associated with aircraft disasters.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I will be
glad to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We have your complete
statement, and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Evan Hall
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a
pleasure to be here today to represent the National Transportation
Safety Board.
It goes without saying that the past year was dominated by
catastrophic transportation accidents that have required extraordinary
efforts by the Safety Board and have strained the agency's resources
more than any time in its history. It is well established that the TWA
flight 800 Boeing 747 investigation has been the most costly and
complex in the Safety Board's history, in terms of dollars spent for
wreckage search and recovery, and the level of investigative staff
work.
Moreover, as a multi-modal agency, the Safety Board has an
important responsibility for the investigation of surface
transportation accidents. Our workload in that area has also been
unprecedented in the past year. Many of our laboratory specialists
support our multi-modal mission. For example, the metallurgists working
on TWA flight 800 are also working on surface accidents. Also, one of
our key engineers responsible for surface transportation vehicle
performance has been assigned full time for several weeks to supervise
the 3-dimensional mockup of the TWA flight 800 wreckage.
Mr. Chairman, the TWA investigation provides dramatic testimony to
the wisdom of Congress 30 years ago when it established a multi-
discipline, independent accident investigation agency, initially
affiliated with the Department of Transportation, ``to promote
transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations
and by formulating safety improvement recommendations.'` However,
because the Congress recognized the need to make it totally independent
from the Department of Transportation, the ``Independent Safety Board
Act of 1974'' was passed.
The independence of the Safety Board and its clear mandate to
conduct in depth objective investigation, draw conclusions from its
findings, and to make recommendations to improve safety, without bias
or undue influence from industry or other government agencies is
essential to maintaining the safety of the American traveling public.
It is not unusual for the Safety Board to address safety issues that
are controversial or that may be critical of government or industry
standards or operations.
The Safety Board is charged by Congress with investigating or
causing to be investigated all civil aviation accidents in the U.S. In
1994, the Safety Board's authority was expanded to investigate
government-operated aircraft as well, except those operating in
military or intelligence missions. In addition, the Safety Board
provides the U.S. Accredited Representatives to overseas investigations
involving U.S.-registered, -certified, or -operated aircraft, and
aircraft whose airframes, engines, and major components were
manufactured in the U.S.
Since the Safety Board began investigating accidents, it has made
more than 10,000 safety recommendations to prevent accidents, save
lives, and reduce injuries. While every recommendation from the Board
is developed to help improve safety and prevent accidents, some have a
greater potential to save lives than others.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the NTSB to
formulate recommendations to those parties that can effect improvements
in transportation safety, but it is the responsibility of agencies like
the FAA to determine how best to implement those changes. In the last 5
years, the FAA has adopted 84 percent of our recommendations.
We harbor no illusions that the FAA should adopt ALL of our
recommendations, nor do we seek to have our recommendations mandatory.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if the FAA adopted all of our recommendations,
then we would not be asking for enough. There are bound to be some
areas where the regulatory agency honestly believes that a recommended
change is not cost-effective--remember, the FAA must conduct cost-
benefit analyses of any proposed changes--or that a better alternative
can be found. This is not to say that we don't strongly disagree with
some of their actions, or inaction, and that is what the ``Most
Wanted'' list is designed to at least partially address.
In order to identify those recommendations with the greatest
potential to improve transportation safety that have not yet been acted
on, the Safety Board in 1990 adopted a ``Most Wanted'' program.
Recommendations placed on the program list will receive more intensive
follow-up activity in order to encourage government agencies and
industry to act on the recommendations as quickly as possible.
To be considered for the ``Most Wanted'' list, a recommendation
must affect transportation safety on a national level, concern a safety
issue of high visibility, or be of great interest to the public. Also
considered is the previous loss of life or property as well as the
potential for future losses, and the extent of the exposure of the
public to risk by the safety problem. Previous action taken by the
recipient is also taken into consideration.
Currently on the Safety Board's ``Most Wanted'' list are five
aviation-related issues that include:
1. The requiring of the installation of expanded flight data
recorders with an increased number of parameters.
2. The installation of airport runway incursion avoidance systems.
3. The review of safe separation distances between larger and
smaller following aircraft.
4. The installation of mode C instrument alert systems for airport
terminal areas.
5. The sharing of pilot background information between airlines.
Last year the Congress acted on the issue of pilot record sharing
and the Safety Board will consider removing this issue from the ``Most
Wanted'' list. Unfortunately the remaining four issues will remain. I
would like to address two of these issues in more detail.
Flight Data Recorders.--Although not a new issue on the ``Most
Wanted'' list, I would like to discuss the importance of enhanced
flight data recorders (FDR). Almost two years have passed since the
Safety Board issued its recommendations for enhanced FDR's, and the FAA
has failed to enact any rulemaking on this important safety issue.
On July 16, 1996, the FAA issued the NPRM on enhanced FDR's, with a
30-day comment period. NTSB comments on the rule were generally
favorable. However, the NPRM would not require FDR retrofits to begin
for at least another two years. Further, no action was taken on the
Board's urgent recommendation to expedite the retrofit of Boeing 737
airplanes.
We are aware that a rulemaking package was forwarded to the Office
of the Secretary of Transportation on February 7, 1997. However, the
DOT and Office of Management and Budget review process has been
lengthy. How much longer must we wait before action is taken?
We believe that expanded flight data recorders are critical to
accident and incident investigations. United Flight 585, which crashed
in 1991 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, had a 5-parameter recorder and
USAir 427, which crashed in 1994, had only 11 parameters. Vital
information for investigators was simply unavailable and that is
unacceptable.
Runway Incursions.--On March 25, 1997, a Gulfstream G-2 corporate
airplane was cleared to land on runway 31 at LaGuardia Airport. About
the time the G-2 was touching down on the runway, the tower controller
advised its pilot to go-around. The G-2 was unable to execute a missed
approach and it collided with an airport maintenance truck. The same
tower controller had cleared the vehicle operator onto runway 31 about
40 minutes before the G-2 was cleared to land. The truck driver, his
assistant, and the two G-2 pilots were not injured although the
airplane and vehicle were substantially damaged.
Mr. Chairman, the circumstances of this accident could very easily
have involved a commercial air carrier resulting in multiple
fatalities. Although our investigation continues, we have learned that
the controller, who cleared the maintenance truck and the incoming
airplane, simply ``forgot'' about the truck he had approved out onto
the runway.
Forgetting is a human factor routinely found in operational errors
by air traffic controllers that cause incidents virtually every day in
our nation's air traffic system. This type of human error has also been
identified in past accidents. For example, on February 1, 1991, a USAir
Boeing 737 collided with a Skywest Metroliner at the Los Angeles
International Airport, killing 34 passengers and crew. This accident
occurred, in part, because the air traffic controller cleared the USAir
airplane to land about 3 minutes after she had cleared the Skywest
airplane onto the same runway to hold for departure. She ``forgot'' the
Skywest flight.
And I regret to say that operational errors and runway incursions
have been increasing. Operational errors in the terminal environment
have increased 14 percent from 1995 to 1996. Similarly, runway
incursions have increased 19 percent from 1995 to 1996. These trends
raise concerns about the progress being made by the FAA in addressing
the risks associated with the potential for ground collisions.
Following several accidents and Safety Board recommendations, in
1991, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established a Runway
Incursion Action Plan to reduce surface errors at the nation's more
than 570 airports. This plan was revised in 1995. The action plan
focuses on reducing human error, improving ground communications, and
developing and implementing technologies to increase airport surface
guidance and surveillance, as well as improved ground traffic
management procedures and equipment. One of the more important
components of the FAA's efforts is the Airport Movement Area Safety
System (AMASS).
AMASS, which is a system integrated into the new ASDE-3 ground
radar system, automatically tracks all operations, compares each
vehicle and aircraft movement, and provides visual and audio alerts of
potential conflicts. This is a ``real time'' system for preventing
runway accidents in a dynamic airport environment. AMASS would have
provided the means to prevent accidents similar to the ground
collisions that occurred February 1, 1991, at Los Angeles, November 22,
1994, at Bridgeton, Missouri, and March 25, 1997, at LaGuardia.
Unfortunately, except for a prototype at San Francisco International
Airport that is operating with a limited capability, AMASS
installations are not yet in place.
In a February 28, 1995, safety recommendation letter to the FAA,
the Safety Board expressed its concerns about delays in AMASS
installations. In that letter we cited FAA testimony before Congress on
March 6, 1990, in which the FAA stated that it had entered a contract
for design and manufacture of AMASS that would be ``fast tracked'' with
the project operational in 1992. In the February 28, 1995, letter, the
Safety Board expressed its concerns that ``. . . this important project
[AMASS] has been effectively paralyzed as a result of a succession of
changes. . . .''
The latest information published by the FAA on the status of AMASS
is not encouraging. The prototype testing in San Francisco has been
ongoing since May 1996. Under a contract awarded in June 1996, three
full-scale AMASS systems are due to be installed in Detroit (September
1997), St. Louis (November 1997), and Atlanta (February 1998). Another
20 systems that are currently in initial production are scheduled to be
delivered for installation between July 1998 and July 1999. There are
options for 16 more AMASS systems; however, the funding is not
available at present. We believe these are two important safety issues
that must be addressed by the FAA.
twa flight 800 investigation
On July 17, 1996, TWA flight 800 tragically crashed into the
Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York, killing all 230 people on
board. The aircraft wreckage in this accident was ten miles off the
coast at a depth of 120 feet, making this investigation anything but
typical.
To ensure the safety of the divers and to identify the location of
the wreckage, the area had to be thoroughly mapped before the full-
scale underwater recovery effort could begin. Heavy wreckage was not
lifted from the ocean floor until early August. By the end of October,
the divers had cleared the debris fields of all large pieces of
wreckage. On November 3, scallop trawlers were brought in to drag the
ocean floor. To date, an area of over 28 square miles has been trawled,
with some areas having been gone over in excess of 20 times. A second
pass is being made over the entire area: trawling will continue until
substantial amounts of wreckage are no longer being recovered.
Based on the condition of the wreckage from the center forward
section of the airplane and that surrounding the center wing tank, the
investigators were particularly interested in this area and have
created 3-dimensional mockups of this section. Three sets of
scaffolding were erected on which this section of airplane was
reassembled in order to give the investigators a better picture of what
occurred. The fuselage surrounding the center wing tank was on one, the
top and sides of the center wing tank on another, and the floor center
wing tank was on the third. Following these initial efforts, it was
decided to construct a full scale 3-dimensional mockup of a major
portion of the airplane, including the fuselage skin. The mockup being
constructed with the assistance of contractors to the Safety Board will
be about 92 feet long, the largest in the world ever constructed. That
work has been essentially completed.
It is apparent that an explosion occurred in the center wing tank,
but the origin of the explosion is not yet known. To date, with over 90
percent of the airplane recovered, there is no physical evidence of a
bomb or missile strike.
Based on the examination of the wreckage and other evidence, on
December 13, 1996, the Safety Board issued four safety recommendations
to the FAA aimed at reducing the flammability of the ullage in airliner
center wing tanks, with specific emphasis on the Boeing 747 center wing
tank. The recommendations urged the FAA to:
Require the development of and implementation of design or
operational changes that will preclude the operation of transport-
category airplanes with explosive fuel-air mixtures in the fuel tanks:
(a) Significant consideration should be given to the development of
airplane design modifications, such as nitrogen-inerting systems and
the addition of insulation between heat-generating equipment and fuel
tanks. Appropriate modifications should apply to newly certificated
airplanes and, where feasible, to existing airplanes. (A-96-174)
(b) Pending implementation of design modifications, require
modifications in operational procedures to reduce the potential for
explosive fuel-air moisture in the fuel tanks of transport-category
aircraft. In the B-747, consideration should be given to refueling the
center wing fuel tank (COOT) before flight whenever possible from
cooler ground fuel tanks, proper monitoring and management of the CWT
fuel temperature, and maintaining an appropriate minimum fuel quantity
in the CWT. (A-96-175)
Require that the B-747 Flight Handbooks of TWA and other operators
of B-747's and other aircraft in which fuel tank temperature cannot be
determined by flightcrews be immediately revised to reflect the
increases in CWT fuel temperatures found by flight tests, including
operational procedures to reduce the potential for exceeding CWT
temperature limitations. (A-96-176)
Require modification of the CWT of B-747 airplanes and the fuel
tanks of other airplanes that are located near heat sources to
incorporate temperature probes and cockpit fuel tank temperature
displays to permit determination of fuel tank temperatures. (A-96-177)
The FAA responded to these recommendations on February 18, 1997. In
general, the FAA's response stated that the recommendations propose
major changes in the requirements for fuel tank design and fuel
management of transport-category airplanes. The FAA stated, ``the
airworthiness standards of 14 CFR Part 25 assume that fuel vapor is
flammable, and the design requirements dictate the elimination of
ignition sources within the fuel tanks.''
Because the FAA considered the control of flammability
characteristics of fuel vapor in airplane fuel tanks as a ``major
change in design concept'', it elected to evaluate the safety
recommendations by means of soliciting information about the
effectiveness and practicality of implementing the recommendations. The
FAA stated that it would publish a public notice in the Federal
Register within 30 days.
The September 8, 1994 accident involving USAir flight 427 near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which killed all 132 people on board,
continues to be one of our most complex investigations. It has been one
of the most far-reaching investigations in the history of the Safety
Board, with NTSB investigators and party participants working
continually over 2\1/2\ years to try to understand the very complex
circumstances of this tragic event. The investigation has involved tens
of thousands of staff hours and numerous flight tests, resulting in 20
safety recommendations.
The Safety Board is aware that Boeing is actively engaged in a
redesign of the main rudder power control unit for the existing Boeing
737 series at an estimated cost to Boeing of $120 million to $140
million. In January 1997, Boeing and the FAA announced that the primary
and secondary slides of the PCU servo control valve would be redesigned
to preclude the potential for reverse rudder operation. The FAA plans
to issue an airworthiness directive (AD) that would require the Boeing
737 fleet to be retrofitted with the new valve within two years.
We are encouraged by Boeing's commitment to move forward. We are
concerned, however, that there may be a delay by the Federal Aviation
Administration in issuing a final rule, or that the final rule might
allow more than 2 years for operators to complete the installation of
the new servo control valve. On February 20, 1997, the Safety Board
issued three additional safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation
Administration regarding the Boeing 737 aircraft. Those recommendations
state:
Require the expeditions installation of a redesigned main rudder
power control unit on Boeing 737 airplanes to preclude reverse
operation of the rudder and to ensure that the airplanes comply with
the intent of the certification requirements. (A-97-16)
Advise Boeing 737 pilots of the potential hazard for a jammed
secondary servo control valve slide in the main rudder power control
unit to cause a reverse rudder response when a full or high-rate input
is applied to the rudder pedals. (A-97-17)
Require the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group to develop operational
procedures for Boeing 737 flightcrews that effectively deal with a
sudden uncommanded movement of the rudder to the limit of its travel
for any given flight condition in the airplane's operational envelope,
including specific initial and periodic training in the recognition of
and recovery from unusual attitudes and upsets caused by reverse rudder
response. Once the procedures are developed, require Boeing 737
operators to provide this training to their pilots. (A-97-18)
This investigation continues, and I am proud of the dedication of
the investigative team. I believe these recommendations reflect, in
part, the progress we are making. Safety Board staff hopes to have a
final report regarding this accident before the Board for consideration
this year. We will, of course, keep the Committee advised of
developments.
I want to turn now to what has become a new responsibility for the
Safety Board, assistance to family members of victims of air disasters.
Since the dawn of commercial aviation, the unpleasant duty of
notifying next of kin after airline accidents has fallen upon the
airline involved in the accident and that carrier often made
arrangements for the transportation of family members to a location
near the accident site and for the return of victims remains.
Whether or not this modus operandi was ever adequate to address the
needs of victims' family members, it is clear that the way things used
to be done is not adequate today. The world has changed and all of us
involved in the events following major airline accidents have to change
with it. The combination of a litigious society, expanded and
aggressive 24-hour news coverage, and perhaps a mistrust of authority
all have contributed to this new environment.
In September 1996, President Clinton issued a directive naming the
Safety Board as the coordinator of federal services to families of
victims of transportation accidents, and in October he signed
legislation that gives us that responsibility for aviation disasters.
The Safety Board did not seek this responsibility; in fact, I had hoped
that it could be handled without federal intervention. But the
families, the President and the Congress have entrusted us with these
responsibilities and we will do the job.
Under this new authority:
--The Safety Board will coordinate the provisions of federal services
to the families of victims
--These could include, but are not limited to, providing speedy and
accurate information about the accident and recovery efforts,
ensuring the families who wish to travel to the accident site
receive all necessary assistance, and arranging opportunities
for counseling and other support.
--The Safety Board will work with State and local authorities and
with private relief organizations to ensure appropriate
coordination of the services they provide with those of the
Federal Government.
--The following federal agencies will cooperate fully with the Safety
Board in these efforts; the Department of State, Defense,
Justice, Health and Human Services, Transportation and FEMA.
Another provision of the Act calls on the Secretary of
Transportation to appoint a task force composed of family members and
representatives of government and private relief agencies. This task
force will have quite a full plate before it. It is charged with
developing a model plan to assist airlines in responding to aircraft
accidents. The first meeting of the task force is scheduled for the end
of this month.
Let me describe two recent experiences since passage of the Family
Assistance Act. On November 19, 1996, a United Express Beech 1900C
collided with a King Air at intersecting runways in Quincy, Illinois.
All 14 persons on both aircraft died in the accident.
Although this was a relatively low-fatality accident as major
airline disasters go, it still had a significant impact on local
resources and facilities. The coroner had no medical expertise, and no
facilities or staff at his disposal. Under an agreement with the
Department of Health and Human Services, we arranged for a mobile
morgue that was fully equipped, supplied, and staffed. This service was
set up inside the airport's vacant firehouse, and served as the
mortuary.
Despite the fact that all 14 victims were badly burned, they all
were identified and returned to their families within four days. This
would not have been possible had local resources not been augmented.
Although most families did not come to the scene, those who did
were taken to the accident site on the second full day. The city
provided us with police escorted transportation for the family members.
The families who were on scene were briefed by Safety Board and our
Investigator In-Charge. Those family members who did not travel to
Quincy were briefed by staff members by phone.
On January 9, 1997, a Comair EMB-120, a Brasilia, crashed on
approach to Detroit, killing all 29 persons aboard. In this instance,
nearly all families came to the scene. The Michigan State Police took
care of security at the accident site, at the morgue, and at the hotel
where the family members were staying.
The identification of victims began on the second full day
following the accident--Saturday--and continued through Wednesday. All
29 victims were identified. This was an extremely difficult task
because of the severe fragmentation of the remains and the extreme cold
temperatures in the days following the accident (wind chills for many
days after the accident were well below zero). A team of 125 people
worked in the ad hoc morgue set up in a hangar for 20 hours a day. The
mobile morgue was flown in the morning after the accident. Personal
effects were recovered by teams of volunteers. The local Mental Health
office provided counseling for family members and for rescue personnel.
What we have seen in these two accidents has been evident in many
accidents in the past. Local jurisdictions are not prepared for the
consequences of a once-in-a-lifetime event like a major airliner crash.
This is no criticism of them. You cannot build an infrastructure to be
prepared for such a rare event; it would deprive communities of
resources needed elsewhere for more pressing community needs.
The Monroe County crash of the Comair commuter in January brought
that county its highest death toll in a single event in more than 150
years. Any individual airline might go decades between fatal accidents;
it is difficult for them, too, to be completely prepared for such an
event.
The Safety Board deals with many major accidents every year. And
we've been doing this for 30 years. That is why we were placed in
charge of coordinating government services to the families, and that is
why we are optimistic that once we have agreements in place with the
many government and private agencies that can provide needed services,
and once we have this program funded, we can fulfill the obligations
given us by the American people though legislative directive.
I can say that both of the recent accidents taught us lessons, but
they also demonstrated the benefits of our involvement; many who have
participated in previous incidents commented on how far things had come
and how much better off families were under this more-organized on-
scene effort.
I would like to point out that we have structured our family
assistance program to ensure that our new responsibilities and
authorities do not interfere with or adversely affect the well-
established process of managing major investigations.
Mr. Chairman, let me now address some financial issues that are
important to the Safety Board. As you know, the 1997 enacted
appropriation level for the Safety Board is $42.4 million and 370
FTE's. Not included in this amount is the $6 million 1996 supplemental
earmarked primarily for reimbursement to the U.S. Navy for TWA Flight
800 recovery costs. In 1997 we requested approval for an additional TWA
800 related supplemental of $23.2 million. This would have covered
investigative expenditures through the end of the fiscal year, as well
as allowing us to start our family assistance efforts. OMB approved
$20.2 million for inclusion in the President's Budget. I realize, Mr.
Chairman, this is not a budget hearing but I did not want to miss a
chance to make our case.
Our emergency fund, which has been funded at a $1 million level, is
used to pay for extraordinary recovery and investigative tasks. OMB has
approved expanding the fund next year to $2 million. The simple truth
is that this fund does not begin to cover the extraordinary costs of
our investigations. Aircraft tragedy investigative costs are usually
born by both the Federal Government and by the carrier through its
insurance underwriters. If the aircraft crashes on land, the carrier is
generally responsible for wreckage recovery and removal. If we deem
that the wreckage is vital to our investigation, we see that the
critical parts, or all of the wreckage, are removed to a secure
location for examination. In general, payments for this is made by the
insurance underwriters.
In accidents occurring over water, or where the probable cause may
be criminal in nature, the responsibilities are not so clear. For
example, in the TWA Flight 800 investigation, I asked for the early
financial participation of the carrier, manufacturers, and engine
supplier and all declined. The Federal Government has in fact borne all
of the extraordinary costs in this investigation outside of the party's
participation.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention the outstanding support
of the state, and local authorities and agencies at the accident
scenes. In New York, Florida, and in Michigan, costs have been incurred
on behalf of the accident that are currently being borne by the states
and localities. They are not insignificant and I believe that a system
or process needs to be in place to address the legitimate local costs
associated with aircraft disasters.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Investigation Financing
Senator Shelby. Mr. Hall, the National Transportation
Safety Board is responsible for investigating significant
transportation accidents of all kinds. NTSB immediately
dispatches what they call a go team to an accident site,
analyzes the evidence, and tries to determine the probable
cause of the accident. NTSB often issues safety recommendations
to help avoid future accidents.
Some investigations are very lengthy, such as the 1991
Colorado Springs crash of a United Airlines 737, cause
undetermined; the 1994 Pittsburgh crash of a USAir 737, and the
ongoing probe regarding TWA Flight 800, that you just
mentioned. How, Mr. Hall, does NTSB finance safety
investigations? Does your budget require enough flexibility?
Mr. Hall. Through appropriated funds. Mr. Chairman,
obviously funding our agency is sometimes like funding the fire
department--you are not exactly sure how many emergencies you
are going to face in a particular year.
Senator Shelby. Well, just like the TWA investigation has
taken a long time, it has had to be very expensive.
Mr. Hall. Yes; but it is all appropriated dollars.
Senator Shelby. It has taken a toll on your budget as well,
has it not?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir; definitely. And not just the budget,
Mr. Chairman, but obviously I would be remiss if I did not say
the toll it has taken on all the individual investigators.
Insurance Company Responsibilities
Senator Shelby. Do insurance companies have a significant
role in determining the course of an investigation, and if so,
what role do they play?
Mr. Hall. The only role they have played traditionally in
the past is the assistance in the wreckage and recovery costs.
They do not really have any party status or other role in the
investigation.
Senator Shelby. Should DOT review the level of insurance
coverage it requires of transportation providers, especially
common carriers of passengers?
Mr. Hall. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe they should. And we
have actively recommended to both OMB and to the Secretary that
we ought to look at some type of emergency funding that would
be available to cover situations similar to TWA 800, and also
the responsibility that a carrier may carry to some of the
victims. At the present time my understanding is that most of
the policies do not provide any funds for victim recovery.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Vogt, did you have any opening
statement? I was told you did not, but I wanted to clarify
that.
Mr. Vogt. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a written opening
statement.
Senator Shelby. OK. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Vogt. I will share some comments with you.
Senator Shelby. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF CARL VOGT, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, AND
MEMBER, WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON AVIATION
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Mr. Vogt. Thank you for inviting me. I am pleased to be
here. I am the only witness, I think, today who is not
anticipating an appropriation from you, unless there is a rule
I have missed.
Senator Shelby. You have not missed it.
Mr. Vogt. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg also, Senator Byrd,
Senator Bennett.
Just a few brief remarks.
I think it is very important to keep the perspective of
historical context on where we are today in aviation safety. We
recently, last week, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the
Flight Safety Foundation, of which I am privileged to be a
governor, and we honored the founder of the Flight Safety
Foundation, a man named Jerry Lederer. Jerry was 6 months old
when Orville Wright made his first flight. So all that we are
talking about today and all that involves commercial aviation
today has happened in the long lifetime of one individual.
We sometimes think that change which is occurring at any
given time is unique, and this industry, in fact, has been
characterized by change from the very beginning. Most often
that change has been brought about by technological advances.
Modern aviation, for example, in my judgment began with the
introduction of turbine power in the late fifties and early
sixties to commercial aviation. The microprocessor has had
enormous impact, and today we are right on the threshold of a
whole new era which is brought about by digital communications,
global position satellite navigation, and so technologically
today we find ourselves at the beginning of a very, very
important era in aviation.
At the same time we are seeing an enormous expansion of the
market for aviation services, an expansion of capacity, growth
throughout the world in commercial flights. The Boeing Co. has
predicted from a safety perspective that if we do not improve
the accident rate we are going to have an accident a week
worldwide within the next 20 years.
We also are at a point in time where I do not need to tell
you that we are faced with reductions in government spending
across the board. This is not only true in the United States,
it is happening in Europe, as well. And so faced with an
expansion of capacity in demand for aviation transportation
services, on the threshold of a major technological innovation
in change, we are in a position where we do not have the
Federal resources available that we have had historically to
deal with the change that is coming about. And it is the
juxtaposition of these things that creates some unique
challenges at this point in time.
And to state the obvious, one of the challenges is that the
Federal agencies involved are going to have to do more with
less, and they are in the process of addressing that. The
Challenge 2000 report that the FAA prepared is an innovative
and thoughtful approach to this. There is a lot more to be
done.
But as you review the recommendations of the Gore
Commission you will see that some of the most important ones
open the issue of increased funding. There is more money needed
to comply with or accede to the recommendation, for example,
that the modernization of our air traffic control system be
expedited and be in place by the year 2000 rather than the year
2012--I am sorry, by 2005 rather than 2012.
We call for increased security measures to be funded with
Federal funds. We toss the ball to the Civil Aviation Review
Commission, which the Congress has established in most of these
cases to find new ways to come up with money for these programs
and others. But I believe that new efficiencies within the
administration and new sources of money are the real challenges
that are facing us today.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vogt, you could not be more right in terms of the
funding requirements. I am a senior on the Budget Committee and
we spend every day talking about the problems that we have to
solve that do require money in addition to attention. And this
is one of them, and I think that we saw in TWA 800 what it is
that people want to know, what we want to know about what took
place.
And, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that Mr. Hall made about
visiting that site, the reconstruction of TWA 800, is something
if you do have a chance you ought to see. I was there and I
also saw Pan Am 103 when it was reconstructed, and it is just
amazing what can be done, what science is now available to us,
and we ought to pursue it as diligently as we can.
Gore Commission Recommendations
Mr. Hall, the Gore Commission made several recommendations
on how to improve aviation safety and security. In some
quarters, however, it is being criticized as being long on
advice and fairly short on how to accomplish some of these
objectives. Both of you having been involved with it, are we
seeing a situation where some of the harder to solve safety
problems are deferred because we cannot get industry agreement
or because they have made a hard, cold calculation about how
much they can do, how much they ought to do with the funds that
they have available?
Mr. Hall. Let me just briefly comment. Looking back,
Senator Lautenberg, I want to commend former Administrator
Hinson and Deputy Administrator Daschle. One of the things that
Senator Byrd mentioned was a recommendation of the Board, one
level of safety for regional aircraft is now a reality in this
country. The previous administrator addressed the problem of
the failed modernization of the air traffic control system and
put that on track.
I think, referring to your earlier remarks, what we now
need is leadership and direction. We have the Challenge 2000
program, we have the 90-day safety review, we have the Gore
Commission recommendations which provide an overall direction.
What we now have to talk about is the implementation of these
recommendations. There are two things in that, having the
direction and support of both the industry and the Government
to make these things happen, and the second thing is who is
going to pay.
NTSB Supplemental Request
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that brings me to the next
question, and that is the difference between that amount
requested during the 1997 emergency supplemental, as well as
the extraordinary costs associated with TWA 800, as well as the
implementation of some of the Gore Commission recommendations.
That is quite a package.
Now, the amount of funding, therefore, that you request of
us does differ from the level formally requested by OMB. Where
do you see the difference coming? Are they just saying to you
we cannot handle it, or are they saying that you do not need
it?
Mr. Hall. OMB did not provide us funds for the victims'
assistance program that was directed by both the President and
Congress for the NTSB to accomplish, and some additional
positions that we felt were necessary.
I have had, Mr. Chairman, a number of my investigators that
have been living for 9 months up at Calverton. If we had
another aviation disaster that occurred in the near future, we
would be in a very difficult situation to be able to provide
the type of investigation that our agency wants to provide to
the American people.
Navy Costs
Senator Lautenberg. Just questioning, the other costs that
have been associated with this investigation are really
significant. And I was out at Calverton twice, once a couple of
days just after the airplane went down, and later on to see
what the progress was, and it was an amazing task. I must tell
you, your people and the FBI and the Navy and the divers and
everybody that was involved gave it as good an effort as I
think one could possibly see. But are you required to reimburse
the Navy for any of the costs that they have incurred?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir; we have a memorandum of understanding
with the Supervisor of Salvage of the U.S. Navy to assist us in
the recovery on a reimbursable basis. They work under contract
to us, and are up there under our direction. It is our
responsibility to fund the recovery.
Immediately after this event happened, I sent, as we have
routinely done, and Peter, you might throw that other chart up,
last year we had three----
Senator Byrd. Those charts are not of much assistance.
Senator Lautenberg. I would say.
Mr. Hall. They are hard to see, I am sorry.
Senator Byrd. I can see the chart, but I cannot read it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. That helps.
Senator Lautenberg. That helps. It blots out the whole
audience.
Senator Shelby. Just the press.
TWA 800 Costs
Mr. Hall. If you would like, we could basically review for
you the costs on Flight 800 to date.
Voice. Mr. Chairman, this chart intends to show a number of
things, primarily the extraordinary investigative costs
relative to TWA 800. As you will notice in the center column
here, $26.8 million is the total cost we now see as required to
complete the investigation.
Senator Lautenberg. That is your share only?
Voice. These are the total costs the NTSB expects to obtain
through reimbursement of others.
Senator Shelby. The whole thing.
Voice. Out of 1996 we spent $766,000 out of our emergency
fund. Congress provided $6 million at the beginning of fiscal
1997 in a supplemental appropriation, and we have requested a
total of $23 million additional this fiscal year, $20.1 million
for TWA 800, the bulk of that going for reimbursement to the
Navy of victim wreckage recovery, also for the wreckage
storage, the facility at Calverton. The Navy has asked for $5.6
million. And as you can see, there are other associated costs
with the investigation. But the Navy portion is primarily
victim wreckage search and recovery and wreckage storage. In
addition, the trawling, which is ongoing, is $5.5 million all
by itself.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I just
want to say that I have seen the NTSB in many situations, rail
accidents, aviation review. Mr. Hall has been to my office
several times and we have discussed things. I have got to say
this is a department under Mr. Hall's leadership that has done
very, very well. They work hard, they are conscientious, they
are professional in every sense of the word, and I think that
we run a risk if we shortchange some of these reviews because
of the longer term implications, obviously, what it is you
learn in one of these investigations.
Thanks very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may impose a little personal history, my service in
the executive branch was at the Department of Transportation.
And it was my responsibility and ultimately my pleasure to
shepherd through the Congress the Airport Airways Act of 1969,
that created the airport airways trust fund, and we assumed as
a result of that action that we had secured funding for the FAA
and its safety responsibility for all time. We were not aware
of the fact that subsequent administrations, both Republican
and Democrat, would treat trust funds, whether it is the
highway trust fund or the airport airways trust fund, as simple
accounting devices that had little or nothing to do with the
amount of money that would actually be spent. And as a
consequence, fake balances were allowed to accumulate in the
trust funds while serious needs were not met. And so I come to
this committee with a little bit of that history behind me, and
am concerned to hear you talk about the need for resources in
this area relating to the safety of the FAA when I thought I
had made a small contribution to making sure that those
resources would always be there.
There is a story going around which I would like you to
comment on, either confirm or deny, lay down. It makes great
conversation. Someone said, and if I knew who the someone was I
would tell you, I am not trying to be coy here, I am trying to
get some information, that a study was made of the Federal
Government's computer technology and capability, primarily from
the point of view of trying to find out whether or not a hacker
could get into the Government's computers and compromise them.
The result was, according to the version I have heard of the
study that every portion of the Government's computer system is
indeed vulnerable to a hacker getting in and one way or the
other compromising or taking information out of the system,
with the exception of the FAA. The reason we need not worry
about a hacker getting into the FAA is that the software and
the hardware are so obsolete that no hacker currently existing
has any technical capability to deal with it. Now, is that a
true statement or an old wives' tale?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I do not know. Last year, because of
concerns that came out of our Chicago regional office, we
looked at the problems of the breakdowns of the air traffic
control system at some of our major airports. Some of the
equipment is so dated that there is a real concern about
maintaining individuals on the FAA payroll to maintain that
equipment till it can be replaced.
However, I think that there has been progress made in the
modernization of the system. But I do not have the background
and expertise to answer that question, but it is an old system.
Senator Bennett. I trust the Acting Administrator might
have an answer for that. I apologize that I am going to have to
leave, and many of these questions are perhaps more
appropriately addressed to the FAA Administrator.
The one other concern that I do have as we talk about
resources and your obvious need for resources, is, of course,
the controversy of Bay Area Rapid Transit System where BART
wants to use money that might otherwise be available to the FAA
or the NTSB to help defray the cost of their subway system.
Senator McCain has been particularly outspoken on that, and I
did not want to let the hearing pass without the opportunity of
expressing myself in that regard.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, and apologize to the
witnesses. My beeper is very insistent.
Senator Shelby. We will leave the record open for any
further questions you might have.
Senator Bennett. I would appreciate that opportunity. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Commuter Airline Safety
Senator Byrd. Mr. Hall, are you currently satisfied that
the FAA's procedures for regulating and inspecting commuter
aircraft are sufficient to detect the problems that may pose a
safety risk?
Mr. Hall. As you pointed out, we now have one level of
safety for both commuter airlines along with the major service.
And last year was a good year in the commuter industry.
However, 1 year is obviously not enough to see whether an
effective job of oversight is being done.
Through ongoing accident investigations, we will look very
closely at what the FAA is doing, as we do in all of our
investigations, and how they are doing their job of safety
oversight. Clearly the addition last year of a number of new
safety investigators for the FAA should have a positive impact
on their work in this area. Mr. Valentine would have to address
how many of those individuals are now in place with the
additional FTE's that have been allocated for those positions.
But this is an area of obvious ongoing concern, and is part
of two investigations that we have presently underway.
Senator Byrd. What concerns do you have specifically
regarding the commuter aviation industry?
Mr. Hall. Chairman Vogt was correct. We are seeing a great
explosion in aviation and projected growth throughout the
world. A lot of middle-sized and small communities in our
country that are being left by the wayside, such as the
interstate systems did years ago. In an era of deregulation, I
think Congress is going to have to look at ways to ensure some
service.
I know the essential air service program is there, but
there are a number of communities now that are suffering. With
transportation being 12 percent of our gross national product,
we will be basically out of the equation for growth in the
future unless that problem is addressed.
Senator Byrd. Do you have concerns with respect to the
maintenance of commuter aircraft and with the experience of
pilots who make these commuter runs? Do you along those lines?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir; and I would like to ask Mr. Haueter, if
he would, to come up here, because we have an investigation
specifically in regard to pilot record-sharing that I would
like him to briefly touch on, and what is being done in that
area.
Senator Byrd. What is this gentleman's name?
Mr. Hall. This is Tom Haueter, and he is the head of our
chief investigation unit for the NTSB.
Mr. Haueter. Following the investigation of the Raleigh-
Durham commuter accident the Safety Board issued a
recommendation regarding pilot background checks. We found that
the pilot had come from one airline to the accident airline.
The previous airline had some negative findings, and those were
not passed on to his new employer. We issued a recommendation
to the FAA to require background checks that could be passed on
from one employer to another. The FAA has been acting on that
slower than we would like, but we will continue working in that
area.
Senator Byrd. What are you doing to get the FAA to work
faster?
Mr. Haueter. Through our recommendation process we have a
dialog back and forth, trying to help them push the system.
Senator Byrd. That sounds like in itself it is a pretty
slow process.
Mr. Hall. I have, in addition, Senator, discussed this
personally with Secretary Slater, our most wanted list. He is
aware of those concerns and has met with Mr. Valentine and with
other appropriate officials of the FAA to let them know of our
interest in this area. And again, they are moving in this area.
I think it is merely the speed at which they are moving that is
of concern to us.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, is there anything the
subcommittee can do to help to encourage an acceleration of the
speed?
Senator Shelby. I believe we could work together to get
something done.
Senator Byrd. I hope we can.
Senator Shelby. And your suggestions and your overall
leadership and experience would certainly help the
subcommittee. I will be willing to work with you, and I think
the other members would. This is vitally important.
Commuter Airline Safety
Senator Byrd. Do you have any suggestions as to how we
might help? Could we request a monthly report on the progress?
Mr. Hall. Well, that would certainly be helpful, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Well, let us take that under advisement, Mr.
Chairman.
Now, do you have concerns with reference to the maintenance
of the commuter aircraft?
Mr. Haueter. We saw a commuter accident in Eagle Lake, TX,
where the mechanics had forgotten to put some screws back into
the tail of the airplane. Subsequently, the tail came off or a
portion of the leading edge came off on approach. We have
looked into that. Obviously, commuters are quickly growing.
Also, we are seeing the major airlines starting to need more
pilots and more mechanics, and they are drawing these people
out of the commuters. So in some cases the commuters are losing
some of their better people to the major airlines.
I think that the FAA is going to be pressed with getting as
many inspectors as they can to ensure that the training and
standards are kept up. The one level of safety will definitely
help in this area.
Senator Byrd. Do you have any indications of problems with
drugs or alcohol on the part of any of these people who do the
maintenance of the aircraft, or any of those who do the
piloting?
Mr. Haueter. Not that I have seen. We did have one case
about 8 years ago or so, but I have not seen anything recently
that would lead me to such a conclusion.
Senator Byrd. What have been your observations, Mr. Hall,
regarding the FAA's efforts to apply the same standards of
safety to the small commuter aircraft?
Mr. Hall. I think, Senator, that once the debate ended and
the decision was made to move ahead with one level of safety,
the Regional Airline Association and the people at the FAA have
moved forward in a positive way to meet that mandate. So at
this point in time I would give everybody good marks on that.
Like everything else in the safety area, you have to stay
after it.
Senator Byrd. What other safety initiatives, if any, do you
think would be appropriate for this segment of the aviation
industry? My time is up.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead and respond.
Senator Byrd. Perhaps you could respond briefly.
Mr. Hall. Obviously, that segment of the industry is
impacted as well by the issues on our most wanted list; flight
data recorders, ground separation, all the things that impact
121 also impact commuter aviation.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. I would like to paraphrase a couple of the
points, at least, that I made in that opening statement. This
is a vitally important subject, and it is a subject both for
this subcommittee and for the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation
that I chair. We had many of these same people, all of these
same institutions, in front of us to discuss the Gore
Commission report some time ago, and the chairman of the full
committee, John McCain, held a hearing last week on airplane
accidents, the investigations, and the way in which the results
of those investigations had come out. Each of these was a
learning process, just as it is here today. Obviously we have
got to encourage the greatest move toward safety that we
possibly can. We are probably going to do that better
cooperatively, in many cases at least, than with a lot of
mandates.
One of the subjects I delved into during the Commerce
Committee hearings was the sometimes rivalry between the FAA
and the NTSB. Now, while there was a lot of criticism of that
there, my own view was that there is some wisdom and some real
value in having two organizations with a bit of overlapping
jurisdiction. Certainly, what they talk about gets more
publicity that way, and to have one checking on what the other
does is probably pretty valuable. So these are really important
issues because you control the money that we are dealing with,
and the way in which we guide the deliberations and the actions
of the Safety Board and of the Federal Aviation Administration
are going to be very, very important for the future.
Gore Commission Recommendations
With that, couple of questions. I guess, Mr. Vogt, I have
really got two for you, and let me tell you an impression that
I had in my own hearing on the Gore Commission report, not so
much on the subjects that have been discussed, at least since I
came to this hearing, on safety, but on the subject of
security. Tell me whether this impression was wrong.
I got the impression that many of those recommendations,
without an awful lot of examination of the cost, stemmed from
the belief during the course of the summer and the fall that
TWA Flight 800 was done in either by an outside attack or more
likely by a bomb on board the aircraft. Now it seems much more
likely than not that neither of those were the causes of that
crash. But I and a number of other members of the committee
just got the view that many of those recommendations were
almost academic or outmoded by reason of that initial
apprehension. Were we wrong?
Mr. Vogt. I am not sure whether you were totally wrong, but
if you will recall, the initial mandate to the Commission was
to investigate security matters, and a report was delivered
within 45 days, I believe, and the members of the Commission at
that point were predominantly public members, Mr. Pena, Mr.
Deutsch, Mr. Freeh, and others. And it was only later that the
rest of the commissioners were appointed, and that the mandate
for the Commission was expanded to include air traffic control
and safety.
So a number of recommendations, if you look at a copy of
the report, were submitted before the full Commission actually
convened, and then we reviewed those and they were included in
our final report with, I think, four or five additional
security recommendations. And there is a status report as of
the time of our last meeting on each of the prior
recommendations that was made.
I think that the issue of security is much broader, though,
than the expectation initially that TWA 800 was a terrorist
act, and I believe I speak for the Commission, the consensus of
the commissioners is that this is a much broader issue. We were
aware at that time that the focus was being directed elsewhere,
so that it did not seem to be an accident-specific issue that
was before us.
So these recommendations, while we have a vulnerability to
terrorism in the United States, we have not as yet had a
recognized threat except for one terrorist plan to blow up 12
U.S. airplanes over the Pacific Ocean. And we had not really
anticipated a threat to Federal courthouses in the sense that
we saw in Oklahoma City. So I think that there is much to be
done here. We recognize the vulnerabilities. I think we have
made some recommendations that address those vulnerabilities,
and hopefully there will be implementation of many of these.
Already, $160 million was appropriate, new equipment is being
purchased, there is cooperation between the Customs and the FAA
now--Customs Service.
There are a number of things that are ongoing. I think all
of these are very positive, and most of them are not costly in
a relative sense.
Senator Gorton. Thank you for that.
Another question for you but on a different subject: You
have had a lot of wonderful experience with the Safety Board,
as an attorney who has specialized in civil litigation, so you
have had a lot of time to investigate and observe the
investigation of aircraft accidents. Do you believe that the
huge financial stakes involved in determining liability for
accidents has hampered in any way the ability of investigators
to gather and assess the information necessary to find cause
and to reach objective conclusions?
Mr. Vogt. Well, I do not think the stakes are so much the
issue as it bears on investigations. There are really two sets
of investigations that go on. One is what the NTSB does, and I
think the integrity of that process has proven itself over
time, and it is very good and very impressive. And for the most
part all of the parties to these investigations, in my
judgment, offer good faith cooperation. Everyone wants to find
the cause of the accident.
Then you get my brethren at the bar who are seeking to
recover damages for families or manufacturers or all of the
interests involved. And as you know, the probable cause
determinations of the NTSB are not admissible in evidence,
although the factual record is available, and is used as a
factual basis by attorneys in these liability cases. So I think
the integrity of the governmental process is very sound.
I think the stakes are so high that the entities involved,
whether they are airlines manufacturers, unions, any of the
interested parties, the stakes are so high that it is my
opinion that no one is deterred from finding the cause by the
potential liability cost of a single accident, because most of
the time what we are really concerned about is the generic
application of what we find and safety precautions that come
out of a given accident which would prevent future accidents.
Senator Gorton. In your view, should the NTSB conclusions
be admissible?
Mr. Vogt. No, sir; they should not.
Senator Gorton. Why?
Mr. Vogt. Well, I believe that that would impact the
integrity of that process. It puts it into the area of money
and liability, and the NTSB--part of the reason for its
effectiveness is that it has a very clear cut mission, which is
safety, and that should not in any way be combined with money
issues or liability issues. I think the system works well.
Flight Data Recorders
Senator Gorton. Mr. Hall, one for you, and, Mr. Chairman,
if somebody has already asked this I apologize and you can
correct me. When we were before the Commerce Committee you
addressed the issue of expanded parameters for flight data
recorders, and you really caused our ears to perk up when you
said that a number of foreign flag airlines order far more
significant data recorders than are often ordered in new
aircraft manufactured by Boeing for domestic flag carriers. And
there have been some real repercussions to that statement.
Some since then have told me that one of the reasons for
that was that domestic carriers preferred uniformity, for
example, that all of their aircraft have the same kind of
flight data recorders for their purposes. I guess I need to
emphasize your own point that this was not something that the
manufacturers decided on, it is something the purchaser, the
airline purchaser, decides on.
My basic question to you, is that an excuse? Is that a good
reason for every new aircraft not being equipped by the
purchaser with the most sophisticated flight data recorders?
Mr. Hall. No, Senator; that is kind of a creative excuse.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Good phrase--creative excuse.
Mr. Vogt, there seems to be a consensus among aviation
experts that the FAA must fundamentally change the way it makes
decisions, approaches personnel costs, and transitions from
older technology to new technology. This subcommittee has tried
to be responsive to the Department's request for increased
flexibility in the personnel and procurement areas.
For example, in the fiscal 1996 transportation
appropriations bill, FAA was given unprecedented personnel and
procurement reform tools. But the Coopers & Lybrand independent
study of FAA's management practice points out that they have
yet to effectively use these new tools. If we are to believe
the Coopers & Lybrand study, there is every indication that FAA
is having some difficulty managing itself. What kind of
changes, from your perspective, do you think need to be made in
the organization, and perhaps in the culture at FAA, to
effectively keep safety as the agency's focus?
Mr. Vogt. Well, first of all, Senator, I think that the two
innovations that you mentioned, procurement and personnel, are
extremely important. I think it is still a little early for
Coopers to reach a decision that they have not been effective.
I know that some of the purchasing has been most effective, and
the personnel regulations, my impression is that they are in
the process of being implemented.
My concern is, as I stated initially, that we are at a
crucial juxtaposition here of many changes, and it is obvious
that the agency is going to have to be more efficient and
effective in the way it does business, as are most Federal
agencies.
Senator Shelby. But in this particular agency, safety has
got to be the real focus.
Mr. Vogt. Yes; that is correct. And if you look at the
Challenge 2000, which was developed by the FAA, it is filled
with terms like reinvention and cultural change. So I think
there is an awareness there. What has been missing for the past
few months is obviously new leadership in the agency, and I
think that the changing of the way in which the agency makes
decisions, and I believe there is within that agency an inbred
reluctance to make decisions for some reasons which once you
are there and see it are quite understandable within the
culture, some of the most talented people in this Government
are in that agency, and I think that if the talent is unleashed
to find solutions to develop new and more effective ways to
make decisions, that it will get done. And to incentivize
through these new personnel regulations, reward people who do
things in creative ways, there is tremendous potential there to
effect these changes.
Senator Shelby. You played a leading role in developing the
safety recommendations contained in the Gore Commission report.
Aviation safety has been a touchstone throughout your career,
and I believe it should be. You are one of the experts on the
subject. In your opinion, which of the 53 recommendations
contained in the Gore Commission report are most important and
need to be implemented in the shortest timeframe possible, and
which of the most pressing, immediate needs currently in force
are being implemented?
I know it is hard to just pinpoint which is the most
important, but you have to go by priorities.
Mr. Vogt. Let me creatively try to duck your question a
little bit.
Senator Shelby. You do not want to duck the focus, though.
The focus is safety.
Mr. Vogt. I am not going to duck the focus, but I do not
want to make a statement that would detract from some of the
issues there. But I think clearly the most weighty decisions
there, first of all, is 1.1, which is to cut the accident rate
fivefold within 10 years. And I think that is very doable if
you take into account the fact that most accidents are caused
by controlled flight in terrain today worldwide and loss of
control in flight. If we can see the implementation of advanced
ground proximity warning systems, I think there is tremendous
potential through new technology to reduce that accident rate.
Second, I think one of the most weighty recommendations was
to implement our air traffic control system national airspace
modernization by the year 2005 instead of 2012. That is a
major, major task, and relevant to this committee's
understanding, the $60 million need--or $60 billion need that
the agency projected was verified, to a certain extent, by the
Coopers report. And if OMB is going to cap those moneys at $47
million, you have got the gap that has been widely talked
about. And yet, our recommendation is to do something that is
extremely expensive from an infrastructure cost in far less
time than the agency has projected. That is a very, very major
undertaking, and I think a major recommendation.
Senator Shelby. Would you save some money by implementing
it sooner?
Mr. Vogt. Well, I do not know the figures on that. I think
you probably can come to that conclusion. Some money would be
saved, but you have got enormous capital costs that are going
to have to be funded up front.
Senator Shelby. Either way, have you not?
Mr. Vogt. Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons that
we recommended that there be some new approaches to financing
explored, and to try and leverage some of the money that flows
into the FAA in the capital markets.
Senator Shelby. What about spending some of the money that
is already there and is currently used for other purposes?
Mr. Vogt. Well, you know the trust fund used to have a
surplus. Right now it is pretty empty. I think it is very
frustrating to everyone, as Senator Bennett said earlier, that
when that trust fund does have a surplus that money is not used
for its intended purpose. And there have been points in time
where the use of that money could have made tremendous strides
for this capital infrastructure I am talking about.
And finally, I would say that of our recommendations, the
security recommendations, particularly on the recognition of
security as a national problem, a terrorist problem, terrorist
attacks are directed against the United States, not against an
air carrier as such, just to give an example, and that new ways
to fund increased expenditures for security should be explored,
but that the responsibility is basically a Federal
responsibility.
Those would be the recommendations I would say are the most
weighty of our report.
Senator Shelby. I think they are very important, and I
concur.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I have nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. No; nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, I thank both of you for your
appearance here today and for your candid testimony. We will
submit additional questions to be answered for the record.
Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Gorton
Question. In testimony before the Commerce Committee, and in
response to questions raised by Committee members, NTSB Chairman Hall
addressed the issue of expanded parameters for flight data recorders.
Chairman Hall mentioned that foreign carriers have ordered, and U.S.
manufacturers have supplied, aircraft with more sophisticated flight
data recorders than U.S. carriers are demanding. Chairman Hall
intimated that cost was the only reason that domestic air carriers
would continue to order aircraft with flight data recorders that meet
only the minimum FAA standards. I understand, however, that carriers
also have concerns about integrating aircraft with new systems into
their fleets. For maintenance purposes, they want to maintain
standardization within their fleets. Is this a valid concern on the
part of U.S. carriers? Does the FAA believe that its proposal for the
industry transition to flight data recorders with expanded parameters
takes this concern into account?
Answer. It is a concern; however, there already is a great amount
of diversity in FDR systems, more as a result of the unavoidable
evolution in aircraft technology than as a result of government
regulation. The age of U.S. air carrier aircraft varies greatly. It has
been our experience that the older the aircraft, the more limited the
number of FDR parameters available. As airplane systems have gotten
more complex, airplane manufacturers (and government and airlines, too)
want and need more information to determine how various aircraft
systems performed after an accident or incident. The FDR itself is a
very standardized unit that can operate on almost any aircraft type.
Further, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) that helped
develop the FAA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) made every
attempt to standardize across different airplane types and the
different aircraft operating rules (i.e. Part 121, 135, 129). The
airlines were well represented on the ARAC committee.
We would like to note that Southwest Airlines is retrofitting its
fleet with state-of-the art flight data recorders. The carrier has not
found it financially prohibitive to do so.
With regard to the FAA proposal for the industry's transition,
based on our knowledge of the NPRM and how it was developed, we believe
that FAA did take the industry's concerns about FDR system
standardization into account.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
ntsb's views of gore commission recommendations
Question. Mr. Hall, the Gore Commission report made numerous
recommendations on how to improve aviation safety and security. It is
criticized in some quarters as being long on advice and short on how to
accomplish the objectives.
Do you believe that the Gore Commission report avoids some of the
harder-to-solve safety issues in favor of accommodation with the
aviation industry?
Answer. I believe that the Gore Commission report addressed all of
the important aviation safety and security issues and it contained
important recommendations for actions to improve the safety of our air
transportation system. Some of the actions are well underway. For
example, BNASA has organized a significant government/industry group
(Aviation Safety Investment Strategy Team [ASIST]) to address the
future research and development technological needs to reduce the
accident rate five-fold over the next 10 years and ten-fold over the
next 20 years. The Safety Board participated in much of the work of the
ASIST project, which included a series of workshops to define an
aviation safety investment strategy and delineate NASA programmatic
investment options to improve aviation safety. Moreover, many
initiatives in the aviation security area have already begun in
response to the interim recommendations issued by the Gore Commission
on September 9, 1996.
I do not believe that the Gore Commission report avoided the
``hard-to-solve safety issues'' to accommodate the aviation industry.
However, I should point out that the industry did make certain
announcements to voluntarily take certain actions within a specified
time frame as a result of the issues debated during the Gore Commission
meetings. For example, in December 1996, the Air Transport Association
(ATA) announced that its member airlines would voluntarily install
smoke detectors in Class D cargo compartments without FAA regulation.
The findings of the May 17, 1996, ValuJet accident in the
Everglades highlighted the need for fire/smoke detection and
suppression systems in passenger-carrying aircraft cargo compartments.
The Gore Commission report did contain recommendations to the FAA for
action on such systems. Last week, the FAA and ATA's member carriers
announced their intention to move forward on this issue. We expect to
see FAA rulemaking this summer, and Secretary Slater has committed to a
final rule by the end of this year.
Question. Are there some recommendations with which the NTSB
disagrees in whole or part? Are there additional recommendations that
NTSB would like to see added?
Answer. As a member of the Gore Commission, I supported the
Commission's final report. The Board has not formally reviewed the Gore
Commission report or its recommendations.
Question. Mr. Hall, one of the Gore Commission recommendations was
for the NTSB to develop a coordinated federal response plan to aviation
disasters by April 1997.
What is the status of this recommendation? Have you had the full
cooperation of the other agencies that would be involved in responding
to a disaster?
Answer. The Safety Board has complied with the Gore Commission
recommendation, and a Family Assistance Plan for Aviation Disasters is
completed. Copies of the plan were forwarded to the Subcommittee on May
13, 1997. The Safety Board's plan was prepared in close cooperation
with representatives from individual family members and the aviation
industry, as well as legal, medical and emergency response experts. We
have received excellent cooperation from other government agencies, and
our plan also reflects memoranda of understanding, either in final or
draft form, with six Federal agencies, including the Departments of
Justice, Defense, State, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These agencies, as well as the
American Red Cross, are prepared to respond to an aviation disaster if
needed.
ntsb's emergency fund request
Question. Mr. Hall, the NTSB has submitted an fiscal year 1997
Emergency Supplemental funding request to the Committee to cover the
extraordinary costs associated with the TWA 800 costs as well as the
implementation of some of the Gore Commission recommendations.
Why does the amount of funding you are requesting of us differ from
the level formally requested by OMB?
Answer. The amount requested by the Safety Board for the
supplemental appropriation reflects the amount required to accomplish
the TWA flight 800 investigation, the new mandate to provide assistance
to the families of the victims of transportation accidents, and other
accident investigation activities.
Question. How much of the costs of the TWA 800 investigation have
been borne by the Navy. Did you ask the Navy to absorb their costs out
of their huge annual operating budget?
Answer. The U.S. Navy has not been reimbursed for $5.3 million for
victim and wreckage recovery costs they have incurred, and they have
not been reimbursed for any costs of the Calverton facility where the
wreckage is stored and much of the investigation was conducted. For
fiscal year 1997, the amount owed will be $5 million, for a total of
$10.3 million. Since we have a reimbursable memorandum of
understanding, we have not asked the Navy to absorb these costs. Also,
it is our understanding that they cannot legally do so. We did ask the
FBI to share in the costs of the investigation, but the Department of
Justice declined.
Question. What specific activities will not get done if we approve
the OMB request rather than your higher request?
Answer. If the full supplemental is not approved, we will be unable
to fulfill our Congressional mandate to assist the families of the
victims of recent transportation accident tragedies--including TWA
flight 800--nor will we be able to avoid forcing our investigative
staff to continue to take on inordinate workloads where we have only a
few specialists in a given field. The real impact may take the form of
diminished public confidence in the Board's work.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF BARRY VALENTINE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SUSAN KURLAND, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AIRPORTS
CATHAL L. FLYNN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, CIVIL AVIATION
SECURITY
MONTE BELGER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
GEORGE DONOHUE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND
ACQUISITIONS
GUY S. GARDNER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, REGULATION AND
CERTIFICATION
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. In the second panel we will explore how the
Federal Aviation Administration is addressing safety and
security concerns. We will have Mr. Barry Valentine, Acting
Administrator; Ms. Susan Kurland, Associate Administrator,
Airports; Adm. Cathal Flynn, Associate Administrator, Civil
Aviation Security; Mr. Monty Belger, Acting Deputy
Administrator; Dr. George Donohue, Associate Administrator,
Research and Acquisitions; and Mr. Guy Gardner, Associate
Administrator, Regulation and Certification. Gentlemen, your
written statements will be made part of the record in their
entirety, without objection.
Well, that is good news. Senator Lautenberg and Wally were
just telling me that we are only going to have Mr. Valentine to
give testimony. Is that correct?
Mr. Valentine. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Valentine, you may proceed.
Opening Remarks
Mr. Valentine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the
opportunity to appear before you today on the Federal Aviation
Administration's activities relating to aviation safety and
security. I want to thank you and the other members of the
subcommittee for your continued interest in and support of the
FAA's activities and programs. With me today are the
individuals that you just named, so I will not repeat the names
and the positions. I would like to take this opportunity to
mention some of the FAA's recent achievements and ongoing
activities that enhance aviation safety and further ensure the
security of the flying public.
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
In February, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety
and Security, led by Vice President Gore, issued its final
report, updating its initial report issued in September of last
year. A key recommendation was to reduce the aviation fatal
accident rate by a factor of five within 10 years. Another was
to accelerate the modernization of the air traffic control
system. We are ready to work with the White House, the
Congress, and the aviation community to see that these
recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible.
Security Equipment Integrated Product Team
The FAA formed an integrated product team of acquisition
and security experts last October, to plan, purchase, and
install explosive detection devices and other advanced security
equipment at many of the busiest U.S. airports. As a result, we
are purchasing and deploying additional FAA certified
explosives detection systems, trace detection devices, and
automated x-ray machines with installations already underway.
Canine Teams
Also, with the help of the airport industry, we are
increasing the number of canine teams at the Nation's busiest
airports. In what I believe to be a model example of
partnership, the FAA is entering into cooperative agreements
with these airports to place more teams on the tarmac to
perform highly qualified screening of suspect cargo and bags,
and to clear airliners and terminals after bomb threats.
Passenger Profiling
FAA has been using profiling of passengers for nearly 25
years, and views it as a significant element in the aviation
security regime. Given the huge number of passengers and their
bags moving through the U.S. air transportation system,
profiling enables us to better focus application of the more
rigorous measures. Since the airlines are responsible for the
application of the profile and its results, I want to reassure
the members of the subcommittee that there is no FAA data base
or Federal system of records that will be generated in the
process. The data that will be analyzed by the profiling
program consists of information voluntarily provided by
passengers to airlines in the course of commercial
transactions, and the result will be automatically deleted
shortly after the completion of the flight.
90-Day Safety Review
In June 1996, the then Deputy Administrator, Linda Daschle,
led a task force to conduct a 90-day safety review examining
immediate areas of concern to the agency, especially with
respect to safety inspections. The centerpiece of the 90-day
safety review was the formation of a team to assist local
flight standards district offices in processing new air carrier
certification. The new entrant airlines will now have a
heightened level of inspection for at least the first 5 years
of operation.
The 90-day safety review recommended the increase of
funding to upgrade and accelerate the deployment of online
aviation safety inspection systems to the aviation safety
inspector work force by fiscal year 1999. We wholeheartedly
agree with and are moving toward implementing these
recommendations.
Airport Improvement Program
As you know, the Office of Airports administers the airport
improvement program [AIP]. The highest priority of the AIP is
safety and security projects at airports. Typical projects for
safety and security include the acquisition of aircraft rescue
and firefighting equipment, runway and taxiway signs, runway
incursion caution bars, runway and taxiway lighting, access
control systems, and perimeter fencing, as well as lighting,
marking, and removal of airport hazards. Much of the AIP is
used each year to rehabilitate airport infrastructure.
Some current FAA airport standard projects that directly
relate to safe aircraft operations involve improved airfield
lighting to support low visibility operations and reduce runway
incursions and runway pavement traction. For instance, we are
working with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on a
prototype aircraft arrestment system that can be placed in the
safety areas at runway ends to bring aircraft that have overrun
the pavement to a controlled stop.
Modernizing the National Airspace System
Today the United States has the safest and most efficient
air traffic system in the world. However, as former FAA
Administrator David Hinson warned, with projected increases in
traffic, if today's accident rate remains constant, we can
expect the equivalent of one major accident every 8 to 10 days
worldwide by the year 2015. Therefore, the core issue is
whether the FAA can continue to provide a high level of safety
and service in light of the aviation industry's expected growth
without modernizing the national airspace system. It is obvious
that we cannot.
Without such features as digital radio communications and
the decision support tools needed to increase controller
productivity, the capability and capacity of the system will
reach saturation by the years 2001 to 2002. If this occurs, we
will have no alternative but to artificially constrain air
traffic at major airports, which the FAA did after the 1981
controller strike. The consequences of such an action are
obvious and severe.
One barrier to modernization is a human factors issue, a
lack of experience with computer and human integration. We have
conducted simulation tests and laboratory demonstrations of
systems containing today's advances in technologies separately,
but are designing a project to operate these systems together
under real operating conditions. We currently intend to make a
complete operational and systematic evaluation under real
operational conditions prior to any commitment to systemwide
acquisitions, training, and deployment.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the
members of this committee for the support you have provided to
and for the FAA. I want to assure you of our willingness to
work closely with you.
This completes my opening statement, and we would be
pleased to answer any questions you have.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Valentine. We have your
complete statement, and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry L. Valentine
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I welcome the
opportunity to appear before you today on the Federal Aviation
Administration's budget request of $8.46 billion for fiscal year 1998.
I want to thank you and the other members of the Subcommittee for your
continued interest in and support for the FAA's activities and
programs. With me today are Monte Belger, Acting Deputy Administrator;
George Donohue, Associate Administrator for Research & Acquisitions;
Irish Flynn, Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security; Susan
Kurland, Associate Administrator for Airports; and Guy Gardner,
Associate Administrator for Regulation & Certification. They are
available to answer any questions you may have.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the
FAA's recent achievements and on-going activities which enhance
aviation safety and further ensure the security of the flying public.
In February, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security, led by Vice-President Gore, issued its final report, updating
its initial report issued in September of last year. As you know, the
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act incorporated many of the White
House Commission's initial recommendations dealing with aviation
security and safety. Understandably then, we are focusing on
implementing the provisions of the Reauthorization Act as well as those
of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, which funds the
initial recommendations. As examples, we have published notices of
proposed rulemaking on certification of screening companies and on
extending background check regulations to include screeners. We are
expanding our contract with the National Academy of Sciences to broaden
our work on advanced security technologies, and have intensified our
close working relationship with the FBI to refine airport risk
assessment, and to conduct threat and vulnerability analyses. We have
also instituted a bag match pilot program.
The FAA formed an Integrated Product Team of acquisition and
security experts last October to plan, purchase and install explosives
detection devices, and other advanced security equipment, at many of
the busiest U.S. airports. In the spirit of partnership fostered by the
Commission, representatives of airport and air carrier representatives
are members of the team. As a result, we are purchasing and deploying
additional FAA certified explosives detection systems, trace detection
devices and automated X-ray machines with installations already
underway.
Also, with the help of the airport industry, we are increasing the
number of canine teams at the nation's busiest airports. In what I
believe to be a model example of partnership, the FAA is entering into
cooperative agreements with these airports to place more teams on the
tarmac to perform high quality screening of suspect cargo and bags, and
to clear airliners and terminals after bomb threats. Our classes for
training the dogs and their handlers are well underway.
FAA has been using passenger profiling for nearly 25 years and
views it as a significant element in the aviation security regime.
Profiling permits leveraging of limited security resources. Some of the
more time-consuming security measures cannot be applied universally
with existing technology and space constraints while keeping the
aviation system functioning near its current capacity. Profiling
enables us to better focus application of the more rigorous measures,
given the huge number of passengers and their bags moving through the
U.S. air transportation system. Automation will make it possible to
refine the process and make it less time-consuming for both passengers
and airline agents.
The airlines will apply the profile and any additional screening
that may occur as a result, which may delay some passengers in some
cases. Since the airlines are responsible for the application of the
profile and its results, there is no FAA ``database'' or federal system
of records that will be generated in the process. The data that will be
analyzed by the profiling program consists of information voluntarily
provided by passengers to airlines in the course of commercial
transactions. The analyzed result will be automatically deleted shortly
after the completion of the flight. In addition, the Department of
Transportation is proceeding with a White House Commission
recommendation to have the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Justice review the design and implementation of the
prototype automated profiling system.
In June 1996, the then-Deputy Administrator, Linda Daschle, led a
task force to conduct a 90-Day Safety Review examining immediate areas
of concern to the agency, especially with respect to safety
inspections. The centerpiece of the 90-Day Safety Review was the
formation of a Certification, Standardization, and Evaluation Team
(CSET). CSET is designed to assist local Flight Standards District
Offices in processing new air carrier certification. Developing,
testing, and prototyping of improved certification and surveillance
procedures for new entrant carriers is scheduled to begin in the third
quarter of fiscal year 1997, and will become fully functional by the
end of the fiscal year. New entrant airlines will now have a heightened
level of inspection for at least the first 5 years of operation.
Performance Enhancement System (PENS), also known as the On-line
Aviation Safety Inspection System (OASIS), is an electronic performance
system for Aviation Safety Inspectors which facilitates field data
collection, information management, and on-line references. The 90-Day
Safety Review recommended the increase of funding to upgrade and
accelerate the deployment of OASIS to the aviation safety inspector
work force by fiscal year 1999.
The 90-Day Safety Review identified a need for an increase in
Flight Standards Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) and field support.
The fiscal year 1998 budget requests an additional 326 positions
including 288 Flight Safety field office personnel, 6 Aviation Safety
Inspectors, 17 Aviation Safety Engineers, and 15 Technical Safety
Positions, to carry out these duties.
The aviation safety record that the United States enjoys results in
large part from the FAA's preventive efforts and ability to identify
and solve potential safety problems before accidents happen. Despite
the FAA's best efforts, accidents do occur. When they do, the FAA and
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) work closely together
during an accident investigation to identify where and how the system
failed. The FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute in Oklahoma City is
available to provide the NTSB with medical services such as
pathological and toxicological testing, and funding for autopsies and
other post mortem examinations. The FAA Technical Center in Atlantic
City also provides investigation support through component testing and
research. Of 3,123 NTSB recommendations that have been closed, 84
percent of the FAA's responses have been closed ``acceptable'' by the
NTSB. The FAA's closed ``acceptable'' rate for the NTSB's urgent
recommendations is 90 percent.
In response to the Gore Commission recommendation, the FAA is
working in partnership with NASA in an endeavor to reduce the aviation
fatal accident rate by a factor of 5 within 10 years. Current FAA/NASA
cooperative research initiatives include aging aircraft studies and
Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE).
As you know, the Office of Airports administers the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The highest priority of the AIP is reserved
for safety and security projects at airports. Airport sponsors are
strongly encouraged to use their formula funds for projects to meet
these requirements. Typical projects for safety include the acquisition
of aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, runway and taxiway signs
and runway incursion caution bars, and runway and taxiway lighting, as
well as lighting, marking or removal of airport hazards. Typical
security projects include access control systems to prevent
unauthorized entry onto the airport operations areas and perimeter
fencing. Safety related work of equal priority, such as runway
grooving, distance-to-go signs, and runway end identifier lights are
generally incorporated as standard elements of many AIP funded airport
development projects. Much of the AIP is used each year to rehabilitate
airport infrastructure. In addition to keeping airports in serviceable
condition, these projects foster safety by ensuring that deteriorated
pavement or lighting, for example, not contribute to airfield accidents
or incidents.
The Office of Airports also manages several key technical programs
that promote airport safety and act to reduce the number of aircraft
accidents on and near airports. In addition to regulatory
certification, the Office of Airports establishes minimum standards and
recommended practices for all aspects of the design, construction, and
operation of airports. These standards must continually be reviewed and
updated to reflect new technology.
Some current FAA airport standards projects that directly relate to
safe aircraft operation involve improved airfield lighting to support
low visibility operations and reduce runway incursions, runway pavement
traction, and the minimum distance between a runway and bird
attractants such as landfills. For instance, we are working with the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on a prototype aircraft
arrestment system that can be placed in the safety areas at runway ends
to bring aircraft which have overrun the pavement to a controlled stop.
A modernized communications, navigation, surveillance and air
traffic management system is one of the best long-term means of
maximizing public safety benefits. Let me give you examples of what I
mean by a public safety benefit. When we talk about modernizing the
system, this means, among other things, putting state-of-the-art
equipment in the cockpit to give pilots a much better picture of
traffic and weather outside their cockpit window, and giving them the
data needed to make real-time, informed decisions. This means giving
air traffic controllers faster and more accurate decision support tools
to separate aircraft. Some of this equipment uses satellite signals and
digital data link capability to provide pilots with the equivalent of
radar coverage no matter where they are flying in the system,
worldwide, without the need for additional and costly ground-based
radar.
Today, the U.S. has the safest and most efficient air traffic
system in the world. However, as former FAA Administrator David Hinson
has warned, if today's accident rate remains constant, statistics show
that, with projected increases in traffic, we can expect the equivalent
of one major accident every 8-10 days worldwide by the year 2015.
Therefore, the core issue is whether the FAA can continue to provide a
high level of safety and service in light of the aviation industry's
expected growth without modernizing the National Airspace System. It is
obvious we cannot.
Without such features as digital radio communications and the
decision support tools needed to increase controller productivity, the
capacity of the system will reach saturation by the years 2001-2002. If
this occurs, we will have no alternative but to artificially constrain
air traffic at major airport hubs, which the FAA did after the 1981
controller strike. The consequences of such an action are obvious and
severe.
One barrier to modernization is a human factors issue--the lack of
experience with computer and human integration. We have conducted
simulation tests and laboratory demonstrations of systems containing
today's advances in technologies separately, but have not operated
these systems together, under real operating conditions. We must make
such a complete operational and systemic evaluation under real
operational conditions prior to any commitment to system-wide
acquisitions, training, and deployment. We are attempting to develop
such a plan that will help us accomplish such a large-scale evaluation.
Our Flight 2000 project envisions such a set of conditions for a real-
time demonstration and evaluation of new technologies, and their
adaptability to system-wide adoption.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you and the
Members of this Committee for the support you have provided to, and
for, the FAA, and to assure you of our willingness to work closely with
you. This completes my prepared opening statement. We will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Implementing Safety and Security Recommendations
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging
my request to be able to ask my questions first.
Mr. Valentine, good to see you, and as I said, Mr.
Chairman, in the capacity as Acting Administrator I think it is
fair to say that the leadership has been diligent and good, and
when we ask for a permanent resolution to that it is not
intended to criticize but rather to have someone in place who
is going to be there to see the long-term plans put into place
and make the decisions that are long and complicated. So, Mr.
Valentine, to you and your people my commendations for the hard
work that does go into it.
Mr. Valentine. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. President Clinton, perhaps you know,
before accepted virtually all of the safety and security
recommendations of the Gore Commission. However, I am concerned
that there is not an established timetable for the
implementation of each of these recommendations. Can you give
us a date by which time you expect all of the recommendations
to be fully implemented?
Mr. Valentine. Senator, it would be difficult to give a
date when all of them will be 100 percent implemented. We are
still reviewing the cost implications of some of the
recommendations, particularly in the security area, and because
those recommendations may, in fact, require additional
appropriations funding from Congress. But of the 50-plus
recommendations, a little over 30 of them were related to
security, and most of the balance were related to safety. Some
also relate to efficiency and response to disasters.
I would note that a number of the recommendations were
gleaned from the Challenge 2000 report and from the 90-day
safety review, and those recommendations represent activities
that we already have underway. Some of them have been
completed. We have assigned the rest of the tasks to all of the
lines of business. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we
have a team established to provide agencywide oversight of all
of the recommendations that we are undertaking.
We have a tracking system in place. I get briefings every
couple of weeks from our staff letting me know and letting our
senior managers know exactly where we are on each of those
recommendations. My answer is that we will be pursuing them as
expeditiously as we possibly can.
Cost Factors--Implementing Safety and Security Recommendations
Senator Lautenberg. You mentioned the appropriation and
some of the cost factors that might be associated, and I quote
here from the Gore Commission final recommendations: Cost alone
should not become dispositive in deciding aviation safety and
security rulemaking issues, and I would ask that if there are
programs that have yet to be implemented that you kind of
highlight those for us and let us know which of those require
additional funding or what else we can do to move them along.
And I would like to ask you also to look at which of the
recommendations may take the longest time to implement. I will
not ask you for an answer now, but I would ask that your staff
supply that to the committee.
[The information follows:]
It is FAA's intent, working with agencies throughout the Federal
Government, to implement all the recommendations of the White House
Commission. A number of the recommendations, including some of the
initial recommendations made by the Commission last September, have
already been implemented. Among the recommendations we currently expect
to implement this year are:
--Strengthen the emphasis that government and aviation safety
research places on human factors and training,
--Require installation of enhanced ground proximity warning systems
in all commercial and military aircraft,
--Strengthen the protections that airline crew members receive from
passenger misconduct,
--Develop a revised NAS modernization plan that achieves
modernization by 2005,
--Research innovative means to accelerate the installation of
advanced avionics in general aviation aircraft,
--Identify FAA's frequency spectrum needs for the future,
--Implement a comprehensive plan to address security threats to
cargo,
--Submit a resolution to ICAO to begin a program to verify and
improve compliance with international security standards,
--Establish consortia at all commercial airports to implement
enhancements to safety and security,
--Deploy existing checked and carry-on bag screening technology,
--Significantly expand the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, and
--Improve passenger screening, including improved passenger
manifests, automated passenger profiling, and positive bag-
passenger match.
Many recommendations, of course, are costly, and many will take
time. Although funding for the initial White House Commission
recommendations was provided in Public Law 104-208, the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, the additional recommendations
included in the final findings issued in February 1997 are not funded
in fiscal year 1997. Except for an advance appropriation of $100
million requested for fiscal year 1999, funding is not included in the
fiscal year 1998 budget submission since the budget was completed prior
to the final recommendations being issued. Funding requirements for
fiscal year 1999 and thereafter will be requested through the normal
budget process. The final findings of the White House Commission are
being reviewed to determine the details of implementation as well as
the additional costs.
By far the most costly unfunded item is modernizing the National
Airspace System (NAS) by 2005 instead of 2015, as the current
architecture envisions. This will clearly add several billion dollars
to FAA budget needs over the next several years. Other costly items
include strengthening aviation human factors research, and accelerating
GPS use in NAS modernization. The White House Commission expects the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission to explore innovative federal
financing approaches, such as user fees, to finance an accelerated
modernization of the NAS and design a new financing system for the FAA
that would ensure adequate availability of funding.
Many recommendations will also take time to complete. Modernizing
the NAS by 2005 is an acceleration from FAA's existing schedule. Fully
using GPS as a part of that modernization is also a long-term project.
Many recommendations, such as targeting regulatory resources for the
most impact, simplifying regulations, and keeping cost alone from being
dispositive, are ongoing and continuous. Some additional
recommendations that we see as taking over two years to implement
include developing and applying higher standards for certification of
aviation businesses; establishing a high level of protection for all
aviation information systems; and requiring criminal background checks
and FBI fingerprint checks for all screeners and all airport and
airline employees with access to secure areas. In each case
implementing the recommendation will require a long regulatory process,
possibly preceded by the need to enact legislation and/or conduct
research.
Access to Secured Areas
Senator Lautenberg. Admiral Flynn, they should not put that
nameplate up there. Irish is Irish. Why would you call it
anything else?
Anyway, it is good to see all of you, and you, Admiral
Flynn, I know how hard you have worked on the security issue.
There have been a number of well-publicized incidents,
including one at Newark, where the media have with ease broken
through airport security measures and gained access to
vulnerable areas such as the tarmac and the ramps. The FAA
Authorization Act included a provision that I authorized
directing it to conduct unannounced aggressive testing of
airport and airline security programs. What has changed over
the last 6 months to tighten security for airport personnel to
seal these vulnerable areas? Have we done enough? Are we at a
point where you are satisfied?
Admiral Flynn. I am satisfied that we are moving in the
right direction. The additional resources, the additional
inspectors that we are hiring, will help us carry out a
comprehensive and aggressive program of testing the security
measures at all of our airports.
We have made considerable progress in that area. We have
changed our method of inspecting from formal announced
inspections, that people know ahead of time will be occurring,
to aggressive testing that is not announced, where the
inspectors are seen to be members of the public or take on the
role of people who are attempting to do aircraft damage. By
doing that, we have discovered vulnerabilities and are in the
process of repairing them.
I would say with the case with Newark in particular that
that airport has taken considerable efforts to remedy the
problems that they had. They are ahead of the rest of the
Nation, for example, in requiring an employment history check
and criminal history check for their screeners. They are also
ahead of the rule that the FAA will introduce.
I think we are on the right track to get truly secure
airports.
Senator Lautenberg. How long do you think it might take to
get it to the point where you are satisfied?
Admiral Flynn. I think that it is a matter of months rather
than years.
Certification of New Entrant Airlines
Senator Lautenberg. I hope so. We will watch with interest.
Mr. Gardner, good to see you. The Gore Commission
recognized that FAA is sometimes too lenient when it comes to
certifying airlines and contractors, especially when safety and
inspection records have not been what they ought to be. The
commission recommended that the FAA be more stringent in the
certification of these airlines. Do you agree with this
recommendation?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. Actually, the 90-day safety review
which, as Mr. Valentine mentioned, a lot of recommendations are
incorporated in the White House Commission report. These
recommendations concern the way we do oversight and
certification of new entrant airlines. We have tightened up the
way we do our certification processes of the new airlines, and
hold them to tougher standards than we have before, as well as
increased the oversight of new entrant carriers. We define a
new entrant as someone who has been in continuous business for
less than 5 years.
Senator Lautenberg. So they are subject to more scrutiny
than the existing long-time operators?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir; they are not only subject to more
scrutiny, but we are also refocusing the talent in our
inspector corps. We have formed a new certification team to
consist of our very best inspectors so that they can focus on
the new entrant carriers.
Vulnerability of Out of Date Equipment
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I just want
to respond to something.
Senator Shelby. You can go right ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Bennett asked before about the
simplicity of the equipment making it less vulnerable. I come
out of the computer business, and I think you have all heard
the story about when my company wanted to give away equipment
that FAA was not using, we wanted to give it to charity, to
institutions that could use them to teach students. They would
not take it because of the high maintenance costs. They could
not get value of it. Simple equipment is simple to intrude on.
The more complicated often is the more difficult. So just to
register my 2 cents.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Byrd.
Automated Surface Observation Systems
Senator Byrd. Mr. Valentine, I spoke earlier concerning the
difficult weather conditions that pilots often face in my
State. Two months ago I sent a letter to Secretary Slater
passing along numerous complaints I had received from airports
in my State regarding the poor performance of the automated
surface observing systems [ASOS]. These automated weather
observation systems which are being installed in nine West
Virginia airports have been consistently reporting inaccurate
weather conditions, especially during inclement weather. Have
you specifically investigated the performance of these systems
at the West Virginia airports?
Mr. Valentine. Senator Byrd, let me ask Mr. Belger if he
would address that subject. He is quite familiar with that.
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; first, I have seen your letter and I
can tell you that the final response back to you is in final
coordination. The reason it was delayed will be I think
somewhat clear in my answer.
We have had problems with ASOS at airports like those in
West Virginia which you described. About a year ago we
established some performance standards for the use of ASOS in a
stand-alone mode, and when we did that we agreed that after a
year we would go back and reassess how that was working. We are
in the process of doing that now. I can tell you now that over
the next month or 6 weeks or so we will be specifically
addressing those issues at the four airports in West Virginia
that you have referred to.
I decided several weeks ago that in the interim, while we
are going through this period of reassessment, we will not
alter the current weather collection or augmentation systems at
any of the airports. In other words, we will not eliminate any
of the contract weather observers while we are going through
this review.
West Virginia Contract Weather Observers
Senator Byrd. Well, very well. You cut right through to my
next question, and it was, and I will state it for the record
even though you have already responded, can you assure me that
you will not be removing any of the contract weather observers
from these four West Virginia airports until you can certify
that the ASOS systems are working at an optimum level without
compromising safety.
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. So the answer is yes.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of
February 19, 1997, to Secretary Rodney Slater be included in
the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Senator Byrd
February 19, 1997.
Hon. Rodney Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Slater: Congratulations on your recent confirmation
as Secretary of Transportation. I enjoyed very much our meeting on
January 30, and I appreciate your taking the time to stop by and
discuss issues of concern to me and my constituents.
I want to bring to your attention a matter of immediate concern
regarding aviation safety in my State. Recently, I have been informed
by several constituents that the Automated Surface Observing System
(ASOS) installed at airports in West Virginia is not accurately
performing its intended functions of weather reporting and forecasting.
During inclement weather, the ASOS is consistently reporting inaccurate
measurements, requiring constant backup by human observers. Moreover,
readings on wind conditions and visibility are commonly inaccurate, and
sky sensors often report erroneous values during inclement weather.
Indeed, there have been several instances in which snowfall has been
indicated by the system when no such condition existed.
Of even greater concern is the fact that four of the airports in
West Virginia (Bluefield, Elkins, Martinsburg, and Beckley) have been
classified as ``Level D'' and are targeted to lose the contract weather
observers that currently compensate for the inaccurate ASOS
information. The Mercer County Airport in Bluefield, West Virginia, is
of utmost concern, since the contract weather observers are scheduled
for removal within the next few days. Therefore, I am writing to
request that the transfer of human observers from these four ``Level
D'' airports be suspended until the accuracy and reliability of the
ASOS devices at each West Virginia airport can be certified. I would
further appreciate your assurance that safety will not be compromised
at these ``Level D'' airports once the human observers are removed.
Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Byrd.
Paying for Contract Weather Observers
Senator Byrd. Now, with reference to the paying for weather
observers, the FAA this past June published this policy for
contract weather observers in the Federal Register, and in that
policy statement you made reference to the opportunity for
local airport operators to back up the ASOS systems with their
own contract weather observers. However, the cost of these
weather observers would have to be borne by the airport and not
by the FAA. Do you think it is consistent with your initiative
to provide a single level of safety for all passenger aviation
operations to implement a policy where smaller airports are
required to pay for the weather observers themselves while the
FAA continues to compensate weather observers at other larger
airports around the country?
Mr. Belger. That is one of the things we are looking at in
this annual review that I referred to. The standards that we
established a year ago are broken out into four levels, and
they were developed, quite frankly, with the industry, and the
airports had representation in the development of those
standards. At the large airports, we are going to continue to
provide the human observer. The issues, as you described, are
at the smaller airports, and the question becomes whether or
not removing the human observer has an impact on safety and
efficiency. That is what we are doing this review for right
now.
There are a lot of innovative ways we are looking at in
which the weather observations can be made without having to go
through the FAA contracting activities, perhaps doing it on a
local level. It could be that we will turn out in the end to
reimburse for those costs, much like we do with the contract
tower program.
Contract Weather Observers at Smaller Airports
Senator Byrd. Well, I am glad to hear you say that in the
end there may be some reimbursement.
Why will only the smaller airports be required to pay for
contract weather observers? Why isn't that burden being passed
on equally to all airports across the country?
Mr. Belger. First of all, we have not made that decision.
As I said, we are going through that review process. But the
logic behind that thought is that at the larger airports the
human observer is absolutely required to meet the safety and
the efficiency and the performance of the larger aircraft. In
other words, they have to have that 24-hour capability and they
have to have, quite frankly, some of the augmentation
observations that ASOS does not provide.
At many of the smaller airports it might not be necessary
to have that augmentation. And again, I want to reemphasize
that is what we are reassessing in this review.
Senator Byrd. I hope that due regard will be given to the
question in the review and the kind of terrain where I live. We
have many problems with weather. I have flown in and out of
West Virginia for a long time, and some of the roughest flights
I have had, and I have been all over the world, Afghanistan,
flown up the Kyber Pass, and these places, I think the roughest
flights I have had have been over West Virginia. They do not
seem to be as rough as they used to be, but this is mountainous
terrain, the weather changes fast.
Mr. Belger. Right. I can assure you that we are looking at
that.
Deregulation
Senator Byrd. And in addition to that, the small airports,
these rural airports, are socked with the increased costs of
flying, far more-so than the big ones. We pay for these long
trips at low prices. We in West Virginia pay for those long
trips. It costs $664 for me to make a round trip to Charleston,
WV. Now, I think I can also recall when that round trip
probably cost $70, maybe even less. And so with deregulation
the small airports in the rural counties and the rural States
of this country started paying, and paying big-time.
The air carriers started pulling out almost as soon as
deregulation went into effect. Big carriers moved out of West
Virginia, and the prices went up. The airfares went up. And I
voted for deregulation, and I have been kicking myself ever
since. My former colleague, Senator Randolph voted against it,
and he voted right. I voted wrong.
But that is just an aside from what we are talking about
here. That is just one of the problems that we have in a State
that has only small airports and very inconvenient service, and
extremely costly service. So when we add to that this next
specter that stands at the table, smaller airports being
required to pay for contract weather observers, I hope that we
will be mindful of the problems that these small airports have
and that the traveling public have in flying out of those
airports and into them.
I see that my red light is on, Mr. Chairman. I thank you.
Category X Airports
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Admiral Flynn, the administration's budget asks for $746
million for safety--I believe that is a 12-percent increase
above current levels--and $97 million for security in 1998. The
FAA categorizes airports by risk level. Category X airports,
such as New York's Kennedy Airport, Chicago's O'Hare, San
Francisco International Airport, I understand are at the
greatest risk for safety and security matters. Do you believe,
Admiral, more money needs to be spent at category X airports to
improve safety and security?
Admiral Flynn. Mr. Chairman, with regard to risk, what
makes the category X of greater concern is the complexity of
the operations and the number of passenger embarkations. I want
to hasten to say that they are not inherently more threatened
by terrorists than other airports.
Senator Shelby. But the traffic makes it so, is that
correct?
Admiral Flynn. Indeed, that is right. It is the complexity.
Senator Shelby. But that is due to the traffic.
Admiral Flynn. That is right, Senator. Yes, Senator. And we
have sufficient operations resources to be able to perform all
the FAA functions at all of the airports that we regulate.
Those that are in the budget request are sufficient to give us
the resources to perform all of our regulatory functions.
Then with regard to the security at those airports, the
principal vulnerability is in the area of checked baggage. We
are aware of that. We had recommended changes to that and had
instituted changes to it prior to the White House Commission
being formed. There is the funding above that $97 million that
you have mentioned, that is the $100 million per year, being
recommended to acquire screening equipment for check baggage
and other security improvements.
Costs for Better Safety and Security
Senator Shelby. How much more money, if you would make a
judgment, needs to be spent for better safety and security at a
large category X airport to improve training for airport
security employees who monitor explosive detection equipment,
train canines, and so forth?
Admiral Flynn. The costs over 10 years at any one of those
big airports of the additional people, the upgrading of their
training, paying people, good people, in order to retain them,
the 10-year cost exceeds $100 million for one of those
airports.
Senator Shelby. About $10 million a year, more or less?
Admiral Flynn. I can provide for the record more precise
costs.
Senator Shelby. Could you do that?
[The information follows:]
Based on the recommendations in the White House
Commission's Report, the total ten-year cost to the Government,
airport authorities, and airlines for security programs at the
Category X airports will be close to $3 billion. The total
includes capital costs for new equipment as well as added
personnel and their training. This averages out to $154 million
per Category X airport, or slightly over $15 million annually
for the next ten years.
Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART]
Senator Shelby. Mr. Valentine, Admiral Flynn has just
informed us that San Francisco International Airport, or other
category X airports, needs approximately $100 million over a
10-year period to meet its basic safety and security needs. The
BART financing agreement, which FAA must approve, requires the
airlines to pay, I understand, about $7.5 million per year to
help build the transit project. Is this the best use of those
airport revenues?
Mr. Valentine. I think the first part of the answer is that
I do not know that it requires them to spend it. That was an
agreement that was struck by the parties among themselves.
Senator Shelby. Well, if they have an agreement that is
going to be obligatory, is it not?
Mr. Valentine. What I am saying is they have an agreement.
There are no AIP moneys or PFC moneys involved in this process.
It is just moneys that the airport has earned, and our role in
that has been principally to determine whether or not that is
an appropriate use of airport revenues.
Senator Shelby. Is this an unusual precedent?
Mr. Valentine. I think it is one of the first of this type,
but it fits within the parameters that we use to identify
whether or not money is being appropriately used. I do have Ms.
Kurland here with me who is much more familiar with the details
on this.
Airport Funds for Transit Projects
Senator Shelby. Ms. Kurland on that?
Ms. Kurland. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I agree with what Barry
Valentine has just said. I would also point out that in the AIP
handbook, which has been published for quite some time, there
is a recognition that transit facilities at airports can in
fact be eligible, if they are on the airport and connecting to
a rapid transit system and for the benefit and purpose of the
airport. And as you know, the committee in the conference
report directed the FAA to look at the proposal that up to $200
million of airport funds could be used for this project. What
we did was look at the proposal that was provided to us,
determine what parts of the proposal met the statutory
criteria, set out the eligibility principles, and make it very
clear that only actual costs could, in fact, be eligible.
Senator Shelby. Is this the best and highest priority for
airport revenues, in view of safety and other concerns?
Ms. Kurland. Mr. Chairman, let me try and answer your
question this way: The proposal which has been provided to us
does not propose the use of either AIP or PFC funds. This is
for revenues generated on the airport. The airports do have
control, in conjunction with airlines, depending on what type
of agreements they have with their airlines on how revenues at
the airport will be used. Once it meets the eligibility
criteria, this is a determination for the local airport.
Senator Shelby. Does FAA policy require airports to
prioritize their needs, and is this the best and most efficient
use of the money in view of the safety concerns that we are all
concerned about?
Ms. Kurland. Let me just amplify on your statement a
little. For airport revenue to be used, it has to be for an
airport purpose. And when we at the FAA spend discretionary
funds from the AIP fund, we in fact do have a priority system
in terms of how we rank projects. Safety and security are
always at the top of the list in terms of how we spend
discretionary AIP funds.
Best Use of Airport Funds
Senator Shelby. Earlier, Senator Byrd was bringing up
safety concerns in his own State, the same concerns we have all
over America. Would not the airport money be better spent for
airport safety, and would not people feel better about it in
America? Airport safety is very important.
Ms. Kurland. Airport safety is our key mission at the FAA.
And as I just stated, when we do have the flexibility to spend
the discretionary funds, that is our top priority. The
statutory criteria do allow airports, as long as it meets
eligibility criteria, to determine, in conjunction with their
airlines or based on whatever their way of governing their
airports and their funds are, to make those local
determinations.
Senator Shelby. I know that several members of this
subcommittee and other members of the Appropriation Committee
have contacted me as the subcommittee chairman regarding the
BART money, that this is a diversion of moneys that should be
spent for airport safety and everything else, and I thought
this issue should be raised here today.
Ms. Kurland. Thank you, and we would be happy to provide
you with whatever additional information you would like, or
additional briefings.
Admiral Flynn. Mr. Chairman?
Airlines Cost for Security
Senator Shelby. Yes; go ahead, Admiral.
Admiral Flynn. The cost that I gave for security at a major
airport includes the cost that the airlines would bear.
Senator Shelby. We understand that. But still, that is the
overall cost. That was your judgment, was it not?
Admiral Flynn. That was my judgment, but I would need to
refine it for the record.
Senator Shelby. Of course.
Senator Byrd.
Safety Performance of Commuter Air Carriers
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Valentine, the implementation period for all commuter
air carriers to come into compliance with your initiative to
ensure one level of safety for larger and smaller aircraft
ended roughly 3 weeks ago, on March 20. At this point, do we
have any hard evidence that the safety performance by the
commuter industry has improved as a result of this initiative?
Mr. Valentine. When we looked at that initiative
originally, Senator, the premise on which we undertook that
effort was that if the commuter industry followed the same
rules and procedures as the large carriers, that they would
ultimately enjoy the same safety record as the large carriers.
That was based on the fact that historically the fatal accident
rate among commuters was higher than that of the large
carriers. So in pursuing that course of action we used that
assumption. We did not say that this particular piece of what
was really a 100 and some-odd part improvement would
necessarily result in a specific measurable increase in safety
but, in the aggregate, doing all of these things would elevate
those operators to the same level as the large carriers.
I am pleased to report that 1996 was the safest year in the
last 15 years in terms of operations of commuter airlines. And
in fact, candidly, 1996 was better than the large operators. I
hope that we will see that trend continue and I think we can
expect to.
Senator Byrd. Well, I feel a little better about flying to
West Virginia and back.
Mr. Valentine. I understand. I am originally from a State
not unlike West Virginia. I am from northern New England, and
the terrain and the weather and access by only commuters is a
feature of that area, as well. So I appreciate what you are
saying.
Inspection and Oversight Methods
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Valentine.
Now, following the ValuJet crash, your agency conducted a
90-day safety review that revealed deficiencies in the way that
your agency inspected and conducted oversight over new entrants
into the aviation business. Given these findings, are you
convinced that your current inspection and oversight methods
are ideally structured to detect any deficiencies in the
commuter airline industry?
Mr. Valentine. Mr. Gardner, a little earlier, addressed
that subject to some extent, and I would just reiterate what he
said. I think that we are on the right course of action to
making sure that we have the right people in the right place to
provide the right oversight for new entrant airlines.
Senator Byrd. So you are satisfied that you are detecting
any and all safety lapses in this part of the industry?
Mr. Valentine. We are satisfied that, given our resources
and our opportunities, we are doing the best we can in that
area.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thank Mr.
Valentine and all those who have appeared as witnesses. I
especially thank you for your indulgence of questions from
other members of the committee.
Cost of Accelerated Modernization
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Dr. Donohue, I have another question here. How much would
the accelerated modernization program outlined in the Gore
Commission recommendations increase the funding levels needed
in the facilities and equipment account in the years 1999 to
the year 2000? Do you want to furnish that for the record, or
do you have it now?
Dr. Donohue. Yes, sir; I think that is an excellent
question. We are currently staffing that, and we are trying to
make sure that we have at least the beginning of that
represented in the 1999 budget. But that is actually a very
difficult question to answer accurately, even probably in our
timeframe for putting together the 1999 budget. But we will
continue to supply you with all the information we get as we
get it.
It really is, I think, a cashflow issue because up-front
capital investment will decrease operations costs--a question
that was asked earlier--but we have to find the availability
within our cashflow constraints, through some innovative means,
to do the capital investments to decrease out-year operations
costs and increase safety.
Security Measures for Domestic and Foreign Carriers
Senator Shelby. Mr. Valentine, or perhaps Admiral Flynn
too, in view of the clear instructions in the Terrorism
Prevention Act of 1996 that the FAA require foreign airlines
serving the United States to have the, quote, ``identical
security measures that United States airlines are required to
have.'' Do you know why the FAA has been unwilling to implement
this law?
Mr. Valentine. I would ask Admiral Flynn if he would
address that.
Senator Shelby. Admiral?
Admiral Flynn. Mr. Chairman, we have not been unwilling.
Senator Shelby. Have you been unable?
Admiral Flynn. No; it requires a regulation to do that.
Senator Shelby. All right.
Admiral Flynn. And we are introducing a regulation.
Senator Shelby. You are going to pursue it, then?
Admiral Flynn. Oh, indeed. Indeed, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Good. It is my understanding, Mr.
Valentine, that about one-half of the U.S. citizens traveling
internationally do so on foreign airlines. Should not our
citizens receive the same level of security as a passenger of
any nationality who travels on a U.S. airline? In other words,
they travel on our airlines, we have high security; should we
not insist on security for our own people traveling abroad?
Mr. Valentine. We do insist, and I will let Admiral Flynn
address some of this, if he wishes. We do insist on certain
levels of security regarding, for example, foreign carriers who
travel to the United States and airlines operating out of
airports that are the last point of departure for the United
States. They have to undergo security procedures virtually
identical to the ones that we have here in the United States.
Budget Request for Modernization
Senator Shelby. Mr. Valentine, I have read warnings from
many experts on the aviation system that we cannot get much
more capacity out of the current system without major
modernization. This means we will require increased capacity,
both in air traffic control systems and our ground capacity. If
these modernizations and enhancements are not made, many
believe that there will have to be a cap imposed on the system
capacity. That would not be a popular alternative for American
travelers and businesses.
However, the FAA budget for 1998 system modernization under
facilities and equipment decreases by $58 million, and the
fiscal 1998 request for airport improvement program plummets
$460 million below the enacted level, from $1.46 billion to $1
billion. Could you explain, for the record, the apparent
decrease in this administration's commitment to system
modernization and capacity enhancement? I think it is very
important to a growing economy, among other things.
Mr. Valentine. We recognize, and I think recently you have
heard Secretary Slater say, that air transportation is
absolutely integral to the soundness of the economic system of
any country today throughout the world. And for us to
experience economic growth, we are going to have to have
comparable capacity growth in our air transportation system.
And we think that the budget we propose reflects a recognition
of that. In putting the budget together we had to make some
very tough decisions about where best to allocate those
resources.
I think one of the most obvious areas that you notice when
you look at the budget is the change in the AIP funding,
because the emphasis was placed on the operational end.
Particularly focusing on airspace capacity, we recognize that,
with regard to airport capacity and particularly those
capacity-constrained airports--which are our larger airports--
they have the ability to secure resources from other means and,
in fact, historically have secured most of their resources from
means other than AIP funding.
So in making our decisions and setting our priorities, we
placed our emphasis on airspace capacity issues, recognizing
that there are alternatives for the land side of the capacity
problem.
CTX-5000
Senator Shelby. I suppose this next question would be
directed to you, Admiral Flynn, or Dr. Donohue. The CTX-5000 is
the only FAA-certified airport baggage screening system, and
the agency is currently procuring 54 systems for U.S. airports.
In the fiscal 1998 budget request there is no funding requested
for the CTX-5000 procurement. Is 54 systems the right number of
CTX-5000's for the United States? Are there other technologies
that will be certified within the next fiscal year that may
provide the FAA with an alternative to CTX-5000?
Admiral Flynn. It is possible that some other machine will
be certified within the timeframe you mentioned, but the 54
CTX-5000's represent a small fraction of the total that will be
required.
Senator Shelby. For everything else?
Admiral Flynn. No; of all the certified machines, be they
CTX or some other certified systems, that will be required for
screening checked baggage at the 76 biggest airports in the
United States, where the use of such machines is clearly
practical.
So additional money was requested, and that money becomes
available on October 1, 1998, if it is appropriated as
requested, to continue the acquisition of CTX-5000 or some
other certified equipment, if that should happen in time to use
that money.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Donohue, do you concur with that?
Dr. Donohue. Yes, I do. I think there are some issues of
production rates and how fast we can reasonably expect these
new equipments to be produced. So I think we are doing it in
the most prudent way.
Wide Area Augmentation System
Senator Shelby. Dr. Donohue, last year the Appropriations
Committee expressed increasing concern about schedule and cost
risk in the wide area augmentation system program. The General
Accounting Office says that recent events have confirmed that
the FAA schedule for augmenting global positioning system is at
risk, and that the internal FAA documents point to the
potential of substantial cost increases.
Industry and even former FAA officials are saying that
eventual costs for the program, even with scaled back
requirements, will vastly exceed the $475 million original
contract cost. Do you know what is the current cost baseline
for the WAAS program?
Dr. Donohue. Yes, Senator.
Senator Shelby. And do you disagree with the General
Accounting Office.
Dr. Donohue. To some extent yes, I disagree with the
General Accounting Office. This is a very complex program, and
you have to look very carefully into what part of the program
one is talking about. Our program does not only develop the
software and the hardware and does the deployment of the
system, it also buys communication services from satellites,
INMARSAT, and it is looking at total life cycle costs including
out-year maintenance.
There are a number of different ways to provide the out-
year maintenance costs. They cost different amounts, depending
upon what we ultimately execute. Our communications satellite
costs, over a 10- or 15-year period, can vary in out-years
based upon ways in which we are looking to decrease those
costs.
The current Hughes contract is on schedule. It is, in fact,
in some places ahead of schedule. We feel very confident that
the primary contract is, in fact, proceeding as we have said
before. There are some technical issues that we are looking at
as we collect data from our national satellite test bed. We are
evaluating that data to try to see whether or not we need to
modify our requirement. We have not decided that yet. We are
holding to the original requirements. But they are under review
right now. I am doing a full review to try to understand
exactly what those costs might be and that we are doing
everything we can to hold the line.
Senator Shelby. Will you let us on the committee and the
staff know the outcome of that review?
Dr. Donohue. Yes, Senator; as soon as I complete the
review, and I hope to do that over the next month or 6 weeks.
We will provide you with all the information that we get.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. I appreciate all of you, Mr. Valentine and
all of you, appearing here before us and having a good and
frank exchange of views. We will submit additional questions to
be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Domenici
airline safety improvement measures
Question. Acting Administrator Valentine, the Gore Commission
recommends that the FAA should actively include the aviation industry
in improving safety by forming partnerships to work together in such
areas as self-monitoring and certification. In fact, recent testimony
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted several safety
concerns which were identified by non-FAA sources which would not have
been detected by relying solely on FAA surveillance. I believe an
inclusive safety program involving various parties could present
significant positive benefits in improving our nation's fleets.
However, I believe such partnerships should be formed very carefully
and only after the FAA has insured such as partnership would not
compromise the agencies principle role as the industries' regulator.
Has the FAA begun to consider any safety program(s) which would form
partnerships with various aviation industries? And if so, would you
provide me with examples?
Answer. In recent years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and the air transportation industry have identified safety areas that
were in need of improvement. In response to these safety needs, the
FAA, in cooperation with industry, established several demonstration
Partnership for Safety Programs in an effort to increase the flow of
safety information to both the air carrier and FAA. Among these
programs were the US Airways Altitude Awareness Program, the American
Airlines Safety Action Program, and the Alaska Airlines Altitude
Awareness Program.
At the Safety Conference held on January 9-10, 1995, the Secretary
of Transportation and the FAA Administrator announced the standardized
policy and procedures that would be provided for the use of these
programs along with the expansion of these programs to include
participation from aviation industry employee groups, such as flight
attendants, dispatchers, and mechanics.
On January 8, 1997, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 120-
66, which provides guidance for establishing air transportation
Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP), formerly known as Partnership
Programs. These programs, which are entered into by the FAA and
entities of the air transportation industry, are intended to generate
safety information that may not otherwise be obtainable.
Under certain circumstances, ASAP provides a vehicle whereby
employees of part 121 air carriers and major domestic repair station
certificate holders (part 145) can identify and report safety issues to
management and the FAA for resolution without fear of punitive legal
enforcement action being taken against them. The elements of ASAP are
set forth in a memorandum of understanding between the FAA, certificate
holders, management, and employee groups or their representatives.
Apparent violations of the regulations by employees of a
certificate holder disclosed through safety-related reports will
ordinarily be addressed with administrative action, provided that the
apparent violations do not involve deliberate misconduct, a substantial
disregard for safety or security, criminal conduct, or conduct that
demonstrates or raises a question of a lack of qualification. Such
violations are specifically excluded from the program. With the
issuance and completion of the ASAP AC, inspector bulletin, and the
informational seminar, airlines are now eligible to apply for program
approval.
Another area of significance within our agency is the Global
Analysis and Information Network (GAIN), a proposed analysis and
information sharing framework that is intended to identify emerging
safety concerns and disseminate significant safety information to the
aviation community world-wide. The GAIN concept would link various data
sources, such as voluntary disclosure reporting, incident reporting,
digital flight data, and air traffic control (ATC) radar data with
analytical methods such as qualitative risk assessment, data mining,
data visualization, and statistical methods. Further discussions on
potential features of the proposed GAIN system can be found in the GAIN
concept document that was issued by the FAA's Office of System Safety
on May 9, 1996 (a copy of which may be found on the System Safety
website at http://nasdac.faa.gov).
The GAIN concept is not intended to replace the aviation safety
programs currently active in segments of the global aviation community
but will complement and build upon those activities, perhaps using
information from some of these programs as inputs while helping to
bring a wider, ``global'' participation to many of the programs. In
addition, while many existing safety data systems rely on the more
serious events that must be reported by regulation, GAIN will emphasize
proactive identification of safety concerns through collection of data
about the less serious but more numerous occurrences that are currently
under-reported in the aviation system.
GAIN would also go beyond many of the current safety data programs
by incorporating analysis of empirical data, such as digital flight
data and ACT system data. The two potential uses of this empirical are
to validate the concerns raised in voluntary reports and to create
measures that describe system operations. Monitoring National Airspace
System day-to-day operations for deviations from these statistical
norms should quickly heighten aviation operators' awareness of
conditions or circumstances that may signal the onset of increasing
safety risk.
Other distinguishing features of GAIN include its scope, data
management, and ownership. The scope of GAIN is envisioned as
incorporating all aviation systems--flight operations, surface
operations, and air traffic control--and all of the world-wide aviation
community. By accessing the experience of the entire aviation
community, GAIN will vastly increase the capability for all to benefit.
The data management concept for GAIN is very flexible. For a number
of reasons, including the large quantity of raw data available, little
or no sharing of raw data is expected. Instead, the information
resulting from analysis of raw data will be shared. In addition, it is
unlikely that data or resulting information would be stored in a
centralized location. Raw data could reside with its owners while the
information byproducts could be made available to users through
networking, a dissemination concept commonly known as a ``virtual
database.''
While the FAA is helping facilitate the creation of GAIN by
informing potential participants about the concept and bringing
potential participants together, FAA will not own or operate GAIN. It
is hoped that the potential safety and economic benefits to be derived
from GAIN would motivate the aviation community to step forward and
fund its development and then to own and operate GAIN for the mutual
benefit of many users. FAA would be one of those users, providing some
of GAIN's data/information inputs and then using GAIN's analytical
results and supporting data.
Question. Do you as Acting Administrator, believe the FAA could
effectively increase the safety of our nation's air fleet through a
self-monitoring and self-certification process?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed and
implemented a voluntary disclosure policy for specific types of
airlines and repair stations. This is a policy under which 14 Code of
Federal Regulations Parts 121, 135, and 145 certificate and production
approval holders may voluntarily report apparent violations of the
regulations and develop corrective action satisfactory to the FAA to
preclude their recurrence. Certificate holders who satisfy the elements
of the voluntary disclosure policy, receive a letter of correction in
lieu of civil penalty action. Voluntary disclosure reporting procedures
are outlined in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-56, Air Carrier Voluntary
Disclosure Report Procedures. Although not presently required by the
regulations, manufacturers have been encouraged to perform self-audits
as a basis for future changes since the new Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) Part 21 will require self-audits by manufacturers.
Voluntary disclosures for air carriers, which result in
administrative actions, account for an increasing percentage of total
air carrier enforcement investigative reports, growing from 7 percent
in calendar year 1990 (the first year of the program) to 25 percent in
calendar year 1996. This program is only one of several tools that the
FAA has to seek compliance with the safety regulations. When
appropriate the FAA will continue to use suspension or revocation and
civil penalty actions for more serious cases.
The FAA also believes that the certificate holder is in the best
position to identify deficiencies and promptly correct them, and it
should have in place a procedure whereby internal compliance audits are
performed and top management is informed of its company's operations,
compliance, and safety record. Such internal audits will improve the
certificate holder's ability to identify and correct any safety
problems before, rather than after, FAA inspections. Public safety is
enhanced significantly if deficiencies are identified and corrected
when they are discovered by the certificate holder, instead of when the
FAA discovers the deficiencies, sometimes much later, in the course of
an inspection or in the wake of an accident or incident.
In 1990, the FAA announced a policy (Compliance & Enforcement
Bulletin No. 90-6) that was intended to serve as an incentive to
institute and maintain a system of internal evaluation. The FAA
believes that aviation safety is best served by incentives to
certificate holders to identify and correct their own instances of
noncompliance and invest more resources in efforts to preclude their
recurrence, rather than paying penalties. Prompt and meaningful
remedial action to prevent the same or similar sort of violation from
happening again, more directly and substantially improves the safety of
our national transportation system than the recovery of thousands of
dollars in civil penalties.
In 1992, the FAA published AC 120-59, Air Carrier Internal
Evaluation Programs. This AC provides information and guidance material
that may be used by air carrier certificate holders, operating under
FAR Parts 121 and 135, to design or develop an Internal Evaluation
Program. The procedures and practices outlined in this document can be
applied to maintenance, flight operations, and security aspects of an
air carrier's organization.
The Internal Evaluation Program is a voluntary program.
Participation is left solely to the discretion of each certificate
holder. As a matter of policy, the FAA encourages certificate holders
to identify, correct, and disclose instances of noncompliance.
Therefore, the development and implementation of an Internal Evaluation
Program will benefit both the certificate holder and the flying public.
In a joint venture between the FAA and industry, self-certification
has been used to some extent for a number of years. These initiatives
are Designated Alteration Stations (DAS) and Delegation Option
Authorizations (DOA). In both of these initiatives, the function of
self-certification is performed with limited oversight being performed
by the FAA. However, in both the DOA and DAS, the company must have
exhibited extraordinary abilities to perform these functions.
Our experience to date with the various programs have produced
positive results and the FAA is confident that airline safety will
continue to benefit from this corrective action process.
aging aircraft center
Question. Acting Administrator Valentine, the overall safety of our
commercial air fleet has been of interest to me for several years now.
In fact, in my state of New Mexico, an exciting new technology is being
developed to improve the safety of our aging air fleet at the Aging
Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center (AANC) in Albuquerque. This
center has been supported by the FAA for the past six years and we are
seeing substantial progress in developing new techniques to assess the
structural integrity of our commercial air fleets.
In fact, in your own budget request, the Administration highlights
this new technology by stating it will save our 700 man-hours per
aircraft inspection over current methods. However, the Administration's
budget proposes to reduce the level of funding for aging aircraft
research from $13.9 million in fiscal year 1997 to $13 million in
fiscal year 1998. I am puzzled by this Administration's policies
regarding aviation safety. On one hand the President identifies
commercial air safety as one of his top priorities, but on the other
hand he produces a budget proposal that once again decreases funding
for one of our most important aviation safety issues. Knowing that by
the year 2000 more than 2500 commercial aircraft in the United States
may be flying beyond their original design lives, I believe this is
dangerous policy. Do you believe the Administration's current budget
proposal is sufficient to continue our efforts in ensuring aircraft
safety?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget request does not represent a
decrease in the aging aircraft program. Rather, it reflects an increase
of $2.4 million in contract funds. The total dollar amount appropriated
in fiscal year 1997 was $13.9 million, which included in-house costs.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request of $13 million reflects contract
funds only, as in-house costs are now part of a separate budget line
item. The budget proposal is sufficient to continue our highest
priority work in ensuring the safety of aging aircraft.
Question. What current activities will be sustained with these
resources?
Answer. Our highest priority aging aircraft activities in
structural integrity, and maintenance and inspection in testing,
evaluation, demonstration, and validation will be conducted.
Question. What activities will be reduced or eliminated due to
budget reductions?
Answer. No major activities will be reduced or eliminated at the
proposed $200 million budget level.
Question. What is the Administration's proposed budget for the
Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center in Albuquerque?
Answer. The budget requests approximately $3 million for inspection
technology development and validation.
Question. Acting Administrator Valentine, the Gore Commission also
identifies aging aircraft as a major concern for aviation safety. In
fact, they recommend that we expand the current aging aircraft
inspection program to include the effects of age on non-structural
components of commercial aircraft. Does the FAA support this
recommendation?
Answer. FAA currently is evaluating the Gore Commission
recommendations regarding the effects of age on non-structural
components of commercial aircraft. Where the results of the evaluation
indicate a need, the FAA will expand the current aging aircraft safety
program to include non-structural components.
Question. Understanding the limited amount of funding available
under this program, how does the FAA propose to fund this extra work
load?
Answer. The Gore Commission recommendations were received after the
fiscal year 1998 budget was formulated. If a review of the Commission's
recommendations indicates a need for increasing the scope of the
current aging aircraft program to include non-structural system
components, the FAA will identify the scope of the changes necessary
along with funding requirements.
aircraft safety research
Question. One of the ``Gore Commission'' recommendations is to work
in cooperation with the airlines and manufacturers to expand the FAA's
Aging Aircraft program to cover non-structural systems. I believe this
recommendation is on the mark based upon the innovative work being done
at the FAA's Aging Aircraft Non-destructive Evaluation Center (AANC) in
Albuquerque.
This Center has made significant and effective contributions to
improvements in aircraft inspection and repair by transferring new
technology from the laboratory to routine use by industry. AANC goes
through a methodical process of testing, demonstrating and validating
new techniques and provides support to industry to implement them.
Their success is shown by contracts with other federal agencies,
including the Coast Guard and Air Force, on aircraft inspection and
repair issues.
It seems to me that the close collaboration with the FAA, AANC, and
the industry ensures that the best inspection techniques are
transferred to routine usage in the most expeditious fashion. AANC is
also working closely with airlines and manufacturers to develop
industry standards for composite structure inspection. NASA has stated
its intention to devote a sizable share of its resources to improve
aviation safety and security. What is the status of discussions between
the FAA and NASA on how to proceed with policy?
Answer. Two years ago, in anticipation of the need for a closer
working relationship, NASA and the FAA exchanged executive personnel
for the sole purpose of enhancing aviation safety by developing
cooperative programs of mutual interest to both agencies. During the
early development stage of the NASA new initiative for aviation safety,
FAA played a key role in its formulation and focus. The FAA and NASA
maintain a continuing dialogue through quarterly meetings at the
Associate Administrator level to ensure that policy matters are
resolved at this highest level. These discussions will lead to a method
of transition, coordinated programs, and integrated planning. Included
in the discussion is the establishment of an appropriate management
oversight team to ensure timely execution of newly formulated programs.
Question. What areas of expertise are most appropriate for the FAA
to remain the lead agency in aviation safety and security?
Answer. FAA's primary mission is to provide a safe, secure, and
efficient global aviation system that contributes to national security.
Public confidence in the safety of both the aircraft used and the
airspace system is paramount to the ultimate competitiveness of the
U.S. aviation industry. The inherent safety of an aircraft is a
function of its design integrity and its manufacturing quality
administrated through a certification program to ensure compliance with
prescribed standards. A key aspect, therefore, of the FAA's primary
mission is to ensure the highest level of public safety while
incorporating new technology. The FAA has areas of preeminent
expertise, such as, fire safety, aeromedical research, and air traffic
systems technology. The FAA is required to address research that
examines limits, performance, and margins of safety provided by current
and evolving equipment, products, and procedures. This category of
research supports the FAA in identifying and evaluating deterioration
of the safety systems. This research can also identify needed
innovative product development. Through early participation in the
research and product development cycle, the FAA can accelerate
technology through the certification process.
The FAA established the National Resource Specialist (NRS) Program
to maintain a cadre of highly specialized experts to provide technical
leadership in the design development and application of regulatory
policies and practices for certification of rapidly advancing
technology. The NRS program influences the research agenda of U.S. and
foreign aviation industries, military, academia, and other research
institutions; and interacts with and assists other U.S. Government
agencies and foreign civil aviation authorities in technology related
issues.
NASA has a role to play in the orderly development and validation
of this technology including one of providing information that may
assist the FAA in determining certification criteria.
Question. Could you comment upon areas where NASA could make a
unique contribution to aviation safety and security work?
Answer. NASA's primary mission lies in the early, higher technical
risk phase of the technology research and development chain where
aeronautical concepts are created, basic research conducted, and risk
is reduced through concept verification and validation. These efforts
are aimed at improving the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and
efficiency of aeronautical vehicles and at helping to ensure a safe and
efficient airspace system. NASA also acts as a catalyst with industry
and academia to preserve the role of the United States as a world
leader in aeronautical science and technology. NASA, in cooperation
with FAA, has recently embarked upon a new technology investment
strategy over the next five years with aggressive goals to provide the
technology to reduce accident rates by a factor of five within the next
ten years. These new systems will include but are not limited to:
improving situational awareness, improving flight crews interactions,
detecting and displaying hazardous weather, preventing collisions,
extending useful life of existing aircraft, and identifying problems
before they become accidents. As the technology matures, NASA assumes a
supporting role as user needs--including those of the industry, DOD,
and FAA--dictate the nature and pace of technology development,
certification, and inspection.
Question. Do you believe there can be an effective ``marriage''
between the FAA and NASA research programs to advance aviation safety
and security?
Answer. NASA and the FAA have worked together continually to
leverage the limited research and development resources available to
the aviation community for improving aviation safety. The two agencies
closely coordinate their respective research programs through periodic
reviews at both the working and the associate administrator levels.
Each agency maintains its own research efforts focusing on the specific
roles and responsibilities of each agency. Specific examples include
the General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) Program to develop a coordinated
series of activities to develop a certification basis for future low-
cost general aviation light aircraft propulsion systems. Another
example is the jointly supported Advanced General Aviation Transport
Experiments (AGATE) program designed to develop new technologies in the
years 1995-2000 for a new generation of safe, economically and
environmentally compatible general aviation aircraft. The FAA and NASA
have demonstrated that they can effectively enhance aviation safety
through a coordinated effort between the two agencies.
Question. With constrained budgets, I am concerned about
duplication of effort. Congress will want any research program to be
well coordinated and avoid inefficiencies and duplication of FAA's
research program. Are you confident that duplication of effort can be
avoided within the Administration?
Answer. The FAA and NASA are redoubling their efforts to ensure
that the current and planned research programs are complimentary and
leverage each others expertise and unique facilities. Through
continuous communications throughout the two agencies' work force, the
FAA is confident that its research program is coordinated with NASA's
research efforts and supports the needs of the aviation community
within the resources available. The FAA and NASA will strive to improve
the integrated planning and coordination of each others research
programs, so that potential duplication and inefficiencies will not
occur. The establishment of an oversight management team will ensure
continuous review and accountability of the research dollars in a
constrained budget environment.
modernization of air traffic control system
Question. The Gore Commission also evaluated the FAA's progress on
the modernization of the out dated Air Traffic Control System (ATC). I
am very concerned with the FAA's inability to remain on schedule and
produce a product which will significantly benefit the American air
traveler. The Gore Commission recommends the FAA should develop a
revised modernization plan and to have that system fully operational by
the year 2005. Has the FAA began to develop a new strategic plan for
the development and implementation for the modernization of the Air
Traffic Control System? And if so, where specifically are you in that
process.
Answer. The FAA has begun to develop a new strategic plan for
modernization of the Air Traffic Control System. A first draft of this
strategic plan for modernization is embodied in the proposed National
Airspace System Architecture (Version 2.0), which was released for
aviation community comments October 1996. The FAA and the aviation
community, taking into account the comments received on Version 2.0 and
the new Air Traffic Control System concept of operations, will
collaboratively develop a baseline architecture (Version 3.0) by the
end of 1997.
Question. Does the FAA believe it is possible to have the Air
Traffic Control system completely modernized by the year 2005? And if
so, how much additional funding would be necessary to complete the
system on such a fast track?
Answer. The FAA has taken a preliminary look at modernizing the Air
Traffic Control system by 2005, and is in the process of developing a
comprehensive plan to include detailed cost and schedule milestones.
Completion of the modernization plan is scheduled for August of this
year.
user fees
Question. Mr. Valentine, the President's budget proposes that
beginning in 1999, the current aviation excise tax will be replaced by
a cost-based user fee system.
The proposal shows $27.2 billion being collected under this user
fee proposal between 1999 and 2002.
What assumptions did the FAA use in determining the revenues that
can be generated by a user fee proposal? Specifically, who would pay
the user fee and how would it be collected? How would user fees be
assessed on the traveling public?
Answer. Projected revenues were based on the recovery of costs for
all FAA programs. Using 1998 as a baseline, future years reflect 3-
percent annual growth except for the Airport Improvement Program, which
remains constant at $1 billion. Specific fees to be charged have not
been determined and will be influenced by the recommendations of the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission. How the user fees are
assessed and collected will be based on several considerations,
including whether the fees are paid before, after, or concurrent with
the provision of services, the volume of payments to be made, and the
size of individual payments.
Question. If the FAA has not finalized how these fees would be
collected or imposed, how were these revenue figures generated?
Answer. Using 1998 as a baseline, a 3-percent inflation factor per
year was applied to operations, facilities and equipment, and research.
AIP was straight-lined at $1 billion. As the President formulates his
budget each year, decisions will be made on a year-to-year basis to
update these assumptions.
Question. Would it have been more advantageous for the FAA to wait
until the final report of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission
before making revenue projections for a cost-based user fee?
Answer. The Administration is assuming that the work of the
Commission will be completed before the end of this fiscal year and
recommendations provided to Congress and DOT. This will allow time to
make any necessary changes in the proposal to establish and implement
user fees.
Question. Mr. Valentine, the President's budget proposes that
beginning in 1999, the aviation excise tax will be replaced with a
cost-based user fee system.
However the President's budget does not show where these user fees
will be spent within the FAA.
In what areas and in what amount will these new user fees be spent
between 1999 and 2002?
Answer. User fees will provide funding for all FAA programs. As the
budget is formulated each year by the President, assumptions will be
updated and the estimates revised.
Question. If this information is not known, how did the FAA arrive
at its budget request of $35.9 billion between 1999 and 2002?
Answer. Fiscal year 1998 was used as a baseline and a 3-percent
inflation factor per year was applied to operations, facilities and
equipment and research. AIP was straight-lined at $1 billion.
Question. What level of funding will the FAA recommend to the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission for (a) FAA Operations, (b)
FAA Facilities and Equipment, (c) FAA Research and Development, and (d)
the Airport Improvement Program between 1999 and 2002?
Answer. As part of their independent assessment of the FAA's
financial requirements, Coopers & Lybrand concluded that the FAA's
projected needs of $59.8 billion for fiscal years 1997-2002 were
reasonable in total assuming a ``status quo operating environment.''
Coopers goes on to state that the ``National Civil Aviation Review
Commission and its Aviation Funding Task Force should use that basic
premise as their starting point.'' An update of the $59.8 billion was
provided to Coopers. This update of FAA's requirements to $61.9 billion
reflects the fiscal year 1997 enacted level, the fiscal year 1998
request level, revised pay raise and inflation assumptions, a refined
pricing model for Operations, and $500 million in needed staffing
changes.
For the shorter period, fiscal year 1999 through 2002, the levels
of funding provided to Coopers and Lybrand were as follows (in budget
authority): Operations--$25.6 billion, Facilities and Equipment--$10.4
billion, Research, Engineering and Development--$1.7 billion, and
Airport Improvement Program--$7.1 billion.
At this time the requirements level to be recommended to the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission have not been determined. The
requirements level may need to be updated to reflect the fiscal year
1999 budget submission to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
and the cost associated with the recommendations of the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
flight data recorders
Question. In testimony before the Commerce Committee, and in
response to questions raised by committee members, NTSB Chairman Hall
addressed the issue of expanded parameters for flight data recorders.
Chairman Hall mentioned that foreign carriers have ordered, and U.S.
manufacturers have supplied, aircraft with more sophisticated flight
data recorders than U.S. carriers are demanding. Chairman Hall
intimated that cost was the only reason that domestic air carriers
would continue to order aircraft with flight data recorders that meet
only minimum FAA standards. I understand, however, that carriers also
have concerns about integrating aircraft with new systems into their
fleets. For maintenance purposes, they want to maintain standardization
within their fleets. Is this a valid concern on the part of the U.S.
carriers? Does the FAA believe that its proposal for the industry
transition to flight data recorders with expanded parameters takes this
concern into account?
Answer. Yes, the proposed rule takes standardization of the fleet
into account. The carriers would like to maintain a standardized
equipage to minimize maintenance procedures, inventory, and to provide
interchangeability of equipment between different types of aircraft.
However, because all airplanes are not alike and later built airplanes
have more functional capabilities with advanced technology, e.g.
computers and data bases, the National Transportation Safety Board
determined that the newer and more sophisticated airplanes can and
should provide that information from those systems that automatically
control more of the airplane operating functions.
explosives detection equipment deployment
Question. I understand that the Gore Commission and members of
Congress have criticized the FAA for its heavy reliance on the CTX 5000
security equipment, to the exclusion of other advanced technologies.
Since the bombing of Pan Am 103, Congress has consistently urged the
interim deployment of commercially available explosive detection
equipment, and has recognized the benefits of a mix of technologies.
The FAA appears, however, to continue to spend the bulk of its
appropriations on CTX technology. When does the FAA plan to make a
significant purchase of advanced x-ray equipment to complement the
deployment of CTX equipment? Do you think we can learn lessons from
countries throughout the world that are spending millions of dollars on
this type of equipment?
Answer. The Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-604) says that prior to a requirement for deployment of explosives
detection systems (EDS), the FAA must certify that EDS performance
meets standards based upon the amount and types of explosives that are
likely to be used to cause catastrophic damage to commercial aircraft,
derived from test results using independently developed test protocols.
The Act further states that certified equipment must be able to detect
such amounts under realistic air carrier operating conditions.
The FAA established a threat list of explosives and associated
amounts that would cause catastrophic damage to an aircraft, in
coordination with U.S. Government organizations, distinguished
scientific bodies, and European Civil Aviation Conference member states
and other key foreign governments. In November 1992, FAA issued the
draft EDS standard in the Federal Register, and final certification
test protocols were completed in May 1993 by the National Academy of
Sciences. The FAA carefully developed and coordinated these standards
with the scientific and intelligence communities, the aviation
industry, and properly cleared manufacturers and vendors, then
published the final unclassified portions in the Federal Register on
September 10, 1993.
The InVision CTX 5000 was certified in December 1994. No other
manufacturer has yet applied for certification testing. The FAA agrees
with the results that the rigorous process mandated by law has
produced, namely, the performance criteria and certification standards
that both InVision Technologies models, the CTX 5000 and the CTX
5000SP, have met. The FAA and the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation have encouraged other manufacturers to meet this
standard, which has also been adopted as a goal by the European Civil
Aviation Conference.
Other commercially available ``less-than-certified'' automated
explosives detection equipment is being deployed in foreign airports.
The FAA has assessed these devices and will continue to monitor the
progress of these other deployments. The White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security recommended that such equipment be
deployed at U.S. airports and this will be done.
The FAA plans to award contracts for about 20 automated dual energy
X-ray machines manufactured by Vivid Technologies of Woburn,
Massachusetts; EG&G Astrophysics of Long Beach, California; and Heimann
Systems of Wiesbaden, Germany, plus a quadrupole resonance device
manufactured by Quantum Magnetics of San Diego, California.
Question. I believe that the FAA has requested $100 million in
fiscal year 1999 and nothing in fiscal year 1998 for use in the
enhancement of airport security at our nation's airports. How does the
FAA plan to use these funds, as well as the remainder of the fiscal
year 1997 funds available? How many explosive detection machines will
be purchased with this money and how many airports will receive the
equipment? At the current time, how many airports have received
explosives detection equipment and have it in use?
Answer. Using a portion of the $144 million for the purchase of
equipment provided by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of
1997, a contract was awarded to InVision Technologies in December 1996
for an initial delivery of 54 units that began in January 1997 for
deployment at 25 airports. Newly purchased units are now in Chicago and
New York airports and installations are underway in two other cities.
InVision CTX 5000 airport demonstrations, arranged through grants to
three air carriers that began in November 1995 in San Francisco, in
Atlanta during the Olympics, and in Manila in September 1996, continue
in parallel with these new acquisitions. The demonstrations were
designed to validate cost models and gain real world operational data
and experience on the deployment of EDS as envisioned by the Aviation
Security Improvement Act of 1990. As these demonstrations are
completed, the equipment will remain at those three airports.
An initial deployment of other types of advanced equipment began
with the installation of trace explosives detection devices in Atlanta
last year and continues today at Chicago, New York, and Washington area
airports. The FAA plans to award contracts to purchase over 480 trace
explosives detection devices, and about 20 automated dual energy X-ray
machines manufactured by Vivid Technologies of Woburn, Massachusetts;
EG&G Astrophysics of Long Beach, California; and Heimann Systems of
Wiesbaden, Germany, plus a quadrupole resonance device manufactured by
Quantum Magnetics of San Diego, California.
wide area augmentation system (waas)
Question. A recent Flight Safety Foundation study concluded that
the accident risk while flying a nonprecision approach was five times
greater than that associated with flying a precision approach. I am
told that nearly 70 regional carriers serve more than 150 airports with
nonprecision approaches in the United States, including five airports
in my home State of Washington (Friday Harbor, Lopez, Anacortes,
Wenatchee and Pullman-Moscow). Both the Flight Safety Foundation and
the Vice President's Commission on Aviation Safety and Security have
identified augmented GPS navigation technology as key to improving
aviation safety because it will make precision approaches possible at
nearly every airport in the country. How committed is the FAA to
implementation of augmented GPS navigation in the form of your Wide
Area Augmentation Systems (WAAS)?
Answer. The FAA is fully committed to implementation of the WAAS.
The FAA awarded a contract for $483.5 million to Hughes Aircraft
Company, and is over one year into execution of that contract. The
initial operational capability is due to be commissioned in 1999; full
operational capability is due to be commissioned in 2001.
Question. This subcommittee has been told that one justification
for the WAAS program is that it will allow the FAA to begin
decommissioning ground-based navigation aids. What would be the effect
on the FAA budget and user benefits if the WAAS program is not fully
funded or the system implementation is delayed?
Answer. FAA policy, based upon a full WAAS capability in 2001, is
to begin decommissioning ILS's and VOR/DME's in 2005 and to be complete
by 2010. The cost avoidance from decommissioning ground-based
navigation aids is approximately $150 million annually (1997 dollars)
and is due to the elimination of operation and maintenance expenses. If
WAAS full system implementation is delayed more than five years, more
than $1 billion would be needed to upgrade or replace many of today's
navigation aids.
User benefits from WAAS include the potential to remove other
navigation avionics (e.g., VOR's, DME's, and NDB's) and the avoidance
of the associated maintenance and training costs. The WAAS will also
provide a precision approach capability at thousands of airports that
today have no instrument approach or only a nonprecision approach. The
accident risk while flying a nonprecision approach is estimated to be
five times greater than that associated with flying a precision
approach. WAAS implementation delays would delay these benefits and
expose the users to the greater risks associated with nonprecision
approaches for a longer time.
Question. Tony Broderick, former FAA Associate Administrator for
Regulation and Certification, recently testified before the Aviation
Subcommittee. He indicated that the original cost projections for the
WAAS program were underestimated to the tune of approximately $300
million. Does the FAA plan to live up to its original commitment to
deliver on the WAAS program with the capability that was envisioned at
the time that its initial funding was requested? Specifically, will the
system have adequate redundancy built in to be able to provide for
``sole means'' of navigation en route, in the terminal area, and for
``near-Category 1'' precision approaches and landings at any facility,
without reliance on current ground-based navigation aids? Will the
system also provide for the use of Local Area Augmentation Systems
(LAAS), which the airlines can use to land in extremely poor visibility
conditions?
Answer. (a) Yes. FAA does plan to provide a WAAS with a full
operational capability by 2001.
(b) Yes. The current performance requirements will support sole
means of navigation for en route, terminal, non-precision approaches,
and Category 1 precision approaches at qualified locations.
(c) The original WAAS cost estimate did not envision all costs
related to safety certification and end-state technical complexities.
The FAA is currently reviewing the total WAAS implementation strategy.
Following that review, the agency will forward any proposed changes to
the original baseline to Congress.
(d) The FAA WAAS is being developed independent of the LAAS.
However, user equipment specifications are being developed to provide
both WAAS and LAAS services from a single receiver. The FAA is also
investigating future joint use of reference stations equipment at sites
requiring both WAAS and LAAS data collection.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
air traffic control modernization
Question. The Gore Commission recommended acceleration of the ATC
modernization program. Why should we believe that FAA could manage an
accelerated effort since it has struggled so mightily with achieving
cost and schedule goals for its existing program?
Answer. With the accomplishment of acquisition reform, and the
establishment of Integrated Product Teams, the FAA has significantly
improved its capability to acquire and deploy systems. For example, for
the following major system acquisitions, we have ``delivered'' 119/124
Airport Surface Radar-9's, 32/40 Airport Surface Detection Equipment-3,
42/47 Terminal Doppler Weather Radar, 38/41 Area Route Surveillance
Radar-4, 142/149 Mode S, all Voice Switch Communication Systems, 143/
183 Mark 20 Integrated Landing Systems, and other systems.
The Display Channel Complex Rehost (DCCR) program was initiated in
1995 to resolve unacceptable failure rates of Display Channel Complex
(DCC) at 5 centers. The DCCR program began delivering equipment seven
months ahead of schedule. Another major modernization effort, the
Display System Replacement (DSR), which will replace air traffic
controller displays in all of the Air Route Traffic Control Centers, is
on schedule for initial deliveries in October 1998.
Question. One long-standing criticism of FAA's management of its
ATC acquisitions is that the agency tried to develop overly complex,
large projects. The Advanced Automation System is one often-cited
example. In recognizing the validity of this criticism, FAA announced
that it would begin to emphasize commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
acquisitions. One of FAA's largest and most visible acquisitions is the
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS). STARS was
billed as mostly COTS technology, yet the agency's timetable for
developing STARS stretches into the next century before FAA will be
able to install a fully operational system. Please provide me with your
definition of COTS.
Answer. The STARS concept is to enhance a commercially-available
Air Traffic Control system to meet the FAA's operational requirements.
The winning vendor proposed to supplement their existing design of 840
thousand lines of code with an additional 140 thousand lines to address
the full complement of STARS requirements. The contract calls for
delivery of an Initial System Capability for test in December 1997, and
a Full System Capability in December 1998. Each of these releases will
undergo approximately one year of testing before they become
operational. The STARS hardware is configured using commercial products
for all major system components.
Question. Our records indicate that the Congress appropriated over
$3 billion for the Advanced Automation System acquisition before FAA
restructured it in 1994. In light of the cancellation of the terminal
and tower components of the acquisition and the scaling back of the en
route component called the Display System Replacement, how many
contract deliverables can be credited against the $3 billion? In other
words, the balance was a loss to the taxpayers, isn't that correct?
Answer. The FAA spent $2.6 billion on the Advanced Automation
System (AAS) program prior to its restructuring in 1994. While the FAA
agrees that large amount of funding was invested in the AAS program,
there were also many benefits derived from the program.
The Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item (PAMRI) was
successfully completed with the installation of PAMRI in all 20
ARTCC's, the FAA Technical Center, and the FAA Aeronautical Center. All
efforts related to ARTCC Modernization, including expanding the control
rooms, rehabilitating the ARTCC automation wing, and providing other
upgrades to the facilities that were required to install ISSS remain a
program requirement for DSR.
The Initial Sector Suite System (ISSS) was descoped and renamed the
Display System Replacement (DSR) program. Over 40 percent of the ISSS
developed software was transported and used for the DSR program. The
common console design; the 20''x20'' main display monitor (MDM)
console, which was developed for AAS, has become a standard for Air
Traffic Control displays; the monitor and control design; test support
platforms at the FAA Technical Center and FAA Aeronautical Center; the
Development and Demonstration Facility used for early user evaluations;
the new centralized software support maintenance strategy; and the
expansion of the FAA Technical Center test laboratory were all
successes of the ISSS program and are being used today for the DSR
program. The Oceanic program has reused a substantial amount of
equipment that was procured for ISSS but not needed for DSR.
When the AAS program was restructured, the AERA segment of the
program was nearing completion of development of the algorithms
necessary to predict flight path conflicts in the future, which is the
basis for the URET prototype systems that are presently being tested at
two ARTCC's. The URET prototypes will transition to the Initial
Conflict Probe program, which will implement operational systems at all
ARTCC's. FAA has committed to full scale development of the Initial
Conflict Probe.
The Tower Control Computer Complex (TCCC) segment of AAS was
restructured to provide a modular approach to a full TCCC
implementation. That program underwent subsequent restructuring based
on the availability of F&E resources and FAA priorities. The contractor
has completed all development required on that program and has a design
that would provide a platform for Surface Movement Advisor (SMA).
However, because of limited resources and other higher priority NAS
Modernization programs, the TCCC program has been canceled.
Two segments of the AAS program, Area Control Computer Complex
(ACCC) and Terminal Advanced Automation System (TAAS), were canceled at
the time of the restructuring. A substantial amount of the hardware
that was procured during the development phase of the ACCC and TAAS
programs, including common consoles, MDM's, processors, and displays,
has been reused by the Oceanic and other FAA automation programs.
Additionally, some FAA test laboratories are making use of residual
material.
In summary, the FAA has attempted to leverage hardware, software,
and the sharing of lessons learned where appropriate to maximize the
return on our investment and to minimize other program costs.
Question. Please prepare a detailed account of federal government
efforts to recover the costs to the taxpayers of waste and
mismanagement in the Advanced Automation System acquisition program
from IBM and other parties.
Answer. When the AAS Program was terminated, there were multiple
measures taken to ensure that the government's investment was
protected. Full and independent audits were conducted of the prime
contractor and every major subcontractor; all delivered equipment is
being used in other FAA programs where appropriate or has been sent to
the FAA Depot for reutilization and work-in-process inventory was
identified and reintroduced back into the contractors inventory for use
on continued FAA efforts. Approximately 95 percent of the equipment was
reused and over 40 percent of the software was provided for use by
other programs. These cost recovery measures resulted in cost avoidance
or reductions in other program costs. Every effort was made to ensure
that the governments investment was protected and that sunk cost were
held to a minimum.
air traffic control modernization
Question. Please prepare your best estimate of the costs to the
taxpayers of waste and mismanagement in the Advanced Automation System
acquisition program.
Answer. Approximately $514 million invested in AAS through fiscal
year 1994 resulted in non-recoverable costs.
Non-Recoverable funding spent on AAS.................... $437,000,000
Sunk Cost on TCCC through fiscal year 1994.............. 77,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 514,000,000
Question. GAO reported in its 1996 report on FAA's culture that
agency officials deliberately underestimated program costs and
established unrealistic schedules to gain approval of funding for its
projects. We have seen reports that the estimated costs of the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) acquisition were underestimated for
``convenience.'' Last month, GAO testified that it had evidence from
several sources that program cost estimates could climb significantly.
What is the agency's position on the reliability of the original WAAS
cost estimate. We also understand that the schedule is facing another
slippage. Could you address any schedule baseline changes being
considered or already decided on by FAA?
Answer. (a) The original WAAS cost estimate did not envision all
costs related to safety certification and end-state technical
complexities. The FAA is currently reviewing the total WAAS
implementation strategy. Following that review, the agency will forward
any proposed changes to the original baseline to Congress.
(b) The initial operational capability is planned to be
commissioned in 1999, and the final operational capability is planned
for November 2001. There will be some intermediate milestone changes
that evolve because of the technical complexities, however, no end-
state delivery changes are planned to the 2001 delivery date.
Question. GAO and others have pointed to weaknesses in contract
oversight as an underlying cause for FAA's acquisition problems. Does
FAA have the necessary talent to provide sufficient oversight of its
major contracts? To what extent should FAA rely less on contractors to
oversee contractors and more on its own staff?
Answer. We believe that FAA has a talented work force that over the
years has been required to perform diverse functions including contract
oversight. It has been recognized that this area of performance needs
to be strengthened. Therefore, the FAA is conducting a pilot program to
implement a competency-based learning system whose purpose is to
develop a corps of acquisition professionals with the appropriate
education, training, experience, skills, and attitudes to work
successfully in a system with far fewer regulations that puts a premium
on technical competence, judgment, creativity, and initiative. The plan
is to hire, train, and retain individuals who can work as part of
teams, who can operate with general guidelines where reason and common
sense are more important than the ability to follow the rule book, and
who have the specialized education and training to deal with some of
the most sophisticated communications, navigation, and surveillance
systems in the world. As a result, the FAA should be able to rely more
on its work force and less on contractor support to perform oversight
duties.
Question. GAO reported in March that the STARS acquisition was able
to avoid a major increase in its F&E cost estimate only because FAA now
projects its costs for STARS computer hardware to be 40 percent less
than initially expected. Why would the estimate be so far off?
Answer. The commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) acquisition approach,
seeking competition between various commercial applications, makes it
far more difficult to accurately predict what hardware will be offered
with the system, and how that hardware will be priced.
All three of the STARS offerors proposed some hardware evolution of
the existing Air Traffic Control systems. Two of the vendors proposed a
PC-based solution, while the third (the eventual winner) proposed a
system based on more powerful workstations. The workstation solution
uses more expensive hardware, but the FAA was offered a competitive
price due to an agreement negotiated by the Prime Contractor with the
workstation manufacturer.
The FAA estimate was based on a ``nominal'' system using a target
number of processors and their catalog prices--the logic of the
estimate is still valid. However, it is difficult to accurately predict
vendors competitive strategies in system design and pricing, and
incorporate that prediction into the estimate.
asheville, north carolina airport
Question. I wrote to Secretary Pena November 13, 1996 to urge the
FAA to approve the application of Asheville (NC) Airport for a $1.5
million AIP grant for an extended runway safety area. The current 450
foot safety area falls short of the 1000 foot area required for Group
C-IV aircraft under FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13. As I noted, the
Airport committed its entitlement monies to this project, and I am
curious about the status of their application for discretionary funds.
Please prepare a comprehensive answer to inform me of the status of
this application and explain the basis for any decisions already made.
I will also appreciate your efforts to keep my office updated of all
developments in this matter.
Answer. The FAA has formulated a project, which includes Airport
Improvement Program discretionary funds, to extend the runway safety
area at Asheville (NC) Airport. You will be notified through the
congressional notification process once coordination within the
Department of Transportation has been completed.
sanford-lee county airport
Question. The conference report that accompanied the 1997
transportation appropriations bill urged ``expeditious consideration to
accelerated construction of the new Sanford-Lee County Airport in North
Carolina in the hope that the project can be completed as quickly as
possible.'' I sent a letter to Administrator Daschle on November 15,
1996, and I encouraged the FAA to act to accommodate this
recommendation. The Administrator replied that this request is ``being
evaluated,'' and, as this was the last correspondence that I received
about this project, I am quite eager to learn the result of this
evaluation process. Please prepare a detailed answer to explain the
status of this project and the basis for any decisions already made. I
will also appreciate your efforts to keep my office updated of all
developments in this matter.
Answer. The FAA has formulated a project under the AIP's State
Block Grant Program (SBGP) for North Carolina, which will provide
fiscal year 1997 discretionary funding for the new Sanford-Lee County
Airport. You will be notified through the congressional notification
process once coordination within the Department of Transportation has
been completed. This project will supplement any AIP State
apportionment funds which the State of North Carolina approves under
the SBGP. The discretionary funding is in accordance with the funding
schedule for fiscal year 1997 to meet the airport's target date for
completion by mid-1999, based on future funds availability beyond
fiscal year 1997.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
faa and certification of airlines and related businesses
Question. The Gore Commission recognized that the FAA is sometimes
too lenient when it comes to certifying airlines and contractors,
especially when their safety and inspection records have been less than
perfect. The Commission recommended that the FAA be more stringent in
the certification of these aviation businesses. Do you agree with this
recommendation? If so, what are you doing to change the way the FAA
certifies these businesses?
Answer. The FAA is in the process of establishing a new
organization to address concerns regarding the manner in which the FAA
certificates air carriers. This Certification Standardization and
Evaluation Team (CSET) will be dedicated to the standardization of
original certification and follow up evaluation activities for all
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 air carriers.
The CSET will change the way the FAA currently performs
certification by providing a dedicated team of certification and
inspection experts who have the specialized expertise and experience
necessary to accomplish the objective of standardization. This team of
experts will work in virtual offices facilitating a more flexible work
environment capable of rapid response to certification and inspection
issues. The CSET will establish evaluation guidelines and assist in the
development and implementation of a comprehensive air carrier
surveillance plan using statistical and scientific tools.
Question. Is the FAA contemplating adopting more strenuous
inspection measures and increasing enforcement actions when you find
sub-standard practices?
Answer. The ultimate goal of Flight Standards Service is to ensure
the compliance of each air carrier with the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). If a certificated air carrier falls out of
compliance in a particular area, the immediate concern is to correct
the problem area and take measures to ensure that non-compliance does
not happen again. As a result, it is felt that addressing the issues of
certification requirements and targeted surveillance plans is a more
responsive approach to continued compliance than simply applying more
``strenuous'' inspection measures and increased enforcement actions.
The FAA has several efforts underway that will change the way
inspections of the FAR part 121 air carriers are conducted. In response
to the FAA 90-Day Safety Review, the newly created Certification,
Standardization, and Evaluation Team (CSET) will not only address
standardizing the certification procedures for FAR part 121 air
carriers, but also will follow up with a comprehensive surveillance
plan tailored to each air carrier's specific operation. In addition,
newly certificated air carriers will have a surveillance plan tailored
to the specific needs of the air carrier based upon the circumstances
encountered during the certification process. Surveillance plans will
be based on analysis of historical safety data and targeted to the
needs of the new air carrier. Air carriers that have been certificated
within the last five years will have increased levels of surveillance
based on the requirements in the National Work Program Guidelines.
Other changes include the Surveillance Improvement Project (SIP)
work group that examines the methodology, the organization, and the
conduct of existing surveillance procedures. The final report from the
SIP should be available in June and recommendations from the group may
be incorporated into CSET. The FAA also has a new initiative to change
the organizational structure of geographic surveillance to be more
effective. The environmental inspections of each air carrier may be
accomplished by inspectors who are trained experts in the procedures
for that operator.
de-emphasizing cost-benefit analysis in promulgating safety regulations
Question. The Gore Commission recognized that critical safety
reforms are not being implemented because they cannot pass the strict
``cost-benefit'' test which is required of all proposed regulations.
The Commission recommended that, ``Cost alone should not become
dispositive in deciding aviation safety and security rulemaking
issues.'' What is the FAA doing to carry out this recommendation?
Answer. The FAA agrees that cost alone should not be dispositive in
deciding aviation safety and security rulemaking issues, and is
preparing to issue a policy statement clarifying this principle. After
coordinating with OST and OMB, the FAA plans to publish the statement
this summer and will insure regulatory decisions fully comply with that
policy.
Question. What specific pending rulemaking actions do you expect to
be influenced by this change in policy?
Answer. The FAA expects that all current pending safety and
security rulemaking actions will be evaluated in accordance with the
Gore Commission recommendation. Several specific prominent rules that
are publicly known to be forthcoming include the following:
--Revised Standards for Cargo or Baggage Compartments in Transport
Category Airplanes (requirement for fire detection and
suppression systems)
--Aging Aircraft Safety
--Identical Security Measures (U.S. and non-U.S. air carriers serving
the U.S.)
--Certification of Security Screening Companies
--Criminal History Background Checks of Airport Security Passenger
and Baggage Screening Personnel.
timetable for implementing gore commission recommendations
Question. President Clinton officially accepted ALL of the safety
and security recommendations of the Gore Commission. However, I am
concerned that there is not an established timetable for implementation
of each of the recommendations. By what date do you expect to have all
of the recommendations fully implemented? Which of the recommendations
will take the longest time to implement and why?
Answer. FAA and the Department of Transportation, working with a
number of Federal agencies that lead on specific recommendations, have
developed plans and a timetable for implementing the White House
Commission recommendations. One of the 57 recommendations has already
been fully implemented, and we expect up to 12 to be completed this
year. Our current timetable assumes timely and adequate funding of
those recommendations.
The recommendation that will take the longest to achieve is also
the most costly, to modernize the air traffic management system by the
year 2005. The current NAS Architecture calls for modernization by the
year 2015. Modernization can be done more quickly, but it will require
compression of both the schedule and the costs, and therefore
substantially increased budgets from fiscal years 1998 through 2005.
funding requirements to implement gore commission recommendations
Question. At the end of last year, we added more than $225 million
to the Continuing Resolution specifically to implement many of the
measures recommended by the Gore Commission. This included funding for
explosive detection systems, K-9 teams, threat assessments and other
measures. Which specific Gore Commission recommendations do you believe
still require additional appropriations above the current level?
Answer. Many recommendations, of course, are costly and will take
time to complete. The final findings of the White House Commission are
being reviewed to determine the details of implementation as well as
the additional costs. By far the most costly unfunded item is
modernizing the National Airspace System (NAS) by 2005, an acceleration
from FAA's existing schedule of 2015. Other costly items include
strengthening aviation human factors research, accelerating GPS use in
NAS modernization, deploying explosives detection equipment, and
completing other security related initiatives.
The White House Commission expects the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission to explore innovative federal financing approaches,
such as user fees, to finance an accelerated modernization of the NAS
and design a new financing system for the FAA that would ensure
adequate availability of funding.
Question. Are the costs of implementing all of these
recommendations contained in your 1998 budget request? If not, why not?
Answer. No; funding is not included in the fiscal year 1998 budget
submission for all of the recommendations since the budget was
completed prior to issuance of the final recommendations. Funding
requirements for fiscal year 1999 and thereafter will be requested
through the normal budget process.
passenger security measures and civil liberties
Question. There have been concerns raised that the FAA's passenger
``profiling'' methods will be overly intrusive and discriminatory. The
Gore Commission recommended that an independent body monitor these
security measures and make recommendations to ensure that no groups are
inappropriately subjected to heightened security measures. When do you
expect this independent body to be established?
Answer. The Department of Transportation is proceeding with the
White House Commission recommendation by arranging for the Department
of Justice to review the design and implementation of the prototype
automated profiling system known as Computer Assisted Passenger
Screening or CAPS, which FAA developed with Northwest Airlines. An
organizational meeting with senior representatives of the Department of
Justice has been held and others are planned.
FAA's profiling requirements do not differentiate among U.S.
citizens on the basis of factors such as race, religion, ethnicity or
national origin. While confident that FAA procedures do not infringe
upon civil liberties, the review of profiling that is underway by the
Department of Justice will ensure no illegal discrimination occurs.
Question. What course of action will be available to passengers who
feel they have been subjected to discriminatory or overly intrusive
security measures?
Answer. Passengers who have questions or complaints about overly
intrusive actions should first speak with airline representatives.
Those representatives may not, however, discuss with passengers the
specifics of any security measure, since to do so could damage the
measure's effectiveness. If this conversation does not resolve
passenger's concerns, then the passenger may call the FAA at 1-800-322-
7873 if the issue deals with safety or security. Complaints concerning
possible discrimination should be registered by writing the Department
of Transportation Aviation Consumer Protection Division (C-75) or
calling that office at 202-366-2220.
Question. Will individual passengers be able to find out why he or
she is being subjected to additional security measures?
Answer. No. Neither the FAA nor the air carriers should discuss
with passengers the specifics of any security measure, since to do so
could damage the measure's effectiveness. In addition, a certain amount
of randomness is included in applying security measures, particularly
those noticeable to the traveling public. Persons should not be able to
determine if they were subjected to additional security measures
through profiling, at random, or for some other reason.
consolidation of atlantic city tech center
Question. The Hughes Technical Center in Pomona, New Jersey, is the
nation's premier aviation testing facility for security technology and
human factors research. The Coopers & Lybrand study included a
recommendation that the FAA look into consolidating the Hughes
Technical Center at Atlantic City, New Jersey into the Monroney
facility in Oklahoma City. Does the facility in Oklahoma have the
capability to conduct the same research and development as the Tech
Center in New Jersey?
Answer. The facility in Oklahoma does not have the capability to
conduct the same research and development as the Technical Center. The
missions of the Technical Center and the Aeronautical Center are
focused in different areas. They require specific and unique facilities
to accomplish each of the divergent missions.
The Aeronautical Center is devoted to centralized training and
central warehousing and supply, and provides certain automated data
processing services for national and local programs.
The Technical Center is the national scientific research and
development facility for FAA. Center activities involve research,
system development and integration in the areas of air traffic control,
communications, navigation, airports, aircraft safety, and security. In
addition, tenant organizations located at the Technical Center are
involved in NAS operations support; flight inspection; independent
operation test and evaluation; and the prevention of international
terrorism.
Many of the facilities required to accomplish the Technical
Center's mission are unique and not available at the Aeronautical
Center or, in some cases, anywhere else in the world. Also, the
Technical Center's technological capabilities go beyond technical
facilities. The Technical Center employs highly technical and
scientific personnel who possess specialized training and background in
critical disciplines directly related to NAS development and support.
The comprehensive integration of all NAS components can be accomplished
only at the Technical Center because of the collocation of its skilled
professionals and specialized infrastructure.
Question. How much would it cost to abandon the existing Tech
Center and rebuild the same infrastructure in Oklahoma?
Answer. The cost to abandon the existing Technical Center is
estimated at $24 million; the rebuilding of the same infrastructure in
Oklahoma is estimated at $900 million.
The William J. Hughes Technical Center is comprised of 180
individual, specialized buildings and structures on its 5,059-acre
site. These technical laboratories and facilities include Test and
Evaluation, Research and Development, administrative and storage
facilities as well as numerous project test sites. The capitalization
value of the buildings and infrastructure (roads, exterior utilities,
etc.) is estimated to be $200 million.
The cost to rebuild the required structures and infrastructure in
Oklahoma is estimated to be over $750 million. This estimate includes
space requirements of approximately 1.35 million square feet;
infrastructure costs; and architectural and engineering design and
construction management costs.
Moving the Technical Center's mainframe computers and special
systems to Oklahoma involves planning and design, disassembling,
crating, and shipping costs, and reassembling the equipment at its
destination. The cost for accomplishing the equipment move is estimated
to be $125 million.
The abandonment cost relates to the Technical Center's Superfund
responsibility, which includes cleanup of hazardous sites on the Center
as well as the replacement of aged underground storage tanks. The
ramifications of this designation are that the site cannot be
transferred to another owner until the completion of the cleanup
operation, regardless of whether the Technical Center relocates.
In addition to the rebuilding costs, the relocation of the
Technical Center's existing talent would be an added financial burden
to the relocation proposal. Also, a relocation would result in a
significant adverse impact to the delivery schedule of every National
Airspace System modernization program. In addition, aviation safety and
security initiatives would be seriously jeopardized.
Question. Coopers & Lybrand justified its recommendation on the
value of the land that could be sold if the FAA left the Atlantic City
facility. I am mystified by this recommendation because it is a known
fact that the facility is a Superfund site. Moreover, there is a
reversionary clause in the FAA's lease that requires you to sell the
entire facility to the Southern New Jersey Transportation Authority for
only $55,000 if you ever leave the facility. To your knowledge, was
Coopers & Lybrand aware of these facts when they issued their
recommendation?
Answer. During Coopers & Lybrand's 2-day visit to the Technical
Center, they did not ask questions that would provide any rationale for
reaching their conclusion. Therefore, our assumption is that Coopers &
Lybrand was unaware of these facts and based their recommendation on
incomplete information and flawed analyses.
An early draft version of Coopers & Lybrand's assessment stated
that the Technical Center is located on land that is probably worth
significantly more than the book value used by the FAA. The Technical
Center proved the assessment incorrect for the following reasons:
--The South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) owns a right of
reverter on over 4,000 acres of the total Technical Center
acreage. If the U.S. Government no longer requires use of the
Center's land, ownership (title) of these acres, including all
improvements, will revert to SJTA for a total sum of $55,000.
--The Center is listed as a Superfund site. As such, the site cannot
be transferred to another owner until the completion of an
extensive and expensive cleanup operation.
This information was conveyed to Coopers & Lybrand and resulted in
their removal of their core assumption for the consolidation
recommendation. Coopers & Lybrand in their final revision recognized
that the assets (land) of the Technical Center are not a means of
financial benefit to the FAA to offset other agency funding needs.
Question. Based on these facts, do you see any scenario by which
the FAA would choose to pull out of the Atlantic City Technical Center
and consolidate operations in Oklahoma?
Answer. Based on the information gathered to date, there is no
scenario that would justify the relocation and consolidation of the
Atlantic City Technical Center with operations in Oklahoma.
personnel reform and new york-new jersey controller staffing shortages
Question. Two years ago, this Committee gave your agency
unprecedented personnel reform authority. This was done so that you
would have the necessary tools to get the appropriately trained people
in the right place IMMEDIATELY. For years now, the FAA has made
commitments to me to get the number of air traffic controllers at
Newark Tower and at the New York Center and TRACON up to the authorized
level. But you have missed deadline after deadline. Today, staffing at
all three facilities is still below authorized levels. Given the far-
reaching personnel reforms you were granted in 1995, what explains
these continued delays in getting the right number of controllers in
the right place?
Answer. Personnel reform was implemented in the FAA on April 1,
1996. Because of financial constraints most controller hiring was
deferred to the second half of fiscal year 1997. Newark Tower is
scheduled to receive seven controllers in fiscal year 1997, four of
which are already onboard. Similarly, New York Air Route Traffic
Control Center is scheduled to receive 42 of which at least 12 are
onboard. New York TRACON will receive a total of 22 in fiscal year
1997, of which at least 4 are onboard.
Question. We continue to hear reports that controller trainees at
these facilities cannot get fully qualified in their jobs because the
senior controllers that are responsible for training them are too busy
handling aircraft to conduct any training. Do you agree that this is a
problem? What are you doing to address it?
Answer. In the past, this situation has occurred. We are currently
implementing plans to increase staffing at New York area facilities. In
addition, we have recently increased overtime funding for New York
Center by $735,000 to optimize on-the-job training for the new hires.
We have also initiated additional management controls at New York
Center including: (1) the establishment of a stand-alone training
department; (2) establishment of a staff manager for training; (3)
assignment of two training specialists and two data analysts to the
training department; and (4) designation of six operations supervisors
(one from each area) to assume collateral training duties.
Question. What is your new target date to get all of the facilities
in my region staffed to the level called for by the FAA's own staffing
plan.
Answer. The FAA has worked closely with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to negotiate staffing levels for key Eastern
Region facilities. The agreed upon target date for meeting these
staffing levels is September 30, 1998.
converging runway display aid (crda)
Question. The Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) is an important
feature in the FAA's Automated Radar Tracking System that is being
adapted at the New York TRACON. It allows the use of two runways during
instrument weather conditions and would increase safety and capacity as
well as reduce weather delays. I understand that the CRDA system on
this one runway at Newark airport is scheduled to be implemented next
month, May 1997, but this will only be on the southwest flow runway. Is
the CRDA still scheduled for implementation on the Southwest flow
runway in May 1997? When will CRDA be implemented on the other major
runway which handles about 40 percent of total traffic?
Answer. All air traffic facets of the CRDA implementation have been
completed and are in place. However, during shakedown testing an
anomaly in the software surfaced. In the interest of safety,
implementation of CRDA was delayed. Implementation of CRDA is pending
further shakedown testing.
There is currently not a firm timeline for implementation of CRDA
on Runway 4 and 11 at EWR. Development of procedures on this runway
configuration are more complicated than the southwest flow. Airspace
changes including rerouting aircraft and adjustments of major arrival
flows for Newark and LaGuardia Airports will be necessary to
accommodate a Runway 4 final vector position. This will require an
environmental review/assessment which will be a lengthy process.
The geometry of this runway configuration is such that a 6-7 mile
in trail spacing on the final approach course to Runway 4 would be
required to accommodate CRDA which may or may not enhance the capacity
of current operations. Also, Runway 11 arrival interact with the Runway
4L departures in instrument Flight Rules (IFR) weather which will delay
departures as a result.
We will continue to evaluate the procedures, airspace changes, and
environmental issues necessary for development and will keep the Users
informed via our Capacity Enhancement Task Force process.
airport access and aggressive security testing
Question. There have been a number of well-publicized incidents
including one at Newark, where the media have broken through airport
security measures and gained access to vulnerable areas, such as the
tarmac and the ramp. The FAA Authorization Act included a provision I
authored directing the FAA to conduct unannounced, aggressive testing
of airport and airline security programs. What has changed over the
past six months to tighten security for airport personnel and seal
these vulnerable areas?
Answer. FAA initiated a focused, three-phased investigative effort
emphasizing auditing the background and access investigations conducted
primarily by airport tenant organizations prior to granting access
privileges to employees of such entities. The first phase involved an
audit of representative tenant organizations at 41 major airports
nationwide. This effort was designed to determine the nature and scope
of the problem. The results indicated problems at 10 airports, and
strong immediate corrective actions were initiated, to include
appropriate enforcement actions. Voluntary actions by the involved
airports included locking out entire batches of employees until
questions concerning their background verifications had been completely
resolved. This audit also resulted in an emergency rule allowing FAA to
take action against individuals and/or employers for falsification or
fraud in background documents.
A second-phase audit of 19 major airports was conducted by FAA
during February, 1997. The results of that audit reflect improvement;
however, some problem areas remain. Enforcement actions have been
initiated against individuals found to have made false representations,
as well as any airports and tenant organizations failing to properly
discharge their responsibilities.
FAA is now preparing a third-phase effort designed to ensure and
confirm that all Category X airports and their tenant organizations are
complying with the access investigation rules. Beyond this focused
effort, FAA field elements will continue to conduct scheduled and
unscheduled assessments of compliance at all airports subject to the
requirements of FAR 107.
Question. Have there been major enforcement actions against the
airports with lax security as a result of these aggressive testing
measures?
Answer. During February, a second-phase audit of 19 major airports
was conducted. The first phase of this effort was initiated in November
1996, and continues to focus on the background and access
investigations conducted by airport tenant organizations prior to
seeking access privileges for employees. Although there were no major
enforcement actions against airports during the second-phase audit, 27
investigations for falsification of records were initiated against
airports, air carriers, tenants and individuals.
FAA continues to aggressively test air carriers and airports to
determine compliance with current security directives and emergency
amendments. Enforcement action has been initiated whenever our testing
revealed instances of non-compliance. Actions taken have included
maximum civil penalty, public notification when the amount of civil
penalty recommended is $50,000 or more, and when appropriate, letters
from the Administrator level to airline CEO's.
In addition to our on-going testing to evaluate compliance with
security requirements, FAA continues to define and develop testing
procedures for all aspects of the aviation security program. As these
new procedures are completed, special agents will use them as part of
their daily compliance monitoring. Additionally, with these procedures,
FAA will conduct nationally directed special emphasis assessments
designed to target specific aviation security areas over an established
period of time.
implementing domestic passenger bag match
Question. The FAA Authorization Bill and the Gore Commission both
recommend implementing passenger bag-match on domestic flights to
increase security. I also endorsed this program in my aviation security
bill. The FAA and the major airlines conducted a study last year which
estimated that it would cost $2.5 billion annually to apply bag-match
domestically in the first year and $2.25 billion every year thereafter.
A system of partial bag match of all passengers would cost $2 billion
annually. Now that Phase I of your pilot project is complete, do those
cost estimates still hold up?
Answer. The White House Commission recommended implementation of a
full passenger-baggage match by December 31, 1997. It entails matching
bags to passengers to ensure no unaccompanied bag enters the system,
and passengers to bags to ensure that a bag is removed if the passenger
does not board. The latter part of the procedure would initially be
based upon profiling. FAA, the Air Transport Association, and the
Commission staff developed a protocol to ensure that the on-going bag
match pilot test is unbiased and, with the application of existing
system models, representative of the effects of systemwide
implementation.
As you noted, the pilot test is proceeding in two phases. In the
first phase, existing operational models were verified and continue to
be refined by an independent third party. The air carriers then
collected data for analysis and computer modeling. This collection
process was monitored by an FAA observation team. The second phase
consists of analyses of historical and other data, and includes live
testing on actual flights in May. A report, which will address the cost
estimates of bag match in the domestic system, will be finished in
August 1997.
Question. Are there ways to further decrease the cost of
implementing this critical security measure?
Answer. The White House Commission recommended implementation of a
full passenger-baggage match by December 31, 1997. It entails matching
bags to passengers to ensure no unaccompanied bag enters the system,
and passengers to bags to ensure that a bag is removed if the passenger
does not board. The latter part of the procedure would initially be
based upon profiling. FAA, the Air Transport Association, and the
Commission staff developed a protocol to ensure that the on-going bag
match pilot test is unbiased and, with the application of existing
system models, representative of the effects of systemwide
implementation.
As you noted, the pilot test is proceeding in two phases. In the
first phase, existing operational models were verified and continue to
be refined by an independent third party. The air carriers then
collected data for analysis and computer modeling. This collection
process was monitored by an FAA observation team. Phase II, which is
underway, consists of analyses of historical and other data, and
includes live testing on actual flights. This phase is being monitored
by a joint team of FAA and third party observers. Live tests are
scheduled for May. The analysis of operational impacts will be
available in July, and a refined estimate of the cost will be available
in August 1997. Careful analysis of results may suggest ways of
reducing costs, but it is still too early to project implementation
costs or suggest cost reduction strategies.
Question. Will the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
airlines be able to hold to the December 31, 1997, deadline to
implement domestic bag-match nationwide?
Answer. The Commission's recommendation is that bag match,
initially based on profiling, should be implemented no later than
December 31, 1997. That recommendation remains our goal. The FAA and
the airlines are moving forward rapidly in developing an automated
profiling system, which is the key to adopting the Commission
recommendation. We will not know until the end of July whether or not
unforeseen technical difficulties remain for some carriers in
implementing automated profiling. Moreover, refinements to the cost
estimates, based on live testing, will be available in August 1997.
hazardous material shipments
Question. Although not a certainty, it appears that the Valujet
crash was caused by the ignition of oxygen generators, a hazardous
material, in the cargo bay of the aircraft. While a lot of attention
was focused on the airline involved, it would seem that the shipper
bears a distinct responsibility to correctly package and label
hazardous materials. What has FAA done to address the shipment of
hazardous materials upstream from the airline, beyond banning the
shipment of these particular canisters?
Answer. The FAA has already taken a number of actions to address
shipments of hazardous materials, particularly that carried in company
materials (COMAT), before those shipments reach the airport. The FAA
has:
--Launched an entirely new Dangerous Goods and Cargo Security Program
funded with $13.5 million. The new program will have 118 full-
time, highly trained, dedicated dangerous goods/cargo security
FAA inspectors in addition to the 14 full-time inspectors it
had before the ValuJet accident, along with 12 new attorneys.
RSPA is adding 15 new inspectors and 2 new attorneys. Hiring
and training are on target, and the first intensive air carrier
inspections began on February 1. The inspections will include
verification of training procedures.
--Developed a new inspection/incident data base to provide trend
analysis information for targeting inspection and outreach
efforts upstream to deter and interdict unauthorized shipments
of hazardous materials.
--In cooperation with RSPA, distributed to nearly 5,000 aviation
repair stations a ``Safety Alert'' providing explanatory
information regarding the shipment of hazardous materials as
part of air carrier COMAT and information detailing the
prohibition on the transport of oxygen generators as cargo
aboard passenger aircraft
--Announced to the shipper community a policy of publicizing proposed
civil penalty cases over $50,000.00 where particularly
dangerous hazardous materials are involved. Two such violations
have been publicized
--Proposed in the ``Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
Reauthorization Act of 1997,'' a clarification of its authority
to open suspect packages when there is a reasonable belief that
the package contains a hazardous material.
--In cooperation with RSPA, produced a training video to provide
guidance for air carriers and shippers, emphasizing their legal
responsibilities for safe preparation and transportation of
hazardous materials.
--Together with RSPA, designed and developed a passenger information
brochure on restricted hazardous materials entitled ``These
Fly, These May Not.'' Over 5 million copies have already been
distributed to passengers, travel agencies, shippers, U.S. and
foreign air carriers, and multinational chemical and
pharmaceutical manufacturers.
--Helped develop, market and present the Air Transportation
Association (ATA) HAZMAT/COMAT workshop attended by 200 air
carriers, freight forwarders, and shippers.
Question. What specific measures have you taken with shippers and
packers to insure proper packaging, labeling and handling of hazardous
materials?
Answer. The FAA is taking a number of steps which will extend its
enforcement of the hazardous materials regulations to shippers and
freight forwarders:
--The FAA has developed new hazardous materials inspection protocols
which direct the focus for compliance to parties located ``off
the airport.'' Outreach letters will be directed to shippers
whose hazardous materials shipments were examined during
inspections at air carrier facilities. Follow-up inspections at
these shippers premises will verify that only properly trained
personnel are engaged in the handling and shipment of all
hazardous materials.
--New outreach material is being developed in cooperation with RSPA,
for example, a training video to provide guidance for air
carriers and shippers, emphasizing their legal responsibilities
for safe preparation and transportation of hazardous materials.
--In cooperation with RSPA, distributed to nearly 5,000 aviation
repair stations a ``Safety Alert'' providing explanatory
information regarding the shipment of hazardous materials as
part of air carrier COMAT and information detailing the
prohibition on the transport of oxygen generators as cargo
aboard passenger aircraft
--FAA will soon begin inspections of both aviation repair stations
and indirect air carriers (freight forwarders) to continue to
push its compliance focus off the airport and upstream towards
the shippers.
--FAA is developing a new automated inspection database designed to
provide trend analysis information for targeting inspection and
outreach efforts upstream to deter and interdict unauthorized
shipments of hazardous materials. Initial modules of the
database are already on-line with full development expected by
December 1997.
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Transportation is now recessed. The next subcommittee hearing
will be held on Wednesday, May 7, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 124.
The topic of the hearing will be transportation infrastructure
financing, including a discussion of innovative financing
methods and the administration proposed transportation user
fees.
I thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., Wednesday, April 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:36 a.m.,
Wednesday, May 7.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Gorton, Faircloth,
Lautenberg, and Reid.
Panel 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ANDERSON, JR., DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RESOURCES,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. Our first panel is Mr. Mortimer Downey,
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; John
Anderson, Director of Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division, General Accounting Office. Welcome to the
committee.
This hearing will now come to order. Today the subcommittee
will explore several broad issues related to financing Federal
transportation programs. The three areas we will discuss are
Federal Aviation Administration user fees, innovative financing
proposals to leverage Federal investment in infrastructure, and
Amtrak's current precarious financial condition.
Except for day-to-day operations, the Federal Aviation
Administration derives its funding from the airport and airways
trust fund, which is financed by the airline ticket tax. That
tax expires at the end of fiscal year 1997 and the
administration has proposed replacing the ticket tax with a
cost-based user fee structure. This represents a major change
in how financing is approached for this agency and many in
Congress, myself included, are a little skeptical.
There are many questions that need to be answered before
any funding decisions can be based on user fee assumptions.
Whatever system of financing, however, that we adopt, it must
meet at least three broad objectives: It must not increase the
overall tax burden on the American people; it must not place a
disproportionate burden on any one group; and it must be easy
to administer. I know that the GAO has studied several of these
issues and I look forward to hearing from them today.
Another issue of interest to the subcommittee is the
administration's innovative financing proposals, which include
the State infrastructure banks and the new transportation
infrastructure credit enhancement program in the President's
1998 budget request. These programs are intended to support
highway, transit, or rail projects that can be financed with
loans or credit enhancements and which involve non-Federal
investment partnerships.
Currently, only two States have actually begun projects
with State Infrastructure Banks [SIB's] financing, and it
appears that this approach to leveraged financing simply needs
more time before it can be fully evaluated. In addition, the
budget request and the NEXTEA reauthorization proposal both
incorporate a change in Federal law that will permit States to
levy tolls on interstate highways. I do not have to tell you
how unpopular tolls are in my part of the country, or any part
of the country for that matter.
In general, I hate to mention the terms ``innovative
financing'' and ``user fees'' in the same breath. There is
nothing particularly innovative about charging system users for
something they have already paid for. I hope that Deputy
Secretary Downey and Mr. Anderson from the General Accounting
Office can explain these proposals and that the discussions
during this first panel will further illuminate the issues
before us.
Perhaps the most politically volatile issue we will discuss
today is how and whether the Federal Government should continue
to subsidize Amtrak. The administration has proposed spending
about $767 million out of the highway trust fund to provide
operating and capital assistance to Amtrak in fiscal year 1998.
Ms. Jolene Molitoris, the Federal Railroad Administrator, will
represent the Department's position on Amtrak funding, since
Deputy Secretary Downey will need to leave the hearing. In
addition, Amtrak's President, Tom Downs, will present the
railroad's position, and Ms. Phyllis Scheinberg of GAO will
give us the benefit of her extensive studies of Amtrak and the
financial condition of the railroad.
I have several concerns regarding Amtrak. First, Amtrak has
now been in existence for 26 years and they have never once
during that period generated an annual profit. Moreover,
Amtrak, with its huge Federal subsidy, accounts for only three-
tenths of 1 percent of all annual intercity passenger trips in
the United States, while intercity bus service attracts a
ridership four times as great. I am not sure it makes sense to
continue to pour millions of taxpayer dollars into a system
which is used so little, but costs so much, especially when
there are more efficient alternatives available. Finding a new
bottomless source of revenue does not address the fundamental
problems facing Amtrak.
I understand that Amtrak is operating under outdated labor
policies which make the railroad's success very difficult.
American businesses all over the country have had to downsize
during the past 10 years or so in order to stay competitive.
However, Amtrak faces disincentives to reducing their work
force to a size supported by the market because rail labor laws
require the corporation to continue to pay a full salary for 6
years to any employee who loses his or her job as a result of
service reductions.
I am a firm believer in markets. If there is a demand for
passenger rail service, it will survive. In many areas of the
country there is no doubt that a private company could operate
a profitable rail service. But given Amtrak's poor track
record, heavy debt load, massive capital requirements, and
continued reliance on Federal operating subsidies, I question
the merits of putting more and more of the taxpayers' hard-
earned money into this system. I do not know of a single
investor who would put his or her own money into an
organization in such a bleak financial situation. I am not sure
it is right to ask the taxpayers to pay for something with
their tax dollars which they are so clearly not willing to pay
for with their disposable income.
Amtrak President Tom Downs says in his statement that: ``If
the decision is simply to end Amtrak, we ought to face it head
on and deal with the reality that comes with it.'' I believe
that is certainly one option to explore.
Mr. Downey, your--excuse me, Harry. I did not see you. I
apologize to you. Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman. Because of the
vote, I am not going to be able to stay for all the testimony.
I appreciate your arranging this hearing in spite of the fact
that we have not had our mark for what we are going to do with
this subcommittee. This is an important subcommittee. I am very
happy that you are getting some of these things looked at prior
to our getting our mark.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say this before going to my
prepared statement. I think we have to take a close look at
Amtrak, I agree with you. But I also think we have to look at
what is happening with our other forms of transportation in
this country. Our airports are crowded and filled. Our highways
are jammed to capacity. And we as a government help the
airlines, we help people who drive on highways, in many
different ways with Federal moneys.
We have to take a look at rail service. It is a way that we
can increase the ability of people to travel. We are now
working on rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, to
see if we can move more people through that very busy corridor
than we have.
I think from distances of 200 to 500 miles we have to look
at rail service as an alternative. I think if you look around
the world, other countries, they have done a much better job
with their rail service than have we. So I would hope that we
would recognize that rail service is something that we need to
work to try to make it better, and certainly not consider
terminating it.
There is little doubt the issues we address in today's
hearing are issues of great concern to every Member of both
bodies, both the House and the Senate. Transportation
represents a national concern. All of us have a stake in
ensuring that America's transportation policies are coherent
and they are efficient. More importantly, all have a vested
interest in ensuring that the goals of our transportation
policies are capable of being achieved.
This session of Congress will include extensive
consideration of not only how we finance our national
infrastructure, but also what our transportation policies
should aim for as we head into the 21st century. Our
transportation policies must recognize the importance of
providing adequate dollars for improvement and maintenance of
our infrastructure. The policy should not favor one region over
another. Funding formulas should provide States with sufficient
funding to meet the changing infrastructure needs they face.
While some push for devolution, all of us agree that
Federal regulations have to recognize the need for greater
flexibility at the State level. Because we have a national
transportation policy, we must recognize that there are often
unique interstate needs that otherwise would not be addressed
but for a Federal program. I believe the unique regional
perspective all of us bring to this issue will ultimately allow
us to forge a coherent national policy.
I represent a State that happens to be the fastest growing
State in the country. We have about 7,000 new people moving
into the Las Vegas area each month. Because funding formulas
are based on old census data, it is nearly impossible for
Nevada to receive the proper financing necessary to accommodate
this growth.
Nevada is also unique in that 87 percent of the land is
owned by the Federal Government. To appreciate how much land
this is, consider the fact that in the areas between our
interstates--this is not the whole State of Nevada, but just
between our two interstates--you can fit the States of New
Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Delaware. That is a lot of land.
Because the Federal Government owns these lands, the State
of Nevada receives little or no taxes from them, but still must
provide the intercontinental activity across these areas. In
order for all States to enjoy the benefit of our economy, we
must be able to build and maintain these lines of commerce, and
Federal lands programs are a source of much of the funding for
these areas.
Nevada is also a bridge State. Much of the traffic is
interstate. We play an important role in interstate commerce.
But the need for improving and maintaining these interstates
arises out of the damage caused by non-Nevada traffic,
especially the big trucks. And we like to have the traffic
coming from outside the State of Nevada, of course. But it is
difficult for me to explain to my constituents why we are
underfunding basic maintenance projects when we see first hand
the infrastructure degradation caused by this out-of-State
traffic on our interstates.
Finally, I am concerned that, while we have consistently
articulated a coherent national transportation policy, we fail
to provide the adequate funding necessary to support these
policies. I am troubled by the current budgetary things that
are being used with the highway trust fund. The trust fund
programs, some of them are penny wise and pound foolish.
I have introduced legislation to take the highway trust
fund off budget. I believe this action is necessary if we are
to be serious about meeting our infrastructure needs. Our
Nation's infrastructure represents the lifeline that fuels our
economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for the health
of this lifeline, all of us suffer. Whether it is unsafe and
degraded roads or pollution caused from overcongestion, all of
us are affected.
The price is not only the inconvenience of traversing a
dilapidated infrastructure. Indeed, the real price is the
increased cost all of us pay for goods and services because of
the burdens placed on the steady flow of this stream of
traffic. Similar to cholesterol buildup in arteries, eventually
there is a steep price to pay.
I look forward to being a participant in rewriting a bill
that will allow us to continue into the next millennium as the
world's foremost economic powerhouse. The ranking member of
this committee and I serve not only on this Appropriations
Committee, but also on the authorizing committee, the
Environment and Public Works Committee. By providing coherent,
efficient, and flexible transportation policies, we will surely
rise to the challenges of the 21st century. We have a big
burden to bear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Shelby, and thank you
for calling this hearing.
I have been concerned about the trend and talk by the
Federal Government toward user fees. And I have even heard it
referred to as ``innovative financing.'' I do not know if there
is anything innovative about adding a toll to a road. We have
been doing that for 2,000 years. But it is nothing but a tax
increase with a different name.
The political climate right now is not friendly to new
taxes, certainly if we call them outright taxes. The Federal
Government is already overtaxing the American people. But in
this climate we wind up with a euphemism for a tax increase and
we call it a user fee.
If we are going to put user fees on every service the
Federal Government provides, which is the direction we are
headed, then what are we going to use the regular income tax
and the other sources of general revenue for? The White House
has even proposed $300 million in user fees for the Federal
Aviation Administration. And yet this same FAA cannot tell me,
has not told me, and literally refuses to tell me or explain
how $1 billion was squandered by IBM on the Advanced Automation
Systems computers in the eighties and early nineties. A billion
dollars was absolutely wasted, no recoverable value, and they
simply refuse to talk about it. Yet they need $300 million in
user fees.
The administration's proposal for surface transportation
reauthorization includes a plan to let States impose tolls on
interstates. This is simply another tax, on roads that have
long since been paid for by the traveling public.
There are a lot of new user fees and new ways--and user
fees are simply a new way to take money from the American
public. Now, if you want to cut the cost of highways, of
highway construction, I have a suggestion. I ran for 8 years
the largest highway system in the Nation under one head. That
is the North Carolina Highway Department, as all roads in that
State are under one authority--counties, city streets, all
78,000 miles under one system. So I have watched what runs up
the cost of roads, and the Davis-Bacon requirements are one of
the principal sources of cost escalation. They probably add 20
percent to the cost of construction.
It is a needless surcharge on construction projects. If we
want to do something to expedite the building of highways, to
improve the system, and to get more road for our money and
better road, the first thing we could do is to eliminate the
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Mr. Chairman, just one brief statement. I, as I said, have
spent a lot of time watching highway construction, doing some,
and running a highway department, and I have long been a strong
advocate of highways. But I think the time has come and the
time has clearly reached us that we are going to have to look
at light rail transportation in different forms. And it is not
as complex a problem as we might think it would be.
Most of the railroads were acquiring right-of-way in the
19th century. They acquired rights-of-way of 100 to 200 feet in
many cases, when it requires 14 feet for a track. So much of
the rail rights-of-way in this country could accommodate
additional track, and certainly a lot of them have been
abandoned. Double tracks were at one time necessary. Now only
singles are used.
So this is the way we are going to have to begin to go in
this country. We cannot simply keep adding lanes to
interstates.
We are running out of right-of-way there.
So I strongly support a move to look at rail
transportation.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, my apologies for my late arrival. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, since we serve on a couple committees together, it is
just that we have been trying to disprove the process--it is
just impossible to put ourselves in the same place two or three
times at the same moment. We are still trying to prove that the
standard rules of physics do not apply.
Senator Shelby. Senator, before you arrived, Senator Reid
suggested you move New Jersey to Nevada.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I think we are doing it one drop
at a time and that is enough.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was delighted to hear our colleague
from North Carolina, if I heard correctly, speak on behalf of
investments in rail. We need to consider that.
I appreciate your holding this hearing on Amtrak. The
service is critical to the country at large, the Northeast
corridor, my State of New Jersey.
This morning GAO has very sobering testimony regarding
Amtrak's financial condition. They say in short, without a
prompt and bold response, Amtrak could be bankrupt and shut
down by summer 1998. That, frankly, is not an acceptable
option. It is imperative that the subcommittee and the Senate
arrive at a consensus about how to restructure Amtrak's
financing to get the railroad on a sounder footing.
Amtrak's annual operating deficit is rising again, despite
an aggressive cost-cutting program and its willingness to
absorb a certain amount of cuts in its subsidy. Amtrak's
revenues have suffered as a result of deeply discounted
selective air route fares. Moreover, this committee has over
the last 2 years cut the railroad's operating subsidy far below
the levels identified by Amtrak as acceptable.
To its credit, Amtrak has attempted to address this
shortfall by eliminating routes that lose the most money.
However, this predictable and reasonable response by Amtrak,
which any business would have undertaken, has often been
challenged by Members of Congress and their constituents, who
want their services to continue. And we understand that, but
somebody has got to pay the freight, as they say.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the dilemma we face. I believe that
Congress must make a decision this year whether we want to
continue a national passenger rail system or end it. If we want
to continue intercity rail service, we need to ask if we want a
national system and, if so, how much we are willing to
subsidize it and how much are we willing to invest to make it
successful and stabilize its finances?
I would like to see a stable funding stream provided for
Amtrak and have endorsed, along with Senator Roth, chairman of
the Finance Committee, and others, earmarking one-half cent of
the gas tax to do just that. Amtrak's Northeast corridor
service is essential to the Northeast corridor and that entire
region, and these routes are profitable in the short run. In
fact, short-term profits from the corridor subsidize all of the
unprofitable routes elsewhere in the country and make a
national rail passenger system possible. All of the increased
revenue to sustain national Amtrak service is expected to be
generated by new high-speed rail service in the Northeast
corridor.
As we contemplate the future of Amtrak, I would like to
emphasize three points: No national intercity railroad operates
without a subsidy, no place. Amtrak covers a larger portion of
its operating costs than any other system in the world. These
systems are subsidized because they are in the national public
interest. In fact, every other mode of transportation in this
Nation enjoys heavy subsidies, although some are more hidden or
more indirect, and we ought to be honest about that.
If Amtrak fails, the Federal Government will be exposed to
sizable shutdown costs and other liabilities that will exceed
even the funding levels called for under the half-cent
proposal. At least in the Northeast corridor, if Amtrak fails
this subcommittee will have to make enormous new investments in
highways and aviation facilities to provide an alternative to
rail service. Without Amtrak service, we would have to add
7,500 fully booked 757's, or 10,000 fully booked DC-9's, for
the year to the already congested airspace in our region.
Amtrak currently carries one-half of the combined air-rail
market between New York and Washington. If we move those
travelers off the rails, we are talking about multiple new
lanes on I-95, more terminal space at area airports, perhaps
even a new airport in Boston.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, these are the realities we should
keep in mind when considering the substantial capital
investment needed by Amtrak. Clearly, I believe it is an
investment worth making and one which is critical to the
functioning of one of the most densely populated regions of our
country and one that deals with our national economic well-
being as well.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORTON
Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, it has got to be extremely
frustrating to sit on the other side of the bench, not just in
this hearing but in every hearing, for witnesses, and much more
so for second panels, because by the time the second panel gets
here there will probably be one Senator left, maybe if they are
lucky two, simply because of the nature of our work here. I
strongly suspect that I am going to add to that frustration and
end up apologizing for it.
But I do want in my opening comments to ask for the
comments, which I will read and see, of these witnesses and of
the next witnesses on some of the questions which I think are
fundamental to the talk about rail transportation that Senator
Faircloth engaged in and the eloquent defense of Amtrak in
which Senator Lautenberg engaged, because for the life of me I
do not see the rationale of the way in which we treat various
forms of transportation in the country and the kind of
investments that we make in it.
So I would like you to tell me, Mr. Secretary, for example,
how many passengers Amtrak carries during the course of a year,
and maybe the passenger-miles that they are carried. My note
here from my staff says it is about 55 million passengers. You
can correct that. It does not have passenger-miles.
And you want between three-quarters of a billion dollars
and $1 billion to subsidize that form of transportation, one
that is not carried on very efficiently or very effectively.
And that money you want out of the pockets of general
taxpayers, those who use the system and those who do not.
I also want you to tell me how many passengers our
privately owned commercial airlines carry in the course of the
year and the number of passenger-miles involved. Again, my
notes say 550 million passengers, that is to say 10 times the
number of passengers on Amtrak and obviously far more miles on
average. And yet you only want to give to the physical
facilities of the airlines $1 billion.
[The information follows:]
In 1996, Amtrak carried about 20 million passengers
resulting in about 5 billion passenger-miles. U.S. commercial
airlines carried about 558 million domestic passengers in 1996
resulting in about 434 billion domestic passenger-miles.
Senator Gorton. But that money does not come from the
general taxpayer. That comes from people who ride on the
airlines and pay a ticket tax for it.
Now, what is the rationale of that ratio? I must say
emotionally, with respect to Amtrak, that I agree with Senator
Lautenberg. I think the idea of passenger rail service, a
balanced system, is one I think I favor, and I am going to have
to make an admission against interest now. Last year about this
time of year, I flew to Chicago one Friday and took the Empire
Builder to Seattle, just to see what kind of service was being
provided for me.
I must tell you very bluntly, it was a lousy experience.
The service was not as good as the service is on United or one
of the other airlines. No one ever told us why we were late
when we were late or how long we were going to stop in any
given place. But my feeling more than that was there was no way
that that long-distance service could compete with air service
on the cost per mile that it would operate. The crew was at
least as large or larger per passenger than I would have found
on United Airlines. The fare was higher, but not sufficiently
higher by any means to make the difference between 4 hours and
48 hours, which was the length of the trip.
I just did not see, with all respect to Senator Lautenberg,
how anyone, however efficiently they operated, could ever
compete for passengers on long distances like that, unlike the
situation between here and New York and perhaps Boston when
there are new tracks.
But why is it that we will spend as much money in a direct
subsidy to one-tenth of the passengers on Amtrak as we spend
out of a trust fund on the facilities for airports? Why is it
that the airport trust fund spending for facilities has dropped
in half, according to this administration's requests, at a time
at which the passenger use of the airlines has gone up by
almost double? And why is it--and this second, I am not asking
rhetorical questions; I am asking a very, very specific
question. You tell us in your statement that user fees are the
best way to promote efficiency in both the provision and
consumption of FAA services. What is broken that we have to
fix?
We have a present system that is a fuel tax and a ticket
tax, that have at the very least the ability of great
efficiency. It costs us almost nothing to collect them. The
number of FTE's that are involved is extremely small. Obviously
the cost of collecting user fees is going to be far higher. And
are we not going to run into exactly the situation that some
other countries that use user fees do, that pilots,
particularly private pilots, are going to attempt to avoid the
user fees by not using the services when in fact they really
ought to use those services, and a distinct decline in safety
in and among our aircraft?
Do we have a situation that is broken or are we trying to
fix something that is not broken at all?
I put these questions to you. Whether I can stay and get
all the answers, I think it is very important that we have the
answers to each one of those.
Finally, going back to Amtrak again, at my behest and with
the agreement of the former chairman, Senator Lautenberg, we
asked you all for a study of the privatization of Amtrak last
year in our committee report. We understand that that request
does not meet with much enthusiasm and that we are probably
going to just get regurgitated insider information that we had
previously. But it does seem to me that for those who wish for
the survival of passenger service in the United States that a
very serious and thoughtful examination of whether or not the
system can efficiently and effectively be privatized is in
order, and that it is very much in the interest of the
administration to come up with some answers to those questions.
And Lord knows we do not know the answers yet.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici, happy birthday.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. 39 years old today.
Senator Gorton. He just told me he is ready to retire.
Senator Shelby. No, no; he is just getting warmed up.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Frankly, Senator Lautenberg, Senator
Graham met me on the floor and somebody said I was 65. He said:
Oh, that is why you were so interested in putting in all those
good things for the old folks in your budget. I told him it was
both you and me, not just me, right.
Senator Lautenberg. I do not deny it.
Senator Domenici. Well, listen. If you all could answer the
questions that Senator Gorton asked, I would leave the scene
and just wait around and read the answers with great
enthusiasm. I would add just one more question, however.
Ever since I have been serving on the Appropriations
Committee and slightly before that, when we used to take a
little more serious look at Amtrak in the budget process, it
was a mystery to me as to why we could not change the system of
compensating working men and women who are injured on the job
from an ancient system Amtrak follows to the modern system that
everybody else follows, to wit workman's compensation.
Now, I understand, if there are any labor union people in
the audience, I have just been put on their whatever they call
it list. But the truth of the matter is, in my opinion, there
is no excuse to have one system of compensation which costs,
according to what I know, so much more than workman's
compensation, which is covering workers in all the other
systems. I think that there ought to be some reforms that are
serious forthcoming if there is an expectation that we are
going to continue to subsidize this program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to report to you, while the
budget is not out yet, we heard your request loud and clear.
Senator Shelby. Plea.
Senator Domenici. Your plea, yours at some times almost
begging.
Senator Shelby. Right.
Senator Domenici. It was very nice.
Senator Shelby. Especially to the Budget Committee.
Senator Domenici. It is very nice to have that happen every
now and then, when somebody does that to me.
Senator Shelby. Well, were our prayers answered?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Senator Domenici. The bipartisan balanced budget agreement
will accommodate a rather substantial increase. I cannot give
you the number, but surely it is $8 to $10 billion over the
President's numbers, which were way too low, and I think they
knew that, so they are not objecting to this increase. In fact,
as in some items, the Republicans will claim victory for things
the administration wanted and the administration will claim
victory for the transportation funding, I assume.
Senator Shelby. Nothing has changed, has it?
Senator Domenici. It seems like it is going to turn out all
right.
I will not be here for the entire morning, but I commend
you for the hearings and for the great work you are doing as
the new chairman of the subcommittee.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Downey.
Statement of Mortimer L. Downey
Mr. Downey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the President's proposal.
Senator Shelby. Let me mention this. Your entire written
statement will be made part of the record, and if you will
briefly summarize.
Mr. Downey. Yes; I will do that. And before I begin my
testimony, let me thank the subcommittee and the full committee
for your prompt action on the emergency supplemental. The
efforts that we have made together on this and in other
disasters have made a real difference for hundreds of thousands
of Americans. But disasters like those floods really make it
clear how much we do depend on our transportation system. That
is why we have worked with the Congress to increase Federal
investment to record levels in infrastructure even as we are
moving toward a balanced budget.
We recognize that Federal funding alone cannot meet all of
our needs, and that is the reason for conceiving a set of
strategies to make the most of Federal resources by cutting
redtape and leveraging greater non-Federal investment. The
first step we took in that was what we called the Partnership
for Transportation Investment to attract new sources of funding
and speed up project construction.
The National Highway System Act 2 years ago made a reality
of our proposals for State Infrastructure Banks, which will use
Federal seed money to provide loans and credit enhancements to
highway and transit infrastructure projects. As these loans are
repaid or as the financial exposure implied by credit
enhancements expires, the funds will be available for
additional cycles of projects. Banks in the 10 pilot States, as
the chairman pointed out, are only now beginning operation, so
there is limited experience with them. But we believe that they
can leverage non-Federal funds at rates up to 4 to 1. We are
now considering applications from 29 additional States for
their State Infrastructure Banks. We expect to make decisions
on them shortly.
The President's proposed 1998 budget and the
reauthorization bill would carry us to the next generation of
innovative finance. They would continue supporting State
Infrastructure Banks by providing $150 million annually in seed
money and $100 million annually for a new national
transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program.
Finally, NEXTEA, our reauthorization bill, would provide
for the first time a stable source of funding for Amtrak as it
moves toward operating self-sufficiency. We want to provide
direct funding for Amtrak from the highway trust fund and we
wish to give States the flexibility to use part of their
Federal funding apportionments for Amtrak infrastructure.
We are also committed to adequately financing our aviation
system needs. We want to work with the Congress and with the
new National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which was
recently appointed, to establish reliable long-term funding for
the FAA so it can continue to provide the services the aviation
system needs. In the meantime, Congress has authorized us to
charge for air traffic services provided to those flying
through our airspace but not using a U.S. airport, and these
fees would become effective on May 19.
I recognize that this committee has added language in the
emergency supplemental that would limit our authority to impose
these fees, but we look forward to working with the Congress on
this issue.
We also propose to collect an additional $300 million in
new fees next year under the President's 1998 budget as a means
to providing the necessary funding for a growing demand for air
traffic services.
We are also exploring new ways to fund airport
infrastructure. Last year Congress authorized airport
development projects using new financial techniques, much in
the way the Partnership for Transportation Investment set the
stage for innovative finance in the surface modes. We will soon
select five innovative financing projects from around the
country for formal applications under the airports improvement
program. These proposed projects include the construction of a
safety-related building, new runways to provide additional
capacity, and mitigation of airport noise. And each of the
three innovative financing mechanisms the Congress authorized--
payment of interest, credit enhancement, and a flexible non-
Federal share--would be tested by at least one of the
proposals.
Let me conclude my statement by reiterating our belief that
these initiatives for surface transportation and for aviation
will help give us the infrastructure and the equitable and
efficient funding of services we need for a world-class
transportation system. The partnership that we have forged with
the Congress to make possible these innovations has been a
successful one and we look forward to continuing to work with
you in the coming months to build on this progress.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Downey. We have your
complete statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mortimer L. Downey
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Department of Transportation's
accomplishments and proposals with respect to innovative financing of
transportation infrastructure.
overview
President Clinton came to office dedicated to improving the
Nation's transportation infrastructure because of its contribution to
economic prosperity. He had declared during the 1992 campaign: ``The
1980's saw the concrete foundations of the United States crumble as the
investment gap widened between America and our global competitors.''
In the 21st century, Americans will compete in a truly global
marketplace. This marketplace will be fiercely competitive, and our
success as a Nation will be determined on how safely, reliably and
cost-effectively we can move people, goods and information.
Transportation accounts for about 11 percent of the United States gross
domestic product--roughly comparable to health (14 percent) and food
(12 percent)--and will affect our country's global competitiveness in
the future.
Working with Congress, we have increased Federal transportation
infrastructure investment to record levels. These investments have paid
off in substantial improvements to the condition and performance of our
highways and mass transit systems. But the Federal government alone can
not close the investment gap, and President Clinton early on recognized
that ``the only way to lay the foundation for renewed American
prosperity is to spur both public and private investment.'' His 1994
Executive Order setting out ``Principles for Federal Infrastructure
Investments,'' provides that:
Agencies shall seek private sector participation in
infrastructure investment and management. Innovative public-
private initiatives can bring about greater private sector
participation in the ownership, financing, construction, and
operation of . . . infrastructure programs. . . . Consistent
with the public interest, agencies should work with State and
local entities to minimize legal and regulatory barriers to
private sector participation in the provision of infrastructure
facilities and services.
In response to the President's direction, the Department initiated
the Partnership for Transportation Investment. Through that
Partnership, we have supplemented our traditional surface
transportation grant programs with innovative financing, stretching our
transportation investments further. Our efforts, which have focused on
public-private partnerships, have accelerated more than 74 projects
with a total value exceeding $4.5 billion.
State Infrastructure Banks, proposed by the Administration and
approved by Congress in the National Highway System Designation Act of
1995 (NHS Act), are now being established in 10 pilot states. The banks
are beginning to offer new financing tools for a variety of
transportation improvements--such as toll roads and intermodal
terminals. As you well know, the fiscal year 1997 Transportation
Appropriations Act gave us authority to select additional states to
participate in the SIB's. We have received 26 applications from 29
states, including two multi-state applications, for additional SIB's
and expect to make announcements on those applications shortly. While
projects are just being initiated under the new SIB's so experience is
limited, some have suggested a potential for as much as a 4-to-1
leveraging factor from funds deposited in SIB's.
With respect to other modes, financing all of our aviation system's
needs--airports, airway facilities, security, and FAA operations--is a
critical priority for us. With authority Congress provided in the
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, we are soliciting and
reviewing innovative financing proposals for airport development. We
want to work with Congress to establish a reliable, long-term funding
base so that the FAA can continue to provide the services our aviation
system needs. As an interim measure until comprehensive financial
reform is achieved, we are proposing $300 million in new user fees.
Members have been appointed to the new National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, and they are beginning their work to analyze aviation
budget requirements and ways to fund them and to help us to reach a
consensus on what course to take.
And we have proposed changes in the financing for Amtrak--to
provide more stability in its direct funding by requesting contract
authority (beginning in fiscal year 1999) from the Highway Trust Fund
and to permit states to help meet Amtrak's financial needs from state
apportionments of National Highway System and Surface Transportation
Program funds where state officials see Amtrak as a key part of their
transportation systems.
federal investment
As Secretary Rodney Slater discussed with you, working with this
Subcommittee and the entire Congress, over the past four years (fiscal
years 1994-97) we have increased Federal investment in highways,
transit systems, and other infrastructure to an average of $25.5
billion, more than 20 percent higher than the average during the
previous four years. The Department is committed to a long-term
infrastructure investment program and seeks the highest levels of
investment within the context of a balanced budget and the President's
priorities. But we recognize that Federal investment alone can never
close the investment gap.
As part of Secretary Slater's commitment to bring common sense
government to the Department of Transportation in order to provide the
people we serve with a Department that works better and costs less, we
will continue to encourage more flexible, innovative funding to
leverage Federal dollars for infrastructure investment--one subject of
your hearing today.
innovative financing
Innovative financing is one of the Department's most significant
success stories over the last four years. The Department initiated the
Partnership for Transportation Investment in 1994. Under that
initiative, we have supplemented our traditional grant programs with
innovative financing. Our efforts have resulted in more than $1.2
billion in non-Federal investment in transportation infrastructure that
would not have occurred without the financing concepts included under
the Partnership.
As a result, projects like State Highway 190 in Texas cost less and
will bring benefits to the economy sooner. In that case, the Texas DOT
loaned $135 million in Federal-aid funds to the Texas Turnpike
Authority, which was combined with almost $500 million in bond proceeds
from the private sector. Construction on this project will be initiated
over a decade earlier than originally planned and is expected to
relieve existing congestion on other highways in the north Dallas area.
Also, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority was granted
advance construction authority to issue bonds to rebuild its heavy rail
maintenance facility. This $236 million project was undertaken 30
months earlier as a result, with immediate construction savings of over
$50 million. Each repair and overhaul from 1997 onward will take up to
one-third less time to complete.
The Partnership initiative was based on the use of innovation
within existing authority by the Federal Transit Administration and on
the use of test and evaluation authority provided to the Federal
Highway Administration under Section 307(a) of Title 23 of the United
States Code. That section permits FHWA to engage in a wide range of
research projects, including those related to infrastructure finance.
As part of this research effort, FHWA provided states with flexibility
on certain policies and procedures so that specific transportation
projects could be advanced through the use of non-traditional financing
concepts. The Partnership was designed and operated to give states the
opportunity to propose and test those concepts that best met their
needs. Projects that were advanced were those that were identified by
state-level decision makers facing real world barriers to financing
needed transportation improvements. No new Federal funds were made
available; the focus of the Partnership has been to foster the
identification and implementation of new, flexible strategies to
overcome fiscal, institutional, and administrative obstacles faced in
funding transportation projects.
The 74 projects have been both highway and intermodal projects.
Because ISTEA broadened the availability of Federal-aid highway funds
for non-highway projects, many of the projects that have been advanced
have also involved other modes. For example, they have included
installation of Intelligent Transportation System technologies, ferry
purchases, intermodal facilities for truck-to-rail transfers,
construction of a commuter rail station, and bike/pedestrian projects.
There have been eight major financing tools tested under the
Partnership for Transportation Investment; those tools can be generally
characterized as investment tools and cash flow tools. Investment tools
are those that draw new sources of funds to transportation investment;
cash flow tools aim to accelerate construction and completion of
projects.
The most popular tools have been flexible match and advance
construction, both of which were made a basic part of the Federal-aid
highway program by the NHS Act. Prior to that, private contributions
toward a project were deducted from the total project cost, and states
had to provide the matching share of the remaining cost. Under the
Partnership initiative, we permitted such contributions to be counted
toward the state matching share. This innovation encouraged states to
seek private partners since the states got the total benefit of the
contributions. We also allowed some states to use tapered match where
the Federal share is allowed to vary during the life of the project.
Under advance construction, states use state and local funds to
construct projects while preserving those projects' eligibility for
future Federal-aid reimbursement. However, conversion of such projects
was to be made by the end of the ISTEA authorization period--that is,
by the end of this fiscal year--and, when the project is converted,
obligation of the full amount of Federal funds to be committed to the
project was required. The requirement to convert by the end of this
year made advance construction less and less available as a tool as we
got closer to the end of the ISTEA period. The requirement to obligate
the full amount of Federal funds at the time of conversion limited the
states' flexibility in using this tool. We allowed (and the NHS Act
made the authority permanent) states to rely, within certain limits, on
likely future-year apportionments beyond the current authorization
period and to make partial conversions of such projects.
Tax advantaged leasing is another finance tool that has provided
significant additional revenues to transit systems in several States.
Since 1994, over $2.2 billion in equipment and facilities leasehold
transactions (cross-border leases, domestic leases, and lease/
leaseback) have provided over $143 million in cash benefits for the
transit systems involved. This non-Federal cash has been used for these
transit providers' long term capital investment programs.
A few states used other innovative financing tools such as lending
some of their regularly apportioned Federal funds to revenue producing
projects or using those funds to reimburse the cost of retiring bonds.
Although these tools leveraged the greatest amount of non-Federal
funds, they have been utilized less frequently because in many cases
legal and institutional impediments must be overcome and because states
chose not to divert grant funds previously programmed for other uses.
In addition to leveraging more non-Federal investment, the
Partnership initiative has accelerated construction of these projects--
by an average of 2.2 years. That means the benefits of these projects--
typically, travel time savings, safety improvements, reduced vehicle
operating costs for transportation users, and environmental and other
social benefits for communities--are realized sooner.
The Partnership for Transportation Investment provided clear
evidence of the potential for innovative financing tools to generate
more total investment and accelerate construction of transportation
projects that deliver benefits to transportation users and communities
in general. It also demonstrated that there is strong interest at the
state and local level in using these tools. That evidence contributed
to inclusion of a number of new authorities to use innovative financing
tools and of a State Infrastructure Bank pilot program in the NHS Act--
an important step in making these tools broadly available to better
meet the Nation's transportation needs.
state infrastructure banks
A SIB is a state or multi-state fund that can offer loans and
credit enhancements to a wide variety of project sponsors. They are
intended to support certain highway, transit, or rail projects that can
be financed--in whole or in part--with loans or that can benefit from
the provision of credit enhancement. As loans are repaid or the
financial exposure implied by a credit enhancement expires, a SIB's
initial capital is replenished, and it can support a new cycle of
projects.
With the authority provided in the NHS Act, DOT selected ten states
from among 15 applicants. We have established cooperative agreements
with nine of those states: Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. California is still
considering the best structure for its SIB.
With just five months having passed since most states signed
cooperative agreements with us for chartering their SIB's, financial
activity within the SIB's has gotten underway. Federal outlays to the
SIB pilots (from regularly apportioned Federal-aid highway funds)
totaled $65 million as of the end of February. Three loans have been
made--two by Ohio totaling $20 million and one by Missouri for $1.2
million. Three other states--Florida, Oklahoma, and Oregon--intend to
make project loans this fiscal year. Texas and Virginia may be able to
offer loans this year, too.
This is a new way of advancing infrastructure improvements--for us
and for the states, and, as we move forward, we are finding impediments
as we thought we would and we are solving them. Arizona, Oklahoma, and
Texas have found limitations in their enabling legislation for SIB's
and are actively seeking remedies. South Carolina and Virginia are
developing procedures for SIB operations and project selection and do
not expect to request Federal capitalization funds until late in fiscal
year 1997 or fiscal year 1998. California is exploring structural
options for its SIB, including the possibility of solely providing
third-party credit enhancements. This strategy would require California
to obtain an investment grade rating for its SIB. The process to do so
is underway but not yet completed.
While we are still in the start-up phase, our expectations are for
a healthy level of SIB activity within the first ten pilots. Based on
the states' plans, we expect to see $260 million in SIB assistance
offered this fiscal year to support $940 million worth of projects. By
the end of fiscal year 1998, we expect $324 million in assistance to be
committed in support of $1.6 billion worth of projects. If those
expectations hold true, by the end of fiscal year 1998, each SIB dollar
would be supporting nearly $4 of non-Federal infrastructure investment.
As with the Partnership initiative, highway projects will likely
form the bulk of SIB-assisted projects--about 75 percent of them based
on current plans. But SIB's will also assist in construction of other
projects such as intermodal facilities and improvement of rail transit
infrastructure. For example, Missouri's SIB will use a Missouri DOT
grant to capitalize its SIB transit account. The initial capitalization
will support a loan for the Kiehl Center, a multi-modal terminal
serving St. Louis, Missouri's transit system, the Bi-State Development
Agency. The loan will be followed by a debt service line of credit,
which will reduce the project's borrowing costs by over 200 basis
points. This will be the first SIB transit account to be capitalized.
We expect that SIB's will be an important contributor to meeting
the Nation's transportation needs. They can support locally and
regionally significant projects that have access to a dedicated revenue
stream but need flexible financial assistance to clear hurdles that
would otherwise obstruct or delay their implementation. SIB's can do
this by offering: lower cost financing than might otherwise be
available, flexible repayment terms that can be tailored to a project's
revenue stream, or credit enhancements that improve access to, or lower
the cost of, debt financing. And the fact that SIB resources are
recycled means that the benefits of SIB assistance--leveraging of other
investment, lower project costs, and accelerated construction--can be
realized repeatedly.
The fiscal year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act authorized
us to permit more States to establish SIB's and provided $150 million
in seed money. Twenty-nine States have applied to establish additional
SIB's. We expect to be announcing our decisions on those applications
very shortly. At the same time, we will be announcing how the $150
million will be distributed among the first 10 pilot states and the new
SIB states we are selecting with the authority in the Appropriations
Act.
proposals for fiscal year 1998 and beyond
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget and our proposal for ISTEA
reauthorization--the National Economics Crossroads Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1997, or NEXTEA--expand the innovative financing
opportunities available to state and local governments by authorizing
all states to establish SIB's, by providing $150 million in seed money
for SIB's per year, and by creating a new Transportation Infrastructure
Credit Enhancement Program funded at $100 million per year. This
program is intended to assist in the funding of nationally significant
transportation projects that otherwise might be delayed or not
constructed at all because of their size or uncertainty over timing of
revenues.
The proposed new Credit Enhancement Program would provide grants
(limited to 20 percent of project costs), which could be supplemented
by contributions from states or other entities, to establish a Revenue
Stabilization Fund for each project selected. That Fund would be used
to secure external debt financing or would be drawn upon if needed to
pay debt service costs in the event project revenues are insufficient.
These debts will not be considered ``federally guaranteed'' under the
Internal Revenue Code, thus allowing the Program to be used in
connection with either taxable or tax-exempt bond issues. Our vision is
that the Credit Enhancement Program will complement the SIB's by
encouraging the development of large, capital-intensive infrastructure
facilities through public-private partnerships consisting of a state or
local government and one or more private sector firms involved in the
design, construction, or operation of the facility. Candidate projects
that meet threshold eligibility criteria--relating to project size,
access to user charges or other dedicated revenue streams, inclusion in
a State's Transportation Improvement Program, ability to provide
benefits of national significance, and demonstrated need that it cannot
otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms--would then be evaluated
and selected based on the extent to which they would leverage private
capital, their overall credit worthiness, and other program goals.
other modes
I have focused my remarks on surface transportation infrastructure,
but I want to tell you briefly how we are applying innovative concepts
for financing of our aviation programs and Amtrak.
Based on the success of the Partnership initiative in surface
transportation, we asked Congress for authority similar to FHWA's test
and evaluation authority to test innovative financing techniques for
airport development. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996
permitted us to select ten airport development projects to demonstrate
innovative financing techniques that were not otherwise permitted by
statute. Although FAA's innovative financing options available in this
demonstration program are more limited than FHWA's have been under its
test and evaluation authority, we are optimistic that the results will
be positive.
In response to its invitation, FAA has received 12 written
expressions of interest that contained sufficient detail on which to
base a preliminary concept decision. A panel with expertise in airport
financing has reviewed the proposals and recommended that five be
advanced to the next step. I am pleased to announce today that these
five applicants will be invited to provide additional detail to support
formal applications for Airport Improvement Program funds.
The proposed projects include construction of a safety-related
building, new runways to provide additional airport capacity, and
mitigation of airport noise impacts. In addition, each of the three
innovative financing mechanisms authorized under the 1996 Act--payment
of interest, credit enhancement, and flexible non-Federal share--would
be tested by at least one of the proposals.
We anticipate finding that these financing innovations will lead to
greater leveraging power for limited Federal funds, acceleration of
needed capital improvements, and overall cost savings in developing
airport infrastructure. We look forward to sharing preliminary data on
innovative financing benefits with the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission later this summer.
As you know, we have been proposing for some time to change the
financing structure for FAA from aviation excise taxes to cost-based
user fees. In the long run, we believe that is the best way to promote
efficiency in both the provision and consumption of FAA services and
ensure that FAA will receive the resources it needs to be able to
continue to provide the services that aviation users demand. FAA is
critical to the operation of the civil aviation system in this country
and for much of the airspace beyond our borders. Our economy, in turn,
is dependent on the efficient and unconstrained use of that airspace.
Congress has given us the authority to charge for the air traffic
services provided to those flying through our airspace but not taking
off or leaving from a U.S. airport. We have issued an interim final
rule to collect those fees, and the fees will be effective May 19,
1997. In the President's fiscal year 1998 Budget, we propose to collect
an additional $300 million in new fees next year. This proposal is an
interim measure to provide the FAA with needed resources until
comprehensive financial reforms can be implemented based on the work of
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. The FAA provides a
variety of services the costs of which are not fully recovered under
the current system of excise taxes (e.g., security, inspections, and
air traffic services provided to general aviation jet aircraft and
international air cargo carriers). These represent possible fees that
could be authorized for fiscal year 1998.
We look forward to the recommendations of the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission regarding the long-term financing of the FAA
and to working with Congress on FAA financing.
We believe Amtrak is a key part of the Nation's intercity
transportation system and that a combination of cost savings, revenue
generation, and capital support is essential if Amtrak is to achieve
eventual operating self-sufficiency. Our NEXTEA proposal requests
contract authority (beginning in fiscal year 1999) for Amtrak from the
Highway Trust Fund. The total level of capital support is directly tied
to Amtrak's ability to reduce spending and increase revenues so as to
reduce its reliance on Federal operating grants. The intent of this
arrangement is to encourage Amtrak to operate in the most efficient and
effective manner. Our NEXTEA proposal would also let states, for the
first time, use their National Highway System and Surface
Transportation Program funds for Amtrak infrastructure. We believe that
is the right kind of expansion of the flexibility ISTEA provided six
years ago. More and more, state officials see the individual
transportation modes as part of a network to meet transportation needs,
and permitting them to use Federal funds in the most effective way to
meet those needs is the best use we can make of the funds.
conclusion
As the President has said, when times change, so government must
change. We recognize that there must be more investment in
transportation infrastructure and the Federal government can and must
find new ways to promote that investment. The success of the
Partnership for Transportation Investment encouraged us to change our
grant programs so that innovative financing tools are available to
encourage more non-Federal investment. We appreciate Congress' support
in helping make those tools available. They are the right way to ensure
the Nation's transportation system is ready to meet the demands of the
21st Century.
Aviation User Fees
Senator Gorton. Mr. Downey, there has been a lot of
discussion and criticism of the way in which the Federal
Aviation Administration is currently financed. We have already
been talking about it some. Basically, the ticket tax and
general revenues. I expect this controversy will not subside as
we move through the appropriation process. Last year Congress
established the National Civil Aviation Commission to review
this issue and to make recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation by August 1997.
Sir, what criteria will the Department use as it considers
various user fees that are recommended by the National Civil
Aviation Commission?
Mr. Downey. We will be working with the Commission, and I
am not sure what their recommendations will be. They are really
beginning with a clean slate, looking at the needs of the
system, looking at various means of financing it. I think the
key issues will be ability to provide the funding necessary for
FAA to meet a growing demand; second, equity among the classes
of users; and third, efficiency in terms of the way the FAA
does its business. As Senator Gorton raised the point of
safety, we do not want a system of financing that would in any
way detract from the safety of the system.
So we need to look at all of those. The Civil Aviation
Commission has been appointed. They began their work about 2
weeks ago and we expect them to be able to meet their schedule.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Anderson, do you have some comments?
Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr.
Mr. Anderson. Yes; I do. I will summarize my statement as
well.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead. It will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Anderson. All right, thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on three
critical transportation financing issues facing the Congress
and the administration: meeting the long-term financing needs
of FAA, Amtrak's needs for Federal financial assistance, and
innovative ways for financing highway construction. In my oral
statement I will summarize the financing challenges presented
by FAA and our Nation's highways, and my colleague Phyllis
Scheinberg will discuss Amtrak's financial condition during
today's second panel.
Major financing issues need to be resolved to improve the
safety and security of our aviation system. Over the years we
have identified numerous shortcomings in FAA's aviation safety
and security programs. Following the crashes of ValuJet Flight
592 and TWA Flight 800, FAA and the Gore Commission also
identified areas requiring action.
How these improvements will be funded, however, has yet to
be addressed. FAA estimates that its needs will exceed
projected funding levels over the next 5 years by $13 billion,
which includes $4 billion to accelerate air traffic control
modernization.
The administration has proposed that the current financing
system, including the tax on domestic airline tickets, be
replaced with user fees, and a national commission will examine
this financing option. However, a user fee approach requires a
good cost accounting system, which our work has shown FAA
lacks. In a recent study, Coopers & Lybrand reported that,
despite FAA's lacking a cost accounting system, it is possible
on an interim basis for FAA to assign its costs to broad
categories of users such as commercial airlines, general
aviation, and the military. However, the study concluded that
FAA did not currently have sufficiently detailed, reliable cost
data to support a comprehensive user fee system.
If FAA is required to adopt a comprehensive system of user
fees, it should first implement a modern cost accounting system
that can reliably assign costs to specific users. FAA plans to
implement such a system by October 1997. However, according to
FAA, it will take at least 6 to 12 months after that before the
agency can develop enough data to accurately assign costs to
specific users.
Even with better cost data, a significant portion of FAA's
costs may not be directly assignable to individual users, and
policy decisions and judgments are going to have to be made
about how to assign those costs. Different user groups are
likely to have diverging opinions about what constitutes an
equitable allocation of these costs.
Because the excise taxes that finance about three-fourths
of FAA's budget lapse at the end of this fiscal year, the
Congress will have to select a financing mechanism without
knowing whether specific users are assigned their fair share of
costs. The Congress could decide to extend the present excise
tax system, modify it, or adopt a different one from numerous
options, such as a fuel tax or enplanement fees. Deciding among
these alternatives involves tradeoffs between their ease of
administration, impact on the efficiency of the system, the
ability to produce an equitable system in which users pay their
fair share, and their impact on other policy goals.
In choosing how to finance FAA, these tradeoffs and the
potential competitive impacts of new fees will need to be
carefully studied by the National Commission and the Congress.
When FAA develops more detailed and reliable cost data, the
financing method that is initially chosen could be reexamined.
Similarly daunting challenges are presented by the
financing of repairs and construction of our Nation's highways.
DOT estimates that $16 billion in additional spending is needed
annually just to maintain, not improve, the condition of the
Nation's highways to 1993 levels. In order to stretch limited
funds, the Congress in 1995 authorized a number of innovative
financing mechanisms, including a State infrastructure bank
pilot program.
SIB's serve as an umbrella under which a variety of
innovative finance techniques can be implemented. Much like a
bank, a SIB needs equity capital to get started and equity
capital can be provided, at least in part, through Federal
highway funds. Once capitalized, the SIB can offer a range of
loans and credit options, such as loan guarantees and lines of
credit, to public or private sponsors of transportation
projects.
SIB's are intended to complement, not replace, traditional
grant programs and provide States with increased flexibility to
attract private investment in highway projects. For some
States, however, barriers to establishing and effectively using
a SIB remain. Michigan officials, for instance, told us that
the State does not have the constitutional authority to lend
money to the private sector. As a result, the SIB program has
been slow to start up. Only two States, Missouri and Ohio, have
actually started projects under their SIB's.
To provide for greater participation, DOT's Fiscal Year
1997 Appropriations Act lifted the 10-State limit on
establishing SIB's and provided $150 million in new seed money.
Since the act's passage, DOT has received additional
applications from 28 States and Puerto Rico.
Clearly, the SIB program will need time to develop and
mature before its impact on meeting highway funding needs can
be assessed. In our 1996 report we suggested that once SIB's
begin operating FHWA could disseminate information on States'
successes and failures with various financing options, which
could help other States use them more effectively.
That concludes my oral statement and I would be glad to
answer any questions.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. We have your
complete statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to testify on three critical transportation financing
issues facing the Congress and the administration: meeting the long-
term funding needs of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Amtrak, and the nation's highways. Each area presents formidable
challenges that will stretch our limited resources; at the same time,
pressures remain to reduce the federal budget. Overall, the $38 billion
proposed in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) fiscal year 1998
budget to fund the Department represents about a 1-percent reduction
from this year's enacted appropriation. In summary, we have found the
following:
--Major financing issues need to be resolved to improve the safety
and security of our nation's aviation system. FAA estimates
that its needs will exceed projected funding levels by about
$13 billion over the next 5 years. The Congress last year
established a national commission to make recommendations by
August 1997 on how best to finance FAA. Currently, FAA receives
most of its funding from excise taxes, including a tax on
domestic airline tickets, but those taxes lapse at the end of
fiscal year 1997. The administration has proposed replacing the
current system with user fees, and the national commission
clearly will be examining this option. Developing such fees
requires good data for assigning FAA's costs to specific users
and policy decisions on such issues as how to allocate costs
not directly related to any particular user. FAA currently
lacks sufficient cost data, however, and will not start
collecting better data until October 1997. As a result, better
cost data will not be available before the excise taxes lapse
or before initial decisions will have to be made about how to
finance FAA. Deciding among the various financing alternatives
involves tradeoffs between their (1) ease of administration,
(2) impact on how efficiently the airport and airway system is
used, (3) ability to produce an equitable system in which users
pay their fair share, (4) potential competitive impacts, and
(5) other policy goals.
--Amtrak remains in a very precarious financial position and
continues to be heavily dependent on federal support to meet
its operating and capital needs. Amtrak's passenger rail
service has never been profitable and, through fiscal year
1997, the federal government has provided Amtrak with over $19
billion for operating and capital expenses. Amtrak projects
that its fiscal year 1997 operating loss could be $783 million.
While the corporation's goal is to eliminate the need for
federal operating support by 2002, it is likely that Amtrak
will continue to require substantial federal financial
support--both operating and capital--beyond that time.
--DOT believes that current public spending on the capital needs of
highways is inadequate and estimates that $16 billion in
additional spending is needed annually just to maintain--not
improve--the condition of the nation's highways. State
Infrastructure Banks offer the promise of helping to close the
gap between transportation needs and available resources by
sustaining and potentially expanding a fixed sum of federal
capital. Benefits include expediting the completion of
projects, recycling loan repayments to future projects, and
obtaining financial support from the private sector and local
communities. However, some state officials and industry experts
are skeptical that such banks will produce these benefits and
believe that (1) the number of projects with a sufficient
revenue stream to repay the loans may be insufficient and (2)
state infrastructure banks face impediments under state law.
Only time will tell. This program is new, and only two states
have begun projects under their state infrastructure bank.
issues associated with addressing faa's financial problems and
determining the best funding mechanism
One of the most difficult financing problems confronting the
Congress and the administration is how to adequately fund FAA to meet
its mission over the long term. Over the years, we have issued numerous
reports and testimonies that identified shortcomings in FAA's aviation
safety and security programs.\1\ These shortcomings include the
insufficient training of FAA safety inspectors, inaccurate and
incomplete aviation safety databases, and vulnerabilities in our
aviation security systems. Similarly, in the wake of the May 1996 crash
of Valujet Flight 592 and the July 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800, FAA
and the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (the
Gore Commission) have concluded that a number of actions are needed to
improve the safety and security of our aviation system.\2\ However, how
to fund these improvements has not been resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, ``Aviation Safety: New Airlines Illustrate
Long-Standing Problems in FAA's Inspection Program'' (GAO/RCED-97-2,
Oct. 17, 1996) ``Aviation Safety: Data Problems Threaten FAA Strides on
Safety Analysis System'' (GAO/AIMD-95-27, Feb. 8, 1995), ``Aviation
Security: Additional Actions Needed to Meet Domestic and International
Challenges'' (GAO/RCED-94-38, Jan. 27, 1994), and ``Aviation Security:
Technology's Role in Addressing Vulnerabilities'' (GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-
262, Sept. 19, 1996).
\2\ ``Final Report to President Clinton, White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security'' (Feb. 12, 1997) and ``FAA 90 Day Safety
Review'' (Sept. 16, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deciding how to meet FAA's funding needs involves not only
determining what FAA's financial requirements are but choosing the best
financing mechanism to meet those needs. Recognizing the seriousness of
these issues, the Congress directed that a number of studies be
completed. Under the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act, enacted in
October 1996, the Congress required (1) an independent assessment of
FAA's financial needs and costs, which was performed by Coopers &
Lybrand; (2) an assessment by GAO of airports' capital needs; and (3)
an assessment by GAO of how air traffic control costs are allocated
between FAA and the Department of Defense (DOD). The act established
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to, among other things,
consider these studies and recommend to the Secretary of
Transportation, by August 1997, how best to finance FAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Secretary of Transportation is required to consult with the
Secretary of the Treasury and report to the Congress by October 1997 on
the Secretary's recommendations for funding FAA through 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While its assessment of FAA's financial needs identified some areas
for potential savings, Coopers & Lybrand concluded that FAA's estimates
of its needs through 2002 were reasonable.\4\ Table 1 compares FAA's
estimated requirements with the agency's budget estimates for fiscal
years 1998-2002, which were contained in the President's fiscal year
1998 budget.\5\ In addition, FAA officials estimate that the almost $9
billion potential shortfall shown in table 1 could increase by an
additional $4 billion as the agency tries to address the Gore
Commission's recommendations to accelerate the modernization of the
National Airspace System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Federal Aviation Administration: Independent Financial
Assessment,'' Coopers & Lybrand (Feb. 28, 1997).
\5\ One component of FAA's requirements is funding a portion of the
cost of developing our nation's airports. Last month, we reported that
estimates of airports' annual capital needs during 1997-2001 ranged
from $1.4 billion to $10.1 billion, depending on how needs are defined.
See ``Airport Development Needs: Estimating Future Costs'' (GAO/RCED-
97-99, Apr. 7, 1997).
[Dollars in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA's FAA's
Fiscal year estimated projected FAA's budget
requirements budget shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................................ $8.46 $8.46 ..............
1999............................................................ 10.82 8.68 ($2.14)
2000............................................................ 11.22 8.91 (2.31)
2001............................................................ 11.32 9.15 (2.17)
2002............................................................ 11.50 9.39 (2.11)
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 53.32 44.59 (8.73)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAA and the President's 1998 budget.
To help meet these financial challenges, the administration has
proposed that the current approach to financing FAA be changed.
Generally, three-quarters of FAA's funding comes from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund, which in turn, receives most of its funding from a
10-percent tax on the fares paid by passengers. The remainder of FAA's
funding comes from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. In its fiscal
year 1998 budget for FAA, the administration proposed replacing this
system with usage-based fees starting in fiscal year 1999. The
administration also proposed, as an interim step, $300 million in new
user fees in addition to the $100 million in fees on foreign airlines'
overflights of the United States that were authorized in fiscal year
1997. FAA has subsequently indicated that the new fees could
potentially be charged for business aviation, international air cargo,
and security activities. Similarly, a coalition of the nation's largest
airlines advocate replacing the airline ticket tax with usage-based
fees. These airlines believe that they pay more than their fair share
of the costs incurred by FAA in running the airport and airway system
and that competing low-fare airlines underpay.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The coalition comprises the seven largest airlines--American
Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines,
TWA, United Airlines, and US Airways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our December 1996 report on the coalition's proposal to replace
the ticket tax and in our February 1997 testimonies before the Senate
Finance Committee and House Aviation Subcommittee, we stated our belief
that, to the extent possible, commercial users of the nation's airspace
should pay their share of the costs that they impose on the nation's
airport and airway system.\7\ We noted that because the airline ticket
tax is computed based on the fares paid and not on factors that
directly relate to FAA's costs for providing service, the extent to
which the tax fairly allocates costs among system users is open to
question. While many factors drive FAA's costs, we found that the
coalition's proposal only incorporated factors that would substantially
increase the taxes paid by low-fare and small airlines and decrease the
taxes paid by the seven coalition airlines. We concluded that
determining how best to finance FAA is a complex problem that requires
careful study and good cost data. Our prior work has shown that FAA
does not have an adequate cost-accounting system and, as a result, has
limited capability to accumulate accurate, reliable cost data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Issues Raised by Proposal
to Replace the Airline Ticket Tax'' (GAO/RCED-97-23, Dec. 9, 1996),
``Issues and Options in Deciding to Reinstate or Replace the Airline
Ticket Tax'' (GAO/T-RCED-97-56, Feb. 4, 1997), and ``Issues Related to
Determining How Best to Finance FAA'' (GAO/T-RCED-97-59, Feb. 5, 1997).
\8\ See ``Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to
Make Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions'' (GAO/AIMD-97-
20, Jan. 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 1997, Coopers & Lybrand reported that despite FAA's
lack of a cost-accounting system, it is possible, on an interim basis,
to attribute FAA's costs to broad categories of users such as
commercial airlines as a group or general aviation. However, Coopers &
Lybrand concluded that FAA did not have sufficiently detailed or
reliable cost data upon which to base a comprehensive system of new
fees charged to specific users (e.g., particular airlines). It
recommended that if FAA is required to adopt a comprehensive system of
user fees, a modern cost-accounting system should be implemented to
reliably assign costs to specific products and users. FAA is developing
a cost-accounting system as required by the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996 and plans to implement the system by
October 1997. However, FAA's Manager, Cost Accounting System Division,
told us that developing a sufficient amount of data to accurately
assign costs to specific users will take at least 6 to 12 months after
the system is implemented.
Because the airline ticket tax and other taxes that finance the
Trust Fund lapse on September 30, 1997, better cost data will not be
available before the Congress is faced with the lapsing of those taxes.
As a result, regardless of whether the Congress decides to extend the
current excise taxes, modify them, or implement some other financing
mechanism, it will not have assurance that specific users are assigned
their fair share of costs. When more detailed cost data become
available sometime in the future, a determination could be made to
reexamine the financing method that is chosen.
Notwithstanding the limitations of FAA's cost data, the data that
are currently available indicate that a large portion--55 percent--of
FAA's costs are ``common,'' or not directly related to any particular
user. In our congressionally mandated April 1997 report on the
allocation of air traffic control costs, we concluded that the method
for allocating common costs could have a profound impact on the total
cost shares assigned to system users.\9\ We reported that in allocating
common costs, assumptions and judgments must be made and that different
user groups are likely to have diverging opinions about what
constitutes an equitable allocation of those costs. We also reported
that FAA and DOD strongly disagree about how FAA's common costs should
be allocated.\10\ In addition, we noted that whether and to what extent
DOD's costs for providing air traffic services to civil users should be
included in the development of user fees is another issue that would
need to be resolved if the Congress instituted such fees. If DOD's
costs are included, fees could be collected from civil users for the
services provided by DOD, thereby providing an offset to what DOD may
owe FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Air Traffic Control: Issues in Allocating Costs for Air
Traffic Services to DOD and Other Users'' (GAO/RCED-97-106, Apr. 25,
1997).
\10\ DOD believes that it should not bear any of FAA's common costs
because the Department is only a marginal user of FAA's air traffic
services and has a minor impact on FAA's cost structure. Conversely,
FAA believes that DOD should be assigned some portion of common costs
because, like other users, DOD benefits from FAA's air traffic control
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to retaining the ticket tax, there are numerous
financing alternatives for the national commission, and ultimately the
Congress, to consider. Possible options include taxing one or more of
the general indicators of system use, such as departures, passenger
enplanements, seats flown, fuel consumed, or a combination of these
indicators. However, the potential competitive impact of using these
indicators as a basis for allocating FAA's costs varies greatly
depending on which indicator is used. For example, if a tax on
passenger enplanements were adopted and designed to generate about the
same amount of revenue as the ticket tax, the amount paid by the
coalition of the nation's largest airlines would decline by about $251
million while the amount paid by competing airlines would increase by
$269 million and commuter carriers by $61 million. In contrast, a fuel
tax would keep the amount paid by the largest airlines and by competing
airlines about the same as each paid under the ticket tax, but the
amount paid by individual airlines would vary.
The various potential financing mechanisms for FAA, whether they be
the $400 million in user fees contained in the administration's fiscal
year 1998 budget or the longer-term options for replacing the ticket
tax with usage-based fees, present policy tradeoffs between their ease
of administration, impact on how efficiently the airport and airway
system is used, ability to produce an equitable system in which users
pay their fair share, and other policy goals. For example, a usage-
based formula that combines several of the common system-usage
indicators might provide the most exact method to ensure that all users
pay their fair share of system costs. However, such a formula may also
be so complex that it would be difficult to administer. By contrast, a
fuel tax, while generally correlating to system use, would be less
exact than more complex formulas but would be easier to administer.
Likewise, taxing airlines for their use of the most congested airports
may result in a more efficient use of the nation's airspace. However,
because the coalition airlines are the primary users of these airports,
this approach may not produce the most equitable result from their
point of view.
Such tradeoffs and the potential competitive impacts of new fees
will need to be carefully studied over the next several months by the
national commission, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Congress.
The financing mechanism that is finally selected should be relatively
easy to administer and help ensure that, in the long term, FAA has a
secure funding source, the nation's airports and airways are used as
efficiently as possible, commercial users of the system pay their fair
share, and a strong, competitive airline industry continues to exist.
Ultimately, it is a policy call for the Congress to decide how to
achieve these and other goals.
amtrak's financial condition and its quest for operating self-
sufficiency
Over the last several years, we have issued a number of reports and
testified several times on Amtrak's financial condition.\11\ Amtrak's
passenger rail service has never been profitable and, through fiscal
year 1997, the federal government has provided Amtrak over $19 billion
for operating and capital expenses. In response to continually growing
losses and a widening gap between operating deficits and federal
subsidies, Amtrak developed its Strategic Business Plan. This plan,
which has been revised several times, was designed to increase revenues
and control cost growth and, at the same time, eliminate Amtrak's need
for federal operating subsidies by 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See ``Intercity Passenger Rail: The Financial Viability of
Amtrak Continues to Be Threatened'' (GAO/T-RCED-97-94, Mar 13, 1997),
``Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan: Progress to Date'' (GAO/RCED-96-
187, July 24, 1996), ``Northeast Rail Corridor: Information on Users,
Funding Sources, and Expenditures (GAO/RCED-96-144, June 27, 1996),
``Amtrak: Early Progress Made in Implementing Strategic Business Plan,
but Obstacles Remain'' (GAO/T-RCED-95-227, June 16, 1995), and
``Intercity Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten
Amtrak's Long-Term Viability'' (GAO/RCED-95-71, Feb. 6, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our assessment of Amtrak's financial condition is that, despite
some gains, the corporation is still in a very precarious position. It
remains heavily dependent on federal support to meet its operating and
capital needs. Although actions taken by Amtrak through its business
plans have helped reduce Amtrak's net losses, Amtrak has struggled to
reach net loss targets.\12\ For example, Amtrak's plans for fiscal
years 1995 and 1996 included actions to reduce its net loss by $195
million--from about $834 million in fiscal year 1994 (in current year
dollars) to $639 million in fiscal year 1996.\13\ By the end of fiscal
year 1996, Amtrak's loss had declined to about $764 million; however,
it was substantially more than planned. In addition, the relative gap
between total revenues and total expenses has not significantly closed,
and passenger revenues (adjusted for inflation)--which Amtrak has been
relying on to help close the gap--have generally declined over the past
several years (see apps. I and II). Similarly, the gap between
operating deficits and federal operating subsidies rose in fiscal year
1996 to $82 million--the highest it had been in the last 9 years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Net loss'' is defined as total revenues minus total
expenses.
\13\ Net loss for fiscal year 1994 excludes a one-time charge of
$244 million for accounting changes, restructuring costs, and other
items.
\14\ Operating deficit is the same as net loss, except noncash
items (such as depreciation) and the one-time charge taken in fiscal
year 1994 are excluded from total expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak's continuing financial crisis can be seen in other measures
as well. In February 1995, we reported that Amtrak's working capital--
the difference between current assets and current liabilities--declined
between fiscal years 1987 and 1994. Although Amtrak's working capital
position improved in fiscal year 1995, it declined again in fiscal year
1996 to a $195 million deficit (see app. III). This decline reflects an
increase in accounts payable, short-term debt, and capital lease
obligations, among other items. A continued decline in working capital
jeopardizes Amtrak's ability to pay immediate expenses. Amtrak's debt
levels have also increased significantly (see app. IV). During fiscal
years 1993 through 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease obligations
nearly doubled--from about $527 million to about $987 million, in 1996
dollars. These debt levels do not include an additional $1 billion
expected to be incurred beginning in fiscal year 1999 to finance 18
high-speed trainsets and related maintenance facilities for the
Northeast Corridor and the acquisition of new locomotives.
It is important to note that servicing Amtrak's increased debt
takes away from the federal financial operating support needed to cover
future operating deficits. In fact, over the last 4 years, interest
expenses have about tripled--from about $20.6 million in fiscal year
1993 to about $60.2 million in fiscal year 1996 (see app. V). Because
Amtrak pays interest from federal operating assistance and principal
from federal capital grants, this increase has absorbed more of the
federal operating subsidy each year. During fiscal years 1993 through
1996, the percentage of federal operating subsidies used to pay
interest expenses increased from about 6 to about 21 percent. As Amtrak
assumes more debt to acquire equipment, the interest payments are
likely to continue to consume an increasing portion of federal
operating subsidies. Amtrak's fiscal year 1997 operating losses may be
even higher than those in fiscal year 1996. As a result of
unanticipated expenses and revenue shortfalls, at the end of the second
quarter Amtrak projected that its actual fiscal year 1997 year-end net
loss could be about $783 million.
Amtrak Has Large Capital Needs
Amtrak's goal of eliminating federal operating subsidies by 2002 is
heavily dependent on capital investment. Such investment--the
modernizing of property, plant, and equipment--will not only help
Amtrak to retain revenue by improving the quality of existing service
but will potentially increase revenues by attracting new riders.
Amtrak's capital investment needs are great--both to replace and
modernize current physical assets and to complete new projects such as
high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor. For example, in May
1996, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak estimated
that about $2 billion would be needed over the next 3 to 5 years to
recapitalize the south end of the Northeast Corridor and preserve its
ability to operate in the near-term at existing service levels. FRA and
Amtrak estimate that up to $6.7 billion may be needed over the next 20
years to recapitalize the Northeast Corridor and make improvements
targeted to respond to high priority growth opportunities. Amtrak also
estimates that an additional $1.4 billion will be needed to finish the
high-speed rail project.
Our ongoing work indicates that Amtrak has made some progress in
addressing its capital needs, but the going has been slow and, in some
cases, Amtrak may be facing significant future costs. For example, in
October 1996, about 53 percent of Amtrak's active fleet of 1,600
passenger cars averaged 20 years old or more and were at or approaching
the end of their useful life. It is safe to assume that as this
equipment continues to age, it will have more frequent failures and
require more expensive repairs.
Finally, Amtrak will continue to find it difficult to take those
actions necessary to further reduce its costs. During fiscal year 1995,
Amtrak was successful in reducing and eliminating some routes and
services. For example, Amtrak reduced the frequency of service on seven
routes from daily to three or four times per week, and on nine other
routes various segments were eliminated. Amtrak estimates that such
actions saved about $54 million. However, Amtrak was less successful in
making the route and service adjustments planned for fiscal year 1997.
As a result, Amtrak estimates that its projected fiscal year 1997 net
loss will increase by $13.5 million. Amtrak has also been unsuccessful
in negotiating productivity improvements with labor unions.
Amtrak has staked its financial future on the ability to eliminate
federal operating support by 2002 by increasing revenues, controlling
costs, and providing customers with high-quality service. Although its
business plans have helped reduce net losses, Amtrak continues to face
significant challenges in accomplishing this goal, and it is likely
Amtrak will continue to require substantial federal financial support--
both operating and capital--well into the future.
innovative highway financing through state infrastructure banks
In October 1996, we reported that total public spending on the
capital needs for highways and bridges was approximately $40 billion in
1993--the most recent year for which data are available--and that DOT
estimated that an additional $16 billion annually is needed just to
maintain--not improve--the condition of the nation's highways at the
1993 level.\15\ Moreover, postponing investment can increase costs; DOT
estimated that deferring $1 in highway resurfacing for just 2 years can
require spending $4 in highway reconstruction costs to repair the
damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``State Infrastructure Banks: A Mechanism to Expand Federal
Transportation Financing'' (GAO/RCED-97-9, Oct. 31, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to stretch limited federal funds, the Congress in 1995
authorized some innovative uses of federal transportation funds. The
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 established a number of
innovative financing mechanisms, including the authorization of a State
Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Pilot Program for up to 10 states or
multistate applicants--8 states were selected in April 1996, and 2 were
selected in June 1996. Under this program, states can use up to 10
percent of most of their federal highway funds for fiscal years 1996-97
to establish their SIB's. This program was expanded by DOT's fiscal
year 1997 appropriations act, which removed the 10-state limit and
provided $150 million in new funds.
A SIB serves essentially as an umbrella under which a variety of
innovative finance techniques can be implemented. Much like a bank, a
SIB needs equity capital to get started, and equity capital can be
provided at least in part through federal highway funds. Once
capitalized, the SIB can offer a range of loans and credit options,
such as loan guarantees and lines of credit. For example, through a
revolving fund, states can lend money to public or private sponsors of
transportation projects. Project-based revenues such as tolls or
general revenues such as dedicated taxes can be used to repay loans
with interest, and the repayments replenish the fund so that new loans
can be supported. Thus, projects with sufficient potential revenue
streams are needed to make a SIB viable.
Expected assistance for projects in the 10 states selected for the
pilot program include loans, credit enhancement to support bonds, and
lines of credit. In some cases, large projects that are already under
way may be helped through SIB financial assistance. Examples of
projects that the initial 10 pilot states are considering for financial
assistance include the following:
--In Orange County, California, a $713 million project that includes
construction of a 24-mile tollway may receive SIB assistance in
the form of a $25 million line of credit that would replace an
existing contingency fund. If the line of credit is used, plans
are for it to be repaid through excess toll revenues.
--In Orlando, Florida, a $240 million project that will construct a
6-mile segment to complete a 56-mile beltway may receive a SIB
loan in the amount of $20 million. Repayment of the loan would
come from a mix of project-related and systemwide toll receipts
and state transportation funds.
--In Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, a SIB loan is being considered to
help construct a new $15 million bridge to Fantasy Harbor. The
source for repaying the loan would be proceeds from an
admission tax at the Fantasy Harbor entertainment complex.
SIB assistance is intended to complement, not replace, traditional
transportation grant programs and provide states with increased
flexibility to offer many types of financial assistance. As a result,
projects could be completed more quickly, some projects could be built
that would otherwise be delayed or infeasible if conventional federal
grants were used, and private investment in transportation could be
increased. Furthermore, a longer-term anticipated benefit is that
repaid SIB loans can be ``recycled'' as a source of funds for future
transportation projects. If states choose to leverage SIB funds, DOT
has estimated that $2 billion in federal capital provided through SIB's
could be expected to attract an additional $4 billion for
transportation investments.
For some states, barriers to establishing and effectively using a
SIB still remain. One example is the low number of projects that could
generate sufficient revenue to repay loans made by SIB's. Officials
from six of the states that we surveyed told us that an insufficient
number of projects with a potential revenue stream would diminish the
prospects that their state would participate in the SIB pilot program.
Officials from 10 of 11 states that we talked to about this issue said
they were considering tolls as a revenue source. However, state
officials also told us that tolls would likely generate considerable
negative reaction from political officials and the general public.
Some states expressed uncertainty regarding their legal or
constitutional authority to establish a SIB or use some financing
options that would involve the private sector. Michigan, for instance,
said that it does not currently have the constitutional authority to
lend money to the private sector. Another impediment can arise if the
SIB exposes the state to debt. Backing SIB assistance with the full
faith and credit of the state is not legally permitted in some states.
Without that guarantee, SIB's will have to rely on the strength of
their project portfolio and initial capitalization as the basis for
borrowing. As such, they are likely to experience higher borrowing
costs than if their portfolio was backed by the full faith and credit
of the state. Bond-rating agencies will have to assess each portfolio
on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, a principal federal barrier to attracting private capital
is the fact that the Internal Revenue Code, with some exceptions,
restricts private involvement in tax-exempt debt. In the case of state
and local bonds, bondholders' interest earnings are exempt from federal
taxes. However, the tax exemption does not apply to a bond issue if (1)
the private sector uses more than 10 percent of the proceeds and
finances more than 10 percent of the debt or (2) more than 5 percent of
the proceeds or $5 million (whichever is less) is used to make loans to
the private sector. A number of federal and state officials and
academic experts told us that states that choose to leverage their
banks will likely do so with tax-exempt debt because bondholders are
willing to accept lower interest rates in exchange for the bonds' tax-
exempt status.
The SIB program has been slow to start up. Only two states--Ohio
and Missouri--have actually begun projects under their SIB.
Nevertheless, since $150 million was provided and the 10-state
restriction was lifted in DOT's fiscal year 1997 appropriations act,
the agency has received applications from 28 states and Puerto Rico.
The program will need time to develop and mature before a comprehensive
assessment of SIB's impact on meeting transportation needs can be
assessed. In our October 1996 report, we suggested that once SIB's
begin operating, the Federal Highway Administration could disseminate
information on states' successes and failures with various financing
options and thus help states use SIB's more effectively and educate
other states on the pros and cons of a SIB.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our prepared statement. We would be
happy to respond to any questions that your or other members might
have.
APPENDIX I
AMTRAK'S REVENUES AND EXPENSES, FISCAL YEARS 1988-96
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.006
Note: Amounts are in 1996 dollars.
Source: Amtrak.
APPENDIX II
AMTRAK'S PASSENGER REVENUES, FISCAL YEARS 1989-96
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.007
Note: Amounts are in 1996 dollars.
Source: GAO's analysis of Amtrak's data.
APPENDIX III
AMTRAK'S WORKING CAPITAL SURPLUS/DEFICIT, FISCAL YEARS 1987-96
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.008
Notes: Working capital is the difference between current assets and
current liabilities.
Amounts are in current year dollars. In 1996 dollars, working
capital declined from $149 million in fiscal year 1987 to a deficit of
$195 million in fiscal year 1996.
Source: GAO's analysis of Amtrak's data.
APPENDIX IV
AMTRAK'S OUTSTANDING DEBT/CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1987-
96
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.009
Note: Amounts are in current year dollars.
Source: Amtrak.
APPENDIX V
AMTRAK'S INTEREST EXPENSE, FISCAL YEARS 1987-96
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.010
Note: Amounts are in current year dollars.
Source: Amtrak.
Aviation User Fees
Senator Shelby. Going back to you, Secretary Downey, do you
anticipate, first, that the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission will in fact report on user fees by August of this
year?
Mr. Downey. We are hopeful that they can do that. They
understand the importance of the timetable and the fact that
decisions have to be made. They are planning to meet on a quite
regular basis between now and August.
Senator Shelby. If they do, will that leave sufficient time
for the administration to review the recommendations they make
and for Congress to consider enactment of any new user fees
before the end of the year? That is moving in August,
September?
Mr. Downey. We will be sharing what information we have,
but the $300 million that is in the coming year's budget in our
view is independent of what the Commission will recommend and
should be considered on its own merits.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Anderson, is it fair to say that any
imaginable new user-specific fee, whether security fees,
inspection fees, air traffic service fees, per-seat fees, or
per-passenger fees, will create winners and losers in the
airline industry and among the traveling public?
Mr. Anderson. There is no question. We have done various
analyses of different alternatives for assessing fees, and
there are winners and losers and they vary for each proposal.
Senator Shelby. Who are the winners and losers?
Mr. Anderson. It varies depending upon which proposal you
look at. For example, the coalition of the Nation's largest
airlines about 1 year ago at this time put forth a proposal
where the major airlines were going to be winners in terms of
having their tax burdens reduced, but the low-fare other
airlines were going to be big losers. We looked at that
proposal and we had some critical comments about it.
Senator Shelby. What does that do to the traveling public?
Mr. Anderson. Well, our biggest concern was it could have
competitive impacts, because one of the reasons that we believe
that airline deregulation overall has been a success is because
of the competition that low-fare airlines have injected into
the system.
Senator Shelby. And brought down a lot of fares, has it
not?
Mr. Anderson. Exactly. So one of the problems if you go to
tampering with a system that is going to significantly shift
that tax burden is you could upset the applecart, so to speak,
in terms of the competition mechanisms that have been set up.
Senator Shelby. So I guess the caveat is for us to be real
careful in what we do if we do anything?
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Anderson, would you expect that user
fees will alter behavior among the airlines?
Mr. Anderson. I think it could. This is one of the things
Mr. Downey alluded to. You have to be real careful when you set
up these fees that you do not have some unintended consequences
coming out as a result. It could also affect the routes they
serve.
Senator Shelby. Have you considered some unintended
consequences?
Mr. Anderson. Well, one of the things that has been talked
about is if you actually have to--if, let us say, an airline
has to pay for the amount of inspector time that FAA inspectors
spend inspecting them, they might be attempting to get the
inspectors out of there sooner so that they could reduce their
inspection bill. Obviously you have to build in things to
mitigate against that.
Senator Shelby. Have you given any thought to how the
various fees that might be considered could alter airline
services' hub and spoke operations or traffic patterns? I know
we talked about money, but I think that is very important.
Mr. Anderson. Sure. I think they could, and this is another
reason why this is a complex problem that I do not think you
want to jump to solutions too soon. If you change the fee
structure, the profit on individual routes could change and the
airlines could decide to serve different cities, that sort of
thing. One of the things that we have been concerned about was,
while airline deregulation overall has been a success, there
clearly are pockets of pain out there that have not fully
enjoyed the benefits of lower fares and increased service. If
you are not careful, you could exacerbate that problem.
Other Proposed Transportation User Fees
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downey, besides the FAA user fees, what
other user fees are proposed in the President's 1998 budget
request?
Mr. Downey. The other fees that are proposed include
railroad safety user fees, a proposal to reinstate the
industrywide levy that had been in place up until 1 or 2 years
ago, and an advance proposal to consider icebreaking fees for
the Coast Guard, not in the current budget but 1 year out from
now.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downey, have any recognized user groups
publicly supported this administration's interstate toll
proposal that you know of?
Mr. Downey. User groups I do not believe have, but we have
heard from States and local governments that do have an
interest in that proposal. They would be the ones to enact any
tolls. This would not be a Federal toll. It is merely an
opportunity for State and local government to finance
transportation projects through this mechanism.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Anderson, I understand the GAO has
looked at some of these user fees. If any of these user fees
are imposed on top of the current ticket and excise tax that we
have, is it possible that some of the airlines or users might
be paying twice for the same service?
Mr. Anderson. That is possible. I think that is one of the
problems with going with an incremental approach as opposed to
looking at it comprehensively, like I think the National
Commission is doing. I think you can sort of see--I have had
discussions with my staff--the proposal for the overflight
fees, it is going through 1,000 cuts here as it is being
examined. As you look at this thing piece by piece, you are not
sure what changes are going to come down the road that might be
an additional tax on the user. So I think a comprehensive look-
see is the way to go with these things.
Senator Shelby. The bottomline is we better be careful what
we do for a lot of reasons?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry that Senator Gorton had to leave, but the record
should reflect some of my concerns. I will talk about those for
just a minute. In terms of comparing one transportation mode to
another, I think you run into all kinds of extraneous debate.
The fact is that we have to have intermodal balanced
transportation services throughout our country, and you cannot
suggest that one is more favored than the other because there
is not a 10-to-1 ratio. I think that is, frankly, not a
particularly reliable statistic to depend upon when you make
decisions like we have.
If you look at aviation--and I like flying, I like flying
in small airplanes, and I think that the aviation system has
helped build our country perhaps more than any other because of
the ability to get across the breadth of our huge Nation. But
when I start thinking about what it takes to keep airlines
going, the aviation system going, and I think of people paying
parking fees of $15, $20, $50 to be at an airport so that they
can take an airplane, I am forced to say, well, is that a
direct subsidy of air travel? It certainly ought to be counted
as part of it.
When I look at all the shops, and the rents in some of
these places are fantastic, collecting a lot of fees. That goes
to subsidize in part the whole of the aviation business. We are
not counting that, but people are paying user fees effectively
when they pay $2 for a coffee that you can get for 55 cents
elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is that when we build special roads,
special travel connections, to get to airports, that is a
subsidy. For railroads we do not do that. I have not seen a
railroad station that has a private road built to it. And if
you want to see a glaring example, look at the Denver Airport,
which I like. I think the Denver Airport is an excellent
airport. But look at what we had to do to have access to that
airport created. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
So those questions have to be answered. Unfortunately,
since Senator Gorton is not here, I do not want to take
advantage of his absence to ask the penetrating questions. But
we will go on from here.
Cost of Implementing Gore Commission Recommendations
Mr. Downey, the Gore Commission's recommendation to
accelerate the deployment of modern air traffic control
equipment I frankly think was a wise one. We have seen what
happens with our air traffic controllers. There is enough
tension, enough stress in those towers, that we ought not to
make their job more difficult as a result of outages in our air
traffic control centers and towers in recent months because of
the age of this antiquated equipment.
Is the administration, Mr. Anderson, committed to
requesting the additional billions of dollars that are going to
be necessary to fully follow the Gore Commission's
recommendations? I ask you, Mr. Downey.
Mr. Downey. You are correct, it will cost additional
billions or at least a need to accelerate the billions of
dollars already planned. And we are working that through the
budget process, looking down to the next few years. Within the
constraints, even with the good news from Senator Domenici, it
will be hard, but we need to find it. The benefits of improving
the air traffic control system, both in terms of safety and
efficiency, are so great, we really need to make that
investment.
That is one of the reasons why we have proposed user fees,
because that may be a way to accelerate income in order to get
those benefits sooner for the users.
Senator Lautenberg. The good news from Senator Domenici was
offset by the bad news from Congressman Shuster, I think, in
the paper this morning. And while I do not necessarily agree
with Congressman or Chairman Shuster in a lot of things, the
fact is I think it is fairly obvious that we need more money
than is planned, even with the--I will not call it a bonus--
with the largess that was discovered along the way, because it
still leaves us short of what an extended baseline would look
like running out 5 years. The system needs and deserves more
than that.
Financing Amtrak
Mr. Downey, your statement points out your request for
contract authority from the highway trust fund for Amtrak
beginning in fiscal 1999. How does your Amtrak proposal in
NEXTEA compare to the one-half-cent proposal in terms of the
funding that would be available, generally available to Amtrak
over the next several years that would be capital funds?
Mr. Downey. Our proposal is somewhat below the one-half
cent. It phases it. It would increase capital investment in the
outyears as Amtrak makes progress toward self-sufficiency, and
I think by the fifth year it is roughly equivalent to the one-
half cent.
Senator Lautenberg. Is it your view that once this contract
authority is established, if NEXTEA is the version we subscribe
to, Amtrak will be able to sign contracts for the total amount
of the full funding of the contract authority assumed in the
bill?
Mr. Downey. I think in the same way a State is able to
anticipate those funds and make financial arrangements for
making use of them, we would expect Amtrak to be able to do the
same thing.
Senator Lautenberg. A couple seconds more if I might, Mr.
Chairman?
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir; go right ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. Does your proposal assume that the
Appropriations Committee is going to place obligations limits
on this contract authority, just as we do on highway and
transit programs?
Mr. Downey. Certainly that has been the history of the
highway and transit programs. We did not request such a limit,
but we certainly would work with this committee on it. And I
know your interest in seeing that the funds are used wisely.
Senator Lautenberg. As always.
User Fees Coverage of Costs
I want to ask you this. Should we assume that, whatever new
user fees are developed, that they will completely offset the
savings gained from the continuation of the ticket tax?
Mr. Downey. I really do not know the answer to that,
because I am not sure about what the continuation of the user
taxes would entail.
Senator Lautenberg. Right, but you would be projecting. Let
us say, if you projected your own views, should they?
Mr. Downey. If you look at the FAA's financing today, the
ticket taxes, if collected for a full year on a regular basis,
do not cover the entire cost to the FAA. So it would be our
expectation that the user fees would come closer, hopefully, to
100 percent coverage of those costs. In that sense they would,
if they replaced the ticket taxes, would more than add up to
the ticket taxes, but they would create some relief on the
general fund side.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. What I wanted to do there was
just have you indicate, because I felt that it was necessary.
There are going to be any number of combination of things and
we ought not to be lulled into believing that, OK, everything
is going to be paid for in direct user fees, you put down a
buck and you would get 1 dollar's worth. I think you put down
$1 right now and you get 100 dollars' worth, and I do not mind
some of that because the aviation system is a national asset
and we have to keep it going.
I do not think it ought to be just those who ride the
planes, but rather society in general has to participate in
some way. If you build a national highway system they do. If
you build a national aviation system they do. And frankly, if
you have a decent, functioning rail passenger service like all
of us here would like to say, the public is going to have to
chip in.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you two gentlemen. We are probably
going to have some questions for the record and we will keep
that open for other members, too.
Mr. Downey. We will be happy to.
Senator Shelby. Some have already said that.
We thank you both.
Mr. Downey. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Panel 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
STATEMENT OF JOLENE MOLITORIS, ADMINISTRATOR
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. DOWNS, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHEINBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our next panel will be Jolene Molitoris,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of
Transportation; Tom Downs, President, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); Phyllis Scheinberg, Associate
Director, General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division.
Your entire written statements will be made part of the
record and I would ask you to briefly summarize your remarks.
Ms. Molitoris.
Statement of Jolene Molitoris
Ms. Molitoris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to represent the
Federal Railroad Administration before you today. I would like
to testify concerning the financial commitment of the Clinton
administration to Amtrak and especially about the fiscal year
proposed 1998 budget.
We all know about the challenges that Amtrak is facing, not
only to survive, Mr. Chairman, but to thrive, because that is
the kind of system we all want. Let me comment that when we
arrived 4 years ago we analyzed Amtrak and realized that it
faced very serious challenges and set about the business of
taking the very many necessary steps to help Amtrak become a
very healthy organization. One of those steps that was very
important was really developing a new leadership team, and of
course you will be hearing from the leader of that team, Mr.
Downs.
Although we have much, much more to do, as the GAO and our
own records indicate, I think it is useful for the committee to
at least hear a couple of highlights as to the kinds of
movement in a positive direction that we have had for Amtrak,
and I think they may begin to respond to some of the comments
that you made early on.
First of all with regard to Federal operating subsidies, I
think the Congress and the administration have agreed to set as
a goal zero Federal operating subsidies by the year 2002. That
is a goal that has been begun to be achieved by cutting these
Federal subsidies in half in the last 2 years. That I think is
a significant achievement.
Second, Amtrak has divided its business into three
strategic units so it can act like a business, better
concentrate on the customers, and provide the kind of customer
service that your colleague Senator Gorton did not find on his
trip. I think if he took that trip today he would have a
different experience.
Another very important issue----
Senator Shelby. Do you recommend that I take it?
Ms. Molitoris. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. I might do it.
Ms. Molitoris. I am sure Mr. Downs would recommend the same
thing.
Senator Shelby. I might do that.
Ms. Molitoris. I think a very important step, Mr. Chairman,
was unbundling the whole financial information base at Amtrak,
because when we arrived and when Mr. Downs arrived it was very,
very difficult to understand the cost of individual pieces of
the business, and I think that that very important piece of
work has shown a big light on a lot of the issues that were not
as visible before. But I think that we can only achieve a
healthy company by looking at the facts as they really are.
I think the kind of business partnerships and
entrepreneurial activities of Amtrak are very important for the
committee to recognize. They have made some very important
business partnerships, not only with States, which they have,
but also with private entities, like Disney, Pepsi, United
Airlines. For example, in just one small example, they had a
partnership with Disney on the release of the video
``Aristocats'' and they had a coupon in that video. By tracking
the coupons, they were able to see that through that one
initiative alone they earned $13 million. So these private
partnerships are ways to grow Amtrak into a healthy business.
Another important change is that States are taking a much
more active, proactive partnership with Amtrak. In fact, the
State investment in Amtrak operating assistance has almost
doubled in the past year. And in State capital assistance, four
States--California, Washington, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania--are actually partnering with Amtrak by buying
equipment for them to use. This gives you the kind of indicator
that States consider Amtrak vital for their transportation
future.
I would believe another instance that is very important,
and my guess is that Senator Gorton faced some of this. When we
arrived and when Mr. Downs and his new team arrived, there were
a lot of so-called heritage cars, Mr. Chairman. This is not a
heritage that any of us would want to inherit. They were 40- or
50-year-old cars. We know that no airline would fly equipment
that age. They had nonoperative bathrooms, they broke down a
lot. We know that--we knew that we had to change that situation
if Amtrak was going to succeed.
So there has been substantial progress there, Mr. Chairman,
ordering nearly 200 locomotives, 250 passenger cars, and these
40- and 50-year-old cars are almost now gone from the fleet,
and I think that helps customer service.
As a result of aggressive pricing strategies in 1996,
ticket yields were up by 10 percent. And since 1994, the last 2
full years, Amtrak's total revenue is up by $141 million. That
is up 10 percent.
I think we should recognize the employees of Amtrak,
because without recognizing the employees you do not recognize
the people who are working day by day to make this railroad
succeed. For example, this company was voted the most improved
transportation company in the country in customer service. That
happens because employees make it happen, and I think we should
give them credit for that.
In addition, improved productivity of the work force. If
you look at the Bear and Wilmington Shops, you see self-
directed employee shops that are actually bringing new business
to Amtrak because they are so good and so cost competitive.
Certainly last but not least, the high-speed rail
initiatives, the new trainsets which the Vice President
unveiled last April, the electrification project which was
begun in July of last year, this is forecast to bring about
$150 million of profit to Amtrak when they are fully
implemented.
Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, the budget of the
administration has no fat at all. As I said for the record to
Mr. Wolf and I would like to say to you, the administration has
made a very serious investment in Amtrak through the NEXTEA
proposal and we want to say it is not padded. It is not like
the old days, where we put in extra and Congress took out
extra.
Mr. Downs will tell you that one of the challenges he faces
financially is because there was a disconnect between the
President's budget and the final appropriation last year, $115
million. And if we had been on the same wavelength, Mr. Downs'
budget would have shown a surplus.
So I would like to say to you that our NEXTEA proposal, Mr.
Downey has already said, represents about 96 percent of
operating and 92 percent of capital of what Amtrak is
requesting and what the one-half cent would give. So we think
that in a time of budget cutting it really is a significant
statement by the administration. Although we have just seen the
fruits of the cooperation on the budget agreement, we know, as
was said, there will be extra money, we do not know what the
negotiation will end up with, but perhaps there would be an
opportunity for some more money for Amtrak.
Finally, the administration is committed to a corporation
that you all would be proud of, that we all would be proud of,
a healthy company that is free of operating subsidy, and it is
one of the safest railroad companies in the world, and we
should underscore that because no operation in any
transportation mode can be viable without reliable safety for
the American people.
I appreciate the time with you, Mr. Chairman, and I would
be happy to answer questions.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. DOWNS
Mr. Downs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here. Senator Lautenberg.
At the risk of starting off with what seems like a
superfluous note, there was a piece in this morning's New York
Times that says:
I was in Penn Station purchasing Amtrak tickets to
Wilmington, DE, when a woman approached the agent at the next
window. ``Is it your job to sell me a ticket to anywhere I want
to go?'' she asked. ``Yes, ma'am,'' he replied. ``Where would
you like to go?'' ``To hell and back,'' she said. Without
batting an eye, the agent, with the utmost courtesy, consulted
his computer and said, ``I'm sorry, ma'am, but that train is
completely sold out.'' [Laughter.]
I could spend this time reiterating how important Amtrak
is, that we are 55 million passengers, that if you count
intermediate stops in the Northeast corridor we are 70 percent
of the combined air-rail traffic between Washington and New
York. I could say that we are the essential lifeblood of urban
and rural America in places like Anniston, AL, and Haver, MT,
and Devil's Lake, ND.
Where, as Senator Gorton says, it is a long way from
Seattle to Chicago, the difference is that our business is
often 60-mile increments linking places like Minneapolis to
places like Minot, ND, and that is lost in this debate.
We are the Nation's passenger railroad. We, Amtrak, are
often held accountable for the things that have been done to
this railroad. I believe the national Government is accountable
for what has happened to Amtrak, good, bad, and indifferent. It
is impossible to sort out our current financial position
without at least telling part of the story in a slightly
different way than perhaps Senator Shelby had characterized it
earlier.
I have a chart I hope you all have. It is called ``The
Gap.'' We had an agreement between the Budget Committees, Mr.
Kasich, Senator Domenici who was here earlier, about the 5-year
glidepath to self-sufficiency. It looks like this [indicating].
In 1996, the glidepath number was supposed to be a $135 million
reduction in operating subsidy for Amtrak. The Congress said:
That is really neat; to give you something to shoot for, why do
we not go ahead and reduce it by $210 million.
That had a cost and a consequence. It wrecked, in a sense,
the business plan for the company.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.011
Chart 1
We started over. We said: OK, that makes it $250 million in
1997. Well, the answer is it is $200 million. We said: It is
$225 million for 1998. The answer is probably going to be it is
$200 million.
Underfunding a business plan has financial consequences.
The financial consequences are we are running out of cash. The
reason that we are out of cash is that in the 1980's the
Congress told us, this company: Go borrow your money. Senator
Shelby said nobody has invested, the private sector is not
investing in this corporation. That is not true. All of our
locomotives, all of our new passenger cars, and our high-speed
trainsets are funded, not by Federal capital, but by private
banking interests. Ironically, they are foreign banks, in
France and Germany and Japan and Canada.
But borrowing those moneys is an expense for the company,
particularly since we have to pay a premium for the money.
Chart 2 shows what happened to us from a capital
standpoint. In 1986 our capital budget was $3 million. It was
enough to fix broken windows maybe. In 1987 it zoomed all the
way to $27 million. Both years, our depreciation account was
one-quarter of a billion dollars. Clearly, we were directed to
borrow the money that we needed for capital investments in this
company.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.012
Chart 2
We did. We began to incur private sector investments. I do
not consider it debt; I consider it investments in our future.
That is chart 3.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.013
Chart 3
And what has happened about our principal and our debt
yields a chart that looks like ``Principal and Interest
Payments,'' not unlike what is happening with the Federal
budget. Our fastest growing expense, as GAO will point out, is
principal and interest on that capital.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.014
Chart 4
We have been told to make this a businesslike operation. We
still believe it is part of a national transportation network
and an asset, but we are told: Make it a business. I hope you
have this last chart: ``1987 to 1998, Percent of Expenses
Covered by Federal Operating Support for Amtrak.'' In 1987 it
was 34.6 percent, in 1998 it is 14.4 percent of expenses.
[The chart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.015
Chart 5
I would like to say that this company has done what the
Congress has asked it to do. What we have not had is a
concomitant response about defining clearly what the national
role for Amtrak is, what purpose it fills in environmental, in
mobility, in small urban and rural areas.
We have exhausted, I believe--and I would take exception
only with one statement in Senator Shelby's opening remarks,
that there is no doubt that a private company could operate a
profitable rail service. Every private railroad in America
proved that that was wrong in the 1960's and 1970's. They said,
we cannot any longer operate rail passenger service as private
businesses. I do not know of a single country in the world who
can, private or public, operate an intercity rail passenger
service at a break-even or profitable basis.
We have said: Recapitalize this railroad after a horrible
depreciation cycle, which gives us bad equipment, bad plant,
inefficient operations. We have said: Give us the right
structure in law to operate the way you want. We will build
high-speed rail to the point where that investment will yield,
after all principal and interest payments, a net profit for
this company of $150 million a year. That is working capital,
that is an improvement on the bottomline.
We have said in our business plans that we are building in
mail and express business, the business we put on the back of
passenger trains, to help defray the expenses of long distance
trains. In 1959, the last time that freight railroads in
America on a fully allocated cost basis broke even on rail
passenger service, 46 percent of the revenues of those
passenger trains were mail and express. We would like to
recreate that kind of environment, the old REA business,
without getting in the freight railroads business, without
trying to be in economic warfare with anyone, that we can build
a profitable relationship with the Post Office and express
business. That is part of a business plan that we think makes
sense for you all.
We have said clearly: The answer is recapitalize this
railroad. Make a choice. If you cannot fund it, have the
courage to face the consequences. Senator Shelby said that at
the end of his remarks. It is one option to explore.
What has happened is that we have been told time and again,
make it work, do it with less, do it without capital, keep
selling tickets, sell disappointment to the American public,
ignore the consequences of the undercapitalization. We have run
out of time, we have run out of room, because we are now out of
cash. It is time to choose.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Downs. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas M. Downs
Mr. Chair: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Amtrak's fiscal
year 1998 funding request, as well as the current financial condition
of Amtrak and our vision for the future.
The current state of Amtrak, if it were boiled down to a single
phrase, it would be, to borrow a line, ``the best of times and worst of
times.'' In the last two and one-half years, we have begun to put
together the pieces for a viable national service which is
operationally self-sufficient. We know that two years in the future, we
will inaugurate the first high-speed rail service in America and usher
in a new level of rail passenger service for our customers. And, in the
next few months, I am hopeful that we will be sharing revenues with our
freight partners by using Amtrak trains for the delivery of time-
sensitive materials. Each of these endeavors is expected to generate
large net-revenue benefits, help steady our finances, and make Amtrak
far less dependent on federal resources.
The problem is that in the short term, I am not sure that we will
remain solvent. Further, I do not believe that enough people realize or
understand how close to extinction intercity rail service is in the
United States.
I make this statement in stark terms because I want the attention
of the Congress. The demise of Amtrak need not happen. In fact, it
would be a national tragedy if it did. Unless we all, and I mean
Amtrak, Congress and the Administration, work together during the next
six months, we will likely be out of cash and out of business by the
summer of 1998.
This Subcommittee has a major role to play in whether or not
America has a national rail passenger system. The answer in the short
term is adequate operating support, legislative reform, and dedicated
capital. I have a fiduciary responsibility to make the right decisions
and recommendations to make a national system work. But I need the help
of this Committee and others in Congress.
Two years ago, the Administration and the new Congress indicated
that if Amtrak was to survive, it would have to eliminate its
dependence on federal operating support. We were faced with a daunting
task. For some reason Amtrak, the only major mode of transportation
which does not have a dedicated source of funding, is held to a higher
standard than any other mode, all of which are dependent on the federal
government for support and none of whom are called upon to defend
themselves in terms of ``profitability.'' We are also held to a higher
standard than any other passenger rail system in the world, all of
which rely on some level of federal support. Amtrak covers more of its
operating costs--an estimated 84 percent--than any other passenger
railroad in the world, and serves more than 93 percent of the
continental states, while receiving less than 3 percent of all federal
transportation spending.
I am not aware of any transportation system that supports itself
solely through user fees. According to the US DOT, in fiscal year 1994
nearly $6 billion more was spent on highways than was collected in user
fees. In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways
than was collected in user fees. It's not just highways--transit is
exempt from the gas tax and received approximately $3 billion in
gasoline revenues last year. No mode is self-financed.
Amtrak is an absolutely critical part of our national
transportation system in both rural and urban areas. To provide some
context, if we were an airline carrier, we would be the third largest
in the United States. We carry almost half of the combined air-rail
market between Washington, DC and New York, and when intermediate
cities (such as Baltimore and Philadelphia) are included, Amtrak's
share of the air-rail market rises to seventy percent. Loss of Amtrak
service in this corridor would not only put a huge financial burden on
the affected states, it would require another 7,500 fully-booked 757's
to carry our passengers every year, or hundreds of thousands of cars
added to already congested highways. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow,
there would be an additional 27,000 cars on the highway between Boston
and New York every day. Between New York and Philadelphia, Amtrak
service removes 18,000 cars from the highways every weekday.
That number--18,000 cars a day--does not include the thousands of
commuter rail passengers, and their parked cars, that are carried on
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor by commuter agencies such as New Jersey
Transit (NJT) and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority
(SEPTA) every day. These commuter agencies could not operate if Amtrak
did not maintain the track, bridges, signals and electric traction
system on the Corridor. Above and beyond Amtrak's enumerated ridership,
another 220 million commuter passengers ride on Amtrak's Corridor
between Boston and Washington, DC every year. You can measure Amtrak's
impact not only in the number of cars removed from the road, but also
in terms of avoided costs--as reported in the Journal of Commerce last
May, Amtrak's presence eliminates the need for twenty additional
highway lanes in New York City, and ten new tunnels under the Hudson.
It's not just the urban corridors that depend on our service. Some
22 million of our 55 million passengers depend on Amtrak for travel
between urban centers and rural locations some of which have no
alternative modes of transportation. Some of the most persuasive
appeals for flexibility for Amtrak and some of the strongest advocates
for a dedicated trust fund have been elected officials from those
states who are facing the elimination of Essential Air Service (EAS) or
the disappearance of local bus service, and truly face the elimination
of all other modes.
Finally, it also must be noted that Amtrak carries all these
passengers even as the terms of relative investment by mode become more
and more disparate. In real terms, spending for highways approached $20
billion last year while capital investment for Amtrak was less than
$450 million. In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal
year 1994, transportation outlays for highways increased seventy-three
percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for
rail went down by sixty-two percent. In terms of growth, between 1982
and 1992 highway spending grew by five percent, aviation by ten
percent, while rail decreased by nine percent. The overall funding
amounts as well as the relative levels of investment should make one
wonder how Amtrak has managed to maintain a fairly constant level of
ridership, not why it hasn't increased its share. Amtrak has been
accused of not serving enough of the travelling population, but that
must be weighed against the price of not serving those travelers. It
isn't just a matter of slightly more clogged roads or additional
pollution. For some people it is the only way ``to get there from
here.''
I both hope and expect that Amtrak will play an even larger role in
America's transportation system in the future, as Congress, the states,
and local planners work toward developing a more balanced
transportation system which addresses the increased congestion, land
use and clean air challenges.
At this point in time, however, playing a bigger role in our
transportation system is a dream. I have had to call too many
governors, mayors and Members of Congress over the past three years to
tell them that I will be eliminating or reducing Amtrak service in
their district, town or state. I relish making these calls even less
than the recipients enjoy receiving them. I believe in a national
passenger rail system, but years of disinvestment in the system are
finally taking their toll. As GAO will confirm for you today, Amtrak is
in difficult financial shape. We cannot preserve a national passenger
rail system through yet another year of inadequate funding. I can also
assure you that Amtrak will have to break its commitment to achieve
independence from federal operating support if we are not given an
adequate, reliable dedicated source of capital funding, and the
requested level of declining operating support. As we have always said,
operational self-sufficiency is absolutely dependent on adequate
capital investment in the system.
How did we get into the financial condition GAO has described for
you? Nearly a decade of inadequate appropriations, especially for
capital investment, has caused us to borrow heavily from private banks.
Amtrak also owns, operates, and maintains the majority of the Northeast
Corridor, a critical transportation asset that carries more than 1,000
trains a day, including Amtrak, seven different commuter railroads, and
freight. The Northeast Corridor is in the midst of a tremendous make
over of transportation. Work is underway to introduce high-speed rail
service to America. In preparation, investments have been made to
upgrade and modernize the infrastructure--track, bridges, and
structures--in the north end. This past spring, construction also
started on the completion of a 75-year transportation plan--
electrification north of New Haven. The high-speed rail program has
been met enthusiastically by rail riders as well as investors.
Significant capital investments are needed on the south end and a
continued source of capital will be needed for the entire program if we
are to have the highest return on this investment.
To provide some context, in the fall of 1994, we, as brand new
managers of Amtrak, evaluated and came to grips with the corporation's
financial fragility, and began taking the steps to avoid bankruptcy.
Two years ago, I came up here and laid out for our authorizing
committees a three-pronged approach which would reduce Amtrak's
deficit, improve our operating ratio by making capital investments in
our infrastructure, and reduce costs through legislative reform. We
implemented a business plan at that time which internally generated
nearly $400 million in savings on an annualized basis and re-engineered
virtually every aspect of our operations.
To help us, we asked Congress to enact legislative reforms which
would allow Amtrak to operate more like a business, and provide us with
a dedicated source of capital funding and the requested level of
operating support. These three items--Amtrak-controlled cost savings,
legislative reforms, and establishment of a dedicated capital funding
source--were the key to surviving, and doing so without operating
support. Two years later, we have successfully advanced only one of the
three prongs. Ours.
During the past two years, Amtrak has reduced costs, eliminated
some of our poorest performing routes, retired old 1950's era
equipment, eliminated a large number of positions, consolidated
operations, rationalized our fare structure, and made countless
productivity improvements. As important, we have restructured our
service so that decisions are made closer to the passenger. We also
improved our on-board services. The trains we are operating today are
light years ahead of where they were in 1994. In addition, we have
progressively managed to modernize our fleet of rolling stock, purchase
new and more efficient locomotives, and have ordered the first
generation of North American high-speed train sets, all with private
capital. Our six-year strategic plan provides us with an innovative way
out of our current financial predicament but has very little cash
cushion. The plan, adopted by our Board of Directors last September,
will require short-term borrowing simply to finance operations over the
next three years of close to $180 million ($66 million this year).
These borrowed funds will be paid back through profits generated from
capital investments in high-speed rail implementation, locomotive
replacement, reflecting and other critical capital projects which will
generate new revenues, reduce expenses, and leverage new state and
local support for trains. Without the capital investment, the revenue
and savings will not be generated and the already difficult cash
management task will be impossible to manage.
Unfortunately, neither the legislative reform nor the dedicated
funding source was enacted last session, and we've been provided $125
million less than requested in operating grants over the past two
years. The Senate Finance Committee came closest when it reported S.
1395, which redirected \1/2\ cent of the federal fuel tax into a
dedicated trust fund for Amtrak. Unfortunately, it was never taken up
by the full Senate. However, companion legislation to accomplish the
same thing has been introduced in both the House and the Senate this
year. On this side, Senators Roth and Moynihan are the primary authors
of S. 436, which takes \1/2\ cent of the permanent 4.3 excise fuel tax,
currently going toward the General Fund, and redirects it to an
Intercity Passenger Rail Account. I believe their positions of
leadership on the Finance Committee bode well for the future of the
bill. I also want to publicly thank Senator Lautenberg for being a
cosponsor of that bill. More recently, Senators Baucus and Warner
introduced S. 634, which is more far reaching legislation and which
includes the \1/2\ cent provision.
As GAO testified two weeks ago, in the current fiscal environment,
the best course is to provide a significant capital funding increase.
It is the single best solution for both Amtrak and for the American
taxpayer. It does not constitute a new tax--it is an existing one. It
would increase the spending on transportation overall without taking
dollars from any other mode, and most importantly, it would allow
Amtrak to preserve the national system and attain operating self-
sufficiency.
Congress must soon make a decision on whether or not it wants this
country to have a national rail passenger system. If we go on without
the necessary capital investment, it will be a decision by default,
resulting in bankruptcy--which is a painful and messy way to implement
policy.
If the decision is simply to end Amtrak, we ought to face it head
on and deal with the reality that comes with it. There is no question
that it has some significant costs. Dissolution of Amtrak by neglect
would be irresponsible. Two years ago, the Budget Committee and others
in Congress asked us what we thought the dissolution of Amtrak would
cost the American taxpayer. At that time, we estimated that the costs
would top out at, or above, $5 billion. This number, which included the
mandatory labor protection costs, was later certified by the
Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the elimination of Amtrak would mean the loss of over
20,000 jobs, well over 1,500 pieces of equipment would have to be
parked, mandatory labor protection be triggered, Railroad Retirement
would be further burdened and the list goes on and on. Ironically, the
dissolution of Amtrak would likely cost the American taxpayers nearly
20 percent more money than the entire five years of funding for a trust
fund proposal. The latter solution has the bonus of creating a viable
and less costly national rail passenger service.
At the same time, although there is a critical and immediate need,
the picture is not all bleak. Between the 1st and 2nd quarter this
year, Amtrak's year-end cash deficit projection, after five months of
actual financial data, has improved from $96 million to $76 million. I
also believe that the support exists in this Congress to finally put
Amtrak on more equal footing with other modes. There are ten cosponsors
of S. 436, three cosponsors of S. 634, and two other bills being
introduced in the Senate which include the \1/2\ cent provision. In
addition, last year a non-binding ``Sense of the Senate'' amendment to
the fiscal year 1997 Budget Resolution, supporting the creation of an
Intercity Passenger Rail Account using \1/2\ cent of the fuel tax, was
adopted 57-43, and later included in the conference report. With the
reauthorization of ISTEA approaching, I think the appropriate vehicle
exists. The time is right.
I can share with you the vision of what Amtrak can be in a few
years if a trust fund is provided. High-speed service will be operating
in the Northeast, strong state investment and partnerships in the West,
and profitable mail and express-laden long-distance trains connecting
both coasts. The path to that is the half-cent and legislative reform
that will allow Amtrak to maintain a national system, complete our
high-speed rail initiatives, and develop the business partnerships with
the freight railroads. Adequate operating funds and a dedicated capital
funding source will deliver an Amtrak that will be, for the first time,
free of federal operating support.
There are no simple solutions to Amtrak finances, but it is very
clear that Amtrak cannot continue to go on as we have been, bleeding
the corporation and trying to achieve prosperity by downsizing the
system. I sat here two years ago and presented a workable plan to
achieve operating self-sufficiency, and I sit here today with the same
proposal, seeking your help. It is also very clear Congress cannot make
Amtrak better simply by wishing it so.
Unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of time. Without
adequate resources there is only a limited amount of time that Amtrak
can be held together and a national system preserved. The GAO report
should be viewed as a call to action. Over the next few months, I hope
we at Amtrak can work with this Committee, and the United States
Congress, to save and strengthen this railroad for future generations
of Americans.
I am enclosing a detailed summary of our fiscal year 1998 Grant
Request, and I look forward to answering any questions the Committee
may have.
______
Explanation of Amtrak's Fiscal Year 1998 Request
Amtrak requests: $245 million in federal operating assistance; $751
million in federal capital (which includes funding for the Northeast
Corridor); $142 million in excess RRTA for fiscal year 1998.
Operating Support
Amtrak is requesting $245.0 million in operating support in fiscal
year 1998. It represents an increase of $45 million or 22.5 percent
increase over the original appropriation for fiscal year 1997 of $200
million before the Omnibus Appropriations Act (OAA) of 1997. The $245
million is $20 million over the original glidepath amount for fiscal
year 1998 in order to help compensate for the cumulative fiscal years
1995-1997 underfunding and help limit the impacts of the fiscal year
1997 cash deficit on fiscal year 1998, keeping Amtrak on plan for
fiscal years 1998-2002.
Excess RRTA Contribution for fiscal year 1998
The sum of $142.0 million represents the current estimate for
actual mandatory excess RRTA liabilities in fiscal year 1998. The
methodology for calculating the liability has been shared with OMB and
was submitted to Congress and this Subcommittee on February 15. It is
Amtrak's position that the excess RRTA liability should be fully funded
by the federal government and not considered a part of federal
operating support to Amtrak. The RRTA account of $142 million is a
mandatory spending provision that has nothing to do with Amtrak's cost
of providing rail passenger service. These costs are based on a federal
formula that requires Amtrak to pay the retirement costs of former
freight railroad employees who have never worked for Amtrak. These
costs will exist whether or not Amtrak continues its operations and
these payments rightfully belong in a mandatory account. As stated in
the fiscal years 1997-2002 Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak must
continue to either receive full reimbursement from the federal
government for these federally mandated excess RRTA costs or be
relieved from paying them altogether.
Federal Capital Support
The fiscal year 1998 grant request is $751 million or the
equivalent of \1/2\ cent of the existing federal motor fuels excise
tax.\1\ This is only 68 percent of Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 capital
sources and 52 percent of our fiscal year 1998 needs. It is assumed
that the difference between total needs and sources of funds can be
commercially borrowed as long as a dedicated capital source is secured
for the total amount over our planning period. Fiscal year 1998 is
probably the most critical year for achieving the full implementation
of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor in fiscal year 2000. Our
February 15 grant request submission breaks this out in much greater
detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ April 11 scoring by CBO equals $800 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHEINBERG
Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg.
Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Lautenberg. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
discuss Amtrak's financial condition.
As you know, Amtrak's passenger rail service has never been
profitable and to date the Federal Government has provided
Amtrak with over $19 billion for operating and capital
expenses. In 1995, in response to continually growing losses,
Amtrak developed a strategic plan to increase revenues and
control cost growth, with the goal of eliminating its need for
Federal operating subsidies by the year 2002.
On the positive side, Amtrak's actions to reduce some
routes and services, cut management positions, and raise fares
have helped improve its financial performance. For example,
Amtrak's net operating losses--total revenues less total
expenses--declined from over $1 billion to about three-quarters
of a billion dollars in 1996.
Despite these efforts, Amtrak is projecting that its 1997
net losses may be even greater than those of last year. These
losses are one indication that Amtrak is still in a very
precarious financial position. It remains heavily dependent on
Federal support to meet its operating and capital needs.
Amtrak's expenses have exceeded its revenues by at least $760
million in every year since 1988. Amtrak had hoped that
increases in passenger revenues would help close the gap, but
for the most part passenger revenues have actually decreased
when adjusted for inflation.
Furthermore, Amtrak's operating deficits exceed the Federal
operating subsidy. In 1996 this gap reached $82 million, the
highest level of any of the last 9 years. To pay for the gap
between operating deficits and Federal operating subsidies,
Amtrak has had to draw upon its financial resources. To
illustrate, Amtrak's working capital position indicates its
ability to pay short-term bills out of current assets, such as
cash and short-term receivables. Amtrak's working capital has
decreased from a surplus position in the late 1980's to a
deficit of $195 million in 1996. This affects Amtrak's ability
to pay its bills over the short term.
A related concern is with Amtrak's debt level, which has
doubled since 1993 from about one-half of a billion dollars to
almost $1 billion. Amtrak expects to borrow an additional $1
billion in 1999 to finance high-speed trainsets and maintenance
facilities.
As Amtrak's debt levels have increased, interest expenses
on this debt have also increased. In fact, over the last 4
years annual interest expenses have tripled, from about $21
million to about $60 million. Interest expenses now consume
over 21 percent of the Federal operating subsidy and will
consume an even higher portion of its Federal operating
subsidies as Amtrak assumes more debt.
Amtrak's goal of eliminating Federal operating subsidies by
the year 2002 is heavily dependent on capital investment. For
the Northeast corridor alone, Amtrak estimates that an
additional $1.4 billion are needed to bring high-speed rail
service between New York and Boston and about $2 billion are
needed over the next few years for the south end of the
corridor just to preserve the ability to operate at existing
service levels.
However, an increasing portion of Amtrak's Federal capital
subsidy is being devoted to debt service, capital overhauls,
and legally mandated uses, such as equipment modifications and
environmental cleanup. As a result, the portion of the capital
grant available to meet general capital investment needs
continues to shrink. In fiscal year 1997 only about 5 percent
of Amtrak's Federal capital grant of $223 million is expected
to be available for general capital needs.
Regarding the future, Amtrak anticipates significantly
increased levels of Federal capital assistance, about $750
million per year, compared to the $478 million in capital
funding that Amtrak received this year. However, even with
increased capital funding, Amtrak will continue to find it
difficult to take the actions that are necessary to further
reduce its costs. While Amtrak was somewhat successful in
making route and service adjustments in fiscal year 1995, it
was less successful in 1997. Amtrak has also been unsuccessful
in negotiating productivity improvements with labor.
To conclude, although Amtrak's business plans have helped
reduce net losses, we see little hope for Amtrak to reach the
goal of operating self-sufficiency by the year 2002. We believe
that as currently constituted Amtrak will continue to require
significant Federal financial support, both operating and
capital, well into the future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. That concludes my statement.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Federal Government's Liability if Amtrak Liquidated
Ms. Molitoris, the Federal Government I understand has
appropriated over $19 billion for Amtrak since the
corporation's formation in 1971. If continued Federal funding
was not provided this year for Amtrak, either by a dedicated
trust fund or appropriation, what would the Federal
Government's liability be in the event of a liquidation of the
corporation?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, of course, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Shelby. In that event?
Ms. Molitoris. We agree that the corporation is crucial to
the transportation network of the country. Under the scenario
that you paint, of course, there is a real danger of the loss
of a true important transportation resource. That is the
Northeast corridor, which, as I am sure you are aware, is a
lifeline for hundreds of thousands of commuter travelers.
The agreement, the lease arrangement that Amtrak has with
the Federal Government, is one of 1,000 years with a balloon
payment at the end. So there is a question of technically the
amount of value in 1997, considering that kind of a lease, is
small and the concern, of course, would be when this was
litigated, as it surely would be, what the decision of any
court would be.
The Congress does have the ability by congressional action
to accelerate that value to protect that asset for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Downs. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Senator Shelby. Sure, Mr. Downs.
Mr. Downs. Two years ago the House Budget Committee asked
that CBO score that scenario. It was $5 billion.
Senator Shelby. It was $5 billion.
Mr. Downs. According to CBO.
Senator Shelby. Scored at $5 billion.
Mr. Downs. Yes; $5 billion.
Opportunities for Privatization
Senator Shelby. I understand that the Northeast corridor is
profitable, is that correct?
Ms. Molitoris. The Metroliners, Mr. Chairman, on the
Northeast corridor are for the first time in the history of the
corporation making a profit, and I think that indicates the
kind of progress the company is making.
Senator Shelby. Is that an indication that the Northeast
corridor could possibly be run by a private company if Amtrak
were liquidated?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, I would comment, certainly with the
kind of management that Amtrak is receiving, the Metroliners
are very popular and are making a profit for the company.
I would like to comment for the record with regard to
Senator Gorton's comments, that we are responsible for the
privatization study that he requested and I want you to know
that we are doing this in a very thoughtful way. We have
already reached out with meetings with local and State
governments and throughout the system, and we will be providing
the Congress with that report in August. So I do not know where
the Senator got his information, but, being the responsible
party, I would like to make that statement.
Senator Shelby. Well, that is good.
You did not suggest that a private company could profitably
run a national railroad, did you?
Ms. Molitoris. What I would like to suggest is that I think
the full report will do a better job of giving you all of the
elements. I think it is interesting----
Senator Shelby. When is that coming?
Ms. Molitoris. That is due in August, Mr. Chairman.
I could comment on efforts throughout the world in terms of
privatization. I think it is very important for someone
studying this issue to recognize that so-called privatization,
which is defined in a variety of ways, in Britain, Germany, and
elsewhere, Japan, almost exclusively involves the government
owning and maintaining the right of way while the operational
franchise for operating those systems then goes to a private
company.
So I am not sure that most people who use the term
``privatization'' consider that kind of a split.
Senator Shelby. It is some kind of a mix, anyway, is it
not?
Ms. Molitoris. Yes; it is, sir.
Amtrak's Federal Subsidy on Per Passenger Basis
Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg, how does the Federal
subsidy per passenger for Amtrak, noncommuter passengers,
compare to the Federal cost per passenger for commercial
airline passengers? Is there any data available on Federal
costs per passenger for intercity business service? Have you
gotten any into that?
Ms. Scheinberg. I do not have information on the intercity
bus service, but if you look at the general fund Federal
subsidy to commercial airlines and if you look at that portion
of the airline industry, it is about $1.50 per emplanement, and
if you look at the Amtrak direct Federal subsidy it comes out
to about $38 per passenger trip.
Senator Shelby. It is $38?
Mr. Downs. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs.
Mr. Downs. The Congressional Research Service, at the
request of Senator Pressler, was asked the same question. They
did three comparisons. One was highways from general funds,
including user fees. That is all local property, sales, and
income tax. That was $79 per person in the United States on
highway, according to CRS.
The second was Amtrak's. This was done on 1990 data to make
sure that it was completely clean. CRS said the number was $27.
On aviation, they recognized that there was a $19 billion
general fund subsidy to general domestic aviation before any
user fees were imposed and the inability to quantify the
subsidy that goes to aviation for the use of tax exempt bonding
and property tax exemptions for airports as a business, but
said it was probably in the billions of dollars as a subsidy.
It is a report that I would be glad to share with the
committee.
Amtrak's Long-Term Funding Needs
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs, let us just assume for a moment
a best case scenario. Let us say that Congress enacts the one-
half-penny trust fund for capital expenses, that Amtrak is able
to offset more of its operating losses with increased revenue
from high-speed services in the Northeast corridor and other
savings and efficiencies realized along the way. A dedicated
funding resource based on Federal gas tax revenues is
authorized for only 5 years if it happens. What would you do
when it goes away?
Mr. Downs. We have been told, and I have been asked this
same question, will it be able to go away? And that was asked
by Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, Senator Moynihan, Senator
Roth in various hearings that I have been through in the last 3
weeks.
The answer is, We will probably have some need for some
ongoing capital because no railroad, with the exception of the
Illinois Central and the Norfolk Southern, in the United States
makes its full cost of capital. Not even railroads as large as
the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific, for instance, make their
full cost of capital yet.
We have said that part of the key to that will be what the
Congress decides to let States do with Federal transportation
dollars about funding flexibility. It depends on what we can do
about developing business alliances where others can make
investments in us on a capital basis, for instance ongoing
power distribution investments in the corridor based on an
ability to partner with power companies in the Northeast.
We say we will need capital. We do not believe that it is
necessary to extend the one-half-cent gas tax trust fund beyond
its 5-year life. Senator Chafee has said that his expectation
was that it would return to deficit reduction. Others have said
that it is going to go into the highway trust fund account. Mr.
Shuster has made it clear in his authorization bill that if it
does include an authorization for a trust fund, it would be a
5-year limited life. Senate Finance has said the exact same
thing.
Senator Shelby. Do you see in the foreseeable future, Mr.
Downs, any scenario where you would not need some kind of
subsidy?
Mr. Downs. The only thing that we have said that we will
continue to need is some way of funding excess railroad
retirement long term. We have said that that is in effect a
subsidy to the existing freight railroads.
Senator Shelby. How much money are you talking about?
Mr. Downs. $145 million a year that Amtrak pays into
railroad retirement above whatever its normal charges would be.
There are 800,000 retired railroad employees in the United
States, almost all of them freight railroad employees. There
are 175,000 existing employees in the railroad industry, so the
charges are pretty hefty. Most of those, 95 percent of those
employees, are freight railroad employees.
We believe it is unfair to consider that a subsidy to
Amtrak. If Amtrak went away tomorrow, those charges would be
spread immediately to the freight railroads. We think that that
needs to be addressed, not as a subsidy to Amtrak, but a
subsidy to the railroad retirement system.
Senator Shelby. Well, it certainly does not need to be
hidden, does it?
Mr. Downs. No; it does not.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs, in your testimony you state that
Amtrak provides a necessary service for rural communities as
well as urban corridors. Do you still believe that?
Mr. Downs. Absolutely, more than ever.
Senator Shelby. Give us several examples?
Mr. Downs. I was meeting with some folks in Haver, MT. The
mayor said: ``You know, everybody, the rest of the world has
kind of left us all behind. We do not have essential air
service. We have a highway. Sometimes in the winter up here, it
closes. If you cannot drive a car or a four-wheel vehicle, you
do not have mobility up here. We do not have economic
development resources like an airport. We do not have it in
terms of the kind of rail system that the rest of the country,
particularly the east and west coast, take for granted.''
That railroad from Haver, MT, to Minot, ND, is an essential
part of business development and local transportation for them,
for seniors, for young people, and for the handicapped. He said
it is just an essential part of the railroad business.
Anniston, AL, will say the same thing about connections to
places like New Orleans and Birmingham. We do provide that
linkage, and we are proud of it.
Route profitability
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs, it is my understanding that, of
the Amtrak routes, the Metroliners between Washington, DC, and
New York are the only profitable routes. Is that right?
Mr. Downs. On a fully allocated cost basis.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. Downs. The next closest is, I believe, AutoTrain.
Senator Shelby. Have you thought about trying to close or
realign some of your most unprofitable routes? That is just the
way you do business, is it not?
Mr. Downs. We have. This committee stopped that process
last year by saying that they thought we ought to defer those
route closings for 6 months to give those States the
opportunity to see if they wanted to partner. Those routes,
particularly the Pioneer and the Desert Wind, Senator Reid's
service, disappears on the 11th of this month. Service to
eastern Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho, on the Pioneer disappears. The
Texas legislature is still struggling with whether or not they
are actually going to invest enough money to keep the Texas
Eagle going until the 1st of October. If they do not, that
service will go away.
We have said we have to do that. Everybody said be a
business. We are now about 20 percent smaller than we were 36
months ago. We are several thousand employees smaller as a
result of that. We think we are more efficient. But we have
kept every one of those commitments about downsizing the
railroad to make it more businesslike.
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Senator Shelby. Sure, go ahead.
Ms. Molitoris. I would like to comment on cutting your way
to health. You mentioned, your comment was: That is the way you
do business, is it not?
Senator Shelby. Well, you do, but you do not cut your heart
out.
Ms. Molitoris. Right, or the arteries, either.
And I want to make this comment. Certainly all the biggest
and most profitable, most healthy passenger railroads in the
world, especially in Japan, have an interesting mission
statement, and that is--for example, Japan East, which makes
more money than any other passenger railroad because they have
almost unlimited passengers, that 50 percent of their revenues
will come from nonpassenger sources.
Mr. Downs mentioned that the last time the rail passenger
service was close to break-even it was because they had mail
and express. It was not until just a few months ago that Amtrak
was looking at even enhancing the mail and express that they
already had.
So if you cut away vital routes, you cannot even have the
opportunity for very valuable and important express service. So
I want to just get for the record that that is not always as
simple as it sounds. Some people think, well, you just cut,
cut, cut until you somehow achieve health, and with this
railroad that is not possible.
Labor-Related Costs
Senator Shelby. Under current rail labor laws, I understand
Amtrak is required to pay up to 6 years salary to anyone who
loses their job as a result of Amtrak's reduction or
terminating service. Would the administration support revising
this provision to allow labor unions and Amtrak management to
negotiate a more workable solution?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Shelby. Have you thought about it?
Ms. Molitoris. In the discussions of last year the
administration continued to support the opportunity for Amtrak
management and labor to come to an agreement that was
satisfactory to both. I think it is also--I would like to have
for the record that C2, as it is called, is sometimes----
Senator Shelby. The 6-year provision?
Ms. Molitoris. Yes, sir; is sometimes held out to be much
more significant expense than it really ends up being. If the
railroad closed everything, then that $5 billion that Mr. Downs
mentioned would occur. But in fact, even in the route closings
that the railroad has accomplished, the estimates of the cost
were much more than they actually ended up being, something in
the neighborhood of approximately $10,000 per person. So I
think----
Senator Shelby. So it is an overstatement thus far?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, I think that railroad labor wants this
railroad to succeed and has a history of working to have good
agreements with management. So I just want to point out that
the facts do not always substantiate this, which is always
pulled out as somehow the panacea for the health of the
railroad.
Senator Shelby. GAO, for example, stated that Amtrak has
been unsuccessful in negotiating productivity improvements with
the labor unions. Many of the same craft unions are represented
at both freight rail and Amtrak labor negotiations and I know
there is pressure from labor to secure equally favorable
agreements with Amtrak--that would be logical--as have been
secured with the freight railroads.
As a result, in the last 6 months many freight labor union
agreements have been negotiated, while I understand that Amtrak
is stuck at the table, bargaining still. Is that correct?
Ms. Molitoris. I think Mr. Downs is better able to respond
to that.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Downs, is that right?
Mr. Downs. We have 13 labor unions, 25 collective
bargaining agreements. All of them have expired. Some of them
have been expired for as long as 2\1/2\ years. You are
absolutely right that part of the motivation with rail labor
was to conclude their freight railroad contracts. Freight
railroads had a lot more in terms of profits and could afford a
better settlement, and they are also 90 percent of the
employment in the rail labor industry. So it was important for
them to finish those agreements first.
We have said that we were willing to do gain-sharing type
contracts, that we are not asking for give-backs, not asking
for fundamental changes in the way that the contracts are
drawn. We have said, however, that if we can make changes in
the way work rules are put together, around the way health care
is provided, or in other areas, that we would count that in and
that it would have zero impact on our business plan.
It has been very difficult because of the disparity between
the impact of a freight railroad agreement on Amtrak. We have
done some calculations. Over 5 years, the freight railroad
agreement would cost Amtrak about $220 million. We have not got
$220 million.
Ultimately, that issue may be resolved by Congress because,
as you know, the Rail Labor Act says that if there is a release
from mediation and there is a job action and the President
deems it in the national interest, there is a Presidential
emergency board appointed. They make a finding. If the parties
still disagree at the end of that finding and they are released
from further action, then the issue is brought here to Congress
to resolve.
So ultimately, if the question is what assurance could the
Congress have about a reasonable outcome on labor negotiations,
this Congress will perhaps have the ultimate say about what
those outcomes are.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, thanks for your
indulgence.
Administration's Budget Request for Amtrak
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The questions
were interesting ones and I think ought to be answered, and
they were.
Ms. Molitoris, the administration's request for Amtrak for
1998 is substantially lower than the levels requested by Amtrak
itself. If the administration's budget request was enacted,
would that permit us to avoid the system shutdown that Mr.
Downs has warned us about by the summer of 1998?
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, the
administration's budget is barebones. I have said that clearly.
There is no fat in it at all. We need every cent.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there any marrow in it?
Ms. Molitoris. There is marrow.
Clearly, Senator Lautenberg, I think, given our challenges
with deficit reduction, the administration has made a clear
statement of support and has invested over the life of this
administration more in the last 4 years for Amtrak than in the
previous 10. However, we recognize this will not be easy. The
cash problem that Mr. Downs has raised he is addressing.
In all the years on the board since the Clinton
administration has arrived, the projected deficits by Amtrak
have always been in the neighborhood of $200 million or
something in that area and the board has always asked for
actions by management to address that deficit. The same
continues to go on. We believe Amtrak is going to have to push
hard with the administration's request, cut costs, increase the
partnerships with States, increase the private sector
partnerships. And there are many opportunities. We know that
mail and express can produce some positive effects. We know
some more partnerships with private industry can produce
effects.
But we also know that it is going to be very, very tight
for 1998. As I mentioned, we do not know at this time if the
numbers that Mr. Downey mentioned of somewhere around $10
billion with $7 billion authority will net any more opportunity
for Amtrak or not.
Senator Lautenberg. I think that I heard you say that--no.
Ms. Molitoris. I said yes, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, by the time we get finished with
these partnerships and the agreements, and considering that
there are political ramifications to every one of these
decisions, I could have a full head of white hair by that time.
It is going to take a long time, I would believe. I think we
need more.
Mr. Downs, what do you--can you give us a little
information about how you see the administration's budget
request? Does it seem to be adequate to you?
Mr. Downs. There is a leading question.
Senator Lautenberg. Speak freely, young man. You are among
friends.
Mr. Downs. Speak freely?
I had long and difficult arguments with the Office of
Management and Budget over the President's budget request. We
said we did not make the request for $245 million lightly. We
did not make it because we thought that it was kind of a nice
to do, pie in the sky kind of target. We explained that on a
cash basis we would have a very difficult time making it at the
administration's number.
The answer was: We are sorry; that is all the room there
was in their budget. It was not necessarily a longer story
about what they thought it meant or how this whole process
looked over a couple of years. It was simply that there was no
room in the inn for anything more.
It does make for a very difficult environment for labor
contract negotiations. It creates no room. It makes it a
shrinking sum pie. It makes for a kind of hostile, antagonistic
environment with labor. Labor supported a larger number with
the administration aggressively.
The sum of $200 million is one of the reasons why we will
probably face a liquidity crisis at the end of fiscal 1998. We
will be clearly challenged, I think is the right term, by a
$200 million operating subsidy number.
Ms. Scheinberg. Senator Lautenberg, may I address the
question?
Senator Lautenberg. Please, yes.
Ms. Scheinberg. I think the $43 million that the
administration's budget or operating subsidy is lower than the
Amtrak business plan assumes will require, if you follow the
business plan assumptions, that that money--the lack of that
$43 million will require Amtrak to further borrow for its
short-term needs and lead to the crisis that Mr. Downs is
discussing.
On the capital side, the administration's budget is $328
million lower than what Amtrak is assuming. That level of
capital support will not allow Amtrak to make the capital
improvements that it needs to improve the quality of service,
to attract more riders and increase revenues.
Senator Lautenberg. This chart tells you something about
the prospect of additional borrowing. We could get a larger
page, of course. That would enable us to run the bar higher.
Mr. Downs. Senator, I think our bankers have told us that
we are probably at the limits of our credit in terms of long-
term borrowing, unless there is something unique that happens
in our future, that we have probably exhausted all of our
capabilities with the last round of high-speed trainsets.
Senator Lautenberg. I am glad that these charts are not my
EKG, I can tell you that.
Northeast corridor
Ms. Scheinberg, do you know of any investment that holds
the kind of promise that the Northeast corridor high-speed
project could offer in terms of generating substantial revenues
to aid Amtrak's bottomline?
Ms. Scheinberg. The high-speed rail improvement project on
the north end of the Northeast corridor is the best investment
that Amtrak can make. As we discussed, the Metroliner is the
only route that covers all its fully allocated costs, and
Amtrak's plans are to extend that type of service to the north
end of the corridor. By doing that and in making that
investment, the hope is to generate the revenues that would
cover, more than cover, the cost of that route and apply that
surplus to the rest of the system.
Senator Lautenberg. So positive cash flow could result.
I have got to tell you something. I use Amtrak, Mr.
Chairman, between here and Newark, and the Metroliner is good
service. But it is not a great ride, the equipment. It is the
only place I can go to find anything older than me around here.
It bumps and it grinds. People try to do their best, but it is
just not up to the kind of service that we ought to be
offering.
With that, it is a pretty good investment in terms of
railroad as we sit here. There is nothing else in the system
that offers that kind of opportunity.
Ms. Molitoris, you were with me and Vice President Gore
when we celebrated the signing of the new high speed train sets
for the Northeast corridor. At the time the administration
fully endorsed the goal of achieving 3-hour high speed service
with the modern trainsets by the end of 1999, to be sure.
Do you believe that we can have that high-speed service--
and 3 hours is not as good as it could be, but it would be
good--based on the funding level that you have requested in
your fiscal year 1998 budget?
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, of course
we need to look at the whole NEXTEA proposal to really look at
how the administration plans to invest in those high-speed
trains, because the NEXTEA proposal stretches out to the year
2003. And if you look at our total investment package, on the
capital side we are suggesting 92 percent of what Amtrak itself
is asking and 96 percent of the operating.
So I do not think it is insignificant. But I think we must
say that the Federal funds cannot do it alone. There is no
major transportation system that gets 100 percent of its
funding from the Feds, and the board of Amtrak is working with
management to continually focus on new ways to instigate
additional revenue, cost cutting, and ways to achieve all the
goals in the business plan.
The goal of the business plan is high-speed service, and of
course we all want that because, as Ms. Scheinberg identified,
it is going to be profitable, it is going to help the
bottomline of Amtrak.
The difficulty that we are facing is the shorter term; 1998
will be very difficult. I think that the NEXTEA proposal
clearly shows the investment and the support of those trainsets
and the high-speed service. And I might comment that they are
bending the steel now and those bodies will be ready for
testing by the end of the summer.
Senator Lautenberg. So you said they got 90 percent of
their request, Amtrak?
Ms. Molitoris. It totals 90 percent of what Amtrak----
Senator Lautenberg. So you are saying to this patient, you
are going to get 90 percent of the oxygen you need, and if you
are around here a couple years longer than we expect you to be
you are going to get the full shot. Because you said they
stretched out the service, so we cannot possibly execute all
these refinements, develop all these plans, get them into
place--the interest and debt payments here are overpowering--by
the original date. So we are now going to, you said, maybe 2003
if I heard you?
Ms. Molitoris. No, sir; what I am saying to you is, if we
are going to use your analogy of oxygen, that the Federal
Government pharmacy will give 90 percent of the oxygen and they
will have to get an extra tube of oxygen from other sources,
another pharmacy.
The fact is there is a partnership that has to occur. The
States are stepping up to the plate. I have mentioned that they
have doubled their support of Amtrak in the last year. They are
buying equipment because Amtrak is so important to them.
Senator Lautenberg. Because Amtrak is important, but it is
also so deficient.
What happens in your judgment if the railroad does go into
some default kind of position? What happens to commuter
service? Is it affected? We have got New Jersey Transit, SEPTA,
MTA, MARC, MBTA. Is there any impact at all on their operating
costs, their ability to perform service?
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, not only
is there some, there is tremendous impact. In fact, I do not
believe the $5 billion reflects that kind of cost, because of
course not only would Amtrak's service on the Northeast
corridor be in danger, but the commuter services on the NEC
would be in danger as well.
That is why we continually emphasize this is a partnership,
and the importance of Amtrak cannot be evaluated by their
passengers alone, because in fact on the Northeast corridor
three-quarters of the passengers are commuter passengers.
Senator Lautenberg. So the partnership proposal is the one
that says, if you want to keep this system going, that you are
going to be the pharmacy necessary to keep this alive. So you
can make your choice whether you just turn people to the
highways and the airways and all that, and we will have to do
it right away.
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Lautenberg. I would not want to be operating that
pharmacy and to give you that decision, I must tell you.
What about the costs or the involvement of the freight
railroads to this operating annual cost that we have? Do you
get any assistance, Mr. Downs, from the freight railroad
community in support of the one-half-cent proposal, for
instance?
Mr. Downs. I thought you were going to say there for a
minute, do we get any respect from the freight railroad
industry. And the answer to that would be----
Senator Lautenberg. Rodney--and I am talking about, not
Slater, Dangerfield. Do not expect respect also.
Mr. Downs. The American Association of Railroads'
unofficial position, which I am not sure they have delivered as
testimony for the record, is that because they pay 5.3 cents of
diesel fuel tax to the deficit reduction fund at Treasury, they
will likely oppose the creation of a one-half-cent gas tax
trust fund for Amtrak if it includes any of the revenues that
they pay to deficit reduction. They do not want to be paying
into an Amtrak trust fund for any purpose.
I think that is a relatively convoluted argument. I have
said that time and again. They cannot necessarily track where
the revenue goes, into Treasury or into trust funds. But I have
been unable to dissuade them from that.
At the same time, though, I have to say that we are having
a lot of luck in developing working partnerships about the
development of this new business, mail and express, with them.
These will be joint ventures with them that will be very
helpful to both of us. I think that their position so far on
the trust fund is a bit murky.
Senator Lautenberg. If Amtrak does go under, the freights
will have to pay some significant contribution to Amtrak's
railroad retirement bill, will they not?
Mr. Downs. We currently pay total, management and employees
and Federal payment, we pay $300 million a year into railroad
retirement. If this railroad goes away, all of those costs, all
$300 million, get absorbed into the railroad retirement fund
and they are then spread to the freight railroads. Do they have
an interest in not having that happen? You bet.
Senator Lautenberg. I would imagine.
Mr. Chairman, I have got a couple of other questions, but I
do not want to keep our panel or the subcommittee here any
longer. I think it is fairly obvious that more has to be done,
and it cannot just be new innovative partnership designs or the
creation of new business opportunities, which are coming at a
time which we would describe as under the gun.
I would hope that the administration will find a way to
boost its transportation funding request to a more satisfactory
level. I talk as a member of the negotiating committee on
budget as well. But we have to make this investment. The
communities are crying for it, the States are demanding it, and
we are going to have to find a way to do it, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Submitted Questions
There will be additional questions which will be submitted
in writing, and we urge you to respond to them within a
reasonable period of time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
capital assets and expenses
northeast corridor improvement project
Question. When does Amtrak anticipate the completion of Northeast
Corridor (NEC) electrification and commencement of high-speed rail
service throughout the Corridor? What is the end goal of this project?
Answer. The program is on schedule. Before the end of 1999,
infrastructure and electrification will have been completed and Boston
to Washington high-speed service will have begun, using electric power
and no longer requiring a time consuming engine change in New Haven.
The end goal of the program is to provide reliable high-speed rail
service between Boston and New York in approximately three hours and
between New York and Washington, DC, in under three hours.
Question. With the commencement of high-speed service throughout
the Northeast Corridor, what increase in ridership and revenue does
Amtrak expect to realize on an annual basis? Have any independent
auditors or other interested parties corroborated these projections?
Answer. The revenue forecasts for high-speed rail service in the
Northeast Corridor are based on extensive market analysis and modeling
which incorporate all critical factors that drive market demand--travel
time, trip frequency, fares, transportation alternatives and location
of true passenger origination and destination.
The growth forecasted for high-speed rail is premised on
significant travel time reductions that place the train trip in a
competitive position with alternative transportation modes, service
frequency increases, service reliability and quality improvements and a
reasonable pricing structure that is competitive with, or complementary
to, airfares.
Completion of electrification and high-speed rail investments (high
horsepower locomotives, tilt-technology trainsets and infrastructure
improvements) will reduce travel time between Boston and New York from
four hours forty-five minutes to three hours. Southend travel time
between New York and Washington, DC, will be reduced from three hours
to two hours forty-five minutes.
The investment made to complete the electrification of the northend
and the investment made to improve the track, signal, stations and
other infrastructure will benefit both high-speed rail service as well
as NortheastDirect service. Travel times for all trains will improve on
the Corridor.
Service frequency increases drive a significant portion of
forecasted revenue growth. The daily frequency of high-speed service
increases on the northend from zero to eight roundtrips, while the
current Metroliner service of 15-daily roundtrips on the southend will
increase to high-speed service with 17-daily roundtrips. While this
represents a 67 percent increase in roundtrips available, revenue
estimates are not predicated on filling this to capacity.
Investments in equipment and infrastructure produce reliability
improvements that strengthen Amtrak's products and increase revenues.
Reduced infrastructure related delays and mechanical failures from
employment of new, proven equipment will enhance on-time performance,
the key factor to customer satisfaction. Less time will be devoted to
maintenance and repair due to state-of-the-art diagnostic and
communications systems and manufacturer-trained and -managed staff.
The NEC's current market share is 12 percent, with a 16 percent
share of business travel and a 9 percent share on non-business travel.
Current business travel along the Corridor is driven by the southend
frequencies provided by the Metroliner service. When the market share
is analyzed geographically, it is clear that Amtrak has the potential
to increase ridership, particularly on the northend. The current market
share for the north and south ends of the corridor are 7 percent and 16
percent respectively. Since there is no first class/high-speed service
currently provided between Boston and New York, the advent of an
incremental eight daily roundtrips high-speed trains will increase
ridership and market share. To place the revenue forecasts in a market
share perspective, the current market share of 12 percent needs only to
grow to 14-15 percent for the forecasted revenues to be met.
Passenger rail provides amenities other modes do not offer, such as
a level of interior comfort and access directly to and from urban
centers. This access provides time savings and financial savings for
travelers who do not need to arrange for transportation outside the
urban core. These benefits have been considered in the assessment of
comparative costs, value of alternate modes of transportation and the
pricing for high-speed rail service.
From fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000, ticket prices are
assumed to be moderately inflated, with a premium then placed on first
class service. Amtrak understands that high-speed rail will not compete
pricewise with discount air carriers or short-lived promotional
airfares. However, Amtrak's 2001 high-speed rail fares are very
competitive with steady state airfares. Discount carriers that provide
service in Northeast Corridor markets present an opportunity, not a
risk, for Amtrak. Rather than compete with these airlines, Amtrak will
be complementing the discount air service available in secondary
markets. The NEC has already experienced revenue growth at stations
that provide convenient access to these airports.
The resulting incremental revenue forecast for the full
implementation of electrified service on the northend, and high-speed
rail service throughout the Corridor totals $280 million annually. In
fiscal year 2001, for example, these gross revenues will be partially
offset by incremental operating costs and debt service of approximately
$100 million, yielding net incremental benefits of approximately $180
million. Total ridership is expected to grow from the current volume of
11.1 million riders in fiscal year 1997 to 14.7 million riders in
fiscal year 2001.
The assumptions used in the forecasting process are conservative
and are supported by extensive market research, elasticity models,
pricing analysis and sensitivity analysis. Three separate forecasting
models have been used, with resulting revenue estimates within five
percentage points of each other.
The best testament to the validity of the forecasts is that
private, profitable corporations have partnered with Amtrak to finance
the high-speed trainsets and maintenance facilities. This external
funding stream was made possible because of the strength and legitimacy
of the ridership and revenue forecasts.
Question. Amtrak estimates that $1,400,000.000 is needed to finish
the Northeast Corridor high-speed rail project. How much total has been
invested in the Northeast Corridor improvement project thus far? What
is the year-to-year capital budget for improvements to the Northeast
Corridor, beginning with fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The budget for the electrification and high-speed rail
service program is $2.3 billion. Of this total, $810 million, or
approximately 35 percent is being externally financed for trainset and
maintenance facility costs. The remaining $1.5 billion is supported by
Federal funds--$.9 billion has been appropriated to-date and $.6
billion is required to be funded.
These funding levels represent only the investment required for
electrification and high-speed service. When state-of-good-repair,
equipment overhaul, life/safety and other infrastructure needs are
added to the electrification/high-speed rail requirements, the total
capital program for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000 is
estimated to be $597 million, $924 million, $557 million and $550
million respectively. This capital program is supported by federal
funds, external financing and state/local funding. The Northeast
Corridor's five-year capital program is premised on an average federal
capital funding stream of $388 million per year.
Question. How much of Amtrak's $751,000,000 capital request for
fiscal year 1998 would be utilized for improvements to the Northeast
Corridor? Why doesn't the fiscal year 1998 federal grant request
display NECIP funds versus general capital funds?
Answer. Based on the fiscal year 1997-2002 Strategic Capital Plan,
the Northeast Corridor planned to invest $593 million in projects to be
funded from federal capital sources and short-term borrowings. The
breakdown between those two funding sources has not been determined.
However, the process by which fiscal year 1998 capital projects will be
chosen for funding (based on financial and non-financial factors), is
currently underway, and with the completion of that process we will be
able to determine exactly which Northeast Corridor projects would be
funded, and from which sources.
The fiscal year 1998 Grant request does not request general capital
and NECIP funding separately because Amtrak requested a dedicated
source of capital equal to the revenues from \1/2\ cent of the current
gasoline tax (which at the time had been estimated to be $751 million).
Those funds would be available to all organizational units within
Amtrak and invested in the projects with the highest returns.
Question. Will Amtrak obligate all previously appropriated funds
for the North Philadelphia station by September 1, 1997, as directed in
the fiscal year 1997 conference report?
Answer. Amtrak has obligated all previously appropriated funds for
the North Philadelphia station project.
Question. Over half of all Amtrak passengers use NEC services. What
has been the Customer Satisfaction Index for the NEC in fiscal year
1994, fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996?
Answer. Amtrak began measuring customer satisfaction in May 1996
through the use of monthly ridership surveys that measure customer
satisfaction for fourteen characteristics of train service. The NEC
Customer Satisfaction Index has risen from a score of 79 in May 1996 to
the recent score of 85 in the second quarter of this fiscal year. These
customer satisfaction statistics show a consistently improving trend
line since the inception of the program for all NEC product lines.
These increases are attributable in large measure to improved on-time
performance and the NEC's priority focus on quality customer service.
Question. How much in revenues to Northeast Corridor operations
return to Amtrak annually (fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996 and projected
end of 1997)? Do these figures include depreciation?
Answer. The Northeast Corridor Business Unit's first full year of
operation was fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year
1996 the NEC contributed $1.3 million and $56.4 million in budget
surpluses, respectively, to Amtrak's corporate-wide budget results
($12.4 million deficit in fiscal year 1995, $82.2 million deficit in
fiscal year 1996). Amtrak's 1996 Annual report displays each Business
Unit contribution to Amtrak's overall budget result for fiscal year
1995 and fiscal year 1996 (attached). The ``budget result'' is equal to
all revenues and operating grants minus all expenses excluding
depreciation, as reported in Amtrak's monthly and quarterly reports.
The current year-end estimate (as of the end of May 1997) for NEC's
fiscal year 1997 budget surplus is $109 million. This estimate includes
eight months of actual financial results and four months of forecast.
TABLE 1: FISCAL YEARS 1995 AND 1996 OPERATING RESULTS BY MAJOR BUSINESS UNIT
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity NEC West Corporate Total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Fiscal year-- Fiscal year-- Fiscal year-- Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue....................................................... $465.0 $483.8 $828.3 $867.9 $156.5 $184.1 $47.1 $19.0 $1,496.9 $1,554.8
Expenses...................................................... 673.0 738.5 1,044.4 1,018.9 253.0 272.0 334.7 289.0 2,305.1 2,318.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating loss.......................................... -208.0 -254.7 -216.1 -151.0 -96.5 -87.9 -287.6 -270.0 -808.2 -763.6
Federal operating grant....................................... ........... 7.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 392.0 285.0
Other Federal contributions................................... 42.0 62.2 70.5 65.4 16.5 13.3 21.0 15.5 150.0 156.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net operating loss...................................... -166.0 -185.5 -145.6 -85.6 -80.0 -74.6 -266.6 -254.5 -266.2 -322.2
Noncash....................................................... 87.4 80.1 146.9 142.0 18.2 14.7 1.4 3.2 253.9 240.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget result........................................... -78.6 -105.4 1.3 56.4 -61.8 -59.9 -265.2 -251.3 -12.3 -82.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Recently, the FRA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
that would require improved safety in train cars and seats. What
efforts have been devoted to assuring that the NECIP high-speed rail
trainsets meet the letter and spirit of the rail safety rulemaking? Are
safety engineers involved in developing the specifications for the
trainsets?
Answer. Every aspect of existing and proposed rules for passenger
equipment safety were included as performance requirements in the
design and manufacture of the NECIP high-speed rail trainsets. The
design of the trainsets is undergoing an intense safety analysis,
forcing mitigation through design, and is complemented with a System
Safety Plan (Amtrak's comprehensive management tool for implementing
safe operations). Particular emphasis has been placed on passenger
compartments, with an eye to maintaining the safest environments during
all operating conditions. Examples include:
--Trainset structure is designed to manage and dissipate energy
during a collision, creating ``crumple'' zones in non-passenger
areas to keep passenger compartments intact.
--All windows on coaches will also be emergency exits.
--Lighted strips will illuminate aisles in event of power loss.
--Overhead luggage compartments will contain and secure carry-on
items inside compartments, instead of on open shelves.
--Seats will conform to new standards for securement strength.
--On-board systems to monitor and control speed will include the
latest requirements in proposed rulemaking relating to civil
speed enforcement.
In addition, Amtrak is working with the FRA on a Notice of
Particular Applicability to define the requirements of the new Advanced
Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), which will be incorporated into
the new trainsets to enforce civil speed restrictions. This state-of-
the-art system will constitute a fundamental improvement in safety on
the Northeast Corridor and is an essential component of Amtrak's
program to operate at speeds up to 150 mph.
The coordination between Amtrak and the FRA in the design of the
high-speed trainsets has been extraordinary. During development of the
trainset specifications between 1993 and 1996, Amtrak design and safety
engineers met frequently with the FRA to review all safety issues and
develop new safety standards for what will be the fastest trains
operating in the United States. This iterative process resulted in
changes to the specifications for the trainsets in 1994. The FRA has
deemed the new trainsets to be the safest trains ever built.
The joint work on trainset safety spurred by the high-speed
trainset procurement has had benefits for safety in the rest of the
industry--this joint work has served as the basis for many of the
changes the FRA is now seeking in its rulemaking for all passenger
trains.
Question. Please detail how many new jobs will be created in
American cities and communities through the manufacture, testing, and
deployment of the new high-speed trainsets.
Answer. High-speed rail generates many direct and indirect jobs:
--100 suppliers from 23 states are benefiting from the contract for
high-speed trainsets.
--Thousands of design and construction jobs have already been created
by the contracts awarded for infrastructure and electrification
work.
--Amtrak ridership is expected to grow from the current level of 11.1
million passengers per year to 14.7 million passengers annually
due to the implementation of high-speed rail service. These
customers will be delivered to the stations, city centers, and
surrounding communities served by Amtrak and commuter rail,
providing an engine for economic development. This has already
happened on a smaller scale with Metroliner service. The advent
of this transportation alternative has helped spur development
in the New York to Washington D.C. corridor. Leaders in the
political and business community in cities such as
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore have also looked ahead
and understand the potential that high-speed rail service
brings. In Baltimore, the local business community, as well as
the City and State, have joined Amtrak in investing in station
improvements to handle an increasing number of passengers more
quickly, safely, and easily. In Wilmington and in Philadelphia,
local businesses and universities, the cities, states, and
Amtrak are joining in distinct programs to redevelop the
stations and their surrounding neighborhoods. High-speed rail
service opens up enormous opportunities for economic growth to
cities located on the north end of the Corridor that can take
advantage of proximity to major city markets such as New York
and Boston.
--The Coalition of Northeastern Governors has estimated that nearly
5,000 new jobs and $440 million per year will be generated
indirectly in that region by Amtrak's high-speed rail once it
is up and running--businesses and communities enjoying an
improved transportation system will be more productive.
Question. Please update the Committee on the recent offer by
Guilford to purchase the Northeast Corridor.
Answer. The purchase offer was submitted by Guilford to the United
States Secretary of Transportation, Amtrak's majority shareholder. The
Secretary of Transportation is expected to formally respond.
other capital issues
Question. What is the statutory provision regarding cross-
utilization of general capital funds for the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program? How much general capital funding has been
crosswalked to NECIP in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and anticipated for
1997?
Answer. There is no statutory prohibition on Amtrak using general
capital grants for NECIP. But NECIP grant funds may be used only for
NECIP as defined in Pub. L. No. 104-205, 110 Stat. 2961 and 2963
(1996).
For fiscal year 1994, the last year for which appropriations for
Amtrak were authorized, capital was authorized for NECIP and non-NECIP
projects separately in 49 U.S.C. 24104(a). This may be the ``provision
regarding cross-utilization `` which is referenced in the question.
General capital funds spent for track and structure programs on the
Northeast Corridor total $17.2 million in fiscal year 1995; $0 in
fiscal year 1996 and $0 in fiscal year 1997. During fiscal year 1995
and fiscal year 1996, $18.8 million and $17.2 million, respectively,
was used to fund certain debt service principal, facility upgrades and
mandatory environmental projects in the Northeast Corridor. This
brought the total general capital expenditure ``crosswalked'' to NEC-
related projects in fiscal year 1995 to $36 million, and in fiscal year
1996 $17.2 million. In fiscal year 1997, no general capital funds will
be crosswalked from general capital to Northeast Corridor projects.
Question. Please display the total Corporation capital spending
(including funding from all sources, not only federal) by strategic
business unit, for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, and anticipated for
1998.
Answer.
AMTRAK CAPITAL SPENDING FROM ALL SOURCES
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEC SBU.......................... $252.8 $372.2 $596.5
Intercity SBU.................... 43.6 77.2 180.7
West SBU......................... 3.4 25.3 37.4
Corp/Svc......................... 5.4 5.3 15.2
Multiple SBU..................... 28.2 2.5 4.9
Debt Service..................... 50.0 33.3 85.2
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 383.4 515.8 919.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Projects to be funded in fiscal year 1998 have yet to be
determined.
Source: Capital Expenditure Reports
Question. Does Amtrak support the administration's request of
$23,450,000 for Pennsylvania Station redevelopment (the Farley
Building)? If the Corporation were to receive the administration's
requested level of funding for capital expenses ($445,450,000) rather
than the Corporation's requested level of $751,000,000, would Amtrak
still want to earmark $23,450,000 for Pennsylvania Station
redevelopment?
Answer. Amtrak supports the Administration's request of $23,450,000
for the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment, including the redevelopment
of the James A. Farley Post Office Building. If the funds are to be
dedicated exclusively to the Farley portion of the Redevelopment
project, the funds should be made available to the Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Corporation, rather than to Amtrak. If the funds are to
be used for the Pennsylvania Station portion of the Redevelopment
project, they should be made available to Amtrak. It is Amtrak's
preference to receive all capital funding without constraints on
allowable uses, so that Amtrak can define priority allocations within
its capital program. If Amtrak receives less capital funding in fiscal
year 1998 than requested, we will have to amend and prioritize our
capital plan accordingly.
Question. Please prepare a summary of all non-track equipment and
rolling stock assets, property, and other non-railroad assets owned by
the Corporation, including market value, broken out by strategic
business unit and grouped by type of asset. What is the debt secured by
each of these assets?
Answer. The attached table summarizes property accounts gross book
value by type of asset for Amtrak as a whole. To break out this
information by SBU would result in a loss of information, as only a
portion of it is tracked by SBU. In terms of market value, such
information can only be provided by appraisals. Amtrak conducts market
appraisals of its assets on an as-needed basis.
Also attached is a one page table indicating the assets which are
financed, and the amount of debt outstanding as of May 1997.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY07.025
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION EQUIPMENT COLLATERAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outstanding Number of
Project description Equipment cost balance units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encumbered through Financing
Viewliners..................................................... $67,754,183 $67,754,183 50
Superliners.................................................... 263,523,402 259,295,962 112
Do......................................................... 19,643,148 19,643,148 7
Do......................................................... 64,211,589 63,989,961 23
Do......................................................... 37,634,372 37,634,371 13
Do......................................................... 19,552,189 19,436,013 7
Do......................................................... 31,851,793 31,851,792 11
Do......................................................... 63,740,830 63,740,829 22
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 500,157,323 495,592,076 195
================================================
Material handling cars......................................... 22,197,000 20,483,220 70
Locomotives.................................................... 28,600,000 27,935,012 11
Do......................................................... 83,200,000 80,316,410 32
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 111,800,000 108,251,422 43
================================================
Horizon........................................................ 108,150,462 92,669,314 103
GE Dash 8 locomotives.......................................... 31,872,604 29,453,302 18
F40 locomotives................................................ 16,200,000 14,494,622 9
AEM 7.......................................................... 25,776,800 21,225,220 7
Base order GE locomotives...................................... 83,200,000 83,200,000 32
Do......................................................... 52,000,000 52,000,000 20
Do......................................................... 33,800,000 33,800,000 13
Do......................................................... 36,400,000 36,400,000 14
Do......................................................... 49,400,000 49,400,000 19
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 254 800,000 254,800,000 98
================================================
Option order GE locomotives.................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 5
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 13,000,000 13,000,000 5
================================================
10 duel mode locomotives....................................... 34,159,605 33,864,264 10
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 1,185,867,977 1,151,587,622 608
================================================
Uncollaterized Financings
WRSO........................................................... 11,700,000 4,095,000 N/A
Wreck repair................................................... 28,500,000 3,000,000 N/A
CUS garage..................................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 N/A
30th Street--Term loan......................................... 33,100,486 7,505,775 N/A
30th Street--Bonds............................................. 30,000,000 30,000,000 N/A
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 1,309,168,463 1,216,188,397 608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe ongoing or planned commercial development
of Corporation assets that Amtrak believes will net a profit in fiscal
year 1998.
Answer. Amtrak is continuing to pursue numerous Commercial
Development initiatives which create net profits for the corporation.
These initiatives include commercial leasing of space within corporate
owned stations and along the right-of-way, including leases for
telecommunications purposes, parking leases and development,
advertising sales and property sales and development. The net profit
associated with Amtrak Commercial Development projects is estimated to
be at least $33 million dollars in fiscal year 1998.
strategic capital plan
Question. A total of approximately $1,100,000,000 in capital
funding is assumed by Amtrak for fiscal year 1998, $751,000,000 of
which is to be provided by federal appropriations (through a dedicated
trust fund or reserve fund, or directly appropriated funds). Amtrak's
capital plan projects spending $1,440,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, for
a capital net loss of $341,500,000. Does it make sense to deliberately
set out to spend more than the ``best case scenario'' plans to bring
into the capital program?
Answer. Amtrak has identified its investment needs based on the
implementation of high-speed rail and other high return projects which
will help move Amtrak toward operating self-sufficiency. The spending
needs, as projected, approximately equal the revenue generated by the
\1/2\ cent of the existing gasoline tax. However, there are spending
peaks and valleys in those projections which, if ``smoothed,'' could
create delays in completing critical programs. With a secure, dedicated
source of capital funding such as a trust fund with revenues equal to
those generated by \1/2\ cent of the current gasoline tax and with
contract authority, Amtrak anticipates that it would be able to obtain
short-term financing for the shortfall in capital needs in fiscal year
1998. However, without the guarantee of such a stable source of capital
funding, such short-term financing would likely not be possible.
Question. Please describe the current status of efforts to secure a
dedicated trust fund or reserve fund for Amtrak.
Answer. The Amtrak Reserve Fund is included in Section 207 of
H.Con.Res. 84, the concurrent congressional resolution on the budget,
and codified in S. 949, the Senate-passed Revenue Reconciliation Act of
1997. S. 949 also establishes a three and one-half year, $2.323 billion
Intercity Passenger Rail Fund, which is a deficit neutral and fully
offset dedicated source of capital for Amtrak. This fund is subject to
the annual appropriations process and is the key to Amtrak's survival.
state contributions to capital needs
Question. Amtrak plans that a portion of its capital needs are to
be met through state and local financial contributions. For example, in
1995, Amtrak assumed state contributions would double over the years.
To what extent have states increased their contributions since then?
Answer. Amtrak continues to expect a portion of its capital needs
to be met through state and local financial contributions. Since 1995,
the contributions are as follows (including future expectations):
1996.................................................... $89,100,000
1997.................................................... 115,700,000
1998.................................................... 49,300,000
1999.................................................... 33,200,000
2000.................................................... 50,000,000
2001.................................................... 50,300,000
2002.................................................... 50,300,000
While it may appear that future support is diminished, Amtrak has
only included obligations from states and localities which have entered
into agreements with Amtrak. Most state and local support is approved
on a year-by year basis during the fiscal budgeting cycle, and we would
expect the later years to increase accordingly.
Question. Does Amtrak still assume that state contributions will
fully cover the cost of some state routes by fiscal year 1998? If so,
what is the likelihood of this event occurring and what actions is
Amtrak taking to bring this aspect of its plan to fruition?
Answer. In 1995, Amtrak began negotiations to have the relevant
states reimburse Amtrak for fully allocated costs. The original goal
was to have states assume fully allocated costs by fiscal year 1999.
This policy proved unworkable because:
--it rapidly imposed costs for which the states have no dedicated
funds.
--there are significant differences between the state services and
each state's ability to contribute. For example, the Texas rail
service differs greatly from the Pennsylvania service.
--Amtrak historically has not had a ``one size fits all'' agreement
with our states.
Therefore, in late 1996, Amtrak developed an individually
negotiated approach with each (former 403B states, and now Texas as a
new contract service state). This allows for each state to develop a
contract with its Strategic Business Unit that includes pricing for
train operations, shared overhead expenses, state specific services
(i.e. The Vermonter) and equipment lease costs. Beyond these changes,
there are other negotiable items such as long term capital
contributions, contract term incentives and specific performance
guarantees (such as the recent agreement with Illinois).
Amtrak's business plan through 2002, forecasts growth in state
revenues (403B) from $32.6 million in fiscal year 1994 up to $73.6
million in 2002. Increased ``flexible funding'' in NEXTEA will be the
mechanism which will enable states to cover a greater portion of the
costs for rail services delivered by Amtrak.
revenue and debt
Question. Please display the Corporation's total revenues by fiscal
year for 1996, 1997, and requested for 1998, breaking out revenue in
four subdivisions: (1) internally generated or prior existing funds;
(2) federal appropriations further broken down by operating and
capital; (3) state and local funds; and (4) external financing.
Answer.
REVENUES, APPROPRIATIONS, AND FINANCINGS
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1997 Requested
1996 forecast 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Prior existing funds \1\...... N/A N/A N/A
2. Revenues...................... 1,490.6 1,540.8 ...........
3. Federal appropriations:
Operating + excess RRTA...... 405.0 364.5 ...........
Capital...................... 345.0 398.0 ...........
One-time grant............... ........... 80.0 ...........
4. State and local funds......... 66.1 69.0 ...........
5. External financing............ 188.5 213.3 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amtrak does not have existing revenue that carries over from year to
year.
The fiscal year 1998 budget is a work in progress and there are no
statistics for 1998.
Question. Please display the Corporation's total end-of-year debt
load for the past ten fiscal years (1988-1997 projected), broken out by
year.
Answer.
Debt obligation Balance
1988 actual............................................. $35,900,000
1989 actual............................................. 126,500,000
1990 actual............................................. 183,800,000
1991 actual............................................. 287,900,000
1992 actual............................................. 418,800,000
1993 actual............................................. 492,300,000
1994 actual............................................. 770,300,000
1995 actual............................................. 836,900,000
1996 actual............................................. 986,900,000
1997 projected \1\...................................... 1,216,200,000
\1\ Fiscal year 1997 projection as of May 1997.
Question. Amtrak's debt level has significantly increased,
correspondingly increasing interest payments. For example, over the
last four years interest payments have tripled from about $20.6 million
in fiscal year 1993 to about $60.2 million in fiscal year 1996. As
Amtrak assumes more debt to acquire more equipment, what portion of the
federal operating subsidy will be used for interest payments over the
next five years?
Answer. Amtrak's current outyear projection as of July 3, 1997 for
interest expense, based on all known financings, are as follows: Fiscal
year 1998, $98,200,000; fiscal year 1999, $94,200,000; Fiscal year
2000, $114,400,000; Fiscal year 2001, $137,200,000; fiscal year 2002,
$133,000,000; and fiscal year 2003, $127,900,000. However, how much of
that will be funded by federal operating subsidy has yet to be
determined. It clearly will not be the entire amount.
Question. How much current movement of freight railroads occurs
over Amtrak-owned trackage? Please specifically detail where this
occurs, which railroads utilize Amtrak's trackage, and what
arrangements exist for recompense. How much revenue was generated by
these arrangements in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and projected for 1997?
Answer. The current movement of freight railroads that occurs over
Amtrak-owned trackage is approximately 22 million car miles per annum.
The locations where freight railroads utilize Amtrak's trackage is
as follows:
--Northeast Corridor: Conrail; St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway
(Delaware & Hudson Railway Company \1\); Springfield Terminal;
Providence & Worcester; and Connecticut Southern Railroad.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Service ended March 31, 1997.
\2\ Service commenced September 23, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Chicago (South Joint Tracks): Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Company; Illinois Central Railroad Company; and Consolidated
Rail Corporation.
--Indiana and Michigan--Porter, Indiana, to Kalamazoo, Michigan:
Consolidated Rail Corporation.
The arrangements that exist for recompensation are the various
operating agreements between Amtrak and the freight railroads that
specify rates per car mile. Those rates range from $0.33 cents per car
mile in Michigan to $0.90 cents per car mile on the Northeast Corridor.
Revenue generated by these arrangements in fiscal years 1995, 1996
and projected for 1997 is as follows: Fiscal year 1995, $18,717,762;
fiscal year 1996, $19,083,744; and fiscal year 1997 projected,
$15,146,558.
Over the past ten years, thanks in large part to Senator
Lautenberg's leadership with respect to rail safety, including his
sponsorship of amendments to the Rail Safety Act of 1988, we have
implemented many critical railroad operating safety measures across the
Amtrak system and on the Northeast Corridor. These include:
--Speed control for Amtrak, commuter, and freight trains on the NEC.
--Random drug and alcohol testing for hours of service employees.
--Improvements to engineer certification and recertification
processes.
--Improved audit and enforcement procedures.
Thanks to these efforts, Amtrak is prepared to safely support
limited, selective, and compatible competitive freight access to ports
along the Northeast Corridor that might flow from merger decisions.
The Northeast Corridor could play a role to help facilitate access
to ports along the eastern seaboard, spur economic competitiveness and
development in this region, and generate new commercial revenue in the
context of declining federal operating support for Amtrak. However,
Amtrak stresses that increased access would only be considered within
the context of absolute and overriding protocols relating to operating
safety. We are inflexible on this. This includes the measures listed
above as well as assessment of the locations and time slots in the
Northeast which may offer these opportunities--generally, those
locations and periods of time that are lightly-used by passenger rail
services.
Other than the primary concern of safety, two other concerns would
also weigh heavily in our consideration of incremental freight access.
One, on time performance for Amtrak and commuter trains on the
Northeast Corridor will not be jeopardized. Two, any additional burden
placed on Amtrak's infrastructure (tracks, bridges, etc.) by increased
traffic or increased axle loads will be carefully established to ensure
full compensation for wear and tear as well as useful life impacts.
Question. What commuter railroads currently operate over Amtrak-
owned trackage? Please specifically detail where this occurs, which
commuter railroads utilize Amtrak's trackage, and what arrangements
exist for recompense. How much revenue was generated by these
arrangements in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and projected for 1997?
Answer.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Commuter agency ------------------------------------------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBTA,\1\ MA.............................................. $7.0 $7.4 $7.2 $14.7 $7.3
NJ Transit, NJ........................................... 25.4 26.7 28.9 28.3 25.5
SEPTA, PA................................................ 16.9 16.7 17.5 18.1 18.7
LIRR, NY................................................. 3.1 3.5 3.4 2.4 2.1
NIRC-CUS, IL............................................. 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.4 7.9
Other.................................................... ......... 0.1 ......... 0.1 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Total revenue...................................... 57.8 60.4 63.5 71.0 61.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1995 includes a $7.5 million retro-active settlement covering fiscal year 1988 thru fiscal year
1995.
The fiscal year 1997 revenues are still being developed.
ELECTRIC PROPULSION
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Commuter agency ------------------------------------------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ Transit............................................... $13.2 $13.6 $13.0 $12.0 $11.2
SEPTA.................................................... 7.8 7.8 7.7 6.9 10.6
Maryland DOT \1\......................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------
Total revenue...................................... 21.0 21.4 20.7 18.9 21.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maryland DOT Propulsion costs are in Contract Operations.
The Northeast Corridor is a critical and valued part of the
region's transportation infrastructure. Over 1,200 commuter, freight
and Amtrak trains daily use the corridor. Commuter railroad recompense
is governed by principles laid down in federal statute and regulatory
decisions.
More so than operating fees, investments in the extensive capital
plant of the Northeast Corridor are critical to the survival of Amtrak
and commuter railroads. Amtrak has aggressively pursued joint
investment partnerships with commuter authorities to encourage
increased investment in the capital asset of the Northeast Corridor.
One example of the joint capital investment partnerships which
Amtrak is using as a model is the Amtrak and NJ Transit agreement which
commits both parties to invest $25 million each for the next five
years. This will give NJ Transit a direct voice in the decision making
process for capital investments, guarantees investments from Amtrak for
the benefit of New Jersey, and permits both entities a better ability
to engage in long-term planning for the infrastructure needs of New
Jersey. Similar capital partnership agreements have been developed in
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware, New York and
Pennsylvania.
Question. Amtrak has many ongoing strategies to decrease costs and/
or generate additional revenue. For each of the following strategies,
please estimate the annual savings or additional revenue for fiscal
years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Answer. The following table represents a preliminary estimate of
the impact from revenue enhancements or cost reduction efforts based on
the following Business Plan Actions for fiscal years 1998-2000. These
estimates are from Amtrak's fiscal year 1998-2000 Business Plan which
is currently being updated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Business plan action -----------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-speed rail..................... .......... (7.3) 93.1
Self service ticketing (NEC, West).. 1.8 1.8 1.8
Procurement......................... 7.7 8.3 8.9
Route and service changes........... 21.6 19.7 19.7
Real estate sales and leases........ 2.8 2.8 2.8
Insourcing and consulting (NEC)..... 1.0 1.5 2.0
Reduction in operating costs due to
capital investment................. ( \1\ ) .......... ..........
Power wheeling (NEC)................ 15.6 34.5 36.5
Food and beverage initiative (NEC).. (3.0) 5.6 5.6
Telecommunications (NEC)............ 2.0 1.0 1.0
Station development................. N/A N/A N/A
Training (NEC, intercity)........... (4.0) (2.0) (4.0)
Commuter--Total revenue............. 249.5 249. 9 250.3
State supported trains.............. 77.6 78.7 79.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 projects under review.
operating expenses--funding issues
Question. Please display the annual federal operating grant and
mandatory passenger rail service payments for fiscal years 1988 through
1997.
Answer.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Fiscal year operating Excess RRTA
grant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988.......................................... $580.8 ( \1\ )
1989.......................................... 584.0 ( \1\ )
1990.......................................... 520.1 ( \1\ )
1991.......................................... 342.1 $144.8
1992.......................................... 330.0 150.2
1993.......................................... 350.0 147.0
1994.......................................... 351.7 150.0
1995.......................................... 392.0 150.0
1996.......................................... 285.0 120.0
1997.......................................... 222.5 142.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included in Block Grant.
Question. What is the historical per passenger subsidy for non-
commuter passengers per year by fiscal year since Amtrak's creation?
Answer. The historical per passenger (trip) subsidy for non-
commuter passengers is shown below since 1971. Federal operating grants
decreased from $587 in fiscal year 1986 to $285 in fiscal year 1996, a
51.4 percent decline. The subsidy per passenger decreased from $28.92
per passenger in fiscal year 1986 to $14.47 per passenger in fiscal
year 1996, representing a 49.8 percent decline, or a nearly 50 percent
improvement in efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
operating Noncommuter Subsidy per
grant ridership passenger
(millions) (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar years 1971/72........... $40 27.2 $1.47
Fiscal year:
1974......................... 147 18.4 7.97
1975......................... 277 17.3 15.98
1976......................... 462 17.8 25.96
1977......................... 483 19.2 25.14
1978......................... 536 18.9 28.36
1979......................... 600 21.4 28.04
1980......................... 650 21.2 30.68
1981......................... 720 20.6 34.96
1982......................... \1\ 735 19.0 38.68
1983......................... \1\ 670 19.0 35.26
1984......................... \1\ 716 19.9 36.00
1985......................... \1\ 680 20.8 32.69
1986......................... 587 20.3 28.92
1987......................... 579 20.4 28.38
1988......................... 532 21.5 24.74
1989......................... 554 21.4 25.89
1990......................... 520 22.2 23.42
1991......................... 343 22.0 15.59
1992......................... 331 21.3 15.54
1993......................... 351 22.1 15.88
1994......................... 352 21.2 16.60
1995......................... 392 20.7 18.94
1996......................... 285 19.7 14.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Received as Block Grant rather than Operating Grant.
Question. Please prepare a table showing Amtrak's cost to operate
each strategic business unit, for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
requested for 1998.
Answer.
1996
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses Intercity NEC West Corp/Svc Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries................................................. $16.4 $42.1 $12.4 $43.7 $114.6
Wages and overtime....................................... 224.1 375.1 86.6 56.9 742.7
Employee benefits........................................ 102.5 176.4 41.7 33.4 354.0
Employee related......................................... 5.9 8.0 2.4 8.7 25.0
Facility and office related.............................. 46.7 62.4 15.2 57.0 181.3
Train operations......................................... 126.5 131.8 62.4 -0.1 320.6
M of W Good and Svs...................................... 4.2 51.4 3.7 0.1 59.4
Advertising and sales.................................... 53.5 23.7 10.8 20.5 108.5
Financial................................................ 78.1 36.1 18.3 16.5 149.0
Depreciation............................................. 80.1 142.0 14.7 1.2 238.0
Other.................................................... 0.5 -30.1 3.9 51.1 25.4
------------------------------------------------------
Total expenses..................................... 738.5 1,018.9 272.1 289.0 2,318.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 FORECAST
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses Intercity NEC West Corp/Svc Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries................................................. $18.2 $44.5 $12.7 $47.5 $122.9
Wages and overtime....................................... 229.7 378.4 88.3 59.6 756.1
Employee benefits........................................ 104.4 178.0 42.2 50.1 374.6
Employee related......................................... 7.3 9.6 2.6 9.6 29.2
Facility and office related.............................. 47.3 72.2 13.1 57.4 189.9
Train operations......................................... 153.1 143.6 66.3 -0.1 362.9
M of W Good and Svs...................................... 3.6 41.9 2.4 ......... 47.9
Advertising and sales.................................... 47.1 30.0 6.6 15.2 98.8
Financial................................................ 97.0 41.7 23.7 1.4 163.9
Depreciation............................................. 99.7 143.7 16.1 1.5 261.0
Other.................................................... 0.4 -24.1 4.6 65.1 46.0
------------------------------------------------------
Total expenses..................................... 807.9 1,059.5 278.5 307.3 2,453.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1997 based on the eight months of actuals and four months of forecast.
Fiscal year 1998 business plan development is currently in progress.
Question. What is the current set cost which Amtrak must pay
freight railroads to operate passenger rail over freight-owned
trackage? How much of Amtrak's operating expenses went for this
recompense in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996? How much is estimated
for fiscal year 1997?
Answer. The current expense which Amtrak must pay freight railroads
to operate passenger rail over freight-owned trackage is the costing
methodology employed under U.S.C. Title 49, Section 24308(a), the Rail
Passenger Service Act.
The amount (and percentage) of Amtrak's operating expenses paid to
the freight railroads to operate passenger rail over freight-owned
trackage in fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996, and estimated for fiscal
year 1997, is as follows: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Defined as total expenses as reported in Amtrak's applicable
annual report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994......................................... $89,728,000 3.7
1995......................................... 86,373,000 3.7
1996......................................... 84,246,000 3.6
1997 projected............................... 88,946,000 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Administration and the Congress have instructed
Amtrak to be free from federal operating assistance by 2002. Although
Amtrak has improved its bottom line by more than $300,000,000 over the
last two years, significant improvements are necessary in the remaining
years to meet the goal of operating self-sufficiency. Currently, Amtrak
is significantly behind schedule in its plan to eliminate operating
subsidies. In this regard, Amtrak's operating losses were $764,000,000
for fiscal year 1996, $125,000,000 more than planned for its business
plan. How does Amtrak plan to get back on track and achieve all of its
planned savings by 2002? What actions require legislative changes?
Answer. As noted in the question, Amtrak has improved its bottom
line by over $300,000,000 on an annualized basis over the last two
years. Yes, significant improvements are necessary in the remaining
years if we are to meet the 2002 goal of operating independence.
However, it should be noted that Amtrak has achieved this much of the
plan without the three elements we have said were absolutely essential
from the beginning: a secure and reliable source of dedicated capital;
a declining level of operating support consistent with our business
plan, and legislative relief from some of our statutory mandates. None
of these things have occurred, yet we met and exceeded our target in
the first year of our business plan. In the second year, despite having
our operating needs underfunded by more than $125 million over the same
two year period, we missed our plan target but more importantly,
avoided losing any of the ground gained in fiscal year 1995. Should we
in fact receive the dedicated source of capital we have sought, and an
adequate amount of operating support as proposed in our Strategic
Business Plan and included in the Congressional Budget Resolution, we
do believe we can achieve independence from federal operating support
by 2002.
Question. For over 25 years Amtrak has operated passenger rail
service. With the exception of Metroliner service in fiscal year 1996,
none of Amtrak's routes has made a profit or broken even, when all cost
are allocated. What is the likelihood, given Amtrak's history, that the
railroad can operate without federal operating funds?
Answer. As stated in the fiscal year 1997-2002 Strategic Business
Plan as well as in the fiscal year 1998 Federal Grant Request, Amtrak's
ability to operate without federal operating support is dependent on
several key assumptions in order to meet that target by 2002. The
implementation and operation of high-speed rail in 2000 will contribute
$150-200 million, net of expense, to the corporation. Non-core business
will contribute $50 million in fiscal year 1997, escalating to $80
million in the year 2002. Other key assumptions are the continued
funding of excess mandatory RRTA payments at $142 million per year and
a gradual reduction in federal operating support consistent with our
request. Not included in the plan are initiatives such as significantly
expanded mail and express. These will be included in the revised fiscal
years 1998-2003 Strategic Business Plan. As we have consistently said,
if we are provided with a secure and reliable source of capital, and
the necessary legislative relief and declining levels of operating
support, we will achieve the goal of operating self-sufficiency. Our
Strategic Business Plan shows exactly how that will be achieved.
Question. Please provide the Committee a copy of the Working Group
on Intercity Passenger Rail recommendations, released on June 23, 1997.
Answer. ``A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail'' is attached.
A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail
introduction
For millions of Americans, passenger trains signify more than just
a means of transportation; they serve as potent symbols of our nation's
heritage, environmental consciousness and collective hopes for a humane
future. Many passionately argue that the United States has the capacity
and indeed, the obligation, to create a world-class national passenger
rail system to endorse these values and to arrest the growing
unintended side-effects of automobiles and airplanes in our cities and
countryside.
A more tangible and immediate argument for rail service can be
weighed in straight financial terms. The United States is a diverse and
increasingly mobile nation with a growing (as well as graying)
population and an aging transportation infrastructure. It needs a well-
integrated national transportation policy that offers a range of modal
choices in order to maximize mobility and to minimize transportation
costs, infrastructure funding requirements and environmental damage in
a variety of settings.
Under the right conditions, passenger rail service can provide an
attractive, financially sustainable transportation alternative that
enhances efficiency of other modes (including cars, trucks, buses,
airplanes and freight rail). Unfortunately, the conditions under which
Amtrak currently operates do not allow for Amtrak to function as a true
and equal alternative to other modes of transportation.
Amtrak is now awash in red ink, buffeted by conflicting missions
and ballooning debt, and virtually starved for capital in both
political and financial terms. Not surprisingly, revenues, ridership
and service have ebbed despite valiant efforts by both management and
labor to reverse these trends. Neither the Congress nor the
Administration seems eager to increase or even continue Amtrak's
subsidy, though each institution still exerts sizable control over its
organization, operations and route structure. This control is often at
odds with Amtrak's ability to operate efficiently and to maximize the
value of its assets. Meanwhile, competing modes of transportation fight
ruthlessly for every uncommitted traveler in Amtrak's shrinking market
share.
Together these conditions create an untenable outlook for passenger
rail in the United States. In the short range (the next 6 to 12
months), Amtrak faces a major liquidity crisis and probable bankruptcy.
Unless the Congress moves swiftly to reconfirm the value of passenger
rail service and dramatically restructure the way in which it is
organized and operated, the substantial asset base of the existing
system will permanently disappear by default, along with many vital
long-range prospects for service.
A good measure of political and financial capital will be needed to
avert this course; naturally, both elements are in short supply.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government can claim a long and impressive
tradition of large-scale problem solving, as in the creation of the
interstate highway system and the notable improvement of the nation's
air and water quality.
Genuine renewal of national passenger rail service will not be
resolved by political rhetoric nor by periodic last-minute infusions of
cash; rather, it requires that the Congress take a long, hard step back
from the status quo in order to plot a viable, market-driven course for
the future. The immediate pain and risks to existing rail service and
jobs that may accompany this overhaul must be gauged carefully against
the larger and longer-range havoc that assuredly would follow the
further decline and liquidation of Amtrak.
More importantly, if passenger rail is to become a serious part of
the nation's mobility strategy in the future--rather than a mere
incantation of the past--it must operate in a profoundly more growth-
and customer-oriented fashion. It must have the management tools, the
flexibility, the incentives and the discipline posed by competition to
vie with other modes of transportation on a level playing field.
context
Fiscal
Amtrak has been in financial difficulty for most of its 26-year
existence. In recent years, its financial condition has deteriorated to
the point that Amtrak believes it may exhaust all sources of cash
within the next 12 months. To reduce its continually growing losses and
widening gap between operating deficits and federal subsidies, Amtrak
developed its Strategic Business Plan. Although Amtrak has made some
progress in implementing its business plan and cutting its losses, its
financial condition is still very precarious. Amtrak's financial
measures continue to deteriorate. Financial targets have been missed,
and substantial capital investment is needed.
Amtrak has lost over $700 million in each of the last 9 years.
Amtrak has been relying on passenger revenues to help close the gap
between revenues and expenses, but passenger revenues, when adjusted
for inflation, have declined over the past several years. Half way
through the current fiscal year, Amtrak began borrowing against its
short-term line of credit to meet basic operating expenses, such as
payroll. From 1993 to 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease obligations
nearly doubled--from about $500 million to almost $1 billion dollars.
Amtrak expects to incur another $1 billion in debt within the next 2
years to finance 18 train sets and related maintenance facilities for
the Northeast Corridor and the acquisition of new locomotives. To
service this increased debt, Amtrak must use a substantial portion of
its federal operating subsidies that would otherwise be used to cover
future operating deficits. Over the past 4 years, Amtrak's interest
expenses have tripled from about $20 million to about $60 million.
The costs of an Amtrak bankruptcy cannot be underestimated. These
include financial, social, and political. Every constituency would
lose: state, local, and federal government, employees, customers,
suppliers, taxpayers. The true cost of a bankruptcy would be billions
of dollars. The resolution of such a bankruptcy is far from certain, as
control of the process would be taken out of the hands of the
government.
Support
After investing over $19 billion in Amtrak since 1971, Congress is
losing patience with Amtrak's continued dependence on federal
subsidies. Congress has promised to provide legislative reforms (labor,
liability) and continued capital support in return for Amtrak's pledge
to eliminate its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. Amtrak
has asked for a dedicated funding source for its capital needs, and
there have been several bills introduced to accomplish this, but the
outcome is uncertain.
While the Administration has stated its commitment to Amtrak's
future, it has proposed a level of funding below Amtrak's stated needs
to be provided from the Highway Trust Fund in its NEXTEA legislative
proposal. The Administration's proposal would force Amtrak to compete
with other surface transportation programs for the limited funding
allowed by the budget from the Trust Fund. The Administration also
supports the elimination of all federal operating subsidies for Amtrak
by 2002. The current Congressional budget resolution makes additional
resources for a possible inter-city rail trust fund contingent upon
enactment of reform legislation.
The public's support for Amtrak is segmented among the geographic
areas of the country. Its greatest support is in the Northeast, where
Amtrak serves a substantial portion of the business travel between New
York and Washington. In contrast, Amtrak's routes in other parts of the
country are sparsely traveled. Amtrak's support among select user
groups (retirees, leisure travelers), is higher than its support from
the general population. Yet Amtrak's load factor (the percentage of
seats filled) for fiscal year 1996 was 43.3 per cent on a system-wide
basis, and ranged from 37.4 per cent to 47.3 per cent among its
strategic business units. By comparison, a load factor around 60 per
cent is generally considered the break-even point for airlines.
Access to freight railroads' facilities
Currently, Amtrak operates over the freight railroads' right-of-way
for all routes except the Northeast Corridor, which Amtrak owns, and
small route segments in New York State, Pennsylvania, and Michigan,
also owned by Amtrak. Amtrak owned rights-of-way comprise less than 5
per cent of the company's current route system. Amtrak's access rights,
in combination with its own right-of-way, form the nation's current
intercity rail system, and therefore, these rights must be viewed as
one of the most valuable of all of Amtrak's assets.
The freight railroads view the terms and conditions that govern
Amtrak's access as entirely to their detriment, while Amtrak views its
access rights as part of its compensation for having relieved the
freight railroads of the obligation to provide passenger rail service.
These viewpoints represent polar extremes and there needs to be
satisfactory balance between the two positions.
There are three elements to the freight railroad/Amtrak
relationship:
--Access--Amtrak has compulsory access to the freight railroads'
right-of-way by virtue of a federal statute. In addition, by
federal law, Amtrak must be given priority dispatching over
freight trains.
--Compensation--Amtrak's payments to the freight railroads for its
use of their right-of-way is specified by formula in federal
statute according to incremental costs. The freight railroads
claim that this formula forces them to subsidize Amtrak
service.
--Liability--Current law and judicial interpretation of access
agreements gives the freight railroads no protection against
unlimited tort liability that comes with the presence of
passenger trains on their tracks.
An additional element that exacerbates the freight/Amtrak
relationship is the recent increase in freight traffic, which makes
each train movement more valuable as capacity becomes constrained. The
freight railroads claim that the incremental cost formula, in addition
to not adequately covering the costs that Amtrak itself imposes, does
not even address the opportunity cost of reduced freight movements due
to Amtrak's presence. The freight railroads are very sensitive to new
lines of business that Amtrak has proposed to undertake, such as
hauling increased mail and express freight commodities that may
encroach on their own business.
The Amtrak/freight relationship can be contrasted with the current
system by which commuter authorities obtain access to freight railroad
rights-of-way. Commuter railroads negotiate with the freight railroads
at arms' length on a case-by-case basis with no federal statute
compelling mandatory access. Compensation levels are established by
mutual agreement. And in most cases, state law limits tort liability
that can arise from a commuter rail accident.
A major task in designing a new format for intercity passenger rail
will be to determine at what point in between the two options, i.e.,
the current Amtrak/freight relationship, and the freight/commuter
relationship, a balance can be achieved that is fair and adequately
provides for continued access by Amtrak and other potential intercity
passenger rail operators.
Services and values
A renewed National Passenger Rail System (as one or more entities)
should do two important things (in order of priority):
(1) Provide safe, reliable, comfortable convenient and financially-
sound passenger rail service in all densely populated corridors of the
United States that show declining air quality and presently or
potentially intractable traffic congestion problems; and
(2) Encourage public/private development of attractive overnight
passenger rail service, on a periodic basis throughout regions of the
nation with significant cultural, historical and scenic character
(e.g., a kind of ``rolling national park'') or where such service is
justified on an economic basis.
The working group believes that a renewed passenger rail system
should provide the maximum benefit to its customers and achieve
operational excellence and efficiency. In addition, the system should
be subjected to market discipline and financial accountability.
Environmental protection and improvement, as well as national historic
and cultural preservation should also be goals of a new passenger rail
system.
restructuring proposal
The working group believes that Intercity Passenger Rail is a major
United States asset which is, for specific roles, superior to or
complementary to competing modes. It should be supported and expanded.
This, however, requires a commitment to broadened, secure investment in
the basic infrastructure to permit competitive speeds and reliable
operation in the major corridors of the country.
This infrastructure investment for passenger rail should properly
be the responsibility of the Federal Government, as it is for the
highways, ports, airports, and traffic control systems of the other
modes. However, Amtrak is an anomaly. Competing modes do not own their
infrastructure. Bus lines and autos use public highways, airlines use
public airports, cruise ships use public waterway improvements. Thus,
competing modes infrastructure needs are funded through long-
established entities, e.g. FAA, FTA, the Corps of Engineers, etc. No
such vehicle exists for the funding of passenger rail infrastructure.
The working group recognizes that currently all major publicly owned
rail infrastructure is in the Northeast Corridor, but it believes that
there can be efficient use of Federal capital in rail for short and
medium distance trips in several areas of the country.
While the working group believes that the costs of infrastructure
investment and maintenance are properly the province of the Federal
Government, it also believes that the operating costs of intercity rail
travel should be met by its beneficiaries, particularly users and state
and local governments and authorities. Again, this generally parallels
competitive modes who are generally responsible for their operating
costs. The working group also notes that typically several operators
compete by using common public ports, highways, and airports, and this
principle should be applicable to rail. Thus, opportunities for
possible access by competitive operators in intercity passenger rail
should be enhanced.
The working group believes that the separation of infrastructure
ownership and management from passenger transportation responsibility
is fundamental, and that it should be reflected in a basic division of
governance. The separation of the infrastructure function from the
passenger transportation function serves several purposes:
--It provides a clear demarcation between the ultimate federal
infrastructure capital responsibility and the operating
responsibility funded by beneficiaries. Accountability will
therefore be made much clearer.
--It provides a mechanism whereby the merits of funding new rail
corridor development can be assessed separately from criticism
of the performance of the operator.
--It provides a mechanism to introduce new operators competitive to
or comparative to Amtrak.
--It will enable Amtrak to focus its efforts on its principal day-to-
day responsibility--providing and developing superior,
efficient service to its users, not seeking support for its
infrastructure capital program.
Amtrak's current responsibility for infrastructure planning,
construction, and maintenance should therefore be separated from the
responsibility of operating passenger service. Thus, a new federally
owned corporation with its own governance would take responsibility for
managing the track, signals, and other fixed infrastructure of the
Northeast Corridor, along with capital investment in those new
corridors that are envisioned for the future, while Amtrak would
continue its passenger services operating role.
Initially Amtrak would be the only operator of intercity passenger
transportation, but to encourage innovation and to match service to
local interests, it would further decentralize by adding strategic
business units in the Midwest and elsewhere. The working group also
believes that the potential of intercity passenger rail will be
improved if subject to competition from other modes and from other
actual or potential providers of intercity passenger rail service and
furthermore from a new focus on passenger service provision, as
distinct from infrastructure management. Thus, eventually, provision
would be made for other operators to compete with Amtrak on particular
routes or in particular regions.
Establishing this newly structured passenger rail service
environment will not be an instantaneous process, and therefore
attention will need to be paid during the transitional period to
ensuring a reasonable balance of benefits among various stakeholders in
rail passenger service and among various regions of the country.
Legislation to implement this proposal would provide that the
infrastructure currently owned by Amtrak would be transferred to the
new infrastructure management entity.
The new infrastructure management entity would:
--Determine infrastructure capital needs
--Request and expend Federal funding for passenger rail
infrastructure
--Oversee rail operations on and manage its infrastructure
--Establish standards for selection of passenger rail operators.
In the long run, after standards for new passenger service
operators are established, the infrastructure entity would establish
competitive procedures for selecting passenger service operators and
conduct competitions for the right to provide service. These procedures
would provide for reasonable protection for employees adversely
affected by the competition. We want to emphasize, however, that a
properly structured reform of inter-city rail passenger service and the
related infrastructure responsibilities offers real potential for
stable, secure employment. The proposal is assumed to increase
passenger rail jobs with the expansion of rail service in appropriate
markets. Most of Amtrak's employees would continue to work under
existing labor contracts. Some Amtrak employees, who currently work on
infrastructure maintenance, would work for the new infrastructure
entity, Amrail.
funding
The working group assumes that there are essentially three
alternatives: (1) no funding; (2) funding (with some minimal level of
conditionality attached); and (3) bridge, or conditional funding.
Clearly variations are possible, but all would include principal
elements of one of these three alternatives.
The group has also assumed that the national passenger rail service
contemplated is one where infrastructure management and development and
passenger transportation services are non-overlapping and divided into
two different operating entities.
The working group is also of the belief that fixed infrastructure
capital funding and operating funding requirements must be viewed as
distinct from one another. Additionally, both types of funding need to
be more directed toward existing and potential routes with the greatest
demand and market potential, which are primarily the higher density
inter-city corridors.
Fixed infrastructure capital funding amounts required would be
determined by the new infrastructure manager and developer. The new
entity would in turn request and expend federal funding for passenger
rail infrastructure. Over the short term, the amount of such funding
needs to be absolutely no less than called for in the Amtrak strategic
plan. Longer term, these amounts must be increased significantly and
placed in a more secure manner.
Operating funding requirements arise at the transportation service
provider level, and in the group's view should be minimized through
strict oversight and market discipline. Start-up operating funding
requirements should be factored into the initial years of the
operation, possibly for 5 years.
The group has identified two types of funding requirements: short
term, or bridge funding, and longer term funding. These are discussed
further below.
Alternative 1: No Funding (``Bankruptcy'')
Based on statements made by both Amtrak senior management as well
as several government transportation officials in the past six months,
it appears irrefutable that (i) Amtrak is not financially self-
sustainable, and; (ii) Amtrak has borrowings and other financial
payment obligations that place it in real danger of bankruptcy if these
obligations are not met.
The costs of an Amtrak bankruptcy cannot be underestimated. These
include financial, social, and political. Every constituency would
lose: state, local and federal government, employees, customers,
suppliers, taxpayers. The true cost of a bankruptcy would cost billions
of dollars. The resolution of such a bankruptcy is far from certain, as
control of the process would be taken out of the hands of the
government.
Although frequently used as a tool to precipitate wholesale
corporate reorganization, bankruptcy for Amtrak would most likely ensue
in chaos. This outcome should be seen as most undesirable.
Alternative 2: Funding (assumes encouragement of existing management to
get on with their plan)
Amtrak has cost U.S. taxpayers almost $1 billion per year since its
inception twenty six years ago. Funding has been irregular, and its
operating plan impaired, resulting in yearly underfunding by Congress,
and declining levels of corporate performance including bigger
operating losses, fewer passengers, fewer routes, and poorer service.
Monies marked for capital improvements have been spent on covering debt
service, resulting in a chronic underinvestment for the future.
Many reforms were launched by the company in the 1993-94 period,
aiming at reversing this decline. Broadly speaking, these have not paid
off. Today, Amtrak finds itself once again cap in hand asking for money
that it claims will support the achievement of a self-sufficiency plan
that is generally acknowledged by many outside Amtrak as wholly
unrealistic. Specifically, many if not most of the tenets of this plan
(on which the funding request is predicated), include sources of
revenue which are unproven on a broad scale (e.g. high speed trains,
express delivery, freight carriage). Management is fighting with, or
staving off, creditors, freight carriers, Congress, and labor, to name
a few. Credibility is beyond repair without a real fresh start.
The Clinton Administration, and many within Congress, have put
proposals forward to fund a portion of Amtrak's needs, but none would
come close to solving Amtrak's problems. By Amtrak's own admission,
this approach will merely postpone a true crisis. A true crisis would
be akin to bankruptcy, with many of the attendant costs. In fact,
Amtrak management has gone on the record stating that even if all of
its request for funds was met, Amtrak would still be in an extremely
precarious position.
It would seem logical to conclude from this that simply funding
Amtrak when it is running with a poorly articulated plan and little
hope of success would seem to be irrational, a true waste of taxpayers'
money and in fact only serve to defer and potentially exacerbate the
problems.
Alternative 3: Conditional Funding
The notion of conditional funding incorporates two concepts.
Firstly, that bankruptcy must be avoided (i.e., funding must be made
available) and secondly that such funding as is granted must be done
within the context of the implementation of one or a set of mechanisms/
reforms designed to improve the performance of Amtrak for its owner,
users, and employees.
Such funding naturally breaks down in two parts: (i) short term
funding to avert the immediate crisis and allow the reforms to be
implemented; and (ii) longer term funding that allows for the
flourishing of the model that is implemented. It is our belief that
alternative sources of funding will become accessible as a direct
result of a credible reform process being implemented. Some of these
are discussed further below.
How much money, for how long and from where?
Under (i) above, short term funding should be provided in an amount
that lies between the current funding request of Amtrak and the
Administration's proposal. This funding should be made to be as short
term as possible to encourage urgency in implementing reform. A term of
12 to 18 months is seen as realistic. In other words, fund Amtrak
exactly as much as it needs to avoid bankruptcy during the
implementation of reforms over a specific and defined time period. This
funding must be sourced from the readiest sources of cash, i.e., the
normal Amtrak appropriation.
Regarding (ii) above, the amount required on a regular basis will
depend on the plan adopted. Sources will vary depending on the use of
funds, but the implementation of various reforms will certainly impact
the funding sources available, as discussed further below. This funding
should be regular and predictable, for greatest ease for both the
recipient as well as the donor. It should be subject to periodic
review, or certain performance or other events should trigger such a
review.
In light of current budgetary constraints, and yet the clear need
to provide a regular, predictable, and stable infusion of capital
investment in inter-city passenger rail infrastructure, Congress should
consider creative and innovative procedures for infrastructure
assistance. Merely renewing calls for ``dedicated'' funding sources
without exploring new and more adaptable funding mechanisms is unlikely
to produce constructive results. In the past, many such proposals for
``dedicated'' funding have foundered on the philosophical objection of
states with little or no inter-city passenger rail service to making
forced tax contributions to states with substantial amounts of such
service.
We have not attempted to select a single funding mechanism to
recommend to the Congress. We are agreed that stability is an essential
element of such funding, and that greater creativity needs to be
exercised in selecting potential funding mechanisms. As part of our
deliberations, we did discuss two examples of innovative funding
mechanisms. Although we are not recommending these specific approaches,
they are offered here as purely illustrative examples of the general
type of non-traditional mechanisms we recommend the Congress examine.
First, one potential technique for addressing the perennial issue
of fairness among ``rail'' and ``non-rail'' states might be to
authorize at the federal level a state-option portion of the federal
gasoline tax. This would permit states who wished-either alone or in
concert with other participants in multi-state compacts-to participate
directly in passenger rail capital funding to opt for some additional
increment of gasoline tax to be used for this purpose.
Another example would be to expand and modernize the guaranteed
loan programs of the 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
(``4R'') Act. These programs are already targeted toward rail
infrastructure needs. Under current law, the ``subsidy component'' or
``risk premium'' supporting such guaranteed loans may be funded only
through on-budget federal appropriations. If these functional
equivalents of security deposits could be provided by outside entities
(such as state governments or private parties), substantial amounts of
infrastructure capital might be made available with minimal budgetary
impact.
conclusion
A majority of the working group is of the view that a division
between infrastructure management and operations affords the best
chance for the preservation and renewal of passenger rail service in
this country. Amtrak has operated for too long under conditions that no
business could endure. The problems do not lie with Amtrak management
or Amtrak labor, but rather with the basic structure that was
established when Amtrak was created in 1971. Amtrak's mission is
vaguely defined, its funding has never been adequate for a true
national system and it has been burdened with expensive legal mandates.
The majority believes that intercity rail should be placed on the
same structural footing as other modes of transportation. This would
include a stable and permanent commitment by the Federal Government to
fund the infrastructure costs of intercity passenger rail. It would
also mean the elimination of operating subsidies for operators of
passenger rail, and the introduction of competition among these
operators.
Minority Comments
james j. florio and carl van horn
The majority of the Working Group on Intercity Rail sets the right
note at the outset of their report by emphasizing the important role
that intercity passenger rail plays in reducing airport and highway
congestion and improving air quality, and urges the preservation and
enhancement of intercity passenger rail service in order to achieve
these objectives. The report also advances the admirable goal of
increasing the Nation's investment in intercity passenger rail
infrastructure, especially in densely travelled corridors where high-
speed rail service is a realistic alternative. The report proposes to
achieve these goals by separating ownership of passenger rail
infrastructure from responsibility for passenger rail operations. We
have examined this proposal carefully, however, and have concluded that
it is unlikely to solve the existing problems of intercity passenger
rail service in the United States. In fact, we believe that, if
adopted, it would create difficult new problems.
The majority report establishes two goals for reforming and
restructuring Amtrak:
(1) Provide safe, reliable, comfortable, convenient, and
financially sound passenger rail service in all densely populated
corridors of the United States that show declining air quality and
presently or potentially traffic congestion problems; and
(2) Encourage public/private development of attractive overnight
passenger rail service, on a periodic basis, throughout regions of the
nation with significant cultural, historical, and scenic character
(e.g., a kind of ``rolling national park'').
We believe the proposals advanced by the majority report fail to
achieve either goal. We believe that, if implemented, they are likely
to reduce investment in passenger rail infrastructure and reduce
service on most interstate routes, whether those routes are on high-
density corridors or in regions of the country with significant
cultural, historical, and scenic character.
We believe that our colleagues come at their proposal largely due
to an unwarranted pessimism about Amtrak's prospects. They are unduly
critical of Amtrak's management, unduly critical of Amtrak's Strategic
Business Plan, and unduly critical of the market potential for Amtrak's
services. The majority report is also unnecessarily pessimistic about
Congressional support for Amtrak. Senator Roth has recently introduced
legislation to create a $2 billion reserve fund for Amtrak that has
attracted broad support in the Senate. While the majority report claims
that there is ``very little support for the long-distance routes,''
that is contradicted by the fact that the Senate added a special
provision in last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act adding $22.5
million to Amtrak's appropriation to save four long-distance routes.
Senator Lott has become a leading supporter of Amtrak, primarily
because of his support for a long-distance route passing through the
State of Mississippi.
There is No Compelling Rationale for Restructuring
The proponents of restructuring Amtrak have not put forth any
compelling rationale for changing the current structure. The majority
report cites four purposes that are served by their restructuring
proposal; on closer examination, none of the four purposes is actually
achieved.
First, the majority report suggests that the proposal would enhance
accountability by providing ``a clear demarcation between the ultimate
infrastructure capital responsibility and the operating responsibility
funded by beneficiaries.'' Yet the way in which the infrastructure
entity is established would muddy this responsibility, because the
infrastructure entity would be responsible not only for managing the
infrastructure, but also for establishing standards for selecting
operating companies. The ``infrastructure'' entity would thus be
setting service standards for operations and be involved both as a
supplier to the operating companies (by selling them access to the
infrastructure) and as a regulator of those companies (by selecting who
can use the infrastructure and what service standards they must meet).
In any case, separating the infrastructure and operations roles is
unlikely to enhance accountability. When problems develop, the
operating companies are likely to blame the infrastructure company for
failing to maintain the infrastructure properly, while the
infrastructure company is likely to blame the operating companies. When
both infrastructure and operations are the responsibility of the same
company, accountability is clear and undivided. There is no one else to
blame.
Second, our colleagues suggest that separating ownership of the
rails from operations will create greater infrastructure investment
from the public and private sector. They argue that having an entity
whose sole responsibility is infrastructure will encourage Congress to
invest more in high-speed rail infrastructure in appropriate high-
density corridors around the country without being distracted by
arguments about the performance of the rail service operator (Amtrak).
In our view, the impediment to high-speed rail has been constraints
on the federal budget resulting in budget caps on all infrastructure
investment, not structural problems with Amtrak. In 1994, the Congress
declined to approve the Clinton Administration's request to finance
high-speed rail development, despite the fact that these funds would
have been spent independently of Amtrak. Since 1991, the Congress has
declined to appropriate any of the $725 million authorized for maglev
development by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act,
none of which would have been managed by Amtrak. This year, Congress is
considering a request for $300 million for development of the high-
speed rail project in Florida, which would be managed independently of
Amtrak; however, thus far the Florida congressional delegation has not
strongly supported the request.
Third, our colleagues suggest that separating infrastructure
management from operations will facilitate the introduction of new
competitors to Amtrak. For virtually all of the Amtrak system,
ownership of the infrastructure is already separate, in the hands of
the freight railroads, so there are already opportunities for
competition over the rails that Amtrak does not own. In any case, it is
not clear why new competitors are needed, since there is plenty of
competition already from other modes of transportation. As the majority
report itself states in its Introduction, ``. . . competing modes of
transportation fight ruthlessly for every uncommitted traveler'' who
rides on Amtrak.
Fourth, the majority report also argues that separating
infrastructure from operations will benefit Amtrak by eliminating the
need for Amtrak to seek support for its infrastructure capital program.
We believe this argument is exceedingly naive. Amtrak's success will
still depend critically on the amount appropriated for the
infrastructure program, so Amtrak will still need to expend resources
lobbying for appropriations for it, just as trucking companies lobby
for highway expenditures and airlines lobby for airport investments.
There are, perhaps, other reasons for advancing this restructuring
proposal. Several members of the working group have cited, with
approval, the recent British approach that separated infrastructure
maintenance from operations. But the British model is not one to be
emulated. Thus far, the British model has cost nearly $1 billion a year
more in public funding than it did under its predecessor, BritRail. If
the British model were applied to the U.S. it would in all likelihood
lead either to substantially increased subsidy levels or to the
elimination of all long distance trains as well as the elimination of
many short-haul trains that require regional or multi-state support.
The best one can say at this point is that the jury is still out on the
British experiment.
Another rationale for the proposal is that other modes of
transportation operate privately-owned and operated vehicles on
publicly-owned infrastructure. This is not uniformly true--mass transit
receives federal subsidies both for its rolling stock and for its
operating costs. But the proposal to separate ownership of
infrastructure from operation of trains might be more appealing in an
environment where the entire national rail infrastructure is owned by a
single entity, and where several passenger rail operators compete on
that infrastructure. Neither of those conditions obtains in the United
States. Most rail infrastructure is owned by freight railroads, and the
existence of competing passenger rail operators is only a distant
potential. Our colleagues acknowledge those facts, but think that
separation of infrastructure from operation will help to move us toward
an environment where more infrastructure is publicly-owned and more
operators compete on that infrastructure. For reasons which we shall
discuss in more detail below, however, we think the proposal is
unlikely to increase the extent of publicly owned infrastructure. We
also think that the elimination of federal operating subsidy is likely
to discourage most new private passenger rail operators from entering
the market.
There are Serious Negative Effects of Restructuring
We believe that our colleagues's restructuring proposal not only
lacks a clear rationale; it also is likely to have serious adverse
effects on infrastructure investment and passenger rail service. We
think it is likely both to reduce the level of infrastructure
investment for passenger rail and, by reducing operating subsidies,
dramatically curtail the level of interstate passenger rail service.
While the restructuring proposal is advanced with the intent of
increasing infrastructure investment, the likelihood of Congress
approving additional infrastructure funding under this proposal is
undermined by the unequal distribution of infrastructure spending among
the states. Virtually all of Amtrak's infrastructure spending is now
done within the eight states of the Northeast Corridor. Other states
are willing to support these expenditures because they receive a
disproportionate share of the operating subsidies to keep trains
running in their states. If federal operating subsidies were
eliminated, as the proposal envisions, the other states would have
little reason to support infrastructure investment in the Northeast
Corridor, and might cease such expenditures altogether. This could lead
to the collapse of the high-speed rail project in the Northeast
Corridor and the gradual erosion of conventional Northeast Corridor
service as the infrastructure deteriorates.
Even if a handful of high-speed rail infrastructure projects were
supported outside of the Northeast Corridor, this would still not
produce enough support to keep the program going. While the proposal is
advanced on the assumption of an increase in passenger rail
infrastructure funding, it may thus result in a decrease in
infrastructure funding.
The restructuring proposal's assumptions about operating subsidies
would also have a seriously negative effect on the support for
interstate passenger rail service, and would probably lead to most of
that service being canceled. The proposal suggests that the new
operating entity would receive no federal operating subsidy, would be
required to pay for its own rolling stock, and would have to depend on
voluntary payments from the states for any public operating subsidy it
received. We think this proposal would make most long-distance trains
and many short-haul trains that require regional or multi-state support
unsupportable.
Amtrak believes that it can cover its operating costs, but only if
the costs of acquiring rolling stock are treated as a capital cost to
be paid for by public subsidy. No one who has studied Amtrak's cost
structure believes that it can break even if it has to cover the costs
of its rolling stock. If Amtrak cannot cover its costs, it must either
cut routes or go to the states for operating subsidy. (If Amtrak cuts
routes, this further undermines national support for federal
infrastructure funding.)
We think Amtrak is unlikely to be able to generate substantial
operating subsidies from the states. Amtrak's inability to obtain
sufficient state support thus far is instructive. While state support
for Amtrak has increased, it is still only $70 million in 1997 and the
states continue to struggle over providing modest amounts of money.
More than half of the state support comes from a single state--
California. Two-thirds comes from two states (California and Illinois).
All of it comes from 14 states. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama could not agree on how to divide up the $2 million cost of
the Gulf Coast Limited, so none of them contributed anything, and the
route was terminated, even though this is the sort of short haul
service (from Mobile, AL, to New Orleans, LA) that states should find
attractive. The State of Massachusetts would not contribute even
$100,000 to support the Vermonter even though it serves the western
part of the state. Vermont had to pay the full share (but in the
absence of federal subsidies, the route would have been canceled,
because Vermont only had to pay for the extension of service north from
Springfield, MA). The proposal will likely lead to the elimination of
most interstate routes outside of the Northeast Corridor; the few
remaining routes are likely to be the relatively small number that fall
entirely within one state, such as those in California.
Our colleagues assert that separation of infrastructure ownership
from operations would enhance the efficient use of the infrastructure,
but the experience of Amtrak and the freight railroads points to the
opposite conclusion. Freight railroads defend their right to operate on
their own privately owned rights-of-way because they believe strongly
that the ownership of the right-of-way allows them to offer a more
efficient and customer-oriented service than would be the case if they
were tenants on a right-of-way owned by someone else. Clearly, one of
Amtrak's problems over the years has been that it does not own most of
its rights-of-way. Delays in Amtrak service are often due to operations
of freight railroads. It is no accident that Amtrak has succeeded on
the one right-of-way that it owns--the Northeast Corridor. We see no
reason to endanger this success by separating ownership of the right-
of-way from operation of the trains.
The restructuring proposal also suggests weakening what the report
itself describes as ``one of the most valuable of all of Amtrak's
assets.'' Amtrak has guaranteed access to the Nation's freight railway
system, and it is these rights of access that the ``Context'' section
of the report describes as one of the ``most valuable'' assets cited
above. Yet in the ``Question-and-Answer'' section of the report, these
rights are put up for negotiation. ``The panel believes that Congress
should explore new alternatives that would fall between the current
Amtrak arrangements [i.e., guaranteed access] and the present framework
for commuter rail access [i.e., no guaranteed access] to freight rail
infrastructure.'' We cannot see how giving away these critical access
rights advances the cause of passenger rail transportation in the
United States.
The Restructuring Proposal is Based on Erroneous Factual Statements
The analysis in the majority report is based in part on a number of
unsupported factual assertions, some of which are contradicted by its
own findings. The majority report alleges, without foundation, that
``Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan is generally acknowledged by many
outside of Amtrak as wholly unrealistic.'' In fact, the outside parties
that count, namely the bankers that are lending Amtrak money, do
believe the plan is realistic, and that is why they are lending the $1
billion that Amtrak is borrowing for its Northeast Corridor high-speed
rail service.
The majority report takes note of the reforms that Amtrak has
instituted in the past three years and asserts, again without offering
any evidence, ``Broadly speaking, these [reforms] have not paid off.''
This does not appear to be the view of the states who work with Amtrak.
The State of Wisconsin, for example, has written to the Working Group
saying that ``In recent years, Amtrak has taken more aggressive actions
to improve the service, increase advertising, and increase eldership.
These changes are reflective of the new attitude that is manifesting
itself in Amtrak. Everyone at the company recognizes that they must
please their customers if they are to continue as a company. They are
working hard to do so.'' The letter also notes that ridership has
doubled since the State contracted with Amtrak for passenger service.
While ridership has declined nationally because Amtrak has been forced
to eliminate routes due to federal budget cuts, traffic is generally
growing on those routes that have been retained. Similarly, the State
of Illinois has written to the Working Group stating that ``Amtrak has
shown the flexibility and will to make significant and tangible strides
toward self-sufficiency and good business practices. We thus have
reason to be hopeful for the future.''
The Majority Report Proposes Confusing Information about Rail Labor
Issues
The majority report for the most part ignores the controversial
issue of labor protection and accident liability, because there was
little consensus on these issues among the Working Group, and
information had been presented to the Group indicating that these
issues had inconsequential effects on Amtrak's financial status.
Indeed, the majority report states in its conclusions that ``The
problems do not lie with Amtrak management or Amtrak labor. . . .''
Yet, the report does not address what will happen to employees under
the restructured system. Freight railroads operate under essentially
the same labor protection provisions as Amtrak, and they find it
possible to succeed in a competitive business. The fact is that
Amtrak's recent experience in eliminating routes has shown that labor
protection in practice has inconsequential costs. Amtrak does not use
the flexibility it has now to contract out work and has never been able
to show that it would actually save money if it had more flexibility.
We believe that these labor provisions have little if any effect on
Amtrak's financial status and should not be part of any Amtrak reform
proposals. But more importantly, we believe that any proposal to
restructure Amtrak should specifically address the future status of
Amtrak's employees.
There Are Better Ways to Preserve and Enhance Intercity Passenger Rail
Service in the United States
Congress has repeatedly urged Amtrak to make better use of its
infrastructure and to reduce costs and lessen its dependence on
operating support. Instead of embarking on an the uncertain path of
restructuring, we believe that Amtrak should be given the next two to
three years to implement several promising revenue-enhancing activities
that could significantly improve its financial situation. These
initiatives include high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor,
increased mail and express, and development of electric power
initiatives, among others.
We believe that Amtrak's management has done a credible job of
making Amtrak more efficient and more customer-focused. We believe that
Amtrak has correctly seen that it must invest in new rolling stock to
replace obsolete equipment that is unreliable and expensive to
maintain. We believe that the Congress should support Amtrak's effort
to reduce its costs and expand its market by providing it with the
capital and operating support it needs and by eliminating statutory
restrictions on Amtrak's operations.
First, Amtrak needs more capital support so that it does not have
to borrow money on the private market at high interest rates. Clearly
it makes more sense for Amtrak's capital costs to be financed at low
government interest rates than at high private interest rates. In
particular, Amtrak needs capital support to pay for and promptly begin
service with its new high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor.
While it is possible to dispute the exact estimates of the surplus that
will be generated by this service, there is no doubt that this is a
worthwhile investment for Amtrak and for the Nation.
Second, Amtrak needs sufficient operating subsidy so that it does
not have to borrow short-term to meet its operating costs. Amtrak has
reduced its operating costs by over $200 million since 1994. It is
making good progress toward minimizing its need for operating subsidy.
Reducing Amtrak's operating subsidy in the short run simply forces
Amtrak to borrow more, thus increasing its need for operating subsidy
in the long run. A predictable, realistic glidepath to lower operating
subsidy is the most sensible policy.
Third, Amtrak needs some basic revisions in its statutory
authorization to clarify its authority and allow it to reduce its costs
and increase its revenues. Amtrak currently is authorized to carry
``mail and express'' in addition to passengers, but ``express'' is
never defined in the statute. Instead, ``express'' is defined by a long
series of Interstate Commerce Commission decisions. The definition is
obscure and subject to prolonged litigation. The freight railroads have
opposed Amtrak's recent attempts to expand its express business and
have threatened litigation to prevent Amtrak from increasing its
revenues in this way. The freight railroads say they only want Amtrak
to carry what is traditionally considered express--things like United
Parcel Service (UPS) packages. But the freight railroads already carry
a considerable amount of UPS packages by carrying UPS trailers on their
flatcars. It would not make sense for the freight railroads for Amtrak
to expand its business in an area that is already being served by the
freight railroads.
Amtrak has proposed carrying cargoes like refrigerated perishables
and other intermodal traffic requiring very tight delivery times. The
railroads have opposed letting Amtrak carry this cargo because it is
``freight,'' not ``express.'' But the important point is whether the
railroads have any realistic likelihood of carrying the cargo in
question. If the freight railroads cannot meet the delivery schedules
demanded by shippers, then they are not harmed by having Amtrak carry
the cargo, regardless of whether it is ``freight'' or ``express.'' We
therefore recommend that the definition of ``express'' that Amtrak is
authorized to carry be defined in statute as any cargo that existing
freight railroads do not carry because they cannot routinely meet the
delivery schedules or other criteria demanded by shippers.
Amtrak uses prodigious amounts of electrical power on the Northeast
Corridor. The commuter railroads who use Amtrak's right-of-way use even
more. Electrical power costs in the northeast are among the highest in
the country. If Amtrak could buy power from distant suppliers who can
generate power at lower costs, it could dramatically reduce its costs
of service. Amtrak should further be permitted to make more efficient
use of the natural distribution system created by its Northeast
Corridor electrical grid to sell power to other users along its right-
of-way. If Amtrak is to make more efficient use of its infrastructure,
it needs to have the authority to use its infrastructure to reduce its
costs and generate revenues.
Summary
In summary, despite the unanimous belief of the Working Group that
intercity passenger rail is a valuable part of the Nation's
transportation system, our colleagues' proposal could create a crisis
in rail transportation in the one corridor where it is most vital, and
lead to the erosion or collapse of rail service in other regions of the
country. We believe that further analysis of the costs and benefits is
needed before reaching the conclusion that intercity rail operating and
infrastructure units should be separated. In our judgment, such a
strategy would result in greater costs to the taxpayer, more
bureaucracy, and fewer trains.
While our worst fears may not be realized, we strongly urge the
Congress to undertake a more thorough analysis of the tools necessary
for lowering costs and raising revenues before adopting their
recommendations.
______
appendix c
Questions and Answers Concerning the Proposal of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Working Group on Intercity Rail
--Will the proposal lead to a reduction in Amtrak routes?
The proposal does not envision or call for a reduction in routes.
In fact, it is hoped that with a more streamlined organizational
structure, the lifting of Amtrak's current legal constraints, and
increased infrastructure investment by Amrail, an expansion of
intercity passenger rail service in appropriate markets will be
possible.
--What level of federal funding does the proposal assume?
The working group believes that capital and operating funding
requirements must be treated separately. Federal operating subsidies
should be eliminated at least by 2002. In the short-term, operating
bridge funding at a level between the Administration's request ($342M)
and Amtrak's request ($387M) should be provided in order to avoid a
bankruptcy.
Continued capital funding should be provided on a regular,
predictable and permanent basis. The level should be on the order of
that proposed in Amtrak's strategic business plan (approximately $750M
per year), although the working group believes non-federal sources,
such as private and state/local funding would be available for at least
a portion of this funding.
--What will happen to Amtrak's employees?
Employment levels will not decrease as a result of this proposal.
In fact, the proposal is assumed to increase passenger rail jobs with
the expansion of passenger rail service in appropriate markets.
Both Amtrak's employees and its management have been severely
handicapped by the organizational structure of Amtrak as currently
constituted. The working group views the proposed restructuring as an
opportunity for both labor and management to be freed from these
constraints and to explore new options for stable and growing
employment.
Most of Amtrak's employees will continue to work for Amtrak under
existing labor contracts. Some Amtrak employees, who currently work on
infrastructure maintenance, would work for the new infrastructure
entity, Amrail.
--How will the working group's proposal improve passenger rail
service?
In the short-term, the proposal is aimed at averting an Amtrak
bankruptcy, which is a real possibility if no legislative action is
taken.
Over the longer-term, splitting operations from infrastructure
management will enable Amtrak to focus its efforts on its principal
day-to-day responsibility--providing and developing superior, efficient
service to its users--not seeking support for its infrastructure
capital program.
In addition, the working group believes that the introduction of
competition from other providers of intercity passenger rail service
will inject an element of market discipline in the provision of
passenger rail service that is currently lacking.
Furthermore, Amrail, the new infrastructure management
organization, would be responsible for developing new rail corridors
outside the Northeast Corridor to provide high quality, higher-speed
rail service in appropriate markets.
--Would providers of inter-city passenger rail service have access to
freight railroads' rights-of-way outside the Northeast
Corridor?
Amtrak currently has compulsory access by federal law and pays for
that access under a statutory ``incremental cost'' formula that does
not take into account the operational impact of passenger traffic on
freight operations. In addition, the presence of Amtrak trains exposes
the host railroad to unlimited tort liability from possible passenger
train accidents. In sharp contrast to the present Amtrak access
arrangements, publicly funded commuter railroads using freight
railroads' tracks negotiate their access on a case-by-case basis,
bargain the specific compensation to be paid, and typically bring with
them the liability limitations of state laws governing publicly funded
transit and commuter rail operations.
The panel believes that Congress should explore new alternatives
that would fall between the current Amtrak arrangements and the present
framework for commuter rail access to freight rail infrastructure.
Liability protection should be a critical element of a new access
regime. In addition, the panel has recommended long-term, stable
federal assistance for infrastructure upgrades on and off the Northeast
Corridor. This already occurs in the commuter rail field, where the
Federal Transit Administration assists in capacity and signal
improvements on freight railroad lines that also carry commuter rail
traffic. We envision similar infrastructure projects focused on the
passenger corridors around the country with the greatest market
potential.
--Has anything like this ever been tried before?
Yes, other countries have restructured their rail systems by
separating infrastructure management from transportation services,
including Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and
Australia. Materials on the experiences of other countries are included
in the appendices to the working group's report.
mail and express
Question. What is the size and make-up of Amtrak's current fleet of
mail and express cars? Are there plans to acquire new cars for mail and
express service? What funds are being utilized to purchase these cars?
Answer. Amtrak has a fleet of 138 active and 9 stored baggage cars
that are used for passenger baggage, mail and express. Mail and express
are also carried in Material Handling Cars (MHC's) for which the fleet
includes 141 active and 2 stored cars. Last year 13 Roadrailer trailers
(vehicles that operate on the rail and highway) were acquired, which
are used primarily to transport mail. Amtrak is acquiring an additional
250 plain MHC's, 367 refrigerated MHC's and 283 Roadrailer trailers for
the mail and express business this year. This equipment is being leased
through private market financing
Question. For fiscal years 1995, 1996 and projected for 1997,
please display the amount of revenue generated by Amtrak's mail service
and by express service.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Mail revenue Express revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995................................ $57,300,000 $3,100,000
1996................................ 63,000,000 3,100,000
1997 (proj.)........................ 64,500,000 5,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much does Amtrak expect to generate in mail and
express business in the next five years (fiscal years 1998-2002), by
year?
Answer. The 1998-2002 business plan will not be approved by
Amtrak's board of directors until September, so specific numbers are
not yet available. Because of the board's approval of the equipment
acquisition (250 plain MHC's, 367 refrigerated MHC's and 283 Roadrailer
trailers for mail and express business), 1998 pilot program express
revenue will exceed $200 million. Plans are being developed which, if
approved by Amtrak's Board, will result in potential annual mail
revenue exceeding $200 million and an equivalent amount or higher in
express revenue.
Question. Do you have agreements with any freight railroads to
initiate this service? Which railroads? Which railroads are opposed to
Amtrak performing this service?
Answer. Joint venture agreements are in various stages of
discussion with Class I railroads and several smaller railroads to give
them profitable opportunities to participate in aggressive growth of
carload and trailerload express. Amtrak intends to increase its
handling of premium shipments that are currently being transported by
motor carriers and via air for which prices higher than railroad
freight rates will be charged. Shippers have expressed strong interest
in Amtrak's express service capabilities because it is tightly
scheduled, relatively damage free, offered by a transcontinental
carrier meaning no railroad to railroad interchange, and is highway
transit time competitive while at the same time being more economical
than highway or air. Mail and express business is currently carried
over virtually all freight railroads over which Amtrak operates. It has
been this way since Amtrak's inception. One railroad has publicly
stated concerns about the possibility of Amtrak capturing business it
now carries.
Question. What additional expenses are associated with the mail and
freight program? What are the estimated first year profits?
Answer. Since the business is handled on passenger trains that are
currently operating, as a way to help make them financially viable,
incremental expenses are relatively limited. They include equipment
leases, terminal costs and administrative costs. As train lengths
increase there is an additional cost associated with additional
locomotive power and fuel. First year contribution (incremental revenue
less incremental expense) for the pilot express initiative is projected
at $53 million.
Question. Why is it necessary to enter into agreements with freight
railroads at all to provide mail and express service? Doesn't Amtrak
have the authority and absolute right to operate over any track?
Answer. Amtrak wishes to enter into agreements with freight
railroads in connection with the expansion of its express business
because some of the accessory services required, such as terminal
services, can be best provided by the freight railroads. In addition,
Amtrak believes that railroad participation in its express business,
through joint ventures or other contractual arrangements, will give
railroads a financial incentive to achieve significantly improved on-
time performance which also benefits passengers. Amtrak also believes
that entering into agreements with railroads will enable it to avoid
disputes over whether particular shipments it is handling constitute
``express.'' Although Interstate Commerce Commission decisions support
Amtrak's position that all of the business it plans to handle is in
fact ``express'', litigation over this issue with freight railroads,
which own the tracks over which Amtrak's trains operate, could delay
Amtrak's efforts to expand the business. This would hamper Amtrak's
ability to free itself from Federal operating subsidy, as it has been
directed to do by the Administration and Congress, and would be
inconsistent with Amtrak's objective of being viewed by those railroads
as a valued partner whose operations provide a way for them to earn
additional profits. Amtrak has the right to operate over any railroad's
track and to carry mail and express business on its trains.
labor issues
Question. How do the labor provisions affecting rail employees
differ from those affecting airlines and intercity buses?
Answer. Amtrak is governed by the following legislative labor
provisions which do not apply to airlines and/or intercity buses:
1. Federal Employer's Liability Act.--A fault-based workers
compensation system, governing compensation for employee on-duty
injuries.
2. Railway Labor Act (also applies to airlines).--Governing labor
relations issues of employee representation, dispute resolution and
negotiation of contracts.
3. Railroad Retirement Act.--Governing railroad employee
retirement.
4. Rail Passenger Service Act provisions.--Governing employee
protective conditions (Appendix C-2) and no furlough (except food and
beverage) contracting out restrictions.
While airlines and intercity bus operations are affected by other
laws covering workman's compensation, collective bargaining and
retirement, Amtrak is uniquely covered by the legislative requirements
outlined in item 4 above.
Question. GAO's testimony stated that Amtrak has been unsuccessful
in negotiating productivity improvements with labor unions. Many of the
same craft unions are represented at both freight rail and Amtrak labor
negotiations, and there is pressure from labor to secure equally
favorable agreements with Amtrak as have been secured with the freight
railroads. As a result, in the last six months, many freight/labor
union agreements have been negotiated, while Amtrak is stuck at the
table. Do you believe that the labor unions fully appreciate how dire
Amtrak's financial circumstances actually are? Are the union
negotiating the railroad out of business?
Answer. With freight settlements in the background, it seems
unlikely ``concessionary'' agreement can be reached voluntarily with
some unions for political or union institutional reasons without
Congressional action but it is difficult to characterize union beliefs
in general or in total. We believe that all of our unions understand
Amtrak is in financial difficulty. However, few, if any, unions accept
the Congressional and Administration mandate that Amtrak be independent
of federal operating support. Consequently, they do not accept Amtrak's
Strategic Business Plan to achieve that independence. This non-
acceptance exists despite the fact that our level of federal operating
support has been cut in half--nearly 50 percent--over the past two
fiscal years. Consequently, Amtrak has been unable to reach agreements
providing for work rule and benefit reform necessary to help Amtrak
live within an environment of declining federal operating support.
operating commuter railroads
Question. What commuter railroads does Amtrak operate? What was the
total revenue stream from these operations (broken out by commuter
transit authority) for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and projected for
fiscal year 1997?
Answer. Amtrak operates seven commuter operations. Those commuter
services and revenues are noted below. (fiscal year 1997 figures still
being developed.)
AMTRAK CONTRACT OPERATIONS OF COMMUTER TRAINS
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Commuter agency ------------------------------------------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBTA (Boston)............................................ $88.4 $96.4 $105.4 $124.0 $132.2
Maryland DOT............................................. 10.7 12.2 14.0 14.2 22.2
Northern Virginia........................................ 2.8 7.7 7.3 9.0 8.6
Connecticut DOT.......................................... 5.3 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.5
Southern California...................................... 1.6 13.8 24.2 25.1 25.1
Peninsula Commuter....................................... 7.4 27.2 30.0 30.8 34.9
San Diego Commuter....................................... ......... ......... 0.2 6.2 5.8
Orange County, CA........................................ 1.8 1.5 0.5 ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------
Total revenue...................................... 118.0 164.6 187.6 215.4 235.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rural service
Question. In Amtrak's testimony before the Committee on May 7th,
President Downs stated that Amtrak provides a necessary service for
rural communities as well as urban corridors. But considering the
ridership figures and operating losses on many of these long-distance
routes that serve rural communities, it seems clear that the railroad's
rural constituency is not sold on Amtrak's necessity. Low income,
young, and elderly passengers who generally have to watch their budgets
more often travel by intercity buses, which have four times the
ridership Amtrak does, rather than pay more per ticket for less
frequent, more often delayed, train service. Can you make any
compelling arguments for Amtrak's importance as a rural transportation
alternative?
Answer. Passenger rail service is essential to many rural areas.
Sixty-two million Americans live in small towns and rural areas. Amtrak
serves over 530 communities nationwide many of which are in rural areas
with few transportation options. While commercial air and bus carriers
have found it economically infeasible to provide service to many
smaller cities, intercity passenger trains can stop at areas with
populations as low as 10,000-20,000 without significant cost or time
loss. Amtrak serves thirty-three communities which have no air service,
eighteen communities which have no bus service, and nine communities
with neither air nor bus service.
cost to liquidate
Question. How solid is the estimate of $5,000,000,000 in costs
associated with liquidation of the railroad? Couldn't some employee
dismissal cost be reduced?
Answer. The estimated cost associated with the liquidation of the
railroad is approximately $6.2 billion. This is based on an analysis
done by Amtrak in February 1995 and subsequently scored by the
Congressional Budget Office on April 11, 1995. The original analysis
estimates a ``shut down'' cost of $5.4 billion. The current estimate of
$6.2 billion is higher primarily due to an escalation in the amount of
financing obligations that Amtrak now has. In a shutdown situation,
employee dismissal cost would be reduced primarily via ``protected''
employees getting jobs and giving up their protection payments.
unprofitable routes
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the five
routes on which Amtrak planned to discontinue service last year, that
then received 6-month extension funds in the fiscal year 1997 omnibus
consolidated appropriations bill.
Answer. The five routes are the Texas Eagle, Pioneer, Desert Wind,
Boston-Albany section of the Lake Shore Limited, and the Gulf Coast
Limited.
The Gulf Coast Limited was discontinued on March 31, 1997 and the
Pioneer and Desert Wind were discontinued on May 10, 1997. The Texas
Eagle and Boston-Albany section of the Lakeshore Limited were extended
through the end of the fiscal year based on arrangements with the
states (loan from the state of Texas and a capital investment from the
state of Massachusetts).
Question. Does Amtrak have plans to close or reduce service on
additional routes? If yes, what routes would be affected and why? Does
Amtrak expect that it will be successful in making these route
adjustments?
Answer. Amtrak does not plan on closing additional routes. Our
business plan calls for maintaining the national system.
states using highway fund flexing
Question. If the successor surface transportation authorization
bill includes provisions giving states the flexibility to use highway
funds for Amtrak operations within the state, what is the likelihood of
this increased flexibility being utilized by the states? What states
have done this so far?
Answer. It seems clear that states would utilize the increased
flexibility to spend a portion of their federal transportation
allocation on Amtrak if they were allowed to do so. Many, many states
have expressed their strong support for this, coast to coast, north to
south, urban to rural. Governors who have made clear public statements
on this issue range from Oregon to Delaware, West Virginia to
Wisconsin, Michigan to Virginia. Right now public policy concerning the
various transportation modes is incredibly skewed and distorts state
and local decision making. The federal government offers generous
matches for state investments in highway or transit service, but little
or no funds to match state investment in rail passenger service. The
result is states and localities are discouraged in investing in rail
even when it is the best transportation solution for the area.
The only program exception is the ISTEA Enhancements program, which
states can use for Amtrak stations, but not intercity rail operations.
States have so far used more than $70 million for Amtrak station
projects, and spent another $100 million of ISTEA funds on intermodal
stations where Amtrak stops. Because states are currently not allowed
to use their federal transportation funds for intercity passenger rail,
only the State of Oregon, which was granted permission under specific
conditions, is using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
to help support an Amtrak train.
strategic business unit operations
Question. Please prepare a table displaying, for each strategic
business unit, the routes operated by name; by terminus city pairs (and
system miles); by frequency of service; by total annual revenue in
fiscal year 1996; by total annual expanses in fiscal year 1996; the
profit/(loss) in dollars for each route; and the operating ration
(expenses to revenue comparison).
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER SYSTEM FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996--
---------------------------------------------------
Route No./description Terminus city pairs Route miles Frequency Total Operating
Revenue expense Profit/loss ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity SBU
16 Silver Star........................... New York-Tampa/Miami.......................... 1,263/1,433 Daily............................ 31.1 70.4 (39.3) 2.26
17 Three Rivers.......................... New York-Chicago.............................. 924 Daily............................ 11.5 18.8 (7.3) 1.63
18 Cardinal.............................. Chicago-Washington............................ 929 Triweekly........................ 4.2 14.0 (9.8) 3.33
19 Silver Meteor......................... New York-Miami................................ 1,391 Daily............................ 30.1 62.9 (32.8) 2.09
20 Chicago-St. Louis..................... Chicago-St. Louis............................. 282 Daily............................ 10.4 26.6 (16.2) 2.56
21 Hiawathas............................. Chicago-Milwaukee............................. 86 Daily............................ 9.8 25.3 (15.5) 2.58
22 Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac............... Chicago-Pontiac............................... 302 Daily............................ 9.7 33.9 (24.2) 3.49
23 Illini................................ Chicago-Carbondale............................ 309 Daily............................ 4.7 8.0 (3.3) 1.70
24 Illinois Zephyr....................... Chicago-Quincy................................ 258 Daily............................ 3.6 7.2 (3.6) 2.00
25 Empire Builder........................ Chicago-Portland/Seattle...................... 2,209/2,261 Quadweekly....................... 32.5 73.6 (41.1) 2.26
26 Capitol Limited....................... Chicago-Washington............................ 780 Daily............................ 20.6 48.2 (27.6) 2.34
27 California Zephyr..................... Chicago-Oakland............................... 2,425 Quadweekly....................... 25.9 60.1 (34.2) 2.32
28 Southwest Chief....................... Chicago-Los Angeles........................... 2,259 Daily............................ 45.6 83.4 (37.8) 1.83
30 City of New Orleans................... Chicago-New Orleans........................... 934 Six days......................... 10.8 31.0 (20.2) 2.87
32 Texas Eagle........................... Chicago-Los Angeles........................... 2,726 Triweekly........................ 10.4 32.7 (22.3) 3.14
33 Sunset Limited........................ Los Angeles-Miami............................. 3,066 Triweekly........................ 16.1 55.9 (39.8) 3.47
41 International......................... Chicago-Toronto............................... 501 Daily............................ 4.5 12.6 (8.1) 2.80
45 Lake Shore Limited.................... Chicago-Boston/New York....................... 950/1,017 Daily............................ 29.7 60.3 (30.6) 2.03
49 Pioneer............................... Denver-Seattle................................ 1,625 Triweekly........................ 10.3 29.2 (18.9) 2.83
52 Crescent.............................. New York-New Orleans.......................... 1,380 Daily............................ 22.0 52.8 (30.8) 2.40
56 Kansas City-St. Louis................. Kansas City-St. Louis......................... 282 Daily............................ 6.9 12.9 (6.0) 1.87
57 Pennsylvanian......................... New York-Pittsburgh........................... 788 Daily............................ 5.9 12.5 (6.6) 2.12
60 Desert Wind........................... Chicago-Los Angeles........................... 2,397 Triweekly........................ 14.9 38.0 (23.1) 2.55
63 Auto Train............................ Lorton-Sanford................................ 861 Daily............................ 45.4 58.4 (13.0) 1.29
65 Pere Marquette........................ Chicago-Grand Rapids.......................... 177 Daily............................ 1.9 4.8 (2.9) 2.53
66 Carolinian............................ New York-Charlotte............................ 702 Daily............................ 12.0 17.3 (5.3) 1.44
67 Piedmont.............................. Raleigh-Charlotte............................. 172 Daily............................ 1.7 3.5 (1.8) 2.06
---------------------------------------------------
Intercity SBU total................ .............................................. .............. ................................. 432.2 954.3 (522.1) 2.21
===================================================
Northeast Corridor SBU
01 Metroliners........................... New York-Washington........................... 226 Daily............................ 157.9 143.8 14.1 0.91
04 Vermonter............................. St. Albans-Washington......................... 606 Daily............................ 4.2 11.4 (7.2) 2.71
05 Northeast Direct...................... Newport News-Boston........................... 644 Daily............................ 239.9 381.9 (142.0) 1.59
13 Clockers.............................. New York-Philadelphia......................... 90 M-F.............................. 12.6 24.8 (12.2) 1.97
14 Philadelphia-Harrisburg............... Philadelphia-Harrisburg....................... 104 Daily............................ 5.0 8.8 (3.8) 1.76
15 Empire Service........................ New York-Toronto.............................. 544 Daily............................ 35.7 83.4 (47.7) 2.34
40 Adirondack............................ Montreal-New York............................. 381 Daily............................ 4.6 10.4 (5.8) 2.26
42 New York-Harrisburg................... New York-Harrisburg........................... 195 Daily............................ 7.4 16.7 (9.3) 2.26
---------------------------------------------------
NEC SBU totals..................... .............................................. .............. ................................. 467.3 681.2 (213.9) 1.46
===================================================
West SBU
34 Coast Starlight....................... Seattle-Los Angeles........................... 1,389 Daily............................ 25.1 69.7 (44.6) 2.78
35 San Diegans........................... San Luis Obispo-San Diego..................... 347 Daily............................ 36.4 73.2 (36.8) 2.01
36 Pacific Northwest..................... Vancouver, BC-Eugene.......................... 310 Daily............................ 9.9 23.4 (13.5) 2.36
37 Capitols.............................. Roseville-San Jose............................ 152 Daily............................ 11.7 25.3 (13.6) 2.16
39 San Joaquins.......................... Oakland-Bakersfield........................... 315 Daily............................ 28.1 38.0 (9.9) 1.35
---------------------------------------------------
West SBU totals.................... .............................................. .............. ................................. 111.2 229.6 (118.4) 2.06
===================================================
Total Amtrak....................... .............................................. .............. ................................. 1,010.7 1,865.1 (854.4) 1.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reimbursable services
Question. In what reimbursable service agreements is Amtrak
currently engaged? What revenues are associated with these agreements?
Answer. The major portion of Amtrak's reimbursable service
agreements are in the NEC. The largest service agreement is with NJ
Transit, a ``new initiatives'' agreement involving maintenance-of-way
(M.O.W.) services which Amtrak undertakes for NJ Transit. Amtrak also
has an agreement with the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for various
M.O.W. tasks and a joint venture with the LIRR for Penn Station train
control improvements.
Revenues associated with reimbursable arrangements are: Fiscal year
1995, $107,300,000; fiscal year 1996, $107,500,000; and fiscal year
1997, $90,878,000 (forecast).
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. The hearing of the Subcommittee on
Transportation is now recessed, to reconvene subject to the
call of the Chair. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., Wednesday, May 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:10 a.m.,
Thursday, June 12.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Bennett, Faircloth, and
Lautenberg.
Also present: Senator D'Amato.
Panel 1
CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
HON. SUSAN MOLINARI, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
HON. PETER T. KING, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
STATEMENT OF DAN DONOVAN, CHIEF OF STAFF, ON BEHALF OF
HON. GUY V. MOLINARI, BOROUGH PRESIDENT,
STATEN ISLAND, NY
Opening Remarks of Senator Shelby
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
I scheduled this hearing at the request of my friend and
colleague, Senator D'Amato. I would like to welcome Members of
the New York delegation, Senator D'Amato, Congressman King,
former Congressman Guy Molinari, and Congresswoman Susan
Molinari.
We are here today to talk about air traffic control
staffing, specifically the situation in the Northeast. One of
my top priorities as chairman of this subcommittee is to make
sure that the United States has the safest air transportation
system possible. Air travel among the general public is
increasing every year, and I believe we must have adequate air
traffic control staffing to meet this demand.
Our current air traffic control system is antiquated, and
is in dire need of an overhaul. We gave the FAA the tools to
reform its acquisition and personnel systems in the 1996
Appropriations Act. We will be interested to hear the FAA
explain how they are using these tools to address the problems
in the New York-New Jersey area.
I should also point out that in this subcommittee's report
accompanying the Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act, we took
note of staffing and equipment problems in the New York-New
Jersey area and directed the FAA Administrator to report to us
on the initiation of a local recruiting effort in this region.
We received that report yesterday afternoon, and it pointed
out some of the difficulties of moving controllers up to higher
level facilities in the New York-New Jersey areas. It also sets
out some new initiatives that FAA plans to implement to
increase the number of recruits from the immediate New Jersey
and New York areas.
We are fortunate to have a great deal of institutional
expertise in this matter in the members represented on the
first panel, and in the ranking member of this subcommittee and
former chairman, Senator Lautenberg. Senators D'Amato and
Lautenberg both have a great deal of background and experience
with air traffic controller staffing issues, and we are looking
forward to hearing both of their comments.
The second panel today would include Mr. Barry Krasner, the
president of the National Air Traffic Control Association, Mr.
David Barger, a vice president of Continental Airlines from
Newark, NJ; Mr. Raymond D. Maldonado with the FAA Control Tower
at Newark International Airport; Mr. Tom Monaghan with the FAA
Control Tower at JFK International Airport; Jack Johnson,
Professional Airways Systems Specialists president; and Henry
Brown, New York Systems Management Office PASS representative.
We will also be joined by Monte Belger, the Acting Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; and Mr. Ron
Morgan, Director of Air Traffic Service at the FAA.
The third panel today will consist of Mr. Charles Barclay,
the president of the American Association of Airport
Executives; Mr. Phil Boyer, president, Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association; and Mr. Edward Bolen, president of General
Aviation Manufacturers Association.
Air traffic safety is critical to the health and security
of this Nation. Americans deserve to have the highest level of
confidence in their air traffic control system, and I am
committed to help bring this about.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses that will be
participating here today, and before we hear from the first
panel, I want to first ask the ranking member and any of the
other members if they have any opening statements.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I commend you for calling this very important hearing to
address the staffing and equipment modernization problems for
air traffic facilities in the New Jersey-New York area.
I, too, want to welcome our colleagues both former and
present, Senator D'Amato, with whom I have done lots of work on
transportation matters. What happens in one State often
immediately happens in the other.
I want to welcome our friends from commerce, and that
includes all of them, even including the next Oprah Winfrey,
Barbara Walters, name it as you will. We wish Susan Molinari
well. I am sure she will succeed in that new venture, as she
has in past ventures. All one has to do is look at that baby.
Where is she? But we are delighted to have you here.
I have been voicing concern, along with others, over the
staffing and equipment problems for several years, both
individually and through this subcommittee. Now, there is not a
deeper level of frustration that anyone holds than I do with
the slow response to the clear need for increased staffing at
our air traffic control towers, as well as the air traffic
control center and TRACON in New York, and no one is more
frustrated than I with the delays in modernizing the equipment
our controllers must work with.
I am tired of the broken commitments, the missed targets,
the waste of taxpayer dollars that went down the drain when the
failed aviation advanced automation system did not work. I am
tired of listening to reasons, excuses, if you will.
While recognizing that our air traffic control system is
the safest in the world, we also have got to recognize that it
remains so because of the exceptional effort by the air traffic
controllers who face extremely challenging, indeed worsening
conditions during an era of prosperity in the air, significant
growth in traffic, and I am sure that everyone here agrees that
safety must be the No. 1 issue in each and every decision on
how aviation systems function.
But as I review the litany of excuses for staffing
shortages and equipment replacement delays, I have to ask, are
all parties putting safety first? In my view, when solutions to
safety problems are at hand, it is the obligation of
decisionmakers to, as the popular advertisement says, just do
it, and no agency in the Federal Government is in a better
situation to just do it than the FAA.
Two years ago, this subcommittee fought an uphill battle to
implement meaningful personnel and procurement reforms for the
Federal Aviation Administration. We fought on the Senate floor,
as well as in conference. In the end, we succeeded in granting
the FAA greater flexibility than currently applies to any other
Federal agency, both in the manner in which it procures
necessary equipment, and the manner in which it hires and
assigns personnel.
We took these unprecedented steps in order to allow the FAA
to act more like a business, but I can tell you, as a former
chief executive of a sizable company, that I do not see the FAA
functioning in quite businesslike form.
No successful chief executive would allow some facilities
to be continually overstaffed while other critical facilities
remain understaffed. They either move people, or they shift
responsibilities from one facility to another, and that is not
an easy assignment with the construction of our aviation
system. They do not just wring their hands and offer excuses.
They identify the right fix, and they just do it.
Apparently, the FAA can identify several facilities that
are seriously understaffed, including the ones we are
discussing today, but the FAA also has several other facilities
where staffing levels are above their authorized level.
Even before the enactment of personnel reform, the FAA had
the authority to reassign people immediately to where they are
needed. The time is long past due for the FAA to just go ahead
and do it.
When it comes to the distribution of responsibility between
facilities, there are opportunities at FAA's disposal right now
to shift responsibilities from an understaffed and overworked
air traffic control center to a neighboring center with
adequate staff capacity. If the FAA believes this can be done
in the interest of improving safety, then once again it is time
for them to just do it.
At Newark International Airport we were making some
progress with the FAA at reducing delays, but recently, and I
use my own experiences as a yardstick, we have been singled out
as the airport with the greatest number of delays in the
Nation.
Well, part of this problem is related to area weather. An
important part of the solution rests with the FAA's ability to
deploy modern equipment and keep traffic moving safely in good
weather and bad. When it comes to cutting through the
bureaucracy and getting that equipment up and running at
Newark, it is time for the FAA to just do it.
Finally, it must be said that in order to move rapidly on
implementing these solutions, the FAA needs strong leadership,
and needs it right now. It is unconscionable that it took until
yesterday for the administration to announce their intent to
nominate individuals for the position of FAA Administrator and
Deputy Administrator. I say that with no disrespect to the
current Acting Administrator, who I think has done an excellent
job at the FAA.
They are doing the best they can, but we have not had a
confirmed FAA Administrator for more than 7 months. We have not
had a confirmed Deputy Administrator for more than 4 months. No
business worth its salt would go ahead without a chief
executive officer and a chief operating officer for such a long
time, and I plan to do whatever I can to encourage the Senate
to move these nominations as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
not have a prepared statement. From time to time I might chime
in indicating what the budget recommended for this year in this
area.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We would like to hear it, too.
Senator Domenici. Senator Lautenberg and I put the
bipartisan budget agreement together, and there are some facts
about funding expectations under the budget for the FAA that
have some bearing.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you make the statement
about what we ought to expect in the United States in terms of
this system. I think I would like to add one other goal for
your subcommittee that I hope you would clearly consider.
From time to time, agencies such as the FAA, IRS, and
others have justification for their inability to get certain
things done, and sometimes that is justifiably laid at our
footsteps in Congress for the way we fund or do not fund
programs, or limitations we have placed on them. I think the
issue is getting critical enough that before you have finished
your markup, this subcommittee ought to be very sure that what
we fund is indeed moving in a positive direction, not only from
our individual eyes as Senators, but from the standpoint of
those who have to put this behemoth together and make it work
better.
Personally, I thank you for this hearing, and I welcome the
New York delegation. Somehow from way out in New Mexico I have
sort of been adopted by New York. Maybe it is because they have
so many Italian people there. [Laughter.]
They invite me to be part of their Italian heritage. I
welcome that, and I note that they are in predominance even
here today.
In any event, I hope things can be worked out where you can
be proud of what we do this year, that we make some strides
that are positive with reference to the FAA both in terms of
safety and modernization of equipment. I think it is imperative
that we do that, be it for my State or your State or your
cities. We just have to. It is the mode of transportation for
people today that used to rely on other modes. They are all
using airplanes today, airlines are growing, and we have to
accommodate that.
Thanks very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici, I believe that the
Italians seated at the table like you personally, but they also
know you are chairman of the Budget Committee, too. [Laughter.]
We also like you because you are a member of this
subcommittee. You and Senator Lautenberg. You are the chairman
of the Budget Committee. He is the ranking Democrat on the
Budget Committee. We welcome you and we welcome your experience
on this committee. You will have a lot to say.
Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I come to this issue with a strong personal sense of
history. Some of you have heard this before, but I have
discovered since coming to the Senate there is no such thing as
repetition in the Senate, so I served in the Nixon
administration at the Department of Transportation, and one of
my first assignments was to lobby through the Congress the
Airport Airways Act that created the airport airways trust
fund.
We naively assumed when we created the trust fund, the
ticket tax, the departure tax, and the rest of it to go into
the trust fund, that we had put a financial base under the FAA
that would make them immune from funding problems for all time,
that from then on there would be a funding base to see to it
that the air traffic control system would be properly staffed
and properly equipped, no matter what happened to the ups and
downs of the economy.
With all due respect to the Budget Committee and the
unified budget, that has not happened, and Presidents, both
Republican and Democrat, have reached into the airport airways
trust fund under the process of the unified budget and taken
money that it was the original intent of Congress would go to
fund the air traffic control system, and they have used that
money for other purposes.
As one who was charged with the responsibility of
convincing Congress to create that trust fund in the first
place, I am upset that the money has not been there and that
the air traffic control system has been allowed to fall into
the state that it now is. I have shared this before, but I
think in this place it should be raised again.
Someone did a study of the computers in the Government to
see how vulnerable they were to hackers who could break into
the computer system and get at Government data, and they came
back and said, every portion of the Government, the Defense
Department, the IRS, every portion of the Government is subject
to attack by outside hackers save one, and that one is the air
traffic control system. Their equipment is so old and so
obsolete and the software so unknown to today's hackers that
they are immune from outside attack. [Laughter.]
Somehow I do not find that reassuring, and I am delighted
that this hearing has been held, and I look forward to hearing
from these witnesses.
Senator Shelby. Senator D'Amato, your written statement and
those of all of you will be made part of the written record in
its entirety. You may proceed as you wish. Welcome to the
committee. You have spent a lot of time on this committee
yourself earlier in your Senate career.
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Senator D'Amato. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for
not only holding this hearing but your moving to bring it on so
quickly, given the tremendous thrust of business that you have
to deal with, and it was only a matter of weeks ago that I
requested the subcommittee hold hearings.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Molinari for appearing
here today. The Borough President of Staten Island, her father
and former Congressman Guy Molinari, who unfortunately was not
feeling up to par to appear today, has sent in his place to
testify his chief of staff, Dan Donovan. Guy Molinari has
worked on aviation safety issues over the years when he was a
Congressman and was on the Aviation Subcommittee. I would also
like to welcome Congressman King, whose area and district takes
in some of the people who work in the towers and the air
traffic control centers.
Senator Lautenberg and I have worked over the years on a
number of these aviation safety issues, and it is good to be
here and to share some thoughts; however, I am sorry under
these circumstances.
Senator Bennett raised a point that we will touch on with
respect to the age and effectiveness of the equipment. It is a
disaster, and a disaster ready to take place. It will happen,
unless we do something.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving us the
opportunity to discuss the air traffic control situation in New
York. I was going to read this speech, but I am going to just
pick a couple of points out, because there is so much that has
to be said, and I think my colleagues are going to touch on
certain aspects of the problems and concerns that exist in New
York's air traffic control facilities.
The current situation, I think, really came to our
attention very vividly when a memorandum was leaked, a
memorandum by Terry Bolerjack, who is the air traffic manager
for the New York Center. I will ask for a copy of that memo, if
you have not received it, to be made available.
This memo is in his language. I am certain he did not think
that this was going to become public, because he would not have
been as candid. But, Mr. Chairman, I went up there with
Congressman King and Congressman Forbes and we saw the
conditions at the New York Center. We have seen what's
happening there.
Mr. Bolerjack is a man who deserves tremendous credit for
calling to the attention of those working for him how serious
the problem was. ``Recent increases in New York Center
operational errors and deviations have reached levels of grave
concern.'' He did not mince words.
Now people will say, oh, well, these increases really were
not levels of grave concern. Well, why did he say it? The man
has been there for years.
``Analysis of these incidents has clearly established
requirements for the immediate emplacement of improvements and
refinements in our air traffic control [ATC] operations.'' He
is specific here.
``The reduction of operational errors and deviations is our
No. 1 priority.'' He is saying, we have got a problem here.
This is our No. 1 priority.
``It is imperative that a concerted effort be made by the
entire facility management team to immediately effect a
substantial decrease in all categories of errors. The effective
accomplishment of this priority will require both the
commitment and best efforts of all of us.''
Then the memo goes through what he is directing people to
do, and he concludes with, ``I regret that I must impose such a
short deadline for this submission, but I firmly believe that
we must take positive action in the earliest timeframe.''
Coincidentally, my old roommate and Congressman and friend,
Borough President Molinari, and Congresswoman Molinari,
conducted a survey, and they got back a survey from nearly 200
air traffic controllers.
They are the controllers who try to man this outdated
equipment, 26-plus years old. We ought to be ashamed of
ourselves. Imagine a technology where controllers talk to each
other and they can be disrupted at any one time. This is what
you have in America in our skies.
Ask any pilot, and he will tell you the air traffic control
system is a joke, it is a travesty, and the operation has been
a travesty over the years. It has not gotten better. It has
gotten worse.
Now, if you ask these people who will come up here and
testify, the union representatives, what things are really
like, let me tell you, they cannot tell you what it is like,
because it means incredible consequences to them and to the
people they represent. I am concerned that they could face
unintended consequences where they could be shifted here,
there, demoted up, down, or even possibly lose overtime.
Senator Shelby. Mr. D'Amato, but you can tell us and tell
the American people, and so can the Congress, Congressman King,
and Congresswoman Molinari, and tell the American people what
it is like. That is why we are holding this hearing.
Senator D'Amato. That is right, Senator, and I thank you. I
think the American people thank you for giving us this
opportunity, and I thank those who have come to us and shared
some of this data and this information. It is incredible.
Let me just say that, over the last 8 months, airplanes
carrying many hundreds of passengers have been coming too close
to each other at the rate of more than three times each month.
This is in the New York corridor, and it is a disaster waiting
to happen.
The number of near misses has increased in the complex New
York airspace by 26 percent. This is a problem. Senator
Lautenberg alluded to it. It has gotten worse over the years.
It has not gotten better. There have been six near misses since
April--six near misses since April, including one this last
week. Last year there were 760 incidents nationwide.
New York Controllers Survey
Now, the controllers and technicians that I spoke to have
seen this taking place, and yet they feel powerless, and these
incidents are taking place for two reasons. First, there are
not enough fully trained controllers on the job, and second,
the equipment that they are using is old and outdated.
Let me refer to a survey that was taken, a blind survey
with no names, given to the controllers. The survey produced
182 responses.
Eighty-four percent of the respondents said that the morale
was either low, or very low. These are the people whose lives
we depend on--84 percent--that is a heck of a statement.
The controllers indicated that their workload is
overwhelming. About 92 percent of the controllers surveyed said
that they were required to handle more air traffic than was
safe.
When asked what the most serious problems were, about two-
thirds said they had too few fully trained controllers. Even
the controllers that you have there in many cases are not fully
trained.
Morale of the work force and outdated hardware were the
next two areas of concern. Now, listen to this--amazing--40
percent of the personnel rated the overall safety of the air
traffic system as poor, and an additional 4.9 percent said very
poor, so you have 45 percent of the people who operate these
systems saying that it was poor or very poor. We are talking
about the safety of our people.
At the New York Center, which controls the airspace over
New York, New Jersey, and parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland
there are supposed to be 339 fully trained controllers. Today,
there are 308, but of the 308, only 232 are fully trained.
Now, is it not interesting that today the FAA announces
that they are going to hire 100 more controllers--and by the
way, hiring 100 and getting them in there is far different than
making a statement, as Senator Lautenberg knows. I dare say
those 100 will not come online for who knows how long. It is
not good enough to make such statements to satisfy Congress and
then continue business as usual. But I fear that is what is
taking place.
The number of fully trained controllers is more than one-
third below the FAA's staffing standard, and I am not telling
you that the staffing standard is sufficient, but at their
minimum levels they are one-third below. On any given day,
there are supposed to be 190 controllers on hand; however, the
New York Center typically runs 20 to 30 percent below that
number. That is what is happening at the New York Center.
You are wondering why? Exhaustion, fatigue, greater
airspace that they have to cover.
What's more, the FAA enacted a reduction in force program
nationwide. Hundreds of positions were eliminated. The New York
Center lost 34. These employees at the New York Center
performed vital basic tasks, such as carrying data from station
to station which enabled the controllers to do their job. With
the loss of these positions, controller and controller trainees
are forced to perform these additional tasks.
We have given them more airspace, we have given them more
tasks, and they continue to have to use outdated equipment.
That is incredible, because let me tell you about the
people who maintain the equipment. I did not know this until I
toured the New York facility, and then one courageous person in
front of everybody said, ``Senator, don't forget the
technicians, we are the people who take care of this equipment.
Did you wonder why you are delayed when you come in from New
York? Did you wonder why sometimes you were held 3 hours?''
I do not mind being held on the ground 3 hours, if it is a
matter of safety; however, I do not enjoy it. But I did ask
him, why? He said, ``We only have 60 percent of the staff
necessary to take care of these facilities.''
He said, ``Did you know that we operate sometimes without
anyone here?'' He said, ``Do you know in terms of our testing
of the equipment they keep extending the time because we do not
have enough people, so we are not even checking on the
equipment the way we should be?'' So it is outdated equipment,
it is old equipment, and we are cutting back on the people who
maintain it and who keep it operational. You wonder why we have
these outages? Incredible.
Let me talk about the outages, if I might, because it is
interesting that just yesterday at 8:35 a.m., at Washington
National the switching equipment which lets the airplanes
communicate with the controllers at the tower facilities went
out. I do not know if my colleagues know about that, because we
fly out, basically, on weekends.
Well, why did this outage occur? It took them from 8:35
until 4:15 for the outage to be fixed. That was 8:35 in the
morning to 4:15. They had 61 flight delays, lasting an average
of 45 minutes, some much longer. Delays continued until after
midnight, on practically the whole east coast. Why?
Well, I will tell you why. The FAA has the policy now which
requires that an outside contractor must do the repair work on
the equipment. They could not get the contractor there to do
the job. Finally, a technician said, ``listen, we will do it
ourselves,'' but they had to wait for the contractor.
By the way, the FAA technicians on the job located the
problem within 2 hours, so at 10:30 they located it. They could
have fixed it by 11:30 or so. The contractor wasn't there to
fix it until 4:15. Now, that is the kind of thing that is going
on regularly.
So the FAA today puts out this drivel to try and appease
this committee--they say, oh, look, we have taken care of the
New York problem. We want to hire 100 people. Baloney.
Nonsense. Nonsense. The FAA says they are going to hire them,
but how long before they get online? How many of them are fully
trained? How many of them get up in those towers?
The busiest towers and air traffic facilities in the world,
and they are going to put people who are not fully trained in
them? Are you kidding? How many does the FAA have ready to go
there? Where has been the hiring policy because this problem
did not just develop yesterday, or the day before. This has
been going on for years, and if you look at the numbers you
will see where the staffing increased.
By the way, the FAA did increase staffing. Do you know
where? Headquarters. Headquarters. That is where your budget
money is going, Senator Domenici, instead of putting it out
there in the field.
And do you know, they are cutting back on training? Cutting
back on training. Incredible. What do you expect these poor
people to do who are out there, the people who are managing
this system like Mr. Bolerjack. What can he do if you do not
give him enough personnel? What can he do if you do not give
him people to maintain the equipment?
What can the people over here at National Airport do when
the FAA relies on outside contractors? By the way, the FAA
might say it saves money hiring outside contractors, but
according to the GAO it does not. It costs more money. Each
full-time technician hired saves the FAA $26,000 annually over
the cost of keeping an outside contractor on the payroll. What
are we doing?
You know, it sounds nice when you say, ``hey, guess what,
we have the private sector coming to help you here. We are
going to save you money.'' It is not happening. You have got
chaos and confusion, that is affecting the lives of people.
Senator Shelby. Senator D'Amato, I think you are on a good
point. Let us save lives here and train the people right,
because we are not talking about that much money, but we are
talking about a lot of lives.
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude my
remarks, because I know Congresswoman Molinari and Congressman
King have areas where they will touch on, but the fact of the
matter is, you have got to have a fully trained work force that
has sufficient numbers on staff doing the job. The FAA
management at the top levels here in Washington are
shortchanging the American people and endangering their lives.
It is that simple.
Now, I am not telling you that it is an easy answer to get
all sophisticated equipment, because that has been gummed up
for years and years, but it is not a relatively difficult thing
to make sure that the training facilities are operating at full
capacity instead of cutting back. It's amazing. Whenever they
need to save money, they stop training the air controllers and
they stop training the air technicians.
By the way, we now maintain about 40,000 pieces of
equipment and/or sites, and we have about 6,000 people who do
that. We used to maintain about 20,000 pieces of equipment and
sites, and we had 11,000 people. So while we have doubled the
number of facilities that have to be handled, we have reduced
dramatically the number of online people. What's more, while
they were reducing staff of the working people they were
increasing staffing at central headquarters. That is what is
taking place.
So I share this with you. I think this is going to have to
be an ongoing process, Mr. Chairman, where your committee and
others use their great power. You have started that by calling
today's hearings, and I commend you for that.
If you do not watch the FAA day-in and day-out, if you do
not encourage a line of communication between some of the
frontline people who are out there doing the real work, you are
never going to get this pertinent information and significant
change will never get done. It will be a Band-Aid. It will be a
press release. They have sent out a release, ``we are going to
hire 100 people. See, we are going to bring it up to staff.''
Again, Senator Lautenberg has heard many of these promises
over the years, and I commend him for never giving up, because
we cannot. Once we turn away, it is business as usual. The
situation is deteriorating. It is not getting better. It is
deteriorating.
I thank you.
Senator Shelby. Congresswoman Molinari.
Statement of Congresswoman Molinari
Ms. Molinari. Yes; thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I thank you for your time and
interest, and certainly, Senator D'Amato, we thank you very
much for bringing us here all together.
You know, every so often, as Senator D'Amato has said, we
have a report that jolts airline passengers from their seats,
because we have to determine that it is in fact in some cases
unsafe to fly.
I would like to say to Senator Lautenberg that Dan and I
were traveling this morning, and while we were waiting on the
ground at Newark the pilot said to us that he had been a
commercial pilot for 30 years and in the Air Force before that,
and he had never seen a line of planes waiting to take off as
long as we had to endure.
People are late for their meetings, people are late for
their connections, and this happens routinely.
Over the past 12 years as a Member of Congress and a Staten
Island Borough President, Guy Molinari has been addressing this
problem. The serious and potentially dangerous problem that
started amongst air traffic controllers at individual centers
is now finally being addressed by the FAA we think--we hope.
As Senator D'Amato said, the catalyst for today's hearing
was this internal FAA memorandum, which states clearly our
current air traffic safety system is inadequately designed and
staffed to handle the large volume of planes it must on a daily
basis.
The catalyst to the memo was that during the past 6 months
prior to this memo there were 24 incidents at New York Center
where planes had come dangerously close to one another in
flight. According to the center's manager, the problem had
reached ``levels of grave concern.''
The response from the FAA was puzzling, but it is also very
telling about their attitude. It described the dramatic
increase in close calls as statistically unrelated to the
shortage of air traffic controllers at New York Center. They
concluded, overall safety has actually increased. That is
right. They said overall safety has increased, even though one
controller is now doing the work of two or four.
Now, that may be acceptable for the FAA, but that is
clearly not acceptable for airline passengers.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, can any one of us
believe one person can perform a better task requiring the work
of four, when there has not been updated equipment to make that
change? Will the FAA also have us believe that one wing is
better than two?
The air traffic controllers, the people charged with the
task of keeping the skies safe, do not agree with the FAA's
bizarre explanation, and neither do I. There simply are not
enough hands nor eyes to do the work, and as Senator Lautenberg
has said, unfortunately this is not a new problem. Air traffic
control facilities have been grossly understaffed since 1981,
and over the past 16 years, the FAA has failed to develop an
adequate solution.
A 1989 General Accounting Office study commissioned by then
Congressman Guy Molinari surveyed FAA workers about safety and
other conditions at their facilities. The GAO survey revealed
great differences in the way air traffic controllers and the
FAA viewed conditions at air traffic facilities. Not
unexpectedly, controllers and supervisors received a critical
shortage of full performance level controllers.
What does this do? The shortages forced controllers to
handle unmanageable volumes of air traffic and work too long
without a break.
These controllers also said that new workers receive
inadequate training, and that the overall morale was low, and
these factors hindered their ability to maintain the system
safely. This is 1989.
The reason is simple to understand. Let us look at New York
Center's one example among many. Last year, I visited the
center and saw firsthand the problems and the fears expressed
by the controllers. In an all-hands session during my tour the
controllers cautioned that air traffic equipment was sometimes
unreliable and often malfunctioning.
I saw a system, and I hope somebody is going to come up
here who is going to explain it more professionally, called the
ODAP system that deals with over the ocean, and basically all
it does is type out little strips of paper that have the
longitude and latitude of where planes are taking off. It then
goes into almost like a puzzle game piece on a wall, and then
it is up to that controller to study and measure and
continuously focus and refocus.
In this age of technology, it is unconscionable that we do
not have a computerized system that allows the air traffic
controller to do the backup work but not the sustainable work,
and it is also not uncommon for that system to go out
completely, and then the air traffic controllers and the pilots
are literally flying blind.
They warned equipment problems during this all-hands
session, combined with staffing shortages, created an
unprecedented situation for disaster.
Since 1981 the volume of air traffic handled by New York
Center has increased 36 percent. Today, the New York Center
route, the flights of 6,500 planes per day covering 35,000
square miles of the Eastern United States, over 3 million
square miles of the Atlantic Ocean. That is their charge in
this one center. It is huge.
Recent inventories show that we have a 45-percent reduction
of air traffic controllers, so we have seen a tremendous
increase in the amount of sky they have to cover, the amount of
planes that are traveling, and a decrease in air traffic
controllers.
To make matters worse, and I hope you ask the FAA to
address this, the number of controllers at New York Center will
be continuing to decrease. Nearly 60 percent of those
controllers who are eligible to retire will do so within the
next 2 years. Where is the backup plan to handle that pending
crisis, when we have not fixed the pending crisis over the last
16 years?
Many others who came to the center from other parts of the
country on a temporary basis for training would like to return
to their facilities closer to home, so the number that they
have is not even accurate, because they have said, based on the
results of this report and the data provided by the FAA, they
are out of there.
Moreover, with working conditions as dismal as they are, it
is not surprising that the facility has difficulty retaining
experienced controllers and attracting new ones.
Senator D'Amato referred to the fact that the FAA said they
are going to hire all these new air traffic controllers.
Senator Lautenberg will confirm every time Congress gets
serious or the borough president gets serious and raises a red
flag, a memo, a press release comes out from FAA saying they
are increasing air traffic controller hiring, and then they do
not have the program to train these air traffic controllers.
At New York Center, it takes 3 to 5 years to train an air
traffic controller, because they bring them on, they take them
off, they have shortages of actual air traffic controllers,
nevertheless, the people to train them, so to say they are
hiring 100 is not good enough. When will they be able to do the
job?
This has been a longstanding problem at New York Center and
other hard-to-staff facilities. Although the FAA initiated a
pay incentive program in June 1989 to beef up its staff at such
facilities, those pay incentives have since been reduced. In
areas where it is so difficult, where the quality of life is
more expensive, the FAA has to answer the question, what do we
do to provide incentives to get air traffic controllers to
those areas of the country?
It is hard to believe that the controller shortage was
caused by a simple lack of funding, Senator Domenici. The FAA
budget jumped over $800 million since 1991, to $4.1 billion in
1996. In 1997, its funding was again increased to $5.2 billion,
and it will exceed $5.3 billion next year.
It is also hard to believe that incompetent management
alone is the cause. In the past 16 years, the FAA has been
headed by seven different administrators, and it is clearly,
anyone can tell you, not the work force there.
I would suggest to you, Senators, that this situation would
be more tragic, we would have more disasters, if it were not
for the type of men and women who fill the positions of air
traffic controllers who work overtime, who do all they can to
make sure that the system works above and beyond the call of
duty.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are cruising toward
disaster if the FAA does not hire more controllers and have a
program to train them at once.
Senators, let us not wait until a collision occurs. Let us
not wait until another near miss becomes a tragic disaster. Let
us please assess the problem now, and I thank you all very much
for giving us this opportunity to bring this crisis and this
level of frustration to your attention.
Thank you very much, Senators.
Senator Shelby. Congressman King.
Ms. Molinari. Excuse me, Senator, before I go, I just want
to make sure that the 1997 Air Traffic Controller Work Force
Study that my dad and I performed is entered into the record.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. It will be made part of the record in its
entirety along with your complete statement. Thank you.
Ms. Molinari. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Molinari
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Lautenberg, members of the
Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
today.
Every so often airline passengers are jolted from their
seats by news that it is unsafe to fly. The most recent alarm,
but one which Staten Island Borough President Molinari, has
been sounding for more than a dozen years, is that air traffic
control facilities are chronically understaffed. The epidemic
has spread from low whispers among controllers at individual
centers to the halls of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) itself.
The catalyst for today's hearing was an internal FAA
memorandum. The memo said, clearly stated that the air traffic
safety system today is unsafe. According to the memo, in the
past six months there were 24 incidents at New York Center
where planes had come dangerously close to one another while in
flights. According to the Center's Manager, the problem had
``reached levels of grave concern.''
The response from the FAA was puzzling. It described the
dramatic increase in ``close calls'' as statistically unrelated
to the shortage of air traffic controllers at the New York
Center. They concluded that overall safety is actually
increased--that's right increased when one controller does the
work of two or four. That may be acceptable for the FAA, but it
is not acceptable for airline passengers.
The air traffic controllers--the people charged with the
task of keeping the skies safe, do not agree with the FAA's
bizarre explanation. There are simply not enough hands--or
eyes--to do the work. And unfortunately, this is not a new
problem. Air traffic control facilities have been grossly
understaffed since 1981, and over the past 16 years the FAA has
failed to develop an adequate solution.
A 1989 General Accounting Office (``GAO'') study
commissioned by Borough President Molinari while he was a
member of Congress surveyed FAA workers about safety and other
conditions at their facilities. The GAO survey revealed great
differences in the way air traffic controllers and facility
managers viewed conditions at FAA air traffic facilities. Not
unexpectedly, controllers and their supervisors perceived a
critical shortage of full performance level controllers.
These shortages, force controllers to handle unmanageable
volumes of air traffic and work too long without a break. The
controllers also said that new workers received inadequate
training and that overall morale was low. And these factors
hindered their ability to maintain system safety.
The reason is simple to understand. Let's look at New York
Center as one example among many.
I visited the Center last year and saw first-hand the
problems and fears expressed by the controllers. In an all-
hands session during my tour of the facility, the controllers
cautioned that the air traffic equipment was sometimes
unreliable and often malfunctioning. They warned that equipment
problems--combined with staffing shortages created an
unprecedented potential for disaster.
Since 1981, the volume of air traffic handled by the New
York Center has increased 30 percent. Today, the New York
Center routes the flights of 6,500 planes per day, covering
35,000 square miles of the eastern United States and over 3
million square miles of the Atlantic Ocean.
To make matters worse, the number of controllers at New
York Center will be decreasing. Nearly 60 percent of those
controllers who are eligible to retire within the next two
years intend to do so. Many others, who came to the Center from
other parts of the country on a temporary basis for training,
would like to return to facilities that are closer to their
home towns.
Moreover, with working conditions as dismal as they are, it
is not surprising that the facility has difficulty retaining
experienced controllers and attracting new ones.
This has been a long-standing problem at New York Center
and at other hard-to-staff facilities. Although the FAA
initiated a pay incentive program in June 1989 to beef up its
staff at such facilities, those pay incentives have since been
reduced.
In the face of this looming staff shortage, the FAA
responded by closing its main training facility for controllers
and technicians in Oklahoma.
It is hard to believe that the controller shortage was
caused by lack of funding. The FAA's budget jumped over $800
million since 1991, to $4.1 billion in 1996. In 1997, its
funding was increased to $5.2 billion and it will exceed $5.3
billion next year.
It is also hard to believe that incompetent management
alone is the cause. In the past 16 years, the FAA has been
headed by 7 different Administrators.
Today's hearing is the first step in repairing an air
traffic safety system that is in trouble. There is no doubt in
my mind that we are cruising toward disaster if the FAA does
not hire more controllers at once.
Let's not wait until a collision occurs.
Let's not wait until another near miss becomes a tragic
disaster.
Let's not wait until our air controller force is hanging by
a thread.
The time to act is now. We must not delay.
[Clerk's note.--The 1997 Air Traffic Controller Work Force
Study does not appear in the hearing record, but is available
for review in the subcommittee's files.]
Statement of Congressman King
Senator Shelby. Congressman King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Senator Shelby. I really appreciate
the opportunity to be here today. I thank you for convening
this hearing. I also must commend my colleague, Senator
D'Amato, for the tremendous leadership he has shown, and of
course Congresswoman Molinari and Borough President Guy
Molinari for never giving up on this issue. They realize how
important it is, how vital it is, and they have just kept this
fight going, and it is really essential that we try to rectify
this tragic situation as soon as possible.
I would just like to say at the outset, though, Senator
D'Amato says he does not mind waiting 3 hours on the runway on
La Guardia Airport. I do, if I have to sit next to Senator
D'Amato and I hear a 3-hour speech on ATM's and the FAA, and I
get his entire litany of abuse that he was going to give to
other people, and I have to listen to it for 3 hours on the
runway. [Laughter.]
But this is a serious issue, and I just want to touch on a
few points that Susan brought up, the fact about how there has
been such a drastic increase by 35, 36 percent in the air
traffic over the New York corridor, and yet there has been an
even more significant decrease in the manpower levels of air
traffic controllers, and you would think perhaps this can be
explained by the fact that the technology has been improved so
much we do not need as many air traffic controllers, but as
Senator Bennett has pointed out, the technology is not up to
par.
In fact, my understanding is that some of the technology is
so antiquated that IBM does not even make the replacement parts
for the equipment any more. That is how old this technology is,
how outdated it is, and how antiquated it is.
Now, on a number of occasions I visited New York TRACON, I
have visited La Guardia tower, and I have seen firsthand these
air traffic controllers routinely work 6-day workweeks, they
put in countless hours of overtime, I have observed radar
terminals that were unmanned and other positions that were
designed for two controllers being staffed by only one.
When I was out at the New York Center last month I was
surprised to see controllers still using grease pens and
plotting boards to map the position of planes under their
surveillance.
The fact is, as Senator D'Amato said, these are tragedies
waiting to happen. Thank God we have the outstanding personnel
we do have among the air traffic controllers, but the
bottomline is, there is only so long we can put off the
inevitable, and the inevitable will be tragedy.
As Susan Molinari pointed out, in the last 6 months alone
there has been 30 percent increases in near misses. I mean, 30
percent increase in near misses, and for the FAA to write that
off as some sort of a statistical aberration I think shows the
type of shortsightedness that is perhaps the root of this
problem overall.
We have to address it. This hearing is absolutely vital in
helping us come to a way to address it, and I certainly look
forward to working with the members of this committee and also
my New York colleagues, Senator D'Amato and Congresswoman
Molinari. At least for the next 6 or 7 weeks, Susan, I look
forward to working with you, and then I look forward to going
on her TV show and explaining it to the public at large, how
terrible the situation is in New York.
But very seriously, this is a vital matter that must be
addressed, Senator, and I just want to thank you for convening
this hearing today and as you said before, we have to save
lives. We are talking about human lives, and no responsibility
of a Member of Congress or a Member of the U.S. Senate can be
more vital than saving American lives, and that is what we have
to do, and that is what this hearing is all about.
I thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby. We now have Hon. Dan Donovan. He is the
chief of staff of Guy Molinari, borough president, Staten
Island, Long Island.
Statement of Dan Donovan
Mr. Donovan. The borough president regrets that he cannot
be here to give this statement personally, and he has asked me
to read the following:
Good morning. I am Staten Island Borough President and
former Member of Congress Guy V. Molinari. I welcome the
opportunity to share with you my thoughts on air traffic
control staffing. Air traffic controllers are a special breed.
They are dedicated professionals. No matter how difficult an
assignment is given to them, the controllers will find a way to
make it work. They are the ones most competent to identify
problems in the system. I am therefore going to share with you
their evaluation of the air traffic control system,
particularly as it relates to the New York region.
As you know, in 1981 President Reagan fired 11,400 air
traffic controllers for participating in an illegal strike
called by the PATCO union. At that time, we were told that the
FAA would rebuild the system within a relatively short period.
Here we are, 16 years later, and staffing remains at less than
desirable levels at many of our major and minor air traffic
facilities throughout the country.
At the New York Center, prior to the 1981 strike there was
a total of 514 controllers, including 405 FPL's, full
performance level air traffic controllers.
Recently, the FAA and the union have agreed that the
permanent staffing levels for controllers should be set at 374,
and that a minimum of 335 controllers should be hired at that
center by the end of the next fiscal year.
However, recent inventories show there are now only 281
controllers at New York Center, 229 of whom are fully
qualified. That is a 45-percent reduction from 1981.
While it is true that the FAA has transferred some air
space to other centers, you should also know that air traffic
has increased 36 percent since the 1981 strike. What, then, do
the controllers tell us?
In 1985, the General Accounting Office conducted an
extensive survey of almost all air traffic facilities in the
country. Seventeen percent of the controllers rated the system
as poor or very poor nationwide. Forty-two percent said that
the shortage of FPL's strongly hindered or somewhat hindered
the safety of the air traffic system. Ninety-one percent
believed the total number of FPL controllers was somewhat lower
or much lower than needed.
In 1989, at my request, GAO conducted another survey
entitled, ``Aviation Safety. Serious Problems Continue to
Trouble the Air Traffic Control Work Force.'' That title alone
conveys a strong message.
Again, 16 percent of the controllers warned that the system
was poor or very poor, virtually unchanged from 1985. Sixty-
five percent believed they were handling too much traffic, and
43 percent indicated their morale was low, with even 36 percent
of firstline supervisors labeling their morale low as well.
In the last few months, with the assistance of GAO and
Congresswoman Molinari's office, I conducted a similar survey
at New York Center. A total of 182 air traffic controllers
responded and revealed the following.
On the critical issue of safety, 40 percent rated the
overall safety of the air traffic system as poor or very poor,
more than double the national finding in 1985 and 1989. Ninety-
three percent of controllers said the shortage of developmental
controllers puts the flying public in danger. Ninety-seven
percent stated that the shortage of FPL's strongly hinders or
somewhat hinders safety. Ninety-three percent of the
controllers said that they were handling much more or somewhat
more traffic than they should during peak hours.
And surprisingly--not surprisingly, excuse me, 84 percent
said morale at New York Center was very low, or low, more than
double the national figure from 1989.
Despite the many studies and many warnings in the past 16
years, the FAA has failed in its very important mission to
provide adequate staffing of air traffic controllers, not only
in the New York Center but in many other facilities nationwide.
Too frequently, controllers pose the question of, does it take
a midair collision to give us relief?
You might ask, what options are available? There have been
different experiments tried by the FAA. They tried a 20-percent
pay differential increase in 1989, which met with a fair amount
of success. When the pay incentive was reduced to 12 percent,
it did not work. Many of the controllers in the New York Center
now are seeking transfers, since they do not come from the New
York region. If the FAA does not implement adequate pay
incentive programs, the only other solution is the proposal
suggested by the NATCU Union, embark on an aggressive employee
recruitment program among local residents. These are people
with roots in the community, and they are less likely to seek a
transfer out of State.
The proposal would have them serve 2 years at the center
and then be assigned to the Oklahoma City Academy. When they
graduate, they will be reassigned to the New York Center, and
that would help alleviate the present problem where controllers
are seeking transfers to their home region.
Let me close by saying that for too many years, I have been
very troubled by this shortage of adequate staffing at many of
our air traffic control facilities. I have lost faith in the
FAA, and am convinced that only intervention by Congress will
answer the problem. I am afraid that failure to act more
aggressively will ultimately lead to tragedy, and that is
something I am sure we all want to avoid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator D'Amato, I take it from your
testimony and the others here today and other information we
have that it is obvious that with the staffing issues, with the
equipment failures and near failures in the New York-New Jersey
area, the problem is getting a lot worse. It is not getting
better. That is a given, is it not?
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, yes, absolutely, you are
right.
Senator Shelby. If it is, if we accept that, what actions
would you suggest, in addition to additional training, that FAA
should take to rectify the problems in the New York-New Jersey
area?
Senator D'Amato. The first thing I think they should do is
come in to see the Congress, the leadership of the Congress,
and tell them that they have an important proposal. I would do
this on a bipartisan basis, and explain to the leadership why
it is in various areas obtaining proper staffing levels is such
a problem. I do not know what the situation may or may not be
in other high-cost and high-traffic areas.
Senator Shelby. Like Atlanta, or Chicago?
Senator D'Amato. Maybe Chicago, yes, or Los Angeles,
because I would imagine you have the same kind of thing taking
place. We should reinstitute a plan that would reward those who
are going to work under these extraordinarily difficult
situations, at least for the near future. We should reinstate a
pay differential.
That would have to be explained with candor to the various
leaders so that they would understand, and so this would not
look like anything other than what it really is intended to do,
that is, to retain people. If we do not, why would someone want
to stay here or in any one of these high-cost, high-traffic
regions, when they could go to an area--and I am not going to
mention any particular area of the country--where one-tenth of
the flights come in, and they get paid the same? You have to
address the problem where you have one-half the staff looking
to transfer out.
We also need to address the recruiting program. There are a
number of wonderful technical schools that work in the area of
training people to become pilots in the aviation industry.
Recruit people from the New York-New Jersey region, from the
area schools and in sufficient numbers to fill air traffic
controller positions. The FAA just started a pilot program. Do
you know how many people they are going to recruit? Ten. It is
a joke.
If you look at how many people will be retiring, the FAA
indicates that they think it is something in the nature of 211
people, but the GAO says, oh, no. It is going to be 560 by the
year 2001, 2002. In other words, much more than what the FAA is
anticipating. They always underestimate the problem.
And by the way, let me tell you what is happening at the
training school in Oklahoma. Do you know what these turkeys
did? As a matter of fact, they make turkeys have a bad name.
Turkeys would not operate this way. It is incredible.
Anyway, here you have a nationwide shortage of fully
trained people, and what does the FAA do, they close the
training school whenever they have to save a couple of bucks.
They should close the headquarters. Throw some people out of
the headquarters. Do not close the training school which turns
out these people. We need to know how many times in the past
years they have done this.
And then they come to the Appropriations Committee, and
Senator Lautenberg tries to find more money, and you, Mr.
Chairman, try to find more money to keep the training school
open. That is where these turkeys go to save money. Incredible.
Stop the outside contracts. Stop this kind of nonsense. This is
poor, disastrous management.
Senator Shelby. Congresswoman Molinari, do you have any
comment?
Ms. Molinari. I would just reaffirm that obviously local
recruiting is something that is very important to those of us
in the region. Pay incentives have to be implemented to solve
the immediate crisis, and the overall problem has to be dealt
with in terms of long-term planning.
The situation that Senator D'Amato just described only
results in the fact that we have no training pipeline. We may
stick our finger in the dike for today and tomorrow, and then
you know, 3 years from now we are back to where we started.
It is clear that management has the tools to make these
projections, and if they are really concerned about air
passenger safety, they would account for that with regard to
the way they deal with training. That has never been done.
Senator Shelby. Congressman King.
Mr. King. I would just reaffirm what Senator D'Amato said.
There does have to be some form of pay incentive.
Also, Senator, I think it is important to realize that one
of the jobs of air traffic controllers is to train new
controllers, and when they are overworked to begin with, it is
hard for them to go about and do the necessary training that is
required, and that inevitably slows down the training process,
so I think all this is just a vicious circle we are going in.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I
listened with interest to the criticism of the system by my
colleagues, for whom I have respect, and I tried to relate the
often referenced analogies between how you run a business and
how you run FAA or other Departments of Government.
I remember the time--I was not in the Senate at the time. I
was running a company in New Jersey, that area, and I remember
how pleased a lot of people were when they kicked out all those
controllers. They had performed an illegal action, and they
were gone, and there was almost--I would have to describe it as
gloating, pleasure, happiness. We paid those suckers back.
Well, I would tell you, I listened to the criticism again,
tried to be objective, and I ask, if it was your company, and
you were breaking out of the windows, and breaking out of your
capacity, would you say, for crying out loud, let us cut down
the number of customers. We cannot take care of them. We are up
to here.
If it was a theater you would not jam the place so full
that if there was a fire or an incident, that you could not get
out of there. If it was a swimming pool in a municipality you
would not put so many kids in there just because there was a
line outside. You would put up a sign--I have seen signs at the
beaches, Long Island. No room. No parking. On your way.
Well, maybe it is time, and I would ask any of my
colleagues at the table, do you want to cut down the volume of
air traffic that we are carrying? What do you think?
Senator D'Amato. Well, in essence, Senator, that is exactly
what is taking place, because they are holding you for 3 hours,
or they are delaying for 45 minutes, and they are putting
people in huge lines, so that is what is taking place.
And I said to you initially, I said, oh, I am much more
happy to wait the 3 hours than to put myself in more danger.
Senator Lautenberg. Ride Amtrak.
Senator D'Amato. That is one alternative. But, the FAA is
doing two things. Not only are they delaying, which I say,
fine, as opposed to flying into a place where you may have a
power outage, and the controllers cannot operate their
equipment, but in addition, they are still operating the system
in a dangerous manner, one that is absolutely not acceptable.
Senator Lautenberg. I would say this, that we have a
comparison, if one wants to make one, the size of the theater
and the amount of airspace. You can only fit so much traffic,
and as opposed to a reaction, or perhaps it ought to be an
action, and I am going to pursue this for a minute, because I
want someone in here to say, enough. We cannot handle it, and
you, airline A, B, and C, you are just going to have to limit
the number of flights that you have.
Well, I mean, it is easy to sit here and scream about how
dangerous and how casual, and how turkeyish, and what we want
to do. These are not assassins. These are people who are trying
to do a job, for crying out loud, and yes, we have made
mistakes, and the mistakes have been as much on this side of
the table as out there, when it comes to funding.
No; get outside contractors. We do not want any more
Government bureaucracies managing our--give them the outside
contractors, until the outside contractor screws up, and then
we say, we have no control over those outside contractors.
I think we have to make up our minds. Do we believe in a
Government that can handle its responsibilities, or do we just
want to sit by and curse out everybody who tries their best to
do a job?
This space may be a little bit dangerous. My kids fly in
there, my daughter, my grandchild, Susan's child flies in that
space. Why? It is because fundamentally we believe, despite
some problems, that it is a darned good system, and we want it
to continue to operate.
I would rather--if I am laying on my back in the street
someplace, and they call up EMS and they dial 911, they say,
hey, we need a technician, this guy's out cold, I would rather
have them send a partially trained EMS person than no one, say
we do not have fully trained--we are in a situation, my
friends, one that requires our cooperation, just as well as
pointing a finger.
And yes, I will tell you, FAA has been screwed up for a
long time, and Congressman King, I tried to give FAA equipment.
I was in the computer business. To give it to--rather, to give
it to charities as a contribution. They would not take it,
because it costs more to maintain it than the value of the
equipment that FAA was using.
I do not want to lay off any of the blame that falls FAA's
way, but some part of it really is on this side of the table.
And when it comes to allocating resources, when it comes to
saying, listen, we just cannot handle that traffic, we cannot
go any further, we have so much airspace, 35 percent increase
in aviation constitutes all kinds of changes.
It is not simply that it is just 35 percent more, because
if you could widen the airspace, if you could build larger
airports--how many times have you had an occasion when you land
in La Guardia, or Newark, or Washington, DC, and you sit and
wait for a gate almost as long as the flight takes.
So the system is overburdened, and the question that we
want to decide is whether or not, instead of just pointing
fingers, we are going to do whatever we can to fix it by saying
to Continental and American and United and Delta and Northwest,
hey, guys, what you have got to do is you have got to cut back
on your traffic, and then we will see what the American people
say. That will be the real test.
It is easy to get them on your side when all you are doing
is belting out criticism. See if the American people say, OK,
if I cannot make my reservation today and it takes 2 weeks in
advance to make it, I am going to be satisfied with that kind
of a system.
No, my friends; this is a thing that we are all in
together. Nobody is exempt. What we want to do is make sure
that FAA has the resources. I would like to make sure FAA has a
chief executive that is responsible for his or her actions. To
maintain their job, that is the exclusive criteria.
I am with the party that has got the executive now. I would
prefer that no Chief of our Government has the right to appoint
an FAA Chairman, Chairperson, because I do not think that when
the job requires the kind of long-range planning that this
does--and I come out of a fairly good-sized company. We had
16,000 people when I left it. Decisions that had to have long-
range results had to have long-range planning and long-range
supervision, and you do not change skippers in the middle of
the flight.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear what is
happening, but when you have an FAA Administrator turn over--we
have seen them. They have come from the military, they have
come from business, good performers, but they are gone before
the projects begin to show their weakness.
We spent $2 billion on a program that absolutely failed
with one of the finest companies in America, one of the finest.
If you said, who is the best name, electronics and computers
and so forth, the name springs to mind. We spent $2 billion
with them and had no positive result, $2 billion out the window
like that, so maybe we ought to stop managing this thing so
closely, make our demands, provide the resources, and let the
people who have to run it, run it.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, we are not here for
blame. At least, I am not here to call names and say who is to
blame, but we are here seeking solutions, and to prevent
problems in the future.
We are interested in safety. I will work with you and other
members of the committee to see that the FAA has the resources
to hire, also to buy the proper equipment. We owe it to the
American people to put safety above everything as far as
airline passengers are concerned, because we are, as you point
out, all passengers, and we are family, and we are in it
together.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, since I have to leave
shortly, I want to spread across the record, if I might--it
will just take me 2 minutes. Senator Lautenberg and I are on
the same side in putting this budget together.
Senator Shelby. Well, as I said, I am glad both of you are
here today. You both are members of this subcommittee and you
run the Budget Committee.
Senator Domenici. I want to make sure that everybody knows,
whatever the President requested for the FAA, we gave him.
There was no effort to cut anything in the FAA budget. First,
transportation was created as a priority item, a priority
function of Government.
This particular area of Government was funded in the
following manner. FAA operations, the President asked for $5.1
billion. We gave him that. Facilities and equipment, he asked
for $2 billion, we gave him that--$2 billion.
Research and development, he asked for $200 million, we
gave him that.
The airport improvement program was one area that Senator
Lautenberg was very, very tough on, and we wanted to make sure
we were doing as much as we could. Actually the President asked
for $1 billion, we gave him $1.5 billion, so the total spending
for the FAA is in excess of what the President asked for.
Mr. Chairman, you have some latitude in terms of moving
these numbers around, whether it be the airport improvement
program or another FAA account. If the committee wants to
provide some programs less and put more in something else, that
is the function of this subcommittee.
Senator Shelby. If the Senator would yield, I am going to
be working with Senator Lautenberg to make sure that we move
the money to safety, and safety and nothing else.
Senator Domenici. I make this point because some people
assume that when we put a budget together that we do not accept
the administration's priorities and fund them to the maximum
level where there have been problems.
This one and many others were funded at the President's
level, assuming that the executive branch knows more than we
do, at least for starters, as to what we ought to fund and
where the problems are. I ask that my chart showing FAA funding
in the budget agreement appear in the record.
Senator Shelby. It will be made part of the record without
objection.
[The information follows:]
FAA Funding in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement
The Bipartisan Budget Agreement contains annual funding increases
for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Annual increases of
three percent are assumed for FAA Operations, Facilities and Equipment,
and Research, Development, and Engineering accounts.
These assumptions are the same as the FAA's budget request for
these programs.
For the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the capital construction
account of the FAA, spending is frozen at its 1997 level of $1.46
billion through 2002. The President's budget request had been to reduce
this program to $1 billion in 1998 through 2002.
Total FAA funding will increase from its current $8.5 billion to
$8.8 billion in 1998 under the Bipartisan Budget Agreement.
The Bipartisan Budget Agreement did not include the
Administration's request to make the FAA fully funded by user fees
beginning in 1999. The agreement does not include any new user fees for
the FAA as proposed by the President.
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five-year
1997 1998 totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA operations................. $4.9 $5.1 $27.4
Facilities and equipment....... 1.9 2.0 10.5
Research and development....... 0.2 0.2 1.1
AIP............................ 1.46 1.46 7.3
----------------------------------------
Total FAA spending....... 8.5 8.8 46.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Domenici. I thank the delegation from New York for
appearing. I think you made a good case, and from my standpoint
every now and then we need appearances like this to recall some
of the serious problems we have got and get on with trying to
solve them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I cannot add anything to this. I think our
colleagues have been very exhaustive, and I appreciate their
coming.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know
that I can add a lot to what has been said. I apologize for
coming late, but the thing that has bothered me, and I have
been concerned about it right much, and I had Mr. Donahue and
Mr. Mims from the FAA over in the office one day this week to
talk about how we spent over $3 billion on this advanced
automation system.
Senator Lautenberg. Far more, but $1 billion we know is
pure waste.
Senator Faircloth. And yet we talk about money for training
people. Now, I would think $2 billion would train a lot of
people.
The people that did this purchasing for the FAA were not
severely punished. They were transferred from further
purchasing, after $2 billion, and Senator Lautenberg, I do not
question that IBM and Big Blue has a great reputation, but for
10 years and $3 billion, they fiddled with this thing, and
nothing happened except a total catastrophe, so what do they
do, they sell the division that was building it.
Now, if that is not cutting your losses and getting rid of
your bad publicity, I do not know what it is. I do not know who
we go back to. IBM no longer even owns the thing.
Now, that might be--in the private sector that is known as
taking a dive in the onion dip--taking cover.
So we talk about money, but somehow there has got to be
responsibility for the money, and you try to trace this thing,
and everybody gives you a plea of insanity. Nobody knows what
happened, how you could spend $3 billion--$1 billion we could
have been better to put in a pile and burn on the runway. It
would have given us more light than what we have gained by a $3
billion fiasco.
So when we talk about more money, that has been a
Government problem forever, because no matter what the problem
is, no matter how much stupidity or how much waste, pour more
money in it and it has got to get better.
Now, I do not know whether IBM has any responsibility in
this thing or not, but it would appear to me that they did. Any
time that you waste $3 billion of the taxpayer's money,
somebody has to have some responsibility, and be responsible,
other than the pitiful statement that we transferred a few of
the purchasing agents out of purchasing. That is the weakest
excuse I have ever heard for throwing away $3 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you all for coming here. I know it has been
exhausting. It gets a little warm, gets a little hot in here,
but this is a worthwhile hearing, because I believe it points
out what we need to do here in this committee, that is to make
sure, Senator D'Amato, that the agency is properly funded, and
then that they are properly accountable for what they do in
hiring and buying equipment and everything that goes on with
the safety of our traveling public.
Senator D'Amato. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, and
let me say, if I seem to be unduly harsh, I make no apology,
absolutely none.
Let me tell you something. Look at the record, and when you
look at the record, you see a pattern of persistent
misallocation of resources. The training school should be
turning out more people, absolutely. They should have been
doing that years ago.
I did not say it is just the management that is in now, and
of course you do not even have an Administrator. This has been
a continuing pattern. I am not going to make any apology here.
And this business about whether or not you have too much
traffic in the air, of course you do if you do not have enough
people to work the traffic, and of course, when you are working
people overtime. Of course, when you have a guy who is covering
twice the area and twice the responsibility. Of course it is
dangerous when you do not have sufficient technicians.
Just look at what happened yesterday. I do not have to be
here to apologize for what took place at National Airport
yesterday. We are all accountable for this, and indeed, I
believe that if it were not for the Congress of the United
States and your oversight, Mr. Chairman, this situation would
have been worse. I commended you, Senator Lautenberg, for your
attempt to handle this, but let me tell you what is taking
place is that the situation has deteriorated, notwithstanding
the promises that have been made by the FAA.
Now, that evaluation comes from the men and women who man
these systems--good, decent, hardworking people. Also, I think
we have to ask, how is it that a tower went out at 8:35 at one
of the busiest airports in the Nation, National Airport, and
did not come back online until 4:15? When I indicate what took
place, I have to tell you, I do not make any apologies.
But, I have to ask why do we have so many problems with our
current system? We talk about the delays, of course, and that
is why the planes were backed up. But if there was only one
isolated example, then fine. These things happen. But this is
not isolated. It is becoming more routine. Hence, Mr.
Bolerjack's letter of warning.
I did not make that letter up. That gentleman meant every
single word, and if you had him here now, he would have you
think that this is the safest, the best operational situation
that we ever had. Why do you think? Because the bosses are on
his back. He is a good man.
I did not make up when he said that ``increases in
operational errors and deviations have reached levels of grave
concern. The reduction of operational errors and deviations is
our No. 1 priority. I regret I must impose such a short
deadline for this submission.'' I have only taken three little
sentences out. This is real.
Now, we have not come forth without there being a
constructive suggestion as it relates to dealing with this,
both short term and long term. Long term, you have got to see
that the facilities for training people, whether they be the
technicians or the controllers, are operating at full staffing
levels and are operating and increasing the capacity as opposed
to decreasing capacity. You cannot get away from that.
We are going to have to take those men and women and get
them into the facilities, get them trained as quickly as
possible, not just to meet a critical situation today, but for
the future as well. Long term, we are going to have to see to
it that where we have some of these areas where we have a
difficult time getting the needed amount of staff that we meet
our responsibility. I am not saying that because it happens to
be in the New York/New Jersey area. Whether it is in Chicago or
Los Angeles, we must ask how do we keep the people we have and
how do we attract new applicants?
One of the ways is to go to the great technical schools
that we have, as well as the universities and colleges where
young people who live in the area and can train in the industry
can be recruited. In this way, the likelihood of them staying
in the area as opposed to coming in de novo is much greater. It
makes common sense.
So I suggest that there are a number of alternatives, as
opposed to what is taking place now, because the status quo
will lead to trouble.
Senator Shelby. The status quo is too dangerous.
Senator D'Amato, I want to tell you that this committee is
going to do whatever it takes to properly fund the FAA, and we
are also going to have oversight and make sure that this money
that we send is spent for safety and safety and safety. The
American people deserve nothing less.
Thank all of you for coming. If you want to join us, you
can. I am sure you have got a busy schedule.
Senator D'Amato. Thank you, Senator, and I want to thank
you for your kindness and your cooperation, and I think that
this committee can play a very important role in seeing to it
that the resources that you do allocate are properly used, and
that they do not close down the training center.
Senator Shelby. And that we not waste billions of dollars
of the hard-earned money of the taxpayers in buying services
that are never used, as Senator Lautenberg pointed out. Thank
you.
Senator D'Amato. I thank the Chair.
Ms. Molinari. Thank you very much.
Senator D'Amato. I thank the members of the subcommittee.
Panel 2
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
BARRY KRASNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
ASSOCIATION
DAVID BARGER, VICE PRESIDENT-NEWARK, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
JACK JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEM
SPECIALISTS [PASS]
HENRY BROWN, NEW YORK SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT OFFICE, PASS
RAYMOND D. MALDONADO, FAA CONTROL TOWER, NEWARK INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
TOM MONAGHAN, FAA CONTROL TOWER, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF MONTE BELGER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY RON MORGAN, DIRECTOR, AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our next panel will be Mr. Barry Krasner,
president, National Air Traffic Control Association; Mr. David
Barger, vice president, Continental Airlines, Newark, NJ; Mr.
Jack Johnson, president, Professional Airways System
Specialists; Mr. Henry Brown, New York Systems Management
Office; Mr. Raymond Maldonado, FAA Control Tower, Newark
International Airport; Mr. Tom Monaghan, FAA Control Tower,
Kennedy International Airport; Mr. Monte Belger, Acting Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; Mr. Ron Morgan,
Director, Air Traffic Service, Federal Aviation Administration.
This is a big panel. I know you are eager to get started,
and we are eager to hear you. All of your written testimony
will be made part of the record in its entirety, and if you
would take about 3 or 4 minutes apiece to just orally suggest
what you think we need to do, and we will listen to you. That
will give us some time for some questions.
We will start with Mr. Barry Krasner.
Statement of Barry Krasner
Mr. Krasner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee. I
think what I found is in listening to all that was said before,
I found myself going and frantically crossing things out that
have already been said. So if you will bear with me, I will try
to give you a little bit of a summary.
I represent the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, which is the organization that represents the
Nation's air traffic controllers. The individuals I brought
with me today, and that would be Ray Maldonado, who is a
controller at Newark Tower; Tom Monaghan, a controller at
Kennedy Tower; and Chris Bond, who is a controller at New York
Center. These are truly the frontline controllers, and while I
will deliver you the formal statement, then they are certainly
available for any questions you may have, since they are the
ones who work in the trenches, so to speak.
I would like to begin by echoing Senator Lautenberg's
statement, because I never miss an opportunity to do this in
talking about the air traffic controllers. I believe this
Nation's air traffic controllers have justifiably earned the
reputation of operating the safest and most efficient system in
the world. And I appreciated hearing it from the good Senator
from New Jersey, and I certainly hope that you and the members
of the committee concur with this assessment and will certainly
help us to build in these accomplishments, not only for the air
traffic system but for the entire aviation community.
Staffing Solutions
I come here today, and I want to talk about a number of
issues. I have a lot more in my formal testimony. What I am
really going to do, I guess, in this part is focus more on the
staffing part, and I want to offer you some solutions, which we
believe are viable solutions to the problem.
As Senator D'Amato said, this is not a new issue. In 1970,
DOT Secretary Volpe charged the Carson Commission to study the
air traffic controller career. In this study, Carson wrote that
the system has experienced serious shortcomings, that the
existing system will not change for a number of years. In the
meantime, the controller will continue to bear a heavy burden
in making an understaffed and underfinanced system work. This
was in 1970. We are 27 years later, and it could have been
written today.
I think as far as staffing goes, I think we have to be real
clear on one thing. Insufficient staffing does impact current
aviation safety. Now, we do believe that it limits future
growth in aviation, it absolutely limits it. And growth in
aviation accounts for too much of the gross national product
for us to take this situation lightly.
As said before, air traffic operations have increased 36
percent since 1981. Controller numbers have continually
decreased. Firstline supervisor numbers, on the other hand, are
up over what they were. So we do not have to worry about being
supervised, we only have to worry about who there is to
supervise.
We believe the only thing that we can find to account for
the lower numbers is the failed AAS system, which we heard a
little about before. The only thing we could assume is that the
system was meant to work under less controllers, there was
never an intent to raise those numbers up again, and that after
the failure of the AAS system we simply adopted that mode and
never raised those numbers back up again to the system we have
now, which is the system we had prior to that.
Now, the GAO put out a report, 97-84, entitled ``Aviation
Safety: Opportunities Exist for FAA to Refine the Controller
Staffing Process.'' That was published in April 1997. As part
of that report, GAO cited some impediments to staffing
facilities at required levels. A few of those impediments were
limited ability to recruit staff locally, so that is a
recognized problem. And another one was limited hiring in
recent years has not kept the pipeline full. That, too, is a
recognized problem.
I think one of the points that we are missing is the FAA
has--well, starting in 1981, when there were 11,400 controllers
fired, we had to replace a whole new work force. In doing so,
we have since managed the FAA on the backs of the youth of
those people. But most of those people were hired between 1981
and 1986, and we have to understand that if that is the case,
given their retirement when they are eligible, then by the year
2009, 80 percent of the air traffic controllers in this system
will be eligible for retirement. If we do not start hiring that
pipeline now, then we are in serious trouble, especially when
you consider it takes 3 to 5 years to train an air traffic
controller once they leave the academy in Oklahoma City.
But the other point that I really wanted to make very
strongly is while I appreciate the issue in New York, this is
not a local problem. This is nationwide. New York happens to be
the one that is high pressure enough to hit the media, high
pressure enough to get before the Congress. But are we to
forsake Van Nuys, CA, or Aspen, CO, or Meridian, MS, simply
because they do not have the clout to find themselves on the
front page of the New York Times? I think we do ourselves a
great travesty if we do not look at this as a nationwide
problem.
We have different problems in New York, and they center
around retention of people, because clearly people do not want
to be there because of the cost of living, unfamiliarity--
except myself because I am from there--but that clearly is a
problem. So you have to have a multifaceted kind of approach to
it.
If you are going to bang that, Mr. Chairman, then I will
end it before you do.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Krasner. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry Krasner
Chairman Richard Shelby and members of the subcommittee, we are
members of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)
which represents over 14,000 air traffic controllers of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). I want to first thank you for this
opportunity to appear before the appropriations subcommittee on
transportation and also thank you for your past support of our issues.
NATCA's mission is to guarantee and improve aviation and air
traffic safety, serve as an advocate for air traffic controllers, and
promote competence and pride within our profession. We are also
responsible for promoting technological advances, providing reliable
and accurate information for air traffic controllers, and serving as a
credible source of information for this committee, the traveling
public, and the news media. Our goals include protecting the lives of
aviation travelers, preserving expensive equipment, and reducing mishap
frequency and severity. The nation's air traffic controllers have
justifiably earned the reputation of operating the safest and most
efficient system in the world. I hope you and the members of the
committee concur with our assessment and will help us to build on these
accomplishments to enhance not only the air traffic system, but the
entire aviation community.
In 1970, Department of Transportation Secretary Volpe charged the
Corson commission to study the air traffic controller career. In it,
Corson wrote, ``This system has experienced serious shortcomings''. . .
and that the ``existing system will not change for a number of years.
In the meantime, the controller will continue to bear a heavy burden in
making an understaffed and underfinanced system work.'' It is difficult
to tell that this statement was made 27 years ago because not much has
happened to improve the working conditions of the air traffic
controllers.
The issues we would like to talk to you about today include
staffing shortages in the New York area and across the country, and
equipment shortfalls with regard to air traffic control technology.
staffing
Insufficient staffing impacts current aviation safety and will
limit future growth in aviation. For example, since 1981, air traffic
operations have increased 36 percent while the number of critical,
front-line air traffic controllers has decreased by 1,914. These
controllers represent an effective margin of safety and efficiency. To
date, the only explanation for this deficiency we have found is the
failure of the Advanced Automation System (AAS), which anticipated the
need for fewer controllers when deployed. We can attest to the fact
that today's controllers are showing the strain of chronic six-day work
weeks, increased workload, and intense traffic conditions. In many
cases, due to sector capacity, severe restrictions are imposed on air
traffic to ensure safety. In certain air traffic sectors on a given
day, controllers are stretched to the limit. This Congress recognized
the controller staffing inadequacies and ordered FAA to request a study
of the agency's staffing standard. The GAO report (97-84), entitled
``Aviation Safely: Opportunities Exist for FAA to Refine the Controller
Staffing Process,'' was published in April 1997. GAO cited FAA's
impediments to staffing facilities at required levels, including: 1)
holding funding to relocate and hire controllers until the end of the
fiscal year, 2) limited ability to recruit staff locally, and 3)
limited hiring in recent years has not kept the pipeline full.
The FAA has managed the current air traffic control system at the
expense of the youth of 14,343 air traffic controllers, most of whom
were hired between 1981 and 1986. To increase staffing levels to meet
projected growth, it is imperative to recruit, select and train the air
traffic controllers of the future now. In the best-case scenario, 80
percent of the controllers on duty today will become eligible for
retirement by 2009; therefore, we must be prepared to completely
replace the current work force over the next 12 years. With the current
shortage of staff, the aviation system is subject to a decreasing
margin of safety and increased delays and inefficiencies as controllers
are forced to cope with increasing traffic volume and density--as they
have for the past three decades.
Following is a breakdown of the 36,464 Air Traffic Services
employees as of September 1996. In total 23,904 employees provide air
traffic control operational services, support for those who actually
provide air traffic control services, managerial and/or supervisory
functions, administrative/operational support of field facilities,
regions and headquarters, or other administrative assistance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JU12.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JU12.027
The FAA continues to misrepresent the true air traffic controller
numbers by using misleading terminology. It claims to have 17,080
employees in the controller work force. However, when you remove
supervisors and traffic management coordinators (who work air traffic
control positions for only 96 hours per year), the controller work
force drops to a true number of 14,343. The shortage of staff is
further aggravated because full performance controllers must train
developmental controllers in addition to working the airspace. In 1970,
the Corson commission wrote, ``The shortage of staff is further
aggravated by the presence in busy facilities of a plethora of
untrained developmentals whose training adds substantially to the
workload of journeyman.'' I ask this committee and this Congress to be
the ones to finally fix the long-standing training problems.
Prior to the 1981 PATCO strike, there were 16,220 line air traffic
controllers, 2,121 supervisors and 169 traffic management coordinators,
for a total of 18,510. Since 1981, the number of flights has increased
by 36 percent system wide. The number of controllers today is only
14,343. The reason for this decline, aside from neglecting to fully
staff after the strike, is primarily due to early buy-outs offered only
to managers, supervisors and office staff whose vacancies were then
back-filled from the air traffic controller ranks.
As of April 1997, the New York En Route Air Traffic Control Center
has had a dangerously low number of air traffic controllers. The FAA
and NATCA have since signed an memorandum of understanding in which the
FAA agrees to staff the center with 294 controllers by the end of
fiscal year 1997 and 339 by the end of fiscal year 1998. This is a sign
of progress on the complex issue of staffing numbers. The work ahead
lies in solving the day-to-day problems of training and retention of
work force. The answer we have proposed to the FAA is establishing a
local hire program to recruit trainees from the New York area who want
to remain in the area (see attached brief). FAA responded there is no
need to adopt our proposal at this time because its solution--an influx
of Midwestern students and former PATCO controllers is adequate. We
disagree. Not only do you continue to breed a work force of individuals
whose primary goal is to leave New York but also this method only
exacerbates an already deficient training program. This training
program is deficient because, for example, some have been stuck on the
data positions for more than a year and have not had the opportunity to
advance in the program. And, there are some who have been in the
training program three to four years and have yet to certify. At a
fully-staffed facility with a focused training program, training should
be complete within two years; however, at an understaffed facility such
as New York it can take up to six years. Staffing, together with the
apprenticeship program, is the solution. NATCA's proposed
apprenticeship program requires a two year commitment on the data
control position--after which the FAA will send them to the academy for
training and subsequent return to New York center as an air traffic
controller. This helps the FAA by immediately removing the largest
impediments in the training process and also allows the employee to
gain confidence, experience and a comfort level in dealing with air
traffic. This will help ensure successful completion to full
performance level in an environment which now claims a minimum failure
rate of 20 percent.
We would like a four to five year test period of the apprenticeship
program. We believe this to be the answer, but the FAA refuses to
explore it as a solution to New York's staffing problems. It has
established a local hire program in San Juan--so why would we assume
this is not a viable solution for New York?
Staffing shortages are by no means a problem solely characteristic
of the New York area, they are indicative of a nationwide problem. For
example, at the Meridian Approach Control in Mississippi, staffing
shortages have impacted flight service for both the military and the
public. In 1994 and 1995, the facility was authorized 17 full
performance level controllers. In 1997 it was only authorized 14, but
today it has only nine in actuality. The staffing is so limited that
controllers cannot open positions--they have three, but are, at best,
only staffed to operate two, and regularly only open one sector without
enough staff to provide a second. On occasion, they have had the
Memphis and Atlanta centers hold aircraft due to saturation of
airspace. Saturation occurs most frequently when the Navy is flying
missions and there is only one sector to monitor 13 frequencies at a
time. Meridian approach control, in contrast, has plenty of
supervisors, just not enough staff to supervise. The controllers they
do employ operate on a massive overtime budget just to keep the two
sectors working.
The fiscal year 1997 budget called for hiring 500 air traffic
controllers. The FAA's historical attrition rate for the GS-2152 series
(23,904) has been approximately 10 percent per year of those eligible.
It is anticipated that 250 GS-2152 series employees will leave due to
attrition in 1997. The recent GAO report (97-84) is concerned that FAA
is overestimating the number of expected retirees; however, our numbers
are based on the best information available and we need to get prepared
for this eventuality because it takes three to five years to train FPL
air traffic controller candidates. Also, the air traffic controller
training program today has a minimum failure rate of approximately 20
percent. So, if the FAA hires 500 air traffic controller candidates
today, with 250 lost to attrition and 100 training failures. we will
have a net gain of approximately 75 full-performance level air traffic
controllers in each of the years 2000 and 2001.
Between 2002 and 2007, 12,000-14,000 GS-2152 series employees will
be eligible for retirement. Statistically speaking, the air traffic
controller ranks will decline at an alarming rate starting in 2002. If
you consider the lengthy training cycle necessary and the fact that we
are currently understaffed by nearly 3,000 air traffic controllers, the
critical need to immediately begin a massive hiring process is obvious.
Controllers are already stretched to maximum productivity and
maximum workload levels. They run the safest, most comprehensive air
traffic system in the world with access 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. Yet, the number of controllers is lagging far behind the growth
in air traffic volume. Clearly, something must be done to increase the
staff of full-performance level air traffic controllers. We ask this
committee to do everything in its power to increase funding for more
controllers and increased staffing levels. The FAA can insert
additional controllers on an MOUR but, without funding for across-the-
board hiring, controllers will not be hired. Congress is a vital link
to adequate staffing.
Productivity is at its highest ever for every full performance
level controller--the same number of controllers are handling 36
percent more aircraft today than in 1981, so solutions must be found
elsewhere. Some proposals include hiring controllers at the beginning
of the fiscal year, instead of using the funds for other projects;
reclassification of current grade levels and pay to a more equitable
formula; hiring former PATCO employees; hiring air traffic assistants
locally; and moving contract tower controllers to larger, busier
facilities since they have experience.
The solution, for the vast majority of the country, is to accept
the joint NATCA and FAA working group proposed standards, supported in
earlier discussions with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) staff. It
states the terminal and en route air traffic controller is a unique
occupation requiring a classification standard that focuses on duties
unique to the occupation, and distinguish the various levels of
controller work with related levels of controller pay.
The current classification standard for air traffic controllers is
over 18 years old. As a result of occupational changes in the control
environment and substantial increases in the volume of air traffic over
this period of time, the classification standard has become outmoded.
It is now a deficient and inappropriate measure of the differences in
the degree of difficulty among positions and the knowledge, skills,
abilities, responsibilities, and accountability of controllers assigned
to various control facilities throughout the country. The application
of the current standard and related compensation system: 1) is based
solely on volume of traffic. It does not recognize other complexities
associated with the control of traffic; 2) results in all en route
controllers located at centers within the contiguous 48 states having
the same full-performance level (FPL) grade and pay, with huge
differences in the demands on the air traffic controller depending on
the center to which he/she is assigned; 3) provides no incentive--in
fact, there is a disincentive--for controllers to move to hard-to-
staff, more complex facilities; 4) results in large differences in
annual pay for small differences in traffic; 5) results in no
difference in annual pay among controllers where there are large
differences in traffic density; and 6) does not provide coverage for
controllers assigned to some categories of facilities (e.g. tower with
BRITE, up/down terminals, CERAPS). The present standard is also non-
specific in nature and permits manipulation of controller duties for
classification purposes regardless of safety and/or efficiency
consequences.
The proposed standard is unique to air traffic controllers (and
closely related positions) and is easily understood. While pay for the
proposed grades has not yet been determined, the reaction of all those
personnel briefed about the proposed rankings of facilities (absent
definitive FPL salary amounts) is that they provide internal equity. In
addition, the proposed standard addresses and corrects deficiencies in
the current standard by: 1) acknowledging the varying complexities
associated with the different controller functions and different
environments. It assigns different weights to the various types of
control exercised, different categories of airspace, varying mixes of
type of traffic, and other factors pertinent to the six categories of
terminals. It also assigns different weights to departing/arriving
aircraft, transitioning traffic, overflights, Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
advisories, etc. in the centers; 2) providing at least 10 FPL grade
levels instead of the current five. This, together with the new
classification criteria, will assure that there will be an adequate
incentive for controllers to move to the most difficult, hard-to-staff
facilities; 3) there will not be significant differences in controller
duties without an appropriate difference in controller pay; 4) there
will not be minor differences in controller duties with large
differences in controller pay; 5) all categories of control facilities
will be specifically and appropriately addressed in the standard and
related compensation system; and, lastly, 6) there will be at least
three different FPL grade levels for controllers assigned to centers
and each of the six categories of terminals.
We implore this committee to ensure adequate funding is provided
for this new classification and compensation system. As you will
recall, this committee requested that NATCA and FAA develop a new
personnel system in the fiscal year 1996 transportation-appropriations
bill (Public Law 104-50). Without additional compensation the new
classification system will not work. Adequate funding is necessary to
ensure that the goals and incentive of optimal staffing are met.
Current forecasts estimate a 5 percent annual increase in air
traffic for the next 10 to 15 years. Without significant improvements,
our present system will simply be unable to cope with future demand.
Further inefficiencies will result as the need to maintain the safety
margin becomes even more critical. There is serious concern about the
number of controllers that will be required to support current demands,
let alone future growth.
technology and equipment
The second issue I want to address is air traffic control
technology and equipment. After many years of documented problems, the
FAA must modernize the ancient air traffic control infrastructure. The
equipment used by air traffic controllers is antiquated and fraught
with increasing failures of critical safety technological components.
The equipment that today's air traffic controllers must rely on, such
as the Host computer system, surveillance radar and other navigational
aids, are part of a system that regularly experiences failures and is
at least 10 years behind in technology and procedures. At present,
there are 20 en route centers with an average age of 35 years, and 50
major towers, average age 27 years. Equipment failures, overhaul,
relocation and modifications caused approximately 1.4 million hours of
outages in fiscal year 1994; in fiscal year 1995 the number grew to
almost two million and over 2.5 million hours in fiscal year 1996.
These delays come at a high cost--it is estimated that the 25 airports
with greater than 20,000 hours in delays in 1995 each had $32 million
in delay costs (Aviation System Capacity Plan).
The safety of today's air traffic control system relies mainly on
the human element--the air traffic controller and the airways
facilities technicians that continue to work very hard under adverse
conditions to keep our deteriorating infrastructure functional. With no
new workload-reducing technology in the foreseeable, each air traffic
controller will work 62 percent more traffic than existed in 1981.
A major hindrance to the development and implementation of advanced
equipment is that controllers--the end users--are not consulted enough
in the development process. NATCA is concerned about the lack of human
factors considerations in developing future technology and procedures.
Air traffic controllers and their current work environment deserve
careful study to accurately determine future requirements in both
technology and ergonomics. It is absolutely necessary to establish a
central authority to coordinate both the developing technology and
attendant human factors issues. Presently, these responsibilities are
separate and unequal within the FAA.
Projects currently underway demonstrate the need for a coordinated
effort regarding new technology. For example, ergonomic factors may
result in deployment delay of Display System Replacement (DSR). Another
example is the National Route Program (NRP) which clearly demonstrates
how not to implement a new procedure without modeling and analytical
support. System development designed without the influence of
controllers and human factors expertise will inevitably create hurdles
down the road which will affect cost, schedule or performance, if not
all three.
Most of the new technology merely replaces old unreliable equipment
without adding to system capacity and in some cases actually increase
controller workload. One small example, is the Voice Switching
Communications System (VSCS), originally designed for use with the AAS
equipment, hinders controllers' ability to post, read and mark flight
progress strips.
In the early 1990's, the FAA initiated a program known as the
Oceanic Automation System (OAS). The goal of the OAS was to develop and
deploy interim replacement equipment at Oakland and New York Air Route
Traffic Control Centers' oceanic areas. The OAS is nearing its final
phase, with the final installation scheduled for late this year.
Unfortunately, even after deployment of the OAS, our oceanic
controllers are left using grease pencils. tissue and plotting boards.
In contrast, since the inception of the Center TRACON Automation
System (CTAS), controllers have worked with Ames Research Center in
production and development. It is the only piece of equipment in a long
time that will be beneficial to air traffic controllers from a capacity
standpoint. In Dallas/Ft. Worth CTAS is allowing controllers to handle
20 more aircraft per hour--a substantial productivity increase.
On February 12, the National Research Council released their report
titled ``Flight to the Future: Human Factors in Air Traffic Control,''
which concluded that human factors activities within the FAA are
fragmented. We agree, and would add that human factors considerations,
too often, come too late in the acquisition process to prevent the kind
of mistakes that were made in the 1980's with AAS. Without the proper
human factor focus and necessary resources to support it, the mistakes
made in AAS are destined to be repeated. One key system, Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), is an example of where
a coordinated human factor approach would significantly increase the
chances of the FAA deploying an operationally-suitable system.
Controllers were involved in STARS too late to help in the system's
development, and, when they were included, were instructed by the
agency to focus on fixing the system because it is unusable in its
current state. These late changes to STARS have led to significant cost
and schedule overruns. The June 6 issue of Aviation Daily said that the
FAA informed Raytheon Electronic Systems that they are putting STARS in
``high risk status'' because of delays.
In its report, the National Research Council concludes that user
participation is necessary for effective system development, but it is
not a substitute for specialized human factors knowledge. It recommends
that representative users and human factors specialists be included on
product development teams and that the user inputs be systematized to
the design process according to human factors test and evaluation
procedures. We agree. We have long recognized that, while we are the
world's best air traffic controllers, we are not world class system
designers or human factors experts. We ask this subcommittee to direct
the FAA to include early and significant participation by controllers
in a coordinated human factors analysis in the development and
deployment of air traffic control automation systems.
Presently, the air traffic is truly dependent on the professional
and dedicated men and women who are responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the system. However, due to inadequate support
technology, the system is restrictive and creates significant problems
for both controllers and the entire aviation community. System-wide,
the success of the process depends on the human element interpreting
data generated by ancient technology which in some areas, creates
instances where capacity is exceeded and aircraft must endure
convoluted flight paths to maintain safety.
NATCA focuses on controller errors and the associated human
factors. Presently, the system has about 750 reportable operational
errors per year. This number has declined over the years from a high of
approximately 900. However, the system must continue to strive for zero
errors.
The FAA has a comprehensive system that tracks operational errors
and this data will give the committee a valuable insight on the error
rate for the entire air traffic system. Also, the FAA is able to issue
reports on errors for any given air traffic facility. I do not have
sufficient data to submit to the committee. I suggest the committee
request the specific data from the FAA.
Controller errors constitute serious events that affect the safety
of the entire air traffic system. Controllers desperately need decision
support tools to cope with the increasing volume and demands of
aircraft operations. Additionally, there needs to be a scientific study
accomplished that focuses on human factors and why controllers commit
errors. Numbers and types of errors can provide useful information, but
do not identify the reasons for a controller's actions, nor how to
prevent repeat errors.
Controllers need the tools to provide for increased capacity--
without the necessary tools, both safety and capacity will be
compromised. The impact of the aviation industry on the economy is $947
billion and is projected to be $1,446 billion by 2010--while the total
``cost'' of present air traffic service is only $3.9 billion--a small
price to pay.
Cost savings in the near-term may increase risk in the long-term.
Additionally, the following elements must form the cornerstone of any
discussion:
--Safety is paramount--any proposal which could compromise safety
must be rejected.
--Alternative funding strategies must be developed and implemented.
--Control, governance and oversight of the FAA must remain a
government responsibility.
--Employee union involvement is essential for success of any
transition.
These discussions will require much effort and great cooperation to
become reality. Having said this, I cannot overstate the specific
requirement: NATCA's position regarding change is ``safety first!''
In conclusion, NATCA is prepared to play an even greater role in
aviation safety; to strive for constant improvement in all aspects of
aviation safety; to build coalitions with other nations and
organizations to promote positions on safety and technology issues; and
to work with the Executive and Legislative branches of government and
the aviation industry for continual improvement of the national
airspace system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for your time and
consideration of our important issues. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[Clerk's note.--The attachments to Mr. Krasner's statement
will not appear in the hearing record, but are available for
review in the subcommittee's files.]
Statement of David Barger
Senator Shelby. Mr. David Barger, Continental Airlines. Mr.
Barger, if you will briefly sum up your oral statement, your
written statement, if any, will be made part of the record.
Mr. Barger. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
and I certainly will summarize my written testimony, and thank
you for submitting that for the record.
I am joined here by Jay Salter, our Continental vice
president for operations out of Houston. Continental has hubs
in Newark, Houston, and Cleveland, and several people were
talking about Newark today, and it is only our Newark hub which
imposes onerous delays on our overall system. My purpose today
is to accomplish three tasks: One, to express Continental's
strong support for the FAA work force, which provides the
Nation's air carriers with a safe air transport system; two, to
highlight flaws in FAA procedures and equipment priorities that
leave Newark at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to air
traffic management and delay issues; and three, most
importantly, to advocate for a complete redesign of the New
Jersey and New York airspace as soon as this is possible.
In the past year, Continental has won several awards which
highlight the kind of quality service that we deliver to our
customers. All these awards were accomplished with virtually
the same personnel that have been in place at this airline over
the past years. We believe that the similar case exists at the
FAA in a similar position. FAA personnel are well trained and
dedicated to maintaining a safe air transportation system here
in the United States. Unfortunately, they do not have the tools
and the resources they need to get the job done effectively,
and therefore, despite their best efforts, they are unable to
deliver a reliable and a consistent product.
Senator Lautenberg has gone to great lengths to work with
the FAA, Continental, and other airlines which serve New York
to identify and put in place the equipment, personnel, and
procedures that can improve the air traffic control situation
at Newark. We are grateful for his efforts. Frankly, it is only
when he highlights an installation's schedule or prioritizes an
item that the FAA adheres to any reasonable timeframe; for
example, Senator Lautenberg, for the authorization and
procurement for the instrument landing system on one of our
long parallel runways in 1994, which is just installed this
year, and again, on behalf of Continental we certainly thank
him.
Problems with FAA Installation and Procedures
Despite these successes, I want to detail just a few
examples of our frustration with the FAA's procedure to install
valuable procedures and/or equipment that could improve the air
traffic control system. We know that the FAA is committed to
trying to improve the efficiency of the airspace system in the
New York region, and we support any and all efforts made to
achieve that goal. But the priorities and methods by which the
Agency goes about accomplishing this goal are sometimes flawed.
Consider the following, and I will give you two examples
that were submitted out of the five. First of all, if you
consider the integrated terminal weather system [ITWS]--ITWS is
a thunderstorm microburst detection and forecast movement
system. Delay savings at Newark are estimated to be
approximately 3,566 hours in delay minutes for Continental,
alone. Unfortunately, installation of ITWS at Newark is not
FAA's top priority, despite the extraordinary delays caused by
thunderstorms in the New York area.
Discouraged by the FAA's protracted installation schedule,
the airlines, in conjunction with the port authority, are
proceeding with an independent procurement of this equipment at
a cost of over $3 million. However, the picture here gets more
complicated because the ITWS component is dependent on terminal
doppler weather radar, commonly known as TDWR. Newark's TDWR is
yet to be commissioned due to a manufacturing defect, and the
fact that the TDWR's for JFK and La Guardia are caught up in a
protracted environmental review process. Frankly, ITWS
installation in the New York/New Jersey area will be
ineffective without additional terminal doppler weather radar
coverage.
Also, along the lines of ITWS, when you take a look at
departure sequencing and engineering developmental models
commonly known by the acronym DSEDM, as I mentioned in the
previous example, thunderstorms cause severe disruptions to
airline operations in the New Jersey and New York area. A root
cause of the significant delays is FAA's inability to
expeditiously develop and issue alternative routings which
safely avoid the weather. This deficiency is due to the lack of
automation equipment to handle the administrative burden of
revising flight times. FAA needs to automate the departure pit
at New York Center, as the existing equipment and procedures
have been in use for over 20 years. To date, we have seen no
evidence of the needed automation, and now the thunderstorm
season is upon us once again.
Let me move on to my third and final point, and in closing
and summarizing, at Continental we certainly feel that it is
very important that this group take a very hard look and that
the FAA take a very hard look in terms of a new redesign of the
airspace serving the Northeast corridor. Before I close, I want
to reemphasize that as frustrated as we have been with some of
these automated and equipment issues, we are proud of the
ongoing partnership we have attained with the FAA in our
region. We appreciate all the FAA has done on behalf of
Continental and our passengers. This partnership has had a
positive impact.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate this opportunity to
testify. Any attention paid to the New Jersey/New York airspace
is welcome. Any action taken to bring in new equipment, hire
additional personnel, or initiate innovative airspace design is
even more welcome.
Jay and I would be happy to answer questions at the end of
today's presentations. Thank you.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Barger. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Barger
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. On
behalf of my 37,500 colleagues at Continental Airlines, I want to thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name
is David Barger and I am Vice President for the Newark hub,
Continental's second largest hub. Jay Salter, Continental's Vice
President for Operations Administration is accompanying me today.
Continental is the nation's fifth largest airline with hubs in Newark,
Houston and Cleveland but it is only our Newark hub which imposes
consistent and onerous delays on our overall system. My purpose today
is to accomplish three tasks: 1) to express Continental's strong
support for the FAA work force which provides the nation's air carriers
with a safe air transport system; 2) to highlight flaws in FAA
procedures and equipment priorities that leave Newark at a distinct
disadvantage when it comes to air traffic management and delay issues;
and 3) to advocate for a complete redesign of the New Jersey/New York
airspace as soon as it is humanly possible to complete.
In the past year, Continental Airlines has won several awards which
highlight the kind of quality service that we deliver to our customers.
These awards include Airline of the Year from Air Transport World, back
to back J.D. Power Awards for Flights over 500 miles from Frequent
Flyer Magazine and Best International Business Class by SmartMoney
Magazine. All of these awards were accomplished with virtually the same
personnel who were a part of this company when we did not operate on
time or produce a reliable or consistent product. As our Chairman and
CEO Gordon Bethune has said repeatedly, there were always good and
talented people at Continental--they just needed to have good tools, a
good plan and ample resources to get their jobs done. My point is
simple--we view the FAA to be in a similar position today--there are
plenty of good people to be found at the FAA. They are well trained and
dedicated to maintaining a safe air transportation system here in the
United States. Unfortunately, they do not have the tools or the
resources they need to get their jobs done effectively and therefore,
despite their best efforts, they are unable to deliver a reliable and
consistent product to our mutual customers--the traveling and shipping
public.
While we have been frustrated in the past with staffing levels at
the Newark Tower, the New York TRACON, and the New York Air Route
Traffic Control Center, we believe the FAA has begun to turn that issue
around. Our single recommendation on the issue of staffing would be to
urge the FAA to consider using the new personnel rules to establish a
program where future air traffic controllers are hired locally. Our
experience in the New York region is that many controllers who are
brought in from across the country (whether they be rehires or newly
graduated from college) are somewhat overwhelmed by the complexities of
the New York system and its environs. Once they are fully trained, in
many cases, they want to return to the area of the country from which
they came. Hiring locally would mean that controllers would enter the
job with a pre-existing commitment to the region--once they are fully
trained, they might be more likely to stay in the area and those of us
who serve the New Jersey/New York region would benefit from leaving a
more seasoned and permanent work force.
For the balance of my statement, I would like to focus on equipment
and procedures as they relate to delays at Newark International
Airport. As you may have read in your local papers, Newark has just
reclaimed the dubious honor of being the airport with the greatest
number of air traffic control delays in the country. According to FAA
statistics, delays at Newark more than doubled from 14,004 in 1995 to
28,454 in 1996. Newark's airport neighbors did not fare much better
with La Guardia placing third and JFK placing 6th. Certainly there is a
great deal of traffic moving in and out of these airports--on just one
day last week, Newark had 1,400 operations; La Guardia had 1,080
operations; Kennedy had 1,060 operations; Teterboro had 750 operations;
and White Plains had 765 operations. Our friends at the FAA will tell
you that Continental's schedule does not help the Newark delay problem
but in fact we regularly structure our schedule to minimize congestion
and we frequently seek suggestions from FAA to make our operation more
efficient. Nevertheless, the volume of operations in the New Jersey/New
York airspace every day does not and should not justify the delays that
we endure at Newark--rather the volume of passengers and cargo should
serve as a challenge to the FAA to ensure their best equipment and
their best personnel are devoted to delivering the safest, most
efficient and reliable air traffic control service.
Let me explain why we care about delays. Not only is every minute
of delay an inconvenience for our passengers, every one minute of delay
costs Continental Airlines $28. This is a significant financial burden
to impose on a company and it is an even greater logistical burden to
impose on our employees as they try to cope with the operational
challenges that result from these endless delays--delays which are
endemic to Newark in good weather and bad. I think my point is clear--
it is unacceptable for the nation's ninth largest airport to be the
nation's most delayed airport in seven out of the last ten years (and
for the record, in the last twelve years, Newark has never been better
than the third most delayed airport in the country!). Now, the issue is
what can be done to fix this problem?
Senator Lautenberg has gone to great lengths to work with the FAA,
Continental and the other airlines which serve Newark to identify and
put in place the equipment, personnel and procedures that can improve
the air traffic control situation at Newark. We are grateful for his
efforts--frankly, it is only when he highlights an installation
schedule or prioritizes an item, that the FAA adheres to any reasonable
timeframe. For example, we can thank Senator Lautenberg for the
installation of the Instrument Landing System for the commuter runway
which was installed after a lengthy delay. We can also thank Senator
Lautenberg for the authorization and procurement of the Instrument
Landing System funded by this Committee in 1994 which was installed
earlier this year on one of Newark's parallel runways.
Despite these successes, I want to detail a few examples of our
frustration with the FAA's procedures to install valuable procedures
and/or equipment that could improve the air traffic control system. We
know that the FAA is committed to trying to improve efficiency of the
airspace system in the New York region and we support any and all
efforts made to achieve that goal. But the priorities and methods by
which the agency goes about accomplishing this goal are sometimes
flawed. Consider the following:
Example No. 1.--The FAA intends to install the Aircraft Situation
Display equipment in the Newark Tower later this year. This equipment
shows all the air traffic operating in the national airspace system and
will permit air traffic facilities to more accurately predict arrival
and departure demand and enable them to more efficiently manage the
system. This equipment has been available for at least four years and
will be of great use to the Newark Tower. What is beyond comprehension
is the fact that Newark, which is first in delays, is last on the list
of major airports to receive the equipment.
Example No. 2.--Information Display System-4 (IDS-4)--This
equipment provides the controller with an accurate/timely display of
critical information for operations in the entire New York Air Traffic
Control system. The good news is that this equipment is also scheduled
to be installed later this year. The bad news is that this equipment
has been available at other locations for several years and that the
next generation of this system has already been installed at the new
TRACON at DFW, an airport that does not have anywhere near the delay
problems as Newark.
Example No. 3.--An Instrument Landing System for Teterboro Runway
19. The installation of an ILS on Teterboro Runway 19 will eliminate
conflicts between existing ILS approaches at Newark and Teterboro--
presently, these procedures cannot be run simultaneously. FAA's
attention to this project has been less than aggressive and in fact,
they are just re-starting the environmental process after a lengthy
delay.
Example No. 4.--The Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS). ITWS
is a thunderstorm-microburst detection and forecast movement system.
Delay savings at Newark are estimated to be approximately 3,566 hours
(and a reduction in costs of $5.6 million) for Continental alone.
Unfortunately, installation of ITWS at Newark is not FAA's top priority
despite the extraordinary delays caused by thunderstorms in the New
York area. ITWS will not be commissioned at Newark until 2002.
Discouraged by the FAA's protracted installation schedule, the
airlines, in conjunction with the Port Authority, are proceeding with
an independent procurement of this equipment at an expected cost of
over $3 million. However, the picture here gets more complicated
because ITWS is dependent on Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (or TDWR).
Newark's TDWR has yet to be commissioned due to a manufacturing defect
and the fact that the TDWR's for JFK and LaGuardia are caught up in a
protracted environmental review process. Frankly, ITWS installation in
the New York/New Jersey area will be ineffective without additional
TDWR coverage. By the way, the Committee should be aware that the
accident that spawned microburst research and the development of TDWR
and ITWS occurred at JFK.
A fifth and final example.--Departure Sequencing Engineering
Development Model--DSEDM. As I mentioned in the previous example,
thunderstorms cause severe disruptions to airline operations in the New
Jersey/New York area. A root cause of the significant delays is FAA's
inability to expeditiously develop and issue alternate routings which
safely avoid the weather. This deficiency is due to the lack of
automation equipment to handle the administrative burden of revising
flight plans. FAA needs to automate the departure pit at New York
Center as the existing equipment and procedures have been in use for
twenty years. In fact, a recent internal FAA operational assessment
report (October 1996) recommended quick introduction of automation at
the New York Air Traffic Control Center departure ``pit'' (the
coordination sector) to enable FAA to reroute aircraft more
efficiently. To date we have seen no evidence of the needed automation
and now the thunderstorm season is here again. We believe equipment and
software associated with DSEDM, a developmental program, could be
adapted and deployed for evaluation at the New York Center within six
months of FAA authorization. Clearly, delays at Newark and the other
New York airports will not decline significantly until this problem is
addressed.
Each of these five examples serves as proof to us that the FAA,
through their own process of setting priorities, is unintentionally
contributing to Newark's delay problems. In our business, when we
identify a problem critical to our operations, we apply the resources
necessary to address that problem. And in fact, we have done so on
several occasions at Newark. In this case, though the FAA's own
statistics show that Newark has been the most delayed airport, we are
not convinced that the FAA necessarily applies a ``best efforts''
approach. When they have the opportunity to install equipment that
might reduce delays, such as those cases I have just cited, they have
allowed projects to languish.
But let me move on to my third and final point. While much of this
equipment would provide some relief to the delay problem in the New
York airspace, we believe that a comprehensive redesign of the airspace
holds the greatest promise for improvement. We are not alone in this
belief. In a recent letter sent to FAA Managers in the Eastern and New
England regions from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA) Presidents in Boston and New York Centers, NATCA said ``While
there may be some short term solutions to pressing needs, it must be
understood that they are just that, short term. The airspace system
cannot function on a regular basis with a patchwork of interim fixes.
These short term solutions must be part of a comprehensive well
planned, permanent design that will accommodate existing and future
technologies.'' We agree. It is absolutely imperative that this review
be conducted with participation from all segments of the system as well
as the communities. This is not a project that should be allowed to
languish--it should receive the very highest priority within the FAA
from both a funding and a personnel perspective. NATCA is right--all
other fixes are just a temporary fix. I hope this Committee will add
its voice to the chorus of support for radical overhaul of the New York
airspace.
Before I close, I want to reemphasize that as frustrated as we have
been with some of these equipment issues, we are proud of the ongoing
partnership we have attained with the FAA in our region. We appreciate
all that FAA has done on behalf of Continental and our passengers. This
partnership has had a positive impact. Last Fall, with FAA's
assistance, Continental assumed control of the taxiway system adjacent
to Terminal C. It may not sound like much, but this action enabled
Continental to improve the movement of aircraft in and around the ramp
and tarmac. Furthermore, the FAA and Continental are cooperating on the
design of the new Air Traffic Control Tower at Newark so that a ramp
control facility could be placed in this space, at our expense. With
these and other positive examples of the power of the airline/FAA
partnership, Continental looks forward to the day when Newark is not
consistently on the top of the list of our nation's most delayed
airports.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate this opportunity to testify.
Any hearing or any attention paid to the New Jersey/New York airspace
is welcome--any action taken to bring in new equipment, hire additional
personnel or initiate innovative airspace design is even more welcome.
Jay and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this
time.
Statement of Jack Johnson
Senator Shelby. Our next panelist is Mr. Jack Johnson,
president, Professional Airways Systems Specialists.
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Chairman Shelby and members of
the subcommittee. I will try to rapidly go through my points.
I am Jack Johnson. I am the president of the Professional
Airways Systems Specialists. We represent over 10,000 FAA
employees, including systems specialists more commonly known as
technicians, safety inspectors in the flight standards area,
and also the pilots who fly for the FAA. PASS is the exclusive
representative for all those people. In today's testimony I
will try to focus on how all of this discussion about the air
traffic control system relates to the folks that we represent.
As you are hearing about air traffic controllers, I would
like you to remember that the air traffic controller's right
hand is the FAA technician, and the FAA technicians have been
there for years and years maintaining the obsolete equipment
that is currently still in use by the FAA, and the air traffic
controllers' confidence has always been there with the airways
facilities technicians.
As Senator D'Amato said, we have gone from about 11,600
technicians to about 6,000 technicians, while we have gone from
about 19,000 facilities and pieces of equipment to about
40,000. That is an awful lot of change, and we seem to be going
in the wrong direction. As you heard Senator D'Amato say, this
group of people, dedicated as they are, are very, very
stressed. They do not have the people there, they do not cover
all the shifts anymore, there is overtime that we are needing,
the training dollars are just not there anymore, and our
biggest problem is that they do not have people in the pipeline
to fill for the 38 to 50 percent of the technicians that will
be retiring over the next 3 to 5 years.
The poor planning and decisionmaking by the FAA around the
advanced automation system has created a situation where we
have the right work force for the wrong FAA air traffic control
system. As you heard from Senator D'Amato, staffing decreases
have forced the agency to adopt a costly and dangerous
alternative to in-house maintenance--contracting out the
maintenance. I would offer to you today that you cannot--you
cannot--contract out the safety of your families, of the
American people, and the national airspace system. That is not
a good alternative. It is bad for Government, and it is bad for
business.
In 1996, the existing 29 maintenance contracts cost the
airway facilities piece of the FAA $47 million. The generated
workload for that contracting maintenance was 503 employee
years. If you equate that to the cost of the maintenance by the
in-house staff, that would give us over 700 employee years.
Typically the FAA will contract out the first few years of
maintenance in order to get the training for the technicians
out in the field.
The FAA just recently contracted with Raytheon to put in
the standard terminal automation system [STARS], and we believe
that while we are concurrently running the old system with the
new system, there is a better way to train than to send
everybody out to Oklahoma City one or two at a time. We can
train right in the facility on the new equipment while it is
being tested to make sure that it is going to do the job.
Mr. Henry Brown is seated next to me today. He is the
technician from New York, and I would like to give him enough
time to speak today, but I would also like to say that any
questions that you might have, we will be glad to answer them,
and we have submitted written testimony. Thank you.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Johnson
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. My
name is Jack Johnson, and I am the National President of the
Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS). Seated next to me is
Henry Brown, an Environmental Systems Specialist and PASS
Representative from the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center. Mr.
Brown will testify on FAA staffing, training, and equipment problems in
the New York area. Thank you for inviting us here today.
As the exclusive representative for over 10,000 Systems
Specialists, Flight Inspection Pilots, and Aviation Safety Inspectors
working for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PASS has a
strong interest in FAA staffing levels. The services that our members
perform range from systems maintenance, installation, and
certification, to aviation and flight inspection. These dedicated men
and women have a direct impact on the commercial and general aviation
industries and on the safety, the efficiency, and the reliability of
the air traffic control system.
Earlier this gear, PASS provided testimony to this Subcommittee on
the FAA's Fiscal Year 1998 budget request, including information on
each of our bargaining units. Today's testimony will focus specifically
on our Systems Specialists--the men and women who form the backbone of
the air traffic control system. We will explain how the FAA's choices
to cut staffing and training, to contract out, and to attempt
modernization without appropriate planning are misguided, waste money,
and jeopardize the future safety and reliability of the National
Airspace System (NAS).
staffing
Airway Facilities (AF) Systems Specialists (or Technicians, as they
are more commonly known) are primarily responsible for the maintenance,
repair, and operation of the air traffic control system. Yet, because
their positions are not as visible as those of the Air Traffic
Controllers, Systems Specialists are often overlooked. By no means,
however, are they any less important; in fact, FAA Systems Specialists
are the only people authorized to certify the operation and safety of
facilities and to return the systems to service.
Just as critical to the safe operation of the air traffic control
system are the FAA's Air Traffic Control Specialists employed in the
agency's Flight Service Stations (FSS) throughout the country. These
employees are represented by the National Association of Air Traffic
Specialists (NAATS), and they provide pre-flight weather and flight
planning information, in-flight updates, and aeronautical facility data
to commercial, military, and general aviation pilots.
Today, there is a major shortfall in both AF an FSS staffing. In
1981, for example, 11,600 Systems Specialists were responsible for
maintaining 19,000 FAA facilities and equipment. As of September 30,
1996, the entire field maintenance work force (including supervisors,
managers, Systems Specialists, and support personnel) totaled 8,209;
\1\ there are now nearly 40,000 FAA facilities and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Administrator's Fact Book, November 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, between 1981 and 1995 (the most recent period for which
the agency has provided accurate data), the FAA has systematically
downsized the personnel working at its flight service stations by
almost one thousand individuals: from some 3,500 to roughly 2,500.
During this same period, the number of FSS management and supervisory
personnel assigned to Flight Service has been reduced by only six
through 1995.
The FAA's staffing standards indicate that an AF work force of
11,815 Technicians, logistical and support staff personnel, supervisors
and managers will be needed for the current fiscal year. Yet, an
analysis of AF staffing levels shows that, on average, each of the nine
FAA regions experienced a 13.2 percent decline in staffing between
fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1996. Ironically, FAA Headquarters and
the Technical Center show a 72.63 percent staffing increase during this
same timeframe.
Recently, at the request of Vice President Gore and the White House
Aviation Safety and Security Commission, PASS calculated the number of
FAA employees directly engaged in systems maintenance, as opposed to
those who support systems maintenance. As of December 5, 1996, only
5,888 Airway Facilities employees provided hands-on maintenance of the
entire National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA's staffing breakdown
follows:
Fiscal year
1996
Field Maintenance: Employees in the Systems Management Offices
(SMO), and Atlantic City and Oklahoma City Centers. They
provide maintenance and certification of facilities,
engineering, program and administrative support, management,
and supervision............................................... 8,209
Planning and Technical Support: Employees located in Regional
Offices, Centers, and FAA Headquarters. These employees manage
national programs by providing engineering and program
analysis, resource management, and administrative support..... 1,090
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total Operations (Systems Maintenance) Staffing............. 9,299
The true distribution of systems maintenance staffing, however,
includes the number of supervisors and managers, the number of
employees in support positions, and the number of employees directly
engaged in maintenance of the NAS. PASS obtained the following data by
contacting FAA field and regional offices directly:
Fiscal year
1996
FAA Headquarters: Including Atlantic City and Oklahoma City
Centers....................................................... 885
Regional Offices: This includes regional offices only, without
headquarters elements......................................... 841
SMO Offices: Includes the technical, program, and administrative
support for the System Support Centers (SSC's), as well as the
first-line supervisors of the field maintenance employees..... 1,685
AF Employees Providing Hands-On Maintenance of the NAS............ 5,888
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total Operations (Systems Maintenance) Staffing............. 9,299
As you can see, a very different picture is painted when ``systems
maintenance'' staffing is distributed by operational structure. What
this shows is the number of systems maintenance employees assigned to
hands-on maintenance jobs is approximately 63 percent of the total
systems maintenance work force. It is no wonder that AF overtime usage
in fiscal year 1996 increased by fifteen percent for the systems
maintenance work force.
Following is a breakdown of Airway Facilities staffing levels at
selected SMO's nationwide. It is important to remember that the on-
board staffing figures are inclusive and that the FAA does not track
the number of Technicians that perform hands-on maintenance of the
system. The on-board staffing levels below include at least 22 percent
overhead; generated staffing refers to the amount of people the FAA
calculates are needed to maintain all of the equipment in the SMO.
Liberty SMO: Includes JFK, La Guardia, Newark, Stewart, Islip,
Teterboro, Morristown, Caldwell, and White Plains airports. Also:
Riverhead Long Range Radar (LRR), New York Tracon, and New York Center.
Generated Staffing, 377; Authorized Staffing, 275; On-Board Staffing,
266; and Retirement Eligible, 40 by end of fiscal year 1998.
Independence SMO: Includes Philadelphia, Syracuse, Allentown,
Trenton, Atlantic City, Harrisburg, Wilkes Barre, Scranton airports.
Also: facilities in Eastern New York (excluding New York City), eastern
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (excluding Newark). Generated Staffing,
309; Authorized Staffing, 228; On-Board Staffing, 208; and Retirement
Eligible, 20 percent.
Pittsburgh SMO: Includes Greater Pittsburgh, Erie International,
Buffalo International, Rochester International, Roanoke, Charleston,
Huntington, Clarksburg, Allegheny County, Lynchburg, State College,
Martinsburg, and DuBois airports. Also: Bedford LRR, Oakdale LRR,
Clearfield LRR, Pittsburgh Tracon, Lambs Knoll, and Altoona Flight
Service Station. Generated Staffing, 297; Authorized Staffing, 216; On-
Board Staffing, 196; and Retirement Eligible, 20 percent by end of
fiscal year 1997.
Los Angeles SMO: Includes Burbank, Los Angeles, Van Nuys (busiest
general aviation airport in the world), Inyokern, Palmdale, Oxnard,
Camarillo, and Santa Barbara airports. Also: Edwards Air Force Base,
R2508 (military test range), Los Angeles Center, High Desert Tracon, 10
long range radars, and Hawthorne Flight Service Station. Generated
Staffing, 327; Authorized Staffing, 202; On-Board Staffing, 200; and
Retirement Eligible, 40 percent (Center), 30 percent.
Chesapeake SMO: Includes Andrews Air Force Base, Washington
National, Dulles, BWI, Richmond, Norfolk, Charlottesville, Salisbury,
Patrick Henry, Manassas, and Shenandoah airports. Also: Leesburg
Center, Leesburg Flight Service Station, and Baltimore Tracon.
Generated Staffing, 312; Authorized Staffing, 249; On-Board Staffing,
255; and Retirement Eligible, 40+.
Within a 1995 cost-benefit analysis for the NAS Infrastructure
Management System (NIMS), the FAA acknowledged that ``service and
system management efficiencies will not make up for the shortfall in
available AF personnel during the period 1997 through 2001. (Note: The
shortfall in service and system management effectiveness will result in
a reduction of overall AF facility and service operational
availability.)'' \2\ Given the known impact of this staffing shortfall,
why does the agency plan to hire only 25 additional Technicians in
fiscal year 1998?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Aviation Administration, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the
National Airspace System (NAS) Infrastructure Management System (NIMS),
October 1995. (Final Draft Copy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA management's poor planning and decisionmaking have led to
today's staffing problems. First, the agency calculated the field
staffing reductions that it believed the now defunct Advanced
Automation System (AAS) would achieve. Then, it cut the field
maintenance staff by not hiring Technicians to fill the pipeline. But
the system never materialized.
Had the agency fulfilled the AAS promise, we may now have the
correct number of employees. However, the agency terminated the AAS
project, leaving us with the right work force for the wrong air traffic
control system. Consequently, the use of overtime has increased;
restoration times have grown; open watches are commonplace; contractor
maintenance costs have skyrocketed; and training dollars have been
slashed.
Mr. Chairman, if just one-fourth of the overhead in Airway
Facilities (defined as support, managerial, or supervisory support not
directly engaged in NAS maintenance) was converted to the true
maintenance work force, it would mean 850 more employees in the
pipeline who are eventually trained to maintain the NAS. This would be
a fifteen percent increase in the number of field Technicians available
to help keep our skies safe.
contracting out
Unfortunately, staffing decreases have forced the agency to adopt a
costly and dangerous alternative to in-house maintenance--contracting
out. The FAA is allowing maintenance on the NAS--which is an inherently
governmental function--to be performed by private contractors. PASS
believes the agency's decision to contract out the installation,
repair, maintenance, and certification of FAA systems and equipment
vital to the safe operation of air traffic is both bad government and
bad business.
Both the FAA and the General Accounting Office have estimated that
the agency would save approximately $45,000 per staff year if it
utilized its in-house staff rather than contractor staff. Not only is
contracting out more expensive to the agency, it is also
counterproductive to the agency's mission. In fact, in testimony last
year before Congress, the GAO concluded that one of the prime factors
hindering the FAA's ability to bring new ATC systems on-line is its
``inadequate oversight of contractor performance.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Kenneth Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, ``Issues Related
to FAA Reform,'' (General Accounting Office, August 2, 1995.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 1996, the existing 29 maintenance contracts cost
Airway Facilities $47,700,000. The generated workload for contract
maintenance for fiscal year 1996 was 503.8 employee years (or ``the
number of people that would be required if FAA employees were to
perform this workload in-house.'') This equates to $94,680 per employee
year.
Now, if this maintenance was actually done in-house, using the
FAA's labor rate for Systems Specialists, $68,000 per employee year or
701.5 employee years of work could be realized. This equates either to
a net increase of 198 Systems Specialists to be used in areas of
staffing shortfalls or a net savings to the FAA of $13,433,600 for the
same amount of work.
Typically, the FAA will contract out the first few years of
maintenance of a new system simply because it cannot train our
Technicians fast enough to support these new systems. Despite the fact
that Congress legislated personnel and acquisition reform to give the
FAA greater flexibility, the agency has failed to reform training.
Recently, the FAA contracted with Raytheon for the installation and
maintenance of the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System, or
STARS, as it is commonly known. This system will replace aging radar
display systems, controller workstations, and related equipment at
about 170 FAA terminal ATC facilities by February 2005.
Assuming that Raytheon will perform most site preparation and
installation work, the STARS contract is estimated to be worth $2.2
billion--$940 million for facility and engineering and $1.3 billion to
operate and maintain the system. According to the General Accounting
Office (GAO), STARS costs could increase by $529 million over FAA's
baseline.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gerald Dillingham, Associate Director, Transportation Issues,
General Accounting Office, ``Air Traffic Control: Status of FAA's
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System Project,'' March 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just last week Aviation Daily reported that FAA officials
overseeing implementation of STARS have told Raytheon they propose to
elevate STARS software development to ``high risk status'' because of
delays in meeting milestones. According to the article, a March report
shows software development to be 75 percent behind schedule. ``It is
unclear how Raytheon could recover with the existing plan that
increases in both size and complexity with each incremental build,''
the FAA told Raytheon.
Clearly, Technicians and Controllers should have been given hands-
on involvement in this project from the onset; instead our roles have
been limited. As such, PASS fully expects that the STARS project--like
most FAA modernization efforts--will run over budget and take longer
for deployment. Consequently, the agency will raid resources from other
programs to cover the shortfalls.
The FAA is also missing the opportunity to save money by giving on-
site training on STARS to AF Technicians. When appropriate, on-site
training can save time and money because the cost of sending an
instructor to one site, or a group of sites, is much less than sending
fifteen or twenty Technicians to the Oklahoma City Academy.
STARS will be deployed with the current automation system, which
would make on-site training of AF Technicians for a project of this
magnitude not just appropriate, but extremely cost effective. However,
the FAA has said it will contract out the first year of maintenance for
STARS because it can't train enough people in time to assume the
maintenance.
How long will this excuse be acceptable? Why would the agency spend
millions of dollars on the STARS contract when the agency's AF
Technicians can bring systems online faster and cheaper? The Display
Complex Channel Rehost (DCCR) program, for example, was completed on
time and $3 million under budget. The Voice Switching Control System
(VSCS) was also commissioned on time and on budget. Technicians were
responsible for both projects.
Until now, PASS has addressed contracting out as merely a
``numbers'' issue--or as a costly ``Band-Aid'' for the FAA's true
staffing problems. We would now like to explain the dangers and the
safety shortfalls that contracting out generates, for it is common
knowledge at FAA facilities that contractors will always place their
company's needs before the FAA's safety mission.
The National Airspace System is not just one piece of equipment.
The NAS is a complex system which includes thousands of different
smaller systems, many of which interface with one another. When
contractors come into an FAA facility to maintain a piece of the NAS
system, they often do not understand the effect they can have on the
intricacies of the whole system and on the safety of the flying public.
AF Technicians have a proven track record, while private
contractors often have failed to measure up to this high standard. An
example of the satisfaction that FAA Technicians provide is evidenced
in a letter to the FAA dated April 30, 1997. Mr. George Larson, Airport
Director of the Jackson Hole, Wyoming Airport Board, writes:
``The Jackson Hole AWOS has been maintained by FAA Technicians for
a considerable amount of time. It is evident that the maintenance
performed by your people is far, far superior to the services performed
by the previous contract with Qualmetrics.
Since AWOS is not the most reliable weather system available, it is
extremely important to our Airport, commercial air carriers serving
this airport, and all general aviation pilots that we can promptly and
expertly repair our AWOS when necessary. Your Technicians always
provide us with that assurance, unlike the previous outside contract
effort.''
Because our Systems Specialists work with the NAS equipment
everyday and are the only people who can certify the systems, they
understand the need to exhibit caution and to communicate with others
before performing any maintenance on a system. There are also rules
that Congress has imposed on our work force, such as strike
prohibitions, that are not imposed on contractors. These rules help to
ensure the safety of the air traffic control system. Increased demand
on the NAS, combined with the attrition of the current work force, make
it impossible to explain why the FAA would want to hire contractors
instead of permanent workers.
Until contractors can guarantee immediate restoration and quality
service--which PASS maintains will never happen--the FAA must return
all maintenance to its own personnel. The idea of having anyone outside
of Airway Facilities employees conducting installation and operation of
systems impacting live air traffic is unacceptable. The maintenance and
operation of NAS systems that are used to separate traffic or to
maintain safety are inherent governmental functions, whether the FAA
owns the systems or not.
modernization efforts
Any discussion on air traffic control staffing levels must include
a section on modernization, for without adequate Technician staffing
levels and support, FAA modernization efforts will fail. For fiscal
year 1998, the facilities and equipment (F&E) budget request is a three
percent decrease from the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. F&E employees
are directly involved in systems engineering and design. They are
critical to the agency and will play a key role in modernization. PASS
steadfastly believes that cutting the F&E budget is neither safe nor
responsible.
There are now 2,869 new FAA systems and equipment (designated by
the agency as units) in FAA storage/warehouses. In several instances,
cuts in F&E funding are cited as the reason why delivery has been
delayed to the field. For example, there are currently 439
Communications Facilities Enhancement radios (UHF and VHF transmitters/
receivers) in storage. The project cost is $3,736,000. The reason for
delay is cited by the FAA as ``F&E funding shortfalls caused by
cutbacks in funding for establishment or relocation of communications
facilities.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FAA Storage/Warehouse Report, February 19, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, because of ``partial F&E funding provided in fiscal year
1996,'' 64 Doppler VHF Omnidirections Range (DVOR) systems are in
storage. These systems cost $108,000 each for a project cost of
$6,912,000. Unless F&E is funded at higher levels, more and more new
systems will sit in boxes awaiting delivery to the field. Meanwhile,
the current systems will age, and modernization goals will fail. The
FAA has reached a stage where incremental improvement is not
sufficient.
The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security found
that the FAA's ``proposed schedule for modernization is too slow to
meet projected demands, and funding issues are not adequately
addressed.'' This has been the case for years. Since the early 1980's,
the FAA's modernization program has experienced substantial delays and
cost overruns.
PASS believes the FAA can succeed in modernizing the air traffic
control system by building on its proven strength--its employees. The
same ingenuity and perseverance that now enable the men and women of
PASS to keep the NAS running is what is needed to bring the FAA into
the 21st century. Instead of telling these employees--who are
stakeholders in the system--how they must change to be part of the
future, the FAA should be asking its employees to show the agency the
future.
According to the GAO, ``in organizations with more constructive
cultures, employees are more likely to involve others in decisions
affecting them, openly share information, and resolve differences
collaboratively.'' In the FAA, however, ``ineffective coordination has
caused the agency to acquire systems that cost more than anticipated
and look longer to implement.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues, General
Accounting Office, ``A Comprehensive Strategy is Needed for Cultural
Change at FAA,'' August 22, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PASS employees are a vital part of developing the future NAS and
are the FAA's best insurance that this new system will work as
advertised. But FAA management excludes its Technicians and
Controllers--who are the subject matter experts in the field and the
end users of the product--from devising and developing ATC
modernization solutions and plans. Instead, they are merely asked to
help implement management's plan.
conclusion
PASS firmly believes that the status quo is no longer feasible. The
FAA simply cannot maintain the world's safest airspace with shrinking
budgets and reduced staffing levels. Nor can it turn over its
maintenance responsibilities to contractors, masking the decision as
cosmetic cost savings. The bottom line is that contracting out costs
taxpayers many times more than what it costs the government to have
federal employees provide the same services.
Senator Shelby and Members of this Subcommittee, PASS urges you to
mandate that the FAA immediately increase Technician staffing levels,
revamp training programs, and eliminate the costly practice of
contracting out. These changes will lead to increased productivity and
will ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be more than
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Statement of Monte Belger
Senator Shelby. The next witness is Mr. Monte Belger. He is
the Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration.
Mr. Belger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a prepared
statement, and my staff has armed me with a barrage of numbers
and statistics and data, but I would prefer just to take my
time to talk to you about some of the things that have been
discussed this morning.
First, there is no question that there is no disagreement
between FAA management and the Air Traffic Controllers Union or
the PASS Union in terms of these fundamental issues that we
have talked about today. No one wants to fix this problem more
than senior FAA management. No one wants to fix this problem
more than I. I have spent an extraordinary amount of my
personal time on the New York issues. I have been to the
center, I have been to the TRACON, I have visited with
Congresswoman Molinari, and have tried my best to understand
from the big picture where we are there. And I am not here
today to appease the committee nor to tell you that everything
is OK, because it is not.
Senator Shelby. Excuse me. I hope you are not here to
appease us, but I hope you are here to tell us how you can fix
a problem before we have a huge airline disaster in this
country.
Mr. Belger. I am going to do that, sir.
Senator Shelby. I believe that is part of your
responsibility.
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir.
Do we have enough controllers at the New York facilities?
The answer is no. Are we satisfied with either the staffing
levels or the status of the equipment in the New York area? The
answer is no. We will not be satisfied, I will not be
satisfied, until we reach the target levels that we have
established for staffing at each one of the facilities; will
not be satisfied in the equipment area until we install the new
computer systems in the center, which is on schedule and on
budget and will happen in 1999 at the New York Center. I will
not be satisfied until we complete the installation of the
terminal automation modernization in all the terminals
throughout the country. That will happen starting in the 1999
to 2003 timeframe.
Are we doing all that we can? I think we are. I do not
think that we can install the new equipment any more quickly
than the current schedule that we have. Are we doing all we can
in the staffing area? I think we are. Do we have an agreement
with the Air Traffic Controllers Union on target levels for
staffing at the New York Center and the New York TRACON? Yes,
we do. It is in Mr. Krasner's statement, although he did not
refer to it, but we have an agreement for the first time in the
history of relationships between the FAA and NATCA, and we are
reaching those target levels. And the data is in the statement,
and I will be glad to provide specific numbers, but we are
committed to meeting those target levels at the New York Center
and the New York TRACON at the end of this year and at the end
of 1998.
Air Traffic Controller Increase
We will hire this year and next year, if our budget request
for fiscal year 1998 is favorably received, 1,300 new
controllers. That is more than we hired in the 5 previous years
combined. We have the flexibility and the opportunity now to
aggressively respond to these problems. We are not just hiring
people, we are doing things as was suggested by the previous
panel to build a pipeline in the New York metropolitan area
from which we can draw, so that we are hiring people who want
to be in that area. We want to hire people who want to be
there. We want to hire people who have ties there, who do not
want to go there and get trained and get the grade and go
somewhere else. We want to hire people who want to be there in
the New York and the New Jersey area.
We instituted last year, at my direction, what we call a
co-op program, working with Dowling College and the College of
Aeronautics at La Guardia, through which college students will
come to the facilities to work part time. They get credit for
it, and we hire them when they graduate, that clearly prepares
them for the future. Do we have enough people in that program
now? No; but it is just getting reinstituted after it was cut
years ago by the FAA. We are also expanding the college
training initiative program, which is a group of universities
that train controllers for us, and we are trying to get
colleges in the New York metropolitan area to do that.
Senator Lautenberg correctly admonished us to just do it. I
think we are doing our best to just do it, and I am committed
to doing that. Senator Lautenberg suggested that perhaps one of
the things that might be looked at, and I can assure you we are
looking at it, is potentially readjusting some of the work load
and the airspace to equitably put the workload where the people
are--and we are aggressively looking at that, and that is a
potential option.
Is the air traffic control system in New York/New Jersey
area safe? Well, of course it is. It is absolutely safe. My
daughter just recently moved to Boston after living in
Montclair, NJ, for several years. She flew out of Newark
regularly on her business. That is the ultimate test for me. It
is safe. At the end of the day, we will be judged by how safe
the system is.
Do we agree with some suggestions that were made in the
first panel that the pay system for both controllers and
engineers and technicians ought to be changed so that it more
accurately reflects the complexity and the value of the service
provided? Yes, we do. And given the flexibility that we have in
the personnel reform, we are doing that. We are working
aggressively with both NATCA and PASS to develop new
classification standards and pay schemes that will acknowledge
that an individual working at the most complex facilities ought
to be paid more than one working at a less complex facility.
But I should also put a balance to this whole discussion,
and then I will pause, although I could speak for hours about
the things that were said this morning. We have to put some
counterbalance to this discussion. At the same time we are
doing those things I said, are we also, as good stewards,
looking at how we can reduce and control our operating costs?
And yes, sir, I can assure you that we are.
I just spent a day and a half--a full day and a half--with
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which was
chartered by the Congress to look at how the FAA should be
funded in the future. They, appropriately, are very concerned
about our growing and escalating operating costs. We all should
be concerned. NATCA should be concerned, PASS should be
concerned. I can assure you I am concerned. We have to solve
these problems in a way that also controls our growing
operating costs.
This is not easy, but I can assure you all, I can assure
the committee, and I can assure the American public, that we
are committed to doing both those things, providing the safest
system that we can. I want our air traffic controllers and
technicians to have the very best equipment in the world, but
we also have to do it in a way that is responsible to the
taxpayers, and do the best we can to control our costs.
Thank you, sir.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Belger. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Monte R. Belger
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
important issue of air traffic controller staffing. We in the FAA
firmly believe that the primary reason that the United States is able
to operate the world's safest and most complex air traffic control
system is because of the excellent performance of the technicians and
air traffic controllers who operate the air traffic system 24 hours a
day. We are committed to maintaining an adequately sized and properly
trained controller work force.
During the 1980's, the FAA hired large numbers of controllers as we
rebuilt the controller work force from the strike of 1981. By 1992, the
controller work force had been rebuilt, and at a level of 17,982, was
several hundred controllers over the controller work force staffing
standard requirement.
From 1993 through 1996, the controller work force was reduced
primarily as a result of our successful initiative to contract the low
activity level I airport traffic control towers. Once this initiative
is completed, we will have effectively reduced the controller work
force requirements by approximately 1,000 for an annual savings of
approximately $25M, with no adverse impact on safety. During this
period, controller hiring averaged only 100 per year because we were
also reassigning approximately 200 controllers per year from the closed
level I towers to higher level facilities.
The limited hiring over these years exacerbated staffing imbalances
among some facilities. By the end of fiscal year 1996, the controller
work force was at 17,080 including 14,360 air traffic controllers,
2,162 first line supervisors, and 558 traffic management coordinators.
In the same period, the other-than-controller work force was reduced 24
percent from 8,959 in fiscal year 1992 to 6,824 at the end of fiscal
year 1996.
The fiscal year 1997 budget recognized that the controller work
force had to start growing again because there soon would no longer be
controllers available from closing level I towers, and because of
increases in forecasted traffic, new equipment, training, and
retirements. Starting in fiscal year 1997, we plan for several years of
increases to the controller work force to keep pace with increasing air
traffic activity. This plan calls for the controller work force to
increase to 17,300 in fiscal year 1997, with 14,560 air traffic
controllers, and our fiscal year 1998 budget submittal requests a
further increase to 17,800. This means we plan to hire 1,300
controllers in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. The 1,300
includes the 750 increase in the size of the controller work force and
550 to replace attrition expected in fiscal year 1997 and 1998.
This growth means that annual controller hiring will be 500 in
fiscal year 1997 and approximately 800 in fiscal year 1998. We fully
expect to meet the hiring targets for fiscal year 1997, and we ask for
your support to fund our request for hiring in fiscal year 1998.
The new controller hires will come from a variety of sources
including former controllers, who became eligible for consideration for
reemployment after President Clinton removed the ban on their
employment with the FAA, veterans, cooperative education students, and
graduates of the College Training Initiative.
We are concerned about maintaining adequate staffing at some large,
complex facilities such as those in the New York area. In order to
encourage controllers to move to these major facilities and to retain
those already there, we implemented an interim incentive pay of 10
percent at seven key facilities in the New York, Chicago, and Oakland
areas. In addition, after in-depth review of staffing requirements at
the New York area facilities and the Washington Air Route Traffic
Control Center, we have signed agreements with National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) on appropriate staffing levels for
Washington Center, New York Center, and New York TRACON. We are
targeting the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 controller hires to
ensure that the staffing levels agreed to are achieved. In the first
eight months of fiscal year 1997, we have hired 31, 31, and 14 new
controllers in the Washington Center, New York Center, and New York
TRACON respectively.
We have focused on the New York facilities in the past few years.
Even though the national CWF staffing levels decreased by 5.0 percent
since 1992, staffing in the New York facilities increased by 3.4
percent, a net difference of 8.4 percent.
Operational errors are up at New York Center and New York TRACON.
However, past studies have shown that there is no statistical
significance between staffing and operational errors. These studies
have indicated the following ``key factors'' generally exist in
operational errors:
--Sectors were not combined when the incident occurred.
--The controller was working five to six aircraft.
--The controller's last day off was usually 2 days prior to the
incident.
--The incident occurred in the third hour of the workday and overtime
was not a factor.
One other area I would like to touch on briefly is the controller
staffing standard. The controller staffing standard has been developed
and refined over many years. It uses complex algorithms that calculate
the controller staffing requirements facility by facility. It considers
the amount of aircraft a controller can handle, the air traffic
activity, and the number of sectors of airspace in use and various
shift times. It also makes adjustments for the 7-day operations and the
amount of time controllers are not available for work for such reasons
as sick leave, annual leave, training, medical checks, union activity,
work groups, and details. Finally, it calculates staffing requirements
based on the 90th percentile day. That means it provides staffing
adequate to handle activity on a facility's 37th busiest day of the
year.
On the national level, the staffing standard is very accurate. It
is less accurate at an individual facility and we estimate the facility
accuracy to be plus or minus 10 percent. That is why we primarily use
the staffing standard to support budget and resource requirements at
the national and regional level. Regional Air Traffic Division managers
consider local facility requirements along with the controller staffing
standard when allocating controllers to specific facilities. The
staffing standard is updated annually with the latest information on
changes in air traffic activity projections and facility
characteristics.
There have been several outside reviews of the controller staffing
standard. The latest review was recently conducted at the direction of
Congress by the National Research Council which is part of the National
Academy of Sciences. The report was completed in April 1997. Its
general findings were that the strategies for sampling, data
collection, and model design are geared to the development of national
staffing estimates and do not necessarily provide accurate predictions
of staffing requirements at individual facility levels. Although the
National Research Council found that it was unlikely that the staffing
standard could be modified to provide precise stand-alone estimates of
facility staffing requirements, it did make some recommendations for
improving the process for determining staffing requirements. These
recommendations included: Strengthening the headquarters staffing
estimation process; developing a uniform regional approach for
estimating facility staffing; establishing a headquarters oversight
process for resolving differences between regional and headquarters
estimates of staffing at specific facilities; and developing
performance measures for testing the validity of facility staffing
estimates. We agree with most of the National Research Council's
recommendations and are already taking action on its suggestions.
In summary, let me reiterate that we are committed to maintaining
adequate controller staffing levels to ensure continued safe and
efficient operation of the air traffic control system. Your continued
support, particularly for our fiscal year 1998 request to increase the
size of the controller work force to 17,800, is essential if we are to
meet that commitment.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you, and I
will be happy to answer any questions.
Statement of Raymond Maldonado
Senator Shelby. Mr. Maldonado, do you have a statement to
give? If you would highlight, Mr. Maldonado, your statement,
the whole statement will be in the record. Do you have anything
to add?
Mr. Maldonado. Well, let me first just say, Mr. Chairman
and committee members, thank you for the invitation, privilege,
and opportunity to speak before you this morning. I have been
employed by the Federal Aviation Administration since 1989, and
I am extremely proud of the work that I do and the profession
that I have chosen. Air traffic controllers are the cornerstone
of what should be the safest and most efficient air traffic
system in the world. While I will not say that the system is
unsafe, I will say that it is not as safe as it could or should
be. Of course, this all relates, in my opinion, to some of the
staffing problems and equipment problems that have hindered
that distinction.
My draft was submitted, I guess. I am prepared to answer
questions or offer testimony in the area of equipment, delays,
and certainly staffing, to the best of my knowledge.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. We appreciate that, and I am sure we will
have some. We will insert your complete statement in the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond D. Maldonado
Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the
invitation, opportunity and privilege to appear before you this
morning. My name is Raymond Maldonado, I am an Air Traffic
Control Specialist at the Newark Air Traffic Control Tower in
New Jersey. I have been employed by the Federal Aviation
Administration since 1989. Today I speak before you as the
Newark Tower Representative of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association.
I am extremely proud of the work that I do and of the
profession that I have chosen. Air Traffic Controllers are the
cornerstone of what should be the safest and most efficient air
traffic system in the world. While I will not say that the
system is unsafe, I must say that it is not as safe or
efficient as it could or should be. Controllers are the
professionals that organize and expedite the flow of air
traffic, and most importantly we prevent collisions between
aircraft operating in the system.
Newark Tower operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
providing air traffic control services to the aviation
customers of Newark Airport, and radar service within a 6.5
mile radius of the airport. In 1991 Newark Tower had
approximately 30 Air Traffic Control Specialists, the overtime
budget was approximately $40,000 and the airport conducted
roughly 380,000 operations. In 1996, five years later, Newark
Tower had 27 working Air Traffic Control Specialists, the
overtime allocation for fiscal year 1996 was $21,800 and the
airport conducted over 454,000 operations. That translates to a
10 percent DECREASE in controller staffing, a nearly 50 percent
DECREASE in overtime allocations, and an INCREASE of almost 20
percent in air traffic. Mr. Chairman, please believe me when I
say that a lack of air traffic controller staffing, and the
resources necessary to augment these shortfalls are a recipe
for disaster.
Since 1991 the FAA has conducted four separate staffing
studies designed to determine the staffing needs of Newark
Tower. All of the studies called for staffing levels at or
above Newark Tower's current authorization. The most recent
study was a collaborative effort between NATCA and the FAA. It
recommended the staffing level of controllers necessary to
provide the level of service expected by the users of Newark
Airport should be between 37 and 41 specialists. Although
authorizations have recently been adjusted, staffing levels for
full performance level controllers throughout the NY/NJ
metropolitan area still remain at approximately 70 percent of
the authorizations.
Newark Tower currently staffs eight operational positions.
A two week study conducted by NATCA in May 1996, revealed that
four of those control positions, that is one half of the
positions at Newark Tower, were combined with another control
position almost 12 hours each day, between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.,
our high traffic period. In the fall of 1996 a Federal Aviation
Administration Operational Assessment Team stated in their
report ``critical positions were combined during some heavy
traffic periods, the CBA (radar) position was closed and
service was denied'', and lastly they concluded that
``combining positions appears to be the standard operating
practice at Newark Air Traffic Control Tower''. I assure you
that even during periods of moderate traffic, combining two or
more control positions under the responsibility of one Air
Traffic Controller is not desirable nor is it safe.
The combining of positions dramatically increases workload
and drastically diminishes the level of service and safety
being provided. The FAA's own ``Operational Error Reduction
Plan'' calls for the de-combining of positions which will help
accomplish increased safety and efficiency. Additionally, the
FAA's Operational Assessment Team also recommended the
splitting or de-combining of critical positions. In July 1996 I
myself was assigned the responsibilities of three air traffic
controllers. It was because of this overburden that an aircraft
under my control, inadvertently entered into and flew
unmonitored approximately 10 miles through the most complex
airspace in the world--directly above the island of Manhattan.
When positions are combined because of inadequate staffing
levels, relief breaks are reduced, time on position soars, and
inattention to detail occurs. No one wants or needs a fatigued
controller directing his or her flight, unfortunately in the
NY/NJ metropolitan area this is the case more often than not.
When controllers are overburdened, the safety of the flying
public is compromised.
At facilities around the country that are short staffed,
air traffic services are frequently denied or reduced and
ultimately the end results are delayed flights. To our aviation
customers, we know time is money. However it is only through
the combined efforts of adequate staffing and reliable
equipment that we can work to reduce delays.
A May 30, 1997 Newark Star Ledger article cited a Port
Authority Study that states ``delays cost EWR airport users 100
million dollars annually. Delays at all 3 of the major New York
airports are estimated to cost the users 215 million dollars
annually''.
Although there are many future technological initiatives
and equipment installations scheduled for Newark Airport,
designed to help reduce delays, many of those initiatives such
as Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) and Terminal Doppler
Weather Radar, are months if not years away from actual
implementation.
Our nation's Air Traffic Controllers service the world. The
impact of an overburdened system is felt far beyond the
boarding gate. Members of Congress have helped to raise
awareness and have been instrumental in helping correct some of
the problems throughout our air traffic system. While there is
a tremendous amount of work that still needs to be done in
other areas such as incentives, retention, hiring and
technology, I am confident that with your support and
assistance we can re-establish the type of air traffic system
that our flying public expects and deserves.
Once again, thank you for your time, consideration and the
opportunity to speak before you today.
Statement of Tom Monaghan
Senator Shelby. Mr. Monaghan, do you have a statement to
make?
Mr. Monaghan. Yes, Senator.
Senator Shelby. I am sure we have got some questions. Your
written statement will be made part of the record, if you have
one.
Senator Lautenberg. You are in the Kennedy tower, is that
right, Mr. Monaghan?
Mr. Monaghan. Yes, I am.
Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, I am
Thomas Monaghan, of the National Air Traffic Control
Association. I am a control specialist at Kennedy tower and the
NATCA representative for New York/New Jersey metropolitan
control towers. These are some of the issues that have been
affecting towers over the last couple of years.
The understaffing at smaller towers in the region, which
traditionally provided staffing for the larger towers, being so
low, in some cases it has taken up to 2 years once we do
identify a controller, say at a Teeterboro tower to go to a
Newark tower, 2 years to get that controller to that tower. In
some cases at Kennedy I think it also took about 2 years. So we
are not able to respond fast enough to the outflow of
controllers from the metropolitan towers. And La Guardia tower,
60 percent of the controllers there are certified. They have
lost 16 controllers over the last 3 years. They are going to
lose another five this year. So in some cases we are moving the
problem around.
The incentives that have been often mentioned have never
been in place at the control towers in metropolitan New York/
New Jersey area. So we just move it. And we need to have the
most experienced people at all levels of the system. The same
level of safety is necessary at the airports, TRACON, and
center airspace.
When I did call around, just to try to get a handle on the
attrition rate at other areas of the country, it seems that at
Chicago O'Hare, where the incentive is in place at the tower,
they suffer on average, maybe some years 4, some years none,
but an average of 2 controllers a year move into other
positions; as compared to La Guardia tower out of 33
controllers losing the 16 plus 5 coming up. That has to
undermine the experience level both of the controllers who are
working the traffic, and as they are also training the other
controllers coming in.
So you have 2-year experience level controllers teaching
people just coming into the system. In this airspace, in this
complexity, it suffers errors not lightly. I mean, everything
is threading the needle, and you have to have people with the
experience level necessary to see this.
It is not that the controllers do not have the talent. It
is not that they do not have what it takes. It is that often we
just keep training them and they keep repeating the same
errors. And it is very frustrating to people.
Senator Shelby. Why? Why do they keep repeating the same
errors?
Mr. Monaghan. Because as soon as they get to the experience
level, sir, they move out either into FAA management, another
locality, or a radar facility on Long Island, and then we start
the whole process over again.
Senator Shelby. OK. I see.
Problems with Air Traffic Control
Mr. Belger, I want to assure you over at FAA from my
standpoint as the chairman of this subcommittee, and Senator
Lautenberg I believe would agree with this, I hope so, that we
are going to do on this subcommittee everything we can--
everything--to see that FAA is properly funded, that there will
not be a shortage of money, because safety should not be bought
and sold, not the safety of our traveling public in America.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Belger. Absolutely. I think you have been responsive.
Senator Shelby. And to use your words, we are not here to
appease you, but we are here to assure you that we are going to
work together to see that that is done. There cannot be ever
any substitute for safety.
I realize that you have got to have trained quality
personnel, you have got to pay them, you have got to keep them
any way you can once they are trained. I think the American
people deserve nothing less.
Now, are the problems, Mr. Belger, that have been outlined
here today by the first panel and some of the others, dealing
with New York and New Jersey areas, also common to some extent
around the country in some of the busy airports like Chicago,
Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles?
Mr. Belger. The equipment problems that have been discussed
today are common throughout the entire country. The equipment
in the centers is old. It needs to be replaced. And as I say,
we have a plan to do that. The equipment in the radar approach
control facilities is old. It needs to be replaced, and we have
a program to do that. And I believe we are doing that as
quickly as we can.
In my opinion, the staffing situation is probably more
acute in the New York area than it is in other locations. That
is not to say that we do not have some staffing shortages in
other locations, but a combination of factors make it very
difficult to recruit as rapidly as we would like.
Recommendation on Collision Avoidance System
Senator Shelby. Mr. Belger, on a different topic, one of
the recommendations I understand was made by the National
Transportation Safety Board is for the FAA to require that all
cargo plains be equipped with a collision avoidance system
known as traffic advisory and collision avoidance system. These
systems are currently required, it is my understanding, on all
passenger planes carrying 10 or more people, is that right?
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator Shelby. The need to assess whether some type of
collision avoidance system should be installed on cargo planes
was highlighted, you recall, last month when a UPS cargo plane
came within 7 seconds of colliding with Air Force One. Can you
tell us if the FAA is reviewing whether air cargo aircraft,
which there are a lot of in the country and in the world,
should be required to be equipped with some type of collision
avoidance system, and if not, why not?
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; we are reviewing that. That is very
active on our plate. We have several petitions from groups
asking us to require the use of collision avoidance systems on
cargo aircraft.
Senator Shelby. That is just common sense, is it not?
Mr. Belger. There are two questions: One, should we require
today the existing technology, TCAS, on cargo aircraft? And I
should also say there are other types of aircraft on which we
do not today require collision avoidance systems, either,
business jets, business general aviation, the high end of
general aviation we do not require today either. There is also
a new technology which I have been told that the cargo industry
is absolutely committed to, which is called the ADSB, which
also provides a collision avoidance system that will be
compatible with the satellite technology of the future.
But the short answer is we are reviewing that. I expect
that the Administrator will make some public decision regarding
those petitions very soon, and I can assure you it is high on
our priority list for review.
I can also say that I have seen an accident investigation
report from the instance you referred to that occurred in the
Shannon, Ireland, airspace, and the conclusion of the Irish
investigative authorities, from the report I saw, was there was
no collision potential in that incident even if----
Senator Shelby. But it was reported that way, was it not?
Mr. Belger. It was reported, yes, sir. A lot of things are
reported for whatever reasons not necessarily related to the
facts. But yes, sir; and we take all of those incidents very
seriously, and we obviously followed up and found out what the
Irish authorities learned from that incident.
Equipment Failure
Senator Shelby. Mr. Belger, from your knowledge of the
equipment failures occurring at the New York and New Jersey
facilities--maybe it is New York--is this an increasing
problem, or one which your organization, the FAA, is making
progress toward correcting?
Mr. Belger. As I said, we are not satisfied with where we
are, but I do believe that we are making extraordinary
progress. If you recall, a couple of summers ago we had a rash
of incidents in the centers, a very significant one in the New
York Center, that were caused by power outages. We have since
that time replaced what we call a power conditioning system,
which is nothing more than a super complex power conditioning
system much like you would have on your computer to purify
commercial power. In every one of the centers we have now done
that. Those new systems are in place, and they are there.
We had problems also several years ago in the summer with
five centers in particular that had the very oldest radar
processing computers in the centers. The Administrator at that
time made a decision to do a quick $60 million replacement
program of those computer systems. That has now been done. This
new interim computer system is in place in the five centers.
Senator Shelby. But you do have backup power?
Mr. Belger. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, we have backup
power.
Senator Shelby. So if you had a power shortage, it should
not affect you?
Mr. Belger. I am one who says that any time we have to go
to a backup system there is some degradation in service, we
lose some capability. But I will also tell you that I think the
backup systems are such that we will not let it get to the
point where it causes a safety problem.
Air Traffic Controllers
Senator Shelby. We received testimony this morning from the
controllers at the New York facilities. They are working an
extraordinary amount of overtime. Does this mean that most
controllers at the New York area and New Jersey facilities are
working 50 to 60 hours a week, or more, and if so, is this
safe? This is a highly stressed job.
Mr. Belger. It is an extraordinarily important and
stressful job. I think the scenario that we are seeing at New
York Center is a safe scenario, as I have said before. I have
asked Mr. Morgan, who is the Director of our Air Traffic
Service, to look closely and analyze the staffing and the
overtime situation at the New York Center, and with your
permission I would ask him to answer the question more
specifically.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Belger, one last----
Mr. Belger. I am sorry. I have asked Mr. Morgan to look at
that very closely. With your permission, I would like for him
to answer specifically.
Senator Shelby. Let us hear him.
Mr. Morgan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
In looking at the overtime situation at New York Center,
what we have found is that we do use a significant amount of
overtime. The two primary reasons for that overtime usage is to
enhance our training capability. It takes more people when you
use controllers to train than it does to just operate the
facility.
Second, we have an agreement with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to be able to allow them a certain
period of time through the summer months that they are
guaranteed leave, and it is our obligation, our commitment, to
make good that memorandum that we have with them.
The particular overtime usage that we have, what we find is
that the overtime is usually a voluntary type activity with the
controller work force. At times it is mandated, but it is
usually volunteers who utilize the overtime. When they are
assigned 6-day workweeks, what we have found is that 60 percent
of the controllers actually work a 6-day workweek when they are
assigned. Others will combine that 6-day assigned workweek with
either a day of annual leave or, if required, a day of sick
leave, and what we find is that the other 40 percent are
working less than a 6-day workweek, even though they are
assigned that period of time.
Senator Shelby. We appreciate that.
Mr. Belger, some airports that do not currently qualify for
a contract tower have suggested a call-sharing partnership in
which the FAA and the local airport would split the annual
operating costs of a contract tower. This type of partnership
between the FAA and the local airports could enhance aviation
safety at a minimum cost to the FAA. What are your thoughts
about this?
Mr. Belger. I am very much in favor of those types of
arrangements.
Senator Shelby. This would also affect a lot of medium-
sized cities.
Mr. Belger. I am very much in favor of those types of
arrangements, particularly if it will provide a service in the
form of an air traffic control tower that we otherwise could
not provide because it does not meet our criteria.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Belger, and all of you, I am sorry that everybody did
not have the opportunity to testify, but we have your statement
in the record, and that will be examined thoroughly, and I tell
you that we only lost the opportunity to hear the charm of your
voices.
Senator Shelby. And the substance of their statement.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that is going to be in the
record, I hope.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Air Traffic Control School
Senator Lautenberg. I want to ask you, Mr. Belger, you have
heard some of the concerns expressed, and one of the things
that was kind of addressed turkey roost was this school in
Oklahoma. Now, to be candid, you and I both discussed this in a
meeting that we had, and you gave me a reason as to why that
facility was not being used. Can you, in short form, tell us
why? And you did say that you are now using local educational
institutions to try and grow controllers in the vicinity in
which they are going to live after they get their jobs. So tell
us about that.
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; from 1992 until this fiscal year, we
hired into the controller work force, new controllers, on the
average of less than 150 a year. Most of those that we did hire
during that period were graduates of the college training
programs that I spoke about, and those graduates go directly to
the facilities where they begin on the job training, because
they have already been trained in the universities on the basic
principles of air traffic control.
The other category of folks that we hired from during those
years were former military controllers and others who did not
have to go through the basic training. We literally hired
virtually no one. I will not say no one, but virtually no one
at the entry level where they had to come up through the FAA's
traditional training program. So that is the reason that we did
not have an active ongoing initial training program at the
academy.
I do believe that the reference in the first panel to
closing down the training academy, although it was not
perfectly clear to me, I do believe the reference was to airway
facilities training for our technicians and engineers, and the
decision was made earlier this year because of funding
priorities to cancel some training courses--cancel all training
courses. When I learned about that decision in a matter of 2
days we found the money and turned those courses back on.
But the short answer to your question is we have not had an
initial training program because we have not been hiring people
from those sources.
Senator Lautenberg. You have not been hiring people. Is it
a necessary part of your development for controllers to have
that facility?
Mr. Belger. No, sir.
[Additional information follows:]
Since fiscal year 1992 the demand for controller trainees
entering the system, who require developmental training, has
been very low. The FAA has been meeting the hiring requirements
through the College Training Initiative (CTI) program and, for
the past couple of years, with rehired PATCO controllers.
During this same timeframe we have had a continuing (at
times an increasing) need to provide advanced or post
journeyman level training. While the CTI program has met the
demand for new hire training, the Academy has met the need for
other types of training as well as courseware development and
maintenance for ongoing resident courses at the Academy and
field developmental training.
As the demand for increased hiring rises we plan to expand
the CTI program to facilitate hiring from the local commuting
area. And, we are developing a systematic approach for hiring
ex-military controllers to take advantage of their background
in air traffic control so that training time will be reduced to
a minimum. We also plan to ``spool'' the Academy up to
accomplish new hire developmental training. Our goal is to
accomplish developmental training in a cost efficient manner
while ensuring that all training needs are met.
Senator Lautenberg. How much does it cost to operate it?
Mr. Belger. I can provide that sir, but I do not have that
data with me.
Senator Lautenberg. Does anyone have it?
[No response.]
Mr. Belger. We certainly can provide it.
[The information follows:]
The following information is regarding the Air Traffic
Division only--not the FAA Academy as a whole. The cost to
operate the fiscal year 1997 Air Traffic Training Program (AMA-
500) includes the following: $3,312,000 is allocated for the
per diem/travel for students; and $14,691,000 is allocated to
support 126 FTE's and about 110 contractor FTE's.
Listed below is a partial list of accomplishments that will
be made with the fiscal year 1997 dollars: 2,000 resident
students trained; 24 percent initial qualification/
developmental controller training 76 percent advanced/post
journeyman level training; development/maintenance of 31
resident courses; development/maintenance of 36 non-resident
conventional courses; development/maintenance of 20 CBI
courses; development of the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
system training simulator; development of site specific tower
simulator capability; and development and support of the
Technical Center tower simulator.
Hiring of Air Traffic Controllers
Senator Lautenberg. For the information of the people
within our voice and those who will examine the record, the
fact is that it was a conscious decision not to reduce the
number of controller recruits, but rather a decision to try and
expedite better training and more familiarity with the area
where a controller trained finally would be assigned. Is that
the right phrase?
Mr. Belger. That is true in part. The other fact is because
of a variety of reasons we just were not hiring.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, you were not hiring because you
did not want to or because you did not have them to hire?
Mr. Belger. We did not have the money. We did not have the
resources to hire more.
Senator Lautenberg. But you were hiring controllers during
this period of time.
Mr. Belger. Like I said, on the average of 150 or so,
roughly, during that period. Now, I do not want to mislead. Do
not let that statement that I said, we did not have the money,
be any implication that I am blaming anybody. It is just that
that is where we were.
Senator Lautenberg. I think it is important to understand
what took place.
Mr. Belger. That is where we were.
Senator Lautenberg. You said that advances in technology
have brought about the need for fewer controllers to handle
increased air traffic. What kind of advances are we talking
about?
Mr. Belger. If I said that, I was wrong. I am not sure I
said that.
First of all, let me back up. If you go back to 1981----
Senator Lautenberg. I am sorry. No; you did not say it.
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; thank you. I do not think I agree
with that.
Senator Lautenberg. It was Mr. Hinson. I just was testing
your memory. [Laughter.]
It was Mr. Hinson who I wrote to, and I expressed concern
about the decline of the size of the air controller work force
and so forth. In response, he cited the improvements in
technology, and I just wonder whether you can specify whether
in fact maybe that statement was accurate at one time and not
now.
Mr. Belger. I certainly do not want to disagree with Mr.
Hinson, the former Administrator, and so I would have to look
at the context. But there have been improvements in technology
which to some extent--in my opinion a very small extent,
though--have improved our productivity over the years. The big
increases in productivity over the years, if you go back to
1981, I think are the result of a better traffic management
capability that we have today than we did in 1981.
But let me answer your question for the future. People talk
about productivity, they talk about how are we going to be more
productive in the future. The fact of the matter is the air
traffic control work force today is extraordinarily
productive--extraordinarily productive.
Senator Lautenberg. Have they picked up their capacity to
handle the job significantly?
Mr. Belger. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a measurement by which we
could----
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; I do not have it with me.
Senator Lautenberg. Is it 10 percent, 20 percent, or is it
26 percent?
Mr. Belger. I will not state a number because I honestly do
not remember, but I have a chart that shows operations per
controller, and it shows it steadily going up.
Senator Shelby. Would you furnish that for the record?
Mr. Belger. Yes, sir; absolutely.
[The information follows:]
The attached charts show operations per controller work force (CWF)
and operations per air traffic control specialist (ATCS). The data are
presented for air route traffic control centers and airport traffic
control towers. Data are actual for fiscal years 1993 to 1996 and
estimated data for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
The operations data for airport traffic control towers include
instrument operation totals for air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general
aviation, and military operations.
The air route traffic control center data include the number of
instrument flight rules aircraft handled for air carrier, air taxi/
commuter, general aviation, and military.
The CWF consists of air traffic control specialists (ATCS), first-
line supervisors, and traffic management coordinators (TMC).
For May 1997 the CWF numbers were:
ATCS's........................................................ 14,253
First-line Supervisors........................................ 2,208
TMC's......................................................... 583
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total CWF............................................... 17,034
TABLE 38.--INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS WITH FAA TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Air taxi/ General
Fiscal year carrier commuter aviation Military Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical \1\
1991..................................................... 13.5 9.5 18.1 4.0 45.1
1992..................................................... 13.4 9.9 18.2 4.1 45.6
1993..................................................... 13.6 10.4 17.7 3.9 45.6
1994..................................................... 14.3 10.8 18.0 3.7 46.8
1995..................................................... 14.6 10.8 18.1 3.5 47.0
1996E.................................................... 14.7 10.6 17.7 3.3 46.2
Forecast
1997..................................................... 15.1 10.7 17.8 3.2 46.8
1998..................................................... 15.4 10.9 18.0 3.1 47.4
1999..................................................... 15.8 11.1 18.1 3.1 48.1
2000..................................................... 16.3 11.4 18.3 3.1 49.1
2001..................................................... 16.7 11.7 18.4 3.1 49.9
2002..................................................... 17.1 11.9 18.6 3.1 50.7
2003..................................................... 17.5 12.2 18.8 3.1 51.6
2004..................................................... 17.9 12.4 18.9 3.1 52.3
2005..................................................... 18.3 12.6 19.1 3.1 53.1
2006..................................................... 18.8 12.9 19.3 3.1 54.1
2007..................................................... 19.2 13.1 19.5 3.1 54.9
2008..................................................... 19.7 13.3 19.6 3.1 55.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity.
TABLE 40.--IFR AIRCRAFT HANDLED AT FAA AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTERS
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFR aircraft handled
------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Air Air taxi/ General
carrier commuter aviation Military Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical \1\
1991..................................................... 18.2 5.5 7.3 5.1 36.1
1992..................................................... 18.2 5.8 7.3 5.1 36.5
1993..................................................... 19.0 6.2 7.4 4.8 37.4
1994..................................................... 20.0 6.6 7.7 4.6 38.8
1995..................................................... 20.9 6.9 7.8 4.4 40.0
1996E \2\................................................ 21.9 6.6 7.8 4.0 40.3
Forecast
1997..................................................... 22.4 6.9 7.9 3.7 40.9
1998..................................................... 23.0 7.1 8.1 3.6 41.8
1999..................................................... 23.6 7.2 8.1 3.6 42.5
2000..................................................... 24.4 7.4 8.1 3.6 43.5
2001..................................................... 25.0 7.5 8.3 3.6 44.4
2002..................................................... 25.4 7.7 8.3 3.6 45.0
2003..................................................... 26.2 7.8 8.4 3.6 46.0
2004..................................................... 26.8 8.0 8.6 3.6 47.0
2005..................................................... 27.4 8.1 8.6 3.6 47.7
2006..................................................... 28.0 8.3 8.6 3.6 48.5
2007..................................................... 28.6 8.4 8.8 3.6 49.4
2008..................................................... 29.2 8.6 8.8 3.6 50.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity.
\2\ Due to an accounting change in 1996, approximately 360,000 operations at the New York ARTCC were shifted
from Air Taxi/Commuter to Air Carrier.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JU12.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JU12.029
Mr. Belger. Now, I will say, though, for the future, when
we get this new infrastructure in place, when we get the new
computer systems in the centers and we get the new computer
systems in the terminals, then we will be able to, from a
software standpoint, add a lot of functional capabilities which
will have enormous productivity improvements. And when I say
productivity improvements, I do not necessarily mean fewer
controllers, I mean the ability to handle more aircraft.
Operational Errors
Senator Lautenberg. You said earlier, and I just want to
confirm, we have a larger number of operational errors than we
have had in the past. Does it challenge the integrity of the
system? Is it a modicum or a lot less safe than it was 10 years
ago, 12 years ago? I am asking you that in the context of
increased traffic, more activity, not only increased traffic
but the controllers are concerned in the towers about ground
movements and trucks on the airport, et cetera, et cetera. So
with that, tell me.
Mr. Belger. Well, a couple of facts first. If you look at
operational errors nationwide first, for example, in 1996 there
were 760 operational errors, last full year. The previous year
there were 778. The previous year, 790. So you see a gradual
decrease in operational errors. Now, that is in spite of
increased traffic. So the rate of operational errors per 1,000
or 100,000 movements is going down, and that is a good trend.
That is a very good trend. The air traffic control system is
safer today than it was yesterday. It is safer than it was 10
years ago. It will be safer tomorrow because of the new
equipment and things that are being added to the system.
It is also more complex. With increased operations comes
increased complexity. So the challenge to our air traffic
controllers and the challenge to us is to keep up with that.
And we will not, as we have said repeatedly, we will not be
able to keep up from an efficiency standpoint if we do not get
these tools in place to keep up with an industry that is
growing dramatically.
If you look at Newark, for example, for years publicized as
one of the most delayed airports in the country, it is also
today one of the fastest growing airports in the country. That
presents a tremendous challenge.
Staffing of Air Traffic Controllers
Senator Lautenberg. It does, and I was on the Pan Am 103
study, and I have spent a lot of time with the information
about TWA 800. The Pan Am 103 study, Senator D'Amato and I
shared the investigation, we were in Lockerbie, Scotland, and
we are very much concerned. And I fly a lot in the second seat,
and I test the control system by talking every now and then. I
get someone who sounds like they are talking a different
language than I am, but maybe that is the way I sound to them.
But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I fly through a busy
space, I get quick response, I get lots of good alerts, traffic
here and traffic there and where they are, and there is plenty
of traffic around. I have problems spotting it sometimes, but
they are letting me know that it is happening. And I come down
to this: Can we continue to overload--let me modify that--to
load the system up without creating a condition that might have
an occasional operational error? Not accident. Not accident.
Because what we are doing is satisfying the public demand.
I can tell you that shortly after the accident, Mr.
Chairman, Pan Am 103, known to be sabotaged, people were making
commitments like the alter promises, I call them. Oh, I do not
mind getting to the airport 2 hours and waiting. No, sir; if
that plane is going to be safer, that is what I want to do. And
when my kids are going to travel, I want them to be there 2
hours. And that lasted about 2 weeks, Mr. Chairman, because
pretty soon people wanted it just the way they loved it--get
your baggage to the curb, have the skycap take it away, get in
the airplane, 5 minutes left to go, hey, that was not bad,
yesterday I made it by 3 minutes.
The fact of the matter is that people make demands of the
system. And I say to you--and I do not put this as a question,
I do not want to put you on the spot. If we had less traffic,
then obviously the work force, et cetera, could accommodate
this with a significant breadth of comfort. But nobody wants to
say that. Nobody wants to suggest that we are going to say to
the business people, the recreational travel, the school
traveler, that OK, you are only going to be able to fly three
times a day Boston to New York, or three times a day Washington
to New York.
So we are demanding an awful lot, and I think part of that
has to be included in the discussion so that we know what is
taking place.
Mr. Maldonado, between 1990 and 1996 Newark's air traffic
jumped 32 percent while controller staffing decreased by 10
percent. Last year at this time the authorized level for
controllers was 27. This year, however, the authorized level is
34. Now, I have assurances from FAA that Newark will be fully
staffed by the end of September. Do you think that 34 is the
right number of controllers for the Newark tower?
Mr. Maldonado. Well, I am glad you raise that point. Mr.
Belger mentioned that Newark airport is one of the fastest
growing airports in the country. From a working air traffic
controller's standpoint, I can tell you that that is very true.
That is true.
Between 1991 and 1996 there have been approximately four
staffing studies, staffing studies which were designed to
determine the staffing needs for the airport at that time. One
of those studies was a collaborative effort between the FAA and
NATCA. That was the most recent one, and that was the only
study that took into account future demands of the airport.
That report stated that the need for air traffic controllers
would be somewhere in the area of 40, or upward of 40, 41
controllers.
Senator Lautenberg. So even if we were able to be staffed
at the current suggested levels, you think that we would
actually need more than that target?
Mr. Maldonado. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Belger.
Mr. Belger. The target, as you accurately stated for
Newark, for this year is 35. There are actually today 31 on
board.
Senator Lautenberg. Thirty-one?
Mr. Belger. Thirty-one on board. These are air traffic
controllers. Now, it does not consider supervisors or others,
31 versus a target level of 35. And we have committed to you
that we will meet that 35 by the end of this fiscal year.
Now, given the number of folks that we will hire next year,
assuming our budget request is favorably received, we will have
the ability to increase staffing at airports and at approach
control facilities and at centers where the traffic justifies
it. And if need be, we will do that.
Senator Lautenberg. So then you are not locked in at 34,
35?
Mr. Belger. Oh, no, sir; no.
Senator Lautenberg. You could agree with Mr. Maldonado that
maybe 40 is the required number to manage what we have got
there?
Mr. Belger. I will certainly agree to look at it, agree
that air traffic will look at it with the local employees, who
obviously know it better than we do in the headquarters, and
make the right decision.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we will take a look together,
because I want to keep it in mind, and I think we ought to do
that.
Yes, Mr. Maldonado.
Mr. Maldonado. I would like to just provide you with the
most current numbers. Right now Newark tower has 33 air traffic
controllers in the building. Twenty-five of those are
journeymen or full performance level controllers. Eight of
those are training.
Senator Lautenberg. How many of those are up for retirement
in the next couple of years, do you know?
Mr. Maldonado. I believe approximately four. And I am
sorry, that is within the next--I believe within the next 5 to
10 years, approximately four of those.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, so that situation is manageable.
Mr. Maldonado. Yes.
Mr. Belger. Thank you. My data was the end of April, so you
are right. Thank you for being more accurate.
Senator Lautenberg. We will have a chance to chat, as we do
over the year, and I look forward to working with you, and I
would say to all of you who work for FAA in the towers, either
in inspections or what have you, you do a good job. I want you
to keep on doing a good job. I want you to be honest if you
have criticisms, if you have complaints, speak up, because it
is the responsibility that you have. And barring anything else,
we are going to try to give you the resources, we are going to
try and give you the equipment, try and give you the process
that you can operate by.
Mr. Brown, did you want to say something?
Statement of Henry Brown
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator; if I could impose myself upon the
panel for just a second. I came down to testify in front of
this esteemed group, and have not had the opportunity to do
that, and I understand my written testimony will be placed
within the record.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Brown. But I feel my testimony in front of you would
take on a different flavor, and it is unfortunate at this point
that hearing the questions and the responses from the other
members at the table that my testimony would change
dramatically at this point.
I would like to say that it seemed to have taken a
decidedly air traffic controller turn. I am a technician. I am
kind of the lowest person on the food chain, where the rubber
meets the road, and I think it would have been beneficial to
this group and this body to hear what I have to say.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to say this to you: I listened
very carefully to what Mr. Johnson said, and I looked at his
testimony, and we will, I promise you, look at yours. The staff
will review it.
I use the term controller as a generic thing. Forgive me. I
recognize that the technicians--today we heard about a power
outage up in New York--I do not know whether that is true, Mr.
Belger--yesterday a power outage here. You folks have a
responsibility to work with those, have you not?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; and I wanted to make comment about the
answer to the power outage that was up in New York, because I
am an environmental systems specialist. That is my job. I am a
critical power systems specialist.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Brown, would your testimony disagree
with Mr. Johnson's testimony in any way?
Mr. Brown. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Shelby. What did you want to say?
Senator Lautenberg. Because now you have piqued our
curiosity.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
Tell us what you want us to know. This is why you are here.
Mr. Brown. Most of this has been covered by the rest of the
members of the panels. From a purely New York perspective, and
I appreciate the fact that Senator D'Amato and Congressmen
Forbes and King came up to visit us to discuss this issue, we
are running 40 percent under staff in the systems specialist
area.
Senator Lautenberg. You have 60 percent of the people you
need, you are saying.
Mr. Brown. We have 63 percent, actually. These are the
people that keep the equipment running for the air traffic
controllers, and I would like to give you a visual, and the
visual would be that you are flying in from Florida, you have
come from visiting your mother, you are in thunderstorms, you
have--I was buoyed by the fact that Mr. Belger said that he has
agreed with NATCA to go ahead and make sure that their staffing
needs are met, but we do not have that agreement with PASS and
Mr. Belger, but you are flying into New York and you are in
thunderstorms and you are reading the paper and you have got a
fully staffed air traffic controller facility and they are
handling traffic, and then they are looking at nothing. They
have no scopes, they have no communications with the aircraft,
and you are on that airplane, and it is 4:15 in the afternoon
and it is a Friday afternoon, which is the busiest air traffic
time in the New York area.
That scenario, we had. We had that scenario on May 25,
1995, when we lost one-third of the radar scopes at New York
Center and we lost one-third of the communications to the
aircraft for an entire 15 minutes. An aircraft traveling at 350
miles an hour goes a long way in 15 minutes. The saving grace
to that problem was the fact that it was late at night, there
was very low air traffic, we managed to combine sectors to pick
up what we needed to get, so we did not really run into a
problem. Luck saved us there.
We are on the verge of being out of luck, and that is the
point I am trying to make. If we have fully staffed air traffic
controllers----
Senator Lautenberg. What do we have to do to correct that?
Have back up--redundant power systems? What do we have to do?
Mr. Brown. It had nothing to do with the redundant power
system. The power system that failed was the brandnew ASEPS
power system that has been installed. I was a member of Senator
Paul Simon's blue ribbon report panel on that particular
incident, and we made recommendations and I made
recommendations as a specialist in that field on what needed to
be done. Those things were not done. There are modifications
that need to be made to that system.
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask you to submit your
recommendations to this committee.
Senator Shelby. We would like to hear it. If they were not
done, we want to know why they were not done.
Senator Lautenberg. I used to run a computer company, and
we had generators that were never used, but were always there
in case we needed them, and when you are talking about sitting
up there and not being able to get a response that says I do
not know where you are, what is your altitude, where are you,
what is your heading, well, here I am, and you are trying to
figure out with a pencil and piece of paper where the other
guys who were calling in almost screaming the same thing.
I just want to ask, if I may----
Senator Shelby. Go right ahead.
Redesign of Airspace
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Barger, thanks very much for coming
and your patience. You have said that a comprehensive redesign
of the airspace around the city, around New York/New Jersey,
holds the greatest promise for improvements and minimizing
delays at Newark. Now, how can the redesign of the space
improve the air traffic capability and reduce delays? Would a
redesign of the airspace automatically trigger a new series of
outcries from surrounding communities regarding air noise?
When he finishes, Mr. Maldonado, listen carefully because I
am going to ask you. We need to do this in a hurry because the
chairman has been too gracious, and he is going to run out of
patience.
Mr. Barger. Senator, I appreciate the question. Really,
from Continental's perspective, certainly the staffing issue
has been discussed in the first two panels today. That was the
first item we put forth. And also, we have touched on
technological advancements, some that are out there today, some
that are developing. That is in the testimony, as well, that we
believe makes a great deal of sense, that the FAA take a very
hard look at in terms of increasing technological capability in
the Northeast region, specifically at Newark Airport.
Along those lines, a third piece, and everything has to be
done in terms of partnering and working together, taking a
comprehensive look at the airspace to allow for things such as
new technologies, which would again increase efficiencies.
Senator Lautenberg. That would shorten the space between
aircraft, right?
Mr. Barger. Yes; absolutely, it would. And we have
certainly seen some advancements with, for example, global
positioning. We are certainly seeing advancements with aircraft
situational display.
Senator Lautenberg. How would that make a difference in the
use of the airspace? I mean, here we are, now the power of the
ground control--not the ground control, but the TRACON still
has the airplane, and they know where they are.
Mr. Barger. All of it really creates greater efficiency.
And when we take a look at Newark Airport, just a
clarification, we are actually at a level of operations at
Newark Airport right about 1,450 per day that actually there
used to be about 10 years ago, before some consolidations 10
years ago. So really, taking a look at the airspace in
conjunction with technology and staffing, it really just
creates better efficiencies and just tighter paths of aircraft
up in our region.
Senator Lautenberg. Is a longer runway going to help?
Mr. Barger. Well, a couple of things, and you touched on
noise, and I certainly do not want to let that go away, because
really----
Senator Lautenberg. I cannot.
Mr. Barger. Absolutely--the whole issue of redesign also
would take that into consideration, as well, combined with the
new generation aircraft which is a quieter aircraft, and so
there are many pieces that have to be taken in combination.
And just your comment on the longer runway, the extension
certainly will help in terms of our runway 4 left 22 right. We
look forward to expanding the outboard runway at some point in
the future, as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, everybody.
New York TRACON incident
Mr. Belger. Could I take less than 1 minute to respond to
your question in the sense of full disclosure? We did have an
occurrence in New York this morning. It was at the New York
TRACON, and I will tell you what I know based on the note I was
handed when we came up here, so that is all I know.
We were testing the new converging runway display aid
[CRDA], which is a new software program we are trying to
install to be used at Newark to improve the sequencing and
spacing for arrivals. We were testing it at the TRACON. There
was a problem as a result of the testing that we were doing,
and that caused us to lose some of the capability.
I do not know any more than that at this point, but I can
certainly give you all the details.
It was a software problem.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, if I may beg your indulgence for 1
minute, please.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Mr. Brown. The FAA announced this morning they are going to
hire 100 new controllers in the New York area. That is four
times as many as they are going to hire for 1998 in systems
specialists technicians. They are going to hire 1,300
controllers in 1998. They are going to hire 25 technicians.
Our pipeline is absolutely dry. We have nobody out there
training in the technician area.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Brown, you are invited to come to
my office--not at this moment--make an appointment, come in, if
Senator Shelby----
Senator Shelby. I will be glad to see him, too.
Senator Lautenberg. We will join in, and we want to talk to
you. So follow on.
Senator Shelby. We want to make sure that you, the
technicians that make all the equipment run and keep it up and
everything that goes with it, have the training and the
personnel to make and feed the whole controller system.
Mr. Brown. Yes; which is our need so we can supply the
product we are supposed to supply to the air traffic
controllers.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely, because without you, they will
not be able to function.
Mr. Brown. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, gentlemen.
Panel 3
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
CHARLES BARCLAY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT
EXECUTIVES, ALSO REPRESENTING AIRPORTS COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL
PHIL BOYER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION
EDWARD BOLEN, PRESIDENT, GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our last panel will be industry
representatives, Mr. Charles Barclay, president, American
Association of Airport Executives; Mr. Phil Boyer, president,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and Mr. Edward Bolen,
president, General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Mr.
Barclay is also representing the Airports Council International
here today.
Gentlemen, I know it has been a long morning. I think we
have had a spirited hearing and a well-attended hearing,
perhaps an intense hearing. All of your written testimony will
be made part of the record in its entirety. You have had the
benefit of the other testimony. If you will sum up what you
want to say as briefly as possible, I think we would appreciate
it.
Mr. Barclay, please proceed.
Statement of Charles Barclay
Mr. Barclay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to
make two points about our testimony, and the first is to try to
put the AIP request that we have before the committee in
perspective.
The major cost driver for airports, of course, in the
system is how many passengers there are. In the past 5 years we
have seen passengers grow by over 20 percent. That is over 100
million new passengers in the system, while we have decreased
our investment in airport infrastructure by over 20 percent.
In the next 5 years we are looking at another 165 million
passengers coming into the system, but we are looking at an FAA
request for a 31-percent decrease, on top of the 23-percent
decrease we have had in the last 5 years.
Senator Shelby. What does that mean? What does that mean,
Mr. Barclay?
Mr. Barclay. We have gone from $1.9 billion down now to
$1.45 billion, and thanks to the committee, they held it up
there last year. The administration is saying take that down to
$1 billion, but we are going to wind up, over that 10-year
period of time, with the equivalent of the population of the
United States added onto the existing system flying.
Senator Shelby. Tell the American people, and they will be
watching this now, what this means, though. What is the
significance of this?
Mr. Barclay. Right. And that is part of the perspective we
want to build. The second largest economy in the world fits in
a land mass the size of New England. Japan can use roads and
railroads to run their internal economy.
Senator Shelby. But we cannot.
Mr. Barclay. The United States, four time zones wide, has
to have a high capacity, highly efficient air traffic control
and airport system, or we simply cannot move goods and people
and resources to compete.
Senator Shelby. Our economy will not function without air.
Mr. Barclay. And that relative importance to us is going to
get more important as more products speed up to keep up with
semiconductor product cycles. So the speed of movement is
driven for us by our economy.
We are investing less in infrastructure than any other G-7
country. And one of the points we have tried to make to the
folks on the Budget Committee is that if you reduce the Federal
deficit at the expense of creating an infrastructure deficit
you have not done future generations any good at all.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Barclay, let me just agree with you on
what you are saying. We cannot afford to do that. We will not
only reach a point and probably have diminishing returns. It is
foolish. It is very foolish not to build the infrastructure,
including air safety and everything that goes with it, is it
not?
Mr. Barclay. Absolutely. We have to leave future
generations the tools to create wealth in their society and to
compete in a world economy. And in fact, most economists will
tell you, the good type of debt to leave future generations by
any country is debt for facilities that create wealth over the
term of their indebtedness.
Senator Shelby. But we are not creating debt here. We have
got the money. It is a question will the Congress have the will
to spend it in the right way, and the right way is always
infrastructure and safety, is it not?
Mr. Barclay. Absolutely. Let me give you some comparisons,
Mr. Chairman. The Government of Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur for
one new airport is spending $3.8 billion. Munich, for one new
airport, spent $6 billion. The Government of Hong Kong, a
country with one-fiftieth of our economy, is spending $25
billion for one new airport, while we are sitting here debating
a $1 to $1.5 billion program for 3,300 airports nationwide,
after we have just discussed how important this capital system
is to running our whole economy.
So if you just look at the scale of things, this
perspective is very important to try to get through to the
whole institution of Government. We know this committee
understands that.
Our specific request is to please keep AIP as high as
possible, at least to this year's level. We know that is
difficult in this atmosphere, but the 31.5-percent request of
the administration just will not work. Small airports in
particular will be devastated. But things like the noise
program will be severely slashed, and it is that kind of
program that we need to help get us the capacity at the larger
airports, and from a safety point of view and a security point
of view, the Gore Commission had recommended $500 million more
in spending for airport security, but then the administration
reduced the request for AIP by $500 million, and that just does
not make sense.
Senator Shelby. It does not make any sense.
Mr. Barclay. GAO found that for safety and security alone
each year the needs are about $1.4 billion.
Senator Shelby. But that is the least thing we owe to the
American people, and the people from other countries that are
coming to this country, and thinking they are coming safely. We
should make sure they are safe, should we not, to the best of
our ability?
Mr. Barclay. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Barclay. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles M. Barclay
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Charles Barclay,
President of the American Association of Airport Executives. I am
pleased to be here today to present the views of AAAE and the Airports
Council International-North America (ACI-NA) regarding fiscal year 1998
appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
ACI-NA's members are the local, state and regional governing bodies
that own and operate commercial service airports in the United States
and Canada. ACI-NA member airports serve more than 90 percent of the
U.S. domestic scheduled air passenger and cargo traffic and virtually
all U.S. scheduled international travel. AAAE is the professional
organization representing the men and women who manage primary,
commercial service, reliever and general aviation airports which
enplane 99 percent of the passengers in the United States.
To begin our testimony, we would like to thank this subcommittee,
for its efforts on last year's bill. We recognize that the subcommittee
was faced with the very difficult task of allocating too few federal
resources among too many competing demands. We also want to express our
gratitude for the full committee's decision last year to increase the
AIP allocation from $1.4 billion to $1.46 billion after $60 million in
increased outlays were made available as a result of the Congressional
Budget Office ``scoring'' of the measure. Last year's enacted level for
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) of $1.46 billion represented a
$10 million increase over the previous year. The fiscal year 1997
enacted level of $1.46 billion represented the first time in five years
that the program received a funding increase, however modest. We
recognize that in fiscal year 1998, you will be faced with a similarly
difficult task in allocating resources.
Your task was not made any easier by the submission of the
Administration's proposed aviation budget for fiscal year 1998. Of
particular concern to the airport community is the proposal to reduce
funding for the Airport Improvement Program by $460 million in a single
year--a 31.5 percent reduction! This massive reduction in funding for
airport safety, security, capacity and noise projects directly
contradicts the Administration's aviation safety rhetoric. To further
confuse the situation, less than one week after the submission of this
budget request, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security, headed by Vice President Gore, recommended spending an
additional $500 million over five years on aviation security capital
projects. We have yet to understand how these funds would be made
available and from what source.
For the past two years, the Administration has recommended an
artificially low AIP request and Congress has moved to increase funding
for the program above the Administration's request. Unfortunately,
Congress must once again restore funding beyond the Administration's
request if the AIP program is to remain viable and the safety and
security projects that are needed across the country are to move
forward.
investment in airport infrastructure is vital
In order to achieve the goal of balancing the federal budget by
2002, Congress must continue to make difficult choices regarding
hundreds of programs throughout government. Without significant
entitlement reform, this task moves from the category of extremely
difficult to nearly Herculean. Airports agree that as a part of this
process, every program in the federal government needs to be
``scrubbed'' to ensure that not a single federal dollar is wasted and
that the return on investment of federal funds is as significant as
possible. We believe that funding airport infrastructure should, and
does, score very high on those measures. But we must also remind the
Congress, that aviation dollars are supposed to be dedicated fees paid
into the aviation trust fund by the passengers and other users of the
aviation system for the purpose of funding capital investment in a
national aviation system. Therefore, every effort should be given to
fully spending these revenues for the airport and air traffic control
improvements that are desperately needed.
Airports are ``economic engines'' that generate and support local
economic development by providing complete transportation services,
stimulating business activity and investment, and creating jobs. As an
example, Mr. Chairman, there are 15,000 jobs on or within 2 miles of
the Huntsville International Airport and 28,600 indirect jobs. This
example, of course, is repeated throughout the country many times over.
Today, the air transportation system is the linchpin of our
national and local economies, essential to the safe transportation of
people and goods, both domestically and internationally. As we move
toward global economic competition, airport capacity in the United
States is increasingly critical to our national economy. Germany and
Japan may be our largest economic competitors, but in terms of size and
geography, each can produce goods and services internally with modern
systems of roads and railroads. The United States, due to its size and
geography, must have an efficient, high capacity airport system to move
its people and resources in order to compete. Ironically, we are in
danger of seriously under-investing at a time when we can least afford
it. With the expenditure of discretionary funds so constrained by the
federal budget, we as a nation should maximize those expenditures on
investments that will help our economy grow and on aviation facilities
that will be available for use today, tomorrow and for years to come.
We must build the infrastructure that will allow not only our
generation, but our children and grandchildren the opportunity to
compete and prosper in the global economy.
Since airline deregulation in 1978, the number of passengers using
the domestic aviation system has exploded. Last year, around 575
million passengers were enplaned in the United States. In 1994, 528
million were enplaned and in 1993, 488 million were enplaned. The FAA
projects that by 2002, the year we are hoping to achieve a balanced
federal budget, that number will grow to 740 million and it will go
over the 800 million mark sometime in 2005.
Already, we have significant capacity and delay problems in our
system. Currently, there are 22 airports that are seriously congested,
experiencing more than 20,000 hours of delay or more per year. These
delays cost the airlines, alone, over half a billion dollars a year and
impose tremendous costs and disruptions to millions of passengers and
businesses. FAA forecasts that unless major airport capacity
investments are made, this number of congested airports will grow to 32
in less than 10 years.
This means that over the next several years, as we move toward a
balanced budget, we also have to somehow make sure that there is
sufficient investment in our nation's airport infrastructure to handle
not only the current passenger traffic but an additional 200 million
passengers by the year 2002. This will be a major challenge. We as a
nation cannot afford the billions of dollars in annual delay costs and
lost productivity to the airlines, air travelers and businesses, nor
can we afford to weaken our economic competitiveness abroad, by
settling for an inefficient and inadequate air transportation system.
Congress has set a target date of balancing the federal budget by
2002. In this context, it is worth noting that it generally takes at
least 5-7 years to undertake and complete an airport development
project. That means that as politically difficult as it may be to
provide an increase in airport construction funding in today's
budgetary environment, it is absolutely imperative that Congress do
just that. Without the increased investment, we cannot realistically
hope to close the existing investment gap and will have no chance to
build the infrastructure to meet the increased demand that will be
placed on the system during this time period. We must act now. If we
wait, the funding gap will be impossible to close.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JU12.030
airport capital development needs continue to go unmet
ACI-NA and AAAE have conducted numerous surveys to assess the
capital development funding needs of all airports throughout the United
States. The latest survey we conducted (in 1996) showed that U.S.
airports required more than $10 billion each year over a six-year time
period--at least $60 billion for needed capital improvement and
capacity expansion projects. Of this $10 billion a year, only 60
percent ($6 billion dollars) are projects defined as eligible for AIP
funding.
These projects are essential to increase capacity, improve safety
and security, reduce delays for the traveling public, reduce aircraft
noise for communities surrounding airports, help pay for unfunded
federal mandates and regulations, and to build and improve facilities
that will promote air service competition and the industry's economic
health.
In April of 1997, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed a
report on airport development needs. The results of the GAO validated
the AAAE/ACI-NA survey results. AAAE/ACI-NA have argued that total
airport capital development needs in the U.S. are at least $10 billion
a year; and GAO found $10.129 billion a year. AAAE/ACI-NA have argued
that of that $10 billion a year, $6 billion is AIP-eligible; and GAO
found $6.110 billion.
Still, for some, however, it has become popular to question the
needs of the airport community. It is instructive to look at the
numbers. In 1996, the aviation trust fund appropriation for airport
construction projects (AIP) was $1.46 billion. Local airport passenger
facility charges generated about $1 billion in 1996. Combine these two
revenue streams and airports receive less than $2.5 billion dollars of
the $6 billion dollars needed each year that is acknowledged as
eligible for federal funding. This is less than half of that total. We
know of no organization that questions whether there are $6 billion a
year in AIP-eligible projects (this figure has been corroborated by FAA
and GAO), although some have an interest in questioning how necessary
some of these projects are. There should be no question that this is a
solid figure and these projects are indeed necessary.
However, for the sake of argument, suppose the airport community
has overestimated our needs by as much as 25 percent, that would reduce
the $6 billion figure to $4.5 billion. In that case, AIP and PFC funds
combined would still be $2 billion less than what is needed. If
airports overestimated our needs by a whopping 50 percent, the need
would still be $3 billion, which is $500 million a year below what is
funded by the combination of AIP and PFC revenue today. The point of
these examples is to show that arguing over ``needs'' might be a useful
exercise if the federal government were in a position to double the
current funding for airport development. At the levels of federal
involvement that exist today, or those contemplated in the future as a
result of today's budgetary climate, however, this argument over
``needs'' misses the mark badly. Rather, it instead appears to be a
convenient mechanism to provide justification to cut AIP in order to
fund other programs.
A similar issue emerges within the FAA allocation. AIP has already
shouldered a major portion of the funding reductions in the FAA over
the past four years. We were greatly encouraged two years ago when the
House Transportation Appropriations subcommittee recommended, and the
full House approved, a funding level of $1.6 billion for AIP. This
represented the first funding increase in four years and airports
believed that if funding reductions were necessary in FAA, they would
finally come from somewhere other than AIP. We were equally
discouraged, however, when at the eleventh hour of the process,
airports lost the proposed $150 million increase in order to fund bonus
pay for air traffic controllers. Once again, the AIP level was
negatively affected by other funding priorities within the agency.
aip funding
Mr. Chairman, by any rational measure, airports have lost ground in
recent years. If Congress permits the AIP program to be reduced
further, without giving airports additional tools to raise needed
funds, the national system of airports we enjoy and rely on today will
be jeopardized. Under the new authorization law passed by Congress last
year, an AIP appropriation of at least $1.46 billion is necessary to
avoid triggering across-the-board reductions in entitlement funding to
primary airports and the allocations to general aviation, reliever and
non-primary commercial service airports. This $1.46 billion figure is
approximately a billion dollars below the authorized level, which
Congress and airports believe is a justifiable level.
Once again, AIP has been targeted for reduction by the
Administration. The Administration's request of $1 billion for AIP for
fiscal year 1998 would severely undermine the integrity of the program.
Last year's FAA reauthorization legislation passed by Congress modified
formula allocations in light of today's constrained federal budgetary
climate. The Administration has submitted a budget proposal with a
funding level that simply does not work. Below is a chart which shows:
1) how AIP funds were allocated in fiscal year 1996 under the old
allocations; 2) how AIP funds are allocated in fiscal year 1997 under
the new allocations (assuming Congress moves to reinstate the airport
and airway excise taxes); and 3) how AIP funds would be allocated in
fiscal year 1998 under the Administration's budget proposal.
COMPARISON OF AIP FUNDING IN FISCAL YEARS 1996, 1997, and 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Funding category -----------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation.................................. $1,450,000,000 $1,460,000,000 $1,000,000,000
=====================================================
Primary airports.......................................... 428,226,519 525,435,591 392,445,465
Cargo \1\................................................. 38,945,243 36,500,000 18,459,909
Alaska supplemental....................................... 10,672,557 10,672,557 10,672,557
``States'' allocation \2\................................. 159,148,385 270,100,000 136,603,326
Carryover entitlement..................................... 91,056,641 61,866,629 61,866,629
Noise \3\................................................. 181,250,000 143,540,158 20,830,466
Reliever.................................................. 48,000,000 ( \5\ ) ( \5\ )
Commercial service........................................ 21,750,000 ( \5\ ) ( \5\ )
System planning........................................... 10,875,000 ( \6\ ) ( \6\ )
MAP \4\................................................... 26,000,000 18,521,311 2,687,802
=====================================================
Small Airport Fund:
Non-hub airports...................................... 58,186,123 61,594,971 46,753,291
Non-commercial service................................ 29,093,061 30,797,485 23,376,645
Small hubs............................................ 14,546,531 15,398,743 11,688,323
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Small Airport Fund......................... 101,825,715 107,791,199 81,818,259
=====================================================
C/S/S/N................................................... 249,187,455 214,179,417 205,961,690
Remaining discretionary................................... 83,062,485 71,393,139 68,653,897
=====================================================
Grand total......................................... 1,450,000,000 1,460,000,000 1,000,000,000
=====================================================
Total percent reduction in entitlements................... 23.26 ................ 26.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cargo: 3.5 percent in fiscal year 1996; 2.5 percent in fiscal year 1997.
\2\ States: 12 percent in fiscal year 1996; 18.5 percent in fiscal year 1997, including general aviation,
relievers and non-primary commercial service airports.
\3\ Noise: 12.5 percent of total AIP in fiscal year 1996; 31 percent of discretionary AIP in fiscal year 1997.
\4\ MAP: 2.5 percent of total AIP in fiscal year 1996; 4 percent of discretionary AIP in fiscal year 1997.
\5\ See ``States''.
\6\ Eliminated.
As one can see from the chart, funds for primary airports
(entitlement allocations based on enplaned passengers) would be
significantly reduced--by 26.16 percent. Funds for general aviation,
reliever and non-primary commercial service airports would be reduced
by an even greater proportion. And of major concern, set-aside funding
for noise projects would be reduced from $143 million to $20 million!
As a point of reference, in fiscal year 1996, California and Texas
received $22 million and $24 million respectively; and 28 of the 50
states received at least $1 million in noise funding.
As noted above, at the Administration's proposed level of $1
billion, entitlement allocations would be cut by 26.16 percent. By law,
the minimum entitlement allocation is set at $500,000 and the maximum
allocation is capped at $22 million. This allocation is made by
formula, based on the number of enplanements at each facility. As part
of the Administration's budget proposal, non-hub airports would receive
their full entitlement allocation, which, if adopted, would cause
entitlement allocations for hub airports to shrink by an even greater
percentage.
If one assumes that this proposal is not adopted and instead a
percentage reduction in entitlement funds are spread evenly across
airports of all sizes, what would be the result? At the smallest
primary airports across the country this would have a dramatic impact.
Rather than receiving the $500,000 at each of these smallest
facilities, they instead would receive only $369,200 this year--a
reduction of over $130,000. At airports in places such as Dothan,
Alabama or Morgantown, West Virginia, it is almost impossible to make
up for the loss of over $130,000 a year. In the state of Alaska alone,
there are at least 20 airports that fall into this category, which
would result in a loss of $2.6 million!
The implications for somewhat larger airports are equally striking,
since this 26.16 percent reduction would not be limited to the smallest
airports. The entitlement allocation received by all primary airports
would be reduced by this amount. Again, a few examples are illustrative
of the potential revenue loss. Albuquerque, New Mexico would lose
almost $400,000. Spokane, Washington would lose almost $300,000. Salt
Lake City, Utah would lose more than $750,000. Newark International,
Pittsburgh International and Lambert-St. Louis International would all
lose over $1 million (attached is a chart comparing selected fiscal
year 1997 allocations with fiscal year 1998 allocations, assuming a $1
billion program). And if Congress adopted the Administration's
requested level and the proposed language protecting entitlements for
smaller airports, these reductions would be even larger.
Since the larger airports are almost exclusively user-funded, those
users who are now paying a portion of their taxes to fund the aviation
trust fund and its airport capital grants, will now have to pay again
for the needed improvements. This does not even begin to deal with the
need to accommodate projected growth at any level. Simply put, current
funding levels for the AIP program are inadequate to meet the needs of
the system today, and with every day that goes by, we are falling
further behind. The airport community needs an AIP funding level around
$2 billion a year to help fund needed safety, security, capacity and
noise projects. At minimum, last year's level of $1.46 billion is
necessary to ensure that we do not fall further behind. We must act now
to close the gap between the needs of the system and what the federal
aviation trust fund contributes to meet those needs. Simultaneously,
Congress must begin to focus on other, non-federal means to enable
airport operators to generate adequate funds for capital improvement
projects, to make up for the shortfall in AIP funding and to begin
bridging the gap between airport funding sources and needs.
Before closing Mr. Chairman, we also want to bring two additional
items to your attention. First, we note the importance of the Contract
Tower program. It is imperative that Congress fully fund and expand the
FAA Contract Tower program where appropriate. This program enhances
safety, provides significant savings to the FAA and increases economic
productivity at the 128 airports that are currently participating in
the program. The future viability of this program is important,
particularly in light of the runway collision involving a commuter
aircraft at a non-towered airport last year in Quincy, Illinois.
And finally, we are very concerned about the proposal in the
National Airspace System Architecture to transfer responsibility for
current and future visual navigational aids, presently owned and
operated by the FAA, over to the airport community. The existing strain
placed on airports from shrinking AIP funds leaves no obvious source of
funding for either the maintenance of the current equipment nor the
acquisition for replacement technologies as we transition to satellite-
based navigation by the year 2005. Accordingly, we ask the committee to
prohibit the FAA from taking this action.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and other members
of the subcommittee and the staff to fashion a bill this year that
balances the competing needs of the entire transportation community
fairly. Clearly, it won't be an easy job. We appreciate your leadership
and I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other members
of the subcommittee may have.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ENTITLEMENT COMPARISON CHART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding levels--
---------------------------------------
State/Member/Airport Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
at $1.46 billion at $1 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
Sen. Richard Shelby
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Cong. Earl Hilliard:
Birmingham.................. $2,145,086 $1,583,932
Dannelly Field.............. 881,741 651,078
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Hilliard..... 3,026,827 2,235,009
=======================================
Cong. Callahan: Mobile Regional. 1,187,651 876,961
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Callahan..... 1,187,651 876,961
=======================================
Cong. Bud Cramer: Huntsville
Intl.-Carl T. Jones Field...... 1,472,835 1,087,541
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Cramer....... 1,472,835 1,087,541
=======================================
Cong. Terry Everett: Dothan..... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Everett...... 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Total, Alabama............ 6,187,313 4,568,712
=======================================
NEW MEXICO
Sen. Domenici
Sen. Jeff Bingaman
Cong. Richardson:
Four Corners Regional....... 550,680 406,622
Santa Fe County Municipal... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Richardson... 1,050,680 775,822
=======================================
Cong. Steven Schiff: Albuquerque
Intl........................... 1,521,611 1,123,558
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Schiff....... 1,521,611 1,123,558
=======================================
Cong. Joe Skeen:
Cavern City Air Terminal.... 500,000 369,200
Roswell Industrial Air
Center..................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Skeen........ 1,000,000 738,400
=======================================
Total, New Mexico......... 3,572,291 2,637,780
=======================================
PENNSYLVANIA
Sen. Arlen Specter
Sen. Rick Santorum
Cong. Bud Shuster:
Altoona-Blair County........ 500,000 369,200
DuBois-Jefferson County..... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Shuster...... 1,000,000 738,400
=======================================
Cong. John Peterson:
Bradford Regional........... 500,000 369,200
University Park............. 620,584 458,239
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Peterson..... 1,120,584 827,439
=======================================
Cong. Paul Kanjorski: Wilkes-
Barre/Scranton................. 961,854 710,233
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Kanjorski.... 961,854 710,233
=======================================
Cong. Frank Mascara: Pittsburgh
Intl........................... 6,487,897 4,790,663
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Mascara...... 6,487,897 4,790,663
=======================================
Cong. Philip English: Erie Intl. 733,273 541,449
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. English...... 733,273 541,449
=======================================
Cong. Joseph Pitts: Lancaster... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Pitts........ 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. Paul McHale: LeHigh Valley
Intl./Allentown................ 1,589,513 1,173,696
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. McHale....... 1,589,513 1,173,696
=======================================
Cong. Tim Holden: Reading
Regional....................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Holden....... 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. Joe McDade: Williamsport-
Lycoming County................ 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. McDade....... 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. John Murtha:
Johnstown-Cambria........... 500,000 369,200
Westmoreland County......... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Murtha....... 1,000,000 738,400
=======================================
Cong. Tom Foglietta:
Philadelphia Intl. (PFC) \1\... 2,955,343 2,182,225
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Foglietta.... 2,955,343 2,182,225
=======================================
Cong. George Gekas: Harrisburg
Intl........................... 1,770,965 1,307,681
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Gekas........ 1,770,965 1,307,681
=======================================
Total, Pennsylvania....... 19,119,429 14,117,786
=======================================
MISSOURI
Sen. Christopher Bond
Sen. John Ashcroft
Cong. Roy Blunt:
Joplin Regional............. 500,000 369,200
Springfield Regional........ 1,246,947 $920,746
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Blunt........ 1,746,947 1,289,946
=======================================
Cong. Karen McCarthy: Kansas
City Intl...................... 1,943,253 1,434,898
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. McCarthy..... 1,943,253 1,434,898
=======================================
Cong. James Talent: Lambert-St.
Louis Intl. (PFC) \1\.......... 3,955,176 2,920,502
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Talent....... 3,955,176 2,920,502
=======================================
Cong. Kenny Hulshof: Columbia
Regional....................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Hulshof...... 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Total, Missouri........... 8,146,376 6,014,546
=======================================
WASHINGTON
Sen. Slade Gorton
Sen. Patty Murray
Cong. Norm Dicks: William R.
Fairchild Intl................. 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Dicks........ 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. Doc Hastings:
Tri-Cities.................. 838,482 619,135
Grant County................ 500,000 369,200
Pangborn Memorial........... 500,000 369,200
Yakima Air Terminal......... 583,534 430,882
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Hastings..... 2,422,016 1,788,417
=======================================
Cong. Jim McDermott: Seattle-
Tacoma Intl. (PFC) \1\......... 3,526,868 2,604,239
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. McDermott.... 3,526,868 2,604,239
=======================================
Cong. Jack Metcalf:
Bellingham Intl............. 724,571 535,023
Friday Harbor............... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Metcalf...... 1,224,571 904,223
=======================================
Cong. George Nethercutt:
Pullman-Moscow Regional..... 500,000 369,200
Spokane Intl. (PFC) \1\..... 1,130,710 834,916
Walla Walla Regional........ 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Nethercutt... 2,130,710 1,573,316
=======================================
Total, Washington......... 9,804,165 7,239.395
=======================================
UTAH
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Robert Bennett
Cong. James Hansen:
Wendover.................... 500,000 369,200
St. George Municipal........ 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Hansen....... 1,000,000 738,400
=======================================
Cong. Merrill Cook: Salt Lake
City Intl. (PFC) \1\........... 2,942,941 2,173,068
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Cook......... 2,942,941 2,173,068
=======================================
Total, Utah............... 3,942,941 2,911,468
=======================================
NORTH CAROLINA
Sen. Jesse Helms
Sen. Lauch Faircloth
Cong. Cass Ballenger: Hickory
Regional....................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Ballenger.... 500,000 369,200
Cong. Eva Clayton:
Pitt-Greenville............. 500,000 369,200
Kinston Regional Jetport.... 500,000 369,200
Craven County Regional...... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Clayton...... 1,500,000 1,107,600
=======================================
Cong. Howard Coble: Piedmont
Triad Intl..................... 2,398,158 1,770,800
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Coble........ 2,398,158 1,770,800
=======================================
Cong. Bob Etheridge:
Rocky Mount-Wilson.......... 500,000 369,200
Moore County................ 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Etheridge.... 1,000,000 738,400
=======================================
Cong. David Price: Raleigh-
Durham Intl.................... 2,984,416 2,203,693
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Price........ 2,984,416 2,203,693
=======================================
Cong. Walter Jones: Albert J.
Ellis.......................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Jones........ 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. Sue Myrick: Charlotte/
Douglas Intl................... 6,746,561 4,981,661
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Myrick....... 6,746,561 4,981,661
=======================================
Cong. Mike McIntyre:
Fayetteville Regional/
Grannis Fld................ 816,421 602,845
New Hanover Intl............ 875,246 646,282
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. McIntyre..... 1,691,667 1,249,127
=======================================
Cong. Charles Taylor: Asheville
Regional....................... 1,113,947 822,538
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Taylor....... 1,113,947 822,538
=======================================
Total, North Carolina..... 18,434,749 13,612,219
=======================================
NEW JERSEY
Sen. Frank Lautenberg
Sen. Robert Torricelli
Cong. Frank LoBiondo: Atlantic
City Intl...................... 1,268,870 936,934
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. LoBiondo..... 1,268,870 936,934
=======================================
Cong. Donald Payne: Newark Intl.
(PFC) \1\...................... 4,065,241 3,001,774
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Payne........ 4,065,241 3,001,774
=======================================
Cong. Chris Smith: Mercer County 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Smith........ 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Total, New Jersey......... 5,834,111 4,307,908
=======================================
WEST VIRGINIA
Sen. Robert Byrd
Sen. Jay Rockefeller
Cong. Alan Mollohan:
Benedum..................... 50O,000 369,200
Morgantown Muni-Walter L.
Bill....................... 500,000 369,200
Wood County/Gill Robb Wilson 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Mollohan..... 1,500,000 1,107,600
Cong. Nick Joe Rahall:
Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson
Field...................... 518,658 382,977
Greenbriar Valley........... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Rahall....... 1,018,658 752,177
=======================================
Cong. Robert Wise: Yeager....... 966,732 713,835
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Wise......... 966,732 713,835
=======================================
Total, West Virginia...... 3,485,390 2,573,612
=======================================
MARYLAND
Sen. Paul Sarbanes
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Cong. Roscoe Bartlett:
Washington County Regional..... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Bartlett..... 500,000 369,200
Cong. Gilchrest:
Baltimore-Washington Intl.
(PFC) \1\.................. 2,374,189 1,753,101
Salisbury Wicomico County
Reg........................ 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Gilchrest.... 2,874,189 2,122,301
=======================================
Total, Maryland........... 3,374,189 2,491,501
=======================================
NEVADA
Sen. Harry Reid
Sen. Richard Bryan
Cong. John Ensign:
McCarran Intl. (PFC) \1\.... 4,O68,437 3,004,134
North Las Vegas Air Terminal 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Ensign....... 4,568,437 3,373,334
=======================================
Cong. James Gibbons:
Elko Municipal-JC Harris
Field...................... 740,592 546,853
Reno/Tahoe Intl. (PFC) \1\.. 1,438,209 1,061,974
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Gibbons...... 2,178,801 1,608,827
=======================================
Total, Nevada............. 6,747,238 4,982,161
=======================================
WISCONSIN
Sen. Herbert Kohl
Sen. Russ Feingold
Cong. Ronald Kind:
Chippewa Valley Regional.... 500,000 369,200
LaCrosse Municipal.......... 673,780 497,519
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Kind......... 1,173,780 866,719
=======================================
Cong. Gerald Kleczka: General
Mitchell Intl. (PFC) \1\....... 1,403,510 1,036,352
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Kleczka...... 1,403,510 1,036,352
=======================================
Cong. Scott Klug: Dane County
Regional-Truax Fld............. 1,704,792 1,258,818
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Klug......... 1,704,792 1,258,818
=======================================
Cong. David Obey:
Central Wisconsin........... 691,410 510,537
Rhinelander-Oneida County... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Obey......... 1,191,410 879,737
=======================================
Cong. Thomas Petri: Wittman
Regional....................... 500,000 369,200
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Petri........ 500,000 369,200
=======================================
Cong. Jay Johnson:
Outagamie County............ 889,936 657,129
Austin Straubel Intl........ 1,150,107 849,239
---------------------------------------
Total, Cong. Johnson...... 2,040,043 1,506,368
=======================================
Total, Wisconsin.......... 8,013,535 5,917,194
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (PFC) indicates a large or medium hub airport is collecting a PFC
and 50 percent of the airport's entitlement is returned to the Small
Airport Fund.
Statement of Phil Boyer
Senator Shelby. Mr. Boyer.
Mr. Boyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to just submit my
formal remarks.
Senator Shelby. They will be made part of the record,
without objection.
How System Is Paid For
Mr. Boyer. Great. They cover a wide range of topics, but I
would like to concentrate--we have talked all morning about how
to do it. I would like to talk just a moment about how we pay
for it, because there has been an ongoing debate about how we
do pay for this system. The administration has made it clear in
this next year's budget $300 million would come from user fees,
and by fiscal year 1999 that the entire FAA budget would come
from user fees.
As you know, I represent the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association. These are the pilots of general aviation aircraft.
We use the smaller airports, but do use the system on occasion
that we have talked about all morning.
Senator Shelby. That fuels a lot of small- and medium-sized
business, does it not?
Mr. Boyer. Absolutely. It provides about $44 billion to the
economy that we were just discussing. And one of our concerns,
like yours all morning, is safety. Just how safe is a system in
which you begin to charge for individual uses of the system
rather than very passively through a passenger ticket tax for
the airlines, or for our members through a very, very passive
fuel tax that is paid for at the pump? And with the permission
of your new clerk and yourself, I would like to illustrate that
with a short videotape.
Senator Shelby. You go right ahead, sir.
[A videotape was played.]
Mr. Boyer. It is merely a coincidence that Senators
Lautenberg and D'Amato are really responsible for much of the
geography that is covered in this short 48-nautical-mile
flight. But as you can see, in addition to all the cost for the
fuel tax, the maintenance, the insurance, and the other
requirements on a general aviation operator, this flight in
this example using Reason Foundation numbers, these we did not
invent, would have cost an additional $71.18.
Senator Shelby. Do you have this in your record today?
Mr. Boyer. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Boyer. And the critical factor that I think we have
been talking about all morning--how does this affect safety
when you begin to pay for a weather briefing, pay for use of
the instrument system?
There is one example that you have been very helpful on
this committee, and that is the pledge of the FAA to charge
user fees to overlying airports or foreign governments, and
they were given that authorization, about $75 million, for this
fiscal year. And the FAA consistently says no, we are not going
to charge general aviation operators, mainly these would be
Canadian operators. When they first announced the charges, they
do have some charges that we cannot even figure out how it
would be economical to collect them for GA airplanes.
We applaud this committee, by the way, for its attempt in
trying to stipulate that your intent when this was established
was not to charge the small airplanes, and the reason I bring
this up, even though it is a Canadian problem, is that Canada
is now setting up their own private air traffic system, and
they have told us that if you charge our small airplanes we
will turn around and do the same to you.
Senator Shelby. They are going to reciprocate.
Mr. Boyer. That is exactly right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Boyer. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phil Boyer
Mr. Chairman, my name is Phil Boyer, and I am President of AOPA
Legislative Action.
AOPA Legislative Action enjoys the financial support of 340,000
dues paying members. Together with our affiliated organization, the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, we promote the interests of
those who contribute to our economy by taking advantage of general
aviation aircraft to fulfill their business and personal transportation
needs. More than half of all pilots in the United States are members of
AOPA, making it the world's largest pilot organization.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer our
input in the process of funding our nation's aviation needs. Today I
would like to offer an overview of our thoughts on funding priorities
and a promise that we will continue to provide our input and support
during the appropriations process.
I would like to begin with our views on charging user fees for FAA
services in the context of the President's fiscal year 1998 budget
request. Then I would like to discuss the most pressing appropriations
issues we have identified at this time--clarifying the intent of
Congress with regard to foreign aircraft overflight fees, funding the
Airport Improvement Program in an era of declining federal budgets,
continuing transitional funding of Loran as a backup to the Global
Positioning System, and assuring a smooth transfer of the aeronautical
charting function between government agencies.
The FAA, Congress, and the aviation community have all spent many
years struggling with the airway system modernization effort. In the
last two years, both the FAA and Congress have completed several
worthwhile initiatives that will move modernization forward.
Thanks to the Subcommittee's leadership, Mr. Chairman, Congress
adopted legislation freeing the FAA from most federal personnel and
procurement rules. Because of these reforms, the FAA is now equipped to
transform itself into a more efficient and effective agency.
With these significant advances in place, the debate concerning
airway modernization has shifted prematurely from ``how to do it'' to
``how to pay for it.'' Dictated by the goal of balancing the federal
budget, the FAA, Congressional leaders, and the industry have already
begun considering the financing issue. To the extent funding will be a
problem in the future, what will be needed are innovative approaches,
not drastic, hasty solutions.
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee began consideration
of the tax component of the reconciliation legislation. Chairman
Archer's package includes some restructuring of the aviation excise tax
structure. However, the mark is more notable for what it does not
contain. It does not include drastic new user fees; instead, it allows
general aviation to continue to contribute to the aviation trust fund
through the taxes on aviation gasoline and jet fuel. The message is
clear: the Administration's request for user fees is way out of line.
We hope this Committee will follow suit by rejecting the $300 million
in user fees the Administration proposes in its budget request for
fiscal year 1998.
faa funding is adequate
Last year, this Committee established and provided funding for the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) to seek a rational
solution to the FAA's funding needs. However, the Clinton
Administration chose to brush aside this Committee's reasonable and
rational approach to the question of future funding needs of the FAA.
Instead, the Administration has jumped the gun by requesting $300
million in new unspecified user fees for fiscal year 1998 and a 100
percent user-funded system in the following fiscal year.
By prejudging the work of the NCARC, and failing to appoint a
general aviation representative to the Commission as the law required,
the Clinton Administration is cynically ignoring the will of the people
as expressed through Congress. This Administration is determined to
impose destructive new fees on the aviation industry before finding any
evidence that they are needed. The Administration has put the cart
before the horse. For more than a quarter of a century, user excise
taxes have adequately funded our aviation transportation system and
generated a surplus for the aviation trust fund. The steady, reliable
source of revenue allowed this Committee to adequately fund the FAA
during that time. Thanks to this Committee, we enjoy the safest and
best aviation system in the world.
User fees are nothing more than new taxes. As the representative of
the interests of general aviation pilots and aircraft owners
nationwide, we are obviously concerned about the tremendous impact user
fees would have on our members. In fact, a closer examination of the
budget proposal shows the Administration also proposes to change the
definition of ``user fee'' to one which no longer holds a direct link
between the fee and the service rendered.
However, my concern extends beyond our own members and their
pocketbooks. User fees would bring with them substantial liabilities
that would upset the entire air transportation system. Any system of
direct charges to users is sure to require a large and costly
bureaucracy to collect, a politicized system for setting the fees, and
possible threats to safety because of the unavoidable disincentive
raised by imposing user fees. And we would oppose any mechanism that
reduces the essential role of this Committee in the process of
providing resources to the FAA and setting its spending goals and
priorities.
The original justification the Administration used for requesting
user fees was a scare tactic--the FAA claimed it would experience a $12
billion shortfall as Congress moved to balance the budget by 2002. We
are now two years into that seven-year budget-balancing process, and I
would like to pose some questions for the Administration. Has the
Appropriations Committee failed to provide the FAA with adequate
funding since it proclaimed the $12 billion crisis? Has the
Appropriations Committee ever failed to provide the FAA with adequate
funding? The answer to both questions is, ``No.''
current aviation tax structure is most cost-effective
At the request of AOPA Legislative Action, the House Treasury
Appropriations Subcommittee requested detailed information from the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as to the exact costs of administering
the current aviation excise tax system. We think the information
provided by IRS is significant and cautionary in terms of establishing
a fee based collection system. As you may know, Internal Revenue Code
sections 4261 and 4271 impose the taxes on air transportation. In
fiscal year 1996, less than 24 full time equivalents (employees),
costing the Internal Revenue Service approximately $1.7 million,
certified collections of aviation transportation taxes. That's over
$5.5 billion raised with $1.7 million!
We think any new funding system that replaces the excise taxes
should not exceed this $1.7 million collection cost. However, I can say
with confidence that user fees wouldn't come close. In fact, the FAA
says it will require $1 million a year alone to collect the $75 million
in fees on foreign aircraft that fly over U.S.-controlled territory
that it began charging last month. Imagine translating that $75 million
to $8 billion or more--the amount needed for a 100 percent user fee-
funded system, and you get $160 million in collection costs, which is
100 times the cost of collecting the excise taxes. In Europe, simple
user fees based on weight and mileage are charged on en route traffic.
Yet even these relatively easy-to-calculate fees can cause six month
delays in billing. The Administration contemplates a much more
complicated user fee scenario.
Consistent with the goal of a balanced budget, we think there are
constructive and honest ways to deal with any funding problem which may
arise in the outyears. One of our ideas is called ``Linked Financing.''
Instead of using fancy new definitions and complex scoring changes, and
handing the FAA a blank check as user fees would do, Linked Financing
works within the traditional tax and appropriations structure and
existing congressional budget procedures to provide FAA with the
resources it needs.
overflight fees
Another important issue that has emerged recently is the
implementation of fees for foreign aircraft which fly over the U.S.,
but neither take off from nor land on U.S. soil. The Committee allowed
FAA to develop an overflight fee schedule as part of the fiscal year
1997 bill. Most foreign countries charge a modest fee when U.S. or
other airliners fly over their airspace, so the Act took advantage of
this untapped source of revenue.
The resulting overflight fee schedule developed by the FAA includes
overflight fees for general aviation flights in addition to commercial
flights. While the law does give the FAA latitude in deciding which
overflight costs may be recovered, we do not believe this Committee
intended to require fees for international overflights by general
aviation aircraft.
There is clear evidence that Congress did not intend to impose
overflight fees on general aviation. The Congressional intent of the
legislation was demonstrated in floor debate, which was limited solely
to discussion of fees on commercial air carriers. At no time were fees
on general aviation discussed.
On April 16, 1997, the leadership of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and its Aviation Subcommittee, wrote to
Acting FAA Administrator Barry Valentine. In the letter, they said
``[i]mposing a fee on general aviation was certainly not our focus when
we drafted the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act.''
On April 30, 1997, this Committee adopted an amendment offered by
Sen. Gorton to the fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental
appropriations bill which amends Public Law 104-264 to exempt GA from
foreign overflight fees. The amendment was later dropped in conference
for technical reasons.
An overflight fee levied on general aviation would likely provide
only a tiny proportion of the total revenue generated by the fees, and
even the FAA admits that such fees could have serious safety
implications. We request the continued assistance of this Committee in
clarifying for the FAA that Congress did not intend that foreign
overflight fees be levied on general aviation aircraft.
airport improvement program
Let me turn now from the general funding issue to a specific
program that is bound to experience significant changes. The Airport
Improvement Program is a model of success for federal involvement in
national transportation infrastructure improvements. AIP is an
important program that must continue as a means of ensuring a national
system of public airports able to connect rural America with the larger
commercial service airports in major metropolitan areas.
The Airport Improvement Program also offers an opportunity for
significant savings. With perhaps as little as $1 billion annually,
coupled with increased reliance by primary airports on Passenger
Facility Charges (PFC's) and other financing resources, a refocused AIP
program would more efficiently address the financial needs of non-hub
commercial service and general aviation airports providing vital
community access to the air transportation system. We believe this
approach offers the most cost-effective use of shrinking federal funds.
As you know, overall AIP funding levels have declined steadily
since 1992. During the same period that aggregate AIP grants have
declined, the proportion of that aid received by the large primary
airports increased from less than a third in the 1980's to three-
quarters of total AIP funding in 1994--all at a time when larger
airports began tapping into the substantial potential of locally
imposed passenger facility charges.
Funding of large primary airports at this increasingly higher level
is coming at the expense of the smaller non-hub and general aviation
airports which communities depend on as their link to the air
transportation system. However, these smaller airports have the least
access to other sources of capital. Most primary airports can and do
levy passenger facility charges, and PFC revenue accounts for a greater
and greater share of primary airport resources. Large airports also can
finance capital improvements through bond issues.
For these reasons, we believe the Committee should consider
refocusing the priorities of the Airport Improvement Program by
allowing large airports to increase the PFC amount they charge and
targeting remaining AIP funds to help smaller airports meet their
needs.
loran c
AOPA Legislative Action appreciates the Committee's strong support
in recent years for steps prompting action on initiatives to take
advantage of the substantial investment made by the federal government
and users in Loran C and the compatibility the technology has with the
Global Positioning System (GPS). Loran is a well-proven, cost-
effective, and highly reliable system. In view of uncertainties about
the Coast Guard budget, there has also been bipartisan support in
Congress for the DOT to consider joint, shared funding arrangements
among the various modes that benefit from the use of Loran technology.
AOPA Legislative Action is among the most vocal advocates of an
early transition to GPS as the sole means of aerial navigation.
However, we believe it is essential that Loran be available until it is
proven that GPS can meet the sole-means-of-navigation requirement.
Recent developments have indicated that reliance on GPS as the sole
means of navigation will be further delayed. Nevertheless, some DOT and
FAA officials to advocate early termination of Loran. This Committee
has been explicit in its direction to the DOT and FAA regarding the
need for Loran, but DOT, FAA, and other agency officials refuse to
listen. Users clearly want Loran to back up GPS, but these same
officials seem willing to ignore safety and the strong backing of
virtually every segment of the user community.
We want to emphasize the importance of continuing funding for
operating and upgrading Loran. The Loran system is a cost-effective
complement to GPS. It is compatible with GPS and can easily serve as a
backup navigation technology in the event of any GPS problems. It would
be short-sighted to place all our hopes on GPS without such a backup.
Since Loran equipment is already installed in more than 100,000 general
aviation aircraft, it is the most logical choice.
We appreciate the Committee's previous support for our position
regarding Loran. We hope the Committee will again support continued
funding of Loran, with funding shared among agencies of the DOT.
transfer of aero charts function
As you know, AOPA Legislative Action has urged special attention to
aeronautical charting improvements several times during the past
decade. We have targeted specific charting enhancements which improved
the utility of aeronautical charts and ultimately translated into a
safer flying environment for general aviation pilots. Thanks to the
past efforts of this Committee, funding was secured on several
occasions to ensure that FAA could implement these enhancements and
enable the pilot community to realize direct and immediate safety
benefits.
We are now working cooperatively with the FAA, DOT and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to address a more general
problem which has threatened to force the elimination of at least some
important aeronautical charting products altogether. While FAA
determines most of the content and format of aeronautical charts, the
charts themselves are actually produced and distributed by NOAA.
Serious funding shortfalls during the past several years have caused
the agency to reexamine its mission and priorities, and the
aeronautical charting function has been directly impacted. In the past,
we have successfully worked through the appropriations process to
develop short-term fixes for NOAA's funding needs. Now, we hope we can
work with the Committee to find a long-term solution for this problem.
Acting in response to an investigation of this issue by the
Inspectors General of the Departments of Commerce and Transportation,
the fiscal year 1998 Administration request proposes to transfer
responsibility for producing and distributing aeronautical charts from
NOAA to FAA in a two-step process. In fiscal year 1998, the
Administration proposes that NOAA operate the program for FAA on a
reimbursable basis, with the program being completely transferred to
the FAA in fiscal year 1999. Others suggest that the program be
relocated to the Department of Transportation or other agencies. AOPA's
priority is to continue to provide the high quality charting services
that our members have relied upon for many years.
If the charting program is transferred from NOAA to another agency,
there will be transitional issues which must be worked out between the
two agencies and in Congress. It would require authorizing legislation
and other adjustments at the beginning of the budget process before a
transfer can occur. We know that there will be significant concerns
about the source of funding for the program if it is transferred to
another agency. We want to work with you to ensure that adequate
funding is provided, whether from this Subcommittee or from the
Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, so that the receiving agency does
not have to absorb any additional costs.
summary
To summarize, AOPA Legislative Action believes that the current
aviation excise tax system is sufficient to adequately fund the FAA,
making user fees unnecessary. We urge the Committee to reject the
Administration's request for user fees.
We urge the Committee to continue to provide the necessary
resources to small airports, especially those that lack alternative
sources of revenue.
We request the assistance of this Committee in clarifying for the
FAA that Congress did not intend that foreign overflight fees be levied
on general aviation aircraft.
We hope the Committee will again support continued funding of Loran
as a backup for GPS.
Finally, we want to work with the Committee to ensure that adequate
funding is provided, whether from this Subcommittee or from the
Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, for the proposed transfer of aero
charting functions from NOAA so that the receiving agency does not have
to absorb any additional costs if the transfer is carried out.
That concludes our testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to
present our views to the Committee. AOPA Legislative Action is pleased
to remain involved in the appropriations process throughout the
congressional session, and we will gladly offer further comments on
specific funding items as the need arises.
Statement of Edward Bolen
Senator Shelby. Mr. Bolen, of the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association.
Mr. Bolen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to be
brief and submit my statement for the record.
Just to follow up on a couple of things, you and Mr. Boyer
talked a little bit about the importance to general aviation
and the development it brings to small and rural communities.
User Fees and Fuel Taxes
Senator Shelby. We talked a little, but I believe it is
very, very important to America and to our economy. There are a
lot of airports in America that serve small- and medium-sized
cities that the only air traffic in there is business planes,
small- and medium-sized business planes that are so important
to the local economy, and the companies that operate in and
out.
Mr. Bolen. And not only do they help drive the economies in
a lot of these small and rural communities, general aviation is
also a primary training ground for the commercial airlines. And
it also is an industry in the United States that contributes
positively to our Nation's balance of trade. So it is a very
vital segment of a very vital air transportation system.
I guess the point that I would like to make is that general
aviation, the entire general aviation community, feels very
strongly that we should pay to use our national air
transportation system. And we feel that the way we pay now,
which is through a fuel tax, is the best, and we would like to
see it be the only way that general aviation contributes.
Senator Shelby. It has worked, has it not?
Mr. Bolen. It has worked.
Senator Shelby. And it is uniform.
Mr. Bolen. And it combines with the general fund
contribution, which helps cover the military's cost of using
the system, cover some of the safety and regulatory costs of
the FAA, and it reflects the public benefit that is inherent in
this air transportation system. And those two mechanisms are
just very, very good.
As Phil mentioned, the general aviation community very much
opposes user fees to either supplement or replace the current
fuel tax system. And I think Phil's video was very, very good,
but I would like to follow that up. That is something that was
based very much on the real world.
I submitted as a part of my testimony a letter I received
from a French pilot. And that French pilot talked about some of
the charges he has. In addition to the ones that we saw in the
video tape he also has noise charges and lighting charges and
ramp charges, it goes on and on. And the conclusion of the
French pilot are an unbearable impediment to the development of
general aviation in France, that it is depressing businesses
there, that it is making aviation more and more only for the
very wealthy, and his admonishment to us was I hope the
Americans will fight hard against these user fees, because if
they do not, general aviation will be grounded. And I think not
only from that perspective, Phil talked a lot about the safety
perspective, and I think that is very important. The FAA itself
has stated that user fees can have the potential to discourage
safety.
I would like to just relate a story that was told by the
chairman of GAMA last year at our industry review when he
talked about when he was flying in Germany, which does have
user fees, and he went up with a young student pilot and they
were going to practice touch and go's, practice takeoffs and
landings. And he went up with the pilot and they came down, and
when they got within a few feet of the runway they began to
ascend. And he did not want to be rude, so he did not say
anything, but when it happened again he said, you know, we are
here to practice takeoffs and landings. Why are we not touching
down? And the woman pilot said, well, in Germany we charge 12
marks every time the wheels touch the ground, so we do not
really put them down here. We try to get virtual takeoffs and
landings. And, Mr. Chairman, that is just not in the best
interest of safety.
Senator Shelby. Slipshod training, is it not?
Mr. Bolen. Absolutely. And the ramifications are very
serious.
I think also when you look at fuel taxes versus user fees
from the Government's point of view, the current excise taxes
are very efficient to collect. They do not have a lot of
collectors, administrators, auditors, you are not trying to
collect from 600,000 pilots and 180,000 planeowners. You are
simply collecting from a handful of fuel companies.
Senator Shelby. Would the user fees raise more revenue, or
would our current system raise more revenue?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think our current system can more
efficiently raise revenue than a user fee. There has been a
study that was done. We are currently spending--the FAA
currently spends, I believe it is $1.7 million to collect $5.5
billion in excise taxes. To collect $75 million in foreign
overflight fees, the fees that Phil talked about, they are
going to spend $2 million to set up the system, and another $1
million a year to collect it. So just from an efficiency
standpoint, that is very clear. And as I mentioned, we also
have, with a lot of taxes in the United States, a compliance
problem. You do not have that problem with fuel taxes.
We have a system in Europe where actually software is sold
to help people negotiate around some of the places where the
charges are the highest.
Senator Shelby. How to beat the system.
Mr. Bolen. Yes; and then from a taxpayer's point of view,
we really like the fuel taxes because they are easy to
understand, there is not a lot of paperwork, they are not
intrusive, and they are not subject to bureaucratic
manipulation. In the area of certification, where my
manufacturers deal a lot, the foreign governments that charge
certification fees, because they are paid on an hourly and per
person basis, they often take in Europe much longer to complete
the task and use a lot more people to complete the task than
they do here in the United States. They simply are manipulating
the fees that are coming in. And then they have got flat fees,
they are raising them much faster than the rate of inflation.
So I do not want to take a lot of your time, but we believe
and feel very strongly that the fuel taxes are the best method,
and we would like to see them remain the only method.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Bolen. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward M. Bolen
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Edward M.
Bolen, and I am President of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA). GAMA represents 53 general aviation aircraft,
engine, avionics and component parts manufacturers throughout the
United States.
general aviation
As this subcommittee well knows, general aviation is defined as all
aviation other than commercial and military aviation. It is the
backbone of our air transportation system and is the primary training
ground for the commercial airline industry. It is also an industry that
contributes positively to our nation's balance of trade.
General aviation aircraft range from small, single-engine planes to
mid-size turboprops to the larger turbofans capable of seating as many
as 19 passengers. These planes are used for everything from emergency
medical evacuations to border patrols to fire fighting. They are also
used by individuals, companies, state governments, universities and
other interests to quickly and efficiently reach the more than 5,000
small and rural communities in the United States that are not served by
commercial airlines.
state of the industry
Given the importance of general aviation to our nation and its
economy, it is a pleasure for me to be able to report that the industry
is healthier today than it has been in well over a decade. The action
taken by Congress to revitalize the industry by limiting the product
liability exposure of manufacturers is working. Employment and
production are up at virtually all of GAMA's member companies. More new
models of general aviation aircraft will be introduced to the market
between now and the year 2000 than were introduced in the past ten
years. Our companies are investing in plants and equipment and new
research and development projects. Several are working with NASA to
develop a new generation of aircraft engines. In addition, the industry
has just begun the largest program in aviation history designed to
generate new student pilots--GA TEAM 2000.
general aviation and faa funding
The Clinton Administration has proposed that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) be given the authority to raise $400 million of
its total fiscal year 1998 budget from ``user fees.'' Approximately
$100 million in user fees are to come from an expansion in the current
FAA charges on foreign overflights. The Acting FAA Administrator has
indicated that at least a portion of the remaining $300 million in user
fees would come from some type of charge on ``turbine-powered general
aviation.''
The grant of fee authority to the FAA represents a very serious
threat to the future of general aviation in the United States. For that
reason, the industry is asking the subcommittee to deny the
Administration's request and instead, continue to fund the FAA through
a combination of aviation excise taxes and the General Fund
contribution.
Mr. Chairman, general aviation currently pays a 21.9 cent per
gallon federal tax on jet fuel and a 19.4 cent per gallon federal tax
on aviation gasoline. These taxes are universally supported by
industry. In fact, the entire general aviation community believes that
the general aviation fuel taxes are the BEST, and should be the ONLY
mechanism through which the users of general aviation fund the Federal
Aviation Administration.
The general aviation community is also united in its support for a
continuation of the General Fund contribution to help fund such things
as the FAA's safety and regulatory functions. For decades, Congress has
recognized that a strong and safe air transportation system benefits
all members of the general public regardless of whether or not they
ever set foot on an airplane. That ``public benefit'' has been
consistently reflected in the contribution of General Fund revenues
toward FAA operations.
The strength of general aviation's support for fuel taxes and a
continued General Fund contribution is matched only by the strength of
its opposition to user fees. This opposition is not based merely on
philosophy but real world experiences that have clearly demonstrated
the negative impact fees have on general aviation.
Attached to my testimony is a copy of a letter that was recently
faxed to me by a general aviation pilot in France. It is an
extraordinary letter that I hope every member of the subcommittee will
take time to read. The letter describes the fees this pilot is
confronted with in France, including noise fees, lighting fees, ramp
fees, en route fees, approach fees, etc.
The pilot says that the ever growing list of fees are ``an
unbearable obstacle to development of general aviation and air commerce
in France and in Europe.'' He goes on to say ``The aviation businesses
are heavily depressed and a number of pilots, flight schools, aircraft
sales and air carriers are disappearing at a dangerous rate. Aviation
is more and more reserved to the wealthiest people.''
The letter concludes with the pilot saying ``I hope that Americans
involved in aviation understand how important it is to fight hard
against these proposed user fees. If implemented, these charges may
ground them sooner than the expectation.''
why general aviation fuel taxes are better than user fees
At GAMA, we agree with the French pilot that the general aviation
fuel taxes are better than user fees.
From a Safety Perspective:
--Fuel Taxes Do Not Adversely Impact Safety. According to the FAA,
user fees can discourage the safe practices of pilots (see
Federal Register, March 20, 1997). For example, if user fees
are charged for weather updates, talking to control towers or
filing flight plans, some pilots will seek to avoid the fees by
refusing these services. The general aviation fuel taxes do not
discourage safe practices.
Last year, at GAMA's Industry Outlook Press Conference, the
President of Jeppesen, Horst Bergmann related one of his experiences
with user fees in Germany. Mr. Bergmann was flying with a young general
aviation pilot who announced that she wanted to practice her takeoffs
and landings. Mr. Bergmann said the airplane descended to just a couple
of feet above the runway and then began to ascend. Miffed, Mr. Bergmann
asked the pilot why she did not touch down. She responded, ``In
Germany, there is a 12-mark charge if your wheels hit the ground, so
people here don't really touch down when practicing takeoffs and
landings.'' From a safety standpoint, we want people to put their
wheels on the ground when practicing takeoffs and landings. ``Virtual
landings'' are not in the best interest of safety.
From the Government's Perspective:
--Fuel Taxes Are Inexpensive For The Government To Administer. The
government collects the fuel taxes from a handful of fuel
companies rather than 600,000 pilots and 180,000 aircraft
owners. This allows the taxes to be collected without a large
and expensive bureaucracy of collectors, administrators,
auditors and accountants.
Just last year, the country of Mexico announced that it found the
administration and collection of user fees to be so complex and
expensive that it was replacing its system of user fees with a fuel
tax.
--Fuel Taxes Are Difficult for Taxpayers to Avoid. Because the fuel
taxes are included in the amount charged for fuel, compliance
with the tax is extremely high. This is not the case with user
fees.
Earlier I referenced Mr. Bergmann, the President of Jeppesen,
regarding safety. It is also worth noting when discussing user fees
that Mr. Bergmann also mentioned a service his company provides which
shows companies the routes they can take when flying in Europe to
minimize user charges. In other words, his company has found a market
niche helping people avoid user fees.
--Fuel Taxes Approximate Use. There is no more simple and accurate
way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the system
than to measure the amount of fuel burned.
From the Taxpayer's Perspective:
--Fuel Taxes Are Easy to Pay. Unlike fees, paying the fuel taxes is
not an administrative hassle or paperwork nightmare. The taxes
are simply included in the price of the fuel and paid at the
time of purchase.
--Fuel Taxes Are Well Established. The general aviation fuel taxes
have been in existence since 1970 and they have proven to be
reliable revenue generators. Today, the entire general aviation
community believes the fuel taxes are the best way for our
industry to contribute to the funding of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
--Fuel Taxes Are NOT Subject to Government Manipulation. In some
foreign countries, the civil aviation authorities charge for
their services with a per person and/or a per hour fee. When
this happens, it is not unusual for government to use more
people than necessary and take longer than necessary to
complete the task. Governments which charge a flat fee for a
service tend to raise the fee faster than the rate of
inflation.
certification in a user fee environment
One particular type of user fee that GAMA member companies have had
to deal with repeatedly is the certification fee. As a result, I would
like to focus some of my comments today on that important regulatory
process.
Since 1926, the Federal Aviation Administration or one of its
predecessors has been charged with ``certifying'' the manufacture of
all aviation products. FAA certification does not signify that a given
product is better than the competition or even safer than the
competition. Instead, its sole purpose is to ensure that aviation
products do not pose an unreasonable safety risk to the public.
Although it is the public--not the manufacturer--who benefits from
the certification process, those of us in aviation are very interested
in working with the FAA to constantly improve safety. Consequently, we
devote a great deal of time and resources to the certification process.
It is estimated that approximately 90 percent of all costs
associated with the certification process are borne by the
manufacturer. According to the Challenge 2000 report by Booz, Allen &
Hamilton commissioned by the FAA, the agency's Office of Regulation and
Certification could actually improve safety under a flat or declining
budget by placing more administrative responsibility for regulatory
compliance in the hands of those manufacturers with a proven culture of
safety while maintaining a high level of involvement and oversight in
key phases of development programs.
From a practical standpoint, allowing manufacturers to absorb even
more of the costs of the certification process is preferable to forcing
them to make cash payments to regulators through user fees. For one
thing, costs absorbed by manufacturers through delegation cannot be
manipulated by bureaucrats looking to generate fee revenue. For
another, it does not put a toll booth between manufacturers and
regulators when important matters of safety are at stake. Economists
know that if you place a tax on an activity, an incentive is created
for less of that activity to occur. Placing a tax on manufacturers for
sharing information with the FAA will discourage the free flow of
safety information.
From a philosophical standpoint, certification is a government
function that benefits the general public. As such, this function
should be paid for with general taxpayer revenues. To ask a
manufacturer that is operating in accordance with all regulations to
pay for what is, in essence a safety audit, would be similar to asking
a taxpayer who has prepared his or her returns in a legal manner to pay
for the cost of an IRS audit.
A final point on certification fees is that, because manufacturers
must cover all of their costs of production or go out of business, it
is the owner/operator that ultimately is forced to pay for all of the
costs associated with certification. In this respect, certification
fees would function as a type of Valued-Added Tax (VAT). The owners and
operators of general aviation aircraft understand this reality and that
is why they have joined with manufacturers in opposing certification
fees.
conclusion
General aviation is a vital link in our air transportation system
and an important engine for our economy. Today, after years of decline,
the industry is finally on its way to recovery.
The entire general aviation community believes that the general
aviation fuel taxes are the BEST, and should be the ONLY mechanism
through which the users of general aviation fund the Federal Aviation
Administration. After all, the fuel taxes are well established, they
closely approximate how much one uses the system, they are easy to pay
yet difficult to avoid, and they are inexpensive for the government to
administer.
Supplementing or replacing the general aviation fuel taxes with a
new system of ``fees'' could, even according to the FAA, discourage the
safe practices of pilots. Fees could also restrict the growth of the
industry in the same manner they have restricted general aviation in
Europe and the other parts of the world where they have been tried.
If Congress determines that general aviation needs to pay a larger
portion of the FAA's costs than it is currently paying, it should work
with industry to determine what can be done without reversing the gains
that have been made since passage of the General Aviation
Revitalization Act. Congress should not, however, give up on a system
that works and turn to a system that could be anti-growth and anti-
safety.
______
Letter From Remy Bouin, Member, Cessna Owner Organization
Athis-Mons, April 27, 1997.
Dear Aviation Friends: As a Cessna 172 owner and CPL-IR pilot
flying in France I am very interested in the debate over user fees
taking place in the USA.
France is one of the most active general aviation countries in the
world (around 10,000 aircraft and 60,000 active pilots for 57 million
citizens) and the following testimony on what is happening over there
(and in fact in most European countries) might be of help to those in
your country fighting against implementation of user fees to fund the
FAA.
From the end of WW2 to nowadays France has gradually drifted from
an aviation system (ATC, Met, airports, regulatory aviation authorities
. . . etc.) that was entirely funded by taxpayer money to one that is
almost exclusively paid by aviation users.
It is not a great surprise to say that this evolution has a very
negative impact on our aviation industry be it on general aviation or
on commercial air transportation. Not only because of the higher costs
that have to be beared by the aviation community but because of the
fact that the other means of transportation needs have continued to be
generously paid by taxpayers (discrimination).
Let me depict more precisely how our aviation system is financed:
The French equivalent of FAA (called DGAC).--This administration is
tasked with approximately the same duties as FAA with the exception of
technical oversight over aircraft maintenance and of aviation weather
services which are responsibilities of semi-pivatized agencies. French
FAA is responsible for ensuring En route control, approach control and
tower control at around 100 airports in the country.
The budget for this administration in 1997 has been voted at 8
billion francs (1.40 billion dollars) and is almost entirely funded by
aviation user fees (that go to the aviation fund) which are mainly:
En route fees.--Those fees are to be paid by aircraft with MTOW
over 2,000 Kg (4,400 lb) flying IFR whatever the operation (private or
commercial). The rate for this fee is a factor of the distance flown
and MTOW.
Approach control fees.--Those fees are to be paid by aircraft with
MTOW over 2,000 Kg (4,409 lb) flying IFR whatever the operation
(private or commercial) and landing at airports where approach and
tower control are provided. This fee is established as a factor of
MTOW. This aviation fund is also fed by an aviation tax on airline
tickets that is supposedly aimed at financing airport security. It is
also funded by other fees established for pilot licensing, tie-down and
hangar at administration-managed airports, avionics annual check . . .
etc.
The airports.--Most airports in France are run and funded by
Chambers of Commerce with the busiest of them receiving subsidies from
the aviation fund. Consequently these entities are authorized to charge
very high fees in order to recover their expenses: landing fees,
lighting fees, ramp fees, hangar fees, handling fees, passenger fees,
airport re-opening fees (most airports in France are not open 24 hours)
and fuel fees.
Oversight of aircraft maintenance and airworthiness.--A civil
aviation safety agency (GESAC) has been established some years ago to
cheek aircraft maintenance operations. This agency is authorized to
establish fees that aircraft owners must pay each time this
administrative agency signs a paper.
The noise tax.--This tax is to be paid by aircraft flying out of
``busy'' airports to the environment protection agency.
The aircraft property tax.--Must be annually paid to the general
fund. None of this money is invested in the aviation system. It depends
on the horsepower and ranges from 175 $ to 2650 $.
The fuel.--This is one of the most taxed items in this country.
Currently a 100 LL gallon is priced between 5 $ and 6 $ excluding fees
that airports are authorized to charge on fuel. These sky-rocketing
taxes go directly to the general fund and are not used for aviation
purposes.
The sales tax on aviation services and products.--It is currently
set at 20.6 percent and goes directly to the general fund with no use
for aviation.
The National Weather Service.--This semi-privatized agency has the
monopoly on any weather service be it for farmers or aviators. The
French equivalent of the FAA is not tasked with providing aviation
weather services to pilots. This administration gives money from the
aviation fund to the NWS to establish and maintain aviation weather
services. As the aviation fund is mainly paid by IFR users, met is free
for them but not for VFR pilots. As an example talking to a briefer
costs 2 $ plus 0.5 $ each minute spent talking with him.
These ever growing taxes and fees are an unbearable obstacle to
development of general aviation and air commerce in France and Europe.
The aviation businesses are heavily depressed and number of pilots,
flight schools, aircraft sales and air carriers are disappearing at a
dangerous rate. Aviation is more and more reserved to the wealthiest
people and as a consequence tends to be less and less popular amongst
citizens.
The fact that VFR flights and IFR flights with aircraft with MTOW
below 4,400 lb don't pay any en route and approach fees is good and bad
at the same time:
--Good because it gives some ``oxygen'' to this part of aviation
which is already overwhelmed by aviation taxes.
--Bad because as this part of aviation doesn't contribute at all to
the aviation fund, nothing is done to build and improve general
aviation airports. On the 420 public airports in France, only
30 percent have an instrument approach and 6 percent are
accessible 24 hours.
Airlines want their fees invested only on the few airports where
they fly. Moreover our national airspace system and air traffic control
system are more and more designed to meet the only needs of air
carriers. IFR route structures don't take into account the problems of
general aviation IFR flights (icing, low speed, low altitudes . . .
etc.) and radar services to VFR flights are virtually non-existent.
New regulations coming soon as mandatory B-RNAV equipment, 8.33 khz
channel spacing and mode S transponder don't take care of the burden on
general aviation. Right of general aviation to fly to busy airports
doesn't exist any more with prohibited access for single engine
aircraft and implementation of class A airspace.
Met services are very expensive for VFR pilots and once again are
mainly designed to meet the needs of airlines. This is certainly one of
the reasons why general aviation in this country has one of the worst
accident rates in the world.
In conclusion on this part, the fact that VFR and light IFR
aviation is not charged with En route and approach fees means that this
aviation is only tolerated in this country but should not be too
demanding because this exemption could be stopped at any time.
Moreover some airlines are not happy at all that these users don't
pay ATC fees. They require that each flight whatever the MTOW should
pay the same cost for the same distance flown because they say the
burden on the ATC system is the same.
The implementation of ATC user fees (in 1972 for En route fees and
1990 for approach fees) and the fact that not a single cent of taxpayer
money goes to the aviation system has had other bad side effects as for
example:
--The bureaucracy implemented to establish the invoices for ATC fees
is paid by the users and is extremely expensive. A tax system
on fuel, ticket sales and airfreight bills is far more simple
and cost efficient.
--Pilots prefer to fly VFR to avoid IFR fees, which has sometimes
dramatic effects.
--VFR flight is prohibited in more and more airspace, so users are
compelled to pay fees (for example airspace above 11,500 Ft in
northern France is prohibited to VFR flights since 1992).
--No airport improvement program which leads to a shortage of runways
and terminals. The consequence is that air transportation
development is halted by lack of airport slots.
--Development of air taxi, regional airlines, business aviation and
low-cost carriers is very limited because of these fees.
--Airlines pay the same amount of fees whatever the number of
passengers or quantity of freight. So when times are hard to
fill aircraft, user fees can literally kill an operator. The
ticket tax is fair because it is directly linked to the
economic shape of the airline. When times are hard, dues are
lower, and when business is good dues are fair.
Sorry for this long explanation, but here is a real example of the
costs associated with an IFR typical business trip on a Cessna 340
between Paris Toussus le Noble executive airport and Toulouse-Blagnac
airport (300 NM southwest of Paris):
1. Departure from Toussus le Noble early in the morning: Lighting
fee=34 $
2. En route fee for the 300 NM trip: 90 $
3. Approach fee in Toulouse: 15 $
4. Landing fee in Toulouse: 32 $
5. Lighting fee in Toulouse: 32 $
6. Ramp fee in Toulouse for 12 hours: 3.5 $
7. Noise fee for departure from Toulouse: 10 $
8. Lighting fee for departure from Toulouse: 32 $
9. En route fee back to Paris-Toussus le Noble: 90 $
10. Approach fee in Paris-Toussus le Noble: 15 $
11. Landing fee at Toussus le Noble: 13 $
12. Lighting fee at Toussus le Noble: 34 $
So this trip costs 368.5 $ in fees and taxes, without the handling
fees if services of an FBO are used and without the taxes on fuel. The
same IFR trip on my Cessna 172 costs me 148.5 $ in fees because as
explained above IFR aircraft below 4,400 lb don't pay ATC fees for the
time being
At airports not opened 24 hours, re-opening service costs me
between $50 and $300 depending on the airport.
During my flight training for CPL-IR in the USA, I had the
opportunity to discover the extraordinary quality of your aviation
system (ATC, airports, weather services, FBO's, flight service stations
. . . etc.) which is almost everytime provided free. This aviation
system is probably the best in the world and it seems that the five
excises taxes financing the Airway and Airway Trust Fund are doing an
extraordinary great job.
Of course you do have some problems, but you can be sure that they
are no problems compared to those aviation people must deal with in
this country and Europe.
I really enjoyed your perfect aviation system and I think it would
be foolish to destroy something that works greatly.
The U.S. way of funding aviation is for European general aviation
pilots the living example of the funding system that politicians should
establish in Europe to foster civil aviation.
I hope that Americans involved in aviation understand how important
it is to fight hard against these proposed user fees. If implemented,
these charges may ground them sooner than they expect.
I hope this letter brings useful information to you. Do not
hesitate to contact me if you need more information and testimonies on
this subject. I wish you good luck in this important battle to keep
aviation strong in your country.
Yours faithfully,
Remy Bouin.
User Fees and Tax
Senator Shelby. Mr. Barclay, your testimony notes that the
administration has requested only $1 billion for AIP in 1998. I
might note that the budget request amendment we received early
this week does not request--does not request--any additional
AIP funding for 1998. Can you walk the subcommittee briefly
through what the impact of this cut would mean to the various
categories of funding within the AIP program?
Mr. Barclay. I can, Mr. Chairman. If you take a look at
entitlements first, the amount of money the airports get from
passengers, those would be cut about 26 percent. In the case of
Huntsville, that would be about $385,000; in the case of
Birmingham, about $560,000. Each of the smallest airports in
the system would lose about $130,000 with that cut.
Cargo funding would be cut by more than 50 percent. The
small airport funding, we are talking about the relievers and
general aviation, would be cut by 50 percent under the current
formulas.
Noise is cut 85 percent. Noise funding goes from $143
million to $20 million for the whole country, and the military
airport program goes from $18 million to $2 million.
So the current formulas that we just put into the law in
the authorizing committees last year simply do not work at the
$1 billion program.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Boyer, what are your thoughts, how
would you feel about a system where the airlines could pay user
fees directly to the FAA, but general aviation would continue
to pay the fuel tax which would be appropriated by Congress?
That is a bifurcated system, anyway.
Mr. Boyer. That is being debated on several fronts right
now, and I guess our greatest concern is it sets up two classes
of users. And as you said, general aviation provides a
significant benefit, particularly for rural areas. But what
happens then if one group of people pay through a fuel tax,
others pay these user fees, first of all, I have never seen
anything stet, so therefore Congress would someday perhaps look
and say, well gee, this group is not paying user fees, perhaps
we can raise more money this way, so there is an obvious trend
toward that that occurs.
The other thing that could happen is we would have two
classes of users and we would begin to look at areas in which
we would begin discriminating against those users. Well, you
cannot use this airspace because you only pay a fuel tax, you
do not pay a user fee.
I think our country has worked, as you have said, for 30
years, 20 years under deregulation, under the present system of
a passenger ticket tax, for those who pay----
Senator Shelby. It has worked has it not?
Mr. Boyer. That is right.
Senator Shelby. Yesterday, the House Ways and Means
Committee began consideration of the tax component of the
reconciliation bill. Mr. Boyer are you supportive of the
committee's approach to alternatives to the ticket tax and its
treatment of general aviation?
Mr. Boyer. Well, to put it backward, we certainly support
their treatment of general aviation. It goes along with the
theory of a fuel tax is efficient. And they have taken a
creative approach to how to fund the system, keeping in place a
passenger ticket tax modified with a head fee.
It is up to Congress to debate that, but what it does not
do is set up two classes of users, or user fees versus fuel
tax. So therefore, we applaud their efforts at this point and
continue to watch the debate.
Senator Shelby. I understand from your comments, Mr. Bolen,
that you favor the general aviation tax that we just went
through. However, since you represent here today general
aviation manufacturers, would it be accurate to say that the
manufacturers do not pay the fuel tax and therefore do not
contribute to the funding of the FAA?
Mr. Bolen. Let me make two comments on that, sir. First of
all, the manufacturers already assume about 90 percent of the
cost related to the certification process. We do that through
administrative stuff and through staffing. So we are already
bearing the brunt of 90 percent of the cost of the
certification process. So that is being paid.
Senator Shelby. That is a lot of safety there, is it not?
Mr. Bolen. Yes; but I would also like to point out that
obviously as manufacturers we have got to pass along the cost
of doing business or cease to exist. If we do not charge enough
for our products to cover the cost of creating them, we go out
of business. And that is something that the pilots, represented
here by Mr. Boyer, understand, and they have been supportive of
this, as well.
If you try to go back and build in cost on the
manufacturers, it in essence works as a value-added tax for the
customers at the end of the day. And they do not want to pay it
that way, we do not think it is the best way, and we also do
not think it is in the interest of safety, because what those
fees would end up doing is putting a tollbooth between
manufacturers and regulators, and anyone will tell you, if you
tax something you are going to get less of it, and we do not
want to reduce that communication between manufacturers and
regulators.
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, I know it has been a long
morning. It is in the afternoon now. Senator Lautenberg was
going to try to get back. He had some other commitments. I want
to leave the record open for any questions that he or any of
the other Senators might want to submit in writing.
Thank you for being here, and this hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., Thursday, June 12, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:58 a.m., Thursday, July 17.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:58 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby and Lautenberg.
Panel 1
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Railroad Retirement Board
STATEMENT OF STEVEN BARTHOLOW, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK BUZZI, CHIEF ACTUARY
Opening Remarks of Senator Shelby
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order. Sorry
about the delay, but when you have three back to back votes it
just happens.
The purpose of our hearing today is a very specific one--to
get to the facts with respect to Amtrak's payments to the
Railroad Retirement Account. The subcommittee's fiscal year
1998 transportation appropriation bill currently includes $283
million for Amtrak operating assistance, which is the same
level as in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill.
The administration has requested $344 million and Amtrak has
requested $387 million.
Funded within the subcommittee bill are two elements of
Amtrak's operating assistance identified in the
administration's request: $202 million for the general
operating subsidy to support day-to-day operations of Amtrak;
and $82 million for tier II railroad retirement benefits that
Amtrak is obligated to pay by law, but are greater than the
tier II benefits collected by former Amtrak employees.
The only difference between the subcommittee level and the
administration's request is $61 million, which the Federal
Railroad Administration's budget submission mysteriously
describes as ``a portion of the amount Amtrak is required to
pay to the Railroad Retirement Board for the benefits of its
employees.''
Correspondence between Congresswoman Molinari and OMB
Director Raines suggests that Amtrak may not, in fact, need the
money for that purpose. The statements displayed on the panel
to the right addressing this issue are from Amtrak and from the
Office of Management and Budget. They appear to me to be
inconsistent.
Amtrak's current calculations assume, as part of its
corporate liability, those liabilities which are mandated by
statute to be paid by employees of Amtrak.--OMB Director
Raines' May 23, 1997, Letter to Chairman Susan Molinari.
It is Amtrak's position that the excess RRTA liability
should be fully funded by the Federal government and not
considered a part of Federal operating support.--Amtrak's
Fiscal Year 1998 Federal Grant Request.
I believe this subcommittee ought to be given accurate
information about how funds it is being asked to appropriate
will be used. This hearing is intended to get that information.
Our first witnesses will be from the Railroad Retirement
Board. We hope those witnesses can give us a simple explanation
of the Railroad Retirement Account and of what Amtrak must pay
for that account, from what sources, and for what purpose.
Then we will have a panel including witnesses from the
Office of Management and Budget, the Department of
Transportation, and Amtrak. Our questions for each of those
witnesses will be simple: What are the components of the $61
million in mandatory payments in the President's budget that
the House and the Senate subcommittee have not provided? Are
they legitimately within the definition of excess payments and
not otherwise financed? Do the budget justifications that have
been provided to this subcommittee accurately reflect those
components?
The subcommittee had not originally planned to hold this
hearing, and subcommittee members have a full Appropriations
Committee meeting today, as well as other commitments they have
made. In view of that, I propose to dispense with a lot of
opening statements from our witnesses, although we will be
happy to include in the record any written statements our
witnesses wish to provide.
Further, I would ask that each of our witnesses today
answer clearly and concisely the questions they are asked. I
believe those questions will be simple ones that will have
simple answers. We will also limit each subcommittee member to
10 minutes to ask questions and hear the witnesses' answers.
With the cooperation of the witnesses, each subcommittee member
will be able to get the information the member wants and we
will be able to complete this hearing in a reasonable amount of
time and get to other commitments.
Senator Lautenberg.
Statement of Senator Lautenberg
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for
agreeing to delay full committee markup so that we can hold
this hearing to review in greater detail the financial needs of
our national passenger rail system, Amtrak. Again, I want to
note, Mr. Chairman, that you have been interested in hearing
all the sides of this and were willing to hold this extra
hearing when we are jammed, as you have noted.
I think it is essential that we convene to review this
issue since the appropriations bill put before this
subcommittee 2 days ago has a cut of almost $300 million, 34
percent, from the 1997 appropriation for Amtrak, and these
drastic cuts are contained in a bill that provides a historic
boost in the overall level of funding for the Department of
Transportation.
I also think that it is essential that we demystify the
confusion that surrounds Amtrak's participation in the Railroad
Retirement System. But we cannot do that without discussing the
likely ramifications of Amtrak going into bankruptcy if we do
not revisit the funding levels in the appropriations bill.
Amtrak covers a large percentage of its annual operating costs,
a larger percentage than any national passenger railroad system
in the world. As the Senator from Utah observed during
Tuesday's markup, no national railroad is able to completely
cover the operating costs entirely through farebox revenues.
It is for that reason that this subcommittee makes an
annual appropriation to cover the operating losses of Amtrak.
Amtrak has made great strides in reducing costs and its
operating losses, but over the last 3 years this subcommittee
has reduced Amtrak's operating subsidy even more rapidly,
leaving Amtrak with a larger and larger deficit. That is why
Amtrak is in such tenuous financial condition, and that is the
reason why the funding level we set for Amtrak's operating
budget this year will likely mean the difference between the
continuation of Amtrak and bankruptcy.
I am not just throwing out words. I come out of the
business community, as does my colleague, the chairman of the
subcommittee. We do not flout the notion of a bankruptcy to use
it as a scare tactic. That is the reality.
We are going to begin our hearing this morning with
witnesses from the Railroad Retirement Board, and as we look
into the specific issue as to how Amtrak budgets for its
railroad retirement costs. I think it is critical to point out
that this subcommittee does not make an explicit appropriation
for Amtrak's retirement costs. We make an annual appropriation
to cover the total operating cost, which includes of course the
railroad retirement costs.
For the coming fiscal year, Amtrak will be required to make
the appropriate contribution for railroad retirement tier I and
tier II payments as determined by the Railroad Retirement
Board. That amount of money is expected to be $342 million in
1998. Under law, there is nothing that Amtrak can do to make
any amount of that debt go away. Amtrak will be required to pay
that $342 million whether we give them an operating subsidy of
$387 million, the level that Amtrak has requested, or $283
million, the level proposed by the House Appropriations
Committee and our chairman.
Beginning in 1991, at the request of both the House and the
Senate Appropriations Committees, Amtrak developed a
methodology to present what it calls its excess railroad
retirement costs. Those excess costs are the amount of funds
that Amtrak must pay to the Railroad Retirement Board for
retirees that never worked for Amtrak. That is the structure.
In each year since 1991, at the direction of the Congress,
Amtrak has shown these figures and discussed their methodology
in their annual budget submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
Suddenly in 1997, the House and the Senate subcommittees
have taken exception to the manner in which Amtrak calculates
this figure. Now, I am not here to say that Amtrak's
calculation is right or wrong. I have not done the arithmetic.
I am here, however, to point out that it does not matter
one bit if the retirement cost for these ghost employees is $10
million lower and the retirement costs of Amtrak employees are
$10 million higher. They are both expenses of the corporation.
The bottomline is affected the same way.
Amtrak will be required to write a check for $342 million
to the Railroad Retirement Board in the fiscal year 1998, and
there is nothing in our discussion that can change that. I
believe our witnesses this morning will confirm that fact. It
is ludicrous to maintain that Amtrak is using some budget
gimmickry to squirrel away $61 million and that this
subcommittee can take that funding away with no harm to the
railroad.
An analogy for the typical family budget might be as
follows. Some people might argue that the purchase of my
children's school clothes count against my family's clothing
budget. Some might argue that it should be counted against my
family's educational expense. But the fact is I cannot send my
kids to school naked. I have to buy the clothes no matter what
expense category they come from.
The real question before this subcommittee, the question
that will be before the full committee on Tuesday, is whether
we are going to appropriate sufficient funds to keep Amtrak out
of bankruptcy in fiscal year 1998. It is my view that if this
committee is going to establish a budget that will shut Amtrak
down, then we ought to just say: We are turning the key; we are
shutting down.
It is a tough issue, and I appreciate very much the
chairman's observations made on Tuesday regarding the viability
of the Northeast corridor and the fact that our passenger
trains in the Northeast corridor cover a greater percentage of
its costs than those in the other corridors in the Nation.
Indeed, certain trains in the Northeast corridor are
profitable.
But as Amtrak will testify this morning, it is not feasible
to simply cut Amtrak's operating budget and state in the report
that the funds are provided only for the Northeast corridor.
Amtrak is one corporation and Amtrak's debts and liabilities
from all its rail corridors will not disappear on October 1
when the new fiscal year begins.
If it is the desire of the Senate to only fund Amtrak
operations in the Northeast corridor, then it will require a
massive authorizing bill to restructure the corporation. We
cannot move that kind of legislation on our annual
appropriations bill.
Notwithstanding the views of my colleague from Utah, whose
views I respect--he has had an involvement he talks about with
Amtrak from the day of its inception back in the early
seventies--I do not think the Senate is ready to terminate
Amtrak everywhere but in the Northeast corridor. And if we are
not ready to do that, we need to fund the railroad in a fashion
such that it can cover its bills.
I close, Mr. Chairman, with this statement. I know how hard
you have worked, and you have been very fair, to try to balance
all the needs that this subcommittee has. The best way to
balance it would be if we had a flush of money someplace.
Senator Shelby. It would.
Senator Lautenberg. But we do not have, and therefore we
have to work and skimp and perhaps change things, because we
just do not have the resources to do it. But one of the things
that we do have to uphold is our contractual obligations. There
is not much that we can do about that.
I see the statements that were taken from Frank Raines'
letter to Susan Molinari. I worked with Mr. Raines on
negotiating the budget and he is a man who has a lot of
knowledge. But I think that in this case he is in error there,
or else we are not looking at the full context of what he said,
or he, frankly, just did not, as they say around here, get it.
So Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I hope that we will give our
witnesses from Railroad Retirement a couple minutes just to
explain the situation and make sure that in the process of
questioning that we do not miss an important part.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
As I said earlier, your written statements will be made
part of the record. I will give you as much time as you want,
but I want to get into some questions.
We have with us today Mr. Steve Bartholow, Deputy General
Counsel; and Mr. Frank Buzzi, Chief Actuary, of the Railroad
Retirement Board. We appreciate you being with us today.
Railroad Retirement System Explained
Mr. Bartholow, could you describe the Railroad Retirement
System as your organization administers it? How does the
Railroad Retirement System compare, for example, to Social
Security?
Mr. Bartholow. The Railroad Retirement System is a
comprehensive federally administered retirement program for
railroad employees and their families. Simply stated, I think,
the Railroad Retirement Act replaces the Social Security Act
for the railroad industry. The Railroad Retirement Act provides
retirement and disability benefits for railroad employees and
also provides benefits for----
Senator Shelby. But only railroad employees? Nobody else?
Mr. Bartholow. Railroad employees and their families and
survivors. Well, let me just add to that. There are affiliated
companies with railroads that are covered employers, and
employees of those affiliated companies under certain
circumstances are covered as well.
Senator Shelby. Like what?
Mr. Bartholow. If you had a company that did leasing of
railway cars and it was owned by Conrail, for example, then the
employees of that company would be covered as well.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. Bartholow. During fiscal year 1996 the Railroad
Retirement Board paid benefits under the Railroad Retirement
Act totaling approximately $8.1 billion to nearly 818,000
beneficiaries.
Benefit payments under the Railroad Retirement Act are
funded primarily by employer and employee payroll taxes,
transfers from the Social Security trust funds under the
financial interchange system with that program, and also trust
fund investments and the earnings that we earn on those
investments.
Although the Railroad Retirement System has been around
since the midthirties, in 1974 Congress restructured the
Railroad Retirement Act to more closely coordinate the Railroad
Retirement System with the Social Security System. In doing so,
it provided that the basic railroad retirement annuity would be
computed in two components or tiers. The tier I benefit is a
benefit that is computed based upon an employee's combined
railroad retirement and Social Security covered employment, and
in making that computation we use the benefit formulas in the
Social Security Act. So as a general rule that benefit is the
amount that the person would receive if all of his or her
service were covered under the Social Security Act.
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 also provides for the
payment of a tier II benefit, which is a benefit that is
computed solely on the basis of railroad service and is
computed on the basis of a computational formula in the
Railroad Retirement Act itself that looks at an employee's
average monthly compensation and years of railroad service.
The Railroad Retirement System is similar to Social
Security in concept and also provides similar types of
benefits. As I indicated earlier, in fact, the tier I benefit
is generally the benefit that the person would receive if he or
she were covered under the Social Security Act.
Description of Tier I Benefits in Excess of Social Security Benefits
However, this is not always the case. Where the eligibility
conditions between the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social
Security Act differ, the tier I annuity component under the
Railroad Retirement Act may exceed the benefit that would be
payable under the Social Security Act. This amount in excess of
what would be payable under the Social Security Act is commonly
referred to as the non-Social Security equivalent tier I
benefit.
The two largest categories of beneficiaries where this
occurs are occupational disability annuities under the Railroad
Retirement Act, for which there is no comparable benefit under
the Social Security Act, and also early retirement payments to
employees who have 30 years of service in the railroad
industry. They can retire at an earlier time than under the
Social Security Act. So until such person would actually be
entitled to a benefit under the Social Security Act if covered
under that act, any payments that are made by the Railroad
Retirement Account are non-Social Security equivalent level
benefits.
Social Security equivalent tier I benefits, the ones that
are identical to the Social Security benefit, are paid from the
Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account, while non-Social
Security equivalent tier I benefits, like tier II benefits
under the Railroad Retirement Act, are paid from the Railroad
Retirement Account. So there is a difference between Social
Security equivalent level benefits and non-Social Security
equivalent level benefits in terms of the payment source for
those benefits.
Another difference between the Railroad Retirement System
and the Social Security System is that railroad retirement
benefits are generally higher than their Social Security
benefit counterparts. For example, at the end of fiscal year
1996 the average age retirement benefit payable to career
railroad employees under the Railroad Retirement Act was $1,565
per month. The average for all rail employees at that time,
career and noncareer, was $1,175. This compares to the average
retirement benefit under the Social Security Act, which was
$725 per month at that time.
Can I provide any more information?
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Bartholow. We will insert
your complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven A. Bartholow and Frank Buzzi
Good Morning. My name is Steven Bartholow and I am Deputy General
Counsel of the Railroad Retirement Board. With me is Frank Buzzi, Chief
Actuary of the Railroad Retirement Board. We appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you this morning.
It is our understanding that the Subcommittee has requested
testimony from the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the nature of
the benefits that the Board pays and how those benefits are financed in
order to assist the Subcommittee in its consideration of authorizing
appropriations for Amtrak.
Before specifically discussing railroad retirement benefits and the
particular status of Amtrak under the railroad retirement program,
perhaps it would be helpful to provide some general background
information about the Railroad Retirement Board and the programs that
the agency administers.
The Railroad Retirement Board is an independent agency in the
executive branch of the United States Government. The Railroad
Retirement Board administers the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Under the Railroad Retirement Act,
the Railroad Retirement Board pays retirement, disability, and survivor
benefits based on employment in the railroad industry, including
employment with Amtrak. Funding for these benefits is derived primarily
from taxes imposed on railroad employers and employees under the
Railroad Retirement Tax Act, funds transferred under the financial
interchange with the social security system, and investment earnings
from the trust funds. During fiscal year 1996, the Railroad Retirement
Board paid some $8.1 billion in benefits under the Railroad Retirement
Act to nearly 818,000 beneficiaries.
The Railroad Retirement Tax Act imposes an employment tax on all
railroad carriers engaged in interstate commerce, including Amtrak, and
certain other railroad employers. The Railroad Retirement Tax Act is
administered by the Internal Revenue Service and taxes imposed under
that Act are collected by the Service. The Railroad Retirement Tax Act
imposes a Tier I tax on employers and employees equal to the tax
payable by employers and employees under the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act. In addition, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act imposes
a Tier II tax on employers at the rate of 16.1 percent of the annual
maximum taxable compensation and a Tier II tax on employees at the rate
of 4.9 percent of the annual taxable amount. Although the payroll tax
obligation on employers and employees is higher under the Railroad
Retirement Tax Act than under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
the benefits provided under the Railroad Retirement Act are more
generous, generally, than those available under the Social Security
Act. For example, at the end of fiscal year 1996, the average age
annuity being paid under the Railroad Retirement Act to career rail
employees was $1,565 a month and the average for all retired rail
employees was $1,175 a month. The average retirement benefit payable
under the Social Security Act at the end of fiscal year 1996 was $725 a
month.
The Railroad Retirement Board was created in the 1930's by
legislation establishing a retirement benefit program for the nation's
railroad workers. Private industrial pension plans had been pioneered
in the railroad industry; the first industrial pension plan in America
was established on a railroad in 1874. By the 1930's, pension plans
were far more developed in the railroad industry than in most other
businesses or industries; but these plans had serious defects which
were magnified by the great depression.
The economic conditions of the 1930's demonstrated the need for
retirement plans on a national basis, because few of the nation's
elderly were covered under any type of retirement program. While the
social security system was in the planning stage, railroad workers
sought a separate retirement system which would continue and broaden
the existing railroad programs under a uniform national plan. The
proposed social security system was not scheduled to begin monthly
benefit payments for several years and would not give credit for
service performed prior to 1937, while conditions in the railroad
industry called for immediate benefit payments based on prior service.
Legislation was enacted in 1934, 1935, and 1937 to establish a
railroad retirement system separate from the social security program.
Such legislation, taking into account particular circumstances of the
rail industry, was not without precedent. Numerous laws pertaining to
rail operations and safety had already been enacted since the
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Since passage of the Railroad
Retirement Acts of the 1930's, numerous other railroad laws have been
enacted.
While the railroad retirement system has remained separate from the
social security system, the two systems are closely coordinated with
regard to earnings credits, benefit payments, and taxes. The financing
of the two systems is linked through a financial interchange under
which, in effect, the net of payroll tax cost of railroad retirement
annuities that are equivalent to social security benefits is reinsured
through the social security system. The purpose of this financial
coordination is to place the social security trust funds in the same
position they would be in if railroad service were covered by the
social security program instead of the railroad retirement system.
Legislation enacted in 1974 restructured railroad retirement
benefits into two tiers, so as to coordinate them more fully with
social security benefits. The first tier is based on combined railroad
retirement and social security credits, using social security benefit
formulas. The second tier is based on railroad service only and is
comparable to the pensions paid over and above social security benefits
in other heavy industries.
Let us turn now to the structure and nature of the benefits
provided under the Railroad Retirement Act. As noted previously, the
basic annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act is comprised of two
components, known as tiers. The Tier I component of a railroad
retirement annuity is computed using an employee's combined railroad
retirement and social security covered employment and the computation
is made using social security benefit formulas. In most cases, the Tier
I benefit payable under the Railroad Retirement Act is the precise
amount that would be payable under the Social Security Act. Such
benefits are commonly referred to as social security equivalent
benefits. In the case of certain beneficiaries, however, Tier I
benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act exceed the amount
that would be payable under the Social Security Act. Such additional
amounts are commonly referred to as non-social security equivalent
benefits. Tier II benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act
are computed using an employee's railroad service only and are computed
under benefit formulas in the Railroad Retirement Act. The Act also
provides for the payment of supplemental annuities to certain career
railroad employees, vested dual benefits to certain employees who had a
vested status to both social security and railroad retirement benefits
prior to 1975, and lump sum payments in certain cases.
Social security equivalent benefits are payable from the Social
Security Equivalent Benefit Account, which is funded by Tier I railroad
retirement taxes and transfers from the social security trust funds
pursuant to the financial interchange. Both non-social security
equivalent Tier I benefits and Tier II benefits are payable from the
Railroad Retirement Account, and are funded by Tier II railroad
retirement taxes.
The two largest categories of beneficiaries who receive non-social
security equivalent Tier I benefits are: 1) persons who have been found
to be occupationally disabled from work in their last railroad
occupation but do not meet the social security definition of disabled;
and 2) employees with 30 years of railroad service and their spouses.
The Social Security Act has no benefit comparable to an occupational
disability annuity; accordingly, the entire Tier I annuity component of
an occupationally disabled employee, who does not meet the social
security definition of disabled, is a non-social security equivalent
benefit. Employees with 30 years of railroad service may retire as
early as age 60 with an age-reduced Tier I benefit and as early as age
62 with no age reduction. Under the Social Security Act, age-reduced
benefits may not begin prior to age 62 and full age benefits are not
payable until age 65. Thus, the amount of any Tier I railroad
retirement annuity paid to an individual prior to age 62 is a non-
social security equivalent benefit and in the case of an employee who
retires at age 62, the amount by which his or her benefit would have
been reduced for early retirement under the Social Security Act is a
non-social security equivalent benefit. There are several other
categories of beneficiaries where the Tier I benefit exceeds the amount
that would be payable under the Social Security Act by reason of an
inconsistency in entitlement qualifications, but these categories
comprise only a small portion of the cost of non-social security
equivalent benefits.
As noted earlier, railroad retirement benefits are financed
primarily by taxes imposed on railroad employers and employees, by
financial interchange transfers from the social security trust funds,
and by trust fund earnings. In recent years, a portion of the railroad
retirement tax obligation of Amtrak has been paid on behalf of Amtrak
from funds appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation. These tax
payments from appropriated funds are designed to cover what Amtrak
alleges to be an ``excess'' railroad retirement tax obligation. The
alleged ``excess'' tax obligation is the amount of tax in excess of the
benefit payments made to Amtrak employees and their families. Let me
state here that it is the position of the Board that neither Amtrak nor
any other railroad pays an ``excess'' tax. As an employer under the
Railroad Retirement Tax Act, Amtrak is obligated to pay the full amount
of taxes imposed on railroad carrier employers just like all other
covered employers. Amtrak is treated no differently than any other rail
employer except that part of its tax obligation is paid by the
Secretary of Transportation out of appropriated funds.
As to the question concerning the appropriate method of calculating
Amtrak's so-called ``excess'' railroad retirement tax obligation, let
me make it clear that the Railroad Retirement Board has no
responsibility for making that calculation or for reviewing the
calculation once made. However, the Board has, since fiscal year 1992,
provided Amtrak with annual estimates of the benefits to be paid to
former employees of Amtrak and their families to assist in making this
determination. These estimates have been broken out by annuity
component as follows: 1) social security equivalent Tier I benefits; 2)
non-social security equivalent Tier I benefits; 3) Tier II and lump sum
benefits; 4) railroad retirement supplemental annuity payments; and 5)
railroad unemployment and sickness insurance benefits. Although the
Railroad Retirement Board has no responsibility with respect to the
method of computing the amount of Amtrak's so-called ``excess'' tax
obligation, it is the position of the Board that Amtrak's full tax
liability must be paid under any circumstance.
That concludes my prepared remarks. Mr. Buzzi and I would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Amtrak's Retirement and Tax Liability
Senator Shelby. Is Amtrak statutorily required to pay the
same retirement taxes that other railroads pay?
Mr. Bartholow. The simple answer is, yes. As a carrier
engaged in interstate commerce, Amtrak is an employer under the
Railroad Retirement Act, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Senator Shelby. What are those taxes? Can you explain the
employer and the employee shares that they pay?
Mr. Bartholow. OK. The basic employer tax under the
Railroad Retirement Tax Act is comprised of two parts. The tier
I tax is levied at the same rate and on the same amount of
compensation as taxable under the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act. The tier I tax rate currently is 7.65
percent, and the non-Medicare portion of this tax applies to
compensation up to $65,400 per year. That is the same for both
employers and employees for the tier I tax.
The employer tier II tax is levied at a rate of 16.1
percent and applies to compensation up to $48,600 per year. The
employee pays a tax of 4.9 percent on that same compensation
base.
Senator Shelby. When any railroad pays its retirement
taxes, does it go into a pool system like the Social Security
or do the taxes tie directly to that retirement's particular
employees, similar to a 401[k] plan in a private company?
Mr. Bartholow. All taxes collected under the Railroad
Retirement Tax Act are deposited to the railroad retirement
trust funds. In those funds they are commingled with taxes from
all other taxpayers and they are not designated for any
particular----
Senator Shelby. They are pooled, then.
Mr. Bartholow. They are pooled. They are not designated for
any particular employer or any particular employee.
Is Amtrak's Calculation of Excess Payments Accurate?
Senator Shelby. Mr. Buzzi, each year Amtrak requests $142
million for what the railroad represents to us as excess
payments, which Amtrak defines as the difference between their
tier II pension plan tax responsibilities and what the Railroad
Retirement Board pays to former Amtrak employees. If for the
sake of argument we assume that the excess payments construct
is legitimate, does Amtrak's calculation of these excess
payments accurately reflect all benefits paid by the Railroad
Retirement Board to Amtrak employees and, if not, how much and
what types of costs are they not including in their
calculations?
Mr. Buzzi. Sir, the calculation does not include an
estimated $18 million of non-SSEB tier I payments in fiscal
year 1998. These payments are made from the Railroad Retirement
Account to former Amtrak employees and their dependents, and
they are financed through tier II payroll taxes.
Senator Shelby. Is Amtrak leaving out $18 million in non-
Social Security equivalent benefit payments from their
calculations?
Mr. Buzzi. Yes; that calculation does not include the $18
million.
Senator Shelby. Thus underestimating the amount of benefits
that the Railroad Retirement Board pays out; is that correct?
Mr. Buzzi. It does not reflect all of the benefits paid out
of the Railroad Retirement Account, that is correct.
Senator Shelby. Since the Railroad Retirement Board
considers this a legitimate benefit, should it not be
considered an excess payment by Amtrak?
Mr. Buzzi. Based on my understanding of the calculation,
this is a payment that is made by the Railroad Retirement
Board, yes.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Adjusting Railroad Retirement Policy
Just to be certain that I understand it fully, can Amtrak
legally adjust its railroad retirement policy? Can it control
it?
Mr. Bartholow. From the tax standpoint?
Senator Lautenberg. Sure.
Mr. Bartholow. No, no; it is liable for the full amount of
the tax imposed under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there any relationship to your
knowledge whatsoever between the level of funding that we, this
subcommittee, provides Amtrak and the obligation of its annual
payment for railroad retirement?
Mr. Bartholow. None whatsoever. The amount of the tax
obligation of Amtrak--or the appropriation, rather, has no
bearing on the tax obligation of Amtrak.
Senator Lautenberg. We still owe that, that money?
Mr. Bartholow. Amtrak would owe whatever its tax obligation
is. Whatever appropriation would be made for that purpose and
paid on behalf of Amtrak would reduce that obligation by that
amount.
Senator Lautenberg. In the committee report accompanying
the transportation appropriation bill there is an assertion
that Amtrak has overstated its liability for railroad
retirement. The report says: ``It is clear to the committee
that the overpayment should be immediately discontinued,'' the
asserted overpayment.
Based on this directive in the committee report, will
Amtrak then have the flexibility to discontinue any part of its
annual payment to the railroad retirement?
Mr. Bartholow. No.
Senator Lautenberg. In order to limit Amtrak's railroad
retirement liability by the $61 million that has been deducted
from their operating grant, would we have to change the law?
Mr. Bartholow. Yes; you would have to amend the Railroad
Retirement Tax Act in some way, I guess, to relieve Amtrak of
some degree of its obligation and liability under that act.
Senator Lautenberg. If Amtrak is relieved of this $61
million liability, who would have to pick up the cost for the
retirees?
Mr. Bartholow. Well, Mr. Buzzi, do you want to address
that?
Mr. Buzzi. In the short term it is likely that railroad
retirement taxes would not need to be changed immediately,
although over the long term the benefits must be funded and in
the long term the benefit costs would be absorbed by the other
railroads. Ultimately, these costs would be absorbed.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Panel 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF HON. MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB LEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M. DOWNS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ACCOMPANIED BY TIM GILLESPIE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. I have another panel. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Honorable Jacob Lew, Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; the Honorable Mort Downey, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Tom Downs,
President and CEO, Amtrak. If you gentlemen would come forward.
Your written statements, if any, will be made part of the
record in their entirety and I will go right into some
questions.
Components of Amtrak's Operating Subsidy
Mr. Downey, what are the components of $61 million in
mandatory payments in the President's 1998 budget that the
House committee and the Senate subcommittee have not provided?
Mr. Downey. My understanding of that, Mr. Chairman, is that
they include employee contributions and another element of what
the Retirement Board people spoke to as the non-Social Security
equivalent benefit. But I would make the point that the request
from the administration was for a total operating subsidy to
Amtrak. In the total of $344 million, it included the ability
to use these toward mandatory or other retirement payments, but
did not specifically direct funds to those.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Lew, I am going to ask you the same
question. What are the components of the $61 million in
mandatory payments in the President's 1998 budget that the
House committee and the Senate subcommittee have not provided?
Mr. Lew. I would like to amplify Mr. Downey's answer. The
President's budget did not distinguish the different payments.
It calculated a subsidy payment for Amtrak----
Senator Shelby. Why did it not distinguish?
Mr. Lew. The calculation of the Amtrak subsidy relates to
the expenses paid by Amtrak and the expected revenue. As the
previous witnesses and as Senator Lautenberg noted in his
introductory remarks, the technical distinction being made as
to where these payments should be categorized in no way affects
the bottomline. It does not affect the subsidy amount required
by Amtrak to prevent bankruptcy.
So we fundamentally do not have a difference in opinion as
to what the total amount needed is.
Senator Shelby. But we have a difference on what you say
the funds can be used for, though.
Mr. Lew. Well, if I may, a lot of discussion has been had
around a letter dated May 23----
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Lew. A paragraph of which is posted there. I fear that
the letter has been read very selectively. The letter
underscored the budget request and the need for the full budget
request. The fact that there is a difference in how to
categorize certain funds is really a technical scoring issue,
which we do have some differences about. OMB has a view that
perhaps is different from Amtrak's. It is an issue that in no
way affects the bottomline.
Amtrak's Requirements
We were asked a very specific question. We responded to it.
The answer has now been taken out of context. In no way has OMB
ever suggested that there has been any exaggeration in Amtrak's
requirements, and the $61 million is very much necessary.
The analogy that Senator Lautenberg made is a very
appropriate one. We would be moving it from one box to another,
but Amtrak needs that $61 million. The payments to the Railroad
Retirement Board are statutory. You would have to go in and
amend the Railroad Retirement Tax Act and a decision would have
to be made on how to allocate that burden to other payers. It
is not impossible to do that, but the appropriations language
does not do that. It would have the effect of leaving Amtrak
short of cash.
Senator Shelby. Well, we understand that. But what we are
trying to do is, if you say something is something, it ought to
be that.
Legitimacy of Amtrak's Characterization of Excess Payments
Are these components legitimately within the definition of
excess payments and not otherwise financed?
Mr. Lew. Our view is that the excess payment is part of the
analysis. The question of benefit is part of the analysis. We
see there as being employee benefit. We therefore categorize it
differently. But we in no way question----
Senator Shelby. Why do you categorize it differently?
Mr. Lew. The question is whether a tax is being paid on
behalf of an employee. If it is being paid on behalf of an
employee, there is presumed to be benefit to the employee and
it is treated as a current operating expense. That is a view.
There is a legitimate difference here. It is a difference
that in no way suggests that Amtrak has in any way cooked its
books or created an obligation that does not exist. It is not
relevant if there is a single appropriation for operating
expenses. For example, if you were truly to conform to the
letter that Director Raines sent, you would perhaps decrease
your appropriation by $61 million in one place and increase it
by $61 million in another place.
It is a legitimate expense of Amtrak. The fact that it fits
in a different box in no way undermines the legitimacy of the
payment. It is a payment due under the Railroad Retirement
Acts.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Lew. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacob Lew
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am
Jack Lew, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. After
my brief statement I will be happy to answer your questions.
This past Tuesday, the Subcommittee met to consider the
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies. As part of this consideration, the Subcommittee addressed the
question of the appropriate level of operating assistance for Amtrak.
During both this Subcommittee's and the House Appropriations
Committee's consideration of operating assistance for Amtrak, questions
have arisen about a May 23, 1997, letter written by OMB Director Frank
Raines to Chairwoman Susan Molinari of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads. This letter discussed the
technical question of how to best measure the increment between
Amtrak's corporate liability for contributions to the Railroad
Retirement Board and benefits received by retirees who are not Amtrak
employees. I ask that a copy of this letter be made an official part of
the Subcommittee's record in considering this issue.
We stand behind the May 23, 1997, letter. This letter states that
Amtrak needs $344 million in operating assistance in fiscal year 1998.
In that letter, while explaining the technical details of Amtrak's
contributions to the Railroad Retirement Board, we emphatically and
strongly reaffirmed our support for the full $344 million in operating
funds for Amtrak in fiscal year 1998. Director Raines wrote:
``These funds are an integral part of Amtrak's efforts to
remain viable. Although we differ with Amtrak over the minor
technical issues you raise in your March 19 letter, our
differences in no way affect our commitment to the funding
level sought in the President's budget.''
Portions of this May 23 letter have been cited by the House
Appropriations Committee and this Subcommittee to support an operating
level for Amtrak in fiscal year 1998 of $283 million, or $61 million
lower than we seek in the President's budget. These citations of the
May 23 letter are selective and do not accurately represent the
Administration's position.
The May 23 letter notes that Amtrak mistakenly includes certain
expenses of doing business in the category of so-called ``excess
retirement'' costs. The letter notes that these expenses are salary
costs for Amtrak but not salary costs properly allocated to the so-
called ``excess retirement'' category. Accordingly, even though Amtrak
has misclassified these costs and allocated them to the ``wrong''
category, these costs remain expenses of the Corporation and the total
expenses of the Corporation remain unchanged.
In determining how much operating support Amtrak needs in fiscal
year 1998, the Administration, in formulating its budget, evaluated the
gap between Amtrak's projected revenues and expenses. In 1998, as in
every year where the Federal government has provided operating
subsidies to Amtrak, the operating assistance is meant to help close
the gap between Amtrak's expenses and revenues. This assistance is not
the only way we expect Amtrak to try to close the gap between expenses
and revenues. We expect Amtrak to pursue new business opportunities
such as the recently signed deal to lease use of the Northeast Corridor
for telecommunications ventures and to cut expenses by pursuing
efficiencies in business activities. Nevertheless, regardless of the
steps Amtrak takes to close this gap (whether cost cutting, or revenue
increases), each dollar of the $344 million in Federal assistance goes
to close the gap.
As part of Amtrak's expenses, it must, under current law, like all
railroads, remit tax payments to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) to
cover the costs of the corporation's share of railroad retirement taxes
and it must remit tax payments to the RRB to cover amounts withheld
from employees' paychecks to fund retirement benefits. Amtrak must
remit over $300 million each year to the Railroad Retirement Board. The
size of this remittance will not change regardless of the level of
operating support provided by this Subcommittee and regardless of how
Amtrak characterizes its corporate liability to the Railroad Retirement
Board. The amount of this remittance is calculated under the provisions
of the Railroad Retirement Act.
The decision by this Subcommittee and the House Appropriations
Committee to reduce Amtrak's operating level by $61 million below that
level sought by the President guarantees that some expense, whether a
portion of the over $300 million owed to the Railroad Retirement Board,
a portion of the millions of dollars in costs of train operations, a
portion of the millions of dollars in costs of facilities operations,
or a portion of the millions of dollars in other costs, will not be
met. The failure to fund this $61 million places Amtrak in jeopardy of
not being able to carry out its planned operations for fiscal year
1998. The consequences of not funding this $61 million could result in
the insolvency of Amtrak--at a cost to the taxpayers far greater than
the $61 million in dispute.
Our appropriations request recognizes an essential fact--the $344
million total operating assistance amount is fungible. Our request for
$344 million in operating assistance goes only part way in permitting
Amtrak to cover its expenses of doing business. Because these funds are
fungible, we anticipate that the $344 million in funds would cover a
series of expenses owed by Amtrak. Our proposed appropriations language
does not earmark portions of the operating assistance to cover specific
expenses--whether they be train operations, employee salaries,
advertising costs, or costs owed to the Railroad Retirement Board.
Let me add one more point--we feel that our May 23, 1997, letter
accurately describes the amount that Amtrak's liability to the Railroad
Retirement System exceeds the benefits received by non-Amtrak
employees. We do not think that Amtrak's description in its budget
submission to Congress is completely accurate. As we stated there,
Amtrak's inclusion, as part of its calculation of its corporate
liability for railroad retirement taxes, improperly included $43
million in payments for which employees are liable. We view Amtrak as
acting as a withholding agent in this case and that these withholdings
are liabilities of the employees, not Amtrak. Further, we feel that
Amtrak has improperly excluded, as part of the calculation of benefits
received by its employees, $18 million in so-called non-Social Security
Equivalent Benefits which are paid to Amtrak retirees. The inclusion of
the $43 million in employee liabilities and the exclusion of the $18
million in retiree benefits has led to Amtrak overstating the level of
excess retirement benefits by $61 million.
Even so, Amtrak, OMB, and DOT share a common view that Amtrak has
enormous costs of doing business and that it cannot meet them through
its revenues alone. The $344 million in operating assistance the
President seeks is the appropriate level. We hope this Subcommittee
will agree. With only $283 million in operating assistance, not the
$344 million in federal operating assistance sought in the President's
budget, we do not think that the necessary funds will be available to
support the current national passenger rail system.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and full committee
in identifying possible offsets within the Committee's mark to allow
full funding of Amtrak's operating needs. This full funding is
necessary to avoid the unacceptable alternative of possible insolvency.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
Amtrak's Calculation of Excess Payments
Senator Shelby. Mr. Gillespie, what are the components of
the $61 million in mandatory payments in the 1998 budget that
the House committee and the Senate subcommittee have not
provided?
Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Chairman, first let me apologize.
Senator Shelby. That is OK.
Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Downs was called to another meeting in
the Senate, but he should be on his way back.
The way Mr. Lew calculated this is very similar to the way
we would describe it. We have an Amtrak tier II payment that is
called Amtrak's liability. That is about $138.5 million
estimated for fiscal year 1998. The employer tier II tax
liability is about $42.1 million for fiscal year 1998. And the
Amtrak supplemental tax liability is about $17.8 million. The
total tier II is about $198 million or about $200 million that
we pay.
We then subtract the amount that is paid to Amtrak
beneficiaries. That is about $57 million.
The two things that you talked to the other witnesses
about, with respect to the $60 million, is that $42 million and
about $18 million that we did pay, and that we include in our
calculation, and that is done by Amtrak primarily as a result
of the House Appropriations Committee report language that, if
you have not seen it, I will read the one or two sentences that
describe that calculation. This is fiscal year 1991 DOT
appropriations bill report. It says:
``The committee directs Amtrak to then estimate the total
amount of Amtrak payments into the two trust accounts and to
provide the committee with its estimate of excess railroad
retirement'' and then they say parenthetically ``Tier II and
supplemental benefits''--``payments and railroad unemployment
insurance benefits.''
That is the basis that we used to calculate this payment
since 1991, and that calculation is what we have been
submitting to this committee since then.
Accuracy of Budget Justification Presentation
Senator Shelby. Do you believe that the budget
justifications that have been provided to this subcommittee
accurately reflect these components?
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Do you, Mr. Downey?
Mr. Downey. Yes; they do, and they have been consistent
over the years.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Lew?
Mr. Lew. I think that the budget itself----
Senator Shelby. Would it not be better to say what things
are more accurate, and there would be no misunderstanding?
Mr. Lew. Sometimes there is a distinction that does not
make a difference, and I think this is a case where it is a
distinction that for the purpose of the appropriation does not
make a difference. We have a lot of technical discussions----
Senator Shelby. Why does it not make a difference?
Mr. Lew. It would make a difference if it affected the
bottomline requirements of Amtrak. But since it does not, it is
a question of scoring and obligation. The budget itself, the
fat appendix document, does not break it out. The only place it
is broken out is in a supporting document which is submitted by
the agency.
There has for years been a discussion about how this should
be treated. We have never stopped the agency from sending that
up. The fact that there is an ongoing discussion of how it
should be treated is important and were there to be a policy
decision to move it from a discretionary to a mandatory it
would be relevant. Should there be a decision to decrease the
amount of the total appropriation and to allocate it between
the two different accounts, it would be relevant.
But if it is appropriated as a single amount, it is not
relevant, which is what we proposed in the President's budget.
So yes, we think that the representations that have been made
are correct. There are technical issues on how to support the
$344 million that reasonable people can discuss without
changing the conclusion that $344 million is the right number.
Senator Shelby. So basically you are saying that the budget
justification does not make a difference? That is what we use
to appropriate Federal funds, is it not?
Mr. Lew. Oh, no, no; I would never say that the budget
justification does not make a difference. But I would suggest
that there is----
Senator Shelby. Well, what are you saying if you are not?
Mr. Lew. There is often detail provided in the budget
justification that is of technical significance that does not
affect the bottomline requirement of dollars, and were the
budget justification to change and were that $61 million
reallocated to another category the bottomline total would not
change by one penny. So it is a difference, but it is a
difference that does not really change the bottomline. It just
moves the categories. The subtotals would be different; the
total would be the same.
Senator Shelby. But should not in the budget we reflect
what things are really for? I guess that is what I am getting
at.
Mr. Lew. Well, I think that----
Senator Shelby. Rather than come up with some term that
probably confuses.
Mr. Lew. I think we agree on this, Senator Shelby. To the
extent that we were asked a question by Congresswoman Molinari,
we answered it very directly. If we had realized what we were
getting into, maybe we should not have answered it so directly,
because frankly I feel like our words are being twisted and
used against us.
Our letter clearly said that we strongly support our
original budget and that the technical issue we were addressing
has nothing to do with the bottomline requirements of Amtrak.
The quote on the wall is being repeated over and over and over
again, mischaracterizing the administration's position. That,
frankly, is more troubling to me than the question of the
technical characterization of details in a justification that
do not change the bottomline requirement.
This is a tempest in a teapot. There is no issue here.
Increased Clarity Needed
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, would it have helped, do
you think, if we had a separate line with the operating
expenses that indicated the cost for the railroad retirement?
Senator Shelby. Sure it would help. I think, Senator
Lautenberg, anything would help that would keep us out of being
confused or thinking we were misled in any way. Clarity of
writing, clarity of budget, is very important, not only to us
as appropriators, but to the people who interpret these
documents, including writing letters. Right?
Mr. Lew. Sure, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. You use technical detail in the
justification for $42 million that is being paid for by the
employees; is that what you are using?
Mr. Lew. Well, there are several different documents that
went up. The Federal Railroad Administration budget contained
the aggregate totals the way the budget did. There were other
documents that came out that broke it out differently, which
drew this distinction that the larger budget documents did not.
The issue as the representatives from the Railroad
Retirement Board set them out are really the issue, and the
question is are these or are these not benefits to the
employee? And if they are benefits they belong on one side of
the line; if they are not benefits, they belong on the other.
I think we probably do have a little bit of a difference
between OMB's view of which side of the line they should go on
as opposed to perhaps Amtrak's. But the reason I say it is a
distinction without a difference is we agree that the dollars
are there.
Senator Shelby. That is a good phrase, a distinction
without a difference. But oftentimes it does make a difference.
It makes a difference on what line it is because we interpret
it differently.
Mr. Lew. It may be that this technical difference has led
to a misinterpretation, and that is why we are testifying here
today.
Senator Shelby. Well, how do we straighten this out?
Clarity is very important, is it not?
Mr. Lew. I think the way to straighten it out, frankly, is
to start with the bottomline and work up, because the way the
budget is constructed for Amtrak, it does not take account of
all of the--it is not worked from all the details down. We look
at a stream of expenses for Amtrak. We look at a stream of
revenues for Amtrak. The stream of expenses are governed by in
this case the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, which puts an
obligation on Amtrak, which unless Congress amends the Railroad
Retirement Tax Act, they have to pay.
Now, how you categorize some of the payments under the
Railroad Retirement Tax Act has caused some confusion. We say
that there is a benefit, therefore it is an expense. Others say
there is not a benefit, therefore it is excess retirement
costs. It does not change the fact that the tax is due.
If I have a tax due and I disagree with my accountant as to
what line of the 1040 it should go on, it does not mean I do
not owe the tax. I owe the tax. Amtrak owes this tax. It pays
the tax. All we are discussing is which side of the ledger to
put it on.
If Congress wants to get into the issue of how much taxes
Amtrak should pay, it is a very complicated policy question.
You will be faced, or the authorizing committee would be faced,
with decisions as to how to allocate a burden. There is no
doubt that Amtrak is paying part of the cost of the retirement
of employees who are not Amtrak employees, who are not there
now. That is true at other railroads as well. Should the tax
not be paid by Amtrak, the tax would still ultimately have to
be paid and the implicit assumption is that it would be shifted
to other freight carriers. That may be a decision Congress
wants to make, but it is a policy decision of some consequence
in terms of our transportation policy.
I would suggest that the question of how Amtrak should
internally book its tax payments is a very different one from
what the amount of the tax payment is and what the consequences
to the Railroad Retirement Board would be if the tax was not
paid, and the issues have been conflated. The question of how
Amtrak books it internally has been turned into should Amtrak
pay it, and that is an error. Amtrak has to pay it and nothing
we have ever said suggests otherwise.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Since I have 10 minutes, if either of the three of you or
all three of you would like to make a 2-minute statement, I
would be happy to have it, and then answer my questions quickly
thereafter. Anybody?
Mr. Downs, welcome. And Downey is not little Downs.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Downs. It is a diminutive.
Senator Lautenberg. We have Downs, now we have Downey.
Mr. Downs. It is the Irish factor.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there anything that you would like
to say in capsule form?
Mr. Downs. I did have my statement entered into the record
and the only thing that I would add is that, however this came
to be, I considered it to be nothing more than a tempest in a
teapot when it started because I believed then, I believe now,
we were following in best of intentions the direction given us
by the House Appropriations Committee in language in fiscal
year 1991.
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Mr. Downs. We have had that reaffirmed every year. As I
said half in jest, that if I am in this much trouble as a
corporation for having tried to follow the language direction
in an appropriations bill, I promise I will not do it again.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Downs. We will insert your
complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas M. Downs
Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate your taking
the time to allow us to fully explain the impact of the proposed
funding level for Amtrak operating support and Excess Railroad
Retirement payments (RRTA), as provided in both the House and Senate
Fiscal Year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations bills.
First, as a matter of public policy, I see no reason why Amtrak
should have to provide any funds to pay for retirement benefits for
railroad employees who never worked for Amtrak. These obligations are
totally unrelated to Amtrak and the business of providing a national
passenger service.
The reality, however, is that the Internal Revenue Code mandates
that in fiscal year 1998 Amtrak remit an estimated $342 million in RRTA
payments: $140 million in Tier I and $202 million in Tier II. By law,
this obligation must be met. (26 USC Section 3221, and 45 USC Section
231 et seq.)
The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will provide approximately $200
million of this amount to Amtrak retirees. The additional $142 million
will go to railroad retirees who did not retire from, and perhaps never
worked a day for, Amtrak.
Amtrak has no discretion in paying these obligations--it is a
mandatory payment--and the retirees, by law, are entitled to receive
it. Unless this Committee is ready to amend the Internal Revenue Code,
it is a federal government obligation, and Amtrak is currently used as
the conduit to meet those legal obligations.
Of the total payment, Amtrak will be paying an estimated $60
million in Tier II taxes for its own employees. The rest--the
additional $142 million will be going to support the retirees of other
railroads. Everyone here today should recognize excess mandatory
payments as a substantial, albeit indirect, subsidy to the profitable
freight railroad industry. As I think everyone here understands,
payments to the Railroad Retirement Board are based on the current
number of employees that are on the payroll. Between mergers,
downsizing and the freight railroads contracting out work, those with a
more stable work force (i.e., the publicly supported passenger
railroads like Amtrak and the commuter operations) absorb the brunt of
these so-called excess railroad retirement costs. Everyone here should
understand if we want to minimize taxpayer exposure for passenger
operations, we should not ask the federal government to subsidize non-
Amtrak retirement costs.
It is interesting to note that the pending merger which divides
Conrail between CSX and Norfolk Southern will result in thousands of
fewer railroad workers, and hence a loss of funds being paid into the
Railroad Retirement Fund.
The fact is, Amtrak must abide by the current legal mandates. We
advocate changing it. However, as long as it remains unchanged, no
matter how these payments are categorized, our tax liability remains
the same.
These payments can be characterized as ``Excess Mandatory
Payments'', as they have been both in Appropriations bills and in
Budget Requests submitted by this and previous Administrations. They
can be characterized as operating support, which they have been, both
in Appropriations bills and in Budget Requests submitted by this and
previous Administrations. However, no matter how you characterize them
the amount will not change, nor will the liability go away.
Amtrak calculates its excess mandatory payment in accordance with
the direction of House Committee Report 101-584, which accompanied
passage of H.R. 5229, the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1991. It was then that the
House Transportation Subcommittee recognized that these payments
represented a cost that had nothing to do with the operation of
passenger trains. It was simply a federal formula to determine
payments.
In that Report Amtrak was directed by the Committee to: ``estimate
the total amount of Amtrak payments into the (Retirement) trust
account(s) and to provide to the Committee an estimate of excess
Railroad Retirement (Tier II and Supplemental benefit) payments . . .
for the next fiscal year.'' (emphasis added)
Amtrak did that for the next fiscal year, and every year
thereafter. This was directed by the Congress, and remained
unquestioned by either the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
the Department of Transportation. Seven years later, a question is
being raised as to whether or not the employee and the employer
contribution should both be counted as a corporate liability. Amtrak
read at that time, and still reads, ``total'' to mean both the employee
and the employer Tier II contributions.
If Amtrak were to be terminated, net railroad employment would
probably decrease by the full number of Amtrak employees, and all Tier
II payments now made by Amtrak would cease. But Railroad Retirement
benefits to all former rail employees would continue. Hence Amtrak
views the measure of its subsidy to the freight railroad retirement
system as including both the employer and employee share of Tier II.
More important, however, is that when OMB did raise the question of
employee contribution being included or excluded from the calculation,
they did not ever dispute that this is a cost of running Amtrak--a cash
outlay that Amtrak is required to make. In fact, they have strongly
reiterated this in the May 23 letter, in the Statement of
Administration Policy on the House Transportation Appropriations bill,
and again today.
If this Committee feels that the Tier II employee contribution
should not be part of the calculation, Amtrak will no longer include
it. But what has to be realized is that this will not make that cost go
away. Amtrak is liable for the $60 million, whether it's in the
``operating'' column or the Excess Mandatory RRTA'' column.
The appropriate action to take in this case, if the Committee
changes the methodology for calculating Excess RRTA payments, is to
provide the requested level of funding for this year and begin the new
methodology as part of the President's budget request for fiscal year
1999. The implications for Amtrak are of course far reaching: our
Strategic Business Plan has us achieving operating self-sufficiency
based on a number of assumptions--one of those assumption being the
continued provision of full funding for excess mandatory payments. If
this is to become an additional operating expense, the glidepath in our
Plan must be adjusted accordingly in order for us to still be able to
reach operating self-sufficiency in 2002.
The single most disastrous action this Committee could take is to
decide, mid-stride, to change the methodology, reduce mandatory excess
railroad retirement, and not increase the operating grant by a
commensurate amount for fiscal year 1998.
Amtrak has requested $245 million for an operating grant for fiscal
year 1998, and we need every penny of it. Right now this Subcommittee
is providing $141 million. I can tell you that we will not survive
fiscal year 1998--we will not have a national passenger rail system--on
October 1, 1998.
I hope the Subcommittee will take that into account as you move
toward mark-up by the full Committee on Tuesday.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12JY17.047
Amtrak's Financial Integrity
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Downey, is there anything?
Mr. Downey. Let me just associate myself with the point
that Mr. Lew made. Amtrak needs these funds. The President's
request for $344 million was based on what it needs to keep the
railroad in its present form operating. However we categorize
any of these payments, they are essential to the level of
service that we think is necessary.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Lew, do you want to?
Mr. Lew. I have indicated what our view is, but I would
just underscore what Mr. Downey just said. We should not lose
sight of what the issue really is here. The issue is not $61
million. The issue is the financial integrity of Amtrak. We
would welcome a discussion of the technical matters and to
reach an understanding of how to deal with them. But we should
separate the issues and one ought not to be used as a means to
another end.
If the end is to reduce Amtrak's fiscal viability, that is
a very different question from how you score payments on their
ledger.
Senator Lautenberg. I agree, and I think, in deference to
the chairman's request, he defines it as clarity. And I think
you folks have to understand that in that request of his is to
say: Hey, fellows, take it easy, show us what part is railroad
retirement, show us what part is current operations, and let us
decide, as opposed to having to make a case over what really is
very, very little in my view.
If we did not, Mr. Downey, if we reduced that $344 million
to something one-half that, less than that, what would be the
first call on the money? Would it be the railroad retirement
obligation?
Mr. Downey. That would have to be paid ahead of anything
else, and the ability to pay that and keep operating would call
into question the solvency of the railroad.
Senator Lautenberg. So that demonstrates, I think, what
happens. They have tended to lump all the current costs
together and so it helped to make some confusion here, but I
think that is easily straightened out.
Did Amtrak, Mr. Downs, or DOT for that matter, ever seek a
legal opinion as to whether or not it was proper for Amtrak to
account for employee contributions as part of the excess
payments? If so, what was the determination?
Mr. Downs. I believe there was--I understand there was such
a determination from U.S. DOT. I am not familiar with it, but--
--
Mr. Downey. Senator, during the years in which the Congress
specifically appropriated funds for excess railroad retirement
based on calculations similar to those that have been presented
this year, the Department did look at the legality of making
the payments under those calculations and gave a legal opinion
that these were appropriate uses of the funds as appropriated.
Senator Lautenberg. The term ``excess payments,'' it even
sounds like it is a bonus or something like that. I do not know
whether we could change the terminology, but the fact is that
it is a requirement under law and we have little or nothing to
do about it except to say to the railroad: OK, stop operating
and we will continue with those obligations.
Costs of Amtrak Bankruptcy
As a matter of fact, one of the questions I wanted to ask
Mr. Lew--as I mentioned at the markup on Tuesday, we had seen
widely varying estimates of the cost to the taxpayer of Amtrak
bankruptcy. Estimates range from $3 to $10 billion. That is
quite a spread. Has OMB taken an independent look at this
question and, if so, could you venture any kind of an opinion
as to what realistically that figure might be?
Mr. Lew. Senator Lautenberg, I cannot give you an exact
number. I have not seen an estimate. If we have done one, I
would be happy to get it to you.
We have discussed the consequences, which would be very
severe. It would be very disruptive to the transportation
system. It would be very unfortunate as a policy outcome. The
dollars are something we could perhaps calculate, but it is
certainly the purpose of our budget proposals to prevent any
kind of a situation that would call into question the fiscal
viability.
Senator Lautenberg. The damage to the transportation system
would be severe. Just again in capsule form, if you could tell
me why? Where would the severity be felt?
Mr. Lew. I would defer to Mr. Downey in terms of
transportation policy.
Mr. Downey. Across the country service would be limited and
access would be denied.
Senator Lautenberg. Limited on the railroad?
Mr. Downey. Right, and denied to many communities. In the
Northeast in particular, the consequences would be severe
because Amtrak is the host railroad not only for its own
services, but for a variety of commuter lines which, if Amtrak
were unable to make its payments, might be unable to operate
their services.
Senator Lautenberg. So the severity, however, would be how
else do I get there, how else do they get there? I think it is
10,000 DC-9's to fly between here and Boston. The roads would
be impossible. And of course, one need not talk about air
quality these days to know what might happen.
I want to just make a point here. Mr. Downs, as we entered
the subcommittee markup on Tuesday, your operating grant was
almost $200 million, or 51 percent below the level you
requested. The chairman, who has tried hard to work with all of
us, agreed at the markup to increase the funding level to $283
million, which is still $104 million or 27 percent below the
request.
If you are required to live with a final funding level of
$283 million, what will be the impact on Amtrak's operations
next year and what is the likelihood of further route
eliminations or a complete shutdown of the railroad?
Mr. Downs. Senator, we will end this year with, our best
projection is right now, negative, net negative cash of $82
million. We will borrow that from commercial banks. It means
that we start over by taking one-half of our operating grant at
the beginning of the year. If these operating numbers stay the
way they are, one-half of our operating grant would equal the
amount of money that we would need to pay off our temporary
financing at the end of the year.
It would leave us with zero operating subsidy. We would
probably run out of cash in January or February. That is
called, the technical term is, ``bankruptcy,'' and there are
provisions that automatically click in after that, in law, that
would force the liquidation of the company. I hate saying
things like that because it sounds a lot like what people
normally come to the committee and say: If we do not get the
funding we will have to turn the lights out on the Washington
Monument.
In this case we have bankers that own a lot of our
commercial paper. We have short-term financing obligations to
commercial banks. Those are all marketplace decisions and those
decisions then rest in the private sector, not in the public
sector, about outcome.
I cannot tell you that I could make, in all honesty, that I
could figure out now how to make the company work longer than
January, February if these numbers turn out to be the final
operating numbers. We have been underfunded under the budget
agreement for the last 3 years. Our net underfunding on our
business plan was $150 million. We have eaten $70 million of
that so far in additional plan actions. We are running out of
rabbits. As a matter of fact, I think we have eaten all the
rabbits. We cannot make it at this number.
Amtrak's National Ridership
Senator Lautenberg. I would make mention of something.
During Tuesday's markup, there was a lot of discussion as to
whether Amtrak performs any valuable service outside the
Northeast. Since that time I have had a chance to review
Amtrak's ridership figures and was surprised to see, Mr.
Chairman, how many people ride Amtrak in other regions of the
country.
In the West, for example, California has more than 6
million Amtrak riders. Oregon has one-half of a million. The
State of Washington, almost 700,000. In the South, Virginia and
Florida have about as many riders as New Jersey. And in the
Midwest, Illinois has almost 3 million riders, Michigan 1.5
million, Missouri and Wisconsin each about 400,000.
In your experience, Mr. Downs, have the long-distance
trains outside the Northeast seen any increase in ridership?
Mr. Downs. They are increasing in ridership. Our year to
date over last year ridership is up about 3 percent and
revenues are up about 9 percent over the same period last year.
But I would also speak to what other members of this body
have told me about the value of long-distance service around
the United States. Senator Burns has told me a number of times
how valuable this service is for isolated rural communities in
Montana. That is not necessarily reflected in the numbers, but
it is important about the economies in places like Cut Bank,
MT, or Havre, MT.
I hear the same thing from North Dakota. In particular, I
hear from Senator Lott the value of this service to
Mississippi, where he has said without a national system
Mississippi and the Nation could not support a Northeast
corridor, because there is a balance here about a national
transportation system and national investments. He has said
Amtrak is an important part of the economic future of
Mississippi.
Those speak, I think, to other issues than simply the gross
ridership numbers. It is about small urban and rural America on
longer distance lines.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
The ridership in New Jersey on and off, 1,250,000 people.
So that we have Virginia and Florida with about as many riders
as that. To close my session, Mr. Chairman, Utah, where Senator
Bennett was talking the other night about the very late--the
other day about the very late night passengers who get on or
off in some remote places. There were 55,000 movements on
Amtrak in Utah for the year 1995.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the case is at least cleared
and that we will be able to take a second look. Once again, I
do want to thank you. The chairman has tried to be helpful. He
has got a tough assignment looking for little kernels where the
corn has hardly grown. So we are where we are.
Are Some Retirement Expenses Double-Counted?
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
What I have heard today is that, of the remaining $61
million between the current subcommittee mark for Amtrak
operating assistance and the President's budget request level,
that there is some question as to whether the money is
justified for the purpose for which it was requested, in other
words clarity. I know you go to the bottomline, all of you. You
did, Mr. Lew.
To review, under the excess payment construct offered by
Amtrak $18 million of the $61 million is related to an
understatement of benefits being provided by the Railroad
Retirement Board to retirees of Amtrak. We have heard from the
Railroad Retirement Board that Amtrak's calculation fails to
recognize all the benefits currently being provided to Amtrak
retirees.
So even if we buy this concept of excess payments, you
know, call it that, whatever, Amtrak I believe is overstating
the size of the amount.
Second, the remaining $43 million relates to the current
tax liabilities that are mandated by statute to be paid by
employees. Appropriating the $43 million would be, I think,
like appropriating funds to Senators' offices to pay for their
employees' share of Social Security taxes. To provide that
funding to Amtrak would be reimbursing Amtrak for a cost that
the corporation does not bear liability for. This looks like
budget padding to me.
It is not clear to me. I used the word ``clarity.''
Mr. Lew. Senator Shelby, could I try to clarify that?
Senator Shelby. Let me finish and then I will recognize
you.
I believe it is inappropriate to ask the taxpayers to pay
Amtrak for costs that are already borne by Amtrak's employees
or for a miscalculation. I would hope that Amtrak's budget
justification will provide in the future a clearer--clarity--
justification of what appropriations are to be used for. I
think that is important, clarity. You know, you say the
bottomline is the same, but it is a confusing presentation.
Go ahead, Mr. Lew.
Purpose of Funds Must Be Clearer
Mr. Lew. That is a point well taken and we should all do as
good a job as we can on all the budget justifications to give
the committee and all the subcommittees the understanding that
they deserve in terms of what the purpose of the dollars are.
Senator Shelby. Help us and help the staff and help the
public understand what this expenditure is for, is it
justified, and the clarity of what it is really for.
Mr. Lew. The difference between those two elements is very
important. The payment is justified. There is no doubt the
payment is justified. If Amtrak has withheld as an employer, it
still has to make a payment. The employee contribution is made
by all employers--small businesses, large businesses, Amtrak.
The payment goes from Amtrak to the Railroad Retirement Board.
When I say it is the bottomline, if you are looking at the
total dollars that Amtrak pays and the total revenue that
Amtrak brings in, there has to be enough to cover it. That is
why it really does not make a difference whether one defines it
as being a current expense, an operating expense, or as an
excess payment in terms of the fact that the dollar has to be
paid. It does make a difference in terms of the understanding,
yes.
Senator Shelby. It does make a difference in clarity.
Mr. Lew. Yes.
Senator Shelby. It might not--just for the sake of
argument, if I picked up your words, it might not make a
difference on the bottomline. It might or it might not; I do
not know. But it does make a difference of what you call
something. It is not always what you call it, but what it is.
Mr. Lew. I would welcome a discussion of how this
categorization should work. I just do not want to leave any
room for misunderstanding. Our view is that the obligation is
there.
Senator Shelby. That is why we are having this hearing
today.
Mr. Downs.
Mr. Downs. Mr. Chairman, you know, there has been a lot of
concern about whether or not we have accurately characterized
these costs. I also want to, though, go back to the exact
language in the fiscal year 1991 appropriations act. It says:
The committee directs Amtrak to estimate the total amount
of Amtrak payments into the two trust fund accounts and to
provide to the committee its estimate of excess Railroad
Retirement [Tier II and supplemental benefit] payments and
railroad unemployment insurance benefits and repayment tax
payments for the next fiscal year.
We have followed that language. If the committee chooses to
change that language, I think that is more than appropriate and
I would welcome a clarification through the Appropriations
Committee language to put this issue to rest.
We have done our best to try to adhere to that language
direction and the appropriations bill. We have done nothing
other than that in the characterization of these costs. If we
have erred, it was not continually raising this language
direction from the Appropriations Committees back to Amtrak to
get a reconfirmation. But we have had reconfirmation through
the administration, through the U.S. DOT, of the
appropriateness of this characterization.
It is appropriate for this committee to decide how those
costs are classified, and I would welcome a clarification.
Senator Lautenberg. May I just say this, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. In 1991 when I was chairman, I did
provide a separate appropriation using the current calculation.
The House agreed to this approach, the current approach, and
that is why Amtrak continues the budget this way.
So we heard from the chairman. I submit: Do not argue; do.
Amtrak's Obligation Under Current Law
Senator Shelby. Mr. Lew, help me here. Is what you are
saying, is it that we could save the employees' share of the
tax liability if someone other than Amtrak withheld the tax?
Mr. Lew. I am saying, as with any tax, policy can be made
to reallocate tax burden. Under the current law, under the
current law Amtrak has no choice. It has to pay the tax that is
due. I am not recommending that Congress----
Senator Shelby. Let me ask you this. Are we really
reimbursing Amtrak for something that we should not be
reimbursing them for? It looks that way.
Mr. Lew. No; I do not think so. I think that----
Senator Shelby. Why?
Mr. Lew. When Congress wrote and the Railroad Retirement
Tax Act was enacted into law, it set up a tax system to fund
the railroad retirement payments. Amtrak is paying its share of
that, just as any other carrier is. There are some freight
carriers who are paying more than they should, I am sure, than
others, or they would argue that they are paying more than they
should.
Senator Shelby. Are the employees paying their share, too?
Mr. Lew. Well, in any system, just like Social Security,
where there are employee withholdings, the employees are paying
their share and it is being remitted through the employer.
Senator Lautenberg. How much of this is transmitting
withheld deductions?
Mr. Lew. I can give you the numbers if you would like,
Senators. The total amount that Amtrak pays as an employer, as
a corporation, is $230.5 million. The total amount of payment
by Amtrak as a withholding agent is $113.1 million.
Senator Lautenberg. That is employees' money----
Mr. Lew. That Amtrak is withholding.
Senator Lautenberg. Deducted from their wages----
Mr. Lew. Correct.
Senator Lautenberg. And forwarded. You are a custodian
simply in that?
Mr. Lew. Just like any other employer. It is against the
law not to pass on the payments that are withheld, so Amtrak
has no choice.
Senator Lautenberg. You are a custodian. You are not asking
for more money here because of that?
Mr. Lew. No, no; it would require rewriting and
reallocating the burden of paying for the Railroad Retirement
System, which I would submit is fairly substantial policy. I am
not an expert on it. I do not know how I would recommend such
an issue be addressed.
I would just say that it is not a question of Amtrak having
any choice. They are bound under the current tax law, and all
we are saying is that if they have to pay the tax that goes
into their outlays, and when we calculate the subsidy required
it is part of the calculation.
Clarity in Budget Presentation Needed
Senator Shelby. Mr. Lew, is it not important, though, to
have clarity?
Mr. Lew. I agree about clarity.
Senator Shelby. Now how are we going to get it?
Mr. Lew. We would be delighted to pursue this with your
staff.
Senator Shelby. Work with the staff.
Mr. Lew. Yes; absolutely. We have always been open to this
discussion, and I only half facetiously suggest we may be too
open to this discussion. We are delighted. OMB always
encourages better understanding of these scoring issues, and if
we get into a technical discussion we sometimes change our
minds. I am not saying this is an area where we would, but we
did not view this as a policy judgment. We viewed this as an
attempt to get clarity.
Obviously, our attempt to get clarity has created something
of an issue because it has been misread and I would argue
perhaps selectively quoted.
Senator Shelby. Could you work with the staff to try to
clear up what we are trying to get at?
Mr. Lew. Sure.
Senator Shelby. Which is really truth in budgeting, is it
not?
Mr. Lew. We would be delighted to.
Conclusion of Hearings
Senator Shelby. Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes the
hearings. The subcommittee will recess and reconvene at the
call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., Thursday, July 17, the hearings
were concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS
[Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of
Transportation and independent related agencies did not appear
before the subcommittee this year. Chairman Shelby requested
these agencies to submit testimony in support of their fiscal
year 1998 budget request. Those statements and answers to
questions submitted by the chairman follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
intelligent transportation system (its)
Question. We understand that the ITS program is continuing to
expand to include an array of diverse groups and to serve numerous
purposes. For example, do you plan on expanding your involvement with
the Maritime Administration, the intermodal freight industry, the
railroad industry, and FRA? If so, how is this reflected in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request and the fiscal year 1997 spending plan?
Answer. The ITS program was established to explore, evaluate, and
promote deployment of effective advanced transportation technologies
and strategies, regardless of mode. Indeed, we have found that the
integrated deployment of technologies across modes often provides the
most benefits, to the widest cross section of transportation system
users.
We have proposed a modest highway/rail intersection program within
the fiscal year 1998 budget request to explore warning and control
technologies and techniques with the potential to significantly reduce
highway-rail crossing hazards. We also plan to propose a modest
intermodal freight program in the fiscal year 1999 budget request,
which will explore technologies and techniques for improving the safe,
seamless, and efficient movement of intermodal freight.
The primary purpose of these modest programs is to determine the
cost effectiveness of applying ITS technologies and strategies in new
modal settings. If found to be cost effective, support for widespread
deployment of these technologies and strategies will be more heavily
emphasized within the program.
There are no projects funded within the fiscal year 1997 spending
plan which directly support these program areas, although there have
been some past investments in these areas (e.g. fiscal year 1996
development of Highway-Rail Intersection user service; fiscal year 1996
intermodal freight study), as well as continued devotion of Department
staff to further exploring these areas.
Question. Has the program reached the point where you are serving
too many transportation communities and needs? Would it be worthwhile
refocusing your efforts on only those user services and transportation
problems which could be most cost effectively addressed with ITS
monies?
Answer. We believe the current program balance among the various
modes is appropriate. As noted above, the charge of the ITS program is
to explore, evaluate and promote deployment of effective advanced
transportation technologies and strategies, regardless of mode. The
modest investments we are making and proposing to make in ``new'' modal
areas of exploration will provide us with fundamental information on
the cost effectiveness of ITS deployment for these modes. The vast
majority of ITS program resources continue to be invested in those
program areas which we already know to be very cost effective.
Question. How are you achieving a balance between the increased
political support you gain by including numerous segments of the
transportation community in the ITS program versus the benefits of
funding only the most cost effective investments?
Answer. The implication in this question that we are trading
political support for cost effective investment is inaccurate. As noted
above, the charge of the ITS program is to explore, evaluate and
promote deployment of effective advanced transportation technologies
and strategies, regardless of mode. The vast majority of ITS program
resources continue to be invested in those areas which we already know
to be very cost effective. Political support for ITS from a wider cross
section of the transportation community is a byproduct, not a goal, of
the diversity of the program.
Question. If ITS is so cost-beneficial, why in your reauthorization
proposal are you requesting $10,000,000 for training related to ITS?
Won't the documented benefits of ITS catalyze additional investments
without spending so much on training?
Answer. Because many transportation professionals are finding
various ITS applications cost beneficial, the levels of deployment of
individual components are steadily increasing. It this situation two
issues are at stake: 1) Stewardship--federal funds are being used for
implementation. Lack of experience and skill in designing, specifying,
procuring and managing the implementation of these systems can lead to
dramatic cost increases and waste of money. 2) Shaping the deployment.
The components can be deployed as individual islands in the current
paradigm of stove piped modes and agencies, or they can become a part
of an information and communication platform that enables the bridging
of this fragmentation, creating an intermodal ``system of systems.''
This opportunity will be lost within about five years because the
current rate of ``isolated'' deployment will have cast the die--unless
we intervene with training. The professional capacity building effort
is designed to address these two needs.
Question. Is FHWA spending about $5 million during fiscal year 1997
on professional capacity building? Were these monies derived from ISTEA
or GOE? How was this amount arrived at and why does this activity need
to continue? How much are you planning to spend on this area during
fiscal year 1998? Why is the requested increase judged important?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 budget for the Professional Capacity
Building program is $5 million. Of that total, $2 million is GOE money
and $3 million is ISTEA money. The $5 million will address training
needs across ITS traffic management, transit management, traveler
information and commercial vehicle operations program areas. The goal
of the first year of the Professional Capacity Building Program is to
educate the entire field staff of FHWA and FTA with some inclusion of
NHTSA and FRA staff. As such, much of the fiscal year 1997 funding is
allocated to distribution and presentation expenses. Other significant
costs are for development of several specialty modules such as a short
course on transit management and a four-day ITS system integration
course.
Developing and providing this training initially to USDOT staff and
soon thereafter to state and local agency personnel is crucial to the
successful deployment of ITS applications. ITS is, in many ways, a
fundamental shift from the traditional ways of conceiving, procuring,
designing and installing transportation improvements. New skills are
required in each of these areas. Without a significant skill building
effort in a number of technical areas, ITS deployment efforts will be
less efficient. USDOT projects that a number of metropolitan and rural
areas will need technical training over the next few years. USDOT has
historically been a leading provider of training to state and local
agencies, and in the case of ITS technical training, the economies of
scale allow the USDOT to more cost effectively develop training
materials that are applicable to numerous agencies. Additionally,
course materials will be made available through the Internet to promote
the use of the information by universities and other educational
institutions.
The current budget projection for fiscal year 1998 include a total
of $10 million for training. This request is similar to the request
(though not the appropriation) made in fiscal year 1997. Both requests
reflect the urgency for massive retraining that was reflected in the
recent GAO report. Of that total, $8.75 million will support training
for ITS travel management including traffic and transit management and
traveler information and $1.25 million will support training in the
commercial vehicle operation area. Much of the key technical training
topics such as architecture, standards and telecommunication will be
funded from the travel management portion of the funds even though
those subject areas underpin the entire ITS deployment effort. The
funds also support presentation of the courses, production of course
materials, the services of a program manager, and logistical support
for arrangement of course presentation.
The Professional Capacity Building Program is key to the success of
ITS deployment and is a significant role for the USDOT.
Question. We understand that you are allocating Federal funds on
scanning tours and on scholarships to ensure that State and local
governmental leaders and traffic engineers and operators have a chance
to visit exemplary ITS sites and to attend major ITS meetings and
seminars. How much was allocated for these types of activities during
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997? Please justify these expenses,
explain their importance, and specify proposed funding levels for
fiscal year 1998.
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 the FHWA allocated $150,000 to provide
scholarships to state and local transportation professionals to review
intelligent transportation systems operating in seven locations along
the eastern coast of North America and to participate in the 1996 ITS
World Congress in Orlando, Florida in October, 1996. Ten public agency
transportation professionals participated in both the field review of
deployed intelligent transportation systems and World Congress
meetings. This funding also supported an additional twenty-two state
and local transportation professionals to participate in the ITS World
Congress sessions. This scholarship program was administered jointly by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Public Technologies, Inc.
In fiscal year 1996, the FHWA provided $360,000 to support
Executive ITS Scanning Reviews. The purpose of these reviews was to
improve the awareness of the benefits and capabilities of integrated
intelligent transportation systems by high level state and local
officials, transportation decision makers and planning organization
executives. More than 294 state and local executives participated in
these scanning reviews representing highway and transit agencies,
elected officials, and transportation planning professionals.
In fiscal year 1997, two special scanning tours were held in
Atlanta. In two, two-day events more than 160 top officials toured ITS
facilities and operations in the state, city and transit authority. In
fiscal year 1997, the FHWA has again allocated $150,000 for the
Scholarship program and $360,000 for the Executive ITS Scanning Review
program. The scholarship program funds will be used to conduct a review
of integrated intelligent transportation systems in a number of cities
in the south and southwestern portions of the United States, similar to
the fiscal year 1996 East Coast Review, and to support a limited United
States representation from state and local agencies at the 1997 ITS
World Congress meeting in Berlin, Germany. The Executive ITS Scanning
Review program is again being jointly administered by the FHWA and FTA
Regional Offices and will be used, not only to enable state and local
decision makers to experience firsthand the capabilities and benefits
of ITS, but also to provide the opportunity for these participants to
meet with their peers at these sites to discuss the actions and support
required to fund, implement and operate ITS applications.
The purpose of the ITS Scholarship program is to provide
opportunities for some state and local government officials and
transportation professionals to participate in an event that will give
them maximum exposure to ITS technology, benefits, and issues in the
least time and at least cost. Most of the work in developing and
implementing ITS systems takes place at the state and local level. It
is at this level that the needs for these systems are first identified
and the projects to implement application of these advanced
technologies take shape. Yet, state and local budgets do not support
such travel. The USDOT believes that the use of these funds are
essential to speeding the application and use of these ITS technologies
through state and local ITS implementation programs.
The Executive ITS Scanning Review program was developed in 1996 in
response to a request by FHWA and FTA field forces as a means of
exposing high level state and local decision makers and transportation
executives to the capabilities and benefits of ITS technologies. Many
of these officials have heard of ITS but have no way to visualize or
appreciate what it can do for their transportation problems and needs.
The staff in the Regional Offices of FHWA and FTA work together to
develop a concept plan for each review. The reviews are designed to
highlight ITS technologies that are applicable to the interests and
needs of the individual review executives. The reviews are intended to
bring together the appropriate officials from a full range of
interested ITS partners, providing an opportunity for multi modal team
building and awareness of ITS applications across all modes. These
reviews also provide a forum for peer to peer discussions between
officials interested in learning more about the ``what and how'' of ITS
and their counterparts that have carried out the systems to address
those issues. One example came as a result of the Atlanta scanning
tours, where immediately following the tour, the top executive for a
state DOT allocated much needed personnel resources to their local
effort based on the demonstrated effectiveness and personnel needs
illustrated in Atlanta.
Scholarship recipients and Scanning Review participants have
evaluated favorably the professional benefits from participating in
these programs. USDOT field staff has also strongly recommended the
continuation of the Scanning program. Based on these recommendations
and the continuing need to raise awareness and demonstrate benefits, we
propose to continue these programs in fiscal year 1998 at the same
funding level as in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Question. What is your strategic vision for the ITS Rural Program?
Answer. The vision for the Rural ITS program is to improve the
safety and security of the rural traveler, especially given the
differences with the urban environment. Similarly, isolation is a
factor that impacts both the transportation disadvantaged and the
economic vitality of the communities in Rural America, therefore
reducing isolation is important. Additionally, as resources continue to
become more scarce, using advanced technologies to improve the
efficiency and productivity of operating and maintaining transportation
services is crucial, especially given the high costs associated with
rural transportation operations and maintenance.
Question. How are you planning to use the fiscal year 1998 funds
that are requested for rural projects and related research?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, we have requested $2 million for
research and $5 million for operational tests. The project descriptions
follow:
1. Development of Rural ITS Services--$1.9 million.--This will
provide $1.9 million to continue the development of rural user services
that will reduce traffic fatalities, reduce emergency medical response
time, improve the efficiency and availability of rural transit services
and improve the availability/quality of traveler information. This will
be accomplished by resolving the technological and institutional issues
through basic research and/or field trials targeted at the high
priority needs in each of the seven critical program areas. The results
of this effort will either lead to operational tests of specific user
services or development of deployment guidance for rural transportation
planners. This is a three year program initiated in fiscal year 1997
and is projected to end in fiscal year 1999; total cost is estimated to
be $4.5 million with funding by fiscal year estimated as follows:
fiscal year 1998, $1.9 million, fiscal year 1999, $2 million, fiscal
year 2000, $600,000.
2. Analysis of Site Characteristics--$100,000.--This will provide
$100 thousand to FTA to initiate an analysis of data previously
collected to assess characteristics of rural transit systems and
recommend appropriate APTS technologies based on site characteristics.
The result of this project will be a guide for rural transit operators
recommending specific ITS technologies will solve their site specific
problems. This is a 1 year project with a total cost of $100,000.
3. Field Operational Tests--$5.0 million.--This will fund up to
four operational tests of rural ITS user service groups. The specific
evaluation goals will be developed during fiscal year 1997 in the Rural
ITS elements definition for concepts determined to be critical to rural
ITS implementation but requiring operational testing prior to
deployment. Examples of potential test categories include:
--Traveler safety and security.--This project(s) will evaluate the
effectiveness of promising technologies for the reduction of
rural accidents and fatalities which were identified in the
Development of Rural ITS Services Project. Candidate
applications include roadway departure, animal vehicle
collision, low-cost in-vehicle hazard warning systems, Variable
Speed Limits using various algorithms (refine algorithms as
appropriate) Surrogate evaluation parameters will be developed
for crash reduction, cost effectiveness and deployability.
--Rural infrastructure operations and maintenance.--In fiscal year
1998 a sample of rural highway departments, representing
different operating environments, will be analyzed to identify
the operations where improved technologies, procedures and
coordination of resources can reduce costs, and increase
effectiveness within budget constraints. These projects will
include a range of capital-intensiveness and suitability for
operations of different sizes and extent of roadway and may
include: Wireless Communication Requirements and Coordinated
Rural Traffic Management.
--Rural fleet operations and maintenance.--This Operational Test will
expand the Integrated Regional Fleet Management System to
include other governmental services (e.g., police, fire, EMS
and utilities) within a rural environment. The fiscal year 1998
activity will permit two or more transit authorities within a
region to integrate their services (vis-a-vis systems) into a
regional transportation system that will be ``seamless'' to the
customer and will be more efficient since a single dispatch
center will be formed and operated, instead of multiple
centers. This expansion will integrate other governmental
services with the transit component so ITS infrastructure costs
can be shared among users so to avoid duplication. This project
will incorporate several high priority elements in developing
the integrated regional fleet management system (both for
transit initially and then for other governmental functions).
This project is focused on rural applications, but has
applicability to all areas with multiple fleets operating
within a geographic area.
Question. How do you know that there is a balance between rural and
urban ITS needs in your program?
Answer. In the past there has been greater research and deployment
attention given to metropolitan and commercial vehicle ITS research
than to rural. There was however reasonable balance with operational
tests with well over \1/3\ devoted to rural applications. Both the
metropolitan ITS applications and commercial vehicle applications had
the benefit of well over a decade of past research, making these
technologies more ``ripe'' for deployment.
Recognizing the potential for rural applications, U.S. DOT launched
a rural research needs and ITS opportunities assessment in 1995, that
and early results of several ITS operational tests formed the basis of
the rural strategic plan published in early 1997. In developing that
plan we recognized that there were several rural technologies that were
similar or identical to those in the metropolitan infrastructure,
albeit with different applications. For example, many of the travel
management and traveler information systems used for tourist
information rely on the same technology as that used in metropolitan
areas, but the type of information delivered is different, and
strategies used for management is different.
We have proposed, both in the 1997 and 1998 budget a major increase
in rural research and operational tests. These efforts will provide
cost benefit information that will allow the department to more
appropriately compare the potential payoff of rural vs. urban
applications and perhaps adjust the balance between the two. In the
meantime, several applications have proven themselves such as road
weather information systems, travel information systems, and automated
dispatch and tracking of rural para transit. Recognizing this we will
encourage deployment of these applications thru the proposed deployment
incentives program.
Question. What could be accomplished with additional funds provided
beyond the requested amount for rural projects?
Answer. Additional funding would be used to conduct additional
operational tests in the seven critical program areas: Traveler Safety
and Security; Emergency Services; Tourism and Travel Information
Services; Public Traveler Services/Public Mobility Services;
Infrastructure Operating and Maintenance; Fleet Operating and
Maintenance; and Commercial Vehicle Operations. This would allow us to
evaluate systems at multiple environments. This is a critical
evaluation factor because of the diverse climate and topography which
characterizes rural America. The priorities are:
Rural emergency services.--This project will evaluate an Advanced
Mayday System which combines communications technologies, AVL and
dispatching methods with improved institutional arrangements between
ISP's, PSAP's and EMS, to reduce response times, decrease morbidity and
fatality, and improve the efficiency of emergency services in remote
and rugged rural areas. Traveler MAYDAY service, direct emergency calls
and calls from patrol agencies will be included. This project will
determine if further reduction in emergency response can be achieved
beyond faster notification.
Tourism and traveler information systems.--This project will
evaluate the information collection and dissemination techniques (such
as high speed AM subcarrier for broadcast messages in coordination with
Herald Phase III) developed in fiscal year 1998 in the Development of
Rural ITS Services Project. Testing will be conducted at 2 or more
sites in order to evaluate the systems in different environments.
Evaluation parameters will be developed to measure impact of traveler
information on economic development, and the effectiveness of
alternative dissemination techniques.
Rural infrastructure operations and maintenance.--Additional
projects for this critical program area would be funded which include:
--Appropriate traffic signal and traffic management systems.--
Evaluate the performance, architecture and cost effectiveness
of these systems for small urban areas potentially linked to
regional TMC's. Test and evaluate alternatives to extend
surveillance from an urban TMC out into rural areas (besides
CCTV); Test and evaluate alternatives to measure A ``short''
link travel times (i.e., expand upon SDAS). Refine algorithms;
and Test and evaluate alternatives to linking small-scale TMC/
TOC's, including their linkage to an urban TMC/TOC. [Would
first require defining the components of a small-scale TMC/
TOC.]
--Automated Management Systems.--Evaluate the ability to reduce costs
associated with operations and maintenance of bridge, pavement
and roadside hardware.
Preliminary integrated systems.--The Rural Operational Test Program
have been focused on the evaluation of single systems which address a
critical program area need. Based on definition of integration measures
associated with the ARTS infrastructure, field tests will be devised
for one or more rural areas that will maximize the integration measures
with substantially existing ARTS components, and will evaluate the
increased operational and cost-effectiveness resulting from
integration.
Question. What are the estimated total number and types of ITS
standards that must be agreed upon to ensure interoperability? What
remains to be done to research agreement on each standard?
Answer. The ITS National Architecture results indicated that to
achieve national interoperability, there are 45 interfaces that need to
be standardized. In addition, there are a number of interfaces
requiring standardization to facilitate regional interoperability. As
such, a rough estimate of the number of new standards required to
ensure interoperability is somewhere between 50 to 100--the list is
still evolving. Part of the problem in estimating the numbers is the
level of granularity for which a particular standard is developed. Some
groups combine activities and represent their results in a single
standard, while others may prefer a greater partitioning, resulting in
multiple standards. In some cases, additional standards are being
identified as the interoperability requirements are better understood.
There are a number of different types of standards currently under
development by the SDO's. These take the form as described below, and
are being developed to provide both national and regional
interoperability:
--Communications.--Standards relating to communications protocols in
most cases already exist as industry standards. In a few cases,
however, there are requirements to develop new or modify
communications standards to support ITS applications. Examples
are: Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), Hi-Speed FM
Subcarrier, and National Transportation Communication ITS
Protocol (NTCIP).
--Message sets.--The national architecture program's focus was on the
development of information flows among the various subsystems,
in support of ITS user services. These information flows
provide the foundation for the development of message set
standards. It is expected that the majority of the standards
development work will be in this area. Unlike communications
standards, very little, if any ITS message set standards exist.
Examples of the types of message set needing to be developed
are: Mayday, traveler information, real-time transit
information, etc.
--Enabling.--There are a number of standard activities that are
supported by a common foundation. Enabling standards provide
this foundation and in many instances, provide uniformity
across application areas. Examples of such enabling standards
are: data dictionaries, common formatting standards, location
referencing, spatial database interchange, etc.
--Other.--There are additional needs not neatly fitting into any of
the above categories. This would include such things as, safety
and human factors, etc.
The activities involved in developing the standard and ensuring
interoperability include: technical development (i.e., the committee
process), consensus building (i.e., the balloting process), and in some
cases operational testing. More specifically, the standards being
developed will promote interoperability but not necessarily ensure it.
Especially, in situations where multiple standards are expected to
``play together'' (i.e., the integration of multiple system elements).
To ensure interoperability for this broader perspective, system level
field testing may be required, for particular implementations.
What follows is a graphical depiction of the schedule for
completion of each standard currently underway. The list is still
incomplete in that additional standards are still being identified.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TFHA.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TFHA.001
Question. How is the Department effectively addressing the most
critical technical and operational challenges affecting the innovation
of ITS, including research, operational tests, and deployment
components? How do you know these are the most critical?
Answer. U.S. DOT is pursuing a broad strategy which involves key
assumptions of ``sequencing''. The assumptions are that (1) Several of
the private sector technologies and services cannot be deployed without
a basic ITS infrastructure. (2) There is little value in extending the
state of the art in ITS infrastructure if the level of the state of the
practice remains at a pre-ITS level. Thus in the past two years and in
the coming three to five years our emphasis will be on supporting
deployment of ITS infrastructure and investing in research in safety
related in-vehicle technology. This basic strategy has been discussed
at numerous ITS America Board meetings and the philosophy ultimately
adopted in the articulation of the National Deployment Goal.
Within that broad strategy, we have developed road maps with the
aid of support contractors skilled in systems management and subjected
elements of the program to a variety of peer review exercises. These
include a very formal review by the ITS America ATMS committee, a
Professional Capacity Steering Committee, A National Academy Review of
the AHS work this summer, intense review, and discussion of the CVISN
roadmap by ATA, the ITS A CVO committee and by field implementers. We
expect to subject our Intelligent Vehicle Initiative to similar
industry and peer scrutiny.
Question. Is the Department appropriately balancing Federal
investment among the various components of the ITS program, including
research, operational testing, pre-deployment, and deployment
activities?
Answer. Given the existing technical and operational challenges
facing the program, we believe the current program balance is
appropriate. We have proposed an approximate division of resources for
fiscal year 1998 (including both contract authority and appropriated
funds) of 25 percent for research and development activities; 13
percent for operational tests; 14 percent for deployment support
activities such as standards and training development; 8 percent for
crosscutting activities, such as program assessment and program
support; and 40 percent for deployment incentives. This represents
nearly an even balance between program activities designed to explore
ITS technologies and strategies and program activities designed to
support and deploy technologies and strategies which we know to be
effective.
Question. Has the scope, diversity, and funding level of the ITS
program surpassed DOT's capability to effectively manage this complex
initiative? (Please take into account a variety of factors including
personnel ceiling limitations, the progress made to date, scope and
number of projects already underway, and the goals and objectives of
the program.)
Answer. No. Given the personnel ceilings and number of projects
underway, we have turned to the use of support contractors who bring
expertise and experience in managing complex programs in NASA and the
Department of Defense. Without funding for that management support the
complexity of the program would exceed the current staffs' ability to
manage it. With continuing support that we receive from these
contractors, we are confident in our ability to effectively manage the
ITS program, particularly with the management controls that have been
implemented in the last two years. Overall funding amounts received for
the program over the last several years have actually been relatively
stable. Further, much of the management of the proposed incentives
awards will be delegated to the FTA and FHWA field offices.
Question. The Department supports the expenditure of millions of
dollars on outreach, public information, mainstreaming, training, and
other activities aimed at promoting the innovation of ITS. Does the
Federal Government's experience in innovation suggest that ``pushing''
technologies into marketplace works?
Answer. ITS is a manifestation of the information and communication
revolution that is affecting every aspect of American life and every
aspect of business and government. We are increasingly finding that
once the benefits of a particular ITS application are demonstrated, it
is generally accepted. Our focus now is on communicating benefits,
training an industry that has a civil engineering base in ITS
specification, management and procurement skills, and developing the
incentive and technical base for integrated deployment. We do not
believe that we are aggressively ``pushing'' this technology.
Question. Please specify the amount and purposes of all fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997 monies to be allocated on systems
architecture.
Answer. The details of allocated expenses for the Systems
Architecture Program for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 are as
follows:
Funds for both fiscal years are:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architecture technical support.......... 485 ..............
Architecture development................ 2,075 ..............
Architecture deployment/implementation
support................................ 1,000 900
Architecture maintenance................ 525 2,500
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,085 3,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architecture Technical Support (Engineering) was procured to
technically review and support the development of the National
Architecture products. This primarily consisted of an industry based
Technical Review Team (TRT) composed of industry experts knowledgeable
in the technical disciplines and technologies involved in the National
ITS Architecture.
Architecture Development was the work actually performed by the
Lockheed Martin and Rockwell International architecture development
teams producing the National ITS Architecture products.
Architecture Deployment/Implementation Support is technical
assistance from the architecture team to local officials which we will
continue until we have provided sufficient training to the consultant
community and state and local system integrators. As a top priority,
the National ITS Architecture teams are currently working with the four
metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative sites to facilitate the
identification of common system interfaces where the sites may generate
de facto standards. The CVO architecture team is conducting extensive
architecture workshops with the 8 CVO model deployment sites to insure
interoperability among the sites. The teams are scheduled to interface
with other metropolitan planning organizations as their needs arise.
Architecture Maintenance is maintaining the National ITS
Architecture documentation and data base in a current and useable form.
Until we are through a transition to a full main streaming of the
architecture, it will be maintained by U.S. DOT by a small element of
the National ITS Architecture team. They will be responsible for
providing support to a dynamic standards setting process and modifying
the architecture as a result of experience gained from operational
tests, the standards setting process and ITS research and development.
New user requirements stemming from research will be incorporated into
the architecture and updated materials made available in hard copy, on
the Web, and via CD.
Question. Please breakout in detail the expected uses of the monies
requested to advance the systems architecture during fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Funds for the fiscal year are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 1998
Architecture technical support.................................... 300
Architecture maintenance.......................................... 2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 2,800
Architecture Technical Support (Engineering) is procured to
technically review and to provide management support to the development
of the National Architecture products. This primarily consisted of
technical experts knowledgeable in the technical disciplines and
technologies involved in the National ITS Architecture.
Architecture Maintenance is maintaining the National ITS
Architecture documentation and data base in a current and useable form.
Until we are through a transition to a full mainstreaming of the
architecture, it will be maintained by U.S. DOT by a small element of
the National ITS Architecture team. They will be responsible for
providing support to a dynamic standards setting process and modifying
the architecture as a result of experience gained from operational
tests, the standards setting process and ITS research and development.
New user requirements stemming from research will be incorporated into
the architecture and updated materials made available in hard copy, on
the Web, and via CD. In addition this includes technical assistance
from the architecture team to local officials which we will continue
until we have provided sufficient training to the consultant community
and state and local system integrators. As a top priority, the National
ITS Architecture teams are currently working with the four metropolitan
Model Deployment Initiative sites to facilitate the identification of
common system interfaces where the sites may generate de facto
standards. The CVO architecture team is conducting extensive
architecture workshops with the 8 CVO model deployment sites to insure
interoperability among the sites. The teams are scheduled to interface
with other metropolitan planning organizations as their needs arise. In
addition this includes technical support by the Architecture teams in
the generation and issuance of architecture related guidance documents
to facilitate the understanding and use of the National ITS
Architecture by various stakeholders in need of having the architecture
used as a tool in ITS system integration and design. These documents
provide an understanding of the application of National ITS
Architecture products to the development of regional architectures and
the design of ITS deployments. In addition, the documents provide
design options, tradeoffs, lessons learned, best practices, etc.
Question. Please specify the amount and purposes of all fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 1997 monies spent on standards work.
Answer. The following table and narrative describe the funding
allocation for standards activities:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spatial data transfer standard.......... 1,000 1,000
National transportation communications
for ITS protocol....................... 750 1,000
CVO standards........................... 500 500
Traffic management system support
standards.............................. .............. 800
Transit management standards support.... .............. 100
Standards development organizations
(National Architecture)................ 2,000 3,700
Standards management support (JPL)...... 300 1,600
Dedicated short range communications.... .............. 100
Core infrastructure standards........... 405 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 5,455 8,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spatial Data Transfer Standard.--This activity provides support to
develop a spatial data location referencing system and define a Spatial
Data Transfer profile for ITS, simulate the profile in computer models
and provide technical support for the use of SDTS prototypes in
operational tests (the actual operational test activity is not covered
under this activity). This project will also coordinate numerous
ongoing national and international transportation spatial database
efforts with the ITS efforts, ensuring inter-operability among modes of
travel.
NTCIP.--This activity supports, maintains, and refines the National
Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP). This funding
will cover four major areas: (1) continue the consensus building
process required to establish NTCIP as a national ITS standard, (2)
introduce additional traffic control devices into the standard,
including environmental sensors (i.e., fog detectors, air quality
sensors, etc.), malfunction management units, etc., (3) develop
necessary interfaces to existing infrastructure therefore enabling the
retrofit of already deployed equipment, and (4) establish and conduct
an experimental plan to evaluate the NTCIP at various field sites.
CVO Standards.--This activity supports national coordination for
acceptance of the proposed ANSI ASC X12 and EDIFACT standards and work
with the appropriate organizations to refine and complete a majority of
the appropriate standards. This will include coordination with CVSA,
AAMVA, ITSA, HELP, I-75, CDLIS, IFTA, IRP, CVIS, SAFER, States, private
industry and many other organizations.
Traffic Management System Support Standards.--This activity
supports development and adoption of standards and guidelines directed
towards traffic management systems. The deployment of ATMS encompasses
the establishment of traffic control centers. The functionality within
the control centers needs to allow for alternate computing
architectures which can be configured based upon existing
communications infrastructure and desired functionality. Standards that
allow for the integration of vendor independent products, both hardware
and software, will be required. These standards will create and sustain
a broad-base market for manufacturers, facilitate the retrofitting of
already deployed systems, and significantly increase the life of
traffic control systems. In turn, these standards will also provide
interoperability and interchange ability of traffic control products.
Transit Management Standards Support.--This project supports
activities to the International Standards Organization undertaken by
the U.S. as the designated international lead country for public
transit.
Standards Development Organizations (National Architecture).--This
activity supports the Standard Development Organizations' efforts to
obtain dedicated technical and administrative committee support to
accelerate the standards development process. The technical support
will consist of research projects, technology assessment activities,
and testing of developed protocols and standards. Administrative
support will consist of producing draft standards, supporting
information facilitation among and within committees, and liaisoning
with other activities such as research and development efforts,
operational tests, and deployment. The focus of the standards
development effort will be on interface standards resulting from the
national architecture activity.
Technical Support.--This activity provides support for evaluating
and monitoring projects generated from the standards cooperative
agreements with SAE, IEEE, ASTM, ITE, and AASHTO. This includes
participating in standards committee meetings, helping to identify
critical standards activities, harmonizing the developing standards
with the National Architecture, and harmonizing activities with
international efforts.
Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC).--This activity is to
help resolve technical and institutional uncertainties that have
contributed to the lack of movement in the DSRC arena. While the actual
standard is being defined within the standard development organization
some additional support work, such as the development of migration
strategies, that fall outside of standards development, needs to be
developed.
Core Infrastructure Standards.--This activity originally was
focussed on supporting traffic management related activities. A portion
of this funding was used to initiate a traffic management data
dictionary with the remainder supporting the general category of
National Architecture interface standards.
Question. Will you assure this Subcommittee that the JPO will
``step up to the plate'' if the standards necessary for
interoperability are not reached, soon?
Answer. We assume this question refers to the Department's
willingness to take a more prescriptive role in the standards
development process, if the consensus efforts currently underway bog
down or reach an impasse. We believe there is already evidence of the
Department's willingness to assume a stronger position through the
experience with the development of the standard for interoperability of
dedicated short range communications (DSRC). Last Fall, after the
consensus process in the development of this standard had reached an
impasse, the Department called the major industry and public sector
players in the process together to discuss the Department's intent to
establish a standard through rulemaking if the impasse continued. This
and subsequent meetings led to an agreement amongst the industry
representatives to draft a mutually acceptable standard and establish a
forum and process to resolve impasse issues. This process is working
well. A draft DSRC standard ready for ballot is expected to be complete
by November 1997.
Question. After more than six year of controversy, does the ITS
community have standards for dedicated short-range communications,
which are critical to the program? Will it take this long to reach
consensus on other critical standards?
Answer. The previous six years of controversy and slow progress
surrounding the DSRC standards activities was due primarily to a lack
of rigor and focus on the technical and institutional efforts. As a
result of the SDO funding support from FHWA, more progress has been
made in the last six months than has been made in the last six years.
Current projections are to have a draft standard by the end of the year
with compliant product available in 1999. Other standards are not
envisioned to have to go through as lengthy of a process to reach
consensus for the same reason we have been able to expedite the current
DSRC activities. Federal funding support for technical and
administrative assistance and public agency participation will help us
avoid the lengthy ``DSRC scenario'' again.
Question. How much do you expect to spend on advancing the
architecture and related standards work for each of the next three
years?
Answer. The expenditures for architecture and standards activities
for fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 are
defined below.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architecture........................... 5.0 2.8 5.4
Standards.............................. 8.25 11.5 14.5
--------------------------------
Total............................ 13.25 14.3 19.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the completion of the ITS National Architecture in fiscal
year 1996, there have been three major focuses of the Architecture
effort. First, the Architecture technical team has been assisting the
Standard Setting Organizations (SDO's) in the development of the
standards requirements. Secondly, a major effort is under way to
provide guidance documentation on the Architecture for use by State and
local officials and transportation professionals. Finally, training
materials on the Architecture have been developed to support the
Professional Capacity Building program. The assistance to the SDO's
will continue in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Guidance materials will be
completed in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 1999, there will be a new
architecture effort to extend the architecture into vehicles in support
of the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative currently being planned. There
will also be a small initiative to extend the architecture to include
the data collecting and planning functions of most transportation
agencies.
The standards program is growing in importance to the deployment of
ITS and the development of products for the ITS market. In fiscal year
1997, a number of the ITS standards will be available for use by the
public and private sectors. By fiscal year 1998, we expect to have 42
new standards available for use by the industry. As a result of this
activity, which will continue in fiscal year 1999, two new efforts will
be initiated late in fiscal year 1998 and into fiscal year 1999. User
guides will be prepared to assist transportation professionals in the
implementation of the new standards. For a select few of the new
standards where national interoperability as an essential element, such
as the communications standard for credentialing commercial vehicles
across state lines, a testing effort will be initiated to insure the
necessary interoperability.
Question. Please submit for the record a copy of your latest ITS
spending plan for both fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, showing
the use of both GOE and other contract monies. Please be certain that
comparable activities are presented in these tables.
Answer. The following table reflects the latest ITS spending plans
for fiscal years 1997 and 1998:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS--FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FISCAL YEAR 1998
SPENDING PLANS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Activity/project 1997 1998 \2\
-----------------------------------------------------------
GOE \1\ ISTEA Total GOE ISTEA Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and development............................ 28,455 4,600 33,055 33,000 12,500 45,500
Traffic management and software tools........... 2,771 ........ 2,771 7,500 ........ 7,500
Commercial vehicle operations................... 7,000 ........ 7,000 ........ 7,500 7,500
Crash avoidance research........................ 7,000 ........ 7,000 ........ 12,500 12,500
Enabling research............................... 4,500 ........ 4,500 7,500 ........ 7,500
Rural research.................................. ........ ........ ........ 2,000 ........ 2,000
High risk research.............................. ........ 4,300 4,300 ........ ........ ........
Advanced fleet management research.............. 300 ........ 300 1,000 ........ 1,000
Other R&D....................................... 5,784 ........ 5,784 4,000 ........ 4,000
Program assessment.............................. 1,100 300 1,400 ........ ........ ........
Highway rail intersection innovative development
research....................................... ........ ........ ........ 3,500 ........ 3,500
Automated highway system............................ 22,000 ........ 22,000 ........ 26,000 26,000
Architecture and standards.......................... 5,000 7,200 12,200 ........ 13,000 13,000
Architecture.................................... ........ 3,400 3,400 2,800 2,800
Standards....................................... 5,000 3,800 8,800 ........ 10,200 10,200
Operational tests................................... 55,042 5,050 60,092 ........ 24,500 24,500
ATMS/ATIS....................................... 10,000 1,700 11,700 ........ ........ ........
Commercial vehicle operations (CVO)............. 12,500 1,000 13,500 ........ 2,000 2,000
AVCSS........................................... 3,050 ........ 3,050 ........ 12,500 12,500
APTS............................................ ........ 1,350 1,350 ........ 5,000 5,000
Model deployment................................ 26,492 ........ 26,492 ........ ........ ........
Training activities............................. 2,000 ........ 2,000 ........ ........ ........
Rural........................................... 1,000 1,000 2,000 ........ 5,000 5,000
Evaluation/program assessment....................... 2,000 100 2,100 9,000 ........ 9,000
Mainstreaming....................................... ........ 10,050 10,050 3,000 19,000 22,000
Commercial vehicle operations (CVO)............. ........ 1,000 1,000 ........ ........ (\3\)
Advanced public transportation systems (APTS)... ........ 450 450 ........ ........ (\1\)
Training (professional capacity building)....... ........ 3,100 3,100 ........ 10,000 10,000
Planning/process guidance....................... ........ 1,000 1,000 ........ 4,000 4,000
Deployment technical assistance................. ........ 4,500 4,500 ........ 5,000 5,000
Awareness and advocacy \4\...................... ........ ........ ........ 3,000 ........ 3,000
Program support..................................... 7,861 300 8,161 9,000 1,000 10,000
Corridors program................................... ........ 71,700 71,700 ........ ........ ........
ITS deployment incentives program................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 100,000 100,000
National advanced driver simulator (NADS)........... ........ 14,000 14,000 ........ ........ ........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grand total................................... 120,358 113,000 233,358 54,000 196,000 250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts reflect $1.642 million reduction associated with the ITS share of $3 million ``Accountwide
Adjustments'' shown on page 43 of Conference Report 104-785.
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 amounts are those included in the Congressional Budget; spending plan will not be
formulated until after fiscal year 1998 appropriations are enacted.
\3\ Included in program categories below in fiscal year 1998.
\4\ In fiscal year 1998 consists of activities formerly funded under items VIA, VIB, and VIE.
Question. How could the ITS program be improved to ensure that
additional environmental and energy conservation benefits are realized?
How could the measurement of these environmental benefits be improved?
Answer. Current ITS traffic management programs attempt to reduce
energy and emissions by reducing speed variability, excessive
accelerations and the exposure of travelers to congestion. Advanced
travel information seeks to provide the consumer with real time trip
time information via alternate routes and alternate modes. Informed
choice will generally lead travelers to choose the fastest means of
travel which is generally the least polluting.
We recognize that short-term success in reducing congestion will
lead to more thruput capacity that will ultimately be consumed by
growth in demand. While more vehicles will yield more pollution--the
alternatives are worse. New capacity will consume precious land, and
other environmental resources and lead to further sprawl which is less
conducive to mass transit service. An ITS managed system--while
congested will smooth flow, and permit denser development. Over the
long term ITS infrastructure will enable the use of congestion pricing
to further manage the use of scarce road space.
Truly accurate predictions of the impact of surface transportation
operations improvements are not possible on current transportation or
air quality models. This was a key finding of a recent analysis done by
the National Academy of Sciences. Both need substantial improvement.
Using current tools, the measurement of environmental benefits
could be improved through field measurements and the institution of a
coordinated modeling approach. Field measurements can be conducted
through a sample of instrumented vehicles using both ITS technologies
such as on-board GPS systems and cellular data links and other
equipment to collect both vehicle operations and related emissions and
fuel consumption data. The modeling approach should be sufficiently
detailed to capture the reduction in accelerations from implementing
ITS, while concurrently capturing the travel demand impacts of ITS.
The former impact on accelerations are to be calibrated using the
measurements gathered from instrumented vehicles, while the travel
demand impacts are to be captured using surveys.
The above approach is being pursued for both the energy and
emissions impacts of metropolitan model deployments.
Question. Please estimate dollar amounts separately for fiscal year
1996, fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 that were used or planned
for the education of kindergarten to twelfth grade students on ITS.
Please further justify why this funding is of critical importance.
Answer. In 1996, $60,000 was provided to the TRAnsportation and
Civil Engineering (TRAC) program for ITS education of middle and high
school students. The TRAC program is a hands-on educational package
that helps students use math and science to solve real-world problems
in transportation and civil engineering. TRAC, a 6-year old program, is
a joint AASHTO-FHWA effort consisting of a TRAC kit which stays in the
classroom throughout the school year. This kit includes a DOS-based
desktop computer, a set of analog-to-digital data collection probes,
and printed lesson plans and student materials. Its goal is to
encourage interest in careers in transportation engineering and related
ITS disciplines. Special emphasis is given to those currently under
represented in the field such as minorities and women. There are
currently 400 participating schools in 23 States, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands. In the current year, 83,000 students are making use of
the TRAC program. As of July 1996, current demand for TRAC, as measured
by teachers who have specifically requested the program in their
classrooms, is in excess of 2,100.
No funding for this activity will be provided in fiscal year 1997
and no funds are included in the ITS budget for fiscal year 1998.
At the present time, a Business Plan for the Professional Capacity
Building program is being developed that will assess the needs and will
prioritize the limited resource dollars to meet future budget needs.
The TRAC program will be considered as the needs and resources dictate.
Question. Is it correct that FHWA is not funding any work
specifically to promote incident management coalitions during fiscal
year 1997? In view of the cost effectiveness of this activity and the
importance of building regional cooperation, what plans have you
developed to advance this area? How much do you plan to spend during
fiscal year 1998 on this topic?
Answer. Because incident management is part of a much larger ITS
Infrastructure serving the entire metropolitan area for the management
of all forms of travel, FHWA did not fund this activity in fiscal year
1997, per se. Instead the concept of coalition building for all players
for the expanded ITS Infrastructure received a great deal of attention
thru our training efforts, guidance, and our work with associations.
Our concern with focusing exclusively on incident management, to the
exclusion of a larger vision--is deployment of incident management
programs in a stovepipe fashion.
Nevertheless, work is continuing with the National Incident
Management Coalition in fiscal year 1997 with fiscal year 1996 funds.
In fiscal year 1998 we plan to provide funding for the National
Incident Management Coalition to continue their work. The proposed
budget for this work in fiscal year 1998 is $188,000.
Question. What could be done during fiscal year 1998 to improve the
state of technology of incident management? What amount do you plan to
spend in this area during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The application of advanced technologies to speed the
detection and initial assessment of incidents is an area that can
produce significant results in providing lifesaving assistance and/or
reducing the impact that incidents have on our transportation systems.
A number of advanced technologies can be applied to incident detection,
each with their own strengths, weaknesses, costs and benefits. In
fiscal year 1998, we propose to examine both existing and proposed
surveillance systems and to provide a trade off type analysis of these
systems in the areas of cost effectiveness, flexibility of application,
compatibility with existing technologies, as well as overall
maintenance and operational considerations. The intent of this work is
not to select which surveillance system is better, but rather, to
generate methodologies for practitioners to use in evaluating
applicable technologies and selecting the system(s) that best meets
their needs and budget. The proposed budget for this work in fiscal
year 1998 is $250,000.
Question. What is the estimated annual level of expenditures on ITS
by State and local governments? Please present any historical data that
are available.
Answer. Through the existing FHWA Fiscal Management Information
System (FMIS), we are able to track Federal-aid expenditures on four
ITS components--traffic signal control systems, freeway traffic
surveillance and control systems, motorist-aid systems, and highway
information systems. In fiscal year 1995 (the latest year for which we
have summary information), Federal-aid expenditures on these four
components amounted to approximately $1 billion. Historical trend data
is listed in the attached table, which indicates that the investment in
these components has been growing rapidly.
When proposed changes to the FMIS system are implemented, and our
ITS deployment tracking database is fully populated, we should be able
to make more accurate estimates of State and local expenditures on ITS
deployment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic signal control systems (including computerized
systems)..................................................... $272,801,631.76 $317,244,058.92 $380,704,078.85 $452,151,298.78 $494,000,112.21
Freeway traffic surveillance and control systems.............. 72,478,786.26 153,827,574.15 368,680,215.57 408,677,197.65 503,570,854.94
Motorist aid system........................................... 13,930,195.96 6,989,865.32 22,352,084.80 45,239,999.60 32,100,288.60
Highway information........................................... 13,078,923.29 15,997,416.38 16,513,740.64 20,738,932.13 25,432,206.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please submit for the record a detailed breakout of how
the fiscal year 1997 funds for model deployment were allocated. Specify
the amounts and purposes of any supporting contracts.
Answer.
Travel management
A total of $20,312,000 in fiscal year 1997 funding for the ITS
model deployment projects was distributed as follows:
--New York/New Jersey/Connecticut metropolitan area--$5,760,000.
--Phoenix, Arizona--$2,920,000.
--San Antonio, Texas--$2,544,000.
--Seattle, Washington--$9,088,000.
The funding was awarded to the model deployment projects through
cooperative Partnership Agreements between the Federal Highway
Administration and the appropriate State' Department of Transportation.
The New York/New Jersey/Connecticut model deployment is a cooperative
effort among the three participating States, with the New York
Department of Transportation acting as the lead State for
administration of the project funding. The Model Deployment Initiative
is being managed jointly by FHWA and FTA.
A total of $1,805,000 is being used in fiscal year 1997 to support
the selected metropolitan area Model Deployment projects, and to
encourage the non-selected Model Deployment partnerships to continue
with their ITS deployment plans. This support includes regular
workshops to facilitate information exchange among the selected Model
Deployment sites and to provide a forum to address crosscutting issues.
An additional workshop will be conducted for the non-selected Model
Deployment sites to encourage their continued pursuit of their
deployment goals. The funding also provides technical assistance on the
national ITS architecture, systems engineering and other issues
relevant to both the selected and non-selected Model Deployment
partnerships. The funding is allocated as follows:
--Model Deployment Quarterly Workshops--$105,000.
--National Architecture ``Early Implementation'' Support--$800,000.
--Deployment Assistance Workshops and Support--$200,000.
--Technical/Systems Engineering Support--$500,000.
--Program Management Software, Internet Site Support--$200,000.
Evaluation of the Model Deployment effort is essential to obtaining
the total national program value from the this initiative. To avoid
conflict of interest created by having a participant evaluate its own
projects, two ITS Program Assessment support contracts were awarded, in
part, to evaluate the benefits of the metropolitan Model Deployment
sites. fiscal year 1997 funds allocated for this evaluation effort
totals $3,300,000.
Commercial vehicle operations
For Commercial Vehicle Operations the plan for model deployment
funding is to allocate approximately $500,000 to each of the nine pilot
and prototype model deployment states. The model deployment states are
Maryland, Virginia, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon/Washington. In addition, $5 million has
been allocated to Technical Support for the CVISN pilot states to
conduct CVISN program planning and coordination, CVISN system design
refinement and extension, EDI standards development, CVISN
interoperability testing, and architectural refinement and extension.
Question. Why does the JPO believe it is critical to spend $3.5
million on highway/rail grade crossings in the ITS program?
Answer. The importance of funding highway/rail grade crossings in
the ITS program is to demonstrate that the train control system and the
highway traffic management system correctly communicate with each
other, based upon the recently completed ITS National Architecture for
Highway/Rail Intersections. The system is expected to interconnect
crossing warning systems with highway signal systems, Positive Train
Control (PTC), and advanced traffic management systems deployed in most
major cities in the U.S. The intermodal dynamic traffic control system
will focus on corridor segments of special traffic flow (school buses,
hazmat vehicles) and provide advanced information to warn drivers
approaching a HRI of a train blocking a crossing. The highway-traffic
management system can then reroute the traffic around the occupied
crossings to minimize delays to motor vehicles.
There are two previous ITS investments involving highway/rail
intersections. Both were earmarked projects. The first project involves
the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), which is designed to warn
drivers of priority vehicles about the presence of approaching trains
at rail crossings. The first phase of the project, which required
several systems to be tested, has recently been completed. Phase two
started in the Fall of 1996. A test plan has been completed by the
Volpe Center. Both the states of Michigan and Washington have expressed
an interest in becoming test sites. They are now developing proposals.
Approximately $400,000 of the $1,000,060 allocated to the project has
been spent to date. All of that is ISTEA funds.
The second project includes the development of a prototype
integrated warning system for use at railroad/highway grade crossings.
The purpose is to perform a demonstration of an integrated uniform time
warning/ITS system on an electrified railroad. The demonstration will
employ an Intelligent Grade Crossing System (IGC), working in concert
with an Intelligent Traffic System (ITS) and a modified radio
communications-based Automatic Train Control (ATC) system. It is being
conducted by the New York DOT under an earmark of $4,625,000, all ISTEA
funds. The first phase is complete. The second phase, hardware
development, is expected to be complete by September 30, 1998. The
field testing and final evaluation of the system is expected to be
complete by the first quarter in 2000.
Question. What has been achieved with past ITS investments in this
area?
Answer. The importance of funding highway/rail grade crossings in
the ITS program is to demonstrate that the train control system and the
highway traffic management system correctly communicate with each
other, based upon the recently completed ITS National Architecture for
Highway/Rail Intersections. The system is expected to interconnect
crossing warning systems with highway signal systems, Positive Train
Control (PTC), and advanced traffic management systems deployed in most
major cities in the U.S. The intermodal dynamic traffic control system
will focus on corridor segments of special traffic flow (school buses,
hazmat vehicles) and provide advanced information to warn drivers
approaching a HRI of a train blocking a crossing. The highway-traffic
management system can then reroute the traffic around the occupied
crossings to minimize delays to motor vehicles.
There are two previous ITS investments involving highway/rail
intersections. Both were earmarked projects. The first project involves
the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), which is designed to warn
drivers of priority vehicles about the presence of approaching trains
at rail crossings. The first phase of the project, which required
several systems to be tested, has recently been completed. Phase two
started in the Fall of 1996. A test plan has been completed by the
Volpe Center. Both the states of Michigan and Washington have expressed
an interest in becoming test sites. They are now developing proposals.
Approximately $400,000 of the $1,000,060 allocated to the project has
been spent to date. All of that is ISTEA funds.
The second project includes the development of a prototype
integrated warning system for use at railroad/highway grade crossings.
The purpose is to perform a demonstration of an integrated uniform time
warning/ITS system on an electrified railroad. The demonstration will
employ an Intelligent Grade Crossing System (IGC), working in concert
with an Intelligent Traffic System (ITS) and a modified radio
communications-based Automatic Train Control (ATC) system. It is being
conducted by the New York DOT under an earmark of $4,625,000, all ISTEA
funds. The first phase is complete. The second phase, hardware
development, is expected to be complete by September 30, 1998. The
field testing and final evaluation of the system is expected to be
complete by the first quarter in 2000.
Question. Do you have a strategic plan to guide your activities
specifically in this area.
Answer. An Action Plan on Rail-Highway Crossing Safety was
developed by Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration, Federal Transit Administration and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration in June of 1994. The plan was developed
to improve safety and prevent trespassing at highway-rail crossings
throughout the nation. The plan was updated in March of 1996 by a Grade
Crossing Safety Task Force appointed by Secretary Federico Pena The
task force concentrated its attention on five problem areas, (1)
Interconnected highway-rail signal and highway rail crossing warning
devices, (2) Available storage space for motor vehicles between highway
rail crossings and adjacent highway-highway intersections, (3) High
profile crossings and low clearance vehicles, (4) Light rail transit
crossings, (5) Special vehicle operating permits and information. In
1996 and early 1997 the ITS Joint Program Office and the Federal Rail
Administration undertook a project to develop an ITS architecture for
Rail-Highway Intersections. The architecture is complete and an update
to the task force's plan is expected to occur in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Please compare your GOE expenditures for each of the last
three years to the amounts appropriated for each ITS category of funds
specified in the Conference report, as well as amounts earmarked by the
House or Senate reports that were not objected to in either the Senate
report or in the Conference report. Indicate the amount of carryover
funds for each year by category and explain any deviations.
Answer. The following table compares actual and/or planned GOE
obligations for each of the last three fiscal years (1995, 1996 and
1997) to the amounts for each ITS program area included in the annual
conference reports. This table also reflects unobligated balances at
the end of each of the aforementioned fiscal years by program category.
Any deviations between the funds actually used and/or projected to
be used by program category is minor. If not for the rescission in
fiscal year 1995 and unspecified ``account wide reductions'' reductions
in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, funds actually used for each ITS program
within the General Operating Expenses account would always falls within
the 10 percent plus or minus variance historically allowed by the
Committee.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS--ANALYSIS OF FUNDING, GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
Program category --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars in Actual Unobligated Dollars in Actual Unobligated Dollars in Actual Unobligated
report used 9-30-95 report used \1\ 9-30-96 report used \2\ 9-30-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and development................. 35,000 35,512 2,529 37,479 36,166 2,237 29,000 28,605 ...........
Operational tests........................ 22,500 19,982 657 32,500 31,052 587 56,000 54,992 ...........
Commercial vehicle operation............. 10,700 11,565 ........... 14,500 13,750 435 .......... .......... ...........
Automated highway system................. 10,000 8,990 ........... 14,000 14,000 23 22,000 22,000 ...........
Advanced technology application.......... 15,000 14,466 ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
Corridors program........................ 10,000 11,000 ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
Deployment support....................... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
Program and system support............... 11,300 12,985 1,504 11,300 10,034, 1,096 8,000 7,761 ...........
System architecture...................... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... 5,000 5,000 ...........
Congested corridors...................... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
Model deployment......................... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
Evaluation............................... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... 2,000 2,000 ...........
Mainstreaming............................ .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
National adv. driver sim. (NADS)......... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ........... .......... .......... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 114,500 114,500 4,690 109,779 105,002 4,378 122,000 120,358 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year amounts exclude $4,777 in reductions associated with sec. 335 of Public Law 104-50.
\2\ Fiscal year 1997 amounts exclude $1.642 M in ``Accountwide Savings'' (page 43 conference report 104-785).
Question. Please breakout in detail the amount of DOT funds that
was spent in conjunction with the 1996 Olympic in Atlanta.
Approximately how much private sector money was spent on ITS
investments in or around Atlanta?
What were the lasting benefits of this investment? Will any fiscal
year 1998 funds be spent in this area?
Answer. The Olympic and Paralympic Games were the world' two
largest sporting events in 1996 both in terms of athlete and spectator
attendance. The Atlanta games were the largest Olympics in history with
average daily ticket sales exceeding 500,000 for all 17 days of the
Games. In addition to its massive size, the Atlanta games were also
unique in terms of the location of event venues. Most of the major
venues were located in a 1.5 mile radius Olympic Ring centered in
downtown Atlanta. The combination of these factors compounded by other
issues like security, presented a major challenge for transportation
operators during the Games period. Consequently, investment in
transportation infrastructure to support the Games was heavy. However,
the roadway, bridge, and most ITS projects had been previously planned
and were accelerated to meet an Olympic deadline.
More than $800M was spent on 125 Olympic-related transportation
projects throughout the State of Georgia, of which more than $660M was
federally funded. More than $500M was spent on projects in the Atlanta
metropolitan area. The generalized expenditures are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Total Federal Funds:
Roadway and bridge............................................ 554.1
Landscaping, pedestrian, bikeways............................. 40.2
ITS related................................................... 182.8
Other......................................................... 41.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 818.1
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Total ITS-related projects:
Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) ($58 earmark,
$79 federal-aid)............................................ 137
MARTA (the local transit authority)........................... 13
Traveler information showcase................................. 14.6
Atlanta driver advisory system operational test............... 9.1
Kiosk project................................................. 5
Commute connections........................................... 3.3
ITS evaluation effort......................................... 0.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 182.8
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Total ITS program funds:
MARTA (plus $2 FTA funds)..................................... 11
Traveler information showcase (plus $10 technology application
funds)...................................................... 4.6
Atlanta driver advisory system operational test (plus $2.4
match)...................................................... 6.7
Kiosk project (Plus $1 match)................................. 4
ITS evaluation effort......................................... 0.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total Federal ITS program funds........................... 27.1
Private sector investment in ITS projects is by its nature
difficult to quantify. Those costs tend to be privately held by each
private sector partner. For the Atlanta Driver Advisory System
Operational Test, the Scientific Atlanta team contributed approximately
$1.86M. The kiosk project was designed to be self sufficient through
the use of advertising on the kiosks. The details of this arrangement
are still under discussion and negotiation with the operators of the
kiosks. The Traveler Information Showcase project made the most
extensive use of private sector service providers. While we know that
the private sector partners contributed work (particularly for software
development) beyond that for which they were compensated, cost
estimates have not been shared with US DOT.
All of the projects in Atlanta were permanent deployments. The
Traveler Information Showcase project which was intended as a short
term showcase of traveler information services has been absorbed by the
Georgia Department of Transportation and others. The only products
which will not continue to be available are the hand-held computers and
the in-vehicle devices. These services are wholly the prerogative of
the private sector who have chosen not to continue them. We are
optimistic that the lessons learned by the private sector partners will
provide the impetus to redeploy products and services based on their
experience in Atlanta.
The lasting benefits to the Atlanta region and the State of Georgia
are impressive and far reaching.
Improved identification and clearance of incidents.--71 percent of
the incidents during the Olympics were verified in two minutes. The
only large incident during the Games, which normally would have taken
most of the day to clear, was cleared in a little over two hours.
Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO's) responded to 2000
incidents during the Games, and moved disabled vehicles and buses from
freeway lanes until they could be towed. In the first year of
operation, the HERO's handled 17,714 incidents. Additionally, it has
been observed that the number of Atlanta police officers responding to
a single incident has reduced since they no long have to handle traffic
as that is now done by the HEROs. This allows better use of police
resources throughout the city.
Transit operations.--The Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit
Authority (MARTA) Transportation Information Center (TIC) used the CCTV
cameras for assignment of buses, management of spectator movements,
transit surveillance in the congested Olympic Ring area, and incident
response. This capability assisted MARTA in managing three times its
normal load during the Games.
Traveler information.--Real-time traffic information was available
through cable TV in more than 700,000 homes. Public response was very
positive, with the most useful information being the real-time speed
map, incident details and live camera views. This service is being
continued by the Georgia Department of Transportation. The Internet
page was also popular. The route planning page was the most used with
16,000 ``its'' in the peak week of the Games. 80 percent of the users
of the real-time transportation information said that they changed
their travel plans due to the information. The in-vehicle device
received very high marks with the public users. In one case, a Showcase
contractor picked up an associate who was sick; the in-vehicle device
was used to find the nearest hospital and navigate there quickly with
real-time information available to the driver. This technology was
credited with getting quick treatment for a seriously ill person for
whom time was of the essence.
Surveillance cameras.--Two-thirds of the incidents during the Games
were detected by CCTV, HERO's or DOT callers. Additionally, the cameras
provided the most flexible and most used tool to the operating
agencies. Since the cameras were fully accessible to the state, city,
five counties, MARTA, police agencies and security personnel, the same
piece of equipment could be used by each agency for their own unique
purpose. For example, in dealing with recurring congestion at a
downtown off ramp it was discovered that managers from different
operating agencies were literally looking at the same camera view but
acting on the situation per their unique responsibilities. Georgia
Department of Transportation used the information to manage their
response on the freeway, the City of Atlanta used the information to
determine the effectiveness of their signal timing modifications, MARTA
used it to determine the impact on the spectator fleet, Georgia State
Patrol used it to manage the athlete fleet, and the Atlanta Committee
for the Olympic Games (ACOG) used it to coordinate the many aspects of
their transportation program. Clearly, this type of efficient response
would not be possible without the capabilities provided by ITS
technologies and an integrated approach.
Interjurisdictional relationships.--One of the most significant,
long-term benefits from the ITS program in Atlanta was the forging of
institutional relationships across jurisdictional and agency
boundaries. There is no way to neatly quantify this benefit, but it is
real and it is significant. The City and the State traffic personnel
have reached unprecedented levels of cooperation and coordination. The
City enforcement community has a much stronger communication link to
Georgia Department of Transportation and an appreciation of the need
for coordination between traffic and enforcement has been developed.
Coordination between traffic and transit agencies is at an all-time
high. There is an open sharing of information between agencies, with
shared control of some hardware such as traffic signals and cameras.
No fiscal year 1998 ITS funds are planned to be obligated in
Atlanta.
Question. Are you planning ITS projects related to the future
Olympics in Utah?
Answer. FTA and FHWA are working with the State of Utah on how ITS
technologies will play a role in meeting the transportation needs at
the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. In early March, a briefing was
held including representatives of USDOT from FTA, FHWA and FAA as well
as representatives from the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, the Utah
Governors Office, the Utah Transit Authority, and congressional staff.
Key points of discussion included: multi modal transportation
infrastructure needs for the Salt Lake area; NEXTEA legislation
pertaining to transportation for US Olympic venues; and an overview of
Olympic Committee activities and near term directions for inter-agency
coordination.
Later in March, in a conference call FHWA and FTA Regional
Administrators agreed to develop a proposal to address the resource and
coordination needs related to the upcoming Olympics. The proposal will
address the Division, Regional and Headquarters roles.
At the current time FTA is providing technical assistance. It is
possible that funding would be provided for ITS projects in Salt Lake
as part of the Deployment Incentives program as the transportation
needs to support this event are further defined.
Question. Please prepare a list of all of the operational tests
that have not yet been completed, indicate their starting date,
expected date of completion, expected date of submittal of final
evaluation, remaining unspent balances, and remaining balances that are
obligated.
Answer. Our partial answer to this question is provided in the
table below. In order to provide answers regarding unspent balances, we
will have to work with our financial administrators to search data
bases and cross-reference accounting codes. We anticipate re-submitting
a completed table by July 11, 1997. Please note that the ``expected
date of completion'' and ``expected date of submittal of final
evaluation'' are the same dates. Projects are not considered completed
until the final, publicly available evaluation report is submitted and
approved. Also, remaining unspent balances are the same as remaining
balances that are obligated; therefore, only one column (i.e., the
currently incomplete column) reflects our response to these requests.
Extracting unspent balances by project from the agency's accounting
system is a very time-consuming effort, this data is not included
herein and will be submitted in the near future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
completion/ Remaining
Project Start date final unspent
report date balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS (ATMS)
Fast-trac........................ 4/92 6/00 ...........
Integrated ramp metering/adaptive
signal control.................. 9/93 7/98 ...........
ITS for voluntary emissions
reduction....................... 1/95 10/97 ...........
Mobile communications system..... 5/94 10/97 ...........
Montgomery County ATMS........... 7/94 9/97 ...........
North Seattle ATMS............... 3/94 12/97 ...........
San Antonio transguide........... 8/93 4/97 ...........
Satellite communications
feasibility..................... 10/92 6/98 ...........
SCOOT adaptive control system.... 9/93 6/98 ...........
Spread spectrum radio traffic
interconnect.................... 7/94 6/98 ...........
ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (ATIS)
Atlanta traveler information
systems kiosk project........... 1/94 5/97 ...........
Atlanta driver advisory system... 3/95 5/97 ...........
DIRECT........................... 5/91 12/97 ...........
Denver, CO, Hogback Multi-Modal
Transfer Center................. 5/93 9/98 ...........
Railroad crossing vehicle
proximity alert system, phase I. 6/95 8/97 ...........
Railroad crossing vehicle
proximity alert system, phase II 10/97 11/98 ...........
Railroad highway crossing--Long
Island.......................... 7/95 9/98 ...........
Seattle wide-area information for
travelers/Bellevue.............. 8/94 12/97 ...........
Travinfo......................... 4/93 12/98 ...........
Trilogy.......................... 7/94 1/98 ...........
ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (APTS)
LYNX passenger travel planning
system.......................... 1/96 \1\ 4/97 ...........
Miami real-time passenger
information system.............. 7/95 7/97
Northern Virginia regional fare
system.......................... 9/96 5/99 ...........
Blacksburg traveler information
system.......................... 7/96 1/98 ...........
Suburban mobility authority for
regional trans (SMART).......... 12/93 6/98 ...........
Winston-Salem mobility
management, phase II............ 6/96 10/97 ...........
Houston smart commuter........... 2/93 10/99 ...........
Ann Arbor smart intermodal....... 7/91 9/97 ...........
CTA (Chicago) smart intermodal... 7/91 5/98 ...........
Dallas smart vehicle operational
test............................ 4/94 1/98 ...........
Delaware County ridetracking..... 9/92 6/97 ...........
Smart flexroute integrated real-
time enhancement system......... 1/94 5/98 ...........
Santa Clara County smart vehicle. 11/93 2/96 ...........
Dallas area rapid transit
personalized public transit..... 9/94 8/98 ...........
Denver RTD passenger information
display system.................. 9/93 9/97 ...........
Wilmington, Delaware smart DART.. 7/94 5/99 ...........
New York City MTA travel
information system.............. 9/94 9/98 ...........
ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS (ARTS)
Travel-aid....................... 11/92 7/98 ...........
Idaho storm warning system....... 6/93 1/98 ...........
Advanced rural transportation
information and coordination.... 7/94 8/98 ...........
TransCal......................... 7/94 12/97
Advanced transportation weather
information system.............. 5/95 8/97 ...........
Herald en-route driver advisory
via AM subcarrier............... 1/95 10/97 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Concept development phase completed. Project completion date TBD.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS (CVO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Remaining
Project Start date completion unspent
date balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic truck speed warning for
long downgrades................. 6/93 8/97 ...........
Advantage I-75................... 1/91 10/97 ...........
Out-of-service verification
operational tests............... 4/94 ........... ...........
Wisconsin/Minnesota.......... ........... 3/97 ...........
Idaho........................ ........... 12/97 ...........
Electronic one-stop shopping for
credentials..................... 1/95 ........... ...........
HELP......................... ........... 8/97 ...........
Midwest...................... ........... 12/97 ...........
Southwest.................... ........... 7/97 ...........
Electronic clearance for
international boarders.......... 9/94 ........... ...........
MONY (Detroit, MI, Buffalo,
NY)......................... ........... 3/98 ...........
IBEX (Otay Mesa, CA)......... ........... 10/98 ...........
EPIC (Nogales, AZ)........... ........... 12/97 ...........
ITS/CVO greenlight project....... 10/9 4/00 ...........
National Institute for
Environmental Renewal (NIER).... 10/9 ........... ...........
Tranzit xpress............... ........... 3/97 ...........
Tranzit xpress II............ ........... 3/98 ...........
Operation Respond................ 4/95 6/97 ...........
Roadside MCSAP computer system... 5/95 6/97 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL AND SAFETY SYSTEMS (AVCSS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
completion/ Remaining
Project Start date final unspent
report date balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound help me (PuSHME)
mayday system................... 8/94 3/97 ...........
Colorado mayday system........... 10/94 6/97 ...........
Automated collision notification
system.......................... 9/95 10/98 ...........
Intelligent cruise control....... 9/95 9/97 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are additional model deployments necessary beyond the
four now underway?
Answer. We believe the four existing metropolitan area model
deployment projects and the seven CVISN model deployments--will be
sufficient to achieve the goals of this program, namely to evaluate and
showcase the benefits of integrated, intermodal, interoperable
deployment of ITS technologies and strategies in a metropolitan
setting.
Question. How many ``model deployments'' and ``incentive projects''
will it take to convince metro areas and States to use more of their
Federal aid dollars to deploy ITS?
Answer. Model deployment and deployment incentive projects are
distinct types of projects, conducted for different reasons. The four
existing metro area model deployment and the seven CVISN model
deployment projects are being implemented to serve as showcases of
integrated, intermodal ITS infrastructure, and to provide the
opportunity for comprehensive evaluations of this level of deployment.
We believe that projects, together with the Washington D. C. and
Atlanta Showcases, will provide enough information and experience to
draw the interest of other elected officials, and that the evaluation
data will be sufficient to convince others that implementation is
viable, practical, and cost-effective.
The incentive program is intended as a transition from research and
demonstration to mainstream. It is designed for only the life of
NEXTEA. The metropolitan projects to be funded under the proposed ITS
deployment incentives program will be in metropolitan areas which have
already made a decision to deploy ITS infrastructure. The deployment
incentive funding there will serve as a ``sweetener'' to jump-start the
integration of that infrastructure. The incentives for states to deploy
CVO ITS infrastructure will help extend the 7 state system to a
national system. Funding incentives for deployment of rural
applications has also been provided. It is expected that in all
instances the availability of ITS deployment incentive funds will spur
additional Federal-aid investment.
Question. Please assess the progress made by the National ITS
Program against each of the goals and objectives specified in Title
VI(B) of the ISTEA.
Answer. The benefits of the ITS program are well documented
according to the goals specified in ISTEA. The ITS Joint Program Office
has identified a key set of few good measures to capture such benefits.
These include (1) crashes avoided; (2) lives saved; (3) improved
throughput, or transportation system network efficiency; (4) decreased
travel times; (5) improved customer satisfaction; and (6) reduced
costs. Corollary benefits from ITS are hypothesized to include
reductions in harmful emissions and fuel use. The current state of
documented benefits is comprehensively reviewed in a report, ``Review
of ITS Benefits: Emerging Successes,'' U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1996. The
following paragraphs provide a brief assessment of progress made
according to each goal area in ISTEA.
Promote widespread implementation of ITS.--The ITS program has made
an excellent start at laying the foundation for widespread
implementation. This foundation consists of: (1) a comprehensive
research, test, and model deployment program conducted by the surface
transportation modal administrations under the leadership of the ITS
Joint Program Office; (2) a comprehensive development and documentation
of a National ITS Architecture that provides the framework by which ITS
products and services can be marketed and sold nationwide while having
utility by all Americans traveling anywhere in the United States; (3) a
standards program that stimulates private industry to work together to
ensure all ITS products and services will be compatible, interoperable,
and affordable; (4) a Professional Capacity Building program to re-
shape the knowledge, skills, and abilities of our nation's
transportation professionals, many of whose careers have been dedicated
to the building of the Interstate System and now must turn to learning
how to apply telecommunications, electrical engineering, information
processing, and computer skills to operating and maintaining our
existing physical infrastructure while supplementing it with an
integrated ITS infrastructure; (5) a Main streaming Program dedicated
to providing job aids and tools to transportation professionals to help
them plan, develop, build, deploy, operate, and maintain an integrated,
multimodal, surface transportation system; (6) a Program Assessment
function that has afforded independent evaluations of field operational
tests and model deployments and provided an extensive documentation of
the benefits of ITS, as well as the documentation of non-technical,
institutional issues leading to gradual changes in institutional
infrastructures by modifying legislation, contracting procedures, and
other standard practices to enable full realization of the benefits
that ITS has to offer; and, (7) a strong partnership with industry
through ITS America, and through increasingly large numbers of public-
private partnerships in field operational tests and model deployments,
whereby industry has signed up to greater than 50 percent of the costs
of many projects, and up to 50 percent in many more. The technical
feasibility of ITS has been demonstrated. There are no show stoppers.
It is now time to turn the nation's attention to NEXTEA whereby the job
of national deployment of ITS can take place.
Reduce costs of traffic congestion.--Significant strides have been
made in showing the potential for ITS to save lives, reduce congestion-
caused delay, and save time and money. There is growing documentation
of specific time savings resulting from advanced traffic management
systems, advanced public transit systems, and from commercial vehicle
operations. This documentation includes reports that freeway management
systems are responsible for a 20 to 48 percent decrease in travel
times, 15 to 50 percent reduction in accident rates, and up to a 41
percent reduction in congestion-caused fuel use.
Increased safety.--There are several major ways that the deployment
of ITS is beginning to promote or could result in safety benefits.
These include: crash avoidance technologies that warn drivers of
impending rear-end collisions, countermeasure systems that prevent
vehicles from inadvertently running off of the highway, and lane
change/merge crash avoidance systems. Such systems, if implemented
nationwide, could avoid 1.1 million crashes out of a total of 6.4
million crashes each year, a savings of 17 percent. Other ITS
technologies result in improved traffic flow and mitigated traffic
congestion. Moreover, advances in commercial vehicle operations
technologies can allow for increased targeting of unsafe motor carriers
by means of electronic screening of registrations and safety records
for each equipped vehicle.
Improved air quality.--The linkage between ITS and improved air
quality is based upon the hypothesis that ITS deployments can alleviate
congestion, thereby decreasing stop-and-go traffic and resulting in
less fuel consumed by rapid acceleration/deceleration oscillations of
large numbers of vehicles. ITS intervention can be accomplished by
real-time traveler information systems that inform travelers about
weather and congestion and can cause them to delay their departures,
select a different route or a different transportation mode.
Coordinated traffic signal systems can accomplish similar smoothing of
traffic flows with commensurate benefits in fuel savings. A few field
operational tests have been conducted whereby data sampling has been
made and modeling has been used to project benefits in fuel efficiency.
In one instance that tested dynamic route guidance in a vehicle,
general emissions benefits were projected to be modest, at around 5
percent. Moreover, although some are concerned that because ITS
alleviates congestion, such technologies will contribute to emissions
because more people will be driving the less congested highways. At
present, there are no data available to document the validity of this
argument.
Development of ITS technology and domestic ITS industry.--The ITS
program has been successful in stimulating a rapidly growing industrial
base. The Electronics Industry of America has just completed a market
assessment of ITS and confirms that ITS is becoming a billion dollar
industry. A similar study by ITS America is supportive of this same
conclusion. Emerging benefit/cost data reflect a healthy 8/1 benefit/
cost ratio for investments in ITS infrastructure in the nations larger
metropolitan areas. ITS is emerging as an extremely cost effective
investment. Expanding roadway capacity by incorporating ITS into the
planning process has recently been estimated to provide a 35 percent
cost savings compared to traditional methods of expanding capacity by
merely paving new lanes. The private sector is also catching on. High
end vehicles now include in-vehicle collision and Mayday notification
systems. Back-up collision warning systems concepts are getting
commercial television advertisement spots from one domestic car
manufacturer, and in-vehicle navigation systems are being advertised by
a variety of domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers.
Question. Please specify on a project-by-project basis how the
fiscal year 1996 and the fiscal year 1997 program support monies were
used. How much of these funds went to ITS AMERICA?
Answer. A total of $10.299 million was obligated for Program
Support in fiscal year 1996 and we expect to obligate $9.257 million in
fiscal year 1997 and $10 million in fiscal year 1998 for Program
Support as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America..................................................... 2,605 2,773 2,700
Mitre Corporation (management support).......................... 5,544 5,495 5,300
Volpe National Transportation Service Center.................... 250 900 900
Other support services \1\...................................... 1,900 89 1,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes computer network support, technical and Report to Congress writers/editors, management information
support/project tracking system support, special visual aid and publication services, etc.
Question. If program support monies are held constant, what are the
implications?
Answer. We have indicated in our answer to question 14 that we are
critically dependent on management support contractors to manage the
program. Access to data bases, information networks, etc that they have
created for us would be difficult. The clearinghouse function and all
dissemination of research information is entirely dependent on contract
support. Further, we are relying on these contractors for support in
assisting us in reviewing applications for deployment incentive funds.
A reduction in our request will reduce our ability to effectively
manage the program. Much of the increase requested in fiscal year 1998
is attributable to program support activities required for the portion
of the program managed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
which is proposed to grow from $4 million in fiscal year 1997 to $15.5
million in fiscal year 1998. These funds are critical to their ability
to effectively manage their program.
Question. When will it be a requirement for the States to use the
National Systems Architecture and to comply with consensus standards
needed for interoperability in any ITS project funded with Federal Aid
monies? How will you establish this requirement?
Answer. We are currently requiring all operational tests and model
deployments using ITS funds to be consistent with the Architecture and
applicable industry standards as they are adopted. A similar
requirement for the use of Federal-aid funds is included in the
Department's ISTEA reauthorization proposal recently delivered to
Congress. Assuming that this provision is signed into law, we
anticipate the need for an annual determination by the Secretary
regarding which ITS standards are required to be used as a prerequisite
for using Federal-aid funds to deploy ITS projects.
FHWA is currently developing a policy that will implement this
provision and is also developing guidance material on what constitutes
conformance with the Architecture.
Question. Please delineate all contract and GOE expenditures
(active and planned) for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 related
to ``outreach'' and ``mainstreaming'' activities. Please specify fiscal
year 1997 amounts by project or activity and do the same for fiscal
year 1996 expenditures.
Answer. The ITS spending plan for fiscal year 1997 includes $9.95
million for Mainstreaming activities all of which is funded from
contract authority funds provided via contract authority through the
Federal-aid Highways account. Of this total for mainstreaming,
approximately $100 thousand is expected to be obligated for CVO
outreach, and $1 million for ITI outreach.
The ITS Budget for fiscal year 1998 includes $22 million for
Mainstreaming activities; $3 million are requested in FHWA's General
Operating Expenses account and $19 million are included within the $96
million in contract authority requested in fiscal year 1998 for the ITS
Research and Development program in the reauthorization (NEXTEA)
package now under consideration by the Congress. Of the $22 million for
mainstreaming, approximately $1 million will be used for an ITI
Awareness Campaign which could loosely be interpreted as outreach.
Question. Are you planning or conducting any research or
operational tests to use ITS as a means of helping to notify police of
possible impaired or aggressive drivers? Is this an avenue worth
pursuing during fiscal year 1998? Do you plan on spending any fiscal
year 1998 funds on this technological path?
Answer. The technologies used to detect drowsy drivers are likely
to also have applicability to impaired or aggressive drivers. We will
be conducting an on-road evaluation of a heavy vehicle drowsy driver
detection system in fiscal year 1998, but have no immediate plans to
extend this research to include impaired or aggressive drivers.
Question. Given the numerous alternative uses for Federal aid
dollars, do you anticipate that most metropolitan areas would be able
and willing to invest in an integrated Intelligent Transportation
Infrastructure? How many areas have integrated ITS? To which extent?
Answer. Yes, evidence suggests that most metropolitan areas are
willing to deploy components of ITS infrastructure because it fulfills
a basic need--the effective operation and management of the
transportation system. In fact, most States and many metropolitan areas
are already using Federal-aid and State and local funds to purchase ITS
infrastructure components (e.g. traffic signal systems, freeway
management systems, transit management systems, incident management
systems, electronic fare payment and toll collection systems, traveler
information centers, railway-highway grade crossing systems, and
emergency management systems) to help satisfy this need.
In many instances ITS infrastructure components are not new budget
items to State and local jurisdictions. Instead they are upgrades of
existing infrastructure.
The challenge now is to convince the remaining State and local
jurisdictions that ITS technologies and services can provide
substantial benefits to their customers, and that ITS infrastructure
must be deployed in an integrated, intermodal, interoperable fashion.
On the latter issue, our evidence suggests that without some incentive
to cause agencies to go to the extra effort of integration, it is not
likely to happen. That is the reason that we have proposed the
deployment incentive program to provide incentives for integration, not
the deployment of hardware.
Question. FHWA has developed several reports which delineate the
benefits and costs of deploying ITS. Please summarize the results of
each of the studies.
Answer. Several DOT reports have shown how ITS technologies can
favorably impact transportation efficiency, productivity, safety, user
satisfaction, and the environment. The following tables document the
findings of eleven of the most recent major studies sponsored or
performed by DOT. Research on the public benefits of ITS establish
compelling national interest in deploying ITS technologies and
infrastructure. Below are highlights of ITS benefits documented by DOT:
ITS provides better traffic management
(1) Abilene, Texas replaced outdated signals with a computer-based
traffic signal system and realized $8-$11 in benefits for each dollar
invested.
(2) The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) program
controls traffic flow between freeway and parallel arterial streets in
Los Angeles, California and surrounding areas. The program has reduced
fuel usage by 12.5 percent, hydrocarbon emissions by 10 percent, and
carbon monoxide emissions by 10 percent.
ITS benefits transit agencies
(1) Four hundred New Jersey Transit buses are able to alter their
routes and stay on schedule using real-time information they receive
about traffic conditions.
(2) Baltimore, Maryland and Portland, Oregon cut travel time by 10-
18 percent, using vehicle locating technology to re-route buses and
dispatch additional vehicle buses to keep their services on schedule.
(3) Kansas City, Missouri was able to eliminate 7 buses from its
fleet of 280 by implementing advanced transit fleet management systems.
ITS reduces the costs of toll collecting
(1) The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority saves about $160,000 annually
by switching from a manual to electronic toll lane. The Authority
incurred an annual cost of $176,000 to operate an attended toll lane
vs. $15,800 to operate an automated electronic toll lane.
ITS can improve safety
(1) Just three crash avoidance systems alone could eliminate more
than 17,500 fatalities, prevent 1.2 million accidents, and save $26
billion each year. (By comparison, seatbelts and airbags save 10,500
lives per year.)
(2) Incident management programs could prevent 50 to 60 percent of
the accidents precipitated by traffic delays and congestion.
ITS increases traveler convenience
(1) As part of the Los Angeles Smart Traveler project, information
kiosks were located in office lobbies and shopping plazas. Between 20
and 100 users accessed these kiosks daily, with more than half
requesting freeway maps and bus and train information.
(2) Given traveler information, almost 50 percent of those surveyed
in Seattle and Boston indicated that they changed their travel route
and time of travel. Five to 10 percent indicated that they changed
travel mode. Even if only 30 percent of travelers change travel plans
daily, harmful emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds, and nitrogen oxides would be reduced by 33, 25, and 1.5
percent, respectively.
DOCUMENTATION OF ITS BENEFITS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Date ITS technology Description Findings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS National Investment & Market January 1997 draft Metropolitan This study, prepared by Apogee The deployment of the nine elements
Analysis. unpublished. intelligent Research for ITS America and DOT: of the metropolitan intelligent
transportation (1) Estimates public sector transportation infrastructure in
infrastructure. investment requirements to deploy the largest 297 metropolitan areas
Rural ITS basic ITS infrastructure in the United States would have an
infrastructure. nationwide by year 2005; (2) overall benefit-cost ratio of
ITS/CVO targeting Quantifies direct benefits; (3) 5.7:1.
administrative Estimates size of private sector The deployment of these same
processes. market; and (4) Identifies and elements in the 75 Operation Time
evaluates national economic Saver metropolitan areas would
impacts. have a benefit-cost ratio of
The study is an analytical 8.8:1. More than 80 percent of the
framework based on analyses benefits are from increased safety
conducted as part of the National and reduced congestion.
ITS Architecture efforts. The
framework employs best publicly
available information on the costs
and benefits of deploying ITS.
An Estimate of Transportation February 1997 latest Metropolitan This study, prepared by Mitretek This study estimates that buying
Cost Savings by Using version intelligent for the ITS Joint Program Office, smarter by deploying ITS reduces
Intelligent Transportation (unpublished). transportation estimates the cost savings of the need for new roads, while
System (ITS) Infrastructure. infrastructure. metropolitan ITS infrastructure saving taxpayers 35 percent of
for 50 major urban areas to keep required investment in urban
up with expected new travel demand highways. 44,000 new lane-miles
over the next ten years. would be needed to keep up with
The study employs a life-cycle travel demand over the next ten
analysis (10 years of investment, years in 50 major urban areas. The
out to 20 years of operations) to deployment of ITS would reduce
compare two alternatives: (1) New required new lane-miles to 15,000.
highway construction (build-only)
and (2) ITS plus limited road-
building. The results are
discounted to 1996 using a seven
percent annual rate.
Preliminary Assessment of Crash October 1996........ Single vehicle The study, performed by NHTSA, The study predicts that three types
Avoidance Systems Benefits. roadway departure estimates the benefits of three of collision avoidance systems--
systems (including types of advanced collision rear-end collision avoidance, lane
excessive speed for avoidance systems in terms of change/merge crash avoidance, and
curve-ahead warning number of crashes avoided. road departure warning systems--
and imminent road The study employs probability could eliminate 1.18 million
departure warning). analyses based on information from vehicular collisions each year--17
Rear-end collision NHTSA's traffic accident database percent of all vehicular crashes.
avoidance driver and preliminary experimental data This estimate presumes that all
warning systems. from NHTSA's advanced collision vehicles in the U.S. would be
Lane change collision avoidance program. equipped with these collision
avoidance systems. avoidance systems.
These predictions must be
considered preliminary pending
further research, refinement of
potential countermeasure
effectiveness estimates, and field
experience.
Review of ITS Benefits: Emerging Sept. 1996.......... Advanced traffic The document, prepared by Mitretek Highlights of the 75 studies
Successes. management systems. for the ITS Joint Program Office, reviewed in this report are shown
Advanced traveler presents the findings of in the attached table.
information systems. approximately 75 studies related
Advanced public to ITS impacts on time savings,
transportation number of crashes, fatalities,
systems. throughput, cost reductions, and
Advanced rural energy and environment. The review
transportation distinguishes measured, predicted,
systems. and anecdotal results from
ITS/CVO.............. evaluations of field operational
Advanced collision tests and early deployments, and
avoidance systems. academic studies.
Integrated systems...
Benefits Assessment of Advanced July 1996........... Transit management The study, prepared by Volpe The analysis projects that total
Public Transportation Systems. systems. National Transportation Systems benefits over ten years for 265
Automated traveler Center for FTA, considers the APTS system deployments would
information systems. deployment of APTS technologies range from $3.8 billion to $7.4
Electronic fare for a total of 200 motorbus, 212 billion. On an annualized basis,
payment systems. demand-responsive transit, 16 the annual APTS benefits, over the
Transportation demand light-rail and 14 heavy-rail next ten years, from these
management. transit systems. For each of these deployments are projected to range
systems, data representing the from $546.6 million to as high as
1993 financial, operating, and $1.1 billion. Approximately 44
performance characteristics (as percent of the total benefits are
reported by these transit systems accrued from fleet management
under Section 15) was used to system deployments, 34 percent
predict the benefits of APTS from electronic fare payment
deployments for a ten-year period system applications, 21 percent
(1996-2005). from traveler information system
deployments, with the remaining 1
percent from demand responsive
transit systems.
Assessment of Intelligent June 1996........... Commercial vehicle The study, performed by the The study estimates the following
Transportation Systems/ administrative American Trucking Associations benefit-cost ratios for three
Commercial Vehicle Operations processes. Foundation for FHWA, evaluates the sizes of carriers:
User Services: ITS/CVO Electronic clearance. potential benefits and costs of --Commercial vehicle administrative
Qualitative Benefit/Cost Automated roadside ITS/CVO technologies for small (1- processes: small (1.0:1); medium
Analysis. safety inspections. 10 units), medium (11-99 units), (4.2:1); and large (19.8:1).
On-board safety and large (> 99 units) motor --Electronic clearance for motor
monitoring. carriers. The calculated benefits carriers who pay drivers based on
Hazardous materials are restricted to reduced labor hours worked: small (3.3:1 to 6.5
incident response. expenses associated with to 6.5:1); medium (3.7:1 to
Freight mobility..... regulatory compliance based on 7.4:1); and large (1.9:1 to 3.8 to
survey results from 700 motor 1).
carriers. --Automated roadside safety
The costs are based on actual 1995 inspections for motor carriers who
product prices obtained from 170 pay drivers based on hours worked:
vendors. small (1.3:1); medium (1.4:1); and
large (1.4:1).
--On-board safety monitoring: small
(0.18:1 to 0.49:1); medium (0.06:1
to 0.16:1); and large (0.02:1 to
0.05:1).
--Hazardous materials incident
response: small (0.3:1); medium
(1.1:1); and large (2.5:1).
--Freight mobility: Mobile
communications can yield benefit/
cost ratios ranging from 1.5:1 to
5.0:1.
Assessment of ITS Benefits: April 1996.......... ATMS................. The study, performed by Mitretek Highlights of the studies reviewed
Results from the Field. ATIS................. for the ITS Joint Program Office, in this report are shown in the
APTS................. is a precursor to Review of ITS attached table.
ITS/CVO.............. Benefits: Emerging Successes and
presents the findings of estimated
and measured impacts of ITS field
operational tests and early
deployments.
Intelligent Transportation Jan. 1996........... Traffic signal This document, prepared by Mitretek The study predicts the following
Infrastructure Benefits: control systems. for FHWA, presents benefits of 7 benefits:
Expected and Experienced. Freeway management of the 9 components of --Traffic signal control systems:
systems. metropolitan intelligent travel time (decrease 8-15
Transit management transportation infrastructure. For percent); travel speed (14-22
systems. each of these components, the percent); vehicle stops (decrease
Incident management document presents the range of 0-35 percent); delay (decrease 17-
pro- grams. reported impacts on travel time, 37 percent); fuel consumption
Electronic fare travel speed, freeway capacity, (decrease 6-12 percent); emissions
payment sys- tems. accident rate, fuel consumption, (decrease CO by 5-13 percent and
Electronic toll and vehicular emissions. The decrease HC by 4-10 percent)
collection sys- benefits results are based on a --Freeway management systems:
tems. review of approximately 50 studies travel time (decrease 20-48
Multimodal traveler of the actual and predicted percent); travel speed (increase
information systems. impacts of ITS operational tests 16-62 percent); freeway capacity
and field deployments. (increase 17-25 percent); accident
rate (decrease 15-50 percent);
fuel consumption (decrease fuel
used in congestion by 41 percent);
emissions (decreases in CO, HC,
and NOX)
--Transit management: travel time
(decrease 15-18 percent); service
reliability (increase 12-23
percent in on-time performance;
security (decrease incident
response time to as little as one
minute); cost effectiveness (45
percent annual return on
investment).
--Incident management: incident
clearance time (decrease 8 minutes
for stalls and decrease wrecker
response time by 5-7 minutes);
travel time (decrease 10-42
percent); and fatalities (decrease
10 percent in urban areas).
--Electronic fare payment: patron
popularity (up to 90 percent usage
where available); fare collection
(increase 3-30 percent); and data
collection costs (decreased $1.5
to $5 million).
--Electronic toll collection:
operating expenses (decrease up to
90 percent); effective capacity
(increase 250 percent); fuel
consumption (decrease 6-12
percent); emissions (decrease CO
by 72 percent, decrease HC by 83
percent, and decrease NOX by 45
percent per affected mile).
--Multimodal traveler information:
travel time (decrease 20 percent
in incident conditions and
decrease 8-20 percent for vehicles
equipped with in-vehicle
navigation systems); fuel
consumption (decrease 6-12
percent); and emissions (decrease
HC by 33 percent from affected
vehicles and decrease NOX by 1.5
percent from affected vehicles).
Assessment of ITS Benefits: Early January 1996........ ATMS................. This study, performed by Mitretek, Highlights of the studies reviewed
Results. ATIS................. is a precursor to Review of ITS in this report are shown in the
APTS................. Benefits: Emerging Successes and attached table.
ITS/CVO.............. presents the findings of
Collision avoidance approximately 50 benefits studies.
systems.
AHS..................
Intelligent Transportation 1996................ Traffic signal The document, prepared by ITS Highlights of the studies reviewed
Systems Action Guide. control systems. America, summarizes nine ``success in this report are shown in the
Freeway management stories'' illustrating how ITS attached table.
systems. solutions eased congestion,
ITS/CVO electronic increased efficiency, improved
clearance. safety, improved air quality,
Hazardous materials assisted elderly and disabled
response systems. travelers, enhanced emergency
Transit management response, and improved
systems. productivity. The beneficiaries
In-vehicle navigation include Abilene, Texas; Houston;
systems. Kansas City, Missouri; Montgomery
Electronic toll County, Maryland; Oakland County ,
collection systems. Michigan; the Oklahoma Turnpike
Electronic fare Authority; Phoenix; Winston-Salem,
payment. North Carolina; and the trucking
corridor from Florida to Ontario
Canada.
Traveling With Success: How Local 1995................ Traffic signal This document, prepared for Public Highlights of the studies reviewed
Governments Use Intelligent control systems. Technology, Inc. for FHWA, in this report are shown in the
Transportation Systems. Freeway management presents the stories of 31 attached table.
systems. successful local government ITS
Transit management initiatives. These studies
systems. illustrate how ITS technologies
Incident management have helped ease problems in seven
systems. categories of local transportation
Electronic fare concerns: traffic management;
payment systems. parking solutions; mass transit;
Electronic toll incident management; traveler
collection systems. information; traffic safety; toll
Multimodal traveler collection; and public safety. The
information systems. document also provides anecdotal
Integrated systems... benefits of integrated systems in
Atlanta, Houston, and Oakland
County, Michigan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFITS OF SELECTED ITS PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS Technology Findings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced traffic management Traffic signal control: In
systems. Lexington, Kentucky, coordinated
computerized traffic signals
reduced ``stop and go'' traffic
delay by 40 percent and reduced
accidents by 31 percent between
1985 and 1994; The Abilene, Texas
computerized traffic light system
decreased travel time by 14
percent, increased travel speed by
22 percent, and decreased delay by
37 percent; In the Detroit area,
the SCATS adaptive signal system
decreased left turn accidents by 89
percent and decreased delay by up
to 30 percent.
Freeway management: Minnesota's
freeway management system increased
speeds by 35 percent and reduced
accidents by 15 to 50 percent
although demand increased by 32
percent; In Seattle, ramp metering
along Interstate 5 kept traffic
moving and cut accident rates by
more than 38 percent over a six-
year period despite a 10 to 100
percent increase in traffic.
Incident management: Initial
operation of Maryland's incident
management system had a benefit/
cost ratio of 5.6:1; Minnesota's
Highway Helper reduces the duration
of a stall by 8 minutes.
Electronic toll collection: On the
Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza,
electronic tolls handle 1000
vehicles per hour compared with 350-
400 vehicles per hour handled by
manual tolls; New York's E-Z Pass
electronic toll system nearly
tripled traffic speeds compared to
stop-and-pay tolls.
Advanced traveler information In-vehicle navigation: TravTek's in-
systems. vehicle navigation systems in
Orlando decreased wrong turns by 33
percent and decreased travel times
by 20 percent for unfamiliar
drivers.
Multimodal traveler information: In
Boston, 30-40 percent of travelers
adjusted travel behavior after
receiving real-time traveler
information from Smart Traveler; In
Montgomery County, Maryland, the
local cable station reaches 180,000
homes to show traffic conditions on
major highways--giving commuters
mode of travel options.
Advanced public transportation Fleet management: In Kansas City,
systems. with the Transit Management System
implementation, transit officials
cut operating costs by $400,000,
avoided $1.5 million in new bus
purchases, and reduced response
time to emergencies from 3-10
minutes to 1 minute; The computer
dispatching system in Sweetwater
County, Wyoming has helped increase
monthly transit ridership from
5,000 to 9,000 passengers while
reducing mileage-related operating
costs by 50 percent over a five-
year period.
Electronic fare payment: New York
estimates $49 million in increased
ridership from smart cards; Atlanta
estimates annual cost savings of $2
million in cash handling; Ventura
County, California estimates annual
cost savings of $9.5 million in
reduced fare evasion, $5 million in
reduced data collection costs, and
$990,000 by eliminating transfer
slips.
Multimodal traveler information: An
automated transit information
system implemented by the Rochester-
Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority spurred an increase in
calling volume by 80 percent; A
system installed by New Jersey
Transit reduced caller wait time
from 85 seconds to 27 seconds and
reduced the caller hang-up rate
from 10 percent to 3 percent while
accommodating more calls.
Advanced rural transportation Mayday systems: Mayday devices, if
systems. effectively deployed in 60 percent
of rural crashes, could eliminate
1,727 fatalities each year through
speedier incident notification.
ITS/commercial vehicle opera- Fleet management: Best Line of
tions. Minneapolis estimates a $10,000 per
month savings from its computer-
aided dispatching system; Schneider
of Green Bay, Wisconsin reported a
20 percent increase in loaded miles
from its advanced vehicle
monitoring and communications
systems.
Electronic safety inspections: An
early information network in Oregon
increased the number of truck
weighings and safety inspections by
90 percent and 428 percent,
respectively, between 1980 and 1989
although staff increased by only 23
percent; On-board safety monitoring
systems, along with electronic
clearance and automated roadside
safety inspections, could reduce
fatalities by 14 to 23 percent.
Electronic pre-clearance: A 1994
study estimates a benefit/cost
ratio to the government of 7.2 for
electronic clearance, 7.9 for one-
stop/no-stop shopping, and 5.4 for
automated inspections.
Advanced vehicle control and In-vehicle collision avoidance
safety systems. systems: Lane change/merge, rear
end, and single-vehicle roadway
departure collision avoidance
systems could eliminate 1.2 million
crashes annually.
Rear-end collision warning systems:
The use of the Eaton-Vorad
collision warning device by
Greyhound reduced accidents by 20
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much are you planning to spend on evaluations of the
program during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998? Please be certain
to delineate LGOE and contract monies. Why is an increase in funds for
evaluation sought at this time in the program?
Answer. We plan to spend $6.092 million in fiscal year 1997 on
Evaluations of which $5.992 million is LGOE funding and $100 thousand
is from Federal-aid Highways contract authority. It is noted that
$3.992 of fiscal year 1997 funds expected to be utilized for
Evaluations is included under the Operational Tests program category
(only $2.1 million is shown under the Evaluation program line). Our
fiscal year 1998 budget includes $7.25 million for Evaluations all of
which is from LGOE funding. The primary reason for the increase in
Evaluations is related directly to the comprehensive work we will be
doing for the four Metropolitan Model Deployment Sites and the seven
CVO Model Deployment sites. It is not unreasonable for evaluations of
this scale to consume 15 to 25 percent of the original cost of the
projects. Previous operational tests primarily focused on whether the
technology worked; these demonstrations are being comprehensively
evaluated for costs and benefits--from the individual technology and
the integration of it.
Question. Which fiscal year 1996 or fiscal year 1997 ITS projects
required additional Federal monies added to the amounts specified in
their original cooperative agreements? Why were these funds added?
Answer. The Mobile, Alabama Fog Detection System (Mobile, AL)--A
fiscal year 1996 start up has received additional funding in fiscal
year 1997 through a Congressional earmark.
Question. Please prepare a detailed table showing any unspent funds
by year for any ITS project specified in previous Conference Reports.
What is the status of each of these projects? Have all of these monies
been obligated?
Answer. The following table displays all ITS projects specified in
annual conference reports from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
1997. We do not have detailed records regarding unobligated balances
for each of these projects prior to fiscal year 1995; however,
generally, earmarked projects are historically obligated in the fiscal
year for which the Congressional earmark was made. At the end of fiscal
year 1995 Johnson City, Tennessee was the only earmarked project with
an unobligated balance ($3.75 million); and at the end of fiscal year
1996, Johnson City was again the only earmarked project with an
unobligated balance ($3.75 million). We are currently working with the
parties involved with this project and expect to arrive at a viable ITS
project in the very near future and anticipate these funds being
obligated by the end of fiscal year 1997.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS--CONGRESSIONALLY EARMARKED PROJECTS
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years-- Fiscal years--
Project State ---------------------------------------- Rescission -------------------- Total
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANTAGE I-75............................... ....................... $1,000 $1,400 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ $2,400
Smart corridor............................... CA..................... 1,000 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,000
ADVANCE (Chicago)............................ IL..................... 7,500 4,550 $6,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 18,050
HELP/Crescent................................ ....................... 2,000 525 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,525
DIRECT (Detroit)............................. MI..................... 500 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 500
Smart Commuter (Houston)..................... TX..................... 2,000 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
Philadelphia................................. PA..................... 2,000 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
Miami........................................ FL..................... 5,000 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 5,000
Guidestar.................................... MN..................... 10,000 8,750 6,000 $6,825 .......... $2,000 $3,600 37,175
Electric vehicle............................. CA..................... 1,500 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,500
FAST-TRAC (Oakland County)................... MI..................... 10,000 10,500 20,000 15,000 .......... ........ ........ 55,500
TRANSCOM..................................... NJ/NY.................. 3,000 2,400 2,200 2,625 .......... 1,500 2,250 13,975
MAGIC........................................ NJ/NY.................. 4,000 6,280 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 10,280
Toll road ETTM............................... NJ..................... 25,000 7,000 3,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 35,000
Integrated Corridor Management............... NJ/PA.................. 6,000 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 6,000
Signal computerization....................... NJ..................... 6,000 7,000 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 13,000
Southern State Parkway....................... NY..................... 20,000 14,000 ........ ........ -$13,600 ........ 20,400
Spellman Parkway............................. MD..................... 300 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 300
Maryland Arterials........................... MD..................... 2,200 ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,200
Northeast Corridor........................... Various................ ........ 10,500 1,000 7,500 .......... 3,500 ........ 22,500
Gary Corridor................................ Various................ ........ 1,400 2,500 ........ .......... ........ ........ 3,900
Houston Corridor............................. TX..................... ........ 3,105 2,000 2,250 .......... 2,200 2,000 11,555
Anaheim Corridor............................. CA..................... ........ 4,200 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 4,200
Smart Corridor (Los Angeles)................. CA..................... ........ 4,900 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 4,900
Chicaao Corridor............................. IL..................... ........ 500 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 500
Milwaukee Corridor........................... WI..................... ........ 500 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 500
San Diego.................................... CA..................... ........ 2,100 5,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 7,100
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale......................... FL..................... ........ 2,240 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,240
Seattle...................................... WA..................... ........ 3,500 1,500 ........ .......... ........ ........ 5,000
Detroit...................................... MI..................... ........ 700 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 700
TravTek (Orlando)............................ FL..................... ........ 500 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 500
I-80 (CVO)................................... ....................... ........ 700 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 700
Sutter County................................ CA..................... ........ 1,750 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,750
Fairx County................................. VA..................... ........ 5,250 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 5,250
Police Communications Center................. NJ..................... ........ 3,500 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 3,500
New York State Thruway....................... NY..................... ........ 5,250 6,400 ........ .......... 1,500 3,000 16,150
George Mason University (GOE funding)........ VA..................... ........ 1,600 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,600
Humphrey Institute (GOE funding)............. MN..................... ........ 760 ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ 760
Sandia Labs.................................. NM..................... ........ ........ 2,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
Bronx/Northern Manhattan ATMS................ NY..................... ........ ........ 2,400 2,250 .......... ........ ........ 4,650
Buffalo/Niagara Falls ATMS................... NY..................... ........ ........ 2,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
CARAT (Charlotte)............................ NC..................... ........ ........ 6,000 4,500 .......... ........ ........ 10,500
George Mason University...................... VA..................... ........ ........ 2,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
Johnson City................................. TN..................... ........ ........ 2,500 3,750 .......... 1,500 ........ 7,750
Montgomery County............................ MD..................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,000
Southeast Michigan (SMART)................... MI..................... ........ ........ 4,500 7,500 .......... ........ ........ 12,000
Smart Bus--State Rt. 9....................... NJ..................... ........ ........ 1,500 ........ .......... ........ ........ 1,500
Iowa CVO (GOE funding)....................... IA..................... ........ ........ 2,000 ........ .......... ........ ........ 2,000
Humphrey Institute (GOE funding)............. MN..................... ........ ........ 950 ........ .......... ........ ........ 950
Lower Hudson Valley.......................... NY..................... ........ ........ ........ 1,500 .......... ........ ........ 1,500
Advisory Transportation Weather Information ND..................... ........ ........ ........ 750 .......... 1,000 1,000 2,750
System (U of ND).
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety N/A.................... ........ ........ ........ 1,500 .......... 2,500 2,000 6,000
(NIER).
Santa Teresa Border Crossing................. NM..................... ........ ........ ........ 1,680 .......... 900 ........ 2,580
Syracuse Congestion Management............... NY..................... ........ ........ ........ 1,500 .......... 1,500 ........ 3,000
Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens Signalization.......... NY..................... ........ ........ ........ 3,750 .......... ........ ........ 3,750
National Transportation Center (Oakdale) NY..................... ........ ........ ........ 1,870 .......... 2,000 2,500 6,370
(Dowling Collage).
Advisory Railroad/Highway Crossings.......... NY?.................... ........ ........ ........ 2,625 .......... 1,250 2,000 5,875
New Jersey Turnpike.......................... NJ..................... ........ ........ ........ 2,625 .......... ........ ........ 2,625
Green Light CVO Project...................... OR..................... ........ ........ ........ 6,000 .......... 7,000 7,000 20,000
Paralympad................................... GA..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 1,000 ........ 1,000
I-10 (Mobile) (Fog Detection System)......... AL..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 3,000 2,000 5,000
Capitol Beltway.............................. MD/VA.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 4,000 ........ 4,000
Texas Transportation Institute (Texas A&M)... TX..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 600 600 1,200
Western Transportation Institute (Montana MT..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 1,000 ........ 1,000
State Univ.).
I-675/SR844/Col. Glenn (Fairborn)............ OH..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 1,000 ........ 1,000
Salt Lake City............................... UT..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... 2,000 5,000 7,000
Inglewood.................................... CA..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,000 1,000
Mobile Advisory Traffic Management System AL..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,000 1,000
(Montgomery).
Traffic Guidance System (Nashville).......... TN..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,000 1,000
Operation Respond............................ MD..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,000 1,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike........................ PA..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 3,000 3,000
National Capitol Region Congestion Mitigation Various................ ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 3,500 3,500
National Advanced Driver Simulator (NADS).... IA..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 14,000 14,000
Kansas City Region........................... KS/MO.................. ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 2,500 2,500
United States/Canada CVO..................... MI/NY?................. ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,500 1,500
Rochester Congestion Management.............. NY..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 1,500 1,500
Urban Transportation Safety System Center PA..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......... ........ 500 500
(Philadelphia).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................. ....................... 109,000 115,360 82,450 76,000 -13,300 40,950 63,450 473,610
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are any ITS projects not progressing at an acceptable
rate? If so, please specify the scope and nature of the challenge and
your current plans regarding these projects.
Answer. The answer is as follows:
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE SMART DART has encountered significant
schedule problems resulting from the dynamics in the smart card
industry. MasterCard divested itself of ``Smart Cash,'' the stored
value card used in the project. MasterCard subsequently acquired
MONDEX, an electronic purse system. This turbulence in the operation
and evaluation of a stored value smart card has extended previously
reported delays in resolving banking law issues. The project manager
whose proactive leadership was key to maintaining momentum on the
project has departed. MasterCard appears to be exercising cautious risk
management during this period of flux in the smart card industry. The
Federal Transit Administration is intensively monitoring the project,
and has established deadlines for getting on track or suspending
activity.
ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION AND COORDINATION (MN).
This project has encountered a series of contracting-related delays
resulting in restructuring the procurement approach from a single
vendor/system integrator to multiple procurements. While this revised
approach added time to the project schedule, managers anticipate
bringing all components on-line by mid-1997 with a mix of systems
better suited to project needs.
DENVER, COLORADO, HOGBACK MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER. This project
encountered resistance by residents of the area west of Metropolitan
Denver where the proposed site was to be located. The controversy
placed the project in a ``HOLD'' status pending a review of regional
traveler information initiatives. Recent information indicates that
progress to resolution is being made, but the original schedule will
require significant adjustment.
Question. The JPO is in the process of conducting numerous
evaluations of the Operational Test Program. What benefits and cost
savings have been documented? What problems or shortcomings in these
tests have you documented?
Answer. Each question is answered in respective sections:
Documented benefits and cost savings
The following is a selection of evaluation results from a number of
ITS operational tests. The evaluation report for each test is
footnoted. A single test may be mentioned in more than one place to
describe different study results. These data are drawn primarily from a
recent FHWA report titled, Review of ITS Benefits: Emerging Successes,
September 1996.
The Information for Motorists (INFORM) program is an integrated
corridor management system on Long Island, New York providing
information via variable message signs (VMS's) and control using ramp
meters serving parallel expressways and some signal coordination on
arterial. The program stretches back to concept studies in the early
1970's and a major feasibility study performed from 1975 to 1977. The
implementation progressed in phases starting with VMS's, followed by
ramp meters in 1986 and 1987 and completed implementation by early
1990. Estimates of delay savings due to motorist information \1\ reach
as high as 1,900 vehicle-hours for a peak period incident and 300,000
vehicle-hours in incident related delay annually.
In-vehicle navigation devices can benefit users of such devices in
terms of travel time and route finding. Field Operational Test
experience is producing data that suggest system benefits when wider
deployment appears. The TravTek test in Orlando found that for
unfamiliar drivers, wrong turn probability decreased by about 33
percent and travel time decreased by 20 percent relative to using paper
maps, while travel planning time decreased by 80 percent.\2\ The
ADVANCE project in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago tested the time
effects of dynamic route guidance using a yoked vehicle study on an
arterial network with limited probe data. The aggregate data set showed
no significant time savings offered by dynamic route guidance; however,
there was a small sample size and relatively high standard
deviation.\3\ It did appear that the dynamic route guidance concept, as
implemented in ADVANCE, can detect some larger delays and help drivers
avoid them. The Pathfinder project implemented an in-vehicle navigation
and motorist information system including access to real-time traffic
information. The project was implemented in the Los Angeles area. The
evaluation \4\ stated that the Pathfinder navigation system delivered
meaningful user benefits including fewer travelers failing to follow
their desired route. Since in-vehicle systems operate in a complex
environment, specific results vary with conditions and options
selected.
Studies also indicate that travelers are interested in receiving
traffic information and are willing to react to avoid congestion and
delay. In focus groups for the Atlanta, Georgia, Advanced Traveler
Information Kiosk Project,\5\ 92-98 percent of participants found the
current information on accidents, alternate routes, road closures, and
traffic congestion to be useful and desirable. A survey in Marin
County, California, showed that if regular commuters had been presented
with alternate routes including travel time estimates, 69 percent would
have diverted and would have saved an average of 17 minutes.\6\ A pilot
project in the Netherlands found a 40 percent increase in route
diversions based on traffic information provided to the 300 vehicles
equipped with FM sideband data receivers.\7\
According to studies related to INFORM, drivers will divert from 5
percent to 10 percent of the time when passive (no recommended action)
messages are displayed and twice that when messages include
recommendations to divert. Convenient alternate routes also have a
major impact on diversion. Drivers will start to divert several ramps
prior to an incident, with typically 3 percent to 4 percent of drivers
using an individual exit ramp. This represents an increase in ramp
usage of 40-70 percent. Surveys performed in the Seattle, Washington,
and the Boston, Massachusetts, areas indicate that 30-40 percent \8\ of
travelers frequently adjust travel patterns based on travel
information. Of those who change travel patterns, about 45 percent
change route of travel and another 45 percent change time of travel; an
additional 5-10 percent change travel mode.
Incident management programs show concrete promise of reducing the
50-60 percent of delay associated with traffic congestion attributable
to incidents. The Maryland CHART program is in the process of expanding
to more automated surveillance with lane sensors and video cameras. The
evaluation of the initial operation of the program shows a benefit/cost
ratio of 5.6:1, with most of the benefits resulting from a 5 percent (2
million vehicle-hours per year) decrease in delay associated with non-
recurrent congestion.\9\ Freeway service patrols, which began prior to
the emergence of ITS technologies, but are being incorporated into
traffic management centers, significantly reduce the time to clear
incidents, especially minor incidents. The Minnesota Highway Helper
Program \10\ reduces the duration of a stall (the most frequent type of
incident representing 84 percent of service calls) by 8 minutes. Based
upon representative numbers, annual benefits through reduced delay
total $1.4 million for a program that costs $600,000 to operate.
Freeway management systems and ramp meters show good results in
reducing travel times on congested roadway segments. According to a
longitudinal study of the ramp metering/freeway management system in
the Seattle, Washington area over a six year period,\11\ freeways in
the area show a growth in traffic volume of 10 percent to 100 percent
along various segments of I-5 while speeds have remained steady or
increased up to 20 percent. The improvements have occurred while
average delays caused by ramp meters have remained at or below 3
minutes. According to the Minnesota DOT Freeway Operations Meeting
Minutes, average peak period speeds have risen from 34 mph to 46 mph
while peak period demand increased by 32 percent. In studies comparing
1987 to 1990 flows in the area of the INFORM system measuring benefits
from ramp metering in combination with motorist information, freeway
speeds increased 13 percent despite an increase of 5 percent in VMT for
the PM peak.\12\ The relative merits of ramp metering and motorist
information can not be discerned from the available data. The number of
detectors showing speeds of less than 30 MPH decreased 50 percent for
the AM peak. Average queue lengths at ramp meters ranged from 1.2 to
3.4 vehicles, representing 0.1 percent of vehicle hours traveled. A
survey of traffic management centers using ramp metering \13\ reported
similar findings of speed increases of 16-62 percent and travel time
improvements of up to 48 percent while demand increased 17-25 percent.
Traffic signal system improvements are frequently implemented with
reduction of travel time as a primary goal. The Automated Traffic
Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) program in Los Angeles, California,
largely a computerized signal control system, reported an 18 percent
reduction in travel time, a 16 percent increase in average speed, and a
44 percent decrease in delay.\14\ The City of Abilene, Texas, installed
a closed-loop computerized signal system. Their report \15\ indicates
an overall decrease in travel time of 14 percent, a decrease in delay
of 37 percent, and an increase in travel speed of 22 percent. Phase I
of a Texas state program called Traffic Light Synchronization (TLS)
involving 44 cities, has installed arterial and network signal system
projects affecting 2,243 of the approximately 13,000 traffic signals in
the state. An additional 73 systems were installed in phase II. TLS
analysis shows a benefit/cost ratio of 62:1,\16\ with a majority of the
benefits being travel time reduction.
Portland, Oregon \17\ has integrated a bus priority system with the
traffic signal system on a major arterial. By allowing buses to either
extend green time or shorten red time by only a few seconds, the bus
travel time was reduced by between 5 percent and 8 percent. In addition
to the travel time savings, this approach allows the use of fewer
vehicles to serve that route.
The City of Richardson, Texas, tied the operator of the city's
towing concession into the roadway surveillance network with an
investment of roughly $200. Using the information provided by the
camera, the tow truck dispatcher can position appropriate equipment
near the collision site prior to the request for service from the
police department. This reduces the response time for incident
clearance by 5-7 minutes on average and greatly improves the ability to
send appropriate equipment that can handle the active incident (Pamela
Hadnot, City of Richardson internal memorandum, December 1995).
Fifteen authorities are currently using electronic toll collection
(ETC), with more planning for implementations (Maureen Gallagher,
IBTTA, telephone interview, February 1996). ETC can greatly improve
throughput on a per-lane basis compared with manual toll collection
techniques. On the Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza, a manual toll lane can
accommodate 350-400 vehicles per hour while an electronic lane peaks at
1,000 vehicles per hour.
By replacing eight manual collection stations with five electronic
lanes using the multi jurisdictional E-ZPass electronic toll collection
system, and implementing a movable barrier procedure to allow an extra
peak direction lane, traffic speeds have increased from a crawling 8-12
mph to a flowing 25 mph (Mike Zimmerman, New York State Thruway
Authority, telephone interview, December 1995). The nature of the data
reported does not allow allocation of speed benefits between the
electronic toll collection and moveable barrier solutions.
For nearly a decade, transit properties have been installing and
using automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems based on signpost,
triangulation, LORAN, and more recently GPS technologies.\18\ The most
direct improvement enabled by transit management systems relates to
schedule adherence. The Mass Transit Administration in Baltimore,
Maryland, reported a 23 percent improvement in on-time performance by
AVL-equipped buses. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority in
and around Kansas City, Missouri, improved on-time performance by 12
percent in the first year of operation using AVL, compared to a 7
percent improvement as the result of a coordinated effort between 1986
and 1989. Preliminary results from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, indicate a 28
percent decrease in the number of buses more than one minute behind
schedule.\19\
AVL systems continue to be deployed rapidly. A recent study found
22 U.S. transit systems operating more than 7,000 vehicles under AVL
supervision and another 47 in various stages of procurement. The new
procurements represent a tripling of the number of deployed systems,
with most new systems using a GPS-based location process.\20\ Fleet
management systems with vehicle location capability are producing
benefits in productivity, security and travel time. In addition,
several operators have reported incidents where AVL information
assisted in resolving disputes with employees and patrons.
The Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) area continues to be viewed
as a potential early winner for the ITS program. Use of advanced
vehicle monitoring and communications technologies by motor carriers
has demonstrated considerable time savings.\21\ Schneider of Green Bay,
Wisconsin, reported a 20 percent increase in loaded miles and that the
elimination of driver check-in telephone calls saves approximately two
hours per day resulting in a driver salary increase of $50 per week
with a primary benefit of improved customer service. Trans-Western Ltd.
of Lerner, Colorado, credits their fleet management system for improved
driver relations, noting that drivers are able to drive 50 to 100
additional miles per day. Frederick Transport of Dundas, Ontario,
Canada, estimates an increase of 20 percent in loaded miles, a
reduction of $30 from $150 per month in telephone charges, a 0.7
percent greater load factor and a 9 percent increase in total miles.
Best Line of Minneapolis, Minnesota, estimates a $10,000 per month
savings since 300 drivers previously lost about 15 minutes each day
waiting to talk with dispatchers.
The safety potential for an advanced traffic information system
that warns commercial vehicles and other heavy vehicles of a
potentially dangerous highway situation is being tested. The Dynamic
Truck Speed Warning System for Long Downgrades has been installed on I-
70 west of the Eisenhower Tunnel west of Denver. This system warns
drivers of safe truck speed at the start of the downgrade for normal
operations based on the truck's measured weight. The Colorado Motor
Carrier Association is excited about the potential for improved safety
represented by this system. Prior to the project, the state studied
accident characteristics and hypothesized that since 88 percent of the
runaway trucks were out-of-state, many truck drivers were unfamiliar
with the terrain. The fact that runaway truck drivers entered ramps at
speeds of up to 110 mph supports this hypothesis (Greg Fulton, Colorado
DOT, telephone interview, January 1995). The system began operating
during 1995. While evaluation results are not yet available, observers
report that trucks being instructed to slow frequently apply their
brakes immediately.
The TravTek project examined the safety aspects of an in-vehicle
navigation device that used a moving map display as well as voice
directions. While data on accidents and near accidents are not
statistically significant, driver workload studies yielded encouraging
results. Compared to control conditions of paper maps and road signs,
use of both visual and voice displays yielded lower driver workloads in
each category of stress including time stress, visual effort, and
psychological stress.\22\ TravTek users also perceived that they were
safer.
The TravTek project used a simulation approach to estimate safety
impact. Using the INTEGRATION simulation model, a representation of the
Orlando roadway network, and performance parameters obtained during the
live field studies, analyses were performed to estimate crash risk of
motorists using navigation devices compared to motorists without them.
In addition, the safety impacts on the entire traffic network (both
equipped and unequipped vehicles) were analyzed. Results indicated an
overall reduction in crash risk of up to 4 percent for motorists using
navigation devices, due to improved wrong turn performance and the
tendency of the navigation system to route travelers to higher class
(normally safer) facilities. Other indications from the TravTek field
studies were that the ability of the navigation system to receive real-
time traffic and congestion information provided an advance warning to
motorists of potentially unsafe conditions on the route they were
traveling, further improving the safety benefits of the system. The
simulations showed a potential for increased safety risk for
navigation-system-equipped vehicles when real-time information caused
them to divert from a higher class facility to a lower class road
(e.g., from a freeway to an arterial). Increased safety risks of up to
10 percent were estimated for the equipped vehicles, while the overall
network showed a safety neutral to a slight safety improvement when
diversion occurred. The network safety improvements were experienced
when diversion from congested roadways reduced the level of congestion
for the remaining equipped and non-equipped vehicles and helped to
smooth traffic flows on those roads.
The first ramp meter was installed on the Eisenhower Expressway in
Chicago in 1963. Other early adopters of freeway ramp meters include
Detroit, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Los Angeles, California.
By 1989, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had enough data to
put together a summary of ramp metering practices with quantitative
results. As places such as Minneapolis upgrade their ramp metering
systems into true Freeway Management Systems, results continue to
improve along with coverage, capability, and coordination. While ramp
metering systems are designed to improve operation at the merge point
to improve mainline speed and capacity, field experience has
demonstrated a significant reduction in accident rate. According to
Minnesota DOT Freeway Operations Meeting Minutes from January of 1994,
accident rates on I-35W in Minneapolis before management were 421 per
year and are now 308 per year (a 27 percent reduction). Annual accident
experience on the same freeway after management is 2.11 collisions per
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to 3.40 collisions per
million VMT before management was instituted (a 38 percent reduction).
A longitudinal study of the ramp metering/freeway management system in
the Seattle, Washington, area over a six year period \23\ shows that
accident rates have fallen consistently to a current level of 62
percent compared to the base period. A survey of traffic management
centers using ramp metering \24\ reported similar findings. Accidents
on freeway systems under freeway management were reduced between 15
percent and 50 percent. While some other freeway improvements were
implemented during the study periods, the combination of geometric,
vehicle, and operational procedures showed significant reductions in
accident rate. After implementation of the San Antonio TransGuide
system, which is a freeway management system that does not use ramp
meters, total collisions decreased by 35 percent and the collision rate
decreased by 41 percent to 1.80 crashes per million vehicle miles.\25\
The reduction in secondary collisions attributable to the incident
management program, which may be quite significant, is difficult to
estimate due to the coordinated freeway management program in the area.
The CHART evaluation estimates that the traffic management center,
including freeway service patrols, was responsible for a 5 percent
reduction in the number of accidents during non-recurrent congestion.
Evaluation of the San Antonio TransGuide system found a 20 percent
decrease in average response time to incidents and a 30 percent
reduction in secondary collisions, representing a 2.5 percent reduction
in the total number of collisions.\26\
Highway-railroad grade crossing systems were recently added to the
ITS program. The need for improvement is indicated by the fact that in
1992, 577 fatalities and 1963 injuries occurred at grade crossings.\27\
Additionally, the occasional spectacular accident including school
children or hazardous materials attract national attention. Several
technologies are currently being tested including photo enforcement and
adaptation of collision warning systems. Initial tests of photo
enforcement in Los Angeles have yielded positive results, with a 92
percent decrease in violation rate. Since the deployment is limited and
grade crossing accidents are relatively rare, the fact that no
accidents occurred during the test is not statistically significant
(Dana King, U.S. Public Technologies Inc., personal interview, January
1996).
Collision warning devices and blind spot detectors are becoming
available as commercial products. Transport Besner Trucking Co. has
installed an Eaton-Vorad collision warning device on 100 percent of its
185 truck fleet. Internal studies found that the combination of the
device with a safety training program has reduced accidents by 38
percent (Daniel Lareau, Transport Besner Trucking Company, telephone
interview, February 1996 verifying information in ``Freightliner to
Offer Collision Warning on New Truck Line,'' Inside ITS, Vol. 5, No.
23, November 20, 1995). The Greyhound accident experience using an
earlier model product yielded a reduction of 20 percent in a deployment
equipping half of the fleet, which could extrapolate to a 40 percent
reduction in accidents for full equipage.\28\
In addition to the quantitative results from the collision warning
systems, other installations and pilot projects are taking place.
Landstar Systems is installing the Eaton-Vorad system on 40 percent of
its owned fleet and giving the contract fleet incentive to equip.
Positive evaluation of the device by experienced drivers in a pilot
test and the potential to decrease self insurance losses lead to the
decision to equip. While Landstar does not have reliable statistics, no
equipped power units have been involved in a rear-end collision since
the installation began in January of 1995 (Brian Kinsey, Landstar
Systems, telephone interview, February 1996).
An early information network in Oregon enabled an increase of 90
percent in number of weighings and 428 percent in number of safety
inspections between 1980 and 1989 while staff increased by only 23
percent.\29\ While these measures are not directly of desired outcomes,
the link between inspections and reductions in crashes is intuitive.
ITS implementation is expected to improve the safety record of
motor carriers. Electronic screening and improved inspection procedures
will help to eliminate major causes of accidents through better use of
communications and information technology. Evidence of future success
is indicated by ongoing motor carrier safety programs including the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and federal safety
audits. The benefit/cost ratio of these programs has been estimated as
2.5 while yielding a reduction of 2,500-3,500 accidents annually.\30\
A collision avoidance product, which has been in use since 1993, is
the Forewarn system applied to school buses. In 1992-1994, of the 25-40
school-age children killed by buses, over two-thirds were as
pedestrians at the time.\31\ \32\ \33\ Many of these children had
either just exited the bus or were waiting to board it. Although
quantitative benefits are not yet available, pilot programs in states
considering deployment of such a device have gone exceptionally well,
with many drivers having stories of situations in which the system told
them of the presence of children who were in harm's way (Jeff Himelick,
Delco Electronics, telephone interview, March 1995). As of late 1995,
about 500 of the devices were in active use (Ed Kinnaird, Delco
Electronics, telephone interview, December 1995).
AVL/CAD and navigation systems are being installed in fire, police,
and emergency vehicles. While quantitative evaluations are rare, a
collection of anecdotal evidence is becoming available. A crash in
Muskogee County, Oklahoma, involving a car and a school bus, resulted
in the need for medical attention. The fog that contributed to the
collision would have also delayed an ambulance and made location of the
collision difficult from a helicopter. However, the helicopter,
equipped with a GPS receiver, located the crash scene using location
information provided by a Highway Patrol officer on the scene using a
hand held GPS. The helicopter was then able to complete the rescue.\34\
The AVL system installed by the Schaumburg, Illinois police department
has been reported to enable dispatch of backup to officers who failed
to report location information and dispatch of assistance to an
incapacitated officer.\35\
The San Antonio TransGuide facility opened in the summer of 1995.
The value of an integrated facility was demonstrated in the week before
the center opened when an industrial plant fire erupted within view of
freeway video surveillance. Based on the visibility afforded at
TransGuide, the fire was accessed and fought more effectively, possibly
saving the lives of several firefighters. Both local police and fire
were convinced of the wisdom of their investment in collocation.
Simulation using data collected during the TravTek test predicted a
benefit in throughput. Using constant average trip duration as a
surrogate for maintaining level of service, a market penetration of 30
percent for dynamic route guidance results in the ability to handle 10
percent additional demand.\36\
Freeway management systems including both ramp meters and incident
management programs are designed to improve the operating performance
of freeways. Maximum throughput is reported in the freeway operations
meeting minutes as 2200 vplph compared with 1800 prior to the use of
the ramp meters while average speeds have risen from 34 MPH to 46 MPH
according to the Minnesota DOT meeting notes. The Seattle, Washington
study \37\ showed a growth in traffic of 10 to 100 percent along
various segments of I-5 while speeds have remained steady or increased
up to 20 percent. Other ramp metering installations have reported
increases in peak throughput of 8-22 percent with steady or increased
travel speeds.\38\
Deployment of ETC is occurring at a rapid pace and is being driven
by cost savings to the operator. The Oklahoma Turnpike has been
operating ETC in the Pike Pass program for over five years with
excellent results. Statistics from the Turnpike in a flyer entitled
Pike Pass Facts indicate a 91 percent savings:
--Annual cost to operate automated lane--$15,800.
--Annual cost to operate an attended lane--$176,000.
The use of AVL/CAD systems has demonstrated significant
productivity improvements to transit operators. In Kansas City,
Missouri, the analysis of actual run times on all routes over an
extended period of time allowed a reduction in equipment requirement in
several routes of up to 10 percent, allowing fewer buses to serve those
routes with no reduction in service to the customer. The result was a
savings in both operating expense and capital expense by actually
removing these buses from service and not replacing them. The
productivity gain of eliminating seven buses out of a 200 bus system
allowed Kansas City to amortize their investment in AVL in two years.
Other transit systems have reported reductions in fleet size of 4 to 9
percent due to efficiencies of bus utilization.\39\
The Winston-Salem Transit Authority in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, evaluated effects of a computer-aided dispatch and scheduling
(CADS) system \40\ in operation of a 17 bus fleet. While the client
list grew from 1,000 to 2,000 over a 6-month period and vehicle miles
per passenger trip grew 5 percent, operating expenses dropped 2 percent
per passenger trip and 9 percent per vehicle mile. These productivity
improvements occurred at the same time as service improvements
including institution of same day reservations, which grew to account
for 10 percent of trips, and a decrease in passenger wait time of over
50 percent.
While much of the literature regarding electronic fare payment
discusses technical capability and patron convenience, some early
indications of benefits to the transit property are accumulating.\41\
Reduced fare evasion has increased revenue from 3 to 30 percent.
Reductions in data collection cost range from an estimated $1.5 million
in Manchester, UK to a predicted $5 million in Ventura, California, in
addition to improved data accuracy. New York estimates the increase in
ridership due to electronic fare payment to be worth $49 million. New
Jersey Transit estimates annual cost reduction of $2.7 million in cash
handling while Atlanta estimates $2 million in savings.\42\
Public transportation providers in rural areas can produce cost
efficiencies by increasing ridership. The computer-assisted dispatching
system in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, which allows same-day ride
requests to be accepted, has contributed to an increase in ridership
from 5,000 passengers monthly to 9,000 monthly without increasing the
dispatch staff and a reduction of operational expense of 50 percent
over a 5-year period on a per passenger mile basis.\43\
Results are provided in an ATA Foundation 1992 survey \44\ of 69
trucking companies operating in an urban area. More than half of the 69
companies surveyed use CAD systems. Productivity gains resulted from an
increase in the number of pickups and deliveries per truck per day,
ranging from 5 percent to more than 25 percent, with most gains being
clustered in the 10-20 percent range. The use of two-way text
communication systems yielded driver time savings of 30 minutes per day
because of the reduced time spent locating and using telephones.
Further anecdotal evidence of benefits fleet management systems to
carriers is accumulating. The recently completed Automated Mileage and
Stateline Crossing Operational Test (AMASCOT) has generated significant
interest from carriers, manufacturers, and regulators, with carriers
awaiting delivery of orders for commercial products (Estel Cooper, Ruan
Transportation, personal interview, April 1996). Although the
evaluation did not calculate cost savings from the operational phase,
carriers involved in the test estimated a potential for similar devices
to reduce costs for International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and
International Registration Plan (IRP) reporting by 33 to 50 percent.
State processing and audit staffs were also receptive to potential
changes in processing requirements and optimistic about the ability of
such a system to improve accuracy, productivity, and compliance for
both carriers and states.\45\
Commercial Vehicle Regulators will also experience financial
benefits due to implementation of ITS. Improvements in administrative
efficiency, avoidance of infrastructure investment, and improvements in
highway data collection will reduce costs while increased compliance
will increase revenues and reduce damage to highways in addition to
improving safety. The HELP/Crescent Project on the West Coast and
Southern border states represented the final stage of the HELP program
that evaluated the applicability of four technologies to services
including roadside dimension and weight compliance screening, pre-
screening of vehicles with proper documents, government audit of
carrier records, government processing of commercial vehicle operator
documents, government planning, and industry administration of vehicles
and drivers. The technologies included automatic vehicle
identification, weigh-in-motion, automatic vehicle classification, and
integrated communications systems and database. The benefits data are
developed as a projection of experience from the project and from other
databases rather than direct measurement by the project.\46\ Impact of
hazardous material incidents could be reduced $1.7 million annually per
state. Estimates of reductions in tax evasion range from $0.5 to $1.8
million annually per state. Overweight loads could be reduced by 5
percent leading to a savings of $5.6 million annually. Operating costs
of a weigh station could be reduced up to $160,000, with credentials
checking adding $4.3-$8.6 million and automated safety inspection
adding $156,000-$781,000 in savings due to avoided accidents annually
per state. A full implementation of services examined in the Crescent
project would yield a benefit/cost ratio of 4.8 for state government
over a 20-year period. Less complete implementations range in benefit/
cost ratio from up to 12:1 for the government. The COVE Study \47\
estimates a benefit/cost ratio to the government of 7.2 for electronic
clearance, 7.9 for one-stop/no-stop shopping, and 5.4 for automated
roadside inspections. Another study finds that administrative
compliance costs for Massachusetts carriers could be reduced by $2.4
million annually using ITS techniques.\48\
One indication of reduced travel stress is the availability of
information. Of rental users of TravTek, 38 percent found the device
helpful in finding specific destinations in unfamiliar territory as did
63 percent of local drivers.\49\ In the Pathfinder project users
perceived that their trips were less stressful and that they were
saving time, even in situations where the time savings were
insignificant. Drivers were also more comfortable in diverting with
Pathfinder, as indicated by a 40 percent increase in diversion.\50\ The
Avis fleet of navigation equipped cars is expanding and frequently
fully rented.\51\
Pre-trip traveler information is also popular, although measures of
reduced stress are difficult to obtain. The Los Angeles Smart Traveler
project has deployed a small number of information kiosks in locations
such as office lobbies and shopping plazas.\52\ The number of daily
accesses range from 20 to 100 in a 20-hour day, with the lowest volume
in offices and the greatest in busy pedestrian areas. The most frequent
request was for a freeway map with 83 percent of users requesting this
information. Over half of the accesses included requests for MTA bus
and train information. Users, primarily upper middle class in the test
area, were overwhelmingly positive in response to a survey.
The Travlink test in the Minneapolis area distributed PC and
videotext terminals to 315 users and made available transit route and
schedule information, including schedule adherence information, as well
as traffic incidents and construction information.\53\ For the month of
July 1995, users logged on to the system a total of 1660 times, an
average of slightly more than one access per participant per week. One
third of the accesses to the system requested bus schedule adherence;
another 31 percent examined bus schedules. Additionally, three downtown
kiosks offering similar information averaged a total of 71 accesses per
weekday between January and July of 1995; real-time traffic data were
more frequently requested than bus schedule adherence.
The Genesis project, also in Minneapolis, delivered incident
information via alphanumeric pagers. A majority of Genesis users (65
percent) reported using the service daily and 88 percent reported using
the service once or more per week. Of users who participated in the
test, only 2 percent dropped out of the project during operation due to
dissatisfaction with the service. An additional indication that users
found the service valuable is that users discovered over half of the
incidents affecting their travel via Genesis compared to discovering 15
percent of incidents via radio and TV. When users became aware of
incidents via Genesis, they chose alternate routes for travel in 83
percent of the situations.\54\
An automated transit information system implemented by the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority resulted in an
increase in calling volume of 80 percent,\55\ while a system installed
by New Jersey Transit reduced caller wait time from an average of 85
seconds to 27 seconds and reduced caller hang-up rate from 10 to 3
percent while increasing the total number of callers.\56\ The Boston
SmarTraveler has experienced 138 percent increase in usage from October
1994 to October 1995 to a total of 244,182 calls monthly, partly due to
a partnership with a local cellular telephone service provider,
according to a SmartRoute Systems memorandum entitled SmarTraveler
Update dated November 6, 1995.
TravTek users perceived that their driving was safer. Based on
survey data, users felt less nervous and confused and more confident,
attentive, and safe, with local users being significantly more positive
than renters. Users also felt that the use of TravTek did not interfere
with their driving task. While users who were interacting with TravTek
immediately before a near accident were more likely to feel that they
had contributed to the close call, users were no more likely to be
involved in close calls than were nonusers.\57\
Traffic signal system improvements are able to reduce the number of
vehicle stops. Quoting studies mentioned earlier, ATSAC reported 41
percent reduction in vehicle stops.\58\ SCOOT in Toronto resulted in a
22 percent decrease in stops \59\ compared to a best effort fixed
timing plan. The Abilene report indicates no change in the number of
stops.\60\
For the transit riding public, security is a crucial issue.
Everyday there are numerous emergency situations in every major city
involving passenger and operator safety. The deployment of automatic
vehicle location (AVL) systems coupled with modern computer-aided
dispatch (CAD) as part of transit management systems has had a dramatic
affect on the response to emergencies. The AVL/CAD systems now being
deployed have two key features which contribute to passenger safety.
First, these systems have a silent alarm capability where the driver
can alert the dispatch center of a problem. When this alarm is
activated, the vehicle in trouble is highlighted on the dispatcher's
console for immediate response. The dispatcher can activate a covert
microphone on the bus and listen to the nature of the problem without
alerting the perpetrators or passengers. The dispatcher can then alert
the appropriate emergency service. A number of transit agencies have
reported a dramatic reduction in response time. The fact that the
dispatcher can pinpoint the vehicle at all times, and is able to advise
the police of the nature of the problem has produced a reduction in
response time from over ten minutes to less than two minutes.\61\ At
least one dispatcher in Denver believes that this capability has
literally saved the lives of some passengers.
Electronic fare payment tests are ongoing in both bus and rail
systems which address customer convenience and security. In California,
tests comparing various card technologies have found RF proximity cards
to be high in reliability. A test in the Marseilles, France,
metropolitan area is comparing RF and IR technologies that would allow
each patron to use a card of his or her choice (credit card, debit
card, monthly pass, etc.) for transportation payment, while processing
a transaction in less than a second.\62\ An experiment involving 2,400
rail travelers in the Washington system using RF stored-value cards has
been operating since February of 1995. System-wide deployment of the
cards is planned based on the reliability of the technology and
potential improvements in convenience and security (Ramon Abramovitch,
Washington METRO, telephone interview, November 1995).
The Phoenix transit operators have used electronic fare payment
techniques since 1991.\63\ The Arizona state legislature passed an air
quality bill in the late 1980's. Maricopa County, the county
encompassing Phoenix, in turn passed a travel reduction ordinance that
required each employer in the Phoenix area with over 100 employees to
reduce single-occupancy commuting trips by 5 percent in two years. To
assist in data collection needed in this program as well as to reduce
operational problems, the City of Phoenix Public Transport System led
development of the Bus Card Plus system to read magnetically encoded
plastic passes. Employers were then billed monthly for transit use by
their employees.
The first public use of the Phoenix system was in April 1991 by
employees of Valley National Bank. Currently, 190 companies participate
with a total of 35,000 cards in use. Express routes report 90 percent
of fares are paid by bus pass cards. Since employers are billed only
for transit usage rather than purchasing monthly passes, costs to them
are decreasing by up to one third. Starting in May of 1995, VISA and
MasterCard have also been accepted. While this project has not been in
operation long enough for firm results to be claimed, patronage has
been growing over the four months from May-September, with processing
fees totaling under 7 percent of revenue generated and without major
problems.
One case where direct measurement of environmental impact is
practical is a highly localized measure such as air quality surrounding
a particularly snarled intersection or other point of interest. An
example of local air quality benefit is the reduction of emissions
using signal system optimization in the ``Five Points'' area of Las
Vegas.\64\
The Pike Pass ETC program on the Oklahoma Turnpike started
operation on 1 January 1991. As of June 1994, 250,000 passes had been
issued, of which over 90 percent (226,000) were still active,
accounting for 35 percent of the turnpike association's revenue. Using
a protocol prepared from the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM), the Clean Air Action Corp. \65\ estimated toll
booth emissions based on dynamometer tests and toll road observation at
Muskogee Turnpike in Oklahoma, Asbury Plaza on the Garden State Parkway
in New Jersey, and Western Plaza on the Massachusetts Turnpike. This
report takes the experiences gained with the Pike Pass project and
applies them to the other two freeways. The report projects significant
reduction in tons of pollutants for the 260 day commuter case. The
overall percent change is dependent upon frequency of toll plazas. Per
mile of impacted operation, the average emissions reductions are 72
percent for carbon monoxide, 83 percent for hydrocarbons, and 45
percent for oxides of nitrogen. The report uses 0.55 miles as the
distance involved in the average barrier toll transaction.
Traffic signal systems continue to be upgraded for a number of
reasons, primarily for traffic flow and system maintenance reasons. The
improved flow and reduced delays also have a generally positive impact
on emissions and energy consumption at current traffic levels. Several
system retimings and equipment upgrades have included emission
evaluations. Among documented results are systems in Abilene, Texas,
Southern California, and Toronto, Ontario. The ATSAC program in Los
Angeles, California reported 13 percent decrease in fuel consumption,
14 percent decrease in emissions.\66\ The City of Abilene report \67\
indicates overall impacts on emissions of 6 percent decrease in fuel
consumption, 10 percent decrease in HC, and 13 percent decrease in CO,
while nitrous oxide increased by 4 percent. The SCOOT implementation in
Toronto showed a decrease in fuel consumption of 6 percent, a decrease
in carbon monoxide emission of 5 percent, and a decrease in hydrocarbon
emissions of 4 percent compared to a ``best effort'' fixed timing
plan.\68\
problems/shortcomings
The primary motivation behind the field operational test program
was to get promising technologies fielded and to evaluate the
feasibility of such technologies for real-world applications. We are
accomplishing this goal and are learning a lot. In addition to the
benefits and savings learned and portrayed above, problems and
shortcomings dealing with institutional capacities and procedures for
implementing ITS deployments have been identified in the field
operational test program. These have been extensively documented and
are recounted in summary fashion here. Many findings, such as the lack
of a technical architecture to help ensure interoperability, have
already been addressed in our completion of the ITS National
Architecture. We continue to address other shortcomings in our
initiatives to promote standards and protocols, professional capacity
building, updating of procurement practices, and integration across ITS
components within and between transportation regions.
Although several field operational tests have looked into savings
associated with fielding ITS technologies, the costs of deployment were
not required to be documented. Many field tests deployed one-of-a-kind
systems for prototype testing. Any costing of such more expensive
systems would have been premature and not cost effective itself. As we
turn now to model deployments of the integrated ITS infrastructure in
four metropolitan areas, and CVISN in eight states, we are also
emphasizing the need for cost/benefit studies of these deployments.
Two reports document problems and shortcomings based upon an
analysis of 12 operational tests and one privately sponsored test.
``IVHS Institutional Issues and Case Studies: Analysis and Lessons
Learned'' (Report Number DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-94-15, April 1994) is based
upon ADVANCE; Advantage I-75; HELP/Crescent; TRANSCOM/TRANSMIT;
Travtek, and the private deployment of Westchester County Commuter
Central. The following are categories of issues and issues identified
across these tests:
Category 1.--Organization and Management Issues.--Of the four
categories of institutional issues defined, this contained the largest
number of institutional issues. The following are the issue types
identified and discussed under this category in the referenced report:
Cultural differences in public-private partnerships
Issues: A fundamental impediment to the smooth accomplishment of a
partnership agreement for many of the projects was the stark difference
in the ways the partners, particularly between those in the private
sector versus those in the public sector, did business.
Lack of inter-partner communications
Issue: The following factors contributed to this problem:
--Negative stereotypes of cultural differences
--Lack of trust
--Unclear/Changing definition of goals, roles and responsibilities
--Imprecise definition of evaluation
--Lack of communication protocols
Lack of intra-partner communications
Issues: Communications problems are greatest in the CVO arena
whereby a single state representative is required to represent multiple
state agencies.
Management challenges
Issues: The following are some of the factors that contributed to
the problem:
--Evaluation planning problems
--Over dependence on unproven technology
--Contract and contractor problems
--Aggressive project schedule
--Size of the policy committee
Category 2.--Regulatory and Legal Issues.--Of the four major
categories of issue types, this category contains issue types that had
obvious near and far term implications for the ITS products and
services proposed for testing. Regulatory and legal issue types found
to be of more immediate concern to partners of operational field tests
were those in the critical path of beginning the implementation and
test and evaluation phases of the projects.
Unclear government accounting requirements
Issue: Work performed with Federal funding requires the accounting
of direct, overhead, and fee expenses incurred by private sector
vendors. The private partner insisted on total confidentiality
regarding product costs.
Burdensome administrative requirements
Issue: The issue of how to administer funding from multiple sources
was often a problem.
Concerns regarding liability and insurance
Issue: Who will insure vehicles for collision and liability and for
such things as wrong way directions, etc.?
Concerns over legality of new technologies in moving vehicles
Issue: How much and what types of information should a driver be
allowed to receive without causing a safety hazard due to divided
attention taking the driver's eyes off of the road? The issue of
multifunction displays in automobiles and the functions that are
allowable during driving (e.g., moving map displays and reception of
television entertainment programs), will be a growing issue nationwide.
Concerns regarding intellectual property and proprietary rights
Issue: This issue stems from the stereotypical view that the
results of any endeavor that uses Federal funding will fall in the
public domain.
Concerns over differing state regulations governing CVO operations
Issue: Partnering states had difficulty reaching agreement on an
acceptable regulatory and enforcement protocol for CVO. Differences in
scale tolerances, weight limits, and acceptable evidence of truck
safety inspections contributed to the problem.
Lack of IVHS technology standards
Issue: The lack of technical standards has the potential to become
the biggest institutional impediment to the successful commercial
deployment of the majority of IVHS projects.
Concerns regarding potential negative public reaction
Issue: Concerns regarding public reaction to potential
redistribution of congestion-causing traffic to local arterial.
Issue: Concerns regarding public perceptions that IVHS technologies
can compromise individual privacy.
Issue: Concerns regarding a lack of data on environmental impacts.
Category 3.--Human and Facilities Resources Issues.--This category
focuses primarily upon people-related issues in response to two simple
questions: (1) Do you have enough people?, and (2) Are the people
qualified to do the work?
Quality and sufficiency of partner leadership
Issue: Two issues were identified in this area: (1) criticality of
the program manager role, and (2) lack of partner leadership, authority
and continuity.
Quality and sufficiency of support resources
Issue: Lack of quality and sufficiency of Federal/state DOT staff
resources.
Issue: Lack of quality and sufficiency of program staff resources.
Issue: Lack of quality and sufficiency of contractor support
resources.
Category 4.--Financial and Market Uncertainty Issues.--Of the four
categories of institutional issues, this category contains issues which
present the greatest diversity in definition as well as risk to
deployment of ITS products and services. The following issues are
discussed under this category of the report:
Cost sharing goals and how they will be measured
Issue: How the non-Federal partners apportion the expenses of an
operational test is left to the ingenuity of individual partnerships.
Projecting project funding through deployment
Issue: Program cost and uncertainty about continued Federal support
of IVHS programs was seen as a significant impediment to deployment.
There is a concern that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
after providing funding to initiate the test, will require the states
to absorb all future maintenance costs of elements critical to the
program.
Market uncertainty and user willingness to pay
Issue: The uncertainty issue is driven by two factors: (1) A
realization that in the beginning, IVHS products and services will be
expensive, and (2) Lack of information on the value of products and
services from the perspective of the market place.
In addition to identifying the above issues, the report also
identifies lessons learned and recommendations for improving the
performance of other operational field tests and deployments of ITS
products and services.
The second report, ``Analysis of ITS Operational Tests Findings and
Recommendations'' (Report Number DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-95-5, September 1995)
summarizes the institutional issues and lessons learned from six case
studies spanning seven operational tests: the Guidestar Program, which
includes the Genesis and Travlink operational tests, and the FAST-TRAC,
Houston Smart Commuter, SaFIRES, SmarTraveler, and TravelAid
operational tests. The issues in this report are similar to those
listed above.
Like the first report, this report also makes recommendations for
improving the performance of future operational tests and deployments
of ITS products and services--the majority of which we are now
incorporating in our selection and contracting processes for future
operational test and into our mainstreaming process.
Question. Why can't the $500,000 study requested on page 166 be
completed by a visiting scholar or by FHWA personnel?
Answer. The nature of the data to be obtained under the
Supplemental Data Collection study is such that it must be at a level
of detail that will facilitate validation and calibration of traffic
flow theory and analysis tools and our computer simulation programs.
Typical types of data to be obtained are individual vehicle speeds,
vehicle trajectories, lane changes, and vehicle dispersion patterns
from stop bars. This type of data and the nature of its use is more
detailed and complex than typical traffic data collection efforts. An
underlying strategy for this study will be to seek out existing sites
such as ITS operational tests, ITS Model Deployment cities, and
regional traffic control centers where some such traffic data
collection is already occurring and to reduce costs by capitalize on
those data sharing opportunities. The volume, complexity, and
geographic distribution of the data to be obtained makes it infeasible
for a single person to collect, reduce and process the data into a
useable format. Although a visiting scholar or FHWA personnel will be
involved in the requirements analysis for this study, the majority of
the funding is needed for supplementing data already available through
physical data collection.
Question. How critical is the modeling work proposed on pages 166
and 167? Why can't you incorporate this work with TRANSIMS? Why can't
you use existing models? Who is requesting this work? Do you have a
specific request from a MPO?
Answer. Our analysis of current planning and operational models has
revealed that they have various deficiencies that inhibit accurate
estimation of ITS benefits in a regional transportation planning
analysis. Planning models analyze traffic characteristics over a
region. However due to the current planning analysis methods used to
model a region, details necessary for the analysis of ITS operational
benefits are not present. Conversely, current operational models have
the detail required, but, lack the ability to simulate a regional area
and provide for the estimation of benefits over a 20 year planning
horizon. However, by carefully and selectively using the power of the
two model types, we believe that we can minimize the development of new
models.
The ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) will support analysis in
the near-term time frame of the benefits of applying technology to
various regional transportation deficiencies. Identifying the level of
benefit associated with various alternatives of current, traditional
capabilities and available ITS technologies is critical to the
decision-making process of the States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in development of Long Range Plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs.
The development of IDAS is being thoroughly coordinated with the
TRANSIMS effort to support estimation of ITS benefits. This will
produce a two track approach. The first track, IDAS, supports analysis
of ITS benefits in the near-term time frame. IDAS will supplement
current analysis procedures to enable ITS analysis at a sketch planning
level. Track two, TRANSIMS/ITS, is an effort to incorporate various
capabilities into TRANSIMS that will support the detailed analysis of
ITS alternatives. Thus, TRANSIMS will support more detailed ITS
analysis needs in the longer-term time frame.
Due to the emphasis on ITS deployment, the transportation planning
community (e.g. State DOT's, MPO's) has voiced strong concerns
pertaining to the lack of ITS analytical capabilities needed to support
the planning process and that they can use to justify and defend the
selection of ITS alternatives. To assure that we are responsive to
their concerns and needs, we have received commitments from twelves
planning organizations to have representatives who will participate on
a Steering Committee to work interactively with us in the development
of IDAS. The Steering Committee has endorsed the IDAS conceptional
framework and Scope of Work. We anticipate a competitive award to begin
a phase one IDAS this fiscal year.
Question. Please complete each of the tables presented on page 169
for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 funding levels.
Answer. Information provided in the following tables.
PROGRAM: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT--TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program schedule
-----------------------
Products and activities Fiscal years--
-----------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced traffic management research:
Advanced traffic management................. 100
Laboratory Staff and Grad Research Fellow Study at Turner-Fairbank
Research Center............................................... <50
In response to matching funds and university/industry partners in
the composite research area, please be advised that there has been, and
continues to be, significant participation. Universities involved
include: Universities of California at San Diego, at Long Beach and at
Berkeley, University of Maryland, Wyoming University, Penn State
University, Catholic University, University of Delaware, West Virginia
University, Georgia Tech, with several more universities active in
related work where FHWA provides technical support. Major industry
partners include: DuPont, XXSys, Hercules/Alliant, AMOCO, JMI,
Mitsubishi, Toren, Hexcel-Fyfe, DuPont-Hardcore, Brunswick
Technologies, and Strongwell Inc. Other Federal governmental agencies
involved include: Advanced Research Projects Agency within the DOD, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology
Program, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and the U.S. Air Force at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Furthermore, several State Departments
of Transportation (DOT) and associated research centers are
coordinating with FHWA including: Texas Research Institute, Virginia
Transportation Research Center, Cal Trans, DEL DOT, VDOT, SCDOT, WVDOT,
GADOT, Ohio DOT, FDOT, SDDOT and KDOT. Cooperative funding includes the
$10.5M from ARPA and similar matching from the private/public ACTT
Consortium as well in kind materials and engineering services amounting
to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our current fiscal year 1997
procurement actions include private section participation.
Question. FHWA is requesting funds to upgrade the HYSIM driving
simulator located at the Turner-Fairbanks Laboratory. Please describe
in detail the nature of these upgrades and how these will improve the
fidelity and overall operational and research capability of HYSIM.
Please breakout the use of these monies.
Answer. Upgrades to the HYSIM focus primarily on two critical
systems; the visual system and the motion base/car cab. The complete
visual system, which includes the image generator and the sign system
centers on improving the realism and complexity of the simulated
environment and increasing the field of view. By enhancing this system,
more sophisticated images can be produced, including the ability to
depict more realistic urban scenes and interactive traffic. These
capabilities are critical to FHWA research in order to assess driver's
performance in a number of scenarios and especially to gauge how
drivers interact with other traffic.
The motion base is a new subsystem and will enhance the realism of
the simulator and allow for greater fidelity for investigations that
require specific driver maneuvers on various geometric configurations.
In addition, the motion base will help reduce the risk of simulator
sickness that is associated with an expanded field of view in fixed
base systems. A new car cab will allow researchers to change the
dashboard configuration via software; a more efficient method than
developing and implementing various hardware configurations. This
capability will allow for investigations of integrated ITS systems and
multiple displays.
Question. What research for fiscal year 1998 does the FHWA expect
to conduct on the upgraded HYSIM that cannot be conducted with the
existing facility? Could this research be conducted on the NADS when it
becomes available?
Answer. The HYSIM upgrade is proceeding in an incremental fashion
to ensure the FHWA human factors research will continue (i.e., the new
operating system and visual system will be installed, followed by the
car cab and the motion base). A comprehensive research program to
investigate highway safety and ITS issues has been developed for the
HYSIM. Emphasis will be placed on investigations that address the new
Intelligent-Vehicle Initiative (IVI), including the assessment of
different in-vehicle displays, their location, and especially the
integration of different types of driver information and modalities and
driver maneuvers on various geometric configurations. These studies
cannot be conducted on the current HYSIM due to the need for the
reconfigurable dashboard for display experiments and the need for a
motion base to fully test driver performance on different types of
roadways and intersections. When testing driver information issues,
comparisons between in-vehicle and roadway elements is important. The
HYSIM includes the DYNASIGN system, which is unique to the HYSIM and
offers the most realistic resolution of simulated signs in the country.
It consists of a series of 35mm random-access slide projectors and zoom
lenses with affiliated yaw mirrors that move both laterally and
vertically to realistically depict signs in the simulator scenarios.
Due to the nature of the FHWA research with its emphasis on the
integration of ITS systems and subsystems, multiple display locations,
and especially signing issues, these studies are not suited for being
conducted on the NADS.
Question. Please outline the total annual operating costs of the
HYSIM for the last three fiscal years. Based on the number of hours
that the facility was used to conduct research in the past year, what
is its average hourly operating cost?
Answer. The annual costs for operating the HYSIM the past three
fiscal years has been approximately $300,000 per year. The HYSIM was
used virtually full time for conducting research, and typical tasks
include programming and scenario set up, data collection, and data
reduction. Based on these activities, the average hourly operating cost
of the HYSIM has been $150.
Question. The Committee understands that the National Advanced
Driving Simulator (NADS) which NHTSA is developing will have a fixed-
base simulator module to supplement the main motion-based simulator.
How do the technical capabilities of this fixed-base simulator compare
with those of the upgraded HYSIM?
Answer. The NADS fixed based module's technical capabilities will
be inferior to the upgraded HYSIM. Without motion capabilities, the
NADS fixed base simulator will not provide the degree of fidelity
needed to adequate simulate the cues drivers utilize, especially when
performing turning, accelerating, and braking maneuvers on a variety of
highway configurations. Therefore, the number and type of experiments
and driving situations that can be conducted on the NADS fixed base
simulator will be limited, when compared to the upgraded HYSIM. The
lack of a motion base will also have the potential to increase the
occurrence of simulator sickness, when compared to the motion based
HYSIM. Furthermore, the NADS fixed base simulator (and the entire NADS)
does not contain the DYNASIGN system.
Question. Would utilization of the NADS fixed-based simulator in
lieu of HYSIM place any limitation on the type or quality of research
that FHWA could conduct? Please describe the nature of these
limitations.
Answer. Using a fixed base simulator in lieu of the upgraded,
motion based HYSIM would severely limit both the type and the quality
of research FHWA could conduct. The addition of the motion base to the
HYSIM is being implemented to address a number of the weaknesses
associated with fixed base simulation. One specific function being
added to the HYSIM, with the inclusion of the three degree of freedom
motion base, is the capability to conduct experiments on highway design
induced motion, a critical and unique element of the FHWA research
program. This emphasis on highway design issues is one of the major
strengths of the upgraded HYSIM's capabilities, when compared to NADS.
Finally, as mentioned above, the HYSIM's reconfigurable dashboard is
essential for conducting ATIS research and the DYNASIGN system is an
integral component of the simulator and FHWA's research.
Question. The NADS is expected to become operational in the spring
of 1999. How does the FHWA plan to utilize the NADS facility, and does
it plan to continue the HYSIM operation after the NADS is available?
Answer. The FHWA is planning on conducting research at NADS through
its Office of Motor Carriers (OMC). The specific nature of OMC's
research issues requires the use of NADS as a laboratory, not the
HYSIM. The sophisticated vehicle dynamics of NADS will enable OMC
researchers to address questions specific to the trucking community and
truck driver population. The NADS motion base will provide 6 degrees of
freedom and will be capable of simulating forces and angular rates
associated with motions for the full range of truck driving maneuvers.
FHWA plans to fully utilize the HYSIM in its research program. The
HYSIM will include a software reconfigurable dashboard to optimize its
utility to perform specific types of ITS research. There is sufficient
need for motion based simulation in FHWA's research programs to keep
the HYSIM and the NADS active.
Question. Please provide quantitative data to estimate the amount
of cash and in-kind contributions received to assist the OTA program
for each of the last three years.
Answer. The Office of Technology Applications has integrated
partnerships into its programs to expand its capabilities and to
leverage its resources. Overall, for the last three years the funds in
the programs within the Technology Applications Program average 40
percent from those programs and 60 percent from other sources, either
in funding or in-kind services; this translate to approximately $30
million leveraged by $45 million from other sources over the last 3
years.
OTA is active throughout it program to stimulate partnerships in
the makeup of project media and in conducting the projects. The FHWA's
National Priority Technologies Program (PTP) is an organized effort to
encourage partnering. In the first year of the PTP, 1995, the 32
projects included 26 percent non-PTP funds; in 1996, the 52 projects
included 52 percent non-PTP funds; and in 1997 of the projects approved
so far, the percentage of non-PTP funds has jumped similarly, showing a
clear trend toward increasing non-PTP funding for these projects.
In the Local Technical Assistance Program, the amount of leveraged
resources varies from State to State, but integral to the program is
the States' equal contribution to the Federal share up to $110,000 per
center--the Native American tribal government regional centers are on
100 percent funding equally shared by FHWA and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. Many States, recognizing the value of the Centers to their
rural and small urban roadway programs contribute additional funding
from State funds or from the universities; resources are in both the
form of funds and in-kind services. Overall, the leveraged amount has
been approximately 44 percent FHWA and 56 percent non-Federal.
There are many examples of continuing FHWA collaborations to
improve relevant technology, a goal central to the FHWA's work toward
achieving the highest quality surface transportation system for the
Nation. Specifically, the timely development and dissemination of
improved technology to a well-trained highway community are essential
to the fulfillment of such a system. FHWA is continuing to identify and
enter into partnerships to significantly expand the effectiveness of
the Technology Applications Program.
Question. The Priority Technologies Program is now in its third
year. What types of projects are being conducted with this Federal
investment? How has the program leveraged its costs to increase its
effectiveness? How are the products being showcased?
Answer. The Priority Technologies Program (PTP) was initiated in
fiscal year 1995 designed expressly to accelerate the deployment of new
or innovative transportation technology by the successful testing and
evaluation of technologies which have high potential for bringing real
benefits to transportation users. The program is unique in that the
FHWA field offices have had the lead in establishing and operating the
program. A team comprised entirely of field personnel developed the
guidelines under which the program has operated.
Priority Technologies Program projects are focused on getting new
technology ``on the ground''--on closing the gap between the state-of-
the-art and the state-of-practice. Through this program, State and
local governments find support for implementing innovative
technologies, construction materials, and procedures, in order to
achieve results from application of the technologies and deliver
expected user benefits.
Many different types of projects have resulted from the program.
Examples include:
--Pilot testing use of composite materials for replacing
deteriorating concrete and corroding steel in our aging
bridges.--Composite materials promise lower-cost, quicker,
longer-lasting, more corrosion-resistant and safer bridge
repairs. (West Virginia, Utah, Idaho)
--Installation of global positioning system (GPS) receivers in police
cars for more accurate location of accident sites.--GPS
technology enables police to record more accurate accident
data, more quickly, and assists in clearing the road
expeditiously. (Delaware)
--Centralized calibration of road roughness and ride quality.--Ride
data is an essential foundation for pavement management systems
that help highway agencies manage maintenance activities more
efficiently. (Massachusetts)
--Application and performance testing of thin whitetop (Portland
cement concrete) overlays.--Whitetopping overlays can be a
relatively inexpensive and quick method for restoring a smooth
surface to rutted asphalt pavement. (Pennsylvania)
--Video documentation of cathodic protection systems.--Cathodic
protection prevents bridge deterioration from chloride-based
deicing chemicals. (Texas)
--Assessing the environmental impacts of using industrial wastes in
highway construction.--Many industries could benefit by use of
industrial wastes in road construction. It would reduce their
disposal costs and provide an environmentally attractive
alternative to landfill. (Indiana)
--Development of an electronic miniature cone penotrometer for
assessing pavement condition.--Nondestructive pavement
assessment technologies enable highway agencies to manage their
pavement maintenance more efficiently. (Louisiana)
--Evaluating a mechanical gang vibration system for bridge deck
construction.--Mechanical vibration is expected to produce
higher quality and better-performing concrete than the hand-
held vibrators traditionally used for consolidation of concrete
in bridge decks. (Arkansas and Illinois)
--Developing a Safety and Traveler Information System for rural
Interstate highways.--Information systems will provide
travelers with up-to-the-minute information on road repair
activities, weather, and traffic conditions, and warn them when
they are driving too fast for current conditions. Studies have
shown that providing accurate information can reduce driver
frustration and aggressive behavior. (Iowa)
--Retrofitting bridge columns with composite jackets to increase
seismic safety.--This rehabilitation technique promises to be a
cost-effective and more efficient method for enhancing
earthquake resistance. (California)
As with any new activity, there are always challenges and
difficulties associated with PTP. Communication and making those in the
field aware of the program and the opportunity for participation is of
prime concern. The guidelines for the fiscal year 1997 program were
officially distributed on November 14, 1996, to our field offices. This
has been followed up by E-mails, personal contacts, and the program
will be showcased at the upcoming field Research and Technology
Conference in April.
The overall objective of showcasing activities will be to provide
technical support to future implementers by sharing implementation
experiences and results.
Marketing Plan.--A Marketing Plan is being prepared for each
product of the PTP program as it comes on line, tailored to the primary
customers for that product and the rest of the target audience. Every
effort is made to reach primary customers through:
--Professional associations, meetings, and publications at the local,
state, and national level; and/or
--Specially developed workshops or training courses.
Project Briefs.--Project briefs are prepared as each product comes
on line. These briefs are used for outreach to trade and professional
audiences through publications and at meetings and trade shows, and are
made available on line.
Videotapes.--Many of the projects involving construction projects
have been videotaped. Dissemination of videotapes, either directly or
through training programs, will enable other highway professionals to
become familiar with the material technology, construction activities,
and early performance data.
--The South Dakota Department of Transportation, in partnership with
3M Corporation and the South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology has produced a video describing their use of
polyolefin fiber-reinforced concrete in a bridge deck
replacement.
--The Iowa Department of Transportation has developed a video
documenting their use of European snow maintenance technology.
--The Utah Department of Transportation developed a video on its
composite wrappings project, and has hosted a technical
workshop.
Web Pages.--Web pages are another popular way to publicize project
results.
--Iowa State University has developed a web page for the low-cost
travel demand modeling software that it developed for use by
small city planning agencies. Users may record their comments
on the software on the web page. The PTP Program as a whole
also has a Web Page, which has been linked to the FHWA's Office
of Technology Applications Web Page.
--The University of West Virginia has developed a web page on their
composite bridge project.
CD/ROM.--CD/ROMS provide a useful format for interactive computer
training.
--Purdue University has developed an interactive CD/ROM to showcase
their project on evaluation of waste reuse using bioassay
characterization.
Question. How does your fiscal year 1998 budget request related to
this initiative? Will it be continued?
Answer. The Priority Technologies Program (PTP) is a model for the
National Technology Deployment Initiatives that are a part of the
Research and Technology Program in the administration's proposed
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA). As
part of the emphasis on the Research and Technology Program, the
Department is developing a program of National Technology Deployment
Initiatives (NTDI). This will build upon the successes of several
innovative Research and Technology initiatives conducted under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991,
including the Applied Research and Technology Program Sec. 6005). The
NEXTEA proposals will carry forward the central theme of increased
implementation of innovative technologies through customer-driven focus
areas, which was initiated under ISTEA. The program will focus on
accelerating the implementation of technologies that will address a set
of specific ``customer-driven'' technology goals.
This program will implement a range of tools to achieve the goals,
especially including authorized funding and program incentives. NTDI
program incentives being considered includes provisions to help
overcome the barriers to implementation of new technology in the
regular Federal-aid program (e.g., allowing the broader use of
proprietary products.) The Department would develop strategies to
address these goals, working closely with key public and private
technology partners.
An underlying object of the program will be to ``get projects on
the ground.'' Funds from the NTDI are expected to be used by States and
other implementation agencies to expand ``real'' world deployment. The
Priority Technologies Program, funded with Section 6005 funds, has been
extremely successful in this approach and we will build upon many of
the lessons learned in PTP.
Question. Continuing implementation of the Superpave system for
asphalt pavements appears to be one of the key areas in which FHWA is
working directly with State DOT's and others to significantly improve
performance. How is your implementation plan progressing, and what are
some of the key issues for the future? How does your fiscal year 1998
budget request related to this initiative?
Answer. Based on a current survey conducted by the State DOT's 85
percent of the States plan to construct Superpave projects for 1997.
Fifty Percent of the States will adopt Superpave Binder Specifications
for 1997.
There are still many concerns in the highway community about to
Superpave system. In some cases there is fundamental resistance to
change. In other cases, there are technical concerns about an
acceptable pavement performance test, or the cost to the highway
construction industry--including the aggregate and asphalt industry--of
complying with Superpave specifications, participating in materials
testing, and designing and constructing Superpave projects.
Over the past few years, FHWA has taken the lead in refining and
implementing the Superpave system including:
--Developing equipment specifications.
--Enabling States to use Federal-aid highway funds to buy Superpave
equipment to use on projects.
--Refining binder specifications.
--Presenting hands-on training course around the country for State
and industry personnel.
--Providing technical assistance to States using mobile labs.
--Establishing five SUPERPAVE regional centers for the testing and
promotion of new pavement technology.
As the States use the specification and build pavements with the
Superpave system new questions and concerns develop. It is anticipated
that the DOT's will complete implemented the Superpave binder and
mixture specification by 2005. The final System which includes
prediction models for determining how a pavement will perform will be
completed by 2007 with implementation by 2010. Until the full system is
completed there will be many questions to answer on how Superpave will
perform and with that much more work to do in implementation.
Representatives of States, industry, and academia continue to
worked with FHWA in the refinement of Superpave. States and industry
continue to participate actively with FHWA on the asphalt technical
working group and other implementation teams. FHWA will continue to
provide technical assistance to States and industry on how to best
tailor implementation plans to fit local conditions and help respond to
feedback on implementation.
Question. Please prepare a table comparing current contract funding
for all R, D, and T functions with that proposed in the reauthorization
bill.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM--CONTRACT AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Contract authority ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Research.......................... 41,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
National Technology Deployment Initiatives ........ 56,000 56,000 56,090 84,000 84,000 84,000
=====================================================================
Technology Implementation and Professional
Capacity Building:
National Highway Institute............ \1\ [4,2
69] 8,000 8,000 8,000 14,000 14.000 14.000
University Transportation Centers..... 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
University Research Institutes........ 6,250 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Eisenhower Fellowship Program......... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Locol Technical Assistance Program:...
Contract Authority................ 6,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Limitation on General Operating
Expenses......................... \2\ [2,8
27] ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Technology Implementation Partnerships 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 34,250 45,000 45,000 45,000 51,000 51,000 51,000
=====================================================================
Long Term and Advanced Research:..........
Long-Term Pavement and Performance.... 6,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,090
Advanced Research..................... ........ 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 6,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
=====================================================================
Intelligent Transportation Systems:
ITS Contract Authority................ 113,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
ITS Research and Technology transfer.. ........ 96,000 96,000 96,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Contract Authority............ 194,250 222,000 222,000 222,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
=====================================================================
Intelligent Transportation Systems: ITS
Deployment Incentives.................... ........ 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHI is included in LGOE in fiscal year 1997.
\2\ LTAP is included in LGOE in fiscal year 1997.
Question. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) is
basically an outreach program to the highway community serving local
governments. How have you responded to the Committee's directive to
improve the LTAP centers? How are these centers contributing to the
dissemination of increase information on highway and traffic safety?
How did you convince the LTAP centers to undertake this mission? How
has NHTSA assisted FHWA in this effort? How will efforts be continued
during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Considerable efforts and funding have been directed at
improvements for the LTAP centers. Many new LTAP products are currently
underdevelopment which will improve the centers' ability to train local
agency personnel through better training materials and techniques. Some
of the new products which are being completed this year include: A
training package on improved training techniques and methods; Training
packages on pavements including: Asphalt Rehabilitation, Asphalt
Construction Inspection, Chip Seals, Gravel Roads, and Utility Cuts;
Training packages on management systems including: Road Surface, Sign
Inventory, Equipment Maintenance, Sidewalks, Curb, Gutter and Storm
Drains, and Culvert and Drainage Systems; Training on tort liability,
risk management, accident investigation, and giving depositions;
Individualized training on motor grader operations; Training package on
sign maintenance and installation; Training to develop new trainers on
inspection of work zones; Individualized training on improved
supervision; Training on handling transportation related hazardous
materials by local agencies and recycling of waste products by local
transportation agencies; Training course on wetlands requirements for
local agencies; Development of a pedestrian road show package with
NHTSA including a video; Training on the use of a motor grader with
wings to plow snow.
In addition to the above packages, we have initiated efforts this
year to develop new packages in the following subject areas: Traffic
calming techniques; Road drainage systems; Traffic control for short-
term and moving maintenance and construction work zones; Heavy
equipment operator training programs; Highway incident and
transportation emergency management; Air quality transportation
planning; Traffic generation, access review and parking lot layout
review; Models for in-class training in nine technical subject areas;
Benefits of technology transfer.
We have also increased our funding of the LTAP Technology Transfer
Clearinghouse and they have added a second person to improve their
responsiveness to Center requests. The Clearinghouse video library and
publication library continue to expand to provide additional resources
for the LTAP centers' use.
We completed a consultant contract this past year which evaluated
the SHRP products to identify and further promote those which were
considered most applicable to local agency use. The sixteen products
identified by the advisory board for this study were promoted to the
LTAP centers through presentations, written articles for publication in
LTAP Newsletters, demonstration projects and loan and purchase of new
SHRP equipment. This effort was highly successful and many
implementation opportunities were identified by local and LTAP
participants.
Evidence of the gap between the state of the practice and the state
of the art being narrowed for local agencies through the LTAP and the
technology transfer centers is visible in the products being developed
for the centers. In the past, efforts for LTAP products were directed
at the more basic needs of local transportation agencies--such as how
to patch a pothole or basic traffic engineering concepts. These more
basic needs are still reflected somewhat in the above list of products
being completed this year. The new list of products being initiated
this year, however, suggests some very new and innovative activities
and interests by the LTAP centers for their local constituents. Current
transportation areas of interest such as traffic calming techniques,
incident management, and air quality transportation planning
demonstrate the LTAP centers have brought many of their customers
through the basics and prepared them for consideration of more advanced
transportation subjects. Other evidence of the closing gap could be
inferred from the every increasing number of agencies listed on the
LTAP centers mailing list and the increased attendance at training
sessions conducted by the centers, both of which suggest a broadening
of the LTAP audience. A broadened audience and updated training topics
should lead to further closing of the gap between the state of the
practice and state of the art for local agencies.
The LTAP centers have historically provided highway and traffic
safety information to their constituencies through training,
publications, videotapes and other means. In recent years, the centers
have increased this effort, particularly as it relates to the programs
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). To
encourage this relationships, centers have published articles in their
newsletters detailing the Committee's interest in this relationship and
reporting on some of these activities. In addition, representatives
from NHTSA spoke about their programs at the annual LTAP meeting
(August 1996), which included representatives from virtually all of the
LTAP centers.
The FHWA further promoted the relationship with NHTSA in its
recently published Local Technical Assistance Program Field Manual.
This publication is designed to provide a framework for technology
transfer center operations within the broader context of the overall
program. Its purpose is to present information and suggestions for
designing efficient and comprehensive programs and activities.
Through its program to promote products from the Strategic Highway
Research Program, FHWA has considerable success in LTAP centers using
the highway and traffic safety products as well as support products to
promote the use of the products. Products such as the stop/slow paddle,
opposing traffic lane dividers, multi-directional barricade, all-
terrain sign, and others were reported to have been used by a high
number of centers. Similarly, the centers reported high use of the
supporting products, such as publications, training packages, and
promotion articles published in the centers' newsletters.
There are a number of ways through which the LTAP centers
contribute to the dissemination of information on highway and traffic
safety:
--They have expanded their existing customer base by adding on those
identified by NHTSA's local Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives (GHSR) and other contacts identified by the
FHWA Office of Highway Safety.
--Their quarterly newsletters have provided feature articles on
initiatives being undertaken by NHTSA and the FHWA Office of
Highway Safety. The centers have included flyers and public
service announcements on new safety information in their
newsletters or, in some cases, distributed them separately.
--The centers have provided jointly sponsored workshops and circuit-
rider on-site training for these initiatives particularly
targeting, for example, the Safe Communities program. They
included new workshops on highway safety information in their
generalist ``Roads Scholar'' programs or created within this
program a transportation safety specialist curriculum for those
local communities that can dedicate an individual to become
such a specialist.
--They have provided clearinghouse support both as depositories and
sources for increased information on highway safety to local
transportation agencies. Through their own networking, the
centers have identified safety activities and initiatives being
conducted by other centers for feedback and information on what
programs and activities are proving successful.
--The centers have included as members of their advisory committees,
participants from NHTSA's local GHSR's, FHWA Region and
Division offices, as well as State DOT safety program
specialists; members that can provide an assessment of needs
for such information from the ground up and guide the centers
on how best and in what form to provide the needed information
to the locals.
The centers have historically provided training on highway safety
issues, such as safety through work zones, as resources were available,
in addition to national educational packages delivered by the centers.
Local advisory committees help identify needs for training provided and
center personnel make the advisory committee members aware of the
availability and importance of highway safety information and training.
Working jointly, they establish a program of training for the coming
year and develop the content of their ``Roads Scholar'' programs. There
has been no need to convince the LTAP centers to undertake the mission
of safety training and promotion as they are well aware of the benefits
of such efforts and needs of their customers in this area.
Question. Please discuss the relative allocation of ITS activities
compared to non-ITS activities (or the more traditional FHWA R, D, and
T program).
Answer. For fiscal year 1998, the budget requests $71.5 million for
ITS R&D and Advanced Vehicle Control and Information Systems, $178.5
million for other ITS activities and $241.053 million for non-ITS
activities. This allocation reflects the relative priority of the ITS
program.
Question. FHWA is requesting roughly a $1 million increase for
technology assessment and deployment. Why is this increase judged
critical at this time in view of the substantial increases requested
for related contract funds?
Answer. The vision of the FHWA is to ``create the best
transportation system in the world for the American people through
proactive leadership, innovation and excellence in service.'' This
vision has been advanced through a distinguished history of
development, adaptation, and delivery of innovative technologies for
the transportation community. The FHWA has operated the Technology
Assessment and Deployment (TAD) Program as part of a complementary
array of technology transfer programs in parallel with the growth of
the overall FHWA Research and Development Program. To help fulfill the
FHWA's vision its programs have evolved with a strong technology focus
that will lead to ``the best transportation system in the world.'' But
there is a recognized gap that must be closed in the technology
available and accessible to the transportation community and in the
professional knowledge within that community. The overall R&T program,
including TAD and related programs, is designed to close the technology
gap which exists between new technologies and the current state of the
practice by introducing innovations and new technologies on the road,
while at the same time pushing the state of the art to higher levels.
Each of the programs addresses closing the gap in a different way,
for different technologies and different audiences. In the case of TAD,
various approaches are taken to reach a largely State and industry
audience--such as demonstration project mobile laboratories, technical
assistance, videotapes, interactive programs, exhibits, and other
media--covering the array of topics among highway technologies. The TAD
program identifies and assesses innovative research results,
technology, and products and promotes the application of those that are
determined to be of potential benefit to the highway community through
increased productivity, safety, and operational efficiency. The program
includes efforts in the areas of roadway applications, structures and
soils, safety and design, traffic and motor carrier, technology
marketing, and technology operations. Related programs focus on select
priority areas (such as in the National Technology Deployment
Initiatives), use training as its primary medium (such as in the
National Highway Institute), or focus on a precise audience that other
programs don't fully reach (such as the Local Technical Assistance
Program).
These programs are designed to complement each other in an effort
to accelerate the adoption of innovations and new technologies and to
close the knowledge gap in what is increasingly a technology driven
transportation industry
Question. Please compare your actual GOE expenditures for each R&D
and technology transfer activity against the amount actually
appropriated for fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996. Please indicate
on a year-by-year basis the amount of carryover funds for each year by
category.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1995 CONTRACT PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 1995
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Research, development, and technology -----------------------------------------------------------------------
transfer 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995
enacted recissions enacted \1\ obligations carryover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research Development and
Technology............................. 53,552,000 (8,030,000) 45,522,000 (44,842,727) 679,273
Intelligent Transportation Systems...... 114,500,000 (26,700,000) 87,800,000 (85,425,730) 2,374,270
Long-Term Pavement Performance.......... 8,739,000 (220,000) 8,519,000 (8,519,000) ............
Technical Assessment and Deployment..... 12,622,000 (1,000,000) 11,622,000 (10,526,007) 1,095,993
Local Technical Assistance Program...... 3,015,000 ............ 3,015,000 (2,819,512) 195,488
National Highway Institute.............. 4,369,000 ............ 4,369,000 (4,325,239) 43,761
Rehabilitation of Turner Fairbanks...... 3,000,000 ............ 3,000,000 (649,363) 2,350,637
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total....................... 199,797,000 (35,950,000) 163,847,000 (157,107,578) 6,739,422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects fiscal year 1995 recessions.
Note.--Enacted funds are available for 3 fiscal years.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1995 CONTRACT PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
Research, Development, and Technology Transfer activities 1995 1996 1996
carryover obligations carryover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and Technology.................... 679,273 (652,973) 26,300
Intelligent Transportation Systems.............................. 2,374,270 (2,374,270) ..............
Long-Term Pavement Performance.................................. .............. 123,188 123,188
Technical Assessment and Deployment............................. 1,095,993 (1,076,198) 19,795
Local Technical Assistance Program.............................. 195,488 (192,155) 3,332
National Highway Institute...................................... 43,761 (43,761) ..............
Rehabilitation of Turner Fairbanks.............................. 2,350,637 (2,350,637) ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 6,739,427 (6,566,806) 172,616
Other........................................................... 1,187,469 (1,091,259) 96,210
-----------------------------------------------
Grand total............................................... 7,926,891 (7,658,065) 268,826
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Carryover funds are available until fiscal year 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1996 CONTRACT PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Research, development, and -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
technology transfer activities 1996 enacted 1996 1996 enacted 1996 1996
\1\ recissions \1\ obligations unobligated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research Development and
Technology..................... 56,772,000 (1,303,000) 55,469,000 (52,851,387) 2,617,613
Intelligent Transportation
Systems........................ 109,779,000 (4,777,000) 105,002,000 (102,471,016) 2,530,984
Long-Tenm Pavement Performance.. 8,739,000 (431,000) 8,308,000 (8,090,190) (217,810)
Technical Assessment and
Deployment..................... 12,622,000 (123,000) 12,499,000 2,498,410 590
Local Technical Assistance
Program........................ 3,015,000 (149,000) 2,866,000 2,865,886 114
National Highway Institute...... 4,369,000 (42,000) 4,327,000 (4,012,203) 314,797
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 195,296,000 (6,825,000) 188,471,000 (182,789,092) 5,681,908
Other........................... .............. .............. 12,975,000 (12,836,938) 138,062
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total............... .............. .............. 201,446,000 (195,626,030) 5,819,970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects fiscal year 1996 recessions.
Note.--Enacted funds are available for 3 fiscal years.
Question. Please discuss why such a large increase in funds for the
National Highway Institute is requested.
Answer. Many reasons have contributed to the increased budget
request. Listed are four of the main reasons:
1. Although the appropriated budget for NHI has traditionally been
consistent at about $4 million per year, additional internal funds have
been allocated to supplement the development and offering of training
courses. In fiscal years 1995 and 1996, these additional funds amounted
to $2 million and $3.8 million respectively. The funding source for the
additional funds was the 6005 program which will lapse at the end of
this fiscal year.
2. NHI's customer base, which mostly consists of public sector
employees at all levels of government, is quickly and drastically
changing. These agencies are downsizing and shifting their roles. As
such, there is an increased demand for NHI courses to provide
retraining of personnel and to augment their technical competence in
other technical areas. In 1996, NHI trained 1,400 more students than in
1995, reaching a total audience of about 16,500 professionals.
3. Rapid changes in technology are now allowing for the training
and education of personnel that would otherwise not attend NHI courses.
Computer-based training, training through the Internet, satellite-based
transmission, etc., are providing (just in time) training to people
that cannot afford to travel or people that have extensive
responsibilities that hamper their ability to be away from their
offices for several days. NHI is actively pursuing the packaging of its
training and education programs in a way that would not only maximize
the targeted audience, but would also gain access to the audience by
using the most appropriate media. Also, what traditionally used to be a
three-day course, say on Superpave technology, is now being offered as
three separate training options: (1) a seminar for managers and
decision makers that need to become conversant with the subject matter
(to the extent that it influences budgets and policy); (2) engineers
that will bring the technology to implementation; and (3) technicians
who will have the overall responsibility for supporting and maintaining
the technology once implemented.
4. Because of technological advances, research and development are
yielding advanced technologies in a shorter time frame. For example,
Intelligent Transportation Systems and Superpave have yielded new
products and technologies in just a few years. As such, the cycle of
training and education programs is much shorter and the quantity much
larger, which requires NHI to invest accordingly. Training and
education is an integral and critical component of facilitating and
accelerating the field implementation of state-of-the-art technology.
Question. If fees for industry attendance at NHI were increased,
could federal outlays be reduced?
Answer. Not in the foreseeable future. Over the last three years,
attendance at NHI courses from the private sector has averaged 8
percent of the total, or approximately 1,250 participants per year.
Most of the private sector attendees are instructed to attend by their
public sector customers who find NHI fees very reasonable. If we were
to raise the fee, we would expect a drop in attendance and minimal gain
in net dollars.
Question. Please breakout in detail the fiscal year 1997 pavement
research spending plan on a project-by-project basis and justify the
fiscal year 1998 request considering the LTPP contract request. Also
please specify how much is allocated towards exploratory research for
fiscal year 1997.
Answer.
Projects included in fiscal year 1997 pavements R&D program
Amount
Laboratory Support at TFHRC...................................$2,294,000
WesTrack...................................................... 2,000,000
Waste Materials Study......................................... 2,000,000
LTPP Technical Assistance..................................... 1,986,000
TFHRC Management and Coordination............................. 1,582,000
LTPP Regional Office (North Central).......................... 1,566,000
LTPP Regional Office (North Atlantic)......................... 1,500,000
LTPP Regional Office (Southern)............................... 1,500,000
LTPP Regional Office (Western)................................ 1,500,000
LTPP Pavement Distress Identification......................... 1,500,000
LTPP Data Analysis............................................ 1,000,000
Superpave Support and Performance Models Management........... 1,000,000
Transportation Research Board Cooperative Agreement........... 910,000
LTPP Information Management System Technical Assistance....... 700,000
LTPP Incentive Funding........................................ 670,000
ADP Support Services for TFHRC................................ 559,000
LTPP Laboratory Testing....................................... 555,000
Bragg Grating Fiber Optics.................................... 475,000
Support for the Pavement Testing Facility..................... 400,000
LTPP Materials Reference Library.............................. 358,000
Support for the Asphalt Research and Technology Program....... 332,000
Validation of Performance Models for PCCP..................... 315,000
Support of AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory.............. 305,000
Laboratory Support at TFHRC................................... 283,000
Highway Concrete Technology................................... 200,000
PCC Rheology and Workability.................................. 200,000
Concrete Protection, Rehabilitation, and Testing.............. 200,000
Model of Combined Pavement Damage............................. 200,000
Advanced Materials Model of Concrete Frost Resistance......... 165,000
Materials-Related Distress in PCCP............................ 151,000
Innovative Pavement Repair.................................... 113,000
Support for Heavy Vehicle Research............................ 111,000
Fast Track Paving............................................. 101,000
Agreement for CCMO Personnel.................................. 100,000
Concrete Mixture Optimization................................. 94,000
LTPP Traffic Technical Assistance............................. 80,000
Lab/Field Investigation of Performance-Related PCCP........... 72,000
Study of Film Distress Surveys................................ 65,000
Use of Waste Materials in Pavement Construction............... 63,000
Damage Due to Microcracking................................... 63,000
Microwave Thermoreflectometry................................. 60,000
Scanning Acoustic Microscope Study............................ 57,000
Pavement Performance Data Collection and Processing........... 51,000
Distress Identification Calibration Workshop.................. 50,000
Plasticity Model Testing and Support.......................... 47,000
Prediction of Asphalt Temperatures............................ 40,000
Pavement Maintenance Effectiveness............................ 38,000
Validation of Superpave Tests................................. 28,000
Ultrasonic Investigation of Cement Rheology................... 28,000
Study to Investigate Pavement Roughness....................... 27,000
Health-Related Aspects of CRM Asphalt......................... 24,000
Graduate Research Fellow (Craig Miller)....................... 21,000
LTPP Load Tests............................................... 18,000
Analysis of Acoustic Emission Moment Tensor................... 13,000
Conference on Nondestructive Characterization................. 10,000
Development and Compilation of Aggregate Database............. 10,000
Sponsor Fiber Optics Symposium................................ 10,000
Temporary Assignment for Seishi Meiareshi..................... 7,000
International Personnel Exchange (Dr. M. El-Gindy)............ 7,000
Sponsor Symposium on Hardened Cement Paste.................... 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................27,819,000
Note.--Projects totaling $1,000,000 from the above list are in the
Exploratory (Advanced) Research area.
These projects are: Part of 1 (>$200,000), Part of 16 (>$50,000), 18,
Part of 31 (>$20,000), 43, 44, 45, 48, 57, 58, 60, 63.
Funds available for pavements R&D program in fiscal year
1997:
GOE Activity 13..................................... $19,731,000
ISTEA 6001.......................................... 6,088,000
ISTEA 6005.......................................... 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 27,819,000
Funding request for fiscal year 1998:
Pavements R&D....................................... $11,150,000
LTPP................................................ 15,000,000
Advanced research................................... 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,150,000
Notes.--1. The original request for Pavements R&D was $12,775,000. This
was later reduced to $11,150,000.
2. The line item for Advanced Research is currently $10,000,000. It is
assumed that approximately $2,000,000 of this amount will be made
available for pavement-related activities.
There will be no significant change in pavement-related needs from
fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 1998. As a result, the total available
funding level proposed for fiscal year 1998 pavement activities is
consistent with the overall funding level that was available in fiscal
year 1997.
Question. Please breakout in detail the fiscal year 1997 structures
research spending plan on a project-by-project basis and explain why a
substantial increase is requested for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. In the following information.
[In thousands of dollars]
Non-Destructive Evaluations (NDE)--Structures (8
studies)............................................ 1,580
Advanced Composite Materials--Bonded Structural Repair.. 1,500
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Geotechnical:
Foundations (10 projects)........................... 730
National Geotech Data............................... 149
Projects/Studies.................................... 562
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal........................................ 1,441
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Structures Lab Tech Support (4 contracts)............... 1,227
Composite Materials--Piles.............................. 800
Exploratory Research--12 studies including fractography
and digital waveform for acoustic emissions, pattern
recognition, neutron scattering techniques, and
materials characterization.......................... 775
Alternative Bridge Paint/Coating Systems................ 600
Computer Support for R&D program........................ 548
High Performance Steels for Bridge Construction and
Bridge Design....................................... 500
Corrosion Inhibitors in Concrete........................ 400
Hydraulics Lab Tech Support............................. 350
Prediction Chloride Penetration in Concrete (BAA)....... 350
Williamsburg Bridge--Orthotopic Deck Study.............. 300
Machine Shop--Materials/Equipment/Support............... 282
Scour Model Development and Studies (4 projects)........ 281
Interagency Agreements--Seismic, Tunnels, NDE, Fatigue,
others.............................................. 280
Graduate Research Fellows............................... 263
Electrochemical Chloride Extraction..................... 200
Research on I-15 Bridges in Utah........................ 200
Develop Training Course on Bridge Paint Systems......... 200
Behavior of Thin Wall Concrete Box Sections............. 150
Aerodynamics Laboratory Tech Support.................... 150
Development of an Embeddable Micro-Instrument........... 100
Knowledge Based Bridge Coatings System.................. 100
Enhanced Technologies for Coating Durability Testing.... 100
Anti-Icing Study in Chicago............................. 100
Other Studies, Cooperative Agreements, Small Purchases.. 434
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 13,211
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
The budget for fiscal year 1997 is...................... 13,211,000
The fiscal year 1998 requested budget is................ 15,256,000
In order to make the transportation infrastructure perform at a
higher level, new and better technologies must be developed and
implemented. Making Bridges Better using higher performing materials
and methods offers an opportunity to significantly improve the life of
our nation's bridges which will have economic advantages to both
individuals (in terms of less delay, better safety, and convenience)
and business (lower transportation costs, higher safety, faster
delivery, etc.) Our fiscal year 1998 budget offers a prudent increase
in Structures R&D aimed at accelerating some of this very high payoff
research. Additionally, our engineers, scientists, and laboratories
have served the country (and the world) in times of natural disasters--
earthquakes, floods, wind storms, etc., with the highest level of
analysis so as to assure the safety of bridges, structures, and highway
pavements, slopes and embankments. Our scour detection work saved lives
in the recent North Dakota flood. Funding for this on-demand service
has in the past been ad hoc and taken from other projects which were
then delayed. Some funds for this work are included in our fiscal year
1998 budget.
Question. Please quantify for each of the last two years the extent
of cost sharing that FHWA obtained for the structures research program.
What could you do to increase cost sharing? Which part of your research
program received cost shared funds or in-kind services?
Answer. Cost sharing with other Federal agencies, State DOT,
universities, and the private sector is a way we leverage our scarce
research dollars. The cost sharing is in terms of pooled fund studies,
donated materials, in-kind services, loaned equipment and facilities,
use of State and other forces for items like traffic control, testing,
collecting samples, etc., as well as joint funding.
In more recent years we have included within appropriate proposals
and agreements opportunities for commercially available products with
corresponding cost sharing. Our work in high performance steels,
aluminum, composite materials and concrete; coatings; cost effective
foundations; non-destructive evaluation; inspection systems; seismic;
aerodynamic and hydraulic programs all benefitted from some form of
cost sharing.
It is estimated that for fiscal year 1996 cost sharing in the range
of 30-35 percent of our budget ($3.5 to $4.5M) was accomplished. For
fiscal year 1997 the range is estimated to be 25-30 percent ($3 to
$4M). Funding of several pooled fund projects may boost this figure in
the remainder of fiscal year 1997.
The year to year budget and program changes make it difficult to
develop longer term relationships that could more easily accommodate
joint funding and cooperation. The start and stop nature of the yearly
process discourages potential investors.
Question. Please quantify for each of the last two years the extent
of cost sharing that FHWA obtained for the pavement research program.
What could you do to increase cost sharing? Which part of your research
program received cost shared funds or in-kind services?
Answer. In the following information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 cost 1997 cost
Program area/type of service shared shared
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTPP Program As part of LTPP data
collection activities the State DOT's
provided FHWA with traffic control
(personal, materials, and equipment)... $1,208,000 $1,340,000
LTPP Program State DOT's provided FHWA
with material and traffic data, traffic
equipment and maintenance of LTPP sites 600,000 600,000
Crumb Rubber Study EPA and other
organizations are sharing the cost of
the Crumb rubber study................. 500,000 500,000
WesTrack Program Truck Manufacturers
have provided vehicles (trucks), parts,
and supplies either free or at
significantly reduced costs............ 400,000 400,000
WesTrack Program The companies and
organizations which make up the
research team at WesTrack are sharing
the public information costs for the
track.................................. 100,000 100,000
State highway agency, university, and
private laboratories are using their
own equipment and personnel in a joint
operation with FHWA to evaluate how
well various laboratory tests can
predict the rutting performance........ 50,000 50,000
Pool Fund Study SPR-2(193) Traffic
Monitoring State participation......... .............. 124,000
Pool Fund Study SPR-2(182) Traffic data
editing................................ .............. 365,000
Pool Fund Study MinRoad................. 200,000 150,000
Pool Fund Study SPR-2(176) Validation of
SHRP Mix Specifications Mix
Specifications......................... 200,000 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other fiscal year 1997 cost shared projects from the
exploratory (advanced) research area are:
Joint funding with NSF:
a. Impact Echo Technique (Cornell U.) FHWA = $63K NSF = $50K.
b. Fiber Optic Bridge Monitoring: (New Mexico State) FHWA = $52K
NSF = $50K (New Mexico State DOT is also funding this).
State Pooled Fund Study on Aerial Robot FHWA = $214K States =
$186K.
Scanning Acoustic Microscope (U. Hawaii) FHWA = $57K Hawaii = $38K.
Delayed Ettringite with T x DOT FHWA = $40K T x DOT = $100K.
FHWA will continue to aggressively seek outside participation
wherever appropriate.
office of highway safety (ohs) and safety r&d/technology transfer
activities
Question. Please describe how the OHS activities help rural
America.
Answer. OHS activities benefit Rural America in many ways. Among
them:
Speed management.--Speed is a contributing factor in more than one-
third of all fatal crashes. Rural roadways by their design are often
less forgiving of driver error than urban roadways, and speeding
compounds this problem. The OHS Speed Team has prepared a 5-year plan
for the Department outlining research, engineering studies, enforcement
initiatives, and other programs to reduce speeding.
Work Zone Safety.--More than half of all work zone fatalities occur
in rural areas. The OHS Work Zone Team has a variety of safety
initiatives to increase worker and traveler safety.
Improved roadway markings.--OHS has initiated rulemaking to
encourage expanded and more effective use of pavement markings. Center
lane and edge line markings are of proven safety benefit, especially on
rural roads which tend to have narrower lane widths. Pavement edge
markings in particular are useful when there is no ambient light, soft
shoulders, or steep drop-offs; features often found on rural roads. The
Federal Register Notice suggests making standard: center line markings
on all rural arterials and collectors with a travel way of 18 feet or
more in width with an average daily traffic of 1,000 or greater and
edge line markings on rural collectors with a travel way 20 feet or
more in width and where the edge of the travel way is not otherwise
delineated.
Improved visibility.--OHS is developing, as part of the Manual for
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) revision, guidelines for a
minimum level of retroreflectivity for all pavement markings and signs
on public roads. Such guidance will be of benefit to rural travelers
who travel at night on unlit or poorly lit roads.
New signs.--Also as part of the MUTCD revision, a ``Share the
Road'' sign has been developed to warn motorists to watch for slower
forms of transportation such as farm machinery traveling along the
highway. Local jurisdictions may now install this sign on their
highways.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).--To ensure that rural
safety issues are addressed, OHS staff serve on the Department's
intermodal team on Advanced Rural Transportation Systems (ARTS), and
staff has served as the DOT Secretary of the ITS America Rural
Committee. ITS holds great promise to increase the safety of the rural
traveler, through application of advanced hazard warning systems,
weather advisories, lane tracking and other technologies designed to
prevent run-off-the-road accidents, traveler information systems, and
Mayday systems. The latter system is of special safety importance to
rural travelers since a rural motorist can expect to wait twice as long
for emergency medical assistance than an urban motorist.
Run-off-the-road accidents.--In 1998, OHS will begin a new emphasis
area: single vehicle run-off -the-road accidents. This accident
configuration is quite common in rural areas, and the countermeasures
developed will benefit rural travelers.
Question. Please update us on the implementation of the OHS five-
year strategic plan. What operational changes and new perspectives have
resulted from implementing the strategic plan? When will you prepare
your next plan? Which aspects of the plan are behind schedule or need
to be modified based on your progress and experience?
Answer. The 5-Year Strategic Plan for the Office of Highway Safety
(OHS) was submitted to the Congress in May 1995. Since the submittal of
the plan, OHS has continued to address the goal and objectives stated
in the plan. The OHS has focused on the implementation of safety
management systems in each State, improved and expanded public outreach
efforts to address various safety problems/issues, improved pedestrian
safety and pedestrian access, improved understanding of speed and speed
management issues, and a reduction of single vehicle crashes. A current
major emphasis in OHS is the revision and update of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices which is due to be published in the
year 2000. In addition, OHS is actively working with outside partners
to implement our safety mission and with our DOT partners, NHTSA, FTA,
and FRA to address common areas of interest.
Following the submittal of the strategic plan, OHS undertook a
review of all ongoing safety initiatives (both team and non-team) and
the level of effort involved in each of these initiatives. After the
review, there were some modifications to the number of persons assigned
to each of the teams, and discussions were initiated regarding
continuation of some of the non-team activities and the level of effort
devoted to these activities. The responsibilities for hazardous
materials routing, formerly in OHS, were transferred to the Office of
Motor Carriers. In recognition of the importance of data, and the
criticality of data to all current team activities and future planning
and evaluations, a new team was added to address safety data and
information needs.
The Federal-aid part of FHWA has Safety as a strategic goal. OHS is
leading the effort in developing performance and assessment plans in
response to the Department's fiscal year 1999 Budget in accordance with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The current
Strategic Plan will be revised in that initiative. The performance
plan, now under development, includes outcome goals, output goals, and
performance indicators.
The 5-Year Strategic Plan did not contain a rigid time schedule,
and several efforts mentioned in the plan have not yet been initiated.
The establishment of a university-based safety training program for
highway safety professionals to improve the quality of highway safety
programs has not been initiated; but we have created a four-week
training program on Safety Management Systems. Special safety programs
for the elderly and special needs drivers has not yet been initiated,
however guidelines to design highways with the elderly have been
developed. Rotational assignments between FHWA and NHTSA have occurred
mainly in the field. A Senior Management Safety Team has been
established in headquarters and staff from each agency serve on the
other agency's project teams.
Question. How much money are you spending in fiscal year 1997 and
planned for fiscal year 1998 on work zone safety? Please provide
exhaustive detail on current projects and their funding amounts and
sources.
Answer. We expect to spend $445,762 in fiscal year 1997 and a
planned $390,000 in fiscal year 1998. The dollar amounts shown above
are for the completion of the following two projects: the establishment
of a national work zone safety information clearing house and the
production of public outreach/education material for use in work zone
safety media campaigns. The outreach pooled fund project was let in
July of 1996 with in initial obligation of $250,000 of fiscal year 1996
Office Of Technology Applications (OTA) General Operating Expenses
(GOE) funds. The project is scheduled for completion at the end of
August 1997, with the delivery of contract items. An additional
$145,762 of fiscal year 1997 OTA (GOE) funds were recently obligated to
complete the contract work. It is estimated that another $50,000 of
fiscal year 1998 OTA funds will be used for kicking off the campaign
and making a distribution of the contract products (video and audio
tapes of the PSA's and other hard copy products) per the individual
state needs. Part of these costs will be covered by the contributions
from the pooled fund participating states ($100,000).
The clearing house project has been advertized as a cooperative
agreement with cost sharing. Applications have been received and an
award is expected in July. The project is for three years with
declining Federal support. The clearing house is to be self sustaining
at that point. Initial funding of $300,000 will be obligated using
fiscal year 1997 OTA funds. About $340,000 of fiscal year 1998 OTA
funds will be obligated to cover next year's operating expenses.
Approximately $150,000 of fiscal year 1999 funds may be needed to
complete the project depending on the final negotiated cooperative
agreement price.
The cost and source of providing the various work zone safety
training courses for fiscal year 1998 are unknown at this time,
although the presentations are usually funded through the National
Highway Institute and off set by received fees.
Question. Please specify the progress made in implementing each of
the items listed in the DOT Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Action Plan
that were assigned to FHWA.
Answer. The FHWA is responsible for implementing 22 of the 55
individual elements of the 1994 DOT Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Action
Plan. The FHWA has developed plans to implement each of the 22 assigned
elements. Activities to date are as follows:
dot rail-highway crossing safety action plan status of fhwa
implementation plan--june 11, 1997
1. Action element--commercial drivers license
The FHWA will work with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) to examine the need for rulemaking to make a
grade crossing violation a ``serious traffic violation'' on a
Commercial Drivers License (CDL).
Action to date.--The FHWA has discussed this issue with the AAMVA
and is considering a possible rulemaking action later this year.
2. Action element--national highway system (NHS)
The FHWA will encourage that statewide and metropolitan
organizations and safety management systems (SMS) address the upgrading
or elimination of at-grade crossings on the NHS and give priority to
the long-term goal of eliminating (through closure or grade separation)
NHS intersections with Principal Rail Lines (PRL).
Action to date.--The FHWA will explore grade crossing design
standards/performance criteria that may be developed for the NHS. In
the interim, our division offices have been working closely with States
and metropolitan planning organizations to ensure that grade crossing
issues are considered in the planning process. They are encouraging the
States to focus on eliminating crossings or installing active warning
devices at NHS grade crossings, particularly at intersections with the
PRL's. They are encouraging the States to incorporate the upgrading and
elimination of NHS grade crossings under the umbrella of their Safety
Management Systems; and several States have agreed to revise their
prioritization procedures to give additional weight to crossing closure
proposals. Additional guidance, ``Safety Management Systems: Good
Practices for Development and Implementation,'' was issued in a further
effort to assist the States.
3. Action element--upgrade signing and marking
The FHWA will encourage States to increase the Conspicuity of signs
and markings at grade crossings by promoting greater use of longer
lasting, high-grade reflective materials.
Action to date.--A number of States are using Federal funds to
upgrade rail-highway crossing warning signs by installing improved
retroreflective materials. In many cases, the highly reflective
material is being installed on both sides of the crossbuck sign and the
sign's support post. This increases dramatically the conspicuity of
these traffic control devices.
4. Action element--consider installation of STOP signs where warranted
The FHWA will encourage States to consider the installation of STOP
signs at grade crossings where they are warranted. Guidance on STOP
sign installation was issued in a July 8, 1993, joint memorandum from
FHWA and FRA to their respective field offices.
Action to date.--Our division offices have discussed the use of
STOP signs with the States, but many are reluctant to place them on
State routes--especially on those that carry significant volumes of
traffic. They are considering STOP signs where they are warranted and
where they can be deployed without creating other safety problems. Most
States have endorsed placing STOP signs at crossings on low-volume
local roads.
5. Action element--incentives for crossing consolidation (bonuses)
Legislation will be proposed to allow Federal funds to be eligible
for paying a bonus to a local community that would close a grade
crossing.
Action to date.--Section 353 of the Department of Transportation
Appropriation Bill of 1997 provided incentive payment to local
governments for the permanent closure of grade crossings.
6. Action element--incentives for crossing consolidation (100 percent
funding)
Legislation will be proposed that will allow 100 percent Federal
funding for projects to close grade crossings.
Action to date.--Section 353 of the Department of Transportation
Appropriation Bill of 1997 provided incentive payment to local
governments for the permanent closure of grade crossings.
7. Action element--check list for corridor reviews
The FHWA, in coordination with FRA, will develop a ``check list''
of items to be considered in a corridor analysis of crossings.
Action to date.--The ``check list'' (now called the ``Corridor
Analysis Guide'') was developed in coordination with FRA and
distributed to our field offices in May 1995. Some States have
incorporated the guide in their Safety Management Systems. The corridor
concept has been generally well received by the States.
8. Action element--railroad-highway grade crossing handbook
The FHWA, in cooperation with other DOT agencies, will revise and
update the 1986 issuance of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing
Handbook.
Action to date.--A contract was awarded for revising the Handbook.
The FHWA plans to complete distributing the updated Handbook by
September 1998.
9. Action element--vegetation clearance
The FHWA will encourage States to incorporate in their Safety
Management Systems guidelines to ensure that vegetation is continually
cleared on highway rights-of-way at grade crossings.
Action to date.--FHWA field offices have discussed with State
maintenance and operations personnel the need to establish maintenance
practices to ensure that any obstructing vegetation is cleared from
highway rights-of-way at crossings. All States have maintenance
programs to keep vegetation under control. Clearance, however, is
generally limited to the State's right-of-way, as most have no
jurisdiction to enter private or railroad property for this purpose.
Most States have included this item in diagnostic reviews as well as in
Safety Management Systems.
10. Action element--corridor review participation
Legislation will be proposed to allow Federal funds to be used as
an incentive to States that review crossings for improvement on a
corridor basis rather than individually.
Action to date.--Section 353 of the Department of Transportation
Appropriation Bill of 1997 provided incentive payment to local
governments for the permanent closure of grade crossings. This should
encourage jurisdictions to review crossings on a corridor basis.
11. Action element--distribution of funds
The FHWA, in cooperation with FRA, will initiate a study of the
formulas used to apportion funds to the States for grade crossing
improvements to determine if there may be a more equitable distribution
formula, possibly including the number of crossings and accidents in
each State.
Action to date.--The DOT reauthorization proposal included changes
in the distribution of rail-highway crossing funds to the States. The
proposed distribution would be based on the number of crashes at public
grade crossings (25 percent), the number of fatalities at public grade
crossings (25 percent), the number of public grade crossings (25
percent), and on the number of public crossings with passive warning
devices (25 percent).
12. Action element--on-guard notice
Publish and distribute to all 270,000 interstate motor carriers an
On-Guard notice to alert the truck and bus industry to the danger at
crossings.
Action to date.--This was completed in February 1996.
13. Action element--advisory bulletin
Send an advisory bulletin to the trade press about the danger of
accidents at crossings.
Action to date.--This was done in February 1996.
14. Action element--public service print advertisements
Prepare public service print advertisements for the trade journals
on truck and bus accidents at highway-rail crossings.
Action to date.--Print ads have been developed and distributed.
15. Action element--``Trucker-on-the-Train'' program
Work with Amtrak, the American Trucking Associations (ATA),
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), OLI and FRA to create a
``Trucker on the Train'' program where motor carrier executives and
drivers accompany train engineers on the engine of a train to view
first hand dangerous highway-rail crossings.
Action to date.--A press conference was held in September 1996, at
Washington's Union Station. The ``kickoff'' train ride was held on
November 17, 1996, between Cleveland and Toledo. Other such events are
being considered.
16. Action element--operation lifesaver (OLI)
Encourage OLI staff to meet with trucking companies and
associations regarding the dangers at crossings.
Action to date.--Representatives from FHWA, FRA, OLI, Amtrak,
railroads, etc. are meeting on a continuing basis with trucking
companies and associations.
17. Action element--national safety organizations
Address the issue at meetings of national safety organizations such
as the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Action to date.--This issue is being included and will continue to
be included in speeches to appropriate organizations. We supplied major
amounts of editorial material to the National Safety Council (NSC) for
inclusion in a widely distributed booklet, ``Don't Gamble at the
Tracks,'' aimed at professional drivers. The booklet was distributed by
NSC in March 1995. In 1996, FHWA provided additional funds to Operation
Lifesaver, which developed and distributed the training video for
school bus drivers titled ``The Responsibility Is Ours.'' A total of
600 videos was distributed, at no charge, to key education and pupil
transportation groups in each State and the regional offices of each of
the modal administrations.
18. Action element--on-site compliance reviews
Ensure that at on-site compliance reviews conducted by the Office
of Motor Carriers (OMC) field staff and State personnel, the motor
carrier is informed of the risks at highway-rail crossings.
Action to date.--A December 14, 1994, memorandum was issued to OMC
Regional Directors instructing them to discuss this matter when
carriers are contacted. Printed material outlining the risks at grade
crossings is being provided to carriers during on-site visits.
19. Action element--operation lifesaver (OL) matching funds
Legislation will be proposed to provide additional Federal funding
for Operation Lifesaver.
Action to date.--In June 1994, DOT submitted legislation to
Congress relating to this issue but it was not enacted. Operation
Lifesaver received an additional $100,000 in fiscal years 1995 and
1996. In the DOT reauthorization legislation, $300,000 is proposed
annually.
20. Action element--signs and signals
The FHWA, in cooperation with FRA, will initiate conceptual studies
of new highway rail crossing warning devices with the goal of providing
additional information to motorists about whether there is an active or
passive warning system at the crossing and information about the
direction from which a train is approaching the crossing.
Action to date.--A contract has been awarded to develop signing
that provides motorists cleaner and better information at grade
crossings and to examine the use of regular highway traffic signals at
grade crossings.
21. Action element--MUTCD
The FHWA will propose changes to the MUTCD pertaining to high-speed
rail crossings, work zones, STOP signs, DOT/AAR Inventory numbers, and
light rail.
Action to date.--A final rule that contains amendments to the MUTCD
was published in the Federal Register in January 1997. A notice of
proposed rulemaking addressing the issue of light rail will be
published in July 1998.
22. Action element--national inventory
The FHWA will encourage States to incorporate in their Safety
Management Systems means of ensuring that the DOT/AAR Inventory is
updated on a systematic basis.
Action to date.--The FHWA field offices are encouraging States to
incorporate in their Safety Management Systems means of a process for
systematic updating of the highway data in the national grade crossing
inventory. There have been problems getting update information from
some highway agencies and railroads because of staffing shortages and
competing priorities.
Question. Which action items have not yet been completed and what
is the time schedule and approach for doing so?
Answer. Of the 22 action items assigned to FHWA from the 1994 DOT
Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Action Plan, eight are still ongoing. A
number of these action items are long term and are designed to reduce
the number of fatalities at rail-highway grade crossings by 50 percent
by the year 2004. The FHWA will continue to work with the other
involved DOT agencies, the States, the railroad industry, Operation
Lifesaver, and the enforcement community on all items in the Action
Plan.
Question. How has FHWA responded to the results of its
comprehensive national review of highway-rail crossing design and
construction?
Answer. The results of the review of highway-rail crossing design
and construction can be found in the March 1, 1996, report to the
Secretary, ``Accidents That Shouldn't Happen.'' It included a number of
short-term and long-term recommendations.
Shortly after the report was issued, the FHWA Executive Director
issued implementation guidance to FHWA field offices that addressed the
short-term recommendations pertaining to interconnected signals and
storage.
One of the long-term recommendations in the report called for the
FHWA and FRA to convene a Technical Working Group (TWG) to review
existing standards and guidelines and develop new ones, if appropriate,
on several grade crossing safety issues. The TWG was established,
consisting of representatives of agencies, professional organizations,
and other groups that had knowledge and interest in assisting the
U.S.DOT in improving railroad-highway grade crossing safety. The TWG
held three formal meetings and addressed the following issues:
terminology; interconnected signals and vehicle storage; high profile
crossings; joint inspections; and training. The TWG made 35
recommendations in the June 1, 1997 report to the Secretary,
``Implementation Report of the U.S.DOT Grade Crossing Safety Task
Force''.
The FHWA, in conjunction with the FRA where appropriate, continues
to implement the recommendations from both reports.
Question. What were the major challenges that your grade crossing
team dealt with during the last 12 months? What were the major
accomplishments of this team?
Answer. The primary challenge addressed by the Rail-Highway
Crossing Safety Team during the past year was to implement the
recommendations contain in the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force's
report to the Secretary in March 1996. This Task Force was established
following the rail-highway crossing accident at Fox River Grove,
Illinois, which involved a school bus and a commuter train and resulted
in the deaths of seven students.
Among the noteworthy accomplishments of the U.S.DOT Task Force are:
the convening of a Technical Working Group (TWG) that made 35
recommendations for standards, guidelines and other grade crossing
safety issues; the identification of focal points to coordinate
railroad safety issues in each State; the initiation of regional State/
railroad conferences; and the creation of an advance warning sign for
motorists approaching high-profile crossings. The TWG's accomplishments
are: development of a common glossary for railroad and traffic
engineers; development of an interconnected warning placard on
controller cabinets; recommendations in the areas of interconnected
signals, vehicles storage, joint-inspections, and high profile
crossings; and the submission of the Task Force Report to the Secretary
of Transportation on May 28, 1997.
Question. How does each of the program areas proposed in your
fiscal year 1998 program relate to the R&D needs identified by the TRB?
Be certain to address how your fiscal year 1998 program addresses
pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Answer. It is not certain what TRB identified R&D needs are being
referred to TRB participated in the recent AASHTO effort to update
their strategic highway safety plan/implementation plan. The Offices of
Highway Safety (OHS) and Research and Development (HRD) were actively
involved in this effort. The combined plan has just been drafted and
will be circulated for comment to the responsible AASHTO committee and
the individual participants involved in the effort. Therefore, the R&T
needs are not yet finalized. TRB also funded an NCHRP study to develop
a strategic plan for improving roadside safety. OHS and HRD are also
involved in this effort. This study is also in final stages of drafting
and will need to be circulated for comment and subsequent revision.
Therefore, the R&T needs are again not finalized. From our involvement
in both these efforts, thus being acquainted with what is being
proposed, we feel that our currently planned fiscal year 1998 R&T
program is relative to many of the AASHTO and TRB strategic plans'
objectives.
The fiscal year 1998 R&D program includes a new High Priority Area
(HPA) entitled, ``Engineering Improvements for Enhanced Safety and
Operations''. This area includes four planned research projects for
fiscal year 1998 that relate to pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Additional ped/bike safety related projects are planned for future
years. It should be noted that due to a lower level of fiscal year 1998
budget approval for Safety R&D than available in previous years, and
the uncertainty of any supplemental funds until there is a
Transportation Reauthorization Act, new starts in this new HPA may have
to be delayed until fiscal year 1999.
As a result of the previous R&D HPA on ``Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety'', there are completed or soon to be completed research results
that will be available for use in technology transfer and training
activities starting in fiscal year 1998 and continuing into subsequent
fiscal years.
Question. What are you doing to develop educational and outreach
efforts to combat the problem of drivers running off the road? Please
estimate fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 funds
allocated for this purpose and provide the funding sources of these
monies.
Answer. Educational and outreach programs include training and
technical assistance provided to both State and local officials. The
Office of Highway Safety coordinated with the National Highway
Institute (NHI) and the Office of Engineering in the development and
implementation of several courses that address highway, roadway and
operational design. These areas are three of the primary areas related
to safety and can be used to reduce the number of run-off-the road
crashes, or when these crashes do occur, significantly reduce the
severity of the crash. The following training courses have, or are
being, developed:
--``Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Highway Safety
Features.'' This course was developed and is partially
supported with FHWA funds from the NHI budget, and additional
funds come from States requesting this training. The estimated
cost of course development for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 is approximately $150,000. The estimated cost for training
activities for fiscal year 1997 is $25,000, and for fiscal year
1998 is $35,000.
--A new ``Design and Operation of Safer Highways'' course currently
is in development. The course will be based on the new AASHTO
guide on the same subject and will be available for training in
late fiscal year 1998. The development and partial training
funds will come from NHI and are approximately $20,000 for
fiscal year 1997 and $100,000 for fiscal year 1998.
The Office of Highway Safety in coordination with the Offices of
Engineering and Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development
has begun the process of recertification of safety appurtenances, such
as guardrail, used on the roadside. These systems are being recertified
or modified as safer hardware. They are required for use on new
National Highway System projects after August 1998. It is anticipated
that the safety appurtenances recertified under the new criteria
(National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350) will reduce
the severity of run-off-the-road crashes. The process of
recertification and providing State and local agencies plans and
details for this safety hardware cost approximately $80,000 in fiscal
year 1996, $100,000 in fiscal year 1997 and will cost approximately
$50,000 in fiscal year 1998. The funds being used to crash test
existing and modified safety hardware are primary those allocated to
Research and Development for testing and development.
The Office of Highway Safety has, and is continuing, to prepare
technical guides and informational packages for local agencies that
relate to safety improvements. These guides are designed to bring to
the attention of local agencies design, and operational conditions that
can result in run-off-the-road type accidents. The cost of preparation
and distribution of these guides comes out of the budgets of the
Offices of Highway Safety and Technology Applications. The estimated
cost of providing this technical information to local officials using
the Office of Technology Applications General Operating Expense funds
was approximately $5,000 in fiscal year 1996 and will be approximately
$15,000 and $25,000, respectively for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998.
Signs and markings are extremely important in keeping drivers on
the roadway. They often convey important warnings about appropriate
driving speed or warn of situations where a driver could have trouble
maintaining their path on the highway. Currently, the Office of Highway
Safety is involved with developing sign and pavement marking
retroreflectivity guidelines. A Federal Register Notice will be
published this fall for signs and in the fall of 1998 for pavement
markings. This will improve nighttime visibility in adverse weather, on
curves, and better delineate fixed objects. The estimated cost of
providing this information to state and local officials as well as the
public using the General Operating Expense funds was approximately
$10,000 in fiscal year 1996 and will be approximately $10,000 and
$10,000, respectively for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
In accordance with the 1993 DOT Appropriations Act, the FHWA is in
the process of developing changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for new centerline and edge line requirements for all
roads and highways open to public travel. These new guidelines should
provide better nighttime guidance on more highways and therefore
improve safety. A Federal Register Notice was published August 2, 1996,
for public comments and a final rule is scheduled to be published in
the Federal Register Notice in the fall of 1997. The estimated cost of
providing this information to state and local officials as well as the
public using the General Operating Expense funds was approximately
$10,000 in fiscal year 1996 and will be approximately $10,000 and
$10,000, respectively for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
FHWA has made several presentations to national and local highways
agencies concerning this rulemaking and the need for better nighttime
visibility. In addition there is an Internet web page site for the
public to make inquiries about traffic control device questions. In the
near future, the OHS will have a website with the most frequently asked
questions and the appropriate answers.
As a part of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act Section 6005, we are conducting an evaluation of all-weather
pavement marking to determine the visibility, durability and safety
impacts of several new pavement marking materials in various States in
the country. There are presently 23 States participating in this
program where testing and evaluation of over twelve different types of
innovative pavement marking materials are being conducted. In addition,
the FHWA has developed new technology--a mobile pavement marking
retroreflectometer van (Laserlux) that effectively measures levels of
retroreflectivity of pavement markings. This technology allows for the
safe, fast, accurate and efficient measurement of pavement markings at
highway speeds up to 55 miles per hour. We have also developed a
Pavement Marking System (PMS) to reflect the status of pavement
markings throughout a jurisdiction's roadway system. This new equipment
and PMS system will assist highway agencies in managing their pavement
markings on their roadways in a safer and more cost effective manner.
Additional vans that were developed and equipped with this technology
were demonstrated 64 times in several States nationwide to their
traffic and pavement marking specialists. The estimated cost of
conducting this technical information and evaluation program in various
States using the Office of Technology Applications 6005 funds was $3.15
million in fiscal year 1994, $3.16 million in fiscal year 1995, $1.55
million in fiscal year 1996, and approximately $2.30 million in fiscal
year 1997.
Question. What quantitative analysis has been conducted to
determine the scope and nature of the problem of drivers failing to
comply with yield right-of-way signs?
Answer. The existing data on the scope and nature of failure to
yield right of way is outdated and inconclusive. An 1989, FHWA-
sponsored research study--Motorist Compliance with Standard Traffic
Control Devices (FHWA-RD-89-103), investigated the general area of
traffic control compliance, including yield right-of-way. This study
indicates that compliance with several traffic control devices--
especially traffic signals, STOP signs, and speed limits--is considered
to be a problem by law enforcement agencies, but did not rank
compliance with yield signs as significant. It is difficult to
determine the true extent of this problem through the Fatal Accident
Reporting System (FARS) because FARS has two separate data reporting
elements related to failure to yield. The first combines failure to
comply with the actual Yield Right of Way sign along with all other
traffic control devices; none of these are discrete elements that can
be extracted for further analysis. The second data element refers to a
driver failing to yield right of way, implying that this would include
both signed and not signed instances of failing to yield. However,
anecdotal information implies that failure to yield is a more serious
traffic safety problem that has not been specifically identified and
addressed.
Question. What is the scope and nature of your activities to
address this highway problem?
Answer. The FHWA recognizes that the public's perception of the
seriousness of traffic control devices has been diminishing, which led
to the development and implementation of the successful national
campaign against Red Light Running. Anecdotal information--coupled with
the emerging phenomenon of aggressive driving--indicate that failure to
yield right-of-way is also a cause of concern. As a preliminary step,
this issue has been incorporated within the Read Your Road highway
users manual and FHWA's interactive Highway Safety Kiosks. These kiosks
engage users via a highway safety quiz, which includes sections
relating to proper and safe driving behavior when merging in traffic
and yielding right of way.
Question. Please specify funding amounts allocated or planned for
this effort for each of the last two fiscal years and planned for
fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Since other safety issues are addressed in both the Read
Your Road partnership program and the interactive Highway Safety
Kiosks, it is difficult to extract the amount of funding dedicated
specifically to yield right of way and would be an extrapolation at
best. However, the FHWA plans to budget $100,000 in fiscal year 1998 to
include funds for focus group research targeted to yield right of way.
Question. In Conference Report 104-286, the conference agreement
provides $8,768,000 for safety related R&D. The conferees directed that
the total R&D safety activity be funded at a level of at least
$12,768,000, including both ISTEA and appropriations authority. Please
show the allocation of any ISTEA, Section 6005, and GOE funds used to
implement this directive. Please show the amounts allocated to key
safety projects.
Answer. The breakdown of R&D GOE funds and 6005 funds by safety
High Priority Areas are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996
HPA's/Administration costs -------------------------------
GOE 6005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance traffic control devices......... $300,000 $550,000
Highway safety information management... 700,000 900,000
Interactive highway safety.............. 1,600,000 250,000
Roadside safety hardware................ 1,200,000 300,000
Pedestrian and bicycle safety........... 1,900,000 ..............
Human factors research.................. 1,100,000 1,175,000
Supportive services:
Safety design information........... 400,000 ..............
Behavorial systems.................. 700,000 825,000
Management and coordination............. 825,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 8,750,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total funds obligated for safety R&D equaled $12,750,000.
Question. In Conference Report 104-286, $1,000,000 was allocated to
the Office of Highway Safety to support the Red Light Running Campaign
and to increase compliance with yield right-of-way or grade crossings
signs. What is the status of these efforts?
Answer. The Red Light Running (RLR) effort has been extremely
successful, as evidenced by the tremendous amount of media interest in
red light running in general and this program in particular. Despite
the fact the RLR campaign is nearly two years old, there continue to be
numerous print articles in major national journals, newspapers and
magazines praising the program, as well as national television and
radio features on red light running. The actual campaign is nearing
completion with over 30 communities across the country implementing RLR
programs. Thus far, summary reports indicate that public recognition of
the seriousness of RLR is at 48 percent, RLR crashes have been reduced
by 24 percent, and RLR citations have doubled in the communities
participating in the campaign. In addition, RLR communities have more
than doubled the amount of funds dedicated to the RLR campaign, by
securing over $2 million in private and local contributions--
effectively leveraging the Federal funds dedicated to this serious
traffic safety issue. We expect a final report on the national RLR
campaign in Spring, 1998.
While there is anecdotal evidence that the RLR campaign has had a
``spill over'' effect on compliance with other traffic control devices
(ie railroad grade crossings and yield right of way), in response to
Conference Report 104-286, the FHWA developed additional safety
outreach items that address both these issues. Among these is the
development and planned distribution of Read Your Road (RYR), a
comprehensive highway users manual filled with important roadway
information which is designed for drivers of all ages. RYR includes
information what to do at a rail-highway grade crossing, the meaning of
yield right of way signs, and how to safely merge into traffic. Another
is the development of the interactive Highway Safety Kiosks. These
kiosks engage users via a highway safety quiz which includes sections
relating to proper and safe driving behavior when approaching grade
crossings, merging and yielding right of way. Currently, the FHWA has
produced three kiosks, which have literally toured the country and been
featured at national conferences, State Fairs and expositions.
Question. What new safety outreach campaigns are planned for fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998? Please indicate funding amounts for
each project.
Answer. The FHWA will continue to spend over $1,000,000 each year
on highway safety outreach activities. In fiscal year 1997, OHS is
focussing on the Read Your Road Partnership Program, in an effort to
print and distribute RYR manuals to motorists across the country. In
fiscal year 1998, FHWA intends to expand safety outreach to address
run-off-the-road crashes and will develop a public information campaign
directed at storage space at rail-highway grade crossings.
Additionally, FHWA will continue its activity in work zone safety, with
the development of public service announcements in late fiscal year
1997 and distribution in fiscal year 1998, subject to funding
availability.
In response to the Committee's direction that the Office of Highway
Safety (OHS) utilize advanced technology to expand safety outreach to
the motoring public, pedestrians and bicyclists, the OHS has developed
an Internet Home Page, with a comprehensive array of highway safety
information that encompasses all OHS team activities, as well as
special projects, programs and special initiatives. Planning for fiscal
year 1998 includes enhancing existing home page information and
converting information from the Highway Safety Kiosks to a CD-ROM
format to allow for greater penetration and a reduction in shipping and
handling costs associated with the large kiosks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------
Activity 1997 1998
estimated estimated
funding funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read your road................................ $200,000 $50,000
Red light running............................. 20,000 ...........
Grade crossings............................... \2\ 75,000 100,000
Work zones.................................... \3\ 270,000 \1\ 285,000
Yield sign.................................... ........... 100,000
Single vehicle run-off-the-road............... \1\ 150,000 \1\ 150,000
Pedestrian/bike............................... 150,000 150,000
CD-Rom kiosk information...................... 25,000 75,000
Training \4\.................................. ........... 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds for Training Activities.
\2\ $75,000 was spent on grade crossing outreach activities in fiscal
year 1996.
\3\ $250,000 was spent on work zone safety outreach activities in fiscal
year 1996.
\4\ To be determined.
Question. When and how will you reorient the activities and
projects funded by the safety R&D and OTA budget, to those which will
have the greatest impact on reducing fatalities?
Answer. As part of the government-wide effort to comply with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Office of Highway
Safety has expended considerable effort to develop performance goals
and strategies in conformance with the FHWA strategic plan. This effort
has included identifying the safety needs of our partners and
stakeholders through the use of focus groups. It also included direct
involvement in the two efforts for developing safety strategic plans--
one by AASHTO and one by a TRB study for roadside safety. Although both
are in the final stages of initial drafting they are not ready for
publication yet. However, the process used in both cases made extensive
use of using national experts in the various areas of highway safety to
identify major problems and strategies that could impact the problems.
Subsequently, the Safety Research and Technology Coordinating Group is
using this valuable information to help direct future research and
technology needs.
A recent review of a wide range of needs indicates that our R&T
program has and is generally on target for meeting national R&T needs.
Several R&D safety High Priority Areas (HPA) are in their final stages
and outputs from this research will be the basis for technology
transfer and training activities. A new planned HPA (engineering
improvements for enhanced safety and operations) will contribute
information for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety which is an
area that has a significant percent of the total highway fatalities
that occur yearly in the U.S. Other ongoing HPA areas (enhanced driver
visibility, roadside safety hardware, interactive design model, and
human factors) are and will provide information that will help reduce
the number of single vehicle runoff-the-road accidents and also reduce
the severity of the roadside crash when it does occur. This area is
also a very significant part of the annual fatalities occurring on
highways. There are a number of technology application and training
courses that have been identified that will carry a greater focus on
mitigating the run-off-the-road problem.
It should be noted that safety R&D funds may also be needed to fund
needed research in the more traditional traffic operations area where
their is usually a secondary impact of safety. This has been assigned
to the Safety RTCG for consideration of funding. The bottom line is
that safety R&D needs of about $14 million has been identified for the
next several years if we are to meet identified national needs.
Currently we are budget approved for $9.0 million which means a several
year delay in advancing some projects.
Question. Is it correct that this is the second year in a row that
FHWA has not requested funds for pedestrian R&D safety? Last year did
you indicate that you would be proposing a major new initiative in this
area in the fiscal year 1998 budget request?
Answer. It is true that no R&D funds for pedestrian/bicycle safety
new starts were included in the budget request for fiscal year 1997.
Due to the availability of fiscal year 1996 R&D funds and the
importance assigned to the Ped/Bike Safety High Priority Area (HPA),
not only were the planned fiscal year 1996 projects advanced, but the
preplanned fiscal year 1997 projects were also advanced. Those
essentially were the last projects planned under this HPA. Therefore,
no additional pedestrian research projects were funded in fiscal year
1997. As noted in your second part of this question, a new HPA is
scheduled to fully start in fiscal year 1998 with at least four of the
projects directly impacting pedestrian safety problems and maybe two
others having an indirect impact. The full implementation as planned
for this HPA is subject to availability of sufficient fiscal year 1998
funds to start this HPA. On the Technology Applications side, several
activities are planned for fiscal year 1998 and beyond to implement and
use the information coming from the R&D projects.
Question. What are the performance measures or goals of your safety
R&D and Technology Transfer Programs?
Answer. Since research and technology programs are primarily
support for the program offices' functions, the safety R&D and
Technology Transfer programs are being linked to the FHWA federal-aid
safety measures and goals as developed by the OHS. Two of the Outcome
goals for the FHWA federal-aid safety program are: improve safety
management processes, including data collection and analysis and
professional competencies, to better identify and resolve highway
safety problems: and improvements in priority safety areas (run-off-
road and pedestrian/bicycle). Although the present R&T programs are
focusing on these goals and will continue to do so in even a more
focused manner starting in fiscal year 1998, the fiscal year 1999 R&T
programs will begin the formal integration of safety R&T and safety
program goals/strategies and performance measures. The Safety RTCG will
be working over the next several months to develop the ``roadmap'' for
this full integration process.
planning
Question. What are you doing to encourage the States to include the
costs of highway operations and management in the planning process?
Answer. ISTEA emphasizes the management of the existing system and
non-capital alternatives to maintaining system performance. We are
encouraging through our policies, certification reviews, technical
assistance, and training: (1) consideration of operations and
management strategies in the decision-process at the regional level;
(2) improved coordination of operations and management activities at
the regional level. We are also supporting those States and MPO's who
are continuing their management system efforts and encouraging those
who are considering implementing them. State programs and MPO plans and
programs include prioritized financial plans, which address management
and operations costs. Together, these activities support better
operations and management of the existing highway system.
We currently have an emphasis in our reauthorization language on
strengthening the current operations and management focus of enabling
legislation. If adopted in NEXTEA, one of the goals of the
transportation planning processes will be operations and management of
the transportation system including strategic ITS services and sub-
systems. This will support the building and operation of regional
infrastructures (including ITS) over time within the context and forum
of the traditional transportation planning process. In addition, fiscal
constraint requirements that include operations and management elements
will be incorporated into the State and MPO planning processes.
Question. What are you doing to increase the use of Geographical
Information Systems in planning? Please delineate fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 funding and activities
in this area.
Answer. The FHWA supports and promotes Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) as an essential analytical and presentation tool to
support transportation planning and project development activities. In
the current environment of shrinking staffs and funding resources, GIS
is an efficient and effective means of integrating large amounts of
data and information to support effective decision making in
transportation planning as well as in other areas such as integrated
information systems, sustainable development and early consideration of
the environment in the planning process.
FHWA has a number of staff and research activities designed to
promote the increased application of GIS at all levels of government
(metropolitan, state and federal). The program consists of staff,
applications research, and training and technical assistance
activities.
Staff.--FHWA GIS Coordination.--FHWA has designated a national
expert in GIS as the FHWA GIS Coordinator, who is responsible for
maintaining a comprehensive knowledge of GIS activities at all levels
of government and using this knowledge to promote GIS usage. FHWA
participates in a large number of activities such as national and state
conferences and committees, technical seminars and on-site technical
assistance. The FHWA serves on the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC), Ground Transportation Subcommittee, Transportation Research
Board (TRB) Committee on State Transportation Data and Information
Systems, TRB Task Force on GIS, TRB Committee on Computer Technology,
and the AASHTO Task Force on GIS.
National Highway System (NHS) Activities.--GIS was used to develop
the maps to support NHS legislation activities. The National Highway
Planning Network (NHPN) was established and used to document the NHS.
NHS promotion efforts, map production of the NHS, and use of this
material in technical assistance activities increased the awareness and
use of GIS in transportation.
Development of National GIS.--The FHWA is building upon the NHPN to
develop a national GIS database by integrating data from the Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and the National Bridge Inventory
(NBI). This effort has done a great deal to promote the use of GIS in
planning by advancing scheduled individual state GIS implementation
efforts.
R&T.--Applications.--FHWA promotes the use of GIS in transportation
planning and project development activities by developing applications
and case studies highlighting exemplary usage of the technology.
Applications development and documentation is being pursued in areas
such as NHS database development, freight flow analysis, traffic flow
analysis, environmental impact assessment, application and testing of
travel and land use models, sustainable development applications,
intermodal decision support, facility management, and major investment
studies. Funding for research to support these applications is:
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $475,000
1997...................................................... 610,000
1998.....................................................\1\ 800,000
\1\ Proposed.
T \2\--Training and Technical Assistance.--FHWA staff GIS expertise
and the FHWA National GIS activity are utilized to provide training and
technical assistance to customers and thus advance the state of the
practice in both statewide and metropolitan GIS applications. FHWA
supports the use of GIS through training courses, such as the
``Application of GIS for Statewide Transportation'' (NHI 15129) course.
Current and future efforts focus on the integration of training modules
into other courses (travel demand forecasting, freight planning) and
further on-site technical assistance. FHWA also takes a very active
leadership and participation role in the GIS-T Symposium, an annual GIS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
technology transfer forum. Funding for these activities is as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $100,000
1997...................................................... 85,000
1998.....................................................\1\ 210,000
\1\ Proposed.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the expected sums required
for each of the next few years to bring TRANSIMS to completion,
breaking out both FHWA and other funds. When will the FHWA support for
TRANSIMS be substantially diminished?
Answer. FHWA anticipates completing the basic TRANSIMS core
development by the year 2000. After completion FHWA will continue
support for packaging and deploying TRANSIMS. There will also be a
separate effort to include ITS capabilities within TRANSIMS. The cost
of that effort is above the $25,200,000 core development cost. The
expected remaining costs to complete the core TRANSIMS effort are
outlined in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIMS core development ITS
Fiscal year ------------------------------------------------ enhancement
GOE funds Contract funds EPA funds ITS funds \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................ \1\ $5,000,000 ( \1\ ) $250,000 $2,000,000
1999............................................ .............. $3,000,000 250,000 2,000,000
2000............................................ .............. 2,000,000 .............. 2,000,000
2001............................................ .............. 2,000,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A total of $5,000,000 will be allocated to TRANSIMS. This will be a combination of GOE and contract funds.
The exact distribution depends upon final budget allocation and ISTEA reauthorization.
\2\ Funding for ITS development is a separate effort and is not included in the $25,200,000 for TRANSIMS core
development.
We have not included contributions from FTA. We anticipate FTA will
provide direct financial support to MPO's implementing TRANSIMS. In
addition FHWA expects approximately $250,000 in funds from EPA each
year. However, the decisions for this are made on a year by year basis
by EPA depending upon funding availability; EPA may designate these
funds for research other than TRANSIMS core development.
FHWA anticipates completion of the TRANSIMS core development by the
year 2000. Additional funds will be required to package TRANSIMS in a
user friendly format, provide technical assistance to users, and to
provide seed money to support early applications. $2,000,000 in
contract funds in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 have been
allocated to this activity. We anticipate that FHWA's support will
decline after the year 2000 and will become part of FHWA's ongoing
support for travel modeling after the year 2003.
Question. How much money was allocated to TRANSIMS during fiscal
year 1995, fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year 1997, and planned for
fiscal year 1998? Please breakout all FHWA monies, including GOE
(including ITS), ISTEA, and Section 6005 monies spent on this activity,
indicate the amounts of cost sharing received from other Federal
agencies for this project. Please breakout in detail the specific
activities funded with these monies.
Answer. The table below lists funds provided for the TRANSIMS core
development, the basis for TRANSIMS operations. In fiscal year 1998,
additional funds will be required to develop the ITS component of
TRANSIMS.
The activities funded to date include identification of TRANSIMS
design requirements to address Federal Legislative initiatives;
interviews with MPO's to determine specific analytic needs; development
of the cellular automata traffic microsimulator; development of the
TRANSIMS core data handling capabilities including representation of
networks, households, individuals and automobiles; identification of
approaches to air quality models, data sources to support air quality
modeling, and contractor support for air quality modeling; and
specification of activity analysis requirements and contracting with
the National Institute of Statistical Sciences to support activity
analysis.
In addition to the technical activities identified above, a field
test on the traffic microsimulator was conducted in Dallas Texas. This
field test included modification of existing highway networks to
conform to TRANSIMS data structures, changing existing forecasting
procedures to ``emulate'' portions of TRANSIMS not yet developed, and
testing the procedures using available data.
The field test resulted in the successful development of the
microsimulator and testing of alternative transportation policies which
can not be evaluated by current methods. A video has been produced to
document the results of the test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIMS core development ITS
Fiscal year ---------------------------------------------------------------- enhancement Total
GOE funds Contract funds FTA funds EPA funds ITS funds \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................................... $1,673,832 $1,400,000 $500,000 $250,000 .............. $3,823,832
1996.................................................... 1,500,000 2,000,000 500,000 525,000 .............. 4,525,000
1997.................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 ( \2\ ) \3\ 375,000 $500,000 4,875,000
1998.................................................... \4\ 5,000,000 ( \4\ ) .............. 250,000 2,000,000 7,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for ITS development in TRANSIMS is a separate effort and is not included in the $25,200,000 for TRANSIMS core development.
\2\ FTA has allocated $600,000 to Portland, Oregon to support the innovative transit planning aspects of TRANSIMS. A portion of this will be used by
Portland and a portion contracted to the Los Alamos Laboratories, the TRANSIMS developers.
\3\ These funds have been committed by EPA but have not yet been transferred.
\4\ A total of $5,000,000 will be allocated to TRANSIMS. This will be a combination of GOE and contract funds. The exact distribution depends upon final
budget allocation and ISTEA reauthorization.
Question. What are the remaining technological challenges and pilot
testing needs to be addressed in the TRANSIMS?
Answer. The remaining technical challenges include selecting an
activity based forecasting method and integrating it into the TRANSIMS
architecture; specification of transit operations within the micro-
simulator including fixed guideway, exclusive guideway and scheduled
vehicles; including transit in trip planning and path finding; freight
planning; and final specification and testing of the air quality
module. In addition, extensive testing of these modules will be
required to determine their sensitivity to changes in input data.
We are currently beginning the second pilot test in Portland,
Oregon. This test will address the above technical challenges. We are
also exploring the possibility of allowing universities to use early
versions of TRANSIMS for testing and educational purposes. This will be
at no cost to DOT, will provide additional field testing, and will
train students who will then be able participate in the application of
TRANSIMS when it becomes available on a broader basis.
Question. What did you do to seek additional non-DOT funds for the
TRANSIMS? How successful were you? Please show all contributions for
each of the last three years.
Answer. We have continued to seek additional funding from EPA. We
have provided ongoing briefings and involved EPA staff in the
management of the TRANSIMS development process. EPA has provided direct
financial support to TRANSIMS. FTA provided funds to support the
innovative transit planning aspects of TRANSIMS in the Portland, Oregon
MPO.
In addition to direct financial support, TRANSIMS will draw on
research currently funded by the National Institute of Statistical
Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences. This research will
greatly improve the activity forecasting and air quality components of
TRANSIMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year EPA FTA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.......................................... $250,000 $500,000
1996.......................................... 525,000 500,000
1997.......................................... 375,000 ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTA has allocated $600,000 to Portland, Oregon to support the
innovative transit planning aspects of TRANSIMS. A portion of this
will be used by Portland and a portion contracted to the Los Alamos
Lab.
Question. What was the origin of the $4.25 million initiative
requested on page 118? Which agency or entity proposed this concept?
Answer. The sustainability initiative was proposed by the
Department of Transportation in recognition of the need to plan, design
and operate transportation facilities and services in the context of
the linkages among transportation and the other factors defining the
quality of life. These other factors include site-design and regional
scale land use, all aspects of the environment and economic
development.
Though originally conceived of by the Department of Transportation,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) are being asked to participate as partners.
Question. Please break down the intended use of these funds and
specify research versus pilot project amounts and likely request
groups.
Answer. The Department's intent is to use the majority of funds for
this initiative to benchmark current practices and develop case studies
of best practices encompassing comprehensive planning of
transportation, land-use, the environment, economic and community
development, etc. The goal of this effort would be the identification
and deployment of analytical and decision support tools for use by
state, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and local officials in
their respective planning processes. Primary among these tools would be
methods to asses the impact on land-use of the full variety of
transportation investment, management and operations strategies, and
the impact of site and transportation design features (e.g., street
widths and topology, on-street parking, building set-backs, pedestrian
amenities, etc.) on travel demand. A small portion of these funds would
be used for consensus building activities such as conferences,
workshops and other types of outreach activities.
Question. Did the Research and Technology Coordinating Council
(RTCC) or the Research and Technology Executive Board (RTEB) critically
review the proposal?
Answer. As is the case for all major FHWA R&T activities, the
Sustainability Initiative was presented to the RTEB for their critical
review.
Question. Why is FHWA proposing this? Will this work also be partly
conducted by EPA? Why isn't this being partly funded by HUD?
Answer. The Department in general and FHWA in particular are
interested in this subject because we believe that comprehensive
planning is the only way to get the maximum benefit from increasingly
precious transportation investment and operating funds. For example, we
can no longer afford to make investments in new highway facilities that
cannot be safely and effectively used to their full people and goods
moving design capacity because of poor site planning along adjacent
rights-of-way. Similarly, we can no longer afford to invest in new
transit guideway facilities with patronage significantly below that
used to justify them because land surrounding stations and elsewhere
was not developed as originally conceived.
We have coordinated our plans for the initiative with both EPA and
HUD, and fully expect them to contribute personnel and financial
resources to the initiative during the NEXTEA authorization period.
Question. How long do you anticipate this initiative to run? How
much will it cost during the next few years?
Answer. We expect the initiative for six years at annual funding
levels of 4.25 million beginning in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Please compare this initiative in terms of relative
priority to other components of your planning budget.
Answer. The highest priority for the planning research program is
to continue existing initiatives such as development of the
Transportation Analysis and Simulation System (TRANSIMS) through to
completion. The sustainability initiative is our highest priority new
planning effort.
Question. Please discuss the purposes and possible benefits of the
pilot test components of this initiative.
Answer. The purposes of the case study component of the initiative
is to demonstrate how transportation planning can be effectively
accomplished as part of a comprehensive, holistic process where
sustainability from environmental, ecological, financial, community,
and economic perspectives is a key objective. Different institutional
arrangements for effecting the necessary coordination will be
demonstrated along with application of analytical and decision support
tools developed as part of the initiative.
The results of the case studies will be documented, evaluated and
synthesized for use by state, metropolitan planning organization and
local officials.
Question. Are any States or urban areas requesting these funds? Or
was this initiative formulated by EPA? How does this initiative effect
other components of the budget request.
Answer. The general experience with planning under ISTEA suggests
that if we are to achieve maximum benefit from existing and future
transportation resources, they must be planned, designed and operated
as part of an integrated development package for the communities and
regions they serve. From Washington's Maryland suburbs to Portland,
Oregon, transportation planners have learned the importance of working
with their partners in land use, economic development and environmental
planning. The Department had discussions with EPA, HUD, other
interested Federal Government parties and state and local officials
which led up to the initiative, but it is very much motivated by the
Department's desire to use transportation resources more cost-
effectively. Though no specific agreements for case studies have been
reached with any State, Metropolitan Planning Organization or local
partner at this time, significant interest has already been expressed.
As for the impact of the initiative on other components of the
planning research and development program, our first priority is to
complete ongoing work such as the development of ``TRANSIMS'' as part
of the Travel Model Improvement Program. No net increase is anticipated
in the overall R&T budget for this initiative. The annual $4.25 million
initiative will be funded off the top; thus each office will be
contributing to the activity.
Question. What are the major challenges that the planning research
program seeks to address during the fiscal year 1998 and how is this
emphasis different than the fiscal year 1997 approach?
Answer. The major new challenges for the fiscal year 1998 program
with respect to the fiscal year 1997 program are: (1) the need to
quantitatively benchmark, measure, and report program success; and (2)
the need to address the strategic concerns of sustainable development.
The fiscal year 1998 program will begin to examine and implement
methods to track mobility changes at the national level. In addition,
ways of measuring program outcomes and impacts will be examined. These
new challenges will afford another significant opportunity to work with
our partners at all levels within the transportation sector.
As discussed in response to earlier questions, there are
significant environmental, public investment, and community concerns
that have gained substantial national attention with resulting
pressures to examine and address them at the Federal level. In response
to these pressures, the Sustainable Development Initiative has been
proposed to deal with these concerns in objective detail. This new
program will identify and deploy tools to decision makers in support of
their comprehensive planning efforts.
Question. Please prepare a description of your major fiscal year
1997 research topics or activities and associated fiscal year 1997
funding allocations.
Answer. Travel Demand Forecasting Improvements--$3,200K.--The
objectives of the program are: (1) To make existing travel forecasting
procedures responsive to emerging issues, including environmental
concerns, growth management, and lifestyle, along with traditional
transportation issues; (2) To make travel forecasting processes
responsive to changing travel behavior, greater information needs, and
changes in data collection technology; and (3) To make travel
forecasting model results more useful for decision makers. This
research area includes developing metropolitan and statewide
applications and manuals of practice. It also includes TRANSIMS.
The planning tools developed in this program will provide improved
forecasts of the effects of transportation improvements on congestion,
energy, air quality, and land development. The Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) of 1990 provided major motivation for travel model improvements.
The act mandates details and accuracy not currently available from
travel models.
Ensuring Efficiency of Future Transportation Systems--$600K.--
Current legislation encourages consideration of full costs of
transportation in planning evaluation, including both direct and
indirect costs, and assessments of the impacts of transportation
investments on regional economies. Transportation decision-makers are
seeking ways to evaluate alternative land use, pricing, demand
management, congestion relief strategies, capacity expansion, ITS, etc.
in the planning process. Increased emphasis is also being placed on
using innovative ways of financing federal-aid highway project. It is
essential that these innovative financing mechanisms are considered
within the financial segment of the transportation planning process.
Special emphasis will be placed on monitoring the effectiveness of
financial planning efforts. This research area includes improving
benefit cost accounting procedures, innovative financing, data
collection, and freight planning.
Training, Education, and Technical Assistance--$690K.--A
comprehensive planning research program is being established to close
the gap between state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice in the next
five to 10 years. The resulting information, data and technical
procedures will be integrated with advanced technologies such as GIS,
geographic positioning systems, and multimedia presentations and will
be packaged into courses, seminars, conferences and technical
assistance efforts to promote better multi-modal planning. A major
effort will also be devoted to transferring technical information to
our clients. This is a continuing effort to maintain state-of-the-art
capabilities in these areas. Finally, we will improve our understanding
of advancing technologies and promote the use of these technologies to
enhance intermodal data collection, communications, analyses, and
information display and exchange. This activity area includes training
development, information materials, and conference support.
Intermodal Statewide Transportation Planning--$1,000K.--The
objective of this research is to support the States as they improve
their statewide planning efforts and to maximize the effective and
efficient use of limited financial resources as called for in ISTEA.
Research efforts provide the basis for statewide transportation
planning training, education and improved technologies. A significant
multi year effort is devoted to developing a FHWA Geographic
Information System to provide a planning tool to support statewide
planning, analysis of the NHS, and environmental activities. This GIS
serves as a planning tool for the complete transportation community.
This research area includes data collection, manuals of practice, and
applications development.
environment
Question. What recent proposals for changes in EPA requirements
have stimulated the need for additional research by FHWA? Please relate
this need to the requested increase in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
Answer. Air Quality.--EPA's November 1996 proposals to tighten the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and
particulate matter (PM) have generated considerable need for more
research into transportation-air quality relationships. Tighter air
quality standards are likely to produce more areas around the country
that will fall under some level of transportation-emissions regulation.
Previous studies of the linkages between transportation and air
pollution have yielded incomplete results and frequently have posed as
many questions as provided answers. FHWA is just beginning a mid- to
long-term effort to fine-tune many of the less understood linkages
between transportation and air pollution. The agency is considering
efforts on better understanding the nature of and mitigation strategies
for fine particulate matter and to meet the new ozone standard. We also
anticipate research on the emission characteristics of heavy duty
engines. A more detailed research plan will not be possible until the
final form of these standards is decided upon. These efforts in
addition to many other research efforts will seek a better knowledge
base of the impacts that transportation sources and programs may exert
on regional and national air quality planning.
Water Quality.--Changes to the Clean Water Act in 1987 established
a two-phased approach to addressing storm water discharges under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NODES). Phase I is
currently regulating storm water sources of large and medium-sized
municipalities (100,000 or greater in population) and industrial sites,
including construction sites of at least 5 acres in size. Under Phase
II, dischargers to be covered include communities of less than 100,000
inhabitants and construction sites under 5 acres. EPA is currently
under a court order to propose supplemental rules for the Phase II
storm water sources by September 1, 1997. The NODES Phase II program
will include, at a minimum, requirements for Water quality Best
Management Practices (BMP's) at construction sites, BMP's for existing
storm water sources, and monitoring/enforcement requirements for local
communities. Our current and projected water quality research program
includes BMP development and assessment, as well as, monitoring
techniques and analysis of data. Our program will emphasize the cost
and effectiveness of BMP's, particularly those appropriate for limited-
space applications in urban areas. Another emphasis area of our
research which has been stimulated by EPA requirements is the
determination of possible water quality impacts from highway storm
water runoff. Our understanding of the chemical constituents in runoff
is well documented. However, very little is known regarding the impacts
to water bodies that these constituents may pose. The effects of
dilution, bio-availability, exposure time, and other factors must be
determined before any conclusions about impacts are possible.
Question. The validity of several air quality models is being
criticized by several groups. Please discuss how your fiscal year 1997
and fiscal year 1998 research program addresses these criticisms.
Please specify funding amounts on a project level for both fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration has research underway to
attempt to improve the accuracy of both transportation and air quality
models and analysis methodology. Result are just beginning to emerge.
Our approach will be to build on the current work to refine new
understanding and design new research efforts to fill in gaps that
remain. Until result from current efforts are in and the form of the
new standards are established it is difficult to determine exact
additional amounts needed in each area. Current work underway and
amounts dedicated are: Travel Model Improvement--$10 million; Regional
Simulation Modeling--$26 million; Hot Spot Modeling--$2.5 million;
Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation--$2 million; Long Range Emission
Estimating Model--$5 million;and PM-10 Emissions Estimation--$0.5
million. It is unclear at this point if improved analysis accuracy to
the level required in each area will be possible. The form of the
National Air Quality Standards is currently focused on extreme events
(i.e. second worse hour of the year) and for long periods into the
future (typically 20 years). Developing models that can perform well
under these expectations is at best extremely difficult and may never
achieve the level of accuracy needed to eliminate all the criticisms.
Question. Is FHWA requesting additional funds for environmental
research regarding wetlands? What are the consequences of not funding
this work? Please specify funding amounts on a project level for both
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. FHWA has requested $620,000 in fiscal year 1997 and
$500,000 in fiscal year 1998 as additional funding for wetland
research. A total of $400,000 in each year are to be used to assist in
completion of the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to wetlands functional
assessment, an on-going effort being undertaken primarily by the Corps
of Engineers, with technical and funding support from the USDA, EPA,
USFWS, and FHWA. The Hydrogeomorphic Approach, when development is
sufficient for implementation, will be the primary approach to
functional evaluation of wetlands for Section 404 purposes, and will be
important to assessment of impacts and determination of mitigation
needs. The objective of the Hydrogeomorphic Approach is to more
accurately identify and define the natural functions of wetlands in
ecosystems and watersheds on a regional basis. The data being collected
will enable more accurate modeling and evaluation of wetlands impacts
on water quality, wildlife and habitat integrity, and water supply and
storage. Completion of this phase of program development will allow
resource agencies to make more flexible decisions regarding allowable
impacts and mitigation needs, and could result in reduced construction
costs and help eliminate delays in environmental reviews concerning
wetlands. Over the two years, $280,000 is planned for work to develop
methods for wetland assessment, mitigation, and preservation planning
in a watershed-based context. Theses efforts will tie into the overall
transportation / watershed planning and development efforts being
pursued by FHWA. Part of these efforts will be to develop training
materials and resources to educate highway planners and designers in
use of this approach to wetlands assessment and mitigation planning.
This includes an additional $40,000 to develop and implement needed
reference and training materials. Failure to fund this work will result
in a failure to realize these benefits to the State construction
programs. In addition, the objective of no-net-loss of wetlands
functions and values will not be realized, and wetlands resources
values and benefits will continue to be lost due to highway and
transportation project construction and development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Evaluation of Wetlands (EPA)....... $250,000 $250,000
Functional Evaluation of Wetlands (COE)....... 150,000 150,000
Ecosystem/Watershed Planning.................. 50,000 100,000
Wetland Restoration and Watershed Planning.... 80,000 ...........
Alternatives for Wetland Mitigation........... 50,000 ...........
Wetland Plant Database (NRCS)................. 25,000 ...........
Wetland Workshops............................. 15,000 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please breakout in detail your fiscal year 1997 spending
plan for the environmental research program, explaining the purpose of
each major project and the associated amount.
Answer. The goals of the fiscal year 1997 research program are to
develop (1) improved tools for assessing highway impacts on air
quality, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, water quality, etc.; (2) more
effective and innovative avoidance, detection, mitigation, and
enhancement techniques; and (3) environmental expertise within FHWA and
State and local transportation agencies that will significantly
contribute to a more efficient environmental and project development
program and to an enhanced environment in accordance with the
Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan and the Federal Highway
Administration's Environmental Policy Statement.
Air Quality
Passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 significantly
altered the relationship between the development of transportation
improvements and the air quality within the area. The emphasis on
modeling and analytic compliance was significantly increased. This
increase in analysis requires travel, emission, and dispersion modeling
techniques that are considerably more sophisticated than current
methods. There is therefore considerable pressure to develop new models
to better meet the need. Experience with transportation programs,
projects, and activities which have emission reduction benefits is also
limited and in need of clarification. Finally, there is the need to
provide information and technical guidance to Federal, State, and local
officials as well as the public at large on the new requirements and
methods for compliance. Because these changes represent a fundamental
shift in transportation goals and objectives, research in these areas
will be a continuing emphasis.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Publish
evaluation of emission control potential of transportation Control
Strategies.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$2,250,000.
New Initiatives for fiscal year 1997.--Examine the emission impacts
of alternative fuels. Examine the impacts on the transportation
program, and the additional controls needed to comply with the revised
standards for ozone and particulate matter. Examine mitigation for
reducing emissions from heavy duty diesel engines.
Wetland Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory,
responding to government and public concerns that the Nation's wetlands
resources, essential to important wildlife and fisheries resources,
were being irretrievably lost, determined that between the initial
European settlement of North America and the early 1970's, up to 50
percent of existing wetlands were filled, lost, or converted to other
uses by agriculture, housing, industry, and highway construction. The
Federal Government, responding to a need to conserve wetlands critical
to both water quality, fisheries, and wildlife, enacted legislation
which established the framework within which wetlands protection and
management have developed. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates
discharge of dredge and fill materials into waters of the United
States, including wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
requires Federal agencies to coordinate with the Fish and Wildlife
Service on projects which will impact aquatic resources. Many of the
species listed as protected under the Endangered Species Act depend on
wetlands. Many States have passed legislation to manage and protect
important wetlands resources.
The construction, use, and maintenance of highway systems have
potential primary and secondary impacts on wetlands resources and other
ecosystems. Due to the linear nature of highway projects, many cross
watercourses or wetlands. The tendency of planners to locate highways
in river valleys and on drainage boundaries increases the potential for
interaction between highway facilities and wetlands resources. The land
use changes that often provide the impetus for highway construction or
that follow highway construction as a secondary development generate
impacts to wetlands resources in addition to those directly
attributable to the highway itself. Known potential impacts of highways
and associated development on wetlands and aquatic resources include
destruction of the wetland by fill, removal or alteration of wetland
vegetation, changes in hydrology, both surface and ground water,
vehicle-caused wildlife mortality, fragmentation of wildlife habitat,
and pollution of waters by highway runoff.
This research plan contributes to a more effective environmental
management program in the project development process by emphasizing
critical aspects of wetland management in highway environments. Major
emphasis is placed on (1) the development and implementation of
improved methods, tools, and techniques to identify and delineate
wetlands, assess wetland impacts and evaluate wetland functions; (2)
improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation through better
techniques of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation; (3)
improve and enhance the use of mitigation banking as a viable,
effective, tool of choice in situations where compensatory mitigation
is necessary; (4) refine FHWA policies and regulations to accomplish
the Administration objective of No Net Loss of Wetlands; (5) to improve
training and educational tools available to the State Highway Agencies
for wetlands impact management; and (6) improve coordination with other
wetland resource mange agencies.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Methodology for
Functional Assessment of Wetlands under Sec. 404 (Regionalized HGM
approach, in part; in cooperation with COE). Improving Strategies for
No-Net-Loss of Wetlands in Highway Development. Wetland Habitat
Requirements of New England Birds: Assessing Impacts and Mitigation
Needs. Mitigation Manual for Estuarine Wetlands.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$640,000.
New Initiatives.--Improving Runoff Water Quality Through Design of
Highway Wetland Mitigation. Evaluating the Effectiveness and Success of
Wetland Mitigation in the Federal Aid Highway Program: On-Site
Mitigation versus Banking. Integrating Watershed Management Planning
with Highway Project Development.
Highways And Water Resources
In the early 1970's a growing awareness of the potential threat to
water resources by highway construction and operation emphasized a need
to identify and quantify water quality impacts. With the passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act of 1972, as
amended, Federal decision makers were to be accountable for activities
having the potential to impact features of the natural environment, in
particular water quality.
The planning for and implementation of highway systems can interact
with the Nation's water resources in numerous ways. Since most highway
sections lie within or cross a watershed, all phases of project
development have the potential for impacting both surface and
underground water resources. Highway project planning, location, and
design activities can greatly influence future uses of water resources
in localities by determining patterns of growth, secondary development,
and water supply distribution. Construction and maintenance activities
can have direct impacts to both supply and water quality
characteristics of the project area. A variety of impacts are possible,
ranging from the erosion of disturbed soils to the chemical pollutants
associated with highway maintenance practices. Finally, the operation
of highways open to traffic cause numerous other potential pollution
sources created by the chemical and biological contaminants present in
roadway storm water runoff.
Previous research sponsored by the FHWA has provided tools to State
and local transportation for assessing potential water quality impacts
of transportation improvements and has developed mitigation techniques
to lessen the pollution effects of storm water runoff. Ongoing studies
and those planned for the future address the continuing concern over
non-point water pollution from highway facilities and the ever present
need to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. The eventual re-
authorization of the Clean Water will undoubtedly affect transportation
development activities. Also, as EPA's Phase II of the National Storm
water Program is fully implemented over the next 5 years, State and
local transportation agencies will continue to rely on FHWA's water
quality research products in order to reduce pollution concerns and
comply with regulatory requirements.
This research plan will contribute to a more efficient
environmental process and project development program, and will enhance
the environment by supporting: (1) the development of improved methods,
techniques, tools, models, and procedures to evaluate the water quality
impacts of highway development and operation activities, particularly
storm water runoff and changes in hydrology; (2) the identification and
development of innovative best management practices, devices, and other
mitigation measures; (3) the development of expertise within FHWA and
State transportation agencies which integrates highway water quality
and storm water issues with all water resource problems associated with
highways, including hydraulic and hydrological concerns; (4) the
coordination with other agencies to ensure that Federal storm water and
non-point source pollution policies are incorporated into FHWA and
State policies and procedures; and (5) the participation in national
and international research on transportation-related water resource,
water quality, and storm water issues.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Publish
evaluation of best management practices for controlling storm water
runoff from highways. Complete updating existing baseline data on storm
water characteristics.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$900,000.
New Initiatives.--Determine the Potential for Impacts to Receiving
Waters Caused by Highway Storm water Runoff--This study will identify
short and long term water quality effects on surface and groundwater
receiving storm water runoff from roadway surfaces. Develop an
Assessment Methodology and Management Guidelines for Cumulative Water
Quality Impacts of Highway Storm water Runoff. This research will
examine long term and additive effects of highway storm water runoff on
an area-wide or watershed basis. Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality
and Water Resource Management This research will determine how to
integrate highway planning, design, right-of- way, construction,
operation, and maintenance issues with water resource protection in a
watershed context.
Environmental Process
In order to comply with the requirements and the intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act, we are (1) evaluating procedural,
technical, and legal issues to reduce project impacts, costs, and
controversy, while ensuring consistency and implementation of land use
and transportation plans; and (2) investigating and documenting the
various techniques and procedures, as well as innovative mitigation,
design, and construction techniques, used on projects that have been
developed with mutually fruitful results benefiting both transportation
and environmental protection purposes. The goal is to integrate
environmental considerations into the project planning and development
process.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Computerized
``Catalog of Excellence in Highway Design Photographs and Data'' will
be distributed on CD/ROM.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$600,000.
New Initiatives.--Develop methods and techniques to conduct
economic analyses of alternative corridors, examine broad land use
controls, and integrate corridor preservation concepts with the urban
transportation planning process. Determine remote sensing signatures of
surface and subsurface resources for environmental analysis.
Community Impacts And Public Involvement
In order to comply with the requirements and the intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act, we need to evaluate (1) policy,
procedural, technical, and legal issues associated with community
impact analysis and abatement; and (2) data needs and assessment
techniques and methodologies to allow for efficient determination of
community impacts of proposed highway projects. We need also to
document the application of new public involvement techniques to
highway projects and investigate the effective management of the public
involvement function as an integral part of the project development
process. Such techniques include the open forum hearing format, the use
of marketing techniques, and graphic techniques based on video cameras
and personal computers.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Develop case
studies on community impact analysis and abatement.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$395,000.
New Initiatives.--Improve social and economic projection
techniques. Analyze and incorporate secondary impacts into social and
economic impacts. Evaluate highway department organizational structure
and effective public involvement techniques.
Historic And Archeological Preservation And Aesthetics
Historic and archeological preservation research addresses the
procedural, technical, and legal issues associated with resource
identification, evaluation and rehabilitation in the highway and
transportation context. Historic and archeological preservation policy
and procedures are changing due to current regulatory revisions and the
recognition of Native American religious and cultural values. Research
results will provide the tools necessary to meet these technical and
procedural requirements.
Highway esthetics research includes the different visual impact
evaluation methods and their associated assessment techniques.
Information will be developed to identify the viability and the manner
in which the various methods can be used to effectively determine the
visual impact of highway project proposals. Also, this program includes
the various cultural practices of roadside maintenance which can
benefit visual quality such as the use of wildflowers and other native
plant species.
Expected fiscal year 1997 Products and Milestones.--Design
standards for the rehabilitation and preservation of historic highway
bridges.
Fiscal year 1997 Program Request.--$475,000.
New Initiatives.--Develop standards and guidelines for historic
highways which provide identification and evaluation criteria for use
by transportation and historic preservation planners. Synthesize
information on local efforts to preserve and relocate historic
structures, including highway bridges. Summarize innovative solutions
and techniques to fund and maintain these structures for continued
public use and benefit. Identify naturally occurring plant communities
and plant species which, if used in a comprehensive revegetation
management strategy, would render roadside maintenance practices
environmentally sensitive, safe, and less costly.
Question. What are the major challenges that the environmental
research program needs to address during fiscal year 1998, and how is
this emphasis different from the fiscal year 1997 approach?
Answer. Most of the challenges will remain the same; however, we
have the following new challenges and additional research:
Air Quality standards.--Changes to the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone and fine particles are currently under
consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency. Final Action is
expected in mid 1997. Since highway travel contributes to both of these
air pollution concerns, significant research will be needed to
reestablish understanding of transportation contributions to the new
standards along with methods of control.
Watersheds.--There is a need to incorporate watershed-based water
resource protection and management into various highway planning,
project development, and operation/maintenance processes. Proposed
research will integrate environmental and transportation planning and
assessment (particularly in the watershed management and land-use
planning arenas) and explore innovative ways to bring about a merger of
the environment/planning and permit processes, etc.
Communities, Neighborhoods, and People.--The President's Report on
Sustainable Development emphasizes the importance of sustainable
transportation projects that contribute to sustainable communities; and
the DOT and FHWA Strategic Plan highlights the importance of putting
people first in transportation decision making. Research will focus on
the role of transportation systems and projects in contributing to
sustainable communities, reflecting community values in design and
placement of facilities in communities, and protecting and enhancing
the social infrastructure. It will be even more critical now to
research ways to improve the link between transportation and
sustainable development within communities.
Reinventing NEPA.--The National Performance Review, findings of the
NEPA 25th Anniversary workshop jointly sponsored by DOT and CEQ, U.S.
Senate NEPA roundtables, and Congressional concerns highlighted growing
customer dissatisfaction with lead agencies implementation of NEPA,
interagency coordination and conflicts, and the time and cost
associated with project decision making. As a result, FHWA must
continue to research ways to improve the FHWA NEPA decision making
process. Research will focus on ways to streamline the manner in which
environmental considerations are integrated into transportation
decision making at the planning and project levels; build the capacity
of State DOT's to effectively implement NEPA through training and
technical assistance; and apply emerging and current advanced
technologies.
Environmental Justice.--Since Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, the transportation and highway program has been involved in
implementing nondiscrimination programs, and addressing associated
impacts, complaints and concerns. The Executive Order on Environmental
Justice reemphasizes the need to address adverse human health or
environmental effects, including social and economic effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority and low income
populations. FHWA will research methods and demonstrate exemplary
practices of effective transportation decision making which evaluates
and mitigate impacts to disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of transportation projects.
Additional research
National Environmental Research Needs Conference.--An Environmental
Research Needs Conference, jointly sponsored by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB), the Center for Transportation and the Environment
(CTE) at North Carolina State University, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) was
conducted November 14-16, 1996, in Washington, D.C. The conference was
attended by approximately 140 participants from State DOT's and
environmental agencies, regional and local governmental agencies,
university and research institutes, private non-profit environmental
organizations, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and four Federal agencies in
addition to FHWA and FTA. The participants generated approximately 95
detailed problem statements totaling over $28 million.
policy
Question. Now that most of the policy studies related to
reauthorization have been completed, why can't we reduce the FHWA
request for policy research?
Answer. The Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study and Highway
Cost Allocation Study represent only a portion of the Policy research
program. Other high priority policy research activities including data
management and dissemination, innovative finance, further development
of the Highway Economic Requirements System, and analysis of
interrelationships between highways and economic productivity, have
continuing research needs. In fact, projects in several of these areas
have been deferred to allow essential truck size and weight and cost
allocation projects to be completed. Furthermore, even though reports
on these two major policy studies will have been submitted, continuing
work in both areas is needed. Documentation of data and analytical
tools used for the two studies was deferred to allow work essential for
the study reports to be completed; this documentation should be
completed as quickly as possible to assure that details of the data
collection, analysis, and model development processes are not forgotten
or do not have to be recreated by the consultants. Also, both studies
analyzed only a small set of policy scenarios. It is anticipated that
further policy analysis in these two controversial areas will be
required even after the reports have been submitted, and further
validation and update will be required for models used in both studies.
For the Truck Size and Weight Study, in particular, substantial work
remains to incorporate results of the Commodity Flow Survey into the
freight diversion model which is the basis for estimates of changes in
travel by different vehicle classes and different modes in truck size
and weight scenario analyses and to make tools developed for the
national level study available to States for use in analyzing impacts
of truck size and weight proposals at the State level. Performance
measurement is a new research area that requires additional funding.
The Government Performance and Results Act places many requirements on
Federal agencies to measure results of their programs and to establish
target outcomes that will be achieved through program funding. Research
is required to conduct baseline analyses that relate investment in
various programs with outcomes. These causal relationships are needed
in order for future budget requests to estimate quantitatively changes
in relevant performance measures that can be anticipated for a given
program level. Finally, once surface transportation reauthorization
legislation has been passed, significant policy research is anticipated
in connection with implementing that legislation.
Question. What is the most pressing policy research problem that
needs additional attention during fiscal year 1998? How much do you
plan to spend on this research during fiscal year 1998, and how much is
being spent during fiscal year 1997 on this topic?
Answer. In a time of limited resources we must strive more
diligently than ever to use those resources most efficiently. New ways
must be found to stretch limited public funds through innovative
financing strategies, public private partnerships, and other means.
Technical assistance must be provided to State and local agencies to
help them minimize institutional and other impediments to use of these
innovative financing mechanisms. Tools must be developed that allow
Federal, State, and local transportation agencies to evaluate
alternative investment strategies, including intelligent transportation
systems and other new technologies, to determine the mix of investments
that will provide the greatest return from limited resources.
Infrastructure and demand management strategies must also be evaluated
to assess their potential for reducing investment requirements for new
capacity and to provide State and local partners with information on
lessons learned by others that have been in the forefront of
implementing such strategies. Data to support analyses of these various
investment and systems management options must also be collected. A
total of approximately $2.95 million is planned to be spent on research
and technology transfer activities related to this key policy research
problem in fiscal year 1998. About $2.4 million is anticipated to be
spent on these activities in fiscal year 1997. These monies reflect
research in four areas--innovative finance, market-based pricing and
demand management, highway investment analysis, and related data
collection activities. Many other elements of policy research relate to
this overall issue, but not as directly as these four specific research
areas.
Question. Please breakout in detail your fiscal year 1997 spending
plan, explaining the purpose of each major project and the associated
amount.
Answer. The following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997
Project area expenditures Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Truck Size and $830,000 GOE......... To provide data and analysis in support of the
Weight Study. Department's Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight
Study. Fiscal year 1997 funds were expended primarily
on refinement of the freight diversion model, surveys
of shippers, research on stability and control
characteristics of different vehicle configurations,
review of size and weight enforcement issues, and
analysis of bridge and other infrastructure impacts
of size and weight scenarios.
Highway Cost Allocation.......... 180,000 GOE.......... To develop data and methods based upon the Federal
300,000 line item cost allocation study for use by States in conducting
their own cost allocation studies, and for follow-on
activities to the Federal study including conference
support and pooled fund study with several States to
refine relationships between registered weights and
operating weights of vehicles.
Relationship Between Highway 200,000 GOE.......... To extend and refine analyses demonstrating
Investment and Economic relationships between highway investment and economic
Productivity. productivity. This research examines changes in
productivity at the firm level as highway services
change and develops adjustment factors to account for
changes in the quality of highway services over time.
Congestion Pricing............... 50,000 GOE........... To provide technical support to State and local
200,000 6005 congestion pricing initiatives including evaluation
of equity and other implementation issues.
Innovative Finance/Public Private 75,000 GOE........... Purposes include: (1) to evaluate and synthesize
Partnerships. 850,000 6005 experiences and lessons learned from innovative
finance test and evaluation projects, State
Infrastructure Bank pilot projects; (2) to provide
technical assistance to State and local partners in
deploying innovative finance projects; (3) to
identify gaps in our knowledge of innovative finance
issues by examining financial practices and needs;
(4) to provide training, conference support,
newsletter, and other outreach activities; (5) to
provide assistance for new innovative finance
initiatives; and (6) to evaluate public/private
partnership activities.
Highway Investment Analysis...... 675,000 GOE.......... To develop enhancements to the Highway Economic
Requirements System highway investment/performance
analytic capabilities. The major enhancements are (a)
consideration of the costs of vehicle emissions in
the selection of highway improvements and (b)
implementation of travel demand elasticity in
calculating the travel that would occur on a
particular section of highway under analysis.
Development of BIAS, a bridge investment analysis
system designed to bring an economic dimension to
estimates of bridge investment requirements has
entered the second phase.
Performance Measurement.......... 225,000 GOE.......... The purposes of this project are to (a) develop
customer outreach activities to obtain customer input
for the selected performance measures, (b) to track
and monitor strategic planning indicators, and (c) to
develop a handbook on strategic performance and
planning.
Reauthorization Issues........... 250,000 GOE.......... Purposes include: (a) to analyze specific
reauthorization issues that arise, either during
Congressional debate or as a result of stakeholder
inquiries; (b) to synthesize information on
reauthorization proposals and issues; (c) to convene
and conduct forums to discuss ISTEA reauthorization
issues; and (d) to disseminate ISTEA reauthorization
information to transportation, environmental, and
other interest groups, as well as the public. If
funds are available they will be used to summarize,
synthesize, and communicate the enacted
reauthorization legislation to all ISTEA
stakeholders.
National Freight Partnership..... 150,000 GOE.......... The National Freight Partnership work in fiscal year
1997 supported a series of national public/private
meetings on issues of national and regional freight
and international trade significance. These included
(a) the Second National Freight Symposium, held in
October, 1996 at the Port of Los Angeles on the
subject of international trade corridors and (b) a
series of four regional meetings on the impact of
changes in maritime vessel design on U.S. ports, port
operations, and intermodal connections.
Fuels and Finance Data 343,000 GOE.......... To collect and analyze information on highway fuel use
Collection, Analysis, and and highway finance necessary for transportation
Dissemination. decisionmakers. Key research products include the
improvement of data for local highway bond finance,
collection of information for the publication
``Highways Taxes and Fees,'' and the publication of
the ``Highway Funding Bulletin.''
Systems Performance Data 303,000 GOE.......... To develop user friendly, PC based, HPMS software for
Collection, Analysis, and 300,000 6005 use in a file server environment. The software
Dissemination. extends the capabilities beyond the data submittal
phase and into a phase that will enable staff to
perform more comprehensive and less labor intensive
data reviews , develop a server- based data base
query capability, and to enable the production of
reports for Highway Statistics and other
dissemination venues off of the file server. Another
focus of fiscal year 1997 research is to support the
ongoing Strategic Reassessment of the HPMS.
Traffic Monitoring Data 496,000 GOE.......... To collect, analyze, summarize, and disseminate
Collection, Analysis, and 450,000 6005 traffic data to support program needs at the Federal,
Dissemination. State, and local levels. These data include traffic
volumes, vehicle classification, truck weights and
related traffic characteristics. Within these areas,
the primary focus is to develop guidelines for cost-
effective data collection, evaluate and assess
equipment deployment, including non-intrusive
technologies, and develop enhanced procedures for
efficient data management, handling and analysis to
ensure the availability of quality data for
decisionmaking.
Transportation Surveys and Cen- 665,000 GOE.......... This activity includes efforts directed to the
suses. collection and application of household travel data
of the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, and
the application of data from related surveys such as
those of the U.S. Census to national transportation
issues. Activities include data analysis,
interpretation and distribution. In addition to these
basic data support activities, efforts also encompass
cutting-edge efforts such as on-the-fly analysis over
the Internet, development of procedures to apply
national level data to metropolitan zones based on
demographics, and evaluation of automated data
collection techniques.
International Border Crossing 500,000 6005......... To support land transportation planning process in the
Analy- sis. U.S./Mexico border region, the North American
Technology Exchange Program, and binational planning
and identification of trade corridors along the U.S./
Canadian border.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What were the major findings or tentative conclusions of
the truck size and weight study? Are any fiscal year 1998 monies
requested for this study. If so, please justify in detail.
Answer. The Department has underway a Comprehensive Truck Size and
Weight Study. This fall, the Study will be transmitted to Congress in
four volumes: Volume I--Executive Summary, Volume II--Issues and
Background, Volume III--Scenario Analysis and Volume IV--Guide to
Documentation. A draft version of Volume II was provided, for review
and comment, to Congress and other interested parties on June 11. It is
premature at this time to delineate the major findings or even
tentative conclusions as the material has not yet been adequately
reviewed.
As the Study will be complete by the end of the fiscal year, we are
not requesting fiscal year 1988 monies to produce the report. However,
we intend to continue work in this area on an ongoing basis, building
upon the significant analytical tools now in place.
Question. What does your study conclude regarding the safety
impacts of increasing current truck size and weight limits?
Answer. An array of alternative truck size and weight policies will
be evaluated under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Truck Size and
Weight (CTS&W) Study. While the analytical tools required to assess the
impact of the alternative scenarios on factors such as safety,
productivity, and infrastructure are now in place, the evaluation
process (to include internal Departmental review) is not yet complete.
The final CTS&W Study will be transmitted to Congress this fall.
Question. What were the major findings or tentative conclusions of
the cost allocation study. Are any fiscal year 1998 funds requested for
cost allocation work? If so, please justify in detail.
Answer. Preliminary conclusions of the highway cost allocation
study, which is still in the review process within the Department and
OMB, are that inequities remain in the Federal highway user fee
structure, but that those inequities are smaller than inequities found
in the last Federal highway cost allocation study completed in 1982.
Several factors account for the improved equity of Federal user fees
including (1) changes in the composition of the highway program with a
greater portion of the funds being used for transportation systems
management, safety, environmental purposes, and system enhancements for
which trucks have a lower cost responsibility than they do for added
lanes or improvements to the condition of existing pavements and
bridges; (2) changes in the Federal user fee structure; and (3) the
dedication of Federal user fees beginning in 1982 for mass transit
purposes which are largely attributable to personal transportation.
Some fiscal year 1998 funds are requested for highway cost
allocation to support essential follow-up work to document data and
analytical tools developed in connection with the cost allocation study
while those items are still fresh in the minds of consultants who
worked on them, to improve the integration of software developed for
the current study in preparation for future studies which we are
committed to doing on a regular basis, to further explore implications
of greater use of life cycle cost analysis principles in infrastructure
investment decisions, to evaluate specific highway user fee proposals
that may come from others during and following the reauthorization
debate, and to pursue recommendations by the Transportation Research
Board Peer Review Committee that we validate and extend the new
pavement distress models developed for the study and evaluate
implications of highway user fee options on economic efficiency.
Question. Please specify total expenditures by year and by funding
source for all activities related to the truck size and weight studies
and the cost allocation study for each of the last three fiscal years.
How much will be spent on continuing these activities during fiscal
year 1998?
Answer. The following table shows expenditures for the truck size
and weight and highway cost allocation studies by fiscal year and
source of funds for the last three fiscal years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway cost
Fiscal year and source of funds Truck size and allocation
weight study study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995:
GOE................................. $630,000 $694,000
6005................................ 325,000 175,000
1996:
GOE................................. 300,000 266,666
6005................................ 300,000 300,000
HCAS Line Item...................... 1,000,000 991,000
1997:
GOE................................. 825,000 180,000
HCAS Line Item...................... .............. 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 1998, $500,000 is estimated to be required for truck
size and weight-related research including amounts to develop tools for
use by States as is being done for the cost allocation study,
refinement and integration of analytical tools used in evaluating
impacts of truck size and weight scenarios, and incorporation of
Commodity Flow Survey data into the freight diversion model.
Approximately $350,000 is estimated to be required to for cost
allocation-related research. As noted in the response to a previous
question, these funds would support essential follow-up work to
document data and analytical tools developed in connection with the
cost allocation study while those items are still fresh in the minds of
consultants who worked on them, to improve the integration of software
developed for the current study in preparation for future studies which
we are committed to doing on a regular basis, to further explore
implications of greater use of life cycle cost analysis principles in
infrastructure investment decisions, to evaluate specific highway user
fee proposals that may come from others during and following the
reauthorization debate, and to pursue recommendations by the
Transportation Research Board Peer Review Committee that we validate
and extend the new pavement distress models developed for the study and
evaluate implications of highway user fee options on economic
efficiency.
Question. Please show the number of FTE and FTP assigned to the
Office of Policy for the last four fiscal years.
Answer. The answer follows.
Fiscal year FTE/FTP
1997.............................................................. 90
1996.............................................................. 94
1995.............................................................. 94
1994.............................................................. 94
1993.............................................................. 96
international activities
Question. Please breakout in detail your fiscal year 1997 spending
plan, explaining the purpose of each major project and the associated
amount. Please provide sufficient detail so that we can gain a better
understanding of the scope and nature of the international program and
the benefits to FHWA, industry, and State and local governments of this
investment.
Answer. The answer follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1997 INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program element Funding Program description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Marketing........... $200,000 Initiated study entitled ``Improving Flow of Trade-Related
Information for Highway and Transportation Specific Companies''
which examines current trade promotion initiatives underway by
other U.S. Government agencies as well as covers needs of
highway and transportation specific companies
Develop instructional materials and meetings with private sector
to assess findings of the study.
Participated in the International Road Federation World Congress,
including promotion of U.S. highway transportation expertise
with the U.S. private sector. This includes an FHWA exhibit at
the Congress.
Provided guidance to Russian Federal Highway Service (RFHS)
during the development of bid packages for a $1.5 billion
project in Siberia and the Russian Far East. As a result of the
FHWA's cooperation with the RFHS, U.S. firms are being given
preference in undertaking this project.
Promote a proposal to implement an electronic road pricing system
for truck transportation in Russia using U.S. equipment and
services.
Continued facilitation of U.S. firms' efforts to export highway
construction equipment to Russia and other countries.
Technical Exchange................ 200,000 Continue support for the FHWA's World Road Association
participation and their work programs
Provided logistical support for U.S./Japanese technology exchange
activities which included a technical exchange workshop in the
U.S.
Continued support for the FHWA's participation in the World
Interchange Network, a network which improves the flow of road-
related technology world-wide.
Concluded FHWA's work with the APEC Congestion Points Study.
Continued work with the Finnish Road Administration and the
cooperative program for promoting technology in the Baltic
countries.
Foreign Visitor Program........... 75,000 Continued contract for the Foreign Visitor Program Coordinator
Facilitated Visitor Exchanges, including site visits to area
transportation research and demonstration facilitates to
demonstrate U.S. highway technology.
-----------
Total funding............... 475,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1997 RUSSIAN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program element Funding Program description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical assistance.............. $200,000 Continue support of the FHWA's contractor in Moscow, Russia with
the following work objectives:
--Providing information on U.S. legal basis for toll road
authorities.
--U.S. study tour, advice, and support on establishing a
national network of centers to provide training and technology
transfer.
--Support for twinning State highway agencies in Maryland and
Alaska with counterparts in Russia.
--Advice and data processing support for establishing a bid
estimating system for the Russian Federal Highway Service.
--Appraisal of further institutional development needs in the
highway sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please breakout in detail your fiscal year 1998 spending
plan, explaining the purpose of each major project and the associated
amount. Please provide sufficient detail so that we can gain a better
understanding of the scope and nature of the international program and
the benefits to FHWA, industry, and State and local governments of this
investment.
Answer. See chart below.
FISCAL YEAR 1998 INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program element Funding Program description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Marketing........... $225,000 Launch part II of study on ``Flow of Trade-Related Information''
which includes regional seminars for U.S. industry on
opportunities and assistance available in U.S.
Manage FHWA participation in 4th World Congress on ITS in Berlin,
Germany, including sponsoring U.S. technology promotional
support and activities.
Development of marketing and promotional materials for ITS Latin
America Conference focusing on U.S. technology.
Develop promotional materials for FHWA and coordinate materials
on U.S. technology to be developed by privates sector.
Undertake technical exchange mission to Korea with objective of
promoting private sector.
Continue promotion and support of U.S. firms for Russian
continental highway project.
Continue promotion and development support to advance electronic
road pricing system for charging trucks using U.S. technology
and equipment.
Development of other projects in the NIS region that would
promote U.S. exports of highway-related goods and services.
Technical Exchange................ 300,000 Continue support for the FHWA's World Road Association
participation and their work programs.
Continued support for the FHWA's participation in the World
Interchange Network, a network which improves the flow of road-
related technology world-wide.
Continue cooperative program with the Finnish Road Administration
and technical cooperation with the Baltics.
Provide logistical support for the U.S./Korean technology
exchange activities which include a technology exchange workshop
in the U.S.
Initiate technology exchange program with the New Zealand
Department of Transport.
Continue FHWA support for OECD cooperative activities.
Initiate phase II of study of international transportation
information resources which focuses on a specific technological
area.
Foreign Visitor Program........... 75,000 Continued contract for the Foreign Visitor Program.
Facilitate site visits for foreign visitors, including site
visits to U.S. technology demonstration and research location.
South Africa Program.............. 300,000 Continue working with republic of South Africa Department of
Transport (RSADOT) to improve the transfer of technology/
information in order to strengthen the transition to a post-
apartheid, democratic governing system. To transfer appropriate
technology to RSADOT and promote U.S. technology and industry
through: (A) Holding joint U.S./South Africa pavement workshop;
(B) Construction of two sections of pavement in the U.S. using
South African technology; (C) Continue support of training in
RSADOT and Technology Transfer Centers as appropriate; (D) Link
U.S. and South African private sectors to promote partnering on
African projects.
Begin transition of this program into a Sub-Saharan Africa
Program: (A) In cooperation with the World Bank and RSADOT,
coordinate the development of Technology Transfer Centers in
Tanzania and Mozambique. (B) In cooperation with the World Bank
and other international organizations, identify other sub-
Saharan countries which would be possible candidates for
establishing Technology Transfer Centers. (C) Develop strategy
for including U.S. private sector in these activities.
-----------
Total funding............... 900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998 RUSSIAN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program element Funding Program description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Assistance.............. $400,000 Continue support of FHWA contractor in Moscow, Russia, with the
following work objectives:
--Continue institution building in the Russian highway sector
aimed at improving processes and organizations within the
Russian Federal Highway Service (RFHS).
--Provide guidance to the RFHS during the development of
international control procedures for managing and
administering its programs.
--Support U.S. States twinning with counterparts in Russian
provinces.
--Continued support for Russian technology transfer centers and
networks.
--Establish two new Technology Transfer Centers in NIS states.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. FHWA is requesting almost a doubling in funds for the
international program. Why is such an increase necessary at this time?
Answer. The FHWA's request of $900,000 for fiscal year 1998
represents only a $125,000 increase over the FHWA's fiscal year 1997
funding level for international activities. For fiscal year 1998, it
includes funding for the FHWA's South Africa Program which is presently
being funded through other program areas with GOE funds. The FHWA's
planned spending for each program is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
Program 1997 funding 1998 funding
amount request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Outreach Program.......... $475,000 GOE $600,000 GOE
South Africa Program.................... \1\ 300,000 300,000 GOE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Technology Assessment and Deployment GOE funds.
Question. Please specify the number of planned and completed
international scanning trips taken during fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997 and planned for fiscal year 1998. Please specify the total costs
of these trips for each year and specify which portion of the GOE or
ISTEA funds supported these trips.
Answer. See chart below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of funding Budget Names of scanning missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996: Section 6005 ISTEA $400,000 Bridge Maintenance Coating.
funds. Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems.
South African Pavement and Other Highway Technology and
Practices.
European Traffic Monitoring Programs and Technologies
Scanning Review.
Fiscal year 1997: Section 6005 ISTEA 451,000 Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges in Europe and
funds. Japan.
Study Tour for Road Safety Audits.
Transportation Agency Organization and Management Scanning
Review.
Bridge Structures Scanning Review.
Fiscal year 1998: NEXTEA Technology 462,000 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Protection Technology and
Assessment and Deployment Funds. Closing Programs Review.
Improved Roadway Safety through Application of Intelligent
Traffic Control Devices, Practices, and System Review.
Highway Performance Management System Scanning Review.
International Scanning Tour for Geotechnology--Canadian
and European Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why can't the State Department fund the technology
transfer program for the Republic of South Africa?
Answer. The FHWA did initially hold discussions with Department of
State officials concerning the availability of funding for the South
Africa Program. While these officials, as well as officials at the U.S.
Embassy in South Africa, did agree that the FHWA's program had
considerable merit, the Department of State indicated that it was
unable to provide the FHWA with any funding at this time due to
existing resource constraints. In light of these constraints, and
because this program has provided a valuable, two-way exchange of
advanced highway engineering technology and practices for both
countries, the FHWA is funding this program through its own GOE funds.
Question. For fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, and planned for
fiscal year 1998, please specify current or planned funding amounts for
activities to promote or conduct technology transfer or educational
activities associated with the Republic of South Africa? What are the
sources of these monies?
Answer. The funding amounts are as follows:
Fiscal year GOE
1996.......................................................... $800,000
1997.......................................................... 300,000
1998.........................................................\1\ 300,000
\1\ Planned estimate.
Question. Why can't the monies to support the Pan American
Institute of Highways be funded out of the contract program for the
National Highway Institute?
Answer. While the Pan American Institute of Highways (PIH) is
currently funded through funds from the National Highway Institute
(NHI), the PIH is in the process of being transferred to the Office of
International Programs (HPI). The FHWA believes it is preferable to use
NHI's funding to address the large number of domestic training needs,
and that PIH's mission can be better realized if it is as a part of the
Office of International Programs.
Question. What are the major challenges and opportunities facing
the international program during fiscal year 1997 and expected for
fiscal year 1998? How will the reauthorization affect this program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the Office of International Program's
primary international challenge has been to make the most of the FHWA's
existing international commitments while developing a strategy for
fiscal year 1998 which supports the needs of its customers and partners
in the domestic highway community and compliments the Administration's
foreign policy objectives. A part of this strategy includes more
sharply focusing the FHWA's international cooperative activities to
gain additional benefits at the present program funding levels. The
Office of International Programs has identified three primary areas of
focus for fiscal year 1998 which represent the interests of the FHWA's
constituents and build on present strengths and investments: (1)
international scanning and information management, (2) private sector
support, and (3) support of administration commercial and foreign
policy initiatives.
International scanning and information management
The FHWA's international information initiative focuses on meeting
the growing demands of its partners at the Federal, State, and local
levels for access to information on state-of-the-art technology and the
best practices used world wide. While the FHWA is a world leader in the
area of highway transportation, the domestic highway community is very
interested in the advanced technologies being developed by other
countries as well as innovative organizational and financing techniques
used by the FHWA's international counterparts. This growing interest is
best demonstrated by the recent creation of the Special Committee on
International Activity Coordination as a regular part of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
This committee was established to better coordinate the international
activities of AASHTO, including the various members' participation in
international highway-related organizations.
To help meet this demand for information on foreign innovations,
the FHWA has an established International Technology Scanning Program.
This program serves as a vehicle for assessing and importing foreign
technologies which could significantly benefit the U.S. highway
community. This approach is similar to the bench marking process that
is widely used by major private firms. It allows for advanced
technology to be adapted and put into practice much more efficiently
without spending scarce research funds to recreate technology already
developed by other countries. To date, the FHWA has undertaken over 20
of these reviews. For fiscal year 1998, the FHWA will continue to
stress the successful implementation of technology identified through
the scanning program and work to improve the dissemination of this
information to the State and local levels.
The second component of the FHWA's information management strategy
is improving U.S. transportation officials' access to the large body of
highway transportation-related information available internationally.
The FHWA has already sponsored one scanning mission which identified
these international information resources with the end product being a
directory for use by U.S. transportation professionals. In cooperation
with the Transportation Research Board and AASHTO, the FHWA is planning
a second, more specific study of one technological area in order to
focus on improving the flow of information into the U.S. and any
barriers or gaps in information access training which may need to be
addressed. The results identified through these efforts will be tied
with the FHWA's on-going efforts to improve the dissemination of
information collected through its scanning program and the development
of an overall communications strategy for its international activities.
Private sector support
The FHWA has developed a marketing strategy for U.S. technology and
industry to assist the U.S. private sector in meeting stiffer
competition in the global market place from foreign firms receiving
support from their own governments. One component of this strategy is
to ensure that every technical assistance activity in which the FHWA
participates showcases U.S. technology and U.S. firms. By supporting
government-to-government relationships, the FHWA is helping to
establish a U.S. presence and reputation in foreign markets. This can,
and has, resulted in sales of U.S. technology and services.
The second component of this strategy more directly supports U.S.
firms and their international commercial activities. The Intelligent
Transportation Systems arena in Latin America and South East Asia are
the first areas where the FHWA is concentrating its efforts. The FHWA
can directly assist these firms by monitoring regional market
conditions and identifying suitable local partners for U.S. firms. The
FHWA also coordinates the participation of U.S. companies in trade
exhibitions and conferences and ensures U.S. interests are represented
on international committees and organizations engaged in setting
standards.
Support of administration commercial and foreign policy objectives
The FHWA is seeking better ways of supporting the Administration's
efforts to pool the resources of U.S. Government agencies in pursuing
U.S. international objectives. The FHWA is conducting a study to better
understand what other agencies are doing with regard to the export of
U.S. goods and services. The objective of this study is to identify
FHWA's appropriate role in the trade promotion process and improve
coordination with the efforts of the Department of Commerce and other
agencies which are members of the Trade Promotion Coordination Council.
The FHWA's technical expertise and leadership in the field of highway
transportation allows it to fill a special niche role in the U.S.'s
trade promotion activities.
The FHWA Office of International Programs also coordinates with the
DOT Office of International Transportation and Trade and the Department
of State to respond to specific U.S. foreign policy objectives. Many
initiatives undertaken by U.S. foreign affairs agencies have
significant transportation-related implications. The agency also
supports the Administrations's involvement in the NAFTA, the Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas, and elsewhere, which complements the U.S.
government's other assistance efforts in these countries. The DOT will
be expected to continue numerous interagency initiatives abroad and
associated technology exchanges.
Reauthorization
The Administration's reauthorization proposal will not seek a
change in the current enabling statutes or line item authority for
particular program elements or country specific projects. Instead, it
suggests that State DOTs and local entities should become effective
partners in the FHWA International Outreach Program, by permitting the
discretionary use of Federal highway research and planning funds for
certain international activities. State DOT and local officials are
increasingly involved in FHWA-sponsored technology ``scanning''
reviews, as well as the ITS, SHRP and other research and development
programs which have engendered great international interests and led to
numerous bilateral cooperation activities.
Question. Please provide estimates for fiscal year 1996, fiscal
year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 of the amount of funds used or planned
to promote the marketing of highway-related technologies abroad. Why is
this an FHWA function?
Answer. The market development function on behalf of the private
sector is one of the principal objectives included in the broad
enabling statues establishing the FHWA International Outreach Program
in Title 23, U.S.C., Section 325. In addition, the DOT/FHWA is a
constituent member of the Interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating
Council (established by statute), which is continuously refining the
National Export Strategy, to be developed cooperatively and implemented
by all 19 participating agencies. This is part of the Administration's
efforts to maximize resources by engaging all Executive agencies with
international initiatives in the promotion of U.S. foreign policy
goals. The FHWA is a world leader in highway technology and the only
Executive agency with the necessary technical expertise, experience,
and partnerships with the domestic highway community to fulfill this
role.
Estimated funding for promoting the private sector is difficult to
separate out as a specific amount since these activities are usually
incorporated as a part of a larger technical exchange or assistance
program. The estimates are:
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $125,000
1997...................................................... 200,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
Question. What are the benefits to the United States for this
allocation?
Answer. The primary objective of the FHWA's marketing activities is
to increase the export and sales of U.S. highway-related goods and
services, thereby benefitting the U.S. economy.
The FHWA's marketing activities specifically benefit the U.S. in
three ways: The FHWA supplies much needed information on markets, trade
shows, and other such events in countries with high export potential.
This information is particularly helpful to small and medium sized
companies in the U.S. highway industry that are looking for
opportunities to become export-ready, but lack the experience or
resources to seeking out appropriate commercial opportunities for their
products and services.
The FHWA provides countries information and training concerning
U.S. transportation technology and practices. This information and
training is provided through technology transfer networks and centers,
bilateral technical assistance programs in selected countries, and the
international visitor program. Recipient countries are able to more
effectively use U.S. exports to construct and manage their
transportation systems.
The FHWA strengthens and enhances the U.S. participation in the
development of selected international technical standards to help
ensure these standards are inclusive of U.S. products. This support is
important to U.S. companies who are now facing strong competition,
particularly in Latin America and Southeast Asia, from Asian and
European companies who have the support of their respective
governments.
Examples of benefits are: The FHWA supported Hoffman International
in its efforts to develop an equipment leasing joint venture in Russia.
The venture has resulted in shipping over $15 million in U.S. equipment
to Russia and training in U.S. pavement construction techniques for
over 80 Russian highway officials and contractors.
The FHWA's support of the Russian Federal Highway Service's (RFHS)
efforts to model its highway program after the U.S. highway program
have resulted in commercial opportunities and design contracts for
several U.S. firms. The RFHS has set aside exclusively for U.S. firms a
large design and construction project that would complete the last
section of the trans-Siberian highway. The estimated export potential
of this project for U.S. firms is $250 million.
general administration and oversight regarding lgoe
Question. Please present a detailed, side-by-side table showing all
fiscal year 1997 ISTEA contract funds, contract funds requested in your
reauthorization proposal, fiscal year 1997 GOE funds (with and without
research and technology support costs--formerly referred to as
management and coordination costs or M&C costs), and proposed fiscal
year 1998 LGOE funds related to each category of research, development,
technology transfer and training (with and without apportioned support
costs).
Answer. The information is provided in the following tables.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--
MANAGEMENT COORDINATION COST DISTRIBUTED
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
1997 1998
enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and Technology \4\.. 61,972 73,903
LGOE:
Safety.................................... 7,958 9,000
Materials................................. ......... .........
Pavements................................. \1\ 18,14
9 11,150
Structures................................ 13,211 15,256
Environment............................... 5,061 5,566
Right-of-Way.............................. 300 365
Policy.................................... 4,954 8,000
Planning.................................. 5,477 16,025
Motor Carrier............................. 6,862 8,541
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) \4\...... 229,326 250,000
LGOE.......................................... 116,326 54,000
Research and Development.................. 24,573 33,000
AHS/Advance Crash Avoidance............... 22,000 .........
Architecture and Standards................ 5,000 .........
Operational Test.......................... 54,992 .........
Evaluation................................ 2,000 9,000
Mainstreaming............................. ......... 3,000
ITS Deployment Incentives Program......... ......... .........
Commercial Vehicle Operations............. ......... .........
ITS Program and System Support............ 7,761 9,000
Advanced Technology Applications.......... ......... .........
Contract Authority............................ 113,000 196,000
Research and Development.................. 4,300 12,500
AHS/Advance Crash Avoidance............... ......... 26,000
Architecture and Standards................ 7,300 13,000
Operational Test.......................... 5,400 24,500
Evaluation................................ 300 .........
Mainstreaming............................. 10,000 19,000
Commercial Vehicle Operations............. ......... .........
Priority Corridors........................ 71,700 1,000
National Advanced Driver Simulator........ 14,000 .........
ITS Deployment Incentives Program......... ......... 100,000
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LGOE)............. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Technical Assessment and Deployment (LGOE) \1\.... 12,802 \3\ 14,80
0
National Advanced Driver Simulator................ ......... 12,250
Local Technical Assistance Programs \4\........... 8,764 12,000
LGOE.......................................... 2,764 .........
Contract Authority............................ 6,000 12,000
Rehabilitation of Turner Fairbanks................ 500 2,000
Truck Dynamic Test Facility....................... ......... .........
National Highway Institutes \4\................... 4,167 8,000
LGOE.......................................... 4,167 .........
Contract Authority............................ ......... 8,000
University Transportation Centers................. 6,000 6,000
University Research Institutes.................... 6,250 6,000
State Planning and Research....................... 80,367 90,307
Strategic Highway Research Program Implementation. 20,000 .........
SHRP Implementation (LTPP).................... 6,000 .........
SHRP Implementation........................... 14,000 .........
Technology Partnership Support.................... ......... 11,000
Long-Term and Advanced Research................... ......... 25,000
LTPP.......................................... ......... 15,000
Advanced Research............................. ......... 10,000
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program...... 2,000 2,000
Applied Research and Technology................... 41,000 .........
National Technology Deployment Initiatives........ ......... 56,000
Seismic Research and Development Program.......... 2,000 .........
Fundamental Properties of Asphalts................ ......... .........
Timber Bridge Research Program.................... 1,000 .........
GPS Support....................................... ......... 2,100
R&T Technical Support............................. 10,358 \2\ 10,00
0
---------------------
Grand total................................. 486,506 581,360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The LTPP program is now incorporated under Highway Research,
Development, and Technology.
\2\ R&T Technical Support will be included as a separate line item
begining in fiscal year 1998.
\3\ The International Scanning program is now incorporated within
Technology Assessment and Deployment.
\4\ R&T Technical Support were distributed among these programs.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--
MANAGEMENT COORDINATION COST NOT DISTRIBUTED
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
1997 1998
enacted enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and Technology...... 67,124 73,903
LGOE:
Safety.................................... 8,650 9,000
Materials................................. ......... .........
Pavements................................. \1\ 19,73
1 11,150
Structures................................ 14,362 15,256
Environment............................... 5,443 5,566
Right-of-Way.............................. 322 365
Policy.................................... 5,328 8,000
Planning.................................. 5,889 16,025
Motor Carrier............................. 7,399 8,541
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).......... 233,358 250,000
LGOE.......................................... 120,358 54,000
Research and Development.................. 28,605 33,000
AHS/Advance Crash Avoidance............... 22,000 .........
Architecture and Standards................ 5,000 .........
Operational Test.......................... 54,992 .........
Evaluation................................ 2,000 9,000
Mainstreaming............................. ......... 3,000
ITS Deployment Incentives Program......... ......... .........
Commercial Vehicle Operations............. ......... .........
ITS Program and System Support............ 7,761 9,000
Advanced Technology Applications.......... ......... .........
Contract Authority............................ 113,000 196,000
Research and Development.................. 4,300 12,500
AHS/Advance Crash Avoidance............... ......... 26,000
Architecture and Standards................ 7,300 13,000
Operational Test.......................... 5,400 24,500
Evaluation................................ 300 .........
Mainstreaming............................. 10,000 19,000
Commercial Vehicle Operations............. ......... .........
Priority Corridors........................ 71,700 1,000
National Advanced Driver Simulator........ 14,000 .........
ITS Deployment Incentives Program......... ......... 100,000
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LGOE)............. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Technical Assessment and Deployment (LGOE)........ 13,811 \2\ 14,80
0
National Advanced Driver Simulator................ ......... 12,250
Local Technical Assistance Program................ 8,827 12,000
LGOE.......................................... 2,827 .........
Contract Authority............................ 6,000 12,000
Rehabilitation of Turner Fairbanks................ 500 2,000
Truck Dynamic Test Facility....................... ......... .........
National Highway Institute........................ 4,269 8,000
LGOE.......................................... 4,269 .........
Contract Authority............................ ......... 8,000
University Transportation Centers................. 6,000 6,000
University Research Institutes.................... 6,250 6,000
State Planning and Research....................... 80,367 90,307
Strategic Highway Research Program Implementation. 20,000 .........
SHRP Implementation (LTPP).................... 6,000 .........
SHRP Implementation........................... 14,000 .........
Technology Partnership Support.................... ......... 11,000
Long-Term and Advanced Research................... ......... 25,000
LTPP.......................................... ......... 15,000
Advanced Research............................. ......... 10,000
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program...... 2,000 2,000
Applied Research and Technology................... 41,000 .........
National Technology Deployment Initiatives........ ......... 56,000
Seismic Research & Development Program............ 2,000 .........
Fundamental Properties of Asphalts................ ......... .........
Timber Bridge Research Program.................... 1,000 .........
DGPS Support...................................... ......... 2,100
R&T Technical Support............................. [10,358] \2\ 10,00
0
---------------------
Grand total................................. 486,506 581,360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The LTPP program is now incorporated under Highway Research,
Development, and Technology.
\2\ The International Scanning program is now incorporated within
Technology Assessment and Deployment.
Question. During the last two years, the Appropriations Committees
placed a limitation on M&C costs. How did this limitation affect the R,
D, and T program?
Answer. There has been no significant or adverse impact on the
vitality of the R, D, and T program. We have had to shift some program
funding responsibilities, but this has been done without detriment to
the program.
Question. What expenses were reduced as a result of this
limitation?
Answer. None of the expenses were reduced; the costs were
reassigned. Management and coordination has been used as a mechanism to
ensure that all R, D, and T programs contribute a share of the funding
to those activities where there is a mutual need or responsibility. To
stay within the limits which were imposed on the FHWA, we had to shift
program funding responsibilities. Consequently, there has not been a
reduction in expenses. There has been a reduction in the cost of the
management and coordination activity; however, there has been a
corresponding increase in the cost to certain R, D, and T programs.
Question. How could the technical support costs be further reduced?
Answer. It would be extremely difficult to reduce the costs for
technical support. The contribution to the Small Business Innovation
Research Program, which is the largest costs under M&C, is fixed by
law. The increases in our work with the Transportation Research Board
have been primarily a result of inflation. Our recent increases in the
editorial and publication support reflect the additional work from
significant R&D funding increases brought about by ISTEA. We will
continue to look for ways to reduce the costs of technical support.
Question. Why is it of critical importance to support the TRB
visits to States?
Answer. Each year, the TRB staff members visit every State highway
and transportation department, many transit agencies, other modal
agencies and universities, and private industry. During these visits,
the TRB learns about the problems facing the organizations and passes
on information pertinent to the solution of these problems; learns of
research activities in progress or planned, and informs the visited
organization of ongoing similar activities to avoid duplication; and
identifies new methods or procedures that might have application
elsewhere. Although other information sharing exists, such as
publications and electronic services, one-on-one discussions during
these field visits explore areas of mutual interest and identify
innovative or experimental work that will not be published for wide
dissemination, yet are worth bringing to the attention of others. The
TRB summarizes and distributes the results of its field visit program
to the States, FHWA, and other interested parties.
Question. Please breakout in detail each of the current fiscal year
1997 contract and associated amounts that FHWA has with TRB. Please
specify the purposes of these contracts and estimate fiscal year 1998
continued funding levels.
Answer.
Fiscal year 1997: Cooperative Agreement................. $2,611,000
Fiscal year 1998: DTFH61-97-X-00001..................... 2,665,740
This agreement is FHWA's contribution to TRB and is used to help
support the following activities:
--TRB Technical Committees and Publications.--The TRB maintains
standing committees in subject areas of interest to the FHWA.
The committees promote the exchange of technical research
information, advance the state-of-the-art in their respective
specialized field, and identify research needs. The Committees
also sponsor technical workshops and conferences.
--TRB Annual Meeting.--The TRB conducts an annual meeting in
Washington, D.C., as a forum to review and discuss the results
of highway transportation research. Approximately 7,200 people
from the United States and around the world participate in the
5-day conference, involving over 700 technical sessions and
committee meetings. About 75 percent of the sessions and
meetings are highway related. In conjunction with the meeting,
the TRB provides FHWA with display areas and meeting
facilities. The TRB also registers all FHWA employees attending
the meeting and provides copies of all highway related papers.
--TRB's Field Visit Program.--Each year, the TRB staff members visit
every State highway and transportation department, many transit
agencies, other modal agencies and universities, and private
industry. During these visits the TRB learns about the problems
facing the organizations and passes on information pertinent to
the solution of these problems; learns of research activities
in progress or planned and informs the visited organization of
ongoing similar activities to avoid duplication; and identifies
new methods or procedures that might have application
elsewhere. Although other information sharing exists, such as
publications and electronic services, one-on-one discussions
during these field visits explore areas of mutual interest and
identify innovative or experimental work that will not be
published for wide dissemination, yet are worth bringing to the
attention of others. The TRB summarizes and distributes the
results of its field visit program to the States, FHWA, and
other interested parties.
--TRIS.--The TRB maintains a bibliographic database that contains
citations and abstracts for research literature published in
the transportation field and related disciplines.
Transportation Research Information Service (TRIS) personnel
also process summaries of research projects in progress being
conducted by organizations throughout the U.S. TRIS has been
upgraded to integrate document management with the TRIS system
by providing each State DOT's with (1) a compatible data entry
and text retrieval system to enable uploading of research
summaries, and (2) text retrieval capabilities for downloading
research summaries.
--RTCC.--The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) is
composed of 15-20 members selected from among researchers,
administrators, research users and practitioners from the
public, private and academic sectors. The RTCC assists the FHWA
by identifying gaps in research, exploring ways to increase
State, local and private sector participation in highway
research, addressing issues related to the implementation of
research results, identifying areas of duplication, and
providing a mechanism for gathering research needs.
--NCHRP-IDEA Program.--The Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis
(IDEA) program solicits projects with the potential to produce
significant technological improvements in the highway community
from individuals, public and private institutions, and small
and large businesses. Proposals are evaluated by a technical
committee and contracts in the amount of $50,000-100,000 are
awarded, about 10 projects annually. The FHWA has contributed
75 percent of the expenses for the IDEA program, and the States
contributed 25 percent. For the fiscal year 1998 program the
FHWA share will be 67 percent as the States' contribution will
increase.
Question. Which FHWA sponsored projects or activities does TRB
manage or help manage? What amount is required to pay for this TRB
support annually?
Answer. The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC)
is an FHWA activity that is managed by TRB. The TRB also conducts
special studies, conferences and reviews when requested by the FHWA.
The fiscal year 1997 budget for the RTCC is $388,500. The amount for
special studies, conferences, etc., varies from year to year depending
on need, but averages about $200,000.
Question. For each of the major research areas, please prepare a
chart showing separately LGOE, contract, and other funds provided for
each of the last five years.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
enacted enacted enacted enacted enacted enacted President
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funded by a takedown:
Highway Research and
Development................... 28,500 43,860 42,525 55,153 56,772 67,124 73,903
Intelligent Transportation
System........................ 139,800 30,000 90,300 14,450 109,779 120,358 54,000
Technology Deployment.......... ......... ......... ......... 13,000 12,622 ......... .........
Long-Term Pavement and
Performance................... 10,000 6,000 7,000 9,000 8,739 ......... .........
Advance Research............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Technical Assessment and
Deployment.................... 8,000 8,000 12,000 ......... ......... 13,811 14,800
National Advanced Driver
Simulator..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 12,250
Local Technical Assistance
Program....................... 3,750 4,000 500 3,105 3,015 2,827 .........
Rehabilitation of Turner
Fairbanks..................... ......... 1,940 1,250 3,000 ......... 500 2,000
National Highway Institute..... 3,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,369 4,269 .........
University Transportation
Centers....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
University Research Institute.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
State Planning and Research.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Strategic Highway Research
Program Implementation (SHRP). ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Technology Partnership
Fellowship Program (Formerly
SHRP)......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Eisenhower Tranportation
Fellowship Program............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Applied Research and Technology ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
National Technology Deployment
Initiatives (Formerly Applied
R&T).......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Seismic Research and
Development Program........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Fundamental Properties of
Asphalts...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Timber Bridge Research......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
GPS Oversight.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,100
R&D Technical Support.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 193,050 98,300 158,075 102,208 195,296 208,889 169,053
============================================================================
Direct contract authority:
Highway Research and
Development................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Intelligent Transportation
System........................ 94,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 97,910 113,000 96,000
Technology Deployment.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Long-Term Pavement and
Performance................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 15,000
Advance Research............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,000
Technical Assessment and
Deployment.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
National Advanced Driver
Simulator..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Local Technical Assistance
Program....................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 12,000
Rehabilitation of Turner
Fairbanks..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
National Highway Institute..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 8,000
University Transportation
Centers....................... 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
University Research Institute.. 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,000
State Planning and Research.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Strategic Highway Research
Program Implementation (SHRP). 12,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 .........
Technology Partnership
Fellowship Program (Formerly
SHRP)......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 11,000
Eisenhower Tranportation
Fellowship Program............ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Applied Research and Technology 35,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 56,000
National Technology Deployment
Initiatives (Formerly Applied
R&T).......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Seismic Research and
Development Program........... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 .........
Fundamental Properties of
Asphalts...................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ......... .........
Timber Bridge Research......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
GPS Oversight.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
R&D Technical Support.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 165,250 195,250 199,250 199,250 184,160 196,250 222,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS Incentive Programs......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 165,250 195,250 199,250 199,250 184,160 196,250 322,000
============================================================================
Funded by direct contract authority
and administration takedown:
Highway Research and
Development................... 28,500 43,860 42,525 55,153 56,772 67,124 73,903
Intelligent Transportation
System........................ 233,800 143,000 203,300 127,450 207,689 233,358 150,000
Technology Deployment.......... ......... ......... ......... 13,000 12,622 ......... .........
Long-Term Pavement and
Performance................... 10,000 6,000 7,000 9,000 8,739 ......... 15,000
Advance Research............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,000
Technical Assessment and
Deployment.................... 8,000 8,000 12,000 ......... ......... 13,811 14,800
National Advanced Driver
Simulator..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 12,250
Local Technical Assistance
Program....................... 9,750 10,000 6,500 9,105 9,015 8,827 12,000
Rehabilitation of Turner
Fairbanks..................... ......... 1,940 1,250 3,000 ......... 500 2,000
National Highway Institute..... 3,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,369 4,269 8,000
University Transportation
Centers....................... 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
University Research Institute.. 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,000
State Planning and Research.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Strategic Highway Research
Program Implementation (SHRP). 12,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 .........
Technology Partnership
Fellowship Program (Formerly
SHRP)......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 11,000
Eisenhower Tranportation
Fellowship Program............ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Applied Research and Technology 35,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 56,000
National Technology Deployment
Initiatives (Formerly applied
R&T).......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Seismic Research and
Development Program........... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 .........
Fundamental Properties of
Asphalts...................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ......... .........
Timber Bridge Research......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
GPS Oversight.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,100
R&D Technical Support.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 358,300 293,550 357,325 301,458 379,456 405,139 391,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS Incentive Programs......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 358,300 293,550 357,325 301,458 379,456 405,139 491,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please specify how FHWA obtained its share of the $25
million of administrative cost savings required in the 1996 DOT
Appropriations Act. In your fiscal year 1998 budget request have you
restored these cost savings?
Answer. To achieve its share of the required fiscal year 1996
funding reductions, the FHWA continued to implement cost savings
initiatives which were begun as part of our streamlining efforts to
implement the NPR objectives. We took reductions in a broad range of
related administrative areas as we reduced our FTE levels in targeted
administrative and crosscutting populations. Our cost savings included
reductions in administrative costs associated with salaries and
benefits by limiting the backfilling of positions and we realized
savings in related travel costs, space and facilities costs, and other
administrative areas. Our fiscal year 1998 budget request has not
restored these cost savings. We are requesting, however, nominal
increases in our ADP and communications area to continue to move
forward with enhancements to our IRM infrastructure which are essential
as we continue to downsize and redeploy our staff, and streamline our
operations.
Question. Are any fiscal year 1997 GOE or ISTEA funds being used to
pay for various initiatives of concern to OST, the FHWA Administrator,
or the Secretary that were not specifically requested in the fiscal
year 1997 budgt? If so, please delineate these expenses in detail.
Answer. The FHWA has not used any funds for initiatives of OST, the
FHWA Administrator, or the Secretary that were not requested in the
fiscal year 1997 budget or authorized under existing law.
Question. Are you spending any monies during fiscal year 1997 on
the promotion of technology transfer or educational activities in the
Republic of South Africa, a summer jobs program related to
transportation, or the support of possible careers in the
transportation field for disadvantaged youth?
Answer. The FHWA is spending fiscal year 1997 funds on program
activities related to the technology transfer activities between the
two countries. Approximately half of these activities are education or
training-related. The U.S. transfers information to South Africa on
Technology Transfer Centers, education, and training, while South
Africa transfers technical information on pavement technologies to the
U.S. Presently, the FHWA is working with two States to plan and
construct sections of pavement using this South African technology. In
addition, the FHWA is work with South Africa to develop and present a
pavement workshop in the U.S. in 1998.
Question. If yes, please indicate the source and amount of funding
for each activity listed above and discuss how these expenditures
affected the amount of funds available during fiscal year 1997 for R,
D, and T program that were justified in your request. Specify whether
the funds came from the LGOE account or from other sources.
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, an estimated $300,000 will be spent
from Technology Assessment and Deployment GOE funds. Of this,
approximately $150,000 will be sent on the Technology Transfer Center
and training activities and the balance on pavement-related technology
transfer activities. When developing the budget request for fiscal year
1997, international activities were considered as an element of the
overall FHWA technology transfer program. These expenditures did not
affect the amounts of funds available during fiscal year 1997 for
research, development, or technology transfer programs since the major
thrust of the FHWA's South Africa program is specifically to exchange
advanced technical information.
Question. How much funding is FHWA providing for research conducted
at or through the Transportation Research Board in fiscal year 1997?
How much is requested for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The FHWA is providing $750,000 in fiscal year 1997 and
$750,000 in fiscal year 1998 for the Innovations Deserving Exploratory
Analysis (IDEA) program. These funds are used for projects with the
potential to produce significant technological improvements in the
highway community. Proposals are evaluated by a technical committee and
contracts in the amount of $50,000-$100,000 are awarded.
Question. Please present a table showing carryover funds for each
of the last two years for each LGOE category.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--TOTAL
CONTRACT PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1995 1996
carryover carryover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and
Technology............................. 3,761,065 4,308,282
Intelligent Transportation Systems...... 4,792,045 4,692,235
Long-Term Pavement Performance.......... .............. 379,371
Technical Assessment and Deployment..... 1,272,414 88,159
Local Technical Assistance Program...... 650,206 74,794
National Highway Institute.............. 345,361 385,066
Minority Business Enterprise............ 492,400 652,764
OJT Skill Training...................... 1,150,388 90,345
International Transportation............ 332,679 121,791
Rehabilitation of Turner Fairbanks...... 2,473,150 ..............
Russia Technical Assistance............. 29,944 10,199
Truck Dynamic Test Facility............. .............. 22,917
Cost Allocation Study (Truck Size and
Weight)................................ .............. ..............
-------------------------------
Grand total....................... 15,299,652 10,825,922
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a chart of: (a) equipment and
communications expenses and (b) rent and utilities expenses (p. 30) for
each of the last five years.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Object classification 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE:
Communications and Utilities Expenses................. 7,805 7,826 8,317 10,120 8,444 9,929
Rent.................................................. ( \1\ ) 16,472 16,619 17,598 17,294 18,275
Equipment............................................. 10,699 9,598 7,088 3,894 3,512 6,938
MCS:
Communications and Utilities Expenses................. 282 309 362 270 240 240
GSA Rent.............................................. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Equipment............................................. 1,547 3,049 1,287 499 770 900
LGOE (GOE/MCS):
Communications and Utilities Expenses................. 8,087 8,135 8,679 10,390 8,684 10,169
GSA Rent.............................................. ( \1\ ) 16,472 16,619 17,598 17,294 18,275
Equipment............................................. 12,246 12,647 8,375 4,393 4,282 7,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GSA Rent was paid by OST until fiscal year 1993.
Question. Please discuss in extensive detail the need for each of
the increases proposed on page 39.
Answer.
object class 2300
The requested increase of $1,474 is required to:
--Continue the implementation of additional Electronic Data Sharing
links between FHWA division offices and their State partners.
This will enhance the speed and quality of business processes
for delivering the Federal-aid highway program to the State
DOT's, including Electronic Data Sharing and Electronic
Signatures for Project Authorizations and Agreements and
Vouchers for Payment (Current Bill) and access to each other's
project databases and e-mail systems, thus improving service to
our partners and customers ($100).
--Provide for the installation and operation of high-speed data lines
in FHWA division offices upgrade the speed of the FHWA Wide
Area Network to allow for remote access to file server based
applications. This will enhance field office access to new
graphical user interfaces for nationwide information systems,
streamline remote local and wide area network management
services, and provide the medium for expanding video-
conferencing capability--see below ($666).
--Complete the expansion of the FHWA videoconferencing system to the
remaining division offices. This will enhance internal
communcations and coordination without increasing travel costs
or non-productive travel time ($440).
--In addition, FHWA is a participant in the US DOT Intermodal Data
Network (IDN), which provides ``backbone'' connectivity for all
FHWA Headquarters Local Area Networks within the US DOT
Headquarters building. The IDN also provides intermodal E-mail
links among the DOT Operating Admininstrations and access to
the Internet for all DOT employees. As a participant in this
network, the Operating Administrations are required to provide
funding to support the continuing operations and maintenance of
this system ($268).
object class 2500
The requested increase of $1,300 is required to:
--Provide FHWA with sufficient funding to provide service to
mainframe users during the period when systems are being
converted to accommodate the Year 2000 (which will require
additional mainframe test time), as well as provide funding to
begin testing at alternate mainframe sites in the likelihood
that the Transportation Computer Center will be consolidated
into another site under OMB Bulletin 96-02 and it becomes
necessary for FHWA to obtain mainframe support from other than
TASC ($600).
--Provide for annual cost of living adjustment as detailed in the
contract for the employees supporting FHWA's nationwide
information systems, but no additional level of effort/staffing
($200).
--Provide services for implementing upgrades to FHWA's Local Area
Networks (LAN's) and cover the cost of living adjustment
detailed in the contract for employees providing operational
support of the FHWA Help Desk, but no additional level of
effort/staffing ($200).
--Provide for necessary upgrading and annual maintenance of
Agencywide software site licenses for suites of FHWA's standard
PC Office Automation software according to the upgrade/
migration plan developed by the FHWA Infrastructure Steering
Committee. Agencywide site licenses eliminate individual
acquisitions and reduce overall costs ($300).
object class 3100
The requested increase of $2,411 is required to:
--Provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the FHWA
Infrastructure Steering Committee to include the purchase of
upgraded individual workstations and LAN servers to meet the
requirements of new, graphical-based nationwide information
systems and to replace the current outdated and unsupported
equipment. This is the second year of a three year project
($790).
--Initiate new IRM improvement projects and local applications
development as identified in the annual FHWA IRM Plan to
include such items as electronic recordkeeping systems,
engineering workstations for electronic plans reviews, enhanced
remote LAN access capabilities, expanded electronic data
interfaces with State DOT's. These enhancements improve the
management and delivery of the Federal-aid highway program to
our customers ($1,341).
--Complete the acquisition of desktop videoconferencing equipment for
25 division offices. This will enhance internal communcations
and coordination without increasing travel costs or non-
productive travel time ($250).
--Emergency replacement of computer equipment for hardware/software
that may be stolen, lost, or not cost-effective to repair
($30).
Question. Why can't these expenses be split funded or spread over
the next three years?
Answer. The FHWA's request for increases in Administrative expenses
included funds for critical IRM infrastructure activities to meet the
changing role of the FHWA, and further the streamlining of its program
delivery processes and the restructuring of its organization. These
funds are required to directly support our program delivery efforts at
our Division Offices located in each State. They are a part of a multi-
year plan the timing of which is necessary to continue our streamlining
and restructuring efforts.
Question. Reprogramming guidelines state that congressional
approval is required for funding shifts of ten percent or more among
programs, projects and activities. Did you exceed this 10 percent
threshold without notification since this requirement went into effect?
Answer. The FHWA has not exceeded the 10 percent threshold without
notification since this requirement went into effect.
Question. Please prepare a table showing actual expenses versus
appropriated funds as specified in the conference report for each LGOE
program area and category for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997
planned expenses.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL YEAR 1996 CONTRACT PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR
1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Research, development, and technology -----------------------------------------------------------------------
transfer activities 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996
enacted \1\ recissions enacted \1\ obligations unobligated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research Development and
Technology............................. 56,772,000 (1,303,000) 55,469,000 (52,851,387) 2,617,613
Intelligent Transportation Systems...... 109,779,000 (4,777,000) 105,002,000 (102,471,016) 2,530,984
Long-Term Pavement Perfommance.......... 8,739,000 (431,000) 8,308,000 (8,090,190) 217,810
Technical Assessment and Deployment..... 12,622,000 (123,000) 12,499,000 (12,498,410) 590
Local Technical Assistance Program...... 3,015,000 (149,000) 2,866,000 (2,865,886) 114
National Highway Institute.............. 4,369,000 (42,000) 4,327,000 (4,012,203) 314,797
Minonty Business Enterprise............. 10,000,000 (494,000) 9,506,000 (9,449,860) 56,140
Intemational Transportation............. 500,000 (25,000) 475,000 (425,569) 49,431
Truck Dynamic Test Facility............. 750,000 (37,000) 713,000 (690,083) 22,917
Russian Technical Assistance Program.... 400,000 (20,000) 380,000 (370,426) 9,574
Cost Allocation......................... 2,000,000 (99,000) 1,901,000 (1,901,000) ............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total....................... 208,946,000 (7,500,000) 201,446,000 (195,626,030) 5,819,970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects fiscal year 1996 recessions.
Note.--Enacted funds are available for 3 fiscal years.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL
YEAR 1997 CONTRACT PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------
1997 1997 1997
enacted obligations \1\ unobligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research,
Development, and Technology. 67,124 (37,158) 29,966
Intelligent Transportation
Systems..................... 120,358 (71,468) 48,890
Long-Term Pavement
Performance................. ........... ............... ...........
Technical Assessment and
Deployment.................. 13,811 (5,919) 7,892
Local Technical Assistance
Program..................... 2,827 (1,889) 938
National Highway Institute... 4,269 (482) 3,787
Minority Business Enterprise. 9,378 (1,089) 8,289
International Transportation. 475 (251) 225
Russia Technical Assistance.. 200 (38) 162
Rehabiliation of TFHRC....... 500 (471) 29
Federal Lands Contamination
Site Clean-up............... 2,466 (692) 1,774
Transportation Investment.... 250 (250) ...........
Cost Allocation Study........ 300 ............... 300
------------------------------------------
Total.................. 221,958 (119,705) 102,253
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects obligated balances as of 5/31/97.
Note.--Enacted funds are available for 3 fiscal years.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL YEAR 1997 CONTRACT PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR
1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------------------
Research, development, and technology transfer activities 1996 1997 1997
carryover obligations \1\ unobligated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development, and Technology.................. 2,117,613 (1,178,283) 939,330
Intelligent Transportation Systems............................. 2,530,984 (2,161,086) 369,898
Long-Term Pavement Performance................................. 217,810 (9,194) 208,616
Technical Assessment and Deployment............................ 590 (73,293) (72,703)
Local Technical Assistance Program............................. 114 (10,725) (10,611)
National Highway Institute..................................... 814,797 3,956 818,752
Minority Business Enterprise................................... 56,140 ............... 56,140
International Transportation................................... 49,431 (2,635) 46,796
Truck Dynamic Test Facility.................................... 22,917 ............... 22,917
Russian Technical Assistance Program........................... 9,574 (1,765) 7,809
Cost Allocation................................................ .............. ............... ..............
------------------------------------------------
Grand total.............................................. 5,819,970 (3,433,095) 2,386,945
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects obligations as of 5/31/97.
Question. Please assess the costs and benefits of the FHWA
investment in the Pan American Institute of Highways. Please estimate
separately fiscal year 1996, 1997, and fiscal year 1998 funds allocated
or planned for this purpose and provide the funding source of these
monies.
Answer.
Fiscal year GOE
1996.......................................................... $400,000
1997.......................................................... 275,000
1998.........................................................\1\ 200,000
\1\ Planned.
The benefits of the FHWA investment in the PIH can be summarized in
the following paragraphs:
The PIH provides FHWA with an efficient mechanism through which
FHWA can know of new developments in highway and transportation
technology in the Americas. This also allows the FHWA to be aware of
opportunities for U.S. Private Sector and helps to find reliable and
credible partners for the U.S. Private Sector when needed.
The FHWA can promote new technologies where the U.S. has a
technological advantage, such as Intelligent Highway Systems, Highway
Safety, SUPERPAVE, and similar technologies. This partnership with U.S.
industry facilitates contacts and setting up of initial meetings that
can result in sales.
The PIH provides a forum for developing and implementing
international standards for highways and transportation technologies.
The PIH has become a prime example of on operational public/private
partnership. As of May 1997, 8 U.S. firms are making financial
contributions to the operation of the PIH Headquarters and they have
been cooperating with FHWA to send speakers to international events. It
is anticipated that the number of firms will increase over the coming
months.
The FHWA serves as the Headquarters for the PIH, and as such plays
a major role in setting the agenda for international congresses,
conferences, and other such events, ensuring that U.S. firms are given
favorable treatment at trade shows and international conferences held
throughout the region. This also allows the PIH to know of when and
where the events will take place so that it can then make sure
interested U.S. firms know of the events. The PIH can even assist
representatives from U.S. firms in making the appropriate initial
contacts.
With a network of 80 Technology Transfer Centers throughout the
Americas, the PIH provides FHWA with a programed and efficient
mechanism to respond to and interact with the highway community of the
Americas. This mechanism provides a focused, efficient, and effective
base from which to respond to numerous requests for technical
assistance, training, technical materials, software, and contacts for
goods and services produced in the U.S.
Through the PIH Network, the FHWA identifies and selects
outstanding young professionals from throughout the Americas who can be
brought to the U.S. to work on specific projects of research and
technology transfer. These professionals take back a familiarity with,
and often a preference for U.S. highway products and technologies which
helps U.S. firms in establishing market foot-holds in these countries.
Question. What were the actual fiscal year 1996 and what are the
expected fiscal year 1997 M&C expenses?
Answer. The actual fiscal year 1996 expenses were $8,535,868, and
the estimated expenses for fiscal year 1997 are $10.7 Million.
Question. In recent years, FHWA has held the line on its
administrative costs. Why do you judge it essential to increase these
expenses during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Other than for cost-of-living increases for our approved
level of employees, our fiscal year 1998 Budget request includes
nominal increases in our ADP and communications areas to continue to
move forward with enhancements to our IRM infrastructure, and a small
increase for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves. These are
essential as we continue to downsize and redeploy our staff, and
streamline our operations. The increase, excluding the increase for our
Motor Carrier operations, represents only a 2.7 percent increase over
the enacted fiscal year 1997 annual administrative funds.
Question. Please further justify in detail why increases are sought
in travel expenses.
Answer. Increases in travel are requested to implement field-wide
training initiatives and to provide technical assistance to States.
With the transfer of the responsibilities of the Interstate
Commerce Commission and subsequent rulemakings which affect how those
responsibilities are carried out, the FHWA must develop and conduct
training of its field staff and state partners. These enforcement
personnel do not have the appropriate background nor have they been
trained to enforce registration and insurance provisions of economic
regulations.
In addition, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are
undergoing a complete renovation as a result of FHWA's zero base
regulatory reform project. The Federal and State enforcement staff must
be trained in the use of these new regulations which are critical to
developing enforcement cases.
To provide the necessary training for these two initiatives and to
make the most efficient use of Federal funds, the FHWA plans to train
Federal staff on both programs during the same session.
The FHWA also requests travel funds to provide a national network
of Federal personnel to educate judges and legislators on commercial
vehicle safety programs and advise them on procedures and methods to
uniformly apply fines and penalties for non-compliance. Courses and
educational materials have been developed and are ready for delivery to
the target audience. The result of this assistance will be effective
judicial and legislative support for commercial motor vehicle safety.
Question. Please list all reports prepared by the FHWA Office of
Program Review, key recommendations of each report, and resulting
improvements in FHWA policies and programs.
Answer. The Office of Program Quality Coordination (formerly the
Office of Program Review) list of reviews and status of recommendations
July 1997:
1986 reviews
``Turnkey''--Right-of-way Projects.--Led to a model contract to
carry out full-service acquisition and relocation for local public
agencies (LPA's) by consultant or State. Many LPA's adopted these
provisions for obtaining specialized consultant services. (Closed.)
Design Monitoring Program.--Pre-ISTEA Report stressed early review
of major projects and more process reviews. (Closed.)
Financial Management Program.--Led to a Handbook which increased
flexibility in reviews and reports. (Closed.)
The use of Consultants.--Led to revised regulations whereby the
FHWA approved consultant selection processes of States based on more
definitive guidance. Removed FHWA from review of contracts. (Closed.)
1987 reviews
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program: Unit Cost
Determination.--Assessed how unit costs are determined by States. Led
to the clarifications by the FHWA and reduced data requirements on
States. (Closed.)
Contaminated Sites: Impact on Highway Project Development and
Construction.--Early effort to assess issues and address policy. Led to
guidance on early testing, avoidance, mitigation, and acquisition of
sites and potential for State liability. This was followed by training.
(Closed.)
Incentive/Disincentive for Early Contract Completion.--Led to the
issuance of a Technical Advisory on I/D Contracting and provisions for
A+B bidding. These procedures are now widespread throughout the
country. (Closed.)
Managing Unexpended Balances of Obligated Funds.--Review curtailed
after agreements were reached on providing improved reporting and
controls. (Closed.)
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.--Reviewed and commented on
Chapter 3 of the Motor Carrier of Safety Manual--Guidelines for the
review of MCSAP. (Closed.)
RD&T Contracts and Staff Research Program.--Looked at changes in
the Research Program management as well as the need for basic research.
Both areas were changed based on a RD&T Actions Plan. (Closed.)
1988 reviews
Evaluation of FHWA'S Wetland Program.--Assessed effectiveness of
discussions in the environmental document on wetlands values and
avoidance to minimize problems at the 404 Permit Stage. Led to
additional guidance and delegated levels of approval. (Closed.)
FHWA Training System Review.--Reviewed the implementation of Task
Force recommendations to set goals, narrow course offering, properly
schedule call for training, ensure courses offered, timely approvals
and guidance on management training. Report concluded all
recommendations fulfilled. (Closed.)
I-4(R) Apportionment--Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Determination.--
Evaluated the effectiveness of the FHWA oversight of the State's data
collection, analysis and reporting of VMT. Concluded data collection
and oversight had weaknesses. Led to a definitive policy on oversight
and major efforts to upgrade collection. (Closed.)
Property Management Program: Disposal of Excess Property.--Assessed
the impact of a policy directing States to dispose of excess property
in a 2-year time frame. Found time frame too exacting and led to
numerous improvements in management systems. (Closed.)
Marketing of FHWA'S Research Program.--Determined that the FHWA's
ability to transfer technology (TT) had eroded over the years. Resulted
in TT becoming a strategic goal of the agency. Led to policy changes, a
field focus and employment of staff with professional marketing skills.
(Closed.)
1989 reviews
Administrative and Legal Settlements Program Evaluation.--Assessed
the application of legal and administrative settlements in the Right-
of-Way Program. Led to an optional, appraisal-free administrative
settlement approach for properties under $2,500 (30-40 percent of
acquisitions), and more liberal application of legal settlements to
avoid costly court proceedings. (Closed.)
Local Public Agency (LPA) Acquisition Program Evaluation.--
Reassessed State oversight and assistance to LPA's in Right-of-Way
acquisition. Determined most States were performing satisfactorily.
Recommended more State up-front assistance and training, and more
utilization of simplified techniques. The FHWA updated its ``Real
Estate Acquisition Guide for LPA's'' to accomplish these objectives.
(Closed.)
A Study of the FHWA Audit/Review Follow-up Processes.--Studied the
FHWA methods for implementing audit recommendations. Resulted in a
central clearing house for follow-up and an upgraded response system.
(Closed.)
Use of Consultants for Construction Engineering and Inspection.--
Review determined wide variations in practice and a high level of
confusion. The FHWA issued a Technical Advisory to assist States in
developing and negotiating contracts, and to provide technical guidance
to the FHWA on program oversight. (Closed.)
1990 reviews
Access Management Program Evaluation.--Looked at the management of
Access Control (AC) on the Interstate System and other principle
arterial. Concluded policies and training programs were effective.
Specific recommendations with regard to fencing of AC facilities for
safety and clarification on the selling of access were issued.
(Closed.)
Bus Safety Inspection Program.--Recommendations led to actions that
formally incorporated bus safety inspections into State Enforcement
Plans and the Office of Motor Carriers oversight programs. (Closed.)
Evaluation of Relocation Services.--Found instances where project
schedules resulted in insufficient time for adequate relocation
services. Guidance issued and a follow-up review was scheduled.
(Closed.)
Traffic Control Systems Operations and Maintenance.--Found most of
the 24 systems reviewed to be operating at less than optimum conditions
due to a lack of local technical expertise. An Action Plan was
developed focusing on nine priority recommendation and implementation
was begun. A follow-up review was scheduled. (Closed.)
Independent Assurance Sampling and Testing.--Found wide variations
in the FHWA program administration and State certification practices.
Resulted in improved internal guidance and training and increased
emphasis on accredited State labs and certified technicians. (Closed.)
Bid Rigging Review.--Reviewed progress made on program controls and
developed a list of most susceptible States for the OIG. Led to
increased emphasis on computer analysis. (Closed.)
1991 reviews
Effect of Hazardous Waste on the Acquisition Process.--Found the
FHWA Division Offices and States handling hazardous waste
considerations properly. Updated some training and guidance. (Closed.)
Pan American Institute of Highways Evaluation.--Reviewed the
strengths and weaknesses of this technology transfer institution and
developed an Action Plan to improve performance long term. (Closed.)
A Report on the FHWA'S HP&R Research Program.--Reviewed the FHWA's
management of the program and made recommendations which were
implemented to delegate authority, improve efficiency and broaden
involvement in program development. (Closed.)
A Review of the Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS)
Technical Data Elements.--Determined that data input quality varied by
elements and usage. Some data elements on pavements, safety, and right-
of-way were dropped as requirements. (Closed.)
A Report on Technical Expertise (T.E.) Needs Within FHWA.--Internal
report assessed T.E. needs. It was used by the Strategic Planning Group
on Human Resources Goal, and by a reorganization task force. A similar
study is currently underway by a consultant to the FHWA. (Closed.)
1992 reviews
Periodic Inspection of Commercial Motor Vehicles.--Determined the
extent to which interstate commercial vehicles were complying with
Federal inspection requirements. Report was disseminated throughout the
agency with direction to implement. (Closed.)
Management of Highway Airspace.--Recommended that policy on
airspace management and credit be clarified and encouraged a single SHA
Office be designated responsible. Policy was issued and Divisions
worked with States to assign responsibilities. (Closed.)
Value Engineering Change Proposals.--Assessed the relative progress
being made on implementing Value Engineering (VE). Concluded that while
most States have a VE construction specification, actual usage was
limited. Recommended increase marketing of the process by the FHWA and
States and more efficient handling of change proposals. With the ISTEA
requirements for VE and the FHWA endorsement, VE applications have
increased. (Closed.)
Design Exception Process.--Assessed the analysis and documentation
of design exceptions under the ISTEA. Recommendation led to the
issuance of a single policy statement for all design exceptions.
(Closed.)
1993 reviews
Relocation Services Revisited.--This review was a follow-up to a
1990 review. The review concluded that improvements had been made to
the program such that time allowances and services to relocatees were
adequate. (Closed.)
Evaluation of Environmental Mitigation.--Determined that
environmental mitigation measures were effective and for the most part
were being fully implemented. Recommended sensitivity training be
developed for State and Federal construction and maintenance staffs and
measures to ensure implementation of mitigation. (Closed.)
Contractor Acceptance Sampling and Testing.--Recommended
clarification of the FHWA's policy on Contractor Sampling and Testing.
Resulted in a policy to accept Contractor Performed Sampling and
Testing (CPSAT) as a part of an overall, well documented Quality
Management System. (Closed.)
Report on Stewardship Under the ISTEA Program Efficiencies.--
Assessed the impact of the oversight exemptions allowed by the ISTEA on
FHWA Stewardship. Concluded that all States had taken some forms of
exemptions; although some reluctantly. Also, found extremely strong
support for maintaining the geographically assigned area engineers.
Specific recommendations on guidance and best practices were assigned
to program managers which were reported on at the following FHWA/AASHTO
Annual Meeting. (Closed.)
FHWA Specification Approval Process.--Recommended a strong
facilitation and technical assistance role for the FHWA Headquarters
Office of Construction and Maintenance (C&M) in the Specifications
Approval Process. Recommended a continuing involvement by the field
offices of the FHWA in the development and enhancement of State
specifications. Led to an Action Plan by C&M which produced
computerized AASHTO guide specifications in clear, concise language.
(Closed.)
Identification of Procedural Differences on Transit/Highway
Projects.--A joint FHWA/FTA team looked at similarities and differences
in the FHWA's and FTA's administration of jointly funded projects. An
Action Plan has been developed to implement the twelve recommendations
of this report. These recommendations impact legislative and
regulatory, as well as operations and coordination. (Open.)
A Report on Research and Development (R&D) Contracting and
Assistance.--The FHWA staff teamed with academia and private industry
to look at ways the FHWA R&D Program's contracts and procurements
procedures could be broadened to facilitate more basic (long-term)
research. Resulted in formal guidance being directed and an overall
coordinator for the program being designated. (Closed.)
1994 reviews
The Implementation of Transportation Enhancements.--Concluded that
the TE program had sufficient projects to not lapse funds in the
setaside. However, a the nature of the program (i.e., large number of
small, local projects of nontraditional nature) is such that Federal
requirements are costly and cumbersome. Led to many State and Federal
initiatives to improve program efficiency. Also, had legislative and
regulatory considerations that have been explored during
reauthorization. (Pending.)
Report on the Follow-up Review of the Operation and Maintenance of
Traffic Control Systems.--This was a follow-up to the 1990 review. This
study concluded that progress had been made since the 1990 report on
that front. It recommended a strong role for the FHWA in the
development of these systems to continue to improve technical expertise
and to facilitate technology deployment and transfer. (Open.)
State Oversight of Locally Administered Federal-aid Projects.--
Reviewed State oversight and control of local projects which for the
most part are not on the National Highway System (NHS). Concluded that
State practices vary greatly on degree of oversight. Study identified
several best practices and recommended specific areas requiring State
oversight and the need to provide guidance and leadership in those
areas. The FHWA Division Offices were directed to take the lead in
follow-up actions. (Pending.)
Review on the use of Partnering in Federal Highway Programs.--
Looked at the implementation of partnering and assessed best practices.
Concluded major benefits in both design and construction partnering.
Found that partnering works best where operating criteria are developed
and project personnel are empowered. There is a need for management to
continually assess how the program is working. Transmittal asked the
FHWA Division Administrators to be proactive in advancing the
partnering concept and best practices. (Pending.)
Report on the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Safety Setaside
Program.--Assessed the impact of the STP setaside for safety, State
methodologies and the FHWA program involvement. The Report recommended
a continuing program involvement at the Division level including
implementing certain technical aspects of the Program and for
Headquarters and Regions to take a more active role in meeting
technical and data needs and overall technology transfer. (Pending.)
Kazakstan Transportation Mission.--This review, at the request of
the Kazakstan Government, assessed the current transportation (air,
rail, highway, and transit) infrastructure and recommended a plan of
action between the FHWA and Kazakstan Ministry of Transportation. The
areas covered technical assistance and future cooperation. (Closed.)
Joint FHWA/Caltrans/Industry Task Force.--Documented lessons
learned during the Northridge Earthquake to facilitate future emergency
relief efforts. Recommendations have been enacted to make these lessons
to future emergencies, recommendations included emergency teams,
Incentive/Disincentive clauses with A + B Bidding, quick funding
mechanisms, open communications, etc. (Closed.)
1995 reviews
The FHWA Oversight of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel
Project.--Assessed the quality of the FHWA oversight on the Harbor
Tunnel Project. Concluded overall oversight was excellent and
commensurate with the level of activity underway. Made specific
recommendations accepted by the field staff with regard to adding
process reviews to design and construction monitoring. These included
impact of tight design schedules on plans, quality, delegations of
approval authority for nonmajor changes and extra work, and more
empowerment of the area engineer staff. (Open.)
Tracking of its Expenditures in FMIS.--Reviewed the type of data,
consistency/quality of data, and use and retrieval of FMIS information.
Concluded that data sets did not meet program office needs; data input
needed more guidance, training, and control; retrieval should be more
user-friendly. A series of recommendations have been submitted to the
program office responsible for FMIS which is working to update FMIS to
meet overall program needs. (Pending.)
The Federal-aid Highway Program the District of Columbia Department
of Public Works (DC DPW).--This report used a Federal/State/Industry
team to assess DC DPW staff capabilities in all functional areas and
made extensive recommendations concerning organization, staffing,
training, computer systems, budget, procurement and finance. Resulted
in the formation of a DC transportation trust fund, a memorandum of
understanding concerning operational efficiencies, technical assistance
offered and provided by the FHWA, and the design of a transportation
element as a part of the President's proposed D.C. Revitalization Act
of 1997. Coordination with the DC DPW indicates progress has been made
on many fronts but substantial effort remains to overcome many
impediments. (Open.)
1996 reviews
Evaluation of Maintenance and the use of Preventive Maintenance on
the Interstate System.--Looked at the value of the Annual Interstate
Maintenance Program (IMP) Report, preventive maintenance practices of
the Interstate System and the effect of of Interstate Maintenance Funds
(IM) transfers on the program. Concluded the Annual Report was of
little value to the program and that transfers have not diminished IM
effectiveness. Recommended a broader IM program to stress preventive
maintenance. Based on these findings, Headquarters has dropped the
Annual Report requirement and has recommended system preservation as an
eligible item for IM funding under reauthorization. (Pending.)
Stewardship Follow-up Review.--Took another look at field office
stewardship following the 1993 review. Concluded that the Agency
continues to make progress in its transition from project oversight to
program quality improvement. Recommendations were accepted by the FHWA
Executive Director and issued as a policy response to the FHWA
management. Included was clear cut guidance on the FHWA role in non-NHS
projects, commitment to customer responsive training and strong
technical expertise, and the dropping of the Headquarters requirement
for Division Office Stewardship Plans. In addition, Headquarters
recognized States' comments on the need for strong Division Offices and
a continued strong emphasis on interagency coordination. (Pending.)
Process Review/Product Evaluation (PR/PE) Program: Use and
Practices Within FHWA.--Looked at PR/PE as a tool for oversight within
the FHWA and concluded that its employment continues to grow. The
report noted concern that this technique can not be the only means to
accomplish the FHWA objectives. It noted strong State support for
overall program management as opposed to project management. It
provided a list of best practices for quality improvement. As a result
of this review, Headquarters revised its overall stewardship philosophy
to one of program management to achieve continuous quality improvement.
It noted PR/PE as one aspect of this. The report also contained
specific recommendations to broaden PR/PE training to encompass total
quality enhancement, to focus on proliferation of best practices and to
move toward more partnering and joint reviews. (Pending.)
A Review of State Transportation Improvement Programs (STP) and
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).--Joint FHWA/FTA
review found overall support for the TIP/STIP processes as mandated by
the ISTEA. Recommended some ``clean up'' exceptions affecting
legislation or regulation, long-term administrative and short-term
administrative procedures. These include more cooperative financial
target setting, more flexible certifications and plan updates, more
FHWA/FTA compatibility, more State/MPO plan compatibility, more
widespread access to Federal financial information and more education
and training. The FHWA and FTA have developed an Action Plan to address
each of these recommendations. (Pending.)
Interagency Coordination With Federal Agencies During the FHWA
Project Planning and NEPA Processes.--Looked at the role of the FHWA,
State, and other Federal agencies in the NEPA/Project Planning process
and established a current baseline of operations. Found a variety of
conditions and an outstanding list of best practices. Laid out a
framework of recommendations at each level of the FHWA to improve
communications and understanding, determine and implement best
practices, and move the Agency and others to a resource preservation
concept of environmental enhancement on a programmatic basis as opposed
to ``postage stamp'' types of spot mitigation on individual F/A
projects. (Pending.)
1997 reviews
The following reviews are currently underway:
--Review of Longitudinal Utility Accommodation
--Efficiencies in Program Delivery of Small Federal-aid Programs
--Early Environmental Considerations in Planning Process
--Federal Role in Highway Safety
Question. Was there an additional or separate tithing for ADP
support or for the FHWA electronics laboratory that was not included in
the TFHRC support and overhead charges during fiscal year 1997?
Answer. No, the costs for ADP support and the FHWA electronics were
charged directly to offices that received the benefits.
Question. How was the study on the District of Columbia
transportation needs paid for? How did this expense affect the R&D
programs?
Answer. The FHWA paid for the study with funds from prior years'
balances. It did not affect expenditures for the research program in
fiscal year 1997.
Question. Please breakdown and futher justify the $934,000
requested for high speed data lines on p. 35 of the justification.
Answer. FHWA's Wide Area Network, installed using GSA's FTS 2000
network, provides FHWA field offices with access to e-mail, FHWA's
Intranet, the Internet and to FHWA's nationwide information systems,
which are processed at the US DOT Transportation Computer Center. The
network was installed in 1992 and provides access to 64 FHWA field
offices for agencywide E-mail and for access to FHWA's nationwide
mainframe systems, which are used by FHWA field offices to track
funding and project data for the $20 billion Federal-aid highway
program. The State DOT's also directly access and transmit data
electronically to these mission-critical mainframe-based systems. Since
that time the usage of the network has been expanded to handle video
conferencing, access to the Internet and to FHWA's (internal) Intranet,
and to additonal field offices, including DOT's new intermodal
Metropolitan Offices.
To cover the increasing usage and to provide the bandwidth required
to maintain satisfactory response times for access to the information
systems that are used to manage the Agency's programs, it has become
necessary to upgrade the line speeds and connections to the Wide Area
Network. The request for additional funding provides for upgrading the
data circuits to FHWA's Division Office in each State and for the
increased cost of operating these upgraded data circuits. It also
covers data communications costs for the new intermodal Metropolitan
Offices. This line item also supports the data lines that provide
access for all FHWA employees to the standard, Department-wide
administrative systems that are processed for DOT by the FAA. With the
new Management Information Reporting capability for the DOT-wide
personnel and accounting systems, FHWA's data access to these systems
will increase significantly. In addition, as the FHWA implements more
client/server applications that have graphical user interfaces and that
transfer increasing amounts of data between the application server and
the individual desktop PC's, additional data line capacity is needed to
accommodate these systems. This increase will provide this required
additional data transfer capacity and speed. ($666)
In addition, FHWA is a participant in the US DOT Intermodal Data
Network (IDN), which provides ``backbone'' connectivity for all FHWA
Headquarters Local Area Networks within the US DOT Headquarters
building. The IDN also provides intermodal E-mail links among the DOT
Operating Admininstrations and access to the Internet for all DOT
employees. As a participant in this network, the Operating
Administrations are required to provide funding to support the
continuing operations and maintenance of this system. ($268)
Question. Please discuss the components of FHWA's latest strategic
plan, GPRA initiatives, and total quality management objectives and
analyze how these are reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Answer. The FHWA is currently in the process of developing a
Strategic Plan for 1998 through 2003 that will reflect the programs and
funding levels in reauthorization. The Vision, Mission, Strategic
Goals, and Values sections of the Plan have been developed and we are
currently in the process of developing measurable objectives,
indicators and strategies. Over the past several months we have
consulted with our customers and partners to get their input into
defining our objectives and indicators through a series of focus group
meetings in Washington and a Federal Register notice requesting written
comments from those who were unable to attend a focus group meeting.
The first draft of the strategic plan will be presented to agency
management for consideration in August and we expect to have the draft
ready for review outside of the agency by the Fall. The Plan will not
be completed until after the reauthorization since the final plan may
need to be adjusted to reflect changes in program design and funding
levels from those proposed by the Administration.
The FHWA strategic planning process is considered to be a key
component of the agency's quality management initiative. Strategic
planning is one of the cornerstones of quality in the President's award
criteria and we are implementing a process that is consistent with this
criteria. In addition, our strategic planning process includes many of
the other characteristics of a well managed organization: customer
focus, an emphasis on results, and performance measurement. Since these
are also key components of the GPRA initiative, the performance
information required by GPRA are a product or our quality management
initiative. This has eliminated the need for creating a separate
process to initiate GPRA.
The FHWA Strategic Plan and the Program Performance Plans being
developed by our three major programs, Federal-aid, Federal Lands and
Motor Carriers for fiscal year 1999, will provide the performance
information required by the GPRA initiative for our budget submissions.
Although these plans were not ready at the time the fiscal year 1998
budget request was completed, the fiscal year 1998 request did include
some preliminary performance information to show how the agency
expected to use the resources requested to meet its goals and
objectives. For example, the Federal-aid Program identified as one of
its goals an increase in the percentage of mileage of pavements in good
condition on the National Highway System as measured by pavement
condition (PSR or IRI) and discussed the expected impact of available
Federal, State and local funding for highways on our ability to meet
this goal. However, performance indicators and baseline data were not
available for many of the goals and we were unable to fully link
resources to expected results. We expect to have a more complete set of
goals and indicators available for the fiscal year 1999 budget request
but there will still be gaps in our ability to link resources to
results. The next phase in our implementation of performance based
management will be focused on collecting and analyzing the data needed
to identify these links and to doing the in-depth analysis required to
better understand the causal relationships between our programs and the
goals we are working to achieve in cooperation with our partners.
Question. Please prepare a list of any reports or letters that were
requested during the last three years by either of the Appropriations
Committees that have not yet been submitted, and discuss their status
and expected submittal date.
Answer. The outstanding reports as of June 1997 are as follows:
House Report ``Belford Ferry Terminal''.--Status--The report is in
the final stages of the analysis should be released by August 1997.
Senate Report ``Multimodal Noise Prediction Model''.--Status--
Conducting research and final report should be released Spring 1998.
Senate Report ``User Financed CVISN''.--Status--A report which will
lay out both the methodology for determining the transition and a plan
of action will be ready in September 1997.
Conference Report ``Pilot Safety Rating Program''.--Status--
Developing a pilot project expect to release the report in February
1998.
Senate Report ``Commercial Drivers License''.--Status--
Incorporating changes and expect release date July 31, 1997.
Senate Report ``Motor Carrier 5-year Research Plan''.--Status--
Incorporating OMB/OST changes expect to release September 1997.
House Report ``I-5 Corridor in California''.--Status--FHWA (ITS),
FTA and the California DOT, are developing a comprehensive
transportation plan, report released date to be determined.
Senate Report ``Commercial Vehicle OPS Network Cost-Share''.--
Status--Developing a preliminary report expected to release October
1997.
Senate Report ``Grade Crossing Plan''.--Status--FHWA completed its
study and FRA is in the process of making update, release date to be
determined.
Question. What is the scope and nature of the research, development
and technology transfer activities actually conducted at Turner
Fairbanks? How are these activities integrated into the FHWA R, D, and
T program?
Answer. The Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) is the
primary location for research and development (R&D) within FHWA. The
major areas of R&D performed at the Center include safety, intelligent
transportation systems, pavements, structures, and materials. The
activities of the Center are integrated into the FHWA's R, D, and T
program through the Research and Technology Coordinating Groups and the
Research and Technology Executive Board (RTEB). Technical staff from
the Center serve as members on the individual coordinating groups where
the R, D, and T programs are developed. The Associate Administrator for
R&D who is responsible for the TFHRC serves on the RTEB which approves
the programs.
Question. Please breakout the total annual costs required to
maintain and operate the Turner Fairbanks Research Center.
Answer. The information is provided in the following table.
[In thousands of dollars]
Item Amount
Salaries and Benefits.............................................10,031
Utilities......................................................... 550
Communications (voice only)....................................... 412
Alterations....................................................... 50
Supplies.......................................................... 70
Other Services.................................................... 1,200
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total.......................................................12,313
Question. Please evaluate the benefits and costs of maintaining the
Turner Fairbanks Research Center.
Answer. The benefits of the TFHRC far outweigh the costs of
maintaining the Center. Regarding general benefits, the Center:
--has a critical mass of highway research in one place. The Center
has significant capabilities both in the areas of research
laboratories and research intellect.
--provides research, services, and technology that others can't
either because of limited resources or for intellectual
reasons. This role is especially true in the area of long-term,
high risk research. TFHRC has essentially the same number of
PhD's that all the State highway agencies have combined in the
research area.
--provides economy of scale in having a collection of unique
laboratories in one place rather than having these laboratories
located throughout the country. Everyone cannot afford to have
each of these laboratories.
--helps provide legitimacy for a national highway program. Since we
are national in scope, the results of our R&D can be much more
easily adopted on a national scale.
--provides training in cutting edge technologies.
--serves as an arbitrator and final authority on many highway
technology issues.
--a complete research facility at TFHRC permits and encourages the
synergy among staff that results in improved technologies in
related fields as well as more innovations in the specific
fields of endeavor. As an example we will just touch on
pavements and the impact of TFHRC work over the last several
years. Today's (and tomorrow's) pavements are better than
yesterday's in many ways as a result of the research and
development work led by FHWA--in portland cement concrete
pavement we have: drainable bases, chemical enhancers (set
retarders, plasticisers, etc.), engineered joints, improved
placement techniques, sawing technologies, curing systems,
recycling, significantly better mix designs, rapid testing
techniques, smoothness specifications and measurements, high-
performance concretes and patching materials, performance and
QA/QC specifications, high speed insitu testing of surface
texture and skid resistance and noise and subgrade support
(FWD), void/delamination/etc., detection thru high speed
imaging and pattern recognition systems, pavement management
systems and software, sophisticated forensic analysis of
pavement failures and state of the art material
characterization. In the area of asphalt pavements (with some
assistance from SHRP initiated research) the researchers at
TFHRC have led work resulting in better asphalt pavements
including: chemically modified asphalt binders, rut resistant
pavements, cold temperature crack resistant pavements, anti-
strip agents, understanding the effects of construction
variation on performance, accelerated pavement testing
(accelerated loading facilities at TFHRC, French/Hamburg/
Georgia/gyratories/etc., laboratory test equipment, test
tracks), impact of different tire geometry on pavement life,
open graded friction courses, aggregate properties, recycling,
bound/unbound bases, SUPERPAVE (development, validation,
testing procedures, training, equipment ruggedness testing and
calibration, etc.), specifications (smoothness, performance,
QA/QC etc.), nuclear testing, rapid testing, crack sealing
materials, pothole patching materials and techniques.
--There are, of course, synergistic relationships as can be drawn
from the above concrete and asphalt improvements but
furthermore there are the many truck--pavement interaction
issues relating to our research in dynamic loadings and
suspension systems, weigh-in-motion technologies, and testing
protocols. The Long Term Pavement Performance program run from
TFHRC draws on the reservoir of pavement technologists,
laboratories, computers and data to conduct tests and analyze
an international pavement data base so as to provide
performance related decision tools ranging from testing
protocols to best maintenance strategies to best design
parameters so as to lead the nations pavement managers to
utilizing the best practices available when designing, building
and maintaining the nations highways.
--As evidenced in the above example of just pavements, one can see
that TFHRC brings long-lasting national value to the highway
program because of its people, laboratories, international
networks, data bases and recognized national highway technology
leadership in Making Roads Better. The research Center has
contributed to major accomplishments and it is well positioned
to deliver the innovation that will lead our industry into the
next century.
Question. Why does this research need to be conducted at this
particular location?
Answer. There are several reasons why the research needs to be
conducted at the TFHRC. First and foremost, communications and
coordination with the FHWA Headquarters program office and technology
transfer personnel would be greatly reduced if the Center were at
another location. There would not be the daily contact which is so
important to the success of our research program. Communications and
coordination would also suffer between the FHWA research program and
the Transportation Research Board, as well as with the many other
public and private organizations which are located in the Washington,
D.C. area. It would be prohibitive from a travel budget standpoint to
maintain the degree of communications and coordination that currently
exists within the research program if the Center were at another
location. Because of the Center's location, development of personnel is
facilitated through exchanges with staff at the Headquarters offices.
Also, we have a very large investment at TFHRC both in terms of capital
assets and intellectual knowledge. There is a unique complex of R&D
laboratories which has been established at the TFHRC. It would be very
expensive and disruptive to the highway R&D program to recreate these
laboratories at another location.
Question. Could the facility be better housed at a UTC or URC to
achieve synergistic benefits?
Answer. There would be some benefits to housing the facility at a
UTC or URC. The interaction with the academic community at a university
would be beneficial, and there would be excellent opportunities for
students to participate in the research activities. However, for the
reasons stated in the response to the previous two questions, there are
significant and substantial advantages in having the TFHRC at its
present location in the Washington, DC area.
It is also important to note that we do have the synergistic
benefits of approximately 20 graduate research fellows (most students
are working on their doctorates) and this is typically more doctorate
students than are in doctorate programs in Civil Engineering at most
universities. We also host 3-5 university professors and a like number
of post doctorate scholars at TFHRC. The dynamic is further improved
through visiting researchers from foreign countries (5 at
any one time), from State DOTs and from other FHWA offices. The ability
to direct a long term research, development, and technology program and
to attract such a broad based intellectual component is something that
is not easily accomplished in the university environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Program ----------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety:
ISTEA...................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Applied Research Technology................ ........... ........... $4M $4M $4M
LGOE: Highway R&D.............................. $8.862M $5,738 8M 8.768M 8.768M
Materials:
LGOE....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Highway Research and Development........... 5.923 3.685 5.614M None None
Pavements:
ISTEA...................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
SHRP Implementation........................ 6M 8M 6M 6M 6M
Applied Research and Technology............ ........... ........... 2.8M 2M 2M
Seismic Research........................... 2M 2M 2M 2M 2M
Fundamental Prop. Of Asphalt and Mod.
Asphalts.................................. 3M 3M 3M 3M None
LGOE....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Highway Research and Development........... 7.278 7.259 7.7M 9.247M 20M
Structures:
ISTEA...................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Timber Bridge Research (1039).............. 1M 1M 1M 1M 1M
Applied Research and Technology (6005)..... ........... ........... 3.4M None None
LGOE....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Highway Research and Development........... 6.203 4,860M 6.5M 13.211M 14.558M
Long-term Pavement Performance:
LGOE....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Highway Research and Development........... 6M 7M 9M \1\ 8.739M None
Advanced research.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
ISTEA: Applied Research and Technology (6005).. ........... ........... 3.6M 0.600M None
National Highway Institute:
ISTEA...................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Applied Research and Technology (6005)..... None None .6M 2M 3M
Research and Technology (6001)............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Eisenhower Fellowships..................... 2M 2M 2M 2M 2M
LGOE: NHI.................................. 4.5M 4.5M 4,369,000 4,327,000 ...........
National Center for Advanced Transportation
Technology ISTEA-X379......................... 3M 2.5M None None None
University Trans. Centers (6023)-X329.......... 6M 6M 6M 5,247,459 ...........
Fiscal year 1996 reduced by Sec. 1003(c),
Public Law 102-240........................ ........... ........... ........... 5,247,459 ...........
University Research Institute--X331............ 6.250M 6.250M 6.250M 5,466,103
Reduced by Sec. 1003(c), Public Law 102-240 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Fairbank building renovation:
LGOE....................................... 1,940,000 1,250,000 3,000,000 None 500,000
Truck Dynamic Test Facility................ ........... ........... ........... .750M ...........
Section 6005............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Safety
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
safety fiscal year 1996-1998 funding
Question. Please prepare a comparative funding table for the Office
of Safety for fiscal years 1996-1998, broken out in the following
manner:
Answer. Information follows.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal enforcement program:
Program Costs...................... ......... ......... .........
PC&B and Support Costs............. $37,061 $39,196 $41,081
Number of staff: (Field)........... 449 456 456
Automated track inspection program:
Program Costs...................... $1,351 $1,203 $4,220
PC&B and Support Costs............. ......... ......... .........
Number of staff.................... ......... ......... .........
Safety regulation and program
administration:
Program Costs...................... $1,882 $1,760 $2,058
PC&B and Support Costs............. $9,262 $9,179 $9,708
Number of staff: (Headquarters).... 82 87 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
congressional reports
Question. For each of the rail safety studies specified on page 127
of Senate Report 104-325, please summarize your findings and
conclusions to date. When will the studies be released?
Answer. FRA has been directed by Congress to complete by June 1,
1997 studies on the following four topics. The studies are currently
being reviewed by both DOT and OMB. We plan to submit them to Congress
by mid to late August.
1. Study the technical, structural, and economic feasibility of
automatic train escape devices and their benefits to public safety.
A reliable technology to sense emergency situations does not
currently exist. This makes automatic escape devices not technically
feasible, and the additional risks that they create would cast serious
doubts on their benefit to the public.
As a result, FRA believes increased emphasis on manually operated
emergency escape devices will meet the intent of the Committee's
concern. Manually operated emergency escape devices include: emergency
windows, manual door releases on powered doors, roof hatches and kick-
out panels or pop-out windows in doors that may become jammed. Working
with the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group, FRA has
developed a Passenger Equipment Safety NPRM. The NPRM proposes separate
safety standards for equipment that travels at speeds up to 125 mph
(Tier I equipment) and for equipment that travels at speeds greater
than 125 mph up to 150 mph (Tier II equipment).
2. Study whether the development of minimum safety standards for
fuel tanks of locomotives of rail passenger trains is warranted, taking
into account environmental and public safety.
FRA has determined that minimum standards for fuel tanks are
warranted. The standards proposed by the NPRM for passenger equipment
safety standards include:
--The Association of American Railroads Recommended Practice RP-506
as minimum standards for fuel tanks on Tier I passenger
equipment.
--Ruggedized construction with bottom skid surfaces and more rail
clearance for Tier II or high speed equipment.
3. Study the feasibility of establishing minimum crashworthiness
standards for passenger cab cars, including requiring crash posts at
the corners of rail passenger cars and safety locomotives on rail
passenger trains.
FRA has determined that establishing crashworthiness requirements
for newly constructed cab cars is feasible. The NPRM for passenger
equipment safety standards will propose such standards including
minimum requirements for corner posts and increased strength collision
posts.
4. Study the placement of rail signals along railways, including
whether FRA should require that a signal be placed along a railway at
each exit of a rail station, and that a signal be placed so that it is
visible only to the train employee of a train that the signal is
designed to influence.
FRA's Emergency Order 20 addressed the issue of signal compliance
following station stops through imposition of the ``delayed in block
rule,'' which requires that the engineer operate the train in the same
conservative manner after each station prior to a home signal that can
require a stop. The requirement is underscored by appropriate signage.
In FRA's judgment, placing a second distant signal following the
station stop would not enhance safety. Further, FRA rules already
address the need for signals to be clearly associated with the track
they control, and FRA will continue to address the need to properly
align and focus individual signals through its field compliance.
national transportation safety board recommendations
Question. What are the remaining open NTSB recommendations, and
what is FRA doing to respond? Please also list all NTSB recommendations
for the last three years that have been addressed, and closed,
indicating whether or not NTSB was satisfied.
Answer. As of July 11, the FRA has 45 open NTSB recommendations
(See attached list). They relate to the following areas:
Track............................................................. 4
Equipment......................................................... 27
Signals........................................................... 5
Operating Practices............................................... 4
Hazardous Materials............................................... 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 45
The FRA is working to address all of them and a large majority are
included in ongoing regulatory development projects. The 4
recommendations related to track are included in an ongoing rulemaking.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Track Safety Standards was
published July 3. The Motive Power and Equipment recommendations
primarily relate to locomotive cabs, brake systems, passenger
equipment, steam locomotives or locomotive event recorders. Most of
these items are included in rulemaking projects or being considered by
the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) for potential rulemaking. The
major signal and train control issue is positive train control. There
are 3 demonstration projects and additional developmental efforts are
underway. An updated report is about to be transmitted to the Congress
on this issue. The major operating practices issue is the vision of the
locomotive engineer, and RSAC is addressing it. The hazardous materials
recommendations relate to tank cars. Action has been completed on 2 and
is underway on the third.
The NTSB has closed the following recommendations in the past 3
years:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations Subject Closed based on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994:
88-23....................... Alcohol/Drug Reconsidered.
Testing.
88-24....................... Alcohol/Drug Acceptable Action.
Testing.
88-25....................... Alcohol/Drug Reconsidered.
Testing.
88-29....................... Alcohol/Drug Acceptable
Testing. Alternate Action.
88-31....................... Alcohol/Drug Acceptable Action.
Testing.
88-32....................... Alcohol/Drug Acceptable
Testing. Alternate Action.
80-02....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
84-10....................... Maintenance of Way Unacceptable
Cars. Action.
87-47....................... Hazardous Acceptable Action.
Materials.
1995:
90-51....................... Grade Crossings... Acceptable Action.
91-25....................... Train Control..... Acceptable Action.
93-11....................... Assessments....... Acceptable Action.
89-82....................... Telemetry Devices. Superceded.
92-11....................... Locomotive Fuel No longer
Tanks. applicable.
92-11....................... Locomotive Fuel Acceptable Action.
Tanks.
92-13....................... Locomotive Fuel Reconsidered.
Tanks.
94-15....................... Train Control..... Acceptable Action.
91-39....................... Hours of Service Acceptable Action.
Records.
92-1........................ Engineer Training. Acceptable Action.
1996:
94-1........................ Track Inspection.. Unacceptable
Action.
94-2........................ Track Standards... Unacceptable
Action.
85-64....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
88-59....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
88-61....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable
Alternate Action.
88-63....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
88-64....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
92-21....................... Tank Cars......... Acceptable Action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of NTSB recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB
number Subject Status Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track (4):
91-65 Review Track Standards NTSB Response Received 7-13-92................. OAA
91-66 CWR Standards NTSB Response Received 7-13-92................. OAA
96-13 Research--Flat Rail Heads NTSB Response Received 4-16-97................. OAA
96-14 Regulation--Flat Rail NTSB Response Received 4-16-97................. OAA
Heads
Motive power and equipment
(27):
87-23 Locomotive Cabs NTSB Response Received 1-9-96.................. OAA
88-20 Locomotive Sill Heights FRA Update Sent 11-30-90....................... OUA
89-51 Shelf Couplers on FRA Update Sent 11-30-90....................... ORR
Locomotives
89-81 Brake Tests (Cold NTSB Response Received 6-28-91................. OAA
Weather)
90-23 Dynamic Brakes--Indicator FRA Update Sent 5-10-91........................ OUA
90-24 Dynamic Brakes-- FRA Update Sent 5-10-91........................ OAR
Functional
91-26 Alerters NTSB Response Received 9-22-93................. OAA
91-51 Special Use Equipment-- NTSB Response Received 8-31-93................. OAA
Inspection
91-52 Special Use Equipment-- NTSB Response Received 8-31-93................. OAA
Derailment Notice
91-53 Special Use Equipment-- NTSB Response Received 8-31-93................. OAA
Reporting
91-54 Special Use Equipment-- NTSB Response Received 8-31-93................. OAA
Haz-Mat
92-10 Research Loco Fuel Tanks NTSB Response Received 2-21-96................. OAA
93-16 Passenger Train Brake NTSB Response Received 11-22-93................ OAA
Inspections
93-24 Passenger Car Corner NTSB Response Received 4-29-94................. OAA
Posts
95-1 Passenger Car Wheels NTSB Response Received 8-16-95................. OAA
95-21 TOFC/COFC NTSB Response Received 8-4-95.................. OAA
96-7 Commuter-Rail Emergency FRA Initial Reply Sent 6-6-96.................. ORR
Exits
96-53 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-54 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-55 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-57 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-58 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-59 Steam Locomotives FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
96-70 Event Recorder--Testing FRA Initial Reply Due 5-8-97................... OAR
96-71 Event Recorder-- FRA Initial Reply Due 5-8-97................... OAR
Inspections
96-72 Event Recorder-- FRA Initial Reply Due 5-8-97................... OAR
Inspection Form
96-73 Event Recorder--Lead FRA Initial Reply Due 5-8-97................... OAR
Locomotive
Signal, communications and
grade crossings (5):
87-16 Train Control System FRA Update Sent 8-24-94........................ OAA
93-12 Dates for ATCS NTSB Response Received 9-22-95................. OAA
94-13 Train Control--Identify NTSB Response Received 11-13-95................ OAA
Benefits
94-14 Train Control--Cost/ NTSB Response Received 11-13-95................ OAA
Benefit Analysis
96-50 Grade Crossing Inventory FRA Initial Response Sent 4-3-97............... ORR
Operating practices (4):
87-66 Train Dispatchers-- NTSB Response Received 12-20-95................ OAA
Selection/Training
96-56 Hours of Service--Tourist FRA Initial Reply Due 2-3-97................... OAR
Railroads
97-1 Color Vision Testing-- FRA Initial Response Due 7-8-97................ ORR
Engineers
97-2 Engineer Ceritification FRA Initial Response Due 7-8-97................ ORR
Requirments
Hazardous materials (5):
89-48 Closure fittings on tank FRA Update Sent 3-25-97........................ OAA
cars
89-49 Tank car valves and FRA Update Sent 3-25-97........................ OAA
gaskets
90-38 Position of HM in Train FRA Update Sent 3-25-97........................ OAA
92-22 Develop Tank Car Testing FRA Update Sent 3-25-97........................ OAA
Require- ments
95-9 Tank Car Interiors FRA Update Sent 3-25-97........................ OAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB classification summary:
Open Await Reply (OAR)........................................ 12
Open Reply Received (ORR)..................................... 5
Acceptable Response (OAA)..................................... 26
Open Unacceptable Action (QUA)................................ 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total................................................... 45
The three NTSB recommendations that are not covered in rulemaking
proceedings are as follows:
--Recommendation R-95-21 requested the FRA to advise the NTSB of our
progress in implementing remedial actions regarding the
securement of containers or trailers on flat rail cars. The
Board has been provided with the requested information.
--Recommendation R-96-50 requested that FRA include information
regarding preemption of interconnected signals at highway-rail
grade crossings in our inventory. This effort is underway. We
expect it to be completed by the end of August. The Board has
been notified as to the progress and is satisfied.
--Recommendation R-96-56 requested that we work with the Tourist
Railway Association in promoting awareness of compliance with
the Hours of Service Act. A Tourist and Historic Railroads
working group has been established under the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee to address safety issues on these railroads.
FRA has provided the group with Hours of Service information
for their members and invited them to our regional training
sessions on operating practices safety matters.
railroad user fees
Question. Are the railroad safety user fees described in Sec. 328
of the bill language in the fiscal year 1998 Budget Appendix to be
imposed and collected beginning in fiscal year 1998? Why is this
proposed in appropriations legislation? Isn't ``prescribing by
regulation a schedule of fees for railroad carriers'' a legislative
matter under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees?
Answer. Our railroad user fee proposal envisions collection of
railroad user fees in fiscal year 1998. Congress originally established
the railroad user fee program for a five-year term in the 1990 Budget
Reconciliation Act. We believe the Congress should reauthorize the
program this year and could do so either through the reconciliation
legislation being enacted to carry out the fiscal year 1998 Budget
Resolution or, due to its close relationship to the Department's
overall funding, through the fiscal year 1998 DOT Appropriations Act.
Accordingly, we have included enabling language for the program as part
of our proposed 1998 DOT appropriations bill language.
office of safety user fees
Question. Are these fees designed to fully offset the costs of the
FRA's Office of Safety programs in fiscal year 1998? How much money is
expected to be collected from these fees? How is this reflected in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request?
Answer. The Administration's proposed reauthorization for FRA's
Office of Safety user fees has been expanded to cover all funding of
Safety Appeals and the Safety Law Division of the Office of Chief
Counsel. While collections will equal the sum of the two programs,
collections will not offset FRA appropriations, but instead will be
reflected as a general receipt to Treasury. The fiscal year 1998
estimate for these collections is $59.8 million. Additional information
can be found on pages 3 and 5 of FRA's Congressional Budget Submission.
industry responses to user fees
Question. What are the responses from the railroad industry to the
user fee proposal?
Answer. The railroad industry has consistently opposed railroad
safety user fees. The industry considers these fees to be an
inequitable financial burden which affects their ability to compete
with other transportation modes.
government performance and results act
Question. Please discuss how FRA is moving towards performance-
oriented regulation.
Answer. Risk assessment is the key to establishing performance-
oriented regulations. FRA is using risk assessment to evaluate rail
corridors, which may become candidates for the installation of Positive
Train Control Systems. The Agency foresees increasing use of this
technique in the future. But creating the climate for performance-
oriented regulation requires building confidence among critical
constituent groups. In addition, it is essential that any new
regulatory approach considered by FRA provides a constructive means of
engaging the railroads. This can best be accomplished by developing
performance standards that address discrete areas of concern,
implementing those standards successfully, and moving toward more
flexible approaches as experience is acquired. The Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) and other collaborative rulemaking forums
provide venues for moving this evolution forward at a pace that is
realistic in light of available technical knowledge and all relevant
externalities.
The field of high-speed rail is one in which FRA has been most
aggressive in utilizing system safety and risk assessment techniques to
fashion a regulatory approach. Our forthcoming notices of proposed
rulemaking for passenger equipment safety and for the Florida Overland
Express strongly emphasize system safety planning. FRA believes that
this effort can provide the beginning of a template for dedicated
operations. However, the reality confronted by a regulatory agency in
evaluating an entirely new service involves many complex issues.
Benchmark criteria are needed for systems, subsystems and critical
components in order to evaluate the nature and magnitude of technical
risk before system risk can be fairly estimated.
The complexity of the effort is certainly no reason not to
implement the system safety concept. FRA's Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program shifts the Agency's routine safety monitoring from a
site-specific to a systems assessment approach. However, system safety
is a process and discipline that must be internalized by the entity
actually operating the service. Prior audits of entities that have
prepared system safety plans have sometimes found that planning
documents have become stale and were not well integrated into the
actual operation of the service. FRA seeks to foster meaningful system
safety planning that becomes an essential element in the way the system
is actually operated. To the extent this safety focus is established
and maintained, reinforcement can be provided through allowance for
much greater flexibility with respect to the manner in which safety
objectives are achieved.
federal enforcement program increase
Question. Please provide additional justification for the nearly
$1,900,000 increase requested for fiscal year 1998 as indicated on page
43 for the Federal Enforcement Program. Why couldn't some of these
funding expenditures be delayed?
Answer.
--The total fiscal year 1998 request for the Federal Enforcement
Program is $41 million, which supports the 456 field FTE that
are directly involved in monitoring the railroads to ensure
that they are complying with Federal Safety rules and
regulations.
--Increase over fiscal year 1997 is $1.885 million.
--Of this amount, $1.866 million or 99 percent is for non-
discretionary increases that must be paid in fiscal year 1998
since they represent operating costs to maintain ongoing field
operations.
--Costs related to pay raises, inflation, vendor increases, TASC,
telephone and other support costs cannot be delayed as they are
mandatory bills that must be paid.
--Only $19K represents new funding for FRA's Video Conferencing
initiative. The Safety office is a primary user of this system.
--If the non-discretionary increases are not funded, the Office of
Safety would be required to either reduce the number of
inspections or restrict the enforcement activities of each
inspector. Either option would jeopardize FRA's safety program.
office of safety ftes
Question. Please break down the number of FTE in each region. What
does the FRA anticipate the runover rate to be, and are there plans or
resources for hiring additional staff? How is this reflected in the
fiscal year 1998 request? How is the staff allocation related to
problem railroads and risk?
Answer. The information follows:
Region Number of FTES
Cambridge......................................................... 50
Philadelphia...................................................... 68
Atlanta........................................................... 68
Chicago........................................................... 59
Hurst............................................................. 67
Kansas City....................................................... 52
Sacramento........................................................ 44
Vancouver......................................................... 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 456
FRA anticipates the turnover rate to be approximately 2.6 percent.
The FRA does not have any plans or resources to hire additional staff
in fiscal year 1998, and no funding was included in the Office of
Safety Budget Submission.
The Regional Administrators, Safety Coordinators, and headquarters
managers are responsible for the development of an annual strategic
resource allocation plan. They meet annually to plan how resources will
be used for the year. The team uses the Annual Allocation Analysis
(AAA) model as the starting point for targeting resources.
The AAA model allocates inspection resources to geographical areas
that have a higher than average risk factor. This model provides
information about railroad systems based on a select group of risk
factors, such as the number of train accidents, serious injuries, train
miles, employee hours, defect ratio, false proceed signal indications,
and freight and hazardous materials tonnage.
safety field offices/ftes
Question. Please display, by region, the current safety inspection
field offices and number of personnel at each office.
Answer. The information follows:
Location Number of employees
Region 1:
Cambridge..................................................... 22
Clifton Park.................................................. 7
Newark........................................................ 14
Buffalo....................................................... 5
Bangor........................................................ 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 50
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 2:
Philadelphia.................................................. 26
Cincinnati.................................................... 6
Cleveland..................................................... 4
Columbus...................................................... 3
Charleston.................................................... 5
Norfolk....................................................... 4
Hanover....................................................... 6
Pittsburgh.................................................... 7
Roanoke....................................................... 3
Toledo........................................................ 2
Harrisburg.................................................... 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 68
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 3:
Atlanta....................................................... 24
Jacksonville.................................................. 9
Louisville.................................................... 7
Nashville..................................................... 4
Knoxville..................................................... 2
Memphis....................................................... 4
Mobile........................................................ 5
Charlotte..................................................... 7
Birmingham.................................................... 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 68
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 4:
Chicago....................................................... 33
Indianapolis.................................................. 9
Ft. Snelling.................................................. 9
Detroit....................................................... 6
Peoria........................................................ 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 59
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 5:
Hurst......................................................... 28
Houston....................................................... 12
Little Rock................................................... 6
New Orleans................................................... 8
Oklahoma City................................................. 3
San Antonio................................................... 4
Shreveport.................................................... 3
El Paso....................................................... 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 67
Region 6:
Kansas City................................................... 28
St. Louis..................................................... 7
Lakewood...................................................... 9
Omaha......................................................... 5
Des Moines.................................................... 1
Wichita....................................................... 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 52
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 7:
Sacramento.................................................... 27
Salt Lake City................................................ 6
Riverside..................................................... 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 44
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Region 8:
Vancouver..................................................... 23
Spokane....................................................... 4
Seattle....................................................... 4
Pocatello..................................................... 5
Bismark....................................................... 5
Billings...................................................... 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 456
safety office telecommuters
Question. How many Office of Safety employees have elected to
telecommute since the National Partnership Council implemented Phase I
of the telecommuting process in September 1995 (please break out by
fiscal year 1996 and 1997)? When will this process be complete? How
many field offices have been closed (please name locations)?
Answer. Since the inception of telecommuting in 1995, 122 employees
have elected to telecommute: 53 in fiscal year 1996 and an additional
69 in fiscal year 1997.
It is anticipated that the Office of Safety's telecommuting program
will be fully implemented by fiscal year 1999 with approximately 200
employees telecommuting.
The following ten (10) field offices have been closed: Bangor, ME;
Memphis, TN; Knoxville, TN; Tampa, FL; Shreveport, LA; San Antonio, TX;
Spokane, WA; Wichita, KS; Peoria, IL; Roanoke, VA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Roanoke office, originally scheduled to close in fiscal
year 1998, closed late April 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inspector workload
Question. Last year, how many miles of railroad track, freight
cars, locomotives, and track miles with signal and train control
systems were inspected? Please compare this level of inspection
activity with that achieved during the two preceding years. How were
these activities focused on high risk railroads and shippers?
Answer.
INSPECTION DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
1994 1995 1996 \1\ change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track:
Number of inspections....... 15,449 12,668 11,522 -9
Miles inspected............. 329,019 272,476 260,422 -4
Records inspected........... 169,849 132,420 132,972 ........
Defects recorded............ 88,611 69,817 65,731 -6
Signal:
Number of inspections....... 6,553 5,391 5,327 -1
Units inspected............. 86,456 55,414 51,097 -8
Records inspected........... 92,939 66,823 83,486 +25
Defects recorded............ 11,522 22,169 19,078 -14
Motive power and equipment:
Number of inspections....... 16,956 15,579 14,798 -5
Locomotives inspected....... 33,597 29,916 24,257 -19
Cars inspected.............. 832,197 700,838 628,250 -10
Defects recorded............ 134,185 123,078 107,633 -13
Operating practices:
Number of inspections....... 17,710 13,501 12,801 -5
Complaints received......... 4,177 1,519 1,383 -9
Defects recorded............ 17,621 35,880 16,758 -53
Hazardous materials:
Number of inspections....... 12,047 10,461 10,462 ........
Tank cars inspected......... 99,356 77,992 76,348 -2
Defects recorded............ 17,073 21,649 17,856 -18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary
The Regional Administrators, Safety Coordinators, and headquarters
managers are responsible for the development of an annual strategic
resource allocation plan. They meet annually to plan how resources will
be used for the year. Accident and inspection data that highlight
questionable safety performance by a railroad are analyzed to decide if
a Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) project is appropriate
or whether traditional site-specific inspection actions are needed. FRA
uses its SACP process for system-wide improvements of safety problems
and traditional site-specific inspections to target individual
problems.
hazmat accidents
Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-involved rail accidents
in calendar year 1996, noting date, location, railroad, type of hazmat,
any fatalities, injuries, evacuations or other complications, and the
estimated cost of damage and loss for each. Please also summarize the
probable cause of each accident Answer: The following major rail
accidents involving the release of a hazardous material are summarized
below:
Date.--02/01/96
Location.--Cajon, California
Railroad.--Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF)
Type of hazmat.--Hazmat involved: Three cars each of either
petroleum distillates, denatured alcohol, and trimethyl phosphite
burned completely. One tank car of butyl acrylate in a pressurized
tank, was exploded to relieve pressure and released 1,700 gallons of
product. The remainder was transloaded. One car of methyl ethyl ketone
derailed one wheel, but was upright and undamaged.
Fatalities.--2
Injuries.--1
Evacuations or other complications.--50
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$3,765,294
Probable cause.--Insufficient braling force allowed the speed of
the train to increase, making it impossible for the train to negotiate
the seven degree curve to the left. A blockage in the train line (air
brake system) occurred which prevented proper application of the air
brakes from the point of blockage rearward to the end of train. Due to
the massive destruction of the derailed equipment, the exact point of
blockage could not be determined.
Date.--02/06/96
Location.--Waverly, West Virginia
Railroad.--CSX Transportation
Type of hazmat.--One empty car contained potassium nitrate RESIDUE,
but did not lose product. The derailment ruptured a buried, privately
owned 2 inch gas transmission line running from a nearby oil well to a
local cement castings plant. The ruptured gas line began venting
natural gas, so a nearby school was evacuated. Approximately 150
residents and students were evacuated.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--150
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$43,000
Probable cause.--Broken rail (transverse/compound fissure).
Date.--02/07/96
Location.--Powersville, Missouri
Railroad.--SOO Line
Type of hazmat.--Eight boxcars containing EXPLOSIVES 1.1 were
derailed. Five of the eight were on their sides and three were leaning.
Twenty-nine bombs had broken out of the lead car and fouled the right-
of-way. A precautionary evacuation affected one family.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--2
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$294,903
Probable cause.--Broken rail (split web).
Date.--02/21/96
Location.--Leadville, Colorado
Railroad.--Southern Pacific (SP)
Type of hazmat.--Six tank cars containing sulfuric acid derailed
and spilled 51,351 gallons of product.
Fatalities.--2
Injuries.--1
Evacuations or other complications.--20
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$4,907,872
Probable cause.--The student engineer's failure to control the
train speed on a steep grade by use of the available train air brake
system.
Date.--02/28/96
Location.--Cushing, Minnesota
Railroad.--Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF)
Type of hazmat.--Two tank cars derailed containing liquid propane
gas (one car leaked it's product) and four tank cars containing
anhydrous ammonia (one car leaked it's product).
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--33
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$691,350
Probable cause.--Broken joint bar (track).
Date.--03/04/96
Location.--Weyauwega, Wisconsin
Railroad.--Wisconsin Central (WC)
Type of hazmat.--Seven tank cars containing liquid petroleum gas
ignited, seven tank cars containing propane derailed and two cars
containing sodium hydroxide were on their side and breached.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--3,155
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$1,165,277
Probable cause.--Broken right-hand switch point on main track
turnout (bolt hole break out).
Date.--03/06/96
Location.--Selkirk, New York
Railroad.--ConRail (CR)
Type of hazmat.--A tank car containing liquid petroleum gas (LPG)
exploded as it coupled to two other tank cars containing LPG. The
result was a violent rupture and ensuing fire.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--150
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$12,525
Probable cause.--Tank car shell fracture caused by impact coupling
forces combined with an ambient temperature below the tank shell
ductile to brittle transition failure. Contributing factors, the
existence of a defect in a weld overlay repair to the tank shell
provided a crack initiation site for the failure.
Date.--03/21/96
Location.--Ada, Oklahoma
Railroad.--Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN)
Type of hazmat.--Nine tank cars containing denatured alcohol
derailed. Seven of the cars released 195,841 gallons of product and
caught fire.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--816
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$203.113
Probable cause.--Broken axle (casting defect) on tank car GATX
79780.
Date.--04/11/96
Location.--Alberton, Montana
Railroad.--Montana Rail Link (MRL)
Type of hazmat.--One tank car containing chlorine derailed and
released product, one tank car containing sodium chlorate derailed and
spilled product, and one tank car containing potassium cresylate
derailed.
Fatalities.--1
Injuries.--123
Evacuations or other complications.--500
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$382,100
Probable cause.--Broken rail (vertical split head).
Date.--06/29/96
Location.--Singer, Louisiana
Railroad.--Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Type of hazmat.--Six tank cars containing propylene oxide, no
leaks; one tank car Alcohol ethyoxylate, lost \2/3\ of its contents;
one tank car diethanolamine, triethanolamine, lost entire contents.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--50
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$840,923
Probable cause.--Burned off journal caused by a failed roller
bearing on tank car SUNX 24805.
Date.--10/04/96
Location.--Lovell, Wyoming
Railroad.--Burlington Northern (BN)
Type of hazmat.--Approximately 9,690 gallons of diesel fuel
reportedly spilled from the ruptured fuel tanks and a fire ensued.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--3
Evacuations or other complications.--11
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$1,519,000
Probable cause.--Head-end collision. The crewmembers of BN 01-223
did not operate their train at restricted speed.
Date.--11/07/96
Location.--Lake Cormorant, Mississippi
Railroad.--Illinois Central (IC)
Type of hazmat.--One tank car containing hydrochloric acid residue
and one tank car containing toluene diiscyanate derailed and 19,000
gallons of product was released.
Fatalities.--0
Injuries.--0
Evacuations or other complications.--2100
Estimated cost of railroad damage.--$81,094
Probable cause.--The cause of the derailment was excessive slack
action and buff forces within the train.
hazmat improvements
Question. What improvements to FRA's hazmat program have been made
since last year. Answer: All FRA and State hazardous materials
inspectors have recently attended a one week recurrent course that
updated them on the 29 final rules published by RSPA since August 1995.
State inspectors have been issued lap top computers to assist them in
preparing their reports. In addition, FRA and State HM inspectors have
been furnished with a computer program, for their lap tops, (developed
by FRA field forces) to compute filling densities. This eliminated the
timely task of performing hand calculations.
FRA field forces are being furnished with recently published
notices and final rules issued by RSPA through FRA's Internet system
(E-Mail). This provides inspectors with a timely notice of what has
been published and directs them to effective dates of the notice. The
system is being expanded to our State partners.
FRA is in the process of updating inspectors laptop computers for
CD ROM capability. FRA's goal is to provide a CD disk to inspectors
(including State) that will have FRA interpretations, 49 CFR citations,
technical bulletins and enforcement manual.
FRA has been partnering with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) in their
Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team training (CITAT).
Over 40 FRA Hazardous Materials Inspectors have attended CITAT courses
offered and sponsored by USCG. These courses have assisted our
inspectors identifying problems with containers and IM portable tanks
used to transport hazardous materials at port facilities and rail
container yards. In addition, FRA Hazardous materials inspectors have
participated in over 10 multi-modal inspections at various port
facilities involving USCG, Customs, Federal Highway Administration,
RSPA, and State governments.
Implementation of a major rulemaking affecting tank car safety.
Dockets HM-175A and HM-201 pertaining to the crash worthiness
protection requirements for tank cars; detection and repair of cracks;
pits; corrosion; lining flaws; thermal protection flaws and other
defects of tank car tanks. This also includes damage tolerance analysis
and quality assurance programs for manufacturing and repair facilities.
FRA's Hazardous Materials Division is currently working with RSPA
and Transport Canada in developing a North American Standard for tanks
cars that will be performance based and follow U.N. guidelines.
FRA continues to partner with its external customers on ``Ensuring
Tank Car Safety'', numerous meetings have been conducted with rail
management and labor, chemical shippers, tank car manufacturers, repair
facilities and suppliers in determining what type of research
government and industry is currently performing, in an effort to
consolidate research programs and optimize research dollars available
for research, and provide direction in areas that need to be addressed
(e.g.; use of modern technology--Acoustic emission).
high risk hazmat shippers
Question. Previously, FRA promised that FRA inspectors would direct
adequate focus on high risk hazmat shippers. How is this now done? How
are high risk shippers identified?
Answer. FRA has issued, February 28, an Annual Allocation Analysis
Model to its field that highlights railroad safety performance
information for use with other resources to determine if a Safety
Assurance Compliance Program action is needed or whether a focused
site-specific inspection is needed. The model will be a valuable tool
in assisting FRA's field in the deployment of field resources to ensure
that acute compliance problems and other significant safety issues are
identified and resolved. The model includes a hazmat model that covers
railroad operations. Another model is near completion that will address
high-risk hazmat shippers.
sacp--railroad system analysis
Question. FRA is performing safety analyses of railroads on a
system-wide basis, in an effort to be more risk based and cooperative
in its safety enforcement efforts. How many railroads have been
analysed by FRA so far (list by name of railroad and class)? What
analyses are ongoing?
Answer. Since October 1994, thirty-six railroads have been analysed
in conjunction with the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP).
Name Class
1. Chicago & North Western....................................... I
2. Southern Pacific.............................................. I
3. Iowa Interstate............................................... II
4. Conrail....................................................... I
5. Kansas City Southern.......................................... I
6. Florida East Coast............................................ II
7. Tri-County Commuter Rail...................................... Other
8. Union Pacific................................................. I
9. Montana Rail Link............................................. II
10. CSXT.......................................................... I
11. Dakota, Minnesota and Duluth.................................. II
12. Gateway Western............................................... II
13. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Metra (Chicago).......... II
14. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit (SEPTA)..................... II
15. Wisconsin Central............................................. II
16. Long Island Rail.............................................. II
17. Springfield Terminal.......................................... II
18. Belt Railway Company of Chicago............................... II
19. Norfolk Southern.............................................. I
20. Alaska Railroad............................................... I
21. Railtex....................................................... Other
22. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations............................ II
23. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern....................................... II
24. Metro North Commuter.......................................... II
25. Burlington Northern/Santa Fe.................................. I
26. Canadian National (GTW/DWP)................................... I
27. Illinois Central (Chicago Central)............................ I
28. Amtrak........................................................ I
29. Canadian Pacific (SOO)........................................ I
30. Canadian Pacific (Delaware & Hudson).......................... I
31. Indiana Harbor Belt........................................... II
32. MetroLink (SCRRA)............................................. Other
33. Central Oregon & Pacific...................................... Other
34. Texas Mexican................................................. II
35. North American Rail Net....................................... Other
36. I&M Rail Link................................................. Other
Categorization of railroads is in accordance with guidelines cited
in FRA's Accident Incident Bulletin.
Additional railroads scheduled for fiscal year 1997. Texas Oklahoma
& Eastern/DeQueen & Eastern; Dakota, Missouri Valley and Western
Railroad; Central Railroad of Michigan; Escanaba and Lake Superior;
Wisconsin Southern; Toledo, Peoria and Western; Northern Indiana
Commuter; Carolina Southern; Arizona and California; Blue Mountain
Reading and Northern; Ann Arbor; Kyle Railroad; Wheeling and Lake Erie;
Amtrak capital Corridor; Indianapolis and Louisville; Red River Valley
and Western Railroad; Farmrail/Grainbelt.
Since the SACP is viewed as a process, FRA continues analysis of a
railroad after the ``termination or completion'' of a specific SACP
assessment. The partnerships established as a result of the SACP
provide a foundation for addressing future safety concerns between FRA,
railroad management, and labor. Examples of current analyses include
the following issues:
Amtrak:
--Inaccurate accident/incident reporting.
--Failure to comply with Blue Signal protection regulations.
--Training of mechanical department employees on new equipment.
Kansas City Southern:
--Grade Crossing/Trespasser issues.
Long Island:
--Signal and Train Control issues.
Rail Tex:
--Daily inspection and maintenance of locomotives.
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern:
--Train air brake testing.
The above issues are being addressed by partnerships composed of
representatives from FRA, railroad management, and labor organizations.
sacp agreements
Question. Please summarize what safety plan agreements between FRA
and railroads are now in place. How enforceable are these agreements?
Answer. Under the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP),
FRA seeks to develop partnerships between FRA, railroad management and
labor organizations to mutually identify and resolve safety concerns.
Where problems are detected, the railroad presents an action plan aimed
at resolving them. FRA has entered into informal agreements with the
following railroads as a result of a SACP assessment of their
respective operating practices and procedures: Southern Pacific, Iowa
Interstate, Conrail, Kansas City Southern, Union Pacific, Montana Rail
Link, CSX, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern, Gateway Western, SEPTA, Long
Island Rail Road, Norfolk Southern, Alaska, Railtex Amtrak, and Elgin,
Joliet & Eastern. The issues cited by FRA's assessments have been
addressed by the aforementioned railroads and, with the exception of
Amtrak, are in the process of being resolved or closed. Amtrak's Action
Plan was recently received in May and FRA is currently reviewing the
carrier's response to the various issues cited during our assessment. A
preliminary review of Amtrak's Action Plan indicates that the carrier
has developed appropriate plans and procedures to rectify all safety
concerns raised by FRA.
In general, FRA's experience has been that railroads abide by these
informal safety agreements. Where there is a material failure to comply
with the railroad action plan resulting in regulatory noncompliance,
FRA's policy is to take strong enforcement action. In those situations,
FRA is acting to enforce the safety rules themselves, not the terms of
an agreement.
In two situations, railroad noncompliance has been so significant
that FRA has entered into a more formal Safety Compliance Agreement
with the railroad. Under these agreements, FRA refrains from issuing a
compliance order or emergency order if the railroad takes very specific
steps to improve compliance. Any violation of the agreement may result
in FRA's issuance of an appropriate order, which the railroad has
agreed not to challenge. To date, the railroads are abiding by these
agreements and FRA has not had to issue an order in either case.
success of sacp plans
Question. How do you establish that your cooperative strategy is
working? Please provide several examples of how this cooperative
approach has been effective, and outline how the compliance levels have
improved with this approach versus an enforcement approach.
Answer. The most fundamental indicator that the cooperative
strategy is working is the safety statistical improvement. Preliminary
results from the various SACP's in conjunction with traditional
compliance and inspection activities and regulatory initiatives
indicate significant improvements in certain key safety categories. For
example, as cited below a comparison of 1990-1993 percentages
reductions with 1993-1996 percentage reductions clearly reveals a trend
in safer conditions for employees and the public:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1990-93 Between 1993-96
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Percentage
1990 1993 improvement 1993 1996 improvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities............................ 1,297 1,279 1.4 1,279 1,023 20.0
Train Accidents....................... 2,879 2,611 9.3 2,611 2,376 9.0
Crossing Accidents.................... 5,713 4,892 14.4 4,892 4,159 15.0
Crossing Fatalities \1\............... 698 626 10.3 626 472 24.6
Trespasser Deaths..................... 543 523 3.7 523 472 9.8
EOD Casualties........................ 21,010 15,410 26.7 15,310 8,949 41.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes all trespasser and employee fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings (Preliminary 1996 data.).
Certain improvements in defect ratios are available from a few
assessments; however, this type of information is the exception and not
the norm and generally relates to a specific carrier and location(s).
FRA has witnessed a profound culture change between railroad
management and labor organizations as to their sincerity and
willingness to communicate their respective differences regarding
safety problems and to modify or alter traditional approaches and
viewpoints; approaches that tended to be an antagonistic or adversary
in nature due to the parochial interests of the different parties. For
example, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad has taken
significant measures to eliminate the issue of fear and intimidation as
existing or perceived by their employees in the reporting of an
accident/incident. In addition, BNSF has modified their policy and
procedures with regard to disciplinary actions against their employees.
Both of these actions by BNSF represent a substantial cultural change
by management in its handling of employee relations issues. These
actions are unprecedented in the industry and provide a substantial
impetus in the establishment of additional partnerships with labor
organizations. On the other hand, labor organizations have formed
partnerships with BNSF in an attempt to resolve safety concerns,
including issues sensitive to their members, e.g., accident/incident
reporting, processing of disciplinary cases, etc.
Other examples of the effectiveness of the cooperative strategy:
Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DME)
In late 1995, DME made a commitment to relay 100 miles of 72 lb.
Jointed rail with new 115 lb. continuous welded rail (CWR) because of
numerous defective rail and joints between Huron and Pierre, South
Dakota. The railroad also experienced excessive track caused
derailments. DME announced the project was completed by the end of
October 1996. There have been no track caused derailments on this
portion of railroad since the relay.
Amtrak
Motivated by a desire to protect the lives and safety of railroad
workers who work along Amtrak's high speed, high density Northeast
Corridor, representatives from Amtrak management and labor sat down
together to objectively analyse the risks faced by roadway workers from
trains and moving equipment. The parties then worked together to
develop effective safety procedures to minimize those risks. But
Amtrak's safety partnership did not end there. Recognizing that
railroad safety rules can only be effective if they are understood and
obeyed by the people who are affected by them, the parties agreed upon
a cooperative program to implement the roadway worker protection rules.
This program includes peer training, empowering employees to enforce
the rules, and joint labor/management oversight of the program.
During the Amtrak SACP the team examined the quality of the
carrier's periodic locomotive inspections after finding an excessive
number of defects on out-shopped locomotives. Defective conditions
included exhaust leaks, oil leaks over walkways in engine compartments,
inoperative sanders and defective alerting devices. As a result of the
SACP process Amtrak and its mechanical department employees have made
dramatic improvement in the quality of locomotive inspections. FRA
follow-up inspections have confirmed that the average number of defects
per locomotive dropped from nine to one in the Los Angles area, from
eight to one in the Chicago area, and from five to one in the
Washington, D.C. area.
Alaska Railroad
More than a dozen unsafe conditions raised by employees were
addressed and resolved as the result of findings derived from the SACP
assessment. These findings included concerns in the operating
practices, motive power and equipment, signal and train control, and
track areas. However, perhaps the greatest accomplishment from the
assessment was the opening of communications and the resolution of
sometimes long standing contentious issues between management and
labor.
sacp plans not implemented
Question. Please provide several examples of where the cooperative
agreement did not work and FRA had to pursue enforcement actions.
Answer. FRA has encountered very few situations where railroads
have failed to follow through on commitments they have made as part of
a SACP action plan. FRA does have a case pending against Conrail for
several hazardous materials violations that the inspector believes stem
from a failure by Conrail to live up to relevant portions of its SACP
action plan.
There have been several situations, however, where FRA has found
significant noncompliance during the early stages of a SACP review and
taken enforcement action as a result. For example, prior to the point
at which Wisconsin Central was to present a SACP action plan, FRA
determined that certain aspects of that railroad's compliance warranted
immediate action, especially in the areas of track and equipment
safety. In February 1997, FRA and the railroad entered into a Safety
Compliance Agreement, in which the railroad committed to specific
remedial actions and waived any right to contest a compliance order
should there be, in FRA's unilateral view, any deviation from the
agreement. Implementation of the agreement has gone smoothly to date.
In June 1997, FRA reached a similar agreement with the Northwestern
Pacific Railroad in California, where track conditions posed an
unacceptable threat to tourist passenger operations.
In 1996, FRA was working with the Central Oregon and Pacific to
address certain systemic problems under SACP. The seriousness of some
of the problems noted by FRA and the railroad's slowness to respond led
FRA to cite the railroad for a variety of violations, especially in the
hours of service record keeping and hazardous materials areas. The
citations have helped bring about a more cooperative attitude on the
part of the railroad, and progress toward improved compliance is
occurring.
On the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern, SACP activity revealed a
significant failure to comply with FRA's rules on alcohol and drug
testing. As a result, FRA cited the railroad for several violations,
and cases totalling nearly $60,000 are pending.
enforcement cases against individuals
Question. How have you strengthened since last year the systematic
reinspection procedure of monitoring or revisiting either rail
management or labor employees who received warning letters from the
FRA? How many enforcement actions against these individuals has the FRA
taken during each of the last three years? What types of actions were
taken?
Answer. FRA does not conduct reinspections focused on individuals
who have received warning letters due to noncompliance with the safety
laws. Our inspections and reinspections are focused on relative safety
hazards presented at particular locations or across railroad systems.
If, in the normal course of these inspections, we discover
noncompliance by an individual whom we had previously warned, or if we
receive a complaint alleging such noncompliance and confirm those
allegations, we will pursue enforcement action against that individual.
Such action is likely to be stronger than a warning letter, given the
earlier attempt to gain compliance through that means.
In 1994, FRA issued one disqualification order and closed six
individual liability cases. In 1995, FRA terminated two
disqualification cases, closed four individual civil penalty cases, and
issued one headquarters-level warning letter. In 1996, FRA closed two
civil penalty cases (one was terminated), issued one civil penalty
case, and issued two headquarters-level warning letters.
enforcement policy: balancing cooperation and strong action
Question. Please explain the policy of the FRA with respect to the
use of civil penalties in cases of serious safety violations. How has
an appropriate balance been attained between working cooperatively with
industry and making strong enforcement cases against it when necessary?
Please explain your rationale, procedures, and policies followed to
achieve this balance.
Answer. In April 1997, FRA issued guidance to all of its safety
personnel on this very subject. When the Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program (SACP) was first announced in March 1995, the
greatest emphasis was placed on getting to root causes of systemic
safety problems through partnership efforts. This was, and is, the
program's major innovation. Because this central thrust of the program
entailed a certain amount of enforcement forbearance concerning the
subjects of a system audit during the period of the audit, the
erroneous impression may have developed that SACP called for refraining
from use of enforcement tools in nearly all cases. However, there never
was any intent to eliminate or discourage use of the enforcement tools
or the exercise of discretion, which is necessary for rational
enforcement. In fact, SACP actually involves stronger enforcement than
before because it seeks to better target our enforcement efforts toward
serious safety problems.
To ensure that all FRA enforcement personnel understand how to
achieve a balance between cooperation and enforcement, the recent
guidance issued by FRA contained these basic principles:
Use discretion.--Exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with
the agency's longstanding criteria found in 49 CFR Part 209 Appendix A.
Where, consistent with those principles, the situation warrants use of
an enforcement tool to ensure compliance and increase safety, take the
enforcement action.
Focused enforcement.--In deciding whether enforcement action is
necessary, make a special effort to focus enforcement where it will do
the most good, i.e., where accident trends, inspection data, direct
observations, and/or the violation's inherent seriousness indicate that
enforcement action is needed to address a significant safety risk.
Systemwide audits.--In systemwide audits, refrain from enforcement
action concerning the subjects of the audit as long as full cooperation
continues, unless a violation is extremely severe. This limited
forbearance is an important way of developing a cooperative atmosphere
for mutually identifying root causes of problems and achieving
solutions.
Safety action plan violations.--Where a railroad or shipper has
developed a Safety Action Plan as a response to a Safety Profile and a
Senior Management Meeting and then committed violations of the safety
laws directly related to the Safety Action Plan, strong enforcement
action should be taken in every case, absent a compelling reason.
Small companies.--In dealing with very small railroads and
shippers, abide by the dictates of President Clinton and recent small
business legislation, which generally require that enforcement
agencies, in deciding whether to assess penalties and determining
penalty amounts, give great weight to whether violations were committed
in good faith and the swiftness of remedial action. As has long been
FRA's policy, we strive to assist these small businesses in their
compliance efforts. The guidance emphasizes that enforcement is a very
important element of SACP, and notes that ``balance between firm
enforcement and cooperative effort is essential to the program's
success.'' FRA has delivered the written guidance to all of its safety
personnel and included presentations on and discussion of these
principles at each of its multi-regional conferences in 1997.
inspector trainee program
Question. Please provide information on the success of the
inspector trainee program and the retention rate for all individuals
who have entered this program since its inception. How many individuals
who entered the inspector trainee program now serve as FRA inspectors
in the field? How much of the fiscal year 1998 request pertains to this
program? Please compare this amount with the amounts spent during each
of the preceding three years.
Answer. The FRA Inspector Trainee Program has been very successful.
The inspector trainees have brought new and creative thinking to
complex safety issues with their various and exceptional educational
backgrounds. Significant benefits have been gained by the public and
the railroad industry as the trainees become a part of FRA's inspector
workforce. The input from the trainees have been significant in helping
to bring FRA's inspector program to a fact-based, cooperative approach
to safety.
Since the inception of the FRA inspector trainee program in fiscal
year 1991, the retention rate has ranged from a low of 88 percent in
fiscal year 1992 to a high of 97 in fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year
1996. The retention rate has been well within what we consider
acceptable.
Of the 35 inspector trainees currently on-board, 19 have qualified
as inspectors and are serving in that capacity. Thirteen additional
trainees are expected to meet the journeyman inspector qualifications
within the next year.
The fiscal year 1998 request includes $1.9 million to continue this
program. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 1997 is $1.8 million, for
fiscal year 1996 it was $1.7 million, and for fiscal year 1995 it was
$1.5 million.
safety training budget
Question. Please prepare a chart of your training budget for each
of the last four years, specifying the amount spent on Federal and
State inspectors separately.
Answer. The information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998
actual actual budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State....................... 122 210 240 245
Federal..................... 630 675 796 793
-------------------------------------------
Total training........ 1,758 1,637 1,724 1,736
------------------------------------------------------------------------
atip vehicle
Question. FRA has requested $3 million to acquire a new automated
track inspection vehicle in fiscal year 1998. Why can't funding for the
ATIP be split funded over the next two years? What additional costs
would be encountered?
Answer. Operation of the ATIP vehicle provides FRA with an
objective method to monitor compliance with minimum track geometry
safety standards over critical line segments such as those which
support Amtrak and commuter operations, line segments which support the
transport of large volumes of hazardous materials, line segments
considered as heavily utilized freight main lines, and line segments
designated essential by the Military Traffic Management Command if
military mobilization were necessary.
Operation of the ATIP vehicle provides FRA with the opportunity for
early identification of trends which indicate various levels of track
degradation. FRA uses the information from the ATIP vehicle to
supplement its Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) and to
identify those areas of the track structure which may require a focused
enforcement approach by FRA inspectors.
Funding for the acquisition of the new vehicle should not be split
funded for several reasons: Estimated time from earliest possible
contract award to complete the new vehicle is approximately 21 months.
It is unreasonable to expect industry to undertake a project of this
duration with only one-year funding available. With split funding,
contractor costs may be expected to increase by about five to seven
percent or $150,000 to $210,000 due to costs associated with obtaining
expert staff for a one-year effort only; certain long-lead items could
not be ordered until funding was available which could result in
additional delays or labor stoppages due to lack of parts; and costs of
shutdown to protect the first year's investment if additional funding
did not become available.
Operation of the current T-10 vehicle is becoming extremely costly
due to high maintenance costs. Additionally, it is uncertain how much
longer parts can be obtained to repair the T-10 car. This is a model
SPV 2000 as originally produced by the Budd Company in 1980. Budd has
been out of business for several years now and FRA's vehicle was one of
the last ones produced.
If the ATIP vehicle is not available or inspects at a lesser
frequency than what has been normal in the past, the effectiveness of
FRA and State inspectors would be compromised as they will be deprived
of the critical information which helps them to prioritize their
inspection activities. FRA itself will be denied the opportunity to
effectively monitor compliance within the higher speed ranges if the
ATIP program is not continued and does not keep pace with the changes
within the industry.
use of atip data
Question. Please explain how FRA has incorporated data provided
through the ATIP program into its overall safety strategy of ensuring
the safety of the nation's railroad systems.
Answer. Operation of the ATIP vehicle provides FRA with real-time
track geometry data which serves as an excellent indicator of overall
track quality. This data is analyzed for the early identification of
trends which can indicate various levels of track degradation. This
process is an essential part of FRA's overall strategy for monitoring
compliance, especially on those critical safety-sensitive line segments
which support Amtrak and commuter operations, those that support the
transport of large volumes of hazardous materials, and those line
segments designated essential by the Military Traffic Management
Command if military mobilization becomes necessary.
FRA further uses the data from the ATIP vehicle to supplement its
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) by enabling FRA and
State inspectors to make prioritized judgements on where future on-the-
ground inspection time would be most beneficial in ensuring railroad
safety.
track safety standards
Question. To what extent will the revised Track Safety Standards
contain language to accommodate the Gage Restraint Measuring System
(GRMS) technology?
Answer. The draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) recommended
by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) does not incorporate
rule text language which would accommodate the GRMS technology. Lengthy
discussions within the Track Working Group which drafted the NPRM did
not yield agreement about the use of the GRMS technology as an
alternate performance standard.
Although the Track Working Group could not reach consensus on
whether or not the revised standards should contain language to
accommodate this technology, RSAC has recommended that a small task
group continue evaluating the possibility of developing GRMS standards
for broad application within the industry. The draft NPRM invites
public comment regarding the feasibility of this technology as an
alternate inspection standard or as an additional inspection method.
Discussions within this small task group, along with public comment
to the NPRM regarding this issue, will ultimately decide to what extent
this technology will be accommodated in the Final Rule.
atip vehicle
Question. Can you justify the cost of purchasing a new ATIP vehicle
before the RSAC resolves issues concerning a revision of the Track
Safety Standards that might include a GRMS that could replace the need
for an ATIP?
Answer. The Gage Restraint Measurement System (GRMS) must be viewed
as a technology application which is totally different when compared to
FRA's ATIP program. The GRMS measures the lateral restraint provided by
the crossties and rail fasteners under constant applied lateral and
vertical loads. Lateral restraint can be described as the ability of
the track to resist gage widening forces and therefore is a direct
indication of track strength. The only track geometry parameter which
is of concern is the gage of the track.
FRA's ATIP vehicle measures all track geometry parameters which are
addressed in the track safety standards. These parameters include track
gage, track alignment, and track surface which include the parameters
of crosslevel, warp, and profile. The ATIP vehicle also calculates the
maximum allowable curving speed based on the existing alignment and
superelevation.
GRMS and ATIP can not be considered as compatible systems on the
same vehicle if the maximum benefit is to be achieved from each system.
Due to the limitations imposed by the response time of the hydraulic
split axle, the maximum testing speed of a GRMS vehicle is in the range
of 30 to 35 mph. Collecting track geometry data at this speed would
drastically reduce FRA's annual test miles, as our present vehicle
tests the track at its posted speed up to 80 mph. Conversely,
collecting track geometry data at 80 mph with a vehicle equipped with a
retracted (cut out) GRMS split axle assembly, would result in extensive
wear and tear to the GRMS system.
The cost of purchasing a new ATIP vehicle is justified regardless
of what, if any, GRMS language may be included in the revised track
safety standards.
fiscal year 1996 regulatory initiatives
Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's, and
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued last year.
Answer. In 1996 FRA issued or pursued the following regulatory
projects:
--Issued a final rule on roadway worker protection. This was FRA's
first formal negotiated rulemaking.
--Issued a final rule on devices to enhance the visibility of
locomotives at highway grade crossings.
--Issued a final rule concerning accident reporting.
--Issued hazardous materials penalty guidelines.
--Issued final rules revising signal regulations.
--Amended a final rule on maintenance, inspection, and testing of
grade crossing signal devices.
--Drafted a proposed rule on emergency response for passenger
operations, which was developed as part of a statutorily
authorized collaborative process.
--Drafted a proposed rule on passenger equipment, also developed as
part of a collaborative process.
--Drafted a proposed rule on track safety, developed by an RSAC
working group.
--Drafted a proposed rule on radio communications (RSAC).
--Drafted a final rule on the use of two-way end-of-train devices.
regulatory efforts
Question. Please explain why there is a regulatory backlog of 22
projects. What is the nature and status of each of these projects.
Answer. FRA has an ambitious regulatory agenda that fluctuates as
Final Rules are issued and new rulemaking efforts are added. FRA's
rulemaking agenda includes 12 Congressionally mandated reports and
rulemakings, five of which are overdue. This is an inescapable
consequence of both the complexity of the industry and the colossal
changes that have occurred in railroading in recent years.
The Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) was created in 1996 in
response to FRA's critical need to address over 40 pending rulemaking
initiatives and President Clinton's Regulatory Reform Initiative, which
directed agencies to substantially expand efforts at promoting
consensual rulemaking. Collaborative rulemaking ensures regulatory
decisions are based on complete and accurate data, balances costs and
benefits, accommodates the rapidly evolving changes in the rail
transportation industry, and allows for the best use of resources.
Regulations resulting from this collaborative process are more likely
to be reflective of all the affected interests and more readily
implemented. Because the final rule is based on consent, acceptance and
understanding are widespread and compliance is at high levels from the
start.
RSAC is working on some of FRA's toughest, most controversial
regulatory challenges. It is expected that RSAC involvement can shorten
a rulemaking process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, the
scope of involvement has included the 50 full Committee members and
their alternates (110), six working groups (217 members and
alternates), and 15 task forces (140 members).
The $200,000 requested for RSAC in fiscal year 1998 would support
RSAC activities at the optimum level for addressing FRA's regulatory
program. Railroad labor and management are dedicating significant
resources to the success of this rulemaking process. Funding below the
requested level would severely impact the effectiveness of this process
and the resulting critical contributions to public safety envisioned by
all parties dedicated to the success of collaborative rulemaking.
The 4 new FTE's in the Office of Safety and the Office of Chief
Counsel will be hired to help resolve highly technical and legal issues
that evolve during the RSAC rulemaking process. Many of the rules to be
done in 1998 will be developed through the RSAC. The RSAC establishes
working groups to gather and analyze relevant data and develop Notices
of Proposed Rulemakings. The experience and expertise of an industrial
hygienist, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer and safety attorney
are needed to help with RSAC regulatory projects.
Current consensus rulemakings under RSAC include Locomotive
Engineer Certification, Maintenance of Way Equipment Safety Standards,
Gage Restraint Measurement System, Tourist and Historic Railroads,
Locomotive Crew Safety (Crashworthiness and Working Conditions), and
Event Recorder Requirements. Future rulemaking through RSAC include
Positive Train Control and Accident/Incident Reporting.
The additional FTE's will certainly improve our ability to handle
our regulatory workload.
Attached is a comprehensive overview of FRA's Railroad Safety
Regulatory Program.
______
[U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration,
June 20, 1997]
Overview of the Railroad Safety Regulatory Program and Standards-
Related Partnership Efforts
Legend:
ANPRM=Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Italics=Indicates project has been identified for development
through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee or a similar forum for
collaborative rulemaking
NPRM=Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RSAC=Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
summary of consensus rulemaking efforts
Roadway Worker Safety.--Consensus achieved in formal negotiated
rulemaking; final rule published 12/16/96; effective 1/15/97. Denial of
AAR and APTA petitions for reconsideration published 4/21/97. Misc.
waiver petitions pending (hearing 5/22/97; comments closed 6/9/97).
Passenger Equipment Safety.--Partial consensus achieved; NPRM
circulated to working group 3/19/97. Includes power brake rules for
passenger service. In review and clearance.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--NPRM based on working
group recommendations was submitted for review and clearance; NPRM was
published 2/24/97 with significant additions, and a notice of public
hearings was published 3/6/97. Public hearings were held in Chicago on
April 4 and in New York City on April 7. Written comments were due by
4/25/97. Next step will be identification of options based on comments
to date; working group will be asked to help resolve final rule issues.
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.--Last full committee meeting:
3/24/97. Next meeting 6/24/97.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task
No. Subject Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96-1 Power Brake Regulations, Working group charter extended to 1/15/97 to produce NPRM; impasse
freight, general revision reached at 12/4/96 meeting, and subsequent efforts to renew talks were
not successful. FRA withdrawing task at 6/24/97 meeting. FRA is
drafting second NPRM for early issuance.
96-2 Track Safety Standards, Consensus achieved; in balloting that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to
general revision accept working group report and recommend NPRM. NPRM signed 6/19/97
and forwarded to Federal Register for publication.
96-3 Railroad Communications Final meeting of working group was held 1/23/97. Working group provided
(including revision of Radio consensus NPRM to RSAC at 3/24/97 meeting. RSAC voted to accept the
Standards and Procedures) NPRM and forward to the Administrator in voting concluded 4/14/97.
NPRM signed 6/11/97 and forwarded to Federal Register for publication.
96-4 Tourist Railroads Open task to address needs of tourist and historic railroads; working
group is monitoring steam task.
96-5 Steam-Powered Locomotives, Task force of Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
revision of inspection of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. Final drafting
standards underway at FRA on NPRM, which will be considered in the Tourist &
Historic Railroads Working Group in June and if possible will be
available to the full Committee 6/24/97.
96-6 Locomotive Engineer Task accepted 10/31/96; first working group meeting held 1/7-1/9/97;
Qualification and meetings continue monthly. Meeting to review final draft rule language
Certification, general scheduled 10/7/97; expect consensus approval and submission to full
revision Committee by 10/15/97.
96-7 Track Motor Vehicle and Task accepted 10/31/96. Task force of Track Safety Standards Working
Roadway Worker Equipment Group last met 5/29-5/30, and the task force expects to report to the
Working Group by 9/30/97.
96-8 Locomotive Crashworthiness and Planning task accepted 10/31/96; planning group met 1/23/97; FRA will
Working Conditions (planning present two task statements to full Committee at 6/24/97 meeting.
task)
[97-1] Event Recorder Committee requested opportunity to address crash survivability and
other NTSB-initiated issues on 3/24/97. Task statement to be presented
to full Committee at 6/24/97 meeting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
general safety rules and reports
Accident/Incident Reporting
Summary: The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 barred
FRA from adjusting the monetary threshold for reporting of train
accident (presently $6,300) until the methodology is revised. In
addition, FRA identified the need to comprehensively revise these
regulations, which had not be revised since 1974.
Deadline: The report of the Committee of Conference on the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
1996, directed FRA to issue a final rule in this proceeding by 6/1/96.
History: An NPRM was issued 8/19/94, followed by public hearings
and written comment. A public regulatory conference was convened 1/30-
2/3/95 in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. A notice of decision
to issue a supplemental NPRM was published 7/3/95, but was withdrawn in
a notice published on 1/24/96.
Status: Final rule was issued 5/30/96 and published 6/18/96. Stay
requests have been denied, and technical amendments were published 11/
22/96 (61 FR 59368). A notice of availability of custom software was
also published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59485). On 12/16/96, the Administrator
signed final rule amendments, which were published 12/23/96 (61 FR
67477). Final rule became effective 1/1/97. Industry training
partnerships are being executed.
Regulatory Reinvention
Summary: In response to the President's call for regulatory review,
elimination and reinvention, FRA took several actions to repeal
obsolete regulations and simplify agency processes that affect external
customers. Major elements of this effort are included in regulatory
revision efforts described below under other headings.
Status: Interim final rule amendments reducing frequency of
reporting regarding signal and train control systems (49 CFR Part 233),
simplifying review requirements for certain modifications of signal
systems (49 CFR Part 235), and making conforming changes regarding
inspection of ATC/ATS/ACS (49 CFR Part 236) published 7/1/96 (61 FR
33871). These changes should be finalized in 1997. The Department of
Transportation has offered legislative proposals to permit flexibility
for small railroads to make accident/incident report less frequently
than monthly and to eliminate outdated requirements for notarization of
reports.
safety of railroad operations
Track Safety Standards
Summary: The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the Track Safety Standards, taking into
consideration, among other things, the ``excepted track'' provision.
Other prominent issues include updating the standards to take advantage
of research findings for internal rail flaw detection and gage
restraint measurement. FRA also proposes to adopt track standards for
high-speed service.
Statutory deadline: Final rule by 9/1/95.
Status: FRA published an ANPRM 11/6/92 and conducted workshops in
the period 1/93-3/93. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee accepted
task of preparing an (NPRM) on 4/2/96. The Track Safety Standards
Working Group reported a draft NPRM to the full committee on 10/31/96.
In balloting that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to accept the working
group report and recommend issuance of the NPRM. NPRM signed June 19,
1997, and forwarded to Federal Register for publication. (RSAC Task 96-
2).
Power Brakes
Summary: The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the power brake regulations. The statute
required adoption of requirements for 2-way end-of-train telemetry
devices (EOT's) and ``standards for dynamic brakes.''
Statutory deadlines: Final rule by 12/31/93; 2-way EOT's to be used
on trains operating greater than 30 miles per hour or in mountain grade
territory to be equipped by 12/31/97.
Status: FRA published an NPRM 9/16/94 and conducted six days of
public hearings ending 12/94. Due to strong objections to the NPRM,
additional options were requested from passenger interests by 2/27/95
and from freight interests by 4/3/95. Further action is as follows:
(1) Passenger standards revision: FRA requested the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to incorporate new proposals
for revisions of the power brake regulations in the NPRM for passenger
equipment safety. Working group proceedings on the elements of the NPRM
concluded 10/2/96 without full agreement on power brake elements. See
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for current status.
(2) Freight standards revision: On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the
task of preparing a second NPRM. The working group initiated its
efforts in May, and on 10/31/96 the RSAC extended the deadline for a
final report until 1/15/97. At the working group meeting 12/4/96, an
impasse was declared, and subsequent efforts to revive discussions were
not successful. On May 29, FRA notified the working group by letter
that the task will be formally terminated. FRA will withdraw task at 6/
24/97 full Committee meeting. FRA is preparing a second NPRM. (RSAC
Task 96-1)
(3) Two-way end-of-train devices: FRA published notice on 2/21/96
that this issue would be separated from the balance of the freight
issues and expedited for completion of a final rule. A public
regulatory conference was convened 3/5/96 to explore remaining issues,
and written comments were due 4/15/96. (Railroads also agreed to an
expedited schedule that will ensure application of this technology by
12/15/96 on 2 percent or greater grades and by 7/1/97 for other
trains.) The final rule was published 1/2/97 (62 FR 278), and it
becomes effective 7/1/97. FRA received two petitions for
reconsideration (``local train'' definition and implementation date for
smaller railroads). A notice denying the request to delete the tonnage
restriction for local trains and granting extension of the compliance
date for railroads with fewer than two million work hours was published
6/4/97 (62 FR 30461).
Note: On 2/6/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 18,
requiring use by the BNSF of 2-way EOT's or equivalent protection for
heavy grade operations over the Cajon Pass.
Bridge Structural Safety
Summary: Following a survey of bridge conditions and railroad
inspection practices, FRA determined that regulatory action is not
necessary, but that FRA should continue to exercise an oversight role
regarding bridge structural safety programs. FRA issued an interim
statement of policy 4/27/95, with comments due 6/26/95.
Status: Comments support continued FRA partnership role. Final
statement of policy forthcoming ASAP.
Note: On 2/12/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 19,
which removed from service a bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad in
New York State pending necessary structural repairs.
Bridge Displacement Detection Systems (Report)
Summary: The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a report on systems to detect bridge displacement of the type
that caused the derailment of the Sunset Limited at Mobile, Alabama, 9/
23/94.
Statutory deadline: 6/2/96.
Status: A technical evaluation report was published 6/23/94 and
made available to the respective committees. The formal report to
Congress is in preparation.
Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Cars
Summary: Cars not in compliance with the Freight Car Safety
Standards may be operated at track speed in revenue trains if they are
company-owned, stenciled cars. FRA published an NPRM 3/10/94 to close
this loophole. FRA requested the Association of American Railroads to
amplify its comments by letter of 12/20/94.
Status: AAR response received 8/4/95 is under review with further
action to be determined through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.
Railroad Communications (includ. Radio Standards and Procedures)
Summary: In submitting the required report to the Congress on
Railroad Communications and Train Control on 7/13/94, FRA noted the
need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications in
concert with railroads and employee representatives.
Status: On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the task of preparing an NPRM,
including consideration of communication capabilities required in
railroad operations. The working group has presented a consensus NPRM
to the full Committee on 3/24/97, and the Committee voted to recommend
issuance of the NPRM to the Administrator in balloting that ended 4/14/
97. NPRM signed June 11, 1997, and fowarded to Federal Register for
publication. (RSAC Task 96-3)
Northeast Corridor (NEC) Signal & Train Control
Summary: Amtrak is planning operations to 150 mph on portions of
the NEC and is implementing improvements to the automatic train control
system that will provide positive stop and continuous speed control
capabilities. FRA's Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NCSC) met 9/
20/94 and approved a set of performance criteria for the new system.
Status: On January 30, 1997, Amtrak provided to FRA a detailed
system concept for the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES),
including conditions for operation on designated territories on the
south and north ends of the NEC. A notice of Proposed Order for the new
signal and train control system authorizing speeds to 150 miles per
hour (135 mph on the South End with only high-speed trains equipped
under ``flanking protection'') is being drafted for early issuance. The
NCSC will be consulted in finalizing appropriate orders.
NEC System Safety
Summary: Mixed passenger and freight operations at speeds to 150
mph have not previously been attempted in this country. Through the
Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (or successor), FRA intends to
develop system safety criteria for this service territory, integrating
existing safety measures and identifying any areas of material risk not
previously addressed.
Status: Timing of project initiation to be determined.
Positive Train Control (Status Report)
Summary: The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a status report on the implementation of positive train control
as a follow-up to the 7/94 Report entitled Railroad Communications and
Train Control.
Statutory deadline: 12/31/95.
Status: FRA has provided testimony to the committees of
jurisdiction reporting the status of efforts to promote implementation
of positive train control. The report is under review at FRA.
Tourist Railroad Report/Review of Regulatory Applicability
Summary: The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a report to the Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize
the unique factors associated with these generally small passenger
operations that often utilize historic equipment.
Statutory deadline: 9/30/95.
Status: Report submitted to the Congress 6/10/96. The RSAC
authorized formation of a Tourist and Historic Railroads Working Group
4/1/96. The working group held its initial meeting 6/17-6/18/96 and is
presently monitoring completion of the steam task. (RSAC Task 96-4)
Passenger Safety Standards
Summary: The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
(enacted 11/2/94) required FRA to issue initial passenger safety
standards within 3 years and complete standards within 5 years. The
agency was authorized to consult with industry parties outside the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it possible to conduct an
informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline: 11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final).
Status: An initial meeting of the Passenger Equipment Safety
Working Group (passenger railroads, operating employee organizations,
mechanical employee organizations, and representatives of rail
passengers) was held on 6/7/95, and the group has been meeting
regularly and conducting task force activities since that time.
Manufacturer/supplier representatives are serving as associate members.
FRA prepared an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicating the
issues under review by the working group, which was published 6/17/96.
The working group held its final meeting on the NPRM 9/30-10/2/96,
having reached consensus on a portion of the issues presented. An NPRM
was circulated to the working group on 3/19/97, and that document (with
minor changes requested by members) is under review and clearance.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness
Summary: The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
required FRA to issue emergency preparedness standards for passenger
service. Initial standards were required within 3 years and complete
standards within 5 years. The agency was authorized to consult with
industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it
possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline: 11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final).
Status: An initial meeting of the working group for passenger train
emergency preparedness standards was held on 8/8/95. The group met 2/6-
7/96 to develop elements of an NPRM and met jointly with the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group on 3/26/96 to consider related
issues, including the implications of Emergency Order No. 20 and
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. The
working group includes representatives of passenger railroads,
operating employee and dispatcher organizations, and rail passenger
organizations, and an advisor from the National Transportation Safety
Board. The working group approved draft rule text, which was
incorporated in an NPRM forwarded for review and clearance. Changes
requested during review and clearance were provided to the working
group during the week of 12/16/96. The NPRM was published 2/24/97 (62
FR 8330), and a notice of public hearings was published 3/6/97 (62 FR
10248). Public hearings were held in Chicago on April 4 and in New York
City on April 7. Written comments were due by 4/25/97. FRA is reviewing
comments and preparing options for discussion with the working group.
Emergency Order No. 20
Summary: This order deals with the safety of push/pull and electric
multiple unit service. The order was issued 2/20/96, and amended 2/29/
96. Intercity and commuter passenger railroads were required to adopt
operating rules providing for observance of reduced speed where delays
are incurred in blocks between distant signals and signals at
interlockings or controlled points. Marking of emergency exits and
testing of emergency windows was required. Interim system safety plans
were required to be filed.
Status: The order has been fully implemented. On 3/26/96, the
Passenger Equipment Safety Working Group and the Emergency Preparedness
Working Group met jointly to consider implementation issues and
crossover issues with the two rulemaking proceedings and recent
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. The
American Public Transit Association and it members have undertaken a
number of actions in response to the emergency order, including
development of comprehensive system safety plans (work ongoing).
Codification, revision or termination of provisions will be considered
during the second phase of passenger safety standards rulemaking
beginning in 1998.
Florida Overland Express
Summary: FRA has received a petition for a rule of particular
applicability for operations over a new high-speed railroad between
Miami and Tampa via Orlando. The State of Florida has established a
dedicated funding stream of $70 million per year towards creation of
this new private/public partnership.
Status: Received petition for rule of particular applicability 2/
18/97. FRA is reviewing the petition and preparing an NPRM for early
issuance.
Steam Locomotives
Summary: A committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and
historic railroads has sought a partnership with FRA to revise the
steam locomotive regulations. Proposed revisions would relieve
regulatory burdens while updating and strengthening the technical
requirements.
Status: Revision of the Steam Locomotive Inspection regulations was
tasked to the RSAC on 7/24/96. A task force of the Tourist & Historic
Railroads Working Group is actively working toward finalization of an
NPRM. The task force has finalized rule text, and preamble language is
being completed at FRA for review by the task force and working group.
Full NPRM should be circulated 6/97. (RSAC Task 96-5.)
Locomotive Engineer Certification; Miscellaneous Revisions
Summary: The final rule for locomotive engineer certification
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved.
Experience under the rule has raised additional issues. Examples of
issues under review include the status of operators of specialized
maintenance of way equipment and types of conduct for which
decertification is appropriate.
Status: An interim final rule amendment dealing with agency
practice and procedure concerning engineer certification appeals was
published 10/12/95. Issues related to procedures on the properties,
offenses warranting decertification, periods of decertification,
operation of specialized equipment, etc., are pending. The RSAC
accepted this task on 10/31/96. The working group's initial meeting was
held 1/7-1/9/97; meeting to review final draft rule language scheduled
10/7/97; expect consensus approval and submission to full Committee by
10/15/97. (RSAC Task 96-6.)
Hours of Service Pilot Projects; Report to Congress
Summary: The Federal Railroad Safety Reauthorization Act of 1994
(enacted with the Swift Rail Development Act) authorized FRA to approve
one or more pilot projects to address fatigue and alertness issues
among employees subject to the Hours of Service laws. Projects were
required to have the support of the railroad and affected labor
organizations. FRA was to report the results of those projects.
Statutory due date: 1/1/97.
Status: FRA has encouraged submission of pilot projects and has
worked with several railroads regarding innovative work and rest
practices; however, only one formal applications for pilot projects has
been submitted, and that petition did not involve fundamental reform of
work and rest requirements. FRA will report regarding the status of
work and rest issues in the industry.
Small Railroads; Policy Statement on Penalty Program
Summary: The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act and required, among other
things, that each agency establish a program to reduce or waive civil
penalties for small entities under certain circumstances.
Statutory deadline: 3/29/97.
Status: Consultations have been initiated in support of this
effort.
Wisconsin Central R.R.; Informal Safety Inquiry
Summary: FRA seeks to gather information regarding plans by the
railroad to expand use of one-person crews and remote control
operations. The information may assist in evaluating emergency order
requests submitted by the United Transportation Union.
Status: A notice of special safety inquiry was published 11/18/96
(61 FR 58736). A public hearing is scheduled for 12/4-12/5/96 in
Appleton, Wisconsin. Written submissions were requested by 12/2/96. FRA
has entered into an agreement with the railroad providing for a
moratorium on new single person crew and remote control operations,
together with other undertakings related to compliance with FRA
regulations.
employee safety
Roadway Worker Safety
Summary: In requiring the review of the Track Safety Standards, the
Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to evaluate
the safety of maintenance of way employees. In addition, the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen petitioned FRA to issue ``on-track safety'' rules.
Status: FRA published a notice 8/17/94 initiating a formal
negotiated rulemaking, and the negotiated rulemaking committee reported
a statement of principles 8/95. NPRM published 3/14/96 (61 FR 10528);
initial written comments were due 5/13/96. Public hearing 7/11/96. The
final rule was published 12/16/96 (61 FR 65959); effective 1/15/97.
Petitions for reconsideration were denied in a notice published 4/21/
97. A consolidated hearing on waiver petitions was held 5/22/97, and
written comments are due 6/9/97.
Railroad Operating Practices (Blue Signal Protection)
Summary: On 8/16/93, FRA published a final rule permitting one or
more utility employees to associate themselves with a train crew for
the purpose of performing normal operating functions that require
employees to go on, under or between rolling stock, without use of blue
signal protection (which is ordinarily appropriate for mechanical
duties). During the proceeding it was noted that rules for locomotive
engineers working alone were not clearly defined. FRA published a final
rule amendment governing single engineers working alone on 3/1/95, but
granted a requested suspension of the amendment on 6/9/95 pending
development of additional facts.
Status: Awaits consultation with objecting parties to develop
additional facts. On 10/31/96, the RSAC advised FRA that this project
should not be proposed for early tasking, given conflicting demands on
the resources of member organizations.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions
Summary: The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive
crashworthiness and working conditions and to issue regulations or
submit a report. Areas for consideration included structural means of
preventing harm to crew members in collisions (collision posts,
anticlimbers, etc.) and matters related to safety, health and
productivity (e.g., noise, sanitation).
Statutory deadline: 3/2/95.
Status: FRA has conducted research, outreach, and a survey of
locomotive conditions and has finalized a report to the Congress
transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report conveys data
and information developed by FRA to date, closes out those areas of
investigation for which further action is not warranted, and defines
issues that should be pursued further in concert with the industry
parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. On 10/31/96, the
RSAC accepted a preliminary planning task. The Locomotive Crew Safety
Planning Group met 1/23/97, but agreement could not be reached on
several items. Two task statements will be presented to the full
committee 6/24/97. (RSAC Task 97-1; locomotive crashworthiness issues
and Task 97-2; cab working conditions and ergonomics).
Track Motor Vehicle and Roadway Equipment Safety
Summary: A 1990 petition to FRA from the Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes asked FRA, among other requests, to propose standards
for MOW equipment related to the safety of persons riding or operating
that equipment. FRA elected not to pursue that issue at that time given
other pending workload. However, this issue was renewed during the
deliberations of the RSAC Track Safety Standards Working Group.
Status: On 10/31/96, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting proposed
rules for the safety of this equipment. A task force of the Track
Safety Standards Working Group has met several times, and the task
force is expected to report to the working group by 9/30/97. (RSAC Task
96-7)
highway-rail crossing safety
Grade Crossing Signals (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)
Summary: FRA issued a final rule for inspection, testing and
maintenance of automated warning devices 9/30/94, and the rule went
into effect 1/1/95. During the initial year, FRA worked with railroads
and signal employees to disseminate information, conduct training, and
identify any areas of ambiguity or weakness in the standards. At a
technical resolution committee (TRC) meeting during the week of 3/13/95
that included participation by railroads, the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen, and States, several issues were identified that require
clarification or refinement. An interim manual dated 4/14/95
incorporated the findings of the TRC.
Status: Interim final rule amendments published 6/20/96 (61 FR
31802). FRA is preparing a notice to make the changes final.
Selection of Grade Crossing Automated Warning Devices
Summary: FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3/2/95 and
received over 3,000 written comments through 6/14/95.
Status: Further action to be determined.
Locomotive Visibility/Auxiliary Alerting Lights
Summary: In 1991, FRA initiated a new phase of research on
locomotive conspicuity in relation to safety at highway-rail crossings.
The Amtrak Authorization and Development Act of 1992 mandated that the
research be completed and that a regulation be issued to apply alerting
lights to locomotives.
Statutory deadline: Final rule by 6/30/95.
Status: FRA published a ``grandfathering rule'' on 2/3/93 and
amendments on 5/13/94. After the research was substantially completed
in early summer of 1995, FRA briefed the industry parties on the
results, discussed options for regulatory action, and elicited
additional information concerning railroads' progress in equipping
their fleets. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on 8/25/95.
The AAR and the ASLRA requested a technical conference to perfect the
rule for final issuance, and that conference was held 11/28/95. Written
comments were due by 12/12/95. Final rule was published 3/6/96 (61 FR
31802). Equipping of the locomotive fleet must be completed by 12/31/
97, as provided by law.
Audible Warnings at Highway-Rail Crossings (Whistle Bans)
Summary: The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
issue regulations providing for the use of train horns at highway-rail
crossings.
Statutory deadline: Final rule 11/2/96 (most hazardous crossings),
11/2/98 (other crossings).
History: This legislative mandate anticipated FRA follow up to
Emergency Order No. 15, which addressed local whistle bans on the
Florida East Coast Railroad between Jacksonville and Miami. FRA
released a report on the national impacts of local whistle bans on 6/1/
95 and has conducted an extensive program of public outreach to make
communities aware of the forthcoming rulemaking and to seek information
on supplementary safety measures that would support allowance of quiet
zones in communities sensitive to train horn noise. Contacts have been
made with 160+ jurisdictions known to have whistle bans in place. FRA
representatives have met with or addressed forums of state and local
officials and community groups. Met with AAR/BRS/AAHSTO/FHWA 12/13/95
to address technical specifications for 4-quadrant gates.
Status: Numerous congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue
outreach and data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the
deadline for an initial final rule would not be met as a result.
Immediately prior to adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA
reauthorization bill, H.R. 3539, which included amendments to the
original whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation affirms
the latitude available to the Secretary to provide for phase-in of
regulations and focus on safety results. Missing data on Chicago-area
commuter lines is being added to the national study. FRA is preparing
an NPRM for early issuance.
Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
Summary: The Secretary's Action Plan for Grade Crossing Safety (6/
94) commits FRA to conducting a special safety inquiry on private
crossings.
Status: Conducted workshop on possible guidelines 7/93; timing of
further action to be determined.
hazardous materials
Tank Car Crashworthiness and Retest
Summary: Research and Special Program Administration Dockets HM-
175A and HM-201 addressed further improvements in tank car
crashworthiness, and adoption of advanced non-destructive testing to
improve tank retest procedures, respectively.
Status: Final rules published 9/21/95 (60 FR 49048).
Train Placement
Summary: FRA is evaluating whether to recommend that the Research
and Special Programs Administration publish proposed amendments to the
in-train placement requirements for handling rail cars transporting
hazardous materials. FRA is reviewing accident/incident data to
determine whether the current non-hazardous materials buffer car
requirements are still necessary and whether the (as recommended by the
National Transportation Safety Board) a buffer car should be required
at the rear of each train.
Status: Preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; timing of
issuance to be determined. Data may be gathered under a requested
waiver (Union Pacific Railroad) analyzing impact of requiring buffer
cars on the rear of through trains, while omitting buffer cars behind
occupied locomotives on local trains.
New Directions for Rail Hazardous Materials Safety
Summary: FRA and RSPA have recently completed the two major pending
rulemakings addressing hazardous materials tank car safety
(crashworthiness and tank retests). With completion of these tasks, it
is now possible to turn attention to recommendations of the
Transportation Research Board regarding the tank car design and
construction process. In order to further this work, FRA is joining
with its public and private sector partners to define and prioritize
short and long-range research programs, identify needs for rulemaking,
and assist in development of improved industry standards.
Status: A public workshop was conducted 2/13/96-2/14/96 in Houston,
with participation by labor, railroads, tank car owners, and shippers.
FRA is seeking means of advancing public/private partnerships for North
American tank car safety.
other safety projects and partnership efforts
Hours of Service Electronic Recordkeeping
Current hours of service record keeping uses paper and ink, but a
major railroad has been given relief to keep electronic records. Other
railroads have expressed interest, and similar waivers will involve
similar issues. At FRA's invitation, the AAR has submitted a petition
seeking a master waiver for use of electronic record keeping under
regulations supporting administration of the hours of service law. If
the master waiver is granted and experience is gained, permanent
amendments to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be
proposed. FRA is assisting railroads in developing electronic systems
by providing guidance materials.
Remote Control Locomotives
Current regulations contemplate operation of a locomotive
exclusively from within the cab, and provision for the safety of the
operation is made within that context. FRA has previously proposed a
test program to gather more data on various types of operations.
Further action expected.
FRA has also held an informal safety inquiry regarding use of one-
person crews and remote control locomotives on the Wisconsin Central
(see 61 FR 58736; 11/18/96).
Train Dispatcher Training
FRA submitted a report to the Congress on 1/5/95 regarding the
functions of contemporary train dispatching offices. The report noted
that traditional pools of candidates for recruitment of train
dispatchers are no longer adequate to the need. In partnership with the
American Train Dispatchers Department/BLE (ATDD), FRA identified the
need for a model train dispatcher training program.
Experts from Amtrak, the ATDD, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
Railroad and FRA have completed work on a list of elements for
dispatcher training programs. Required competencies and training
program elements will be abstracted from this effort for a model
program. Consideration may be given to referencing appropriate elements
of this program in Federal regulations. The RSAC was be briefed on this
effort on 3/24/97, with participants in the training task force
indicating reluctance to attempt a ``one size fits all'' regulatory
approach.
Discolored Wheels
FRA has granted a master waiver of the Freight Car Safety Standards
permitting continued use of discolored heat-treated, curved plate
wheels, which have superior resistance to thermal abuse. Data gathered
under the waiver, together with results of analysis already provided,
may support a permanent change in the regulation.
TOFC/COFC Securement
Summary: Following a serious accident at Smithfield, N.C., on 5/16/
94, FRA formed a partnership with major railroads and labor
organizations to evaluate and improve securement of intermodal loads. A
report to the Secretary dated 9/15/94 documented the initial results of
that effort.
Status: FRA held a meeting on 2/22/95 that focused on an item-by-
item discussion of the status and progress made within the industry
with respect to the seven recommendations identified in the report to
the Secretary. The AAR has established an Intermodal Equipment Handling
Task Force that has developed a number of training aids. A follow-up
TOFC/COFC loading and securement safety survey was conducted during
1996. Further action to be determined.
Event Recorder Next-Generation Performance Standards
Summary: The National Transportation Safety Board has noted the
loss of data from event recorders in several accidents due to fire,
water and mechanical damage. In issuing final rules for event recorders
which became effective 5/5/95, FRA noted the need to provide more
refined technical standards. NTSB has proposed performance standards
and agreed to serve as co-chair for an industry/government working
group that would define appropriate technical standards for next-
generation railroad event recorders.
Status: Conducted an initial meeting of a working group comprised
of AAR, RPI, and labor, and co-chaired by NTSB and FRA experts, on 12/
7/95 to consider development of technical standards. At the RSAC
meeting on 7/24-7/25/96, the AAR agreed to continue this inquiry, and
on 11/1/6, AAR reported to the RSAC the status of work on proposed
industry standards. At that time, the NTSB representative to the RSAC
advised that additional recommendations related to event recorders
might be forthcoming as a result of recent accidents. On March 5, 1997,
NTSB issued recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event
recorders as a result of finding in the investigation of the BNSF
accident of 2/1/96 at Cajon Pass, California. On 3/24/97, the RSAC
indicated its desire to receive a task to consider NTSB recommendations
with respect to crash survivability, testing and maintenance. A task
statement will be presented to the full Committee at the 6/24/97 RSAC
meeting. (Task No. 97-3).
mandated regulatory projects
Question. What are the five regulatory projects that are
statutorily mandated, and when were these due for final issuance? What
is the status of each?
Answer. The five statutorily mandated rulemakings are:
1. Grade crossing whistle bans.--The Swift Rail Development Act of
1994 required FRA to issue regulations providing for the use of train
horns at highway-rail crossings. A final rule was due November 2, 1996,
for most hazardous crossings and November 2, 1998 for other crossings.
FRA is preparing an NPRM for release by the summer of 1997.
2. Track safety standards.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review
Act of 1992 required revision of existing regulations; including review
of excepted track and standards for high-speed service. A consensus for
these rules was achieved by an RSAC working group. In balloting
concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to endorse the NPRM, which FRA has
forwarded for review/clearance.
3. Passenger car safety standards.--The issuance of initial
standards by November 2, 1997, and final standards by November 2, 1999,
is mandated by the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994.
An NPRM is being finalized, which includes power brake rules for
passenger service.
4. Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--The Federal Railroad
Safety Authorization Act of 1994 required FRA to issue emergency
preparedness standards for passenger service. Initial standards are due
November 2, 1997, and final standards by November 2, 1999. An NPRM was
published February 24, 1997, and a notice of public hearing was
published March 6, 1997. Public hearings were held in Chicago on April
4 and New York City on April 7. Written comments were due by April 25,
1997. FRA is reviewing comments and preparing options for discussion
with the working group preparing the rulemaking.
5. Power brakes.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of
1992 required FRA to revise the power brake regulations. The statute
required adoption of requirements for two-way end-of-train telemetry
devices (EOT's) and ``standards for dynamic brakes.'' FRA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in September 1994. Due to strong
objections to the NPRM, additional options were requested from
passenger interests and from freight interests. FRA requested the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to incorporate new
proposals for revisions of the power brake regulation in the NPRM for
passenger equipment safety. An NPRM is being drafted. On April 1, 1996,
the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) accepted the task of
preparing a second NPRM on freight standards. The working group
initiated its efforts in May 1996. Consensus could not be achieved and
on May 29, 1997, FRA notified the working group by letter that the task
will be formally terminated. FRA is preparing a second NPRM. FRA
published a notice in February 1996 that the EOT issue would be
separated from the balance of the freight issues and expedited for
completion of a final rule. The final rule was published January 2,
1997 and becomes effective July 1, 1997.
penalty guidelines
Question. Several years ago the Committee directed the FRA to
publish in the Code of Federal Regulations the range of penalties to be
imposed for violations by rail carriers or rail shippers of the Federal
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations. What was industry's
reaction to this final product?
Answer. FRA published its penalty guideline amounts used in initial
determinations of proposed civil penalty assessments for documented
violations of the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations on July
25, 1996 (61 FR 38644). Since publication, FRA has made the industry
aware of the guidelines by providing copies at trade association
meetings and at numerous presentations given by FRA's Hazardous
Materials Division staff. The industry has responded in a positive
manner and appreciative to know of the penalty amounts ($$) assigned
within the penalty schedule. The penalty amounts makes it easier for
safety managers to convince their upper management of the seriousness
that FRA places on non-compliance of the Hazardous Materials
Regulations.
rail safety advisory committee
Question. FRA has requested a funding increase from $50,000 in
fiscal year 1997 to $200,000 in fiscal year 1998 to support the rail
safety advisory committee (RSAC). Please break down all associated
spending planned for the $150,000 increase requested to support the
RSAC, including facilities, mailings, equipment, contract support and
``other'' support costs.
Answer. RSAC's scope of involvement since it was chartered on March
25, 1996, to advance critical railroad safety rulemakings through a
collaborative process has included the full Committee (50 members and
their alternates), six working groups (217 members and alternates)and
sixteen task forces (150 members) participating in five full Committee
meetings, 33 working group meetings, and numerous task force meetings.
RSAC has accepted tasks involving major regulatory efforts
including revisions to the track safety standards, the regulations
governing power brake systems for freight equipment, the radio
standards and procedures, the regulations governing the qualification
and certification of locomotive engineers, and event recorder data
survivability. A Working Group on Tourist & Historic Railroads was
established to ensure appropriate focus on the unique issues presented
by application of safety laws and regulations to these operations. In
addition, a Planning Group was formed to evaluate the appropriate
responsive actions to recommendations contained in the Report to
Congress entitled Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions.
It is expected that RSAC involvement can shorten a rulemaking
process to under the three or more years normally required in such
proceedings. The $200,000 requested would support the fiscal year 1998
RSAC activities at the optimum level for reducing FRA's regulatory
backlog. Railroad labor and management are dedicating significant
resources to the success of this rulemaking process. Funding below the
requested level would severely impact the effectiveness of this process
and the resulting critical contributions to public safety envisioned by
all parties dedicated to the success of collaborative rulemaking.
Funding for meeting space and accompanying audio/visual
requirements for the full Committee, Working Groups and Task Forces
($55,000) will provide required space to accommodate meetings based on
the number of participants required to be seated at the table and
members of the general public. Federal agency space available to
accommodate these requirements is extremely limited and in great demand
in the Washington DC area. Further constraints for RSAC meetings are
restrictions on entrance to many federal agency buildings. The majority
of RSAC members and other attendees are not federal government
employees and the meetings are open to the general public. Meetings are
also conducted at locations outside of the Washington area to
facilitate member participation and availability and to equitably
distribute the burden of travel time and costs for members. This
funding will also provide necessary audio-visual support for these
meetings.
Funding for supplies, printing and mailing services ($42,000) are
essential to support the meetings and work of the full Committee, the
Working Groups and the Task Forces. Adequate funding to support
processing and dissemination of information and data crucial to the on-
going regulatory tasks and the extensive coordination involved, will
ensure the effectiveness of this extremely significant undertaking is
not compromised.
Travel funds are required ($20,000) for invitational travel for
state organizational employees who serve as Committee, Working Group,
and Task Force members. Their participation in the RSAC process is
essential to ensuring representation of interests other than railroad
management and labor which are directly affected by FRA's safety
regulatory program.
Funding for interpreter services ($3,000) is requested to address
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Facilitation service funding ($25,000) is essential to the success
of the negotiated rulemaking process. The demands placed on the limited
number of in-house facilitators necessitates the use of professional
facilitators. Professional facilitators are crucial to avert delay in
the negotiated rulemaking process.
Support for contractual services for specialized data collection
and analyses and other technical and administrative requirements in
support of Committee, Working Group and Task Force activities
($45,000). These services are a critical requirement to supplement
existing staff and address an escalating workload without increasing
staffing levels. Meetings of working groups and task forces will have
to accommodate the needs of members in order to elicit continued rail
labor and management support and participation in the process.
Locations outside of FRA headquarters or regional areas will require
contractual support to meet the administrative requirements for these
meetings. Specialized data collection and analyses will be required to
support the work of the task forces. Absent these services, the burden
that will be imposed upon existing resources will further strain
limited resources and continue to divert and dilute efforts being
directed to other critical functions.
Funding for training ($10,000) provides requisite interest-based
negotiation training for Committee, Working Group and Task Force
members to ensure effective participation in this consensual rulemaking
process.
grade crossing funding
Question. Please list all highway/rail grade crossing safety
program in the total FRA budget (i.e., research and development, next
generation high-speed rail, safety), and compare funding for each
initiative from fiscal year 1997 enacted to the fiscal year 1998
request. If the total funding is less than that in fiscal year 1997,
please explain why.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Research and Development:
Equipment, Operations and Hazardous
Materials.......................... $985,000 $835,000
Track, Structures and Train Control. 385,000 562,000
Safety of High-Speed Ground
Transportation..................... 650,000 400,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, R&D..................... 2,020,000 1,797,000
===============================
Next Generation High Speed Rail: Grade
Crossing Hazards and Innovative
Technologies........................... 2,965,400 2,500,000
Office of Safety:
Police Officer Detail............... 50,000 50,000
Outreach to judges, prosecutors, law
enforcement and the public......... 75,000 75,000
Analysis of High-Profile (Hump)
Crossing Problem................... 25,000 25,000
Software development................ 50,000 50,000
Support collection and processing of
National Inventory and Grade
Crossing Accident data bases....... 266,000 274,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Safety................ 466,000 474,000
-------------------------------
Total FRA....................... 5,451,400 4,771,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Railroad Research & Development, the $150,000 decrease in
Equipment, Operations and Hazardous Materials reflects the $200,000
decrease from 97 to 98 for Operation Lifesaver, offset by a $50,000
increase for a new project for Commuter Rail Safety. The original
fiscal year 1997 request for Operation Lifesaver funding was $300,000.
However, Congress earmarked an additional $300,000, for a total of
$600,000. The fiscal year 1998 request for $400,000 is actually an
increase over the original fiscal year 1997 request.
The $250,000 decrease in the Safety of High-Speed Ground
Transportation is a result of the completion of a three-part study that
examined signaling and train control, obstruction detection, and
warning device and barrier technologies suitable for high-speed
corridors.
In fiscal year 1997, the $5,000,000 Next Generation HSR
appropriation did not specify amounts for Grade Crossing Hazards or
Innovative Technologies program elements. The funds shown are those
obligated or planned for obligation for grade crossing hazard
mitigation in fiscal year 1997, the largest award being $2 million to
NCDOT for the Sealed Corridor Initiative. The fiscal year 1998 budget
provides $2,500,000 specifically for Grade Crossings.
operation lifesaver
Question. Why has FRA's funding request for Operation Lifesaver
been reduced below the fiscal year 1997 level?
Answer. In the FRA's fiscal year 1997 budget request to Congress,
$300,000 was requested for Operation Lifesaver. The Conference
Committee increased this request by $300,000 to $600,000 total. In
fiscal year 1998, FRA is requesting $400,000, which is $100,000 over
our original fiscal year 1997 request.
field participation in operation lifesaver
Question. Did your inspectors meet FRA's goal of participating in
at least four Operation Lifesaver related activities? Is this still a
goal in FRA?
Answer. Operation Lifesaver (OL) activities include, but are not
limited to, providing educational booths and exhibits at State, county
and local fairs, law enforcement meetings, participating in railroad-
sponsored safety blitzes and making educational presentations to adults
and children in all walks of life. These presentations are made in many
areas including educational settings such as all levels of public and
private schools, businesses, church groups and nonprofit institutions
and agencies. FRA views OL as an integral part of the FRA overall
effort to achieve the goal of zero tolerance for highway-rail
intersection collisions and trespasser incidents.
As part of FRA's goal to achieve zero highway-rail intersection and
trespasser incidents, FRA actively promotes and encourages FRA
inspectors to become certified OL presenters voluntarily and to
maintain the certification. In order to maintain certification as an OL
presenter, each presenter must make a minimum of four presentations a
year over and above any participation in other OL-sponsored activities.
As with all volunteer programs, the individual level of participation
varies. There are a significant number of inspectors, in addition to
numerous other members of FRA staff, who participate in many different
OL-sponsored activities and make many more than four presentations a
year. FRA is proud of the inspectors who, in addition to the many hours
of safety inspections on the job, volunteer for OL activities off the
job. While full participation of all the inspectors as part of their
job is impractical at this time (on-the-job OL presentations mean they
are not doing track, signal, operating practices, hazardous materials
and equipment inspections), it is impressive that 60
percent of FRA's inspectors are maintaining their OL presenter
certification.
grade crossing accidents by state
Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest
number of highway/rail grade crossing accidents, and cite the number of
accidents in calendar years 1995, 1996 and thus far in 1997.
Answer. Note: Data for 1996 is `preliminary,' and no data is yet
available for 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996
State collisions collisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas......................................... 474 428
Illinois...................................... 295 230
Louisiana..................................... 223 228
Indiana....................................... 271 217
California.................................... 200 186
Ohio.......................................... 239 180
Minnesota..................................... 152 156
Alabama....................................... 178 154
Georgia....................................... 160 150
Wisconsin..................................... 140 149
------------------------------------------------------------------------
top ten states--fatalities
Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest
number of rail grade crossing fatalities, and cite the number of
crossing fatalities for 1995, 1996 and thus far in 1997.
Answer. Note: Data for 1996 is `preliminary,' and no data is yet
available for 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996
State fatalities fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas......................................... 55 60
Illinois...................................... 48 37
Louisiana..................................... 28 31
Indiana....................................... 29 26
Oklahoma...................................... 15 22
California.................................... 28 21
Arkansas...................................... 22 20
Georgia....................................... 17 19
Missouri...................................... 22 19
Alabama....................................... 16 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
highway-rail intersections and those without signals
Question. Please prepare a chart that shows, by state, the total
number of at-grade highway/rail crossings, and breaks out the number of
those crossings that are not guarded or signaled.
Answer. Note: Figures have been taken from FRA's annual Highway-
Rail Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin, No. 18, for
Calendar Year 1995, published September 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total public Total private
State public without private without
at-grade signals at-grade signals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... 3,610 2,638 1,982 1,962
Alaska...................... 225 144 104 104
Arizona..................... 940 502 686 681
Arkansas.................... 3,280 2,485 1,507 1,501
California.................. 7,956 3,491 4,871 4,767
Colorado.................... 2,069 1,423 1,448 1,437
Connecticut................. 370 126 261 219
Delaware.................... 284 83 119 118
District of Columbia........ 23 17 8 8
Florida..................... 4,066 1,300 1,480 1,428
Georgia..................... 6,163 4,239 2,775 2,763
Hawaii...................... 6 6 ......... .........
Idaho....................... 1,524 1,216 1,376 1,365
Illinois.................... 10,219 5,313 5,684 5,580
Indiana..................... 6,587 3,655 2,846 2,808
Iowa........................ 5,245 3,582 4,217 4,202
Kansas...................... 7,865 6,189 4,232 4,227
Kentucky.................... 2,626 1,417 2,761 2,730
Louisiana................... 3,656 2,487 3,222 3,191
Maine....................... 882 423 934 918
Maryland.................... 687 361 712 703
Massachusetts............... 1,192 503 537 524
Michigan.................... 5,761 3,441 2,717 2,682
Minnesota................... 5,174 3,961 3,133 3,114
Mississippi................. 2,971 2,358 2,099 2,094
Missouri.................... 4,864 3,310 3,291 3,265
Montana..................... 1,533 1,184 2,058 2,049
Nebraska.................... 4,034 3,148 2,836 2,830
Nevada...................... 289 146 265 259
New Hampshire............... 503 315 344 340
New Jersey.................. 1,863 785 596 583
New Mexico.................. 810 513 589 586
New York.................... 3,275 1,168 3,177 3,144
North Carolina.............. 4,859 2,973 3,580 3,560
North Dakota................ 4,624 4,163 2,180 2,179
Ohio........................ 6,551 3,524 3,704 3,664
Oklahoma.................... 4,561 3,387 1,735 1,726
Oregon...................... 2,302 1,566 2,816 2,793
Pennsylvania................ 5,583 3,444 3,418 3,380
Rhode Island................ 128 61 71 70
South Carolina.............. 3,109 1,970 1,348 1,336
South Dakota................ 2,137 1,944 1,361 1,359
Tennessee................... 3,368 2,400 1,918 1,906
Texas....................... 12,490 8,016 6,363 6,282
Utah........................ 1,009 667 789 784
Vermont..................... 496 270 650 644
Virginia.................... 2,138 909 2,923 2,882
Washington.................. 2,854 1,950 3,014 2,997
West Virginia............... 1,893 1,223 2,220 2,205
Wisconsin................... 4,712 2,810 2,868 2,848
Wyoming..................... 527 288 932 927
Puerto Rico................. 24 18 2 1
-------------------------------------------
Totals................ 163,917 103,512 104,759 103,725
------------------------------------------------------------------------
four years of highway-rail safety progress
Question. Please provide an update of the progress that has been
made in reducing the number of injuries and fatalities at highway-rail
grade crossings over the last four years. Please provide a yearly
comparison table showing the reductions.
Answer. Preliminary data for 1996 indicates that crossing
collisions and casualties at highway-rail intersections nationwide
decreased by 10 and 18 percent respectively when compared to 1995 data.
These gains can be attributed to multi-modal partnerships which have
been fostered in communities nationwide and within the DOT to address
this problem. Specific actions include:
--The addition of FRA's eight regional managers for highway-rail
safety and trespass prevention programs continues to foster
partnerships which work;
--Industry inspection, testing and maintenance practices for highway-
rail intersection warning devices enhanced by Federal
regulations which became effective January 1, 1996;
--The addition of two alerting lights to the lead-end of locomotives
operating over highway-rail intersections. Regulations are not
effective until December 31, 1997, but most Class I locomotives
have been equipped;
--Increased use of train horns and increased awareness of the
crossing issue fostered by debate over train horns;
--Increased public awareness fostered by Always Expect A Train,
Highways or Dieways? and related Operation Lifesaver
promotions;
--Increased public awareness fostered by the school bus--commuter
train collision in Fox River Grove, Illinois, and the aftermath
of investigations, hearings and reports;
--More state and community involvement in highway-rail safety issues
fostered by the DOT Action Plan initiatives and the Fox River
Grove collision;
--Partnering within DOT with NHTSA's ``Moving Kids Safely'' and
``Safe Communities'' programs;
--Improving awareness and enforcement practices at highway-rail
intersections on behalf of traffic law enforcement officers;
--Outreach to the judicial community seeking increased awareness of
the problem and the potential of their acknowledgment and
involvement; and,
--Increasing numbers of highway-rail intersection consolidations and
closures, and increased awareness of the associated hazards
fostered by local debate of the issue.
Note: Data for 1996 is preliminary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
change from change from
Year Fatalities previous Injuries previous
year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993........................................................ 626 +8.1 1,837 -7.0
1994........................................................ 615 -1.7 1,961 +6.8
1995........................................................ 579 -5.9 1,894 -3.6
1996........................................................ 471 -18.7 1,552 -18.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grade crossing funding
Question. Please indicate how the FRA has worked with other Federal
agencies in reducing highway rail grade crossing incidents. What
coordinated efforts with other agencies are planned for fiscal year
1998, and how is this reflected in the request? Please show on a
project by project basis how the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1996
monies were spent, who the recipients of the funds were, and what the
expected results of these efforts are.
Answer. The FRA has coordinated the development of the Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Action Plan and its grade crossing safety initiatives
for reducing grade crossing accidents with FHWA, FTA and NHTSA. The FRA
will continue to work with the other DOT modes to promote DOT's Safe
Communities initiative by employing the Action Plan as the architect
for improving community grade crossing safety and continuing to partner
with Federal, state and local law enforcement and court officials to
increase the effectiveness of the program. A key element will be the
further dissemination of the Always Expect A Train public education
campaign. FRA will also continue to enhance safety at high profile
crossings by conducting advanced analysis that will assist in
identifying the best practice of high technology and common-sense
solutions.
For fiscal year 1998, FRA will continue to work with FHWA on field
testing of the Vehicle Proximity Alert System prototypes, funded by
FHWA in fiscal year 1994 and 95. FRA will also coordinate activities
with the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) on development of an
Intelligent Grade Crossing Controller, also funded by FHWA, which will
link the train control system, the grade crossing warning system and
the highway traffic control system, and on the further development and
implementation of User Service No. 30 in the National Intelligent
Transportation System Architecture, funded by FRA's Next Generation
High Speed Rail (NGHSR) program.
The fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 funding, recipients, and
expected results for the grade crossing research projects are shown in
the following table.
GRADE CROSSING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, NEXT GENERATION AND SAFETY PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------
Project 1996 1997 Recipient Expected results
funding funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, Operations and 735,000 985,000
HazMat.
Locomotive Conspic............. 15,000 5,000 Volpe Ctr......... Locomotives and freight cars will
be more visible to drivers,
helping them avoid striking the
train.
Freight Car Reflec............. 50,000 25,000 Volpe Ctr.........
Eval Wayside Horns............. 150,000 12,000 Volpe Ctr......... Locomotive horns will be
optimized for sound quality and
effectiveness while reducing
noise pollution in surrounding
communities.
Optml Acoustic Warn............ 40,000 20,000 Volpe Ctr.........
Driver Behavior................ 180,000 65,000 Volpe Ctr......... To gain a better understanding of
how drivers react to grade
crossings and why accidents
happen in order to educate
drivers and develop new warning
devices.
Accident Causation............. ........... 124,000 Volpe Ctr.........
Driver Education............... ........... 134,000 Volpe Ctr.........
Operation Lifesaver............ 300,000 600,000 Operation Public education about the laws
Lifesaver Inc. regarding grade crossing, the
dangers at grade crossings and
the importance to obey traffic
laws.
Track, Structures and Train 330,000 385,000 .................. .................................
Control.
Loss of Shunt.................. 300,000 300,000 Association of Examine causes for loss of
American contact between rail and wheels,
Railroads. resulting in intermittent
operation of grade crossing
warning devices (gate bobble).
Illumination Guidelines........ 10,000 25,000 Volpe Ctr......... The use of street lights to
illuminate trains at night so
drivers can see and avoid
running into the train.
Assess Passive System.......... 10,000 20,000 Volpe Ctr......... Assess the Ohio crossbuck and
traffic signals at crossings to
improve warning to drivers.
Assess Highway Signal.......... ........... 10,000 Volpe Ctr.........
Photo Enforcement.............. ........... 5,000 Volpe Ctr......... Assess the use of cameras to
monitor crossings and
automatically ticket violators.
Active Device Fail............. 10,000 25,000 Volpe Ctr......... Analyze the data from the
failures of automatic warning
devices and recommend
improvements to increase device
reliability.
Safety of High-Speed Ground 500,000 650,000
Transportation.
HSR Crossing Tech.............. 390,000 150,000 Volpe Center/ Examined signalling and train
Battelle Labs. control, obstruction detection
and warning devices and barrier
system technologies available
for use in high speed corridors.
Methodology to evaluate improved
safety provided by additional
devices developed.
Crossing Problem Definition.... 10,000 10,000 ASTI.............. Examined the crossing problems in
five designated high speed
corridors and recommended
solutions.
Assess 1036 Demos.............. 75,000 150,000 Volpe Ctr......... Evaluate the technology
demonstration projects funded
under the Section 1036 program
in ISTEA (4-quad gate with
obstruction detection).
Obstacle/Intrusion Detection... 25,000 150,000 Volpe Ctr......... Building on the HSR Crossing
Technology project, examine the
obstruction detection systems
suitable for use at grade
crossings and expand for use
along the right-of-way.
--------------------------
Subtotal for R&D......... 1,565,000 2,020,000
==========================
Next Generation High Speed Rail 1,600,000 2,500,000
Grade Crossing Haz. and 750,000 2,000,000 NCDOT............. The North Carolina Sealed
Innovative Tech. NC Sealed Corridor Initiativewill treat
Corridor. every crossing in the 92-mile
Charlotte to Greensboro segment
of the high-speed rail corridor
with innovative crossing devices
like median barriers, long gate
arms, and 4-quad gates.
Redundant crossings will be
closed.
NY Locked Gate................. ........... 215,000 NYSDOT............ The Locked Gate at Private
Crossings project will design,
fabricate, test and evaluate a
low-cost grade crossing gate
system suitable for low volume
traffic crossings on high speed
corridors.
TRB IDEA Program............... 500,000 500,000 TRB............... The TRB IDEA Program, supported
by FRA, FHWA, NHTSA, and FTA,
competitively solicits concepts,
conducts peer reviews, and
awards innovative technology
projects nationwide. Examples of
completed projects include a
very-wide field of view camera
suitable for automated
monitoring of grade crossings
and a scanning radar antenna for
surveillance systems.
ITS Architecture............... 100,000 100,000 ITS JPO........... The ITS Architecture is gaining a
new User Service--User Service
No. 30--which describes how
grade crossings will be
incorporated into the overall
Intelligent Transportation
System and which will link train
control systems with advanced
highway traffic control systems.
Volpe Center Support........... 250,000 150,000 Volpe Ctr......... Support for assessing hazard
elimination projects and
conducting a Corridor Risk
Analysis.
Safety Office.................. ........... ...........
Police Officer Detail.......... 50,000 50,000 Washington State.. The police officer detail is an
outreach program with the law
enforcement community to raise
awareness of crossing safety and
trespass prevention.
Outreach to Law Enforcement.... 85,000 75,000 IACP, NSA, FOP, Outreach to judges and
etc. prosecutors to enhance their
knowledge of crossing safety and
trespass prevention issues, and
defray convention fees and
materials support for FRA's
regional manager promotions of
highway-rail crossing safety and
trespass prevention programs.
Analysis of High-Profile Cross- 25,000 25,000 Univ. WV, Local Research and analysis of problems
ings. Survey Firms AMB. associated with and alternatives
for, high-profile crossings and
low-clearance vehicles.
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 40,000 50,000 AMB............... Simplify and refine the Highway-
and Data Bases. Rail Crossing Inventory and
collision data base reporting
procedures.
Information Processing......... 258,000 266,000 AMB............... Information Processing supports
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory
and crossing module of Accident/
Incident Report processing.
--------------------------
Subtotal for safety...... 458,000 466,000
--------------------------
Total for FRA............ 3,623,000 5,451,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these projects, two efforts are underway paid for
with FHWA funds:
Vehicle Proximity Alert System, with $1 million from FHWA ITS
program (fiscal year 1994 $600,000 & fiscal year 1995 $400,000) awarded
to the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado ($500,000)
and Volpe Center ($500,000). VPAS is an in vehicle warning system that
alerts motor vehicle drivers of the approach of a train, giving them
adequate time to stop. The initial reliability testing of the
prototypes has been completed. The next phase of testing will begin
later this year in an operating environment on a railroad corridor.
Long Island Railroad Intelligent Grade Crossing, with $7.625
million from FHWA and $3.175 million from General Railway Signal (GRS).
This project will connect the GRS Atlas train control system with the
grade crossing warning system and local highway traffic control system
to enable crossing gates to remain up for trains that will be stopping
at stations just before a crossing. Before departing, the locomotive
engineer will activate the warning lights and gates. This will minimize
motor vehicle delay while improving safety.
1-800 computer answering system
Question. Section 301 of the 1994 Railroad Safety Act requires the
Secretary to conduct a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency
notification system using a toll free telephone number for the public
to report any malfunctions or other safety problems at highway-rail
grade crossings. What has FRA done to implement this requirement, and
what are the results to date?
Answer. The 1994 Action Plan established the need for an automated
toll-free crossing trouble reporting system. In September 1994, a
contract was awarded to develop a Conceptual Design and Implementation
Plan.
The Swift Rail Development Act (October 1994) directed the
Secretary to demonstrate a toll free emergency notification system to
report emergencies, malfunctions and other safety problems, and to
conduct a pilot program in two states, but the Act did not appropriate
funds.
In the Summer of 1995, the contractor delivered the Conceptual
Design & Implementation Plan. Also, preliminary discussions were held
with the States of Illinois and Minnesota regarding the pilot project
and the FHWA approved the use of Surface Transportation Program Safety
Set-aside Funds (Section 130) for the required signage.
FRA proposes to develop and evaluate an automated pc-based computer
telephone answering and message forwarding system for handling calls
concerning crossing signal malfunctions and other problems at highway-
rail crossings. The system will use the U.S. DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory
numbering system for crossing location identification and will receive,
catalogue and forward telephone messages automatically from concerned
callers regarding problems with specific crossing signals.
In 1996, the funds for development of system hardware and the
conduct of a two-State pilot program were approved, a draft work
statement was prepared, and preliminary discussions were held with the
railroad industry to evaluate methods to incorporate similar 1-800
number systems in use on several major railroads.
However, because of the Swift Rail Development Act requirement for
reporting emergency situations at highway-rail crossings, both the
current Design Concept & Implementation Plan and the previously
developed work statement must be revised. This revision and a re-
evaluation of the current conceptual design became necessary because of
the dual non-compatible requirements. The requirement for an emergency
system is not compatible with the originally conceived
automatedmalfunction system for which the Design Plan was based. The
emergency system must be at least partially manned. The automated
system was not manned. A partially manned system will now have to be
incorporated or some other way will have to be identified which will
accomplish the same mission, such as incorporating the system with a
local 911 emergency telephone network.
FRA is committed to achieve the objective of the Action Plan and
Swift Act by developing and evaluating an automatic PC-based computer
telephone answering and message forwarding system with capability for
manned intervention.
Development of a revised work statement and procurement have been
initiated. The contract will go through the SBA 8-A approval process.
The estimated funding requirement is $625,000, not including the
installation of signs at each crossing, nor the public education and
awareness program, nor the final report to Congress.
Letters were sent to all States to determine their interest in
participating in the pilot program and several responses have been
received. Two States will ultimately be chosen.
Our goal is to have a contract in place by late-1997 to develop and
establish a computerized 1-800 telephone number call-in facility.
Further discussions with the chosen States and involved railroads will
need to take place in order to resolve important interaction details
prior to full implementation. Full implementation will take
approximately two years.
When the pilot program with two test States is completed and the
problems of developing a system that is both (1) cost effective and
automated to handle routine malfunctions and problems at crossings, and
(2) has the capability to perform as an emergency notification system
with minimal labor intensive manned effort, it is then expected that
the FRA and FHWA would jointly recommend that individual States adopt
such a system.
Question. FRA estimates the total capital costs of a national 1-800
notification program at all signalized crossings to be $11,400,000.00
($8,100,000.00 to procure and install signs; $2,500,000.00 for a
national public education/awareness program; and $725,000.00 for
telecommunications and data acquisition). What funds are requested for
this effort in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The original FRA estimate for the total capital cost of a
national 1-800 notification system for all signalized public crossings
was estimated to be approximately $11,400,000. The bulk of the funds,
$8,100,000, was to install two signs at each of all signalized
crossings (60,405 in 1995) at an estimated cost of $135.00 per
crossing. There was $2,500,000 estimated for a national public
education and awareness program, and $725,000 to design, procure and
implement one telecommunication and data acquisition set of hardware
for a national system. The system tentatively designed can handle the
entire country as easily as any individual State.
If it is desired to install the system at all public crossings
(approximately 164,000 in 1995), the total cost would escalate to
$22,140,000. This does not include those signalized private crossings
(1034 in 1995), most of which are for commercial property. These should
also be included because the driver can not discern the difference
between a public crossing and such signalized commercial private
crossings. This would add an additional $140,000 to the total cost for
signage. Thus, the total project funding to install such a system
nationally could approach $25,530,000 and more if it is determined that
each State should have their own computerized telephone data collection
system.
The total cost for the public education and awareness program would
probably stay the same. This funding estimate is to cover the costs
associated with the production of the publicity program and it is
anticipated that the media would provide most of the publicity as a
public service campaign.
The hardware and equipment costs, including design and development,
is sufficient for one system which can be implemented either nationally
or for a State. At this time, it is anticipated that it will probably
be more desirable to have each State have its own system. Once
designed, additional systems are estimated to cost about $300,000 each,
including the hardware and the development of the special data files
necessary for each State. This amount could be lower, but that will not
be known until the first system is completed and operational.
The $625,000 funding for the design and development of hardware and
data acquisition system is in FRA's Research and Development ``Safety
of High Speed Ground Transportation Program'' Budget. No additional
funds are requested in fiscal year 1998, as all funds requested to
complete this project were provided in fiscal year 1996.
highway-rail intersection safety improvement strategies
Question. Please discuss FRA's latest strategies to reduce the
number of injuries and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings. How
do you measure the effectiveness of these efforts?
Answer. FRA continues to partner with other DOT administrations,
states, industry and associated interest groups in implementation of
DOT's 1994 Action Plan initiatives. This has involved the development
and support of outreach efforts to the law enforcement and judicial
communities, corridor safety improvement programs, highway-rail safety
infrastructure improvements as outlined in NEXTEA, crossing
consolidation initiatives, public education and awareness (Operation
Lifesaver and related programs) and an active research program.
Deliverables to date include a National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Legal Research Digest titled, ``Photographic Traffic Law
Enforcement,'' a revised ``Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on
Matters Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings,'' definition of the nation's
Principal Railroad Lines, authorizing legislation for incentive
payments (Federal funds) from States to communities for closing
crossings, legislation making the cost of crossing closures eligible
for 100 percent reimbursement from the Federal crossing safety
improvement program, nine integrated intermodal transportation planning
symposiums, a check list and detailed procedure for corridor reviews, a
proposal (in NEXTEA) to provide additional funds to States for crossing
safety improvements on the basis of need, On-Guard Notices, Advisory
Bulletins and public service print advertisements targeting the
nation's trucking industry, a research needs workshop, a study of the
demographics of crossing fatalities, improved trespasser casualty
reporting, a national and five regional workshops on trespass
prevention and a model trespass prevention code. On-going Action Plan
initiatives include the Always Expect A Train campaign, the detailing
of an active duty police officer to FRA to assist with and promote
outreach to the law enforcement community, encouraging states to
upgrade signs and markings, promoting broader use of STOP signs,
``Trucker on the Train'' programs and the collection of crossing
collision data regarding light rail crossings. The FRA was also an
active participant in the Secretary's Task Force established after the
school bus--commuter train collision in Fox River Grove, IL in October,
1995. Since then, FRA has co-chaired (with FHWA) a Technical Working
Group which included other DOT agencies, states, industry and interest
groups to implement the Task Force recommendations published in March
1996. These recommendations deal with interconnected signals,
preemption timing, joint inspections, high profile crossings, light
rail crossings and special vehicle operations. A status report was sent
to the Secretary on May 28, 1997 and was subsequently approved. The
Status Report is being printed and should be available for distribution
in mid-July. It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of these
individual programs and initiatives, but their collective impact is
clear. Preliminary data for 1996 indicates that collisions at highway-
rail intersections are down 10 percent, and the number of casualties,
both deaths and injuries, has declined 18 percent, the largest single
year decline on record and to the lowest point since we have been
keeping records.
trucks and tracks
Question. One of the recommendations in DOT's Grade Crossing Action
Plan was to examine the need for a rulemaking to make grade crossing
violations a disqualifying offense on a commercial driver's license.
What is the status of this recommendation?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of
Motor Carriers is the DOT principal for this initiative. FHWA
anticipates rulemaking to be initiated this Summer in the form of a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments. The
FHWA has opened a docket, FHWA Docket No. MC-90-10. Public Law No. 104-
88 also applies.
office of safety pc&b costs
Question. Please prepare a table showing personnel compensation and
benefits appropriated and amounts actually spent for fiscal years 1996
and 1997 for field and headquarters staff.
Answer. Information follows:
OFFICE OF SAFETY PC&B COSTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------------------
1996 1997
-------------------------------------------
Plan \1\ Actual Plan \1\ Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field....................... 29,781 29,772 31,119 31,119
Headquarters................ 6,957 6,377 7,430 7,430
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 36,738 36,149 38,549 38,549
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that PC&B costs are not specifically appropriated. Funds
are appropriated at the account level with general guidance at the
budget activity level.
The difference between ``plan'' and ``actual'' does not represent
savings, but rather adjustments based on all funding priorities within
the Office of Safety. The Office of Safety often has to slow their
hiring process in order to cover non-discretionary support costs.
office of safety staffing (on-board)
Question. Please provide a break down of all staff utilized by the
Safety Division, and compare this to staffing levels of fiscal year
1995, fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year 1997. How many vacancies now
exist in the Office of Safety?
Answer. Information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 \1\
actual actual estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field.................................. 447 449 \2\ 442
Headquarters........................... 86 82 \3\ 82
--------------------------------
Total............................ 533 531 524
Fiscal year 1997 ceiling............... ......... ......... 543
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of 6/30/97.
\2\ Firm commitments (3)--EOD 7/6/97 (1); and 7/20/97 (2). Firm recruit
actions (11)--Three selectees will be given a firm EOD pending drug
test. Remaining eight actions in various stages of recruit process.
Positions should be filled by August 1.
\3\ Firm recruit actions (5)--All positions have been paneled. Waiting
for interviews and/or final selection.
safety travel budget
Question. How much was spent on travel during fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and proposed for fiscal year 1998? Please separate
the spending amounts for travel by field staff and headquarters staff,
as well as for State employees.
Answer. The information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
actual enacted requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters........................... 480 281 285
Field.................................. 4,671 4,948 5,016
State Inspector Travel................. 210 240 245
--------------------------------
Total............................ 5,361 5,469 5,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
effect of videoconferencing on travel budget
Question. How will the $135,000 that is requested for
videoconferencing and imaging be used to reduce the current amount
spent on travel? How have these associated reductions been reflected in
the fiscal year 1998 travel request?
Answer. The use of an imaging system enhances access of records
between offices and allows the reduction of hard copy files and the
amount of floor space required for file cabinets. This system would
have no impact on travel.
The video teleconferencing system (VTS) will enhance communication
between field and headquarters offices, enhance telecommuting efforts,
and increase FRA's ability to quickly respond to railroad accidents and
emergencies. The use of a VTS will not result in a net reduction in
travel, but could reduce the percentage growth in headquarters travel
related to the training/meeting of field staff.
office of safety--personnel compensation and benefits, and other
support
Question. Please break down the fiscal year 1998 requested amount
for the following: PCS, inspector trainee program, data collection,
grade crossing safety, alcohol and drug testing, overtime, non-
mandatory bonuses, training and travel. Please prepare in tabular form
comparable expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
Answer. Information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
request estimate actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCS.................................... 802 744 875
Inspector Trainee Program.............. 1,736 1,845 \1\ 1,734
Data Collection........................ 1,291 1,273 1,277
Grade Crossing Safety \2\.............. ......... ......... .........
Alcohol and Drug Testing............... 522 515 316
Overtime............................... 88 88 201
Non-mandatory bonuses.................. 16 16 52
Training............................... 314 310 80
Travel................................. 5,546 5,469 5,316
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects budgeted amount, trainee costs were not tracked separately.
\2\ Funding for grade crossing is not tracked in the budget or
accounting reports.
safety training
Question. How much money was spent for management retreats and
diversity training in each of the last three years. How much is planned
for similar efforts during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. During the last three years, approximately $25,000 has been
spent on diversity training. In fiscal year 1996, supervisors received
diversity training as a part of a week-long training course covering
many topics. Also, in fiscal year 1996, all employees received
diversity training as part of training received during the safety
multi-regional conferences. This training was given by in house staff
resulting in minimum costs, i.e., travel. No specific diversity
training has been identified for fiscal year 1998.
The Office of Safety holds approximately two management retreats
each year for strategic planning. The only costs associated with these
retreats are travel costs which we do not track separately from other
travel costs.
reprogramming of safety funds
Question. Please show any reprogramming or reallocation of Office
of Safety funding from the appropriated amounts for fiscal year 1996
and fiscal year 1997.
Answer. Funding for the Office of Safety was appropriated at the
total account level. fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 levels were
$49.558 million and $51.338 million respectively. FRA has not
reprogrammed any funds between the Safety and other FRA accounts.
cost sharing
Question.What has FRA done since last year to promote additional
cost sharing in the research and development program? How does FRA plan
to continue this practice in 1998?
Answer. The FRA's Office of R&D has continued to meet with the
Association of American Railroads and the railroad industry (railroads,
suppliers, unions) to identify cooperative research projects. One major
effort is the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST), a joint
government industry research project conducted at the Transportation
Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. Another effort is with the RPI/
AAR Tank Car Research Project where FRA and the industry are
cooperating on several research projects to reduce the release of
hazardous materials from tank cars involved in accidents. These
projects include testing, which FRA funds, and tank cars and other
equipment for testing, supplied by the industry. Industry also
contributes technical expertise.
To ensure maximum leveraging of research funding and to eliminate
duplication in the area of passenger car research, the FRA cooperates
extensively with organizations such as the American Public Transit
Association and the Federal Transit Administration.
FRA will continue meeting with interested parties to further
cooperative research in 1998. FRA will also use the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee process and their Working Groups to investigate
additional projects for cooperative research.
non-federal cost sharing in r&d
Question. Please update and specify cash equivalents, in-kind
services, or other funds obtained from non-Federal sources for each of
the subcomponents of the R&D program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
How will cost sharing be encouraged during fiscal year 1998, and how is
this reflected in the budget proposal?
Answer.
EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Percent
Fiscal year Federal Federal Total non-
funds funds funds Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................ $5,535 $5,728 $11,263 51
1997........................ 5,545 3,295 8,840 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About half of the cost-sharing under this program is the industry's
contribution of equipment for the advanced braking project and the
wayside bearing project. Other cost-sharing includes in-kind
contributions of technical expertise and equipment and related shipping
costs for hazardous materials test projects. Not included in the above
figures is the industry contribution to the Operation Lifesaver program
which is con-funded by FRA, FHWA, Amtrak, Association of American
Railroads, Railway Progress Institute, and individual railroads.
TRACK, STRUCTURES, AND TRAIN CONTROL
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Percent
Fiscal year Federal Federal Total non-
funds funds funds Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................ $7,078 $5,747 $12,825 45
1997........................ 7,346 6,156 13,502 46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly half of the cost-sharing under this program is provided by
industry contributions to the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing.
Other significant fractions are provided by industry support to the
vehicle Track Systems program and by individual railroad contributions
of train crews for test operations of the FRA's Gage Restraint
Measurement System (GRMS) as well as transportation of FRA's GRMS
instrumentation car between test sites.
SAFETY OF HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Percent
Fiscal year Federal Federal Total non-
funds funds funds Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................ $9,373 $2,300 $11,673 20
1997........................ 4,600 156 4,756 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has not been much cost-sharing in this program due to the
fact that the freight railroad industry is not conducting research in
high-speed passenger car safety issues. Most of the current work is in
support of rules of particular applicability for the Office of Safety.
This type of research does not lend itself to cost-sharing.
R&D FACILITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Percent
Fiscal year Federal Federal Total non-
funds funds funds Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................ $400 $383 $783 49
1997........................ 420 510 930 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major portion of FRA's research funding support projects that are
conducted at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The TTC is
operated for the FRA by the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
under a long-term Care, Custody, and Control contract. The total
business volume of the AAR at TTC is on the order of $30 million per
year. Of this, approximately 25 percent or less is provided by FRA.
Therefore, the majority of the costs for operation, maintenance, and a
few selectively chosen capital improvements to the TTC is borne by the
AAR and its customers via AAR's overhead rate and pricing structure for
non-FRA projects at TTC.
r&d programs with volpe
Question. Please list all FRA research and development program
contracts with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, including a short summary of each specific
contracted project, and the associated amount.
Answer. The information follows.
RR-03.--Next generation high speed rail support
This project provides support to the FRA's Next Generation High
Speed Rail Program. The purpose of this effort is to enhance the
deployment of high-speed passenger rail, particularly on existing
infrastructure, by improving, adapting and demonstrating innovative and
cost-effective technologies which have wide application in U.S.
corridors.
The Volpe Center provides technical support to the FRA in assessing
candidate technologies and procedures to determine the likely impact on
rail operations, including safety, performance, reliability and
economic viability.
Research activities conducted under this program include: High-
Speed Positive Train Control; Grade Crossing Risk Assessment and
Reduction; High Performance Non-Electric Locomotive Development;
Innovative Technologies for Track and Structural Improvements; Railroad
Test Track Upgrade.
Funding
Fiscal year:
1996......................................................$1,250,000
1997...................................................... 600,000
RR-19.--Track systems research
The Track Systems Research Program provides the FRA with
engineering analysis tools and analytical and experimental study
results. These results will be applied to assess risk of derailment
induced by track defects and to manage inspection and maintenance
resources to minimize these risks. The results of these studies promote
railroad safety and economic efficiency by enabling track engineers to
target inspection and maintenance resources based on actual performance
on track. Specific tasks are pursued based on accident statistics,
track maintenance costs, and engineering expectations of potential
problems.
The work conducted under this program is in direct support of the
goal of the FRA to promote and improve the safety of the nation's rail
system in the area of railroad track systems. The efforts build upon
the Volpe Center's engineering capabilities developed as a result of
rail and vehicle safety research projects conducted over the years in
support of the FRA. The results of this research have been incorporated
in the risk management strategies of railroads throughout the United
States, and are being applied by the FRA in the development of
revisions to the current track safety standards. Analysis tools and
studies conducted under this program have provided the FRA with data
for use in evaluation of waiver requests and monitoring performance
under waivers issued.
Research activities under this program include: Rail Integrity;
Track Structural Mechanics; Track Inspection Tools; Vehicle Track
Interaction; Train Control Device Safety; Risk Assessment and
Management Strategies; Special Projects related to Track Systems
Safety.
Funding
Fiscal year:
1996......................................................$1,810,000
1997...................................................... 1,772,000
RR-28.--Rail equipment safety
The FRA sponsors research and engineering studies to provide the
technology to reduce the likelihood of accidents related to the design
and the operating and maintenance practices of railroad equipment.
This project provides the FRA with a base of Volpe Center expertise
to support the FRA's research and development program on railroad
equipment and operating practices and hazardous material safety.
Research activities under this program include: Structural Integrity of
Tank Cars/Components; Human Factors Influencing Operator and Crew
Performance; Advanced Operation and Information Displays; Train Make-
Up, Handling, and Controls; Rail Passenger Evacuation Safety; Rail
Equipment Collision Safety; Rail Vehicle Dynamics; Dedicated Trains;
Advanced Risk Analysis; Trailer/Container Securement; Steam Locomotive
Study.
Funding
Fiscal year
1996......................................................$3,246,576
1997...................................................... 1,537,000
RR-93.--High speed ground transportation safety
This project provides the FRA with timely technical information for
informed rulemaking initiatives and with technical assessments of the
safety implications of the implementation of advanced high speed ground
transportation systems proposed for construction in the United States.
Information is developed in topic areas critical to the safety of HSGT
systems that may not have been explored for traditional U.S. rail
systems. Technical safety assessments include systems based upon
foreign developed technologies that have been proposed for
implementation by a variety of private interests and state and local
authorities. The Volpe Center staff with support of the Center's
contractor base have been conducting studies of the applicability of
existing regulations and requirements for new regulations to permit
these new technologies to operate safely in the U. S. environment.
Volpe Center staff have worked with FRA staff in the drafting of
waivers to permit demonstration of new equipment and in preparation of
new rules of particular and general applicability to permit safe
operation of the proposed systems.
Research activities under this HSGT program include: System Safety/
Emergency Preparedness; System-Specific Safety Assessments; Automation
Safety and Operational Control-Critical System Monitoring/Alerting;
Fire Safety; Corridor Risk Assessment Model Development; Human Factors;
Vehicle Crashworthiness; Advanced Braking; Track Standards; Guideway
Safety; Aerodynamic Safety Issues-Platform and Vehicle; Glazing Safety;
Electrical Safety; Electromagnetic Fields; Magnet Safety.
Funding
Fiscal year:
1996......................................................$1,600,277
1997...................................................... 1,925,000
RR-97.--Highway-rail grade crossing safety
The Volpe Center is supporting the FRA's highway-railroad grade
crossing safety research program. This research includes innovative
warning signs, more reliable active signal systems, techniques to
increase the conspicuity of trains, improved acoustic warning systems,
and technologies applicable to the needs of high speed rail passenger
service. Other initiatives include enforcement and education activities
as well as a greater emphasis on the human response to grade crossing
warning device applications.
Research activities under this program being conducted at the Volpe
Center include: Locomotive Conspicuity; Freight Car Reflectorization;
Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems; Wayside Horn Systems; Driver
Behavior; Causal Analysis of Crossing Accidents; Driver Education
Programs; Illumination Guidelines; Active Warning Device Failure
Analyses; Assessment of Passive Systems;Obstacle and Intrusion
Detection; Vehicle Proximity Alerting System; High Speed Rail Grade
Crossing Safety; High Speed Rail Grade Crossing Demonstration
Evaluations; Risk Analysis of High Speed Rail Crossing Improvements.
Funding
Fiscal year:
1996......................................................$1,595,000
1997...................................................... 1,103,000
strategic plan and research and development
Question. Please outline how the FRA's strategic plan outlines the
direction and nature of research to be conducted during the next five
years for the entire research and development program
Answer. The R&D activities in this Plan are those needed both to
support the safety rulemaking and enforcement activities of FRA's
Office of Safety and to foster the development of technologies needed
for high-speed passenger operations. Safety recommendations from the
National Transportation Safety Board were taken into account, along
with National, Departmental, and Agency strategic goals. Contributions
to the plan were solicited and received from across the spectrum of
scientific, operational, and user communities. These contributions from
both inside and outside government are always welcome, provide valuable
inputs, and are greatly appreciated. They provided input for the
development of research proposals.
FRA's five-year strategic plan for the Office of Research and
Development groups projects into two major program areas that cover 16
program elements:
Improving railroad safety:
--Reduction of human factors accidents.
--Detection of rolling stock defects and improvement of rolling stock
performance.
--Detection & prevention of track and structure defects.
--Track/train interaction safety.
--Prevention of train collisions and over speed accidents.
--Prevention of grade crossing accidents.
--Improved hazardous materials transportation safety.
--Improved protection for occupants of trains.
--Improved safety of high-speed ground transportation.
--Improved R&D facilities and test equipment.
Advance technology to accelerate high-speed rail:
--Development of high-speed positive train control systems.
--Development of non-electric locomotives for high-speed passenger
corridors.
--Development of high-speed grade crossing protection.
--Track and structures technology.
--Integrated corridor demonstration.
--Advancement of maglev technology.
To review and prioritize these research proposals, review teams of
project and program managers were formed for each of the 16 R&D program
elements. This prioritization was based on the criticality of project
contributions toward eliminating shortfalls that affect FRA strategic
goals. Congressional issues, concerns of the railroad community as a
whole, as well as cost effectiveness and long and short-term benefits
were also considered as prioritization factors. After prioritization
within program elements, R&D management worked across element
boundaries to develop an integrated R&D program. With this process, FRA
believes that it has moved its R&D program from one that was reactive
to one that will be more anticipatory.
The FRA, in an effort to ensure maximum leveraging of research
funds and to eliminate duplication, cooperates extensively with the
AAR, the Railway Progress Institute (RPI), American Public Transit
Association (APTA), Amtrak, and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). Cooperation with the AAR occurs primarily in the areas of track/
train interaction, track safety research, bearing defect detection,
braking systems, grade crossings, train control, and hazardous
materials (hazmat) transportation. The RPI arranges for its supplier-
members to provide material and equipment for the Facility for
Accelerated Service Testing at the TTC, and also participates in the
hazmat transportation projects. The APTA, Amtrak, and the FTA cooperate
with the FRA on projects aimed at improving protection for railroad
passengers. Representatives from the FRA serve on a number of industry
committees to ensure that duplication of effort is avoided.
The FRA continues to investigate avenues for leveraging scarce
research resources with other government agencies, the railroads and
railroad supply industry, and foreign railroad research and development
organizations.
research and development/gpra
Question. Please summarize the office of research and development's
efforts to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act.
Answer. Research and development programs pose a special challenge
with regard to establishment of outcome-oriented performance
measurement as required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
FRA recognizes that R&D activities, even when addressing highly applied
topics, are not ends in themselves. Rather, they are generally
components of broader, outcome-oriented programs, and realization of
those goals will ultimately depend in large part on program
implementation factors that are typically far removed from the enabling
research. Furthermore, in railroading, federal activities are generally
only a small part of achieving outcomes, with much of the
responsibility for implementation falling to the private sector (and
state and local agencies with respect to commuter operations and to
grade crossings), and with final success determined by transportation
system users and other affected parties. Finally, outcomes are likely
to be very distant in time from the R&D that contributes to them.
In spite of these difficulties, FRA's Office of Research and
Development is implementing a performance-oriented management process.
The Office of R&D has identified its key ``customers'' for its work,
and relates it to their needs. The R&D program elements are linked
directly to National, Departmental, and Agency Strategic Goals. The
five-year R&D strategic plan explicitly establishes those linkages.
The Office is taking steps to identify the difference between
``outputs'' and ``outcomes'' of its R&D projects. These outputs are
related to the desired outcomes which are directly linked to FRA goals
and objectives. The Office of R&D has recognized that the end of an R&D
project is not when a report is printed and distributed, and that staff
resources need to be devoted to bringing about the appropriate
implementation of the R&D findings.
human factors research
Question. Please provide an update of the progress that has been
made in the human factors program since last year. How much of the
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 allocated funds have been spent,
and for what purposes? Please delineate objectives on a project by
project basis. Please provide additional details on the plans for any
new human factors research in fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Following is a summary of the progress on projects during
fiscal year 1997, project objectives, and funding for fiscal years 1996
and 1997 and the fiscal year 1998 request. New phases or extensions of
ongoing research are identified where applicable.
Stress and Fatigue
1. Data collection for Enginemen Stress and Fatigue: Phase II was
completed in early fiscal year 1997. Reports are being prepared for
publication by the end of fiscal year 1997. The majority of this
project was funded prior to fiscal year 1996. The objective is to
determine if current scheduling practices impose an excessive burden of
sleep deprivation, circadian disruption, and fatigue which could
degrade the train handling performance and vigilance of locomotive
engineers.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $200,000
1997................................................................
1998................................................................
2. Study design for Engineer Napping Strategies has been initiated
and is expected to be completed in fiscal year 1997. The primary
purpose of this research is to determine if strategic on-duty napping
can improve locomotive engineer performance and safety. Future year
funding will be needed to complete this project.
Fiscal year:
1996....................................................\1\ $630,000
1997...................................................... 355,000
1998...................................................... 400,000
\1\ $530,000 obligate in fiscal year 1997.
3. Information on Vigilance Monitoring devices and techniques that
are being marketed or that are in the research and development stages
are being assembled during fiscal year 1997 as a part of the Volpe
Center's technical support activity. While this has been a low level
effort to date, evaluation of these and other potential technologies is
planned for fiscal year 1998. Testing of the most promising
technologies is also planned. The intent is to identify, test and
validate a cost effective technology for determining the level of
alertness of a locomotive engineer while on duty and initiating a fail-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
safe action, if needed.
Fiscal year:
1996................................................................
1997...................................................... $325,000
1998...................................................... 300,000
4. The study design for Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue is
expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1997 and pilot tests
of the methodology initiated in early fiscal year 1998. Methods of
measuring workload, stress and fatigue (alertness) in a uniform manner
and thresholds for safe performance are to be established. Out year
funding will be needed to complete this project.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $100,000
1997...................................................... 200,000
1998...................................................... 224,000
5. The draft report ``Human Factors Phase III: Effects of Control
Automation on Operator Performance'' is currently being reviewed and
revised. It should be published by the end of fiscal year 1997. This
work provides background for FRA's concern with High Speed Operator
Stress and Fatigue. Another element, to begin by the end of fiscal year
1997, is to evaluate the effects of increased information flow which
must be handled by the operator at higher speeds.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $285,000
1997...................................................... 100,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
Operating Practices
1. Non-Accident Hazmat Releases was initiated in fiscal year 1997
to examine training practices for, and educational background of
personnel handling hazardous materials.
Fiscal year:
1996................................................................
1997...................................................... $130,000
1998................................................................
2. An evaluation of Yard and Terminal Safety Practices was
initiated in fiscal year 1996. An interim report on Phase 1, which is
an analysis of accident data bases to determine the major human factors
contributing to accident causation, is expected to be completed by the
end of fiscal year 1997. The next phase will be an in-depth evaluation
of these human factor issues.
Fiscal year:
1996................................................................
1997...................................................... $200,000
1998...................................................... 150,000
3. Dispatcher Training Evaluation was begun in fiscal year 1996.
This study was designed to examine training issues for dispatchers in
light of recent changes in technology, workload, and operational
experience of the job applicant pool. Currently, model syllabi are
being drafted for FRA and subject matter expert review. This review
will be performed during the early months of fiscal year 1998, and
followed with revisions, as needed. A subsequent workshop on the
findings of this effort is anticipated.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $300,000
1997...................................................... 100,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
Applied Technology
Currently, there is only one project in this group of activities.
It is referred to as Knowledge Display Interface and was initiated in
fiscal year 1996 to explore innovative ways to visualize and share
information, particularly among teams of operating personnel.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $450,000
1997...................................................... 200,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
Grade Crossings
1. Operation Lifesaver has historically been funded in the human
factors part of the R&D program. This program is managed by the Office
of Safety.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $300,000
1997...................................................... 600,000
1998...................................................... 400,000
2. Several activities are in various stages under the overall
heading of grade crossing safety. They are: Freight Car
Reflectorization--report being reviewed; Evaluation of Wayside Horns--
report being reviewed; Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems--ongoing;
Driver Behavior--initiated in fiscal year 1997; Accident Causation
Analysis--initiated in fiscal year 1997.
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $435,000
1997...................................................... 385,000
1998...................................................... 435,000
locomotive engineer fatigue research
Question. What are the fatigue mitigation strategies that have been
investigated during the last year? What were the results of these
efforts?
Answer. Enginemen Stress and Fatigue: Phase II has been completed
and two reports are nearing publication. This research determined that:
current Federal regulations governing Hours of Service for locomotive
engineers allow work schedules that have backwards rotating shift start
times that may not allow sufficient sleep; locomotive engineers who
work under such schedules can accumulate a progressive sleep debt over
a period of days; the locomotive engineers in this study, while working
on such schedules, reported progressive decreases in subjective
alertness across the duration of the study; and, several aspects of job
performance, including safety sensitive tasks, degraded during the same
time period. This suggests, that greater care in scheduling train crews
is necessary to maintain high levels of safety and efficiency.
FRA plans to evaluate potential strategies to mitigate the effects
of fatigue. An evaluation of planned, on-duty napping has been
initiated in fiscal year 1997 at an estimated cost of $1.2 million and
is expected to require about three years to complete. An evaluation of
vigilance monitoring devices is planned to start by the end of fiscal
year 1997. Initial cost is expected to be $300,000.
In addition to these research activities, FRA held a round-table
last year with labor and management participation and is encouraging
industry initiatives demonstrating different approaches to use of
napping, scheduling and crew calling.
fatigue research results
Question. Please provide updated results of the fatigue research
sponsored by FRA. What information has been collected that could lead
to regulatory revision of the hours-of-service requirements? How has
the fiscal year 1997 program contributed toward this objective, and
what are the planned fiscal year 1998 research objectives?
Answer. Enginemen Stress and Fatigue: Phase II was completed in
fiscal year 1997 and the earliest stages of Engineer Napping Strategies
initiated. While the work just completed provides some basis for
considering changes in the way work assignments are scheduled, whether
this should be done in a regulatory setting or by some other means
remains to be determined. Continuation of the napping study in fiscal
year 1998 will move closer to determining if on-duty napping is a
useful fatigue mitigation strategy.
passenger equipment standards
Question. Please provide a discussion of how the equipment and
components subprogram reflects the congressional mandate for FRA to
develop passenger equipment standards. How much money was spent for
this purpose in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, and how much is
planned for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. To respond to the mandate of the Congress to develop
passenger equipment safety standards, FRA has expanded its passenger
equipment safety project within the equipment and component subprogram
since fiscal year 1996. A project on passenger rail vehicles dynamics
was initiated in fiscal year 1996 to verify the safety assessment
method and derailment criteria. Another project on passenger restraint
systems was initiated in fiscal year 1997 to study the effectiveness of
various passenger restraint designs. Funding for fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997 was $500,000 and $800,000 respectively. We are
requesting $700,000 for fiscal year 1998 to support this important
project, and $100,000 to support research specifically for commuter
rail cars.
operating rules
Question. What additional research might be conducted to improve
the clarity and understanding of railroad operating rules? How has
misunderstanding these rules contributed to crashes?
Answer. Information derived during fiscal year 1997 from individual
interviews and a focus group involving representatives of the
Association of American Railroads, National Transportation Safety
Board, Federal Railroad Administration and several railroads with
responsibility for operating rules development or compliance is
currently being evaluated to determine the most productive course of
action for further research. The misapplication of rules for
``restricted speed'' (various definitions, but usually under 20 mph.)
is the most frequently cited problem by this group. In 1995, nearly
half of all train collisions occurred at speeds under 20 mph.
Several issues regarding the communication and understanding of
railroad operating rules may warrant further research. The railroad
industry has recognized the importance of having clear, succinct,
unambiguous operating rules that can be easily and accurately
understood by operating employees. Major railroads in the Northeast
enlisted the aid of a language and communications expert when they
devised their operating rule book known as the NORAC Operating Rules.
The American Train Dispatchers Division of the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers (ATDD/BLE) has conducted preliminary research
regarding ``active'' listening techniques. ``Active'' listening
requires active participation from the listener which may translate
into more careful listening and more accurate communication.
Research into the skills and techniques associated with
communication and listening may provide valuable information that can
enhance the safety of railroad operating rules and procedures.
dispatcher workload, stress, and fatigue
Question. The fiscal year 1997 budget request stated that tests and
methodology for the evaluation of dispatcher workload, stress and
fatigue would soon be completed. Were they? Please describe the results
and how the fiscal year 1998 research and development will continue the
progress made in fiscal year 1997. How could the results of the study
contribute to a regulatory revision of the hours of service
requirements?
Answer. In Phase II of the locomotive engineer research,
performance effects of scheduling on sleep deficit, accounting for the
circadian cycle, were examined. Research on locomotive engineer stress
and fatigue continues with evaluations of mitigation strategies.
Currently, this includes on-duty napping and vigilance monitoring.
Other strategies such as scheduling alternatives may emerge from tests
by various railroads. Stress and fatigue, particularly relating to
types of work assignments during different shifts, in the work
environment of yard and terminal workers, is likely to become a
discreet focus of that broader study.
Methodologies to be used in the examination of dispatcher workload,
stress and fatigue are still being developed. They are to be
unobtrusive during the dispatcher's work period. Both objective and
subjective measures of workload, stress and fatigue will be used. Pilot
tests are expected to begin in October 1997, and be completed during
the summer of 1998. Amtrak and Conrail have agreed to provide sites and
support for these activities. The main body of data collection will
begin as soon as possible thereafter. The implications for action on
hours of service, workload control and distribution, and other features
of the dispatcher job cannot be known until results of the research
become available. There have been delays in the original schedule of
this project, but they have not adversely affected the direction or
relevance of the research.
high-speed operator stress and fatigue
Question. One of the ongoing research projects included in the
operations subcomponent of FRA's research and development request is to
evaluate stress and fatigue issues unique to high-speed train
operators. Please explain how the high-speed conditions are replicated
in order to conduct this evaluation. Does FRA have a high-speed rail
simulator?
Answer. The FRA's Strategic R&D plan identifies stress and fatigue
issues unique to high-speed train operators as an area of concern. The
FRA's approach to the simulation of high-speed rail operations has
emphasized problems caused by the high rate of information flow at high
operating speeds. Human capacity to receive, process and react to
information is limited. The FRA is using a ``part task'' simulator at
the Volpe Center to simulate visual and other sensory-motor aspects of
high-speed operations to evaluate the stress and fatigue caused by high
rates of information flow and the requirement to act and react on the
basis of that information. Since the conditions of interest are
computer generated, they are easily replicated for evaluation. The
``part task'' simulator which is used for this evaluation does not
simulate the physical motion, or many other aspects, of high-speed
operations.
high-speed simulator
Question. Are there any plans in the next five years to add the
capability for high-speed rail simulation?
Answer. A study to determine the need for and desired
characteristics of a high speed simulator is planned for fiscal year
1999. Amtrak has contracted for trainsets based on French technology
that are intended to operate on existing, improved track at speeds up
to 150 mph. These tracks will also continue to carry slower freight
traffic. Florida's FOX system is also based on French technology and is
planned to operate at 200 mph on dedicated right of way. French,
German, Swedish and Japanese technologies continue to offer promise of
faster trains in the future. Each have different views of the most
desirable mix of automation and human control. U.S application will
likely be variations of these approaches. While no details are known at
this point, it is anticipated that the capability to sort through the
most likely options will be needed. This can be best provided through
the use of well designed simulation.
track research funding
Question. How were the funds allocated in fiscal year 1997 spent
for track research? Please explain purpose of each project and the
amount funded. What are the comparable planned expenses in this area
for fiscal year 1998, and how is this reflected in the request? How did
the results of the fiscal year 1996 research help FRA?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, a total of $7.346 million was
allocated for track research. The total funding request for track
research in fiscal year 1998 is $7.746 million. The following shows how
these funds were allocated among the four major program activities for
fiscal year 1997 and the allocation planned for fiscal year 1998. A
detailed list of projects for fiscal years 1995-1998 can be found on
page 75 of FRA's fiscal year 1998 Congressional Budget submission.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
1997 1998
enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and Components.............................. 2,785 2,585
Inspection-Detection.............................. 2,150 2,750
Track Train Interaction........................... 1,364 1,364
Signal, Train Control, and Electrification........ 1,047 1,047
---------------------
Total....................................... 7,346 7,746
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose for each of these program activities is as follows:
Track and Components.--The purpose of this program activity is to
aid in assessing the structural integrity of the existing track
structure and its components in light of the changing environment of
higher axle loads, traffic densities, and speeds and the recent trends
of introducing newer unconventional vehicle types and newer track
materials. It includes research on more complex track components, such
as turnouts, in addition to more commonly considered track components,
such as rail, crossties, and ballast. Emphasis is given to failure
modes and degradation processes which most impact the safety of track.
Inspection-Detection.--The purpose of the Inspection-Detection
program activity is to improve track defect detection techniques and
other technologies related to inspection equipment, with the goal of
reducing train accidents resulting from failures in the track
structure. Potential research products include new techniques and
equipment that could provide accurate and reliable assessment of track
safety, or aid in the effective planning of track maintenance as a
preventive measure against hazardous structural failure of track or
bridges. The new techniques could serve as the basis for performance
based track safety standards which do not inhibit innovation.
Track Train Interaction.--The objective of this research area is to
develop analytical tools, instrumentation, and test data that can
accurately describe the interaction between the rolling stock and the
supporting track structure. This interaction is not limited to the
instantaneous transfer of dynamic forces from vehicle to track but
extends to cover cumulative effects on track degradation such as wear
and surface fatigue of railheads and deterioration of track geometry.
Some of the safety related issues which will greatly benefit from
progress in this research area include the impact of high speed
passenger service on existing track, the development of performance-
based track geometry standards, and the development of guidelines for
optimum inspection and maintenance practices to enhance track safety
and durability.
Signal, Train Control, and Electrification.--The goal of this
research area is to evaluate critical and interrelated areas of railway
signaling and electrification technology that are outpacing the content
of existing Federal standards. Prime emphasis is placed on safety and
operability of high-speed guided ground transportation (HSGGT) systems.
As a corollary, another related goal is to seek application of existing
or new technology to improve railroad safety.
Much has been gained from the track research and test activities
that were completed in fiscal year 1996. The most notable
accomplishments and their benefit to FRA can be summarized as follows:
Track Safety Standards.--In 1996, a government-industry-labor
effort under the auspices of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee was
initiated to accelerate the development of revised track safety
standards for all present classes of track, as well as new standards
for high speed tracks.
This process was greatly influenced and guided by results from
research completed in fiscal year 1996. One example is results from
testing and analysis of track twist and its influence on vehicle
safety, which were completed in fiscal year 1996, and have led to
significant revision of current standards. Another notable example is
the development of new high speed track geometry and vehicle-track
interaction safety standards, where fiscal year 1996 research results
provided the very first building blocks allowing the development of
comprehensive performance-based standards.
Track Buckling.--Testing and analysis in track buckling mechanism
has resulted in maintenance guidelines which have been useful to the
industry in combating this source of train accidents. Significant
reductions in the number of accidents attributed to track buckling have
been seen since this research began. Additional work is still needed on
methods and devices to measure track lateral resistance and rail
longitudinal force and to extend results to tracks constructed with
unconventional crossties.
Gage Restraint.--An ongoing effort in fiscal year 1996, is
application of the Gage Restraint Measurement System (GRMS) developed
by the FRA to measure the ability of track to maintain gage under
service load conditions. In 1996, the GRMS continued to gain acceptance
as a mature technology resulting in at least two major railroads
acquiring GRMS capabilities, based on this FRA developed prototype, for
their own use in locating areas of track with weak or unsafe gage
restraint. FRA's longer range GRMS testing continued on a large
southeastern railroad. This railroad can now, on the 500-mile test
zone, assure that crosstie replacements are being installed in areas of
maximum risk for wide-gage derailments from weak ties.
Heavy Axle Loads.--During fiscal year 1996, a new phase of
accelerated testing was begun at the Pueblo test track in order to
assess track safety and performance under 125-ton cars equipped with
improved suspension systems. Initial results from more than 100 million
gross tons of traffic accumulated on the test track under these loads
indicated a potential enhancement to safety due to reductions in
lateral loads and fatigue related rail defects. Experiments on rail
grinding practices and their impact on rail wear and fatigue were also
begun.
Rail Steel Integrity.--Work supported by FRA grants at the Oregon
Graduate Research Institute has resulted during fiscal year 1996 in the
completion of two doctoral theses concerning fatigue-induced cracks in
rail steel. Research findings documented in these theses have provided
valuable insight into the phenomena of crack generation and growth
rates under a variety of conditions of instantaneous and cumulative
tonnage burden as well as various methods for top-of-rail lubrication.
The knowledge gained from these multi-year research projects that have
recently come to fruition will now be employed in devising rail flaw
inspection revisit protocols and in generating test procedures for
assessing rail lubrication strategies. For instance, one surprising
result from the research was that rail lubrication which is often used
to reduce flange wear on curved track may actually accelerate the
growth of fatigue-induced cracks in the rail head via forced
advancement of the crack vertex due to hydrostatic pressure of
lubricant trapped in the crack by the wheel tread.
Question. What are the implications of delaying or split funding
(half in fiscal year 1998, half in fiscal year 1999) any new
initiatives on track technology? In your answer, please address the
advantages and disadvantages of split funding the proposed upgrade of
the T-6 car.
Answer. FRA is requesting $650 thousand in new initiatives in Track
Research. Of this amount, $500 thousand is for the replacement of the
T-6 car. FRA is already split funding this cost, as the balance will be
requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget. The requested $500 thousand
will support the design of the replacement car, initiation of the
procurement process and acquiring of long lead items to ensure a
delivery date of mid-2000.
The envisioned replacement car is essential for the effective
implementation of a number of track safety related initiatives in the
Five-Year Strategic Plan. Consequently, our top enhancement priority in
fiscal year 1998 is to initiate the replacement of this deteriorating
40-year old railcar that is FRA's only platform for mounting
instrumentation to conduct investigations that support development of
advanced track inspection technology.
The rapid payoff from this one-time purchase investment will be
savings of $400K per year from the combined effect of reduced
maintenance costs, increased efficiency of operations (less downtime),
and gains in field-testing productivity, thereby providing cost-
effective use of Government funds. Furthermore, this investment should
enable FRA to automatically detect track flaws related to 87 percent of
current FRA cause codes, up from 46 percent now. This new level of
capability will move FRA farther along the path toward the
Administrator's goal of zero tolerance for derailments.
If we do not acquire a new car, there will continue to be an
expenditure of funds on recurrent ``band-aid'' maintenance of the old
car and idle manpower during frequent breakdowns. Equally important,
the lack of a suitable testing platform will severely limit our
envisioned integration of advanced track inspection technologies with a
potential to yield significant synergies and corresponding safety
improvements.
It should be noted that the T-6 will have to be adequately
maintained and used until the replacement car is available in mid-
fiscal year 2000.
The remaining $150 thousand for the advanced braking system project
cannot be split funded because it would delay the realization of the
benefits of the anticipated technological advances.
advanced braking system evaluation
Question. Please describe the progress made in evaluating the
advanced braking system. Will this study be completed in fiscal year
1998?
Answer. FRA has been working with industry co-operatively in the
development of industry performance and interchange requirements for an
advanced electrically controlled pneumatic braking system (ECP). Thus
far, the train line communications standards have been established and
adopted. Performance requirements, similarly, for braking forces,
response times, and other key parameters have been selected and
adopted. FRA has supported the safety related work inherent in the
development of these specifications. Work remains to be done on the
electronically controlled pneumatic brake/locomotive systems
integration (ECP/LSI) interface and on the standards for the Head End
Unit (HEU) control layout and mounting requirements.
Laboratory testing of generic prototypes was conducted to
investigate various failure modes and their consequences. Two industry
suppliers have emerged to build equipment. These suppliers have
selected a hardwired system both as a source of power for individual
cars (as opposed to local generators or batteries) and for train line
communication of signals. Several trainsets have been placed in test
service mainly in unit coal and intermodal trains. The safety of these
trainsets is being closely monitored, with failures of individual
components being recorded. A system safety and reliability study is
planned using the Failure Modes and Effects and Criticality Analysis
approach.
Beyond fiscal year 1998 the safety record will be followed and
additional control and surveillance functions will be proposed for
addition to the total ECP system. We will be examining both hard wired
and RF versions of ECP brakes. ECP braking systems have improved the
stop distance performance dramatically and the uniformity of braking
among cars. Use of ECP braking systems will be extended to cars in
general service so that the nation's entire fleet can utilize the
safety benefits of this new technology. This will require a means to
couple adjacent cars electrically and pneumatically in an automated
fashion without manual connections. This work will be the principal
focus in the ensuing fiscal years. ECP braking represents a major
safety improvement in the rail industry.
safety of high speed ground transportation
Question. Specifically, what high-speed grade crossing safety
research initiatives are ongoing with the fiscal year 1997 funding
level of $950,000? What initiatives will be pursued with the requested
funding level of $700,000?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 funding is providing $300,000 for
research to support development of track safety standards and $650,000
for grade crossing research. Of the $650,000; $150,000 is being used to
evaluate grade crossing improvement projects previously funded, and
$500,000 will continue work on intrusion detection and other devices,
improved warning systems, and begin work on development of national
warrants for grade crossing warning systems. For the fiscal year 1998
request of $700,000; $300,000 will be used for development of track
safety standards and $400,000 will continue the fiscal year 1997 grade
crossing research efforts.
safety of high speed ground transportation
Question. Were any funds spent in fiscal year 1997 on the maglev
safety research, and if so, how were these funds used? Are any maglev
projects going on at this time?
Answer. No funds were spent in fiscal year 1997 specifically on
maglev safety research. Some of the rail safety work such as
electromagnetic field effects is also relevant to maglev. At the
present time there is one maglev technology project underway, ``Maglev
2000 of Florida,'' using Florida DOT plus matching federal (but not
USDOT) funds. In addition there are several local maglev projects
seeking funding. These include a Baltimore to Washington project, a
Pittsburgh, PA project, a Las Vegas to Southern California project, and
the Mashantucket-Pequot Tribal Nation project between Norwich, CT, the
Foxwoods resort and Westerly, RI. FRA staff is preparing a mandated
report to Congress on the near term applications of maglev technology.
safety of high-speed ground transportation
Question. What is the purpose and likelihood of success for the
proposed $500,000 in fiscal year 1998 for maglev work as indicated on
page 76 of the budget justification? Why is it necessary to go forward
with this project? How has the FRA established partnerships with the
private sector that encourage cost sharing in this area?
Answer. The bulk of the $500,000 is proposed to contribute to the
cost of equipping the Holloman AFB High-Speed Maglev Sled Test Track
with 1,000 feet of linear synchronous motor propulsion windings. The
advantage to FRA is that it will allow FRA to test a critical subsystem
of a maglev transportation system on a much longer track that is
already outfitted with magnetic levitation components, at a small
fraction of the cost of building the entire track. The Air Force
benefits because it allows it to assess the efficacy of eliminating
rocket propulsion without equipping the entire maglev track with an
electric motor. The major risk is failure of the maglev portion of the
system, but inasmuch as the propulsion windings will not be installed
until that part of the system is validated, the risk of failure is
minimal. What will be learned is the operating characteristics of the
propulsion system, its efficiency, power factor, limits of dynamic
stability, limitations of computer modeling, and opportunities for cost
reduction.
This effort is an attempt to continue meaningful innovative
research and development in maglev technology in the environment of
severe funding limitations. In this time of budget constraint, keeping
alive a modest research and development effort which would at the least
keep the U.S. abreast of developments overseas and possibly result in
innovations which would afford a future entree into this world
technology,is the most prudent course of action for the Department of
Transportation. Cooperation with on-going efforts in maglev, including
the Air Force, the Navy and NASA, and with the German and Japanese in
maglev is a cost-effective way of making progress in magnetic
levitation technology. To the extent that funding permits and within
FRA mission constraints, FRA will cooperate in maglev tasks with NASA
and the Navy so long as those projects move forward.
r&d facilities
Question. In addition to the Transportation Test Center in Pueblo,
Colorado, what other research and development facilities does FRA own?
How many non-headquarters staff are associated with other research and
development facilities?
Answer. In addition to the Transportation Test Center in Pueblo,
Colorado, the FRA owns the Research and Locomotive Evaluator/Simulator
(RALES) located at the IIT Research Institute (IITRI) in Chicago,
Illinois. IITRI operates and maintains the facility under contract with
FRA. Costs are covered by fees charged to all users, including FRA.
There are no FRA personnel located at the RALES facility.
research at r&d facilities
Question. Please outline what research projects are performed at
each facility, and delineate the associated fiscal year 1997 and
requested fiscal year 1998 costs.
Answer. Main research projects being performed at the
Transportation Technology Center are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
Project Title ---------------------- Organization
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track Stability Investigations. 150 200 FRA, VNTSC, AAR
FAST (Heavy Axle Load Safety).. 1,835 1,670 FRA, AAR, RPI
Loss of Shunt.................. 300 300 FRA, AAR
Improved Component Safety...... 125 200 FRA, AAR
VPAS Prototypes................ 200 ......... FRA, VNTSC, FHWA
Tank Car Safety................ 190 300 FRA, VNTSC, AAR,
RPI
Rail Defect Farm............... 150 150 FRA, AAR
Evaluation of New Lubrication 175 100 FRA, AAR, DOE
Practices.
Vehicle/Track Systems.......... 425 500 FRA, AAR
----------------------
Total.................... 3,550 3,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projects shown in the above table have been awarded and are at
various stages of completion. fiscal year 1998 activities to a large
extent will build on the results and accomplishments under these
projects. Considering the investigatory nature of research, it is
difficult to predict with a reasonable degree of precision the duration
of performance and the cost of all research work, particularly the more
complex projects. Accordingly, while we cannot accurately delineate the
associated fiscal year 1997 and requested fiscal year 1998 costs for
each project, we fully expect the FRA goal of $5M per year level of
research and test activities at TTC to be met in both fiscal years. For
fiscal year 1997 the TTC will gross from FRA well over that figure when
facility upgrade costs not listed above are included.
The most recent project to be completed at the RALES facility is
Engineman Stress and Fatigue: Phase II (reports in production). Tests
in the Engineer Napping Strategies project, which is just beginning,
will be conducted on RALES. Fiscal year 1997 funds budgeted to this
project are $330,000 and $400,000 is requested for fiscal year 1998.
r&d facilities funding
Question. Please explain in detail why the request for facilities
restoration more than doubled over the fiscal year 1997 enacted level.
What activities are included in this $850,000 request? What activities
would be foregone/deferred if the program were funded at fiscal year
1997 level of $420,000? What activities would be foregone/deferred if
the program were funded at $600,000?
Answer. There are two main reasons for this: delayed reinvestment
or rehabilitation, and increasing requirements for restoration and
upgrade of a mature (25-years old) facility. It should be noted here
that during the period 1983-92 no site restoration funds were provided
for these facilities valued at well over $200M in current dollars. It
should be further noted that, for planning purposes, the typical
facilities re-roofing interval which is considered a capital outlay, is
in the range of 20 to 25 years.
The activities included in the current $850K request, in order of
priority, are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Restoration of site radio communication system to full operation
condition..................................................... 110
Design of HSR Project Maintenance Facility........................ 80
Procurement of 75-Ton mobile crane, front end loader, and grader.. 380
Rebuilding of Wheel Truing Machine................................ 150
Roof Restoration Program on support buildings..................... 130
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 850
If the program were funded at fiscal year 1997 level of $420K, the
procurement of a front end loader and a grader (item 3, partial),
rebuilding of the wheel truing machine (Item 4), and the roof
restoration (Item 5) activities would be deferred. Emergency roof
repairs (wasteful band-aid) would have to be done to minimize damage to
buildings. At $600K level, roof restoration (Item 4) and the
procurement of the front end loader would be deferred.
transportation technology center
Question. How much has the private sector contributed in each of
the last few years to improve the Transportation Technology Center?
Answer. Private sector contributions in each of the last few years
are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
Year Amount
1993.............................................................. 405
1994.............................................................. 474
1995.............................................................. 2,680
1996.............................................................. 383
1997.............................................................. 510
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total amount................................................ 4,452
All of these are direct cash investments by the AAR, with the
exception of the 1995 figure which includes direct cash investment of
$270K plus an installed equipment contribution of $2,410K.
ttc funding
Question. Has FRA been able to maintain its 1992 goal of performing
a $5 million level of research and test activities at Transportation
Test Center annually, as specified in the TTC operating contract with
the Association of American Railroads?
Answer. Yes. The FRA has been able to maintain its goal. The
average FRA funding level of research and test activities at the TTC
has been about $5.1M per year.
high speed ground transportation for america
Question. How much closer today, as compared to five years ago, is
the Nation to having a reliable, cost effective, and safe high-speed
rail passenger transportation system?
Answer. In August 1996, we sent a study to Congress known as ``High
Speed Ground Transportation for America,'' in which we examined the
potential for public/private partnerships to implement high-speed rail
projects. We looked at the full spectrum of high speed technologies,
including: upgraded existing rail with top speeds of from 90 mph to 150
mph; new high speed rail on separate rights-of-way at 200 mph; maglev
at 300 mph. We studied applications in seven corridors plus the Texas
Triangle. We found that in practically all cases, high speed rail could
cover its operating costs and continuing investment needs and pay for
varying portions of capital costs. In every corridor there was at least
one of the high speed technologies in which total benefits exceeded
total costs, thus providing justification for the public investment
share.
In the five high speed corridors designated under Section 1010 of
ISTEA, real progress has been made in construction, planning for high-
speed rail, conducting environmental assessments, renovating passenger
stations using ISTEA Enhancement Funds and consolidating or reducing
the hazards at grade crossings. Beyond all our studies and all the
successes of foreign nations, we are well on our way toward
implementing high speed ground transportation and can see an
accelerating interest in this concept. Most states have adopted an
approach which upgrades existing railroads. For example:
Northeast Corridor
The Northeast Corridor is being brought to a still higher plateau
of customer service. Amtrak is completing the electrification of the
corridor all the way to Boston, allowing rail to tap the lucrative New
York-to-Boston market much as it now serves New York-to-Washington. And
last Spring, Vice-President Gore and then-Transportation Secretary Pe--
a announced the purchase of Amtrak's new 150 mph high speed train sets
that will realize the potential of the Northeast Corridor.
Outside NEC
Outside the Northeast Corridor, States and the private sector are
driving major efforts to implement high-speed ground transportation.
Here are just a few examples.
California
California has just completed an extensive study of a complete
high-speed ground transportation system about 680 miles long linking
San Francisco and Los Angeles, with extensions to San Diego and
Sacramento. Such a system would serve as the backbone of intercity
passenger transport in California in the 21st century. Their High-Speed
Rail Commission found the proposal feasible, and the State is seeking
to send a plan to the voters by the year 2000. The State has invested
over $400 million in the last five years to improve its passenger rail
system.
Pacific Northwest
The States of Washington and Oregon are upgrading the track
connecting Eugene-Portland-Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. for eventual 125
mph service. Last year, Washington signed a contract to purchase two
Spanish TALGO tilting trainsets and Amtrak has also signed a contract
to purchase one TALGO trainset for use in this corridor. These trains
can cut over 15 minutes off of the current running schedule. Within
three years, Seattle will also institute commuter rail service between
Everett and Tacoma, Washington and this service will share many
facilities and some track with the planned high speed rail.
Oregon is working on a satellite based positive train separation
project. Two major railroads, BNSF and UP have invested heavily in this
project which is targeted at eliminating train accidents in the
Portland terminal area.
Illinois
Illinois has begun to upgrade the line between Chicago and St.
Louis for 125 mph service. The state plans to demonstrate a high speed
train control system on a portion which will then allow passenger
trains to achieve 110 mph. Work will soon begin near St. Louis to
remove a bottleneck in the service. Also, Illinois will install
``arrestor nets'' this spring at three grade crossings to test the
feasibility of this type of grade crossing protection for high speed
service.
Michigan
Amtrak service on the 279 mile line now takes about five and one-
half hours and the highway trip takes about five hours. By the end of
the upgrading project, Michigan plans for nine round trip frequencies,
using 125 mph electric locomotives and a running time of three hours.
Some 79 miles of Amtrak owned property already has been fitted with a
satellite based train control system which was tested last October 11
at 100 mph and an extensive grade crossing treatment and right of way
improvement plan is underway.
Midwest
Nine states in the Midwest have been quick to seize on the
potential for a high speed rail network based in Chicago and are
presently conducting a feasibility study. This would involve an upgrade
of lines for current Amtrak service and eventually provide 125 mph non-
electrified service. The states are Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska,
Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio and Indiana.
Florida
The State of Florida recently awarded a franchise to the Florida
Overland Express (FOX) consortium to design, build, operate and
maintain a 200 mph electrified system based on the French TGV system
between Orlando, Tampa and Miami--a distance of about 320 miles. Miami
to Orlando service would begin in 2004 and the system would be fully
built by the year 2006. The State and the FOX group are now working on
all of the economic, engineering and environmental studies necessary
before construction can begin.
Virginia and North Carolina
The State of Virginia has as its highest rail priority to extend
the ``Northeast Corridor'' to Richmond. The State recently named a High
Speed Rail Commission to develop a plan for implementing rail service.
A Major Investment Study is also underway to evaluate improvements to
the Newport News to Richmond corridor. Virginia is working closely with
North Carolina in improving the Washington to Charlotte Corridor for
125 mph service.
North Carolina has been upgrading stations, buying equipment, and
improving the track between Charlotte and Raleigh. The State has
initiated a ``Sealed Corridor Concept'' plan for treatment of all grade
crossings in the Greensboro to Charlotte segment.
New York
The Empire Corridor ranks with San Diego-LA as second only to the
Northeast Corridor in terms of frequency of service. In addition,
speeds already reach 110 mph on major portions of the NY-Albany
segment. New York State DOT has invested heavily in corridor
improvements since the late 1970's and early 1980's. The State of New
York retrofitted the two power units of an Amtrak RTL turbo train to
demonstrate the efficiencies of new, Turbomeca Makila gas turbine
engines. These engines operate at a 20 percent fuel savings and were
tested at 125 mph. This was one of the efforts underway in the Next
Generation High Speed Rail (NGHSR) nonelectric locomotive development
program. The success of this project, and its enthusiastic acceptance
by passengers, has supported NYSDOT's plan to reconstruct the six
remaining RTL turbo trains to be used in the Empire Corridor.
All these are merely some prominent examples. Many other States
have studied, or are seriously considering, high-speed rail solutions.
Together with FRA's Safety and R&D efforts, we have made significant
progress toward bringing safe, reliable high speed ground
transportation to more areas of the country.
istea--high-speed rail development
Question. Please specify how other funds authorized in ISTEA have
been used to date to promote high speed rail development. Which
specific sections of ISTEA authority have been utilized? What specific
cooperative agreements or other financial arrangements have been
initiated or completed thus far to further high speed rail development?
What other actions are being considered? Please be certain to specify
the progress made with these funds?
Answer. The largest expenditures so far, though not funded from
ISTEA, are for the electrification and upgrade of the Northeast
Corridor from Boston to New Haven and the purchase of the American
Flyer trainsets for Amtrak.
FRA has been working with FHWA, FTA, FAA, and MARAD through the
Intermodal Terminal Committee which meets monthly to promote and find
funding for intermodal passenger terminals. For high speed rail to be
effective, the terminals must be able to handle high volumes of
passengers and must be well connected to each of the other public
transportation providers. The intermodal terminal committee has been
successful in initiating projects with Amtrak with Next Generation High
Speed Rail Planning funding as well as funding from Sections 3, 18 and
21 of Federal Transit Act Funds. CMAQ funds have also been used
extensively. These efforts have resulted in the construction of
intermodal terminals in Meridian, Ms., Albany, NY, Los Angeles, CA,
Seattle, WA, Salem, OR, New Orleans, LA, Portland, OR and many others
expected to be key cities in high speed rail development. The committee
has worked with several MPO's and state departments of transportation
such as California, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana,
Illinois, Michigan and others.
Intermodal terminal developments have been initiated through the
State Departments of Transportation, cities and MPO's through a variety
of grant agreements.
Other activities have included working with state DOT's to apply
ISTEA Sections 1010 and 1036 and Title 23 Section 130 funding to remove
and protect grade crossings. Several states have used these sources of
funding to boost train speeds. For instance, Michigan has removed 12
grade crossings so far and North Carolina is working on its ``Sealed
Corridor Concept'' described more fully below.
FRA's Next Generation High Speed Rail Program a portion of which
was funded from ISTEA has led to progress in key areas:
1. Advanced train control
Michigan.--The Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) on the
Chicago-Detroit corridor is being demonstrated in a partnership of FRA,
Michigan DOT, Amtrak, and Harmon Industries. A successful 100 mph
initial demonstration was accomplished in October, 1996. FRA funding is
$9M for the train control system, and $100,000 to date for worker
training in the new technologies being used. Michigan and Amtrak have
provided over $11M in matching funds and in-kind contributions.
Production of hardware is underway to equip the planned 71 mile
demonstration segment. Regular train service at 100 mph is targeted for
mid-1998.
Illinois.--The High Speed Positive Train Control project will be
tested on the Chicago to St. Louis high speed corridor, in partnership
with Metra, the State of Illinois, Amtrak, and a supplier yet to be
designated. FRA has obligated $7M, matched with over $5M from IDOT. A
contract for hardware and software is expected to be let by the State
of Illinois this summer, with installation to occur in 1998 and testing
to begin in late 1998.
Pacific Northwest.--The Positive Train Separation (PTS) project is
sponsored by BNSF and UP railroads on 800-miles of joint trackage in
the Pacific Northwest. The two railroads have invested approximately
$35 million. Testing of PTS is expected to be completed by the end of
1997. FRA-funded related activities include a computer model of the
interaction of high-speed passenger trains and freight trains in the
PTS territory, and installation of PTS and evaluation of its impact on
Portland Union Station and Vancouver, WA. FRA is also working with the
Coast Guard, Oregon, and the US Air Force to establish Differential
Global Positioning System (DGPS) coverage in the Columbia River valley
to permit testing of the PTS automatic location system.
Conrail/CSX/Norfolk Southern.--The three eastern freight railroads
and FRA are jointly undertaking a Positive Train Control (PTC) project
on shared trackage between Harrisburg, PA, Hagerstown, MD, and
Manassas, VA. The first phase of the project will develop on-board
locomotive devices to deal with the different technical approaches used
in HSPTC, PTS and ITCS to attain the maximum possible system
interoperability. An initial FRA cooperative agreement award of
$500,000 to Conrail is pending for Phase 1, to be followed by
cooperative efforts to install wayside systems in subsequent years.
This work, while not funded under the Next Generation program, is
expected to be an incremental step to more advanced train control
systems that could be used for high speed passenger service.
2. Non-electric locomotives
The Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System (ALPS) project at the
University of Texas, in partnership with AAR, Allied Signal, and GM-EMD
and the Advanced Research Projects Agency of DOD, continues to develop
a flywheel and turbine powered locomotive to provide acceleration
equivalent to that of a an electric locomotive without the need for
catenary. The construction of the full-scale flywheel rotor has begun.
Discussions are underway with both NYSDOT and Bombardier on alternative
prototype locomotive platforms to construct ALPS rolling demonstration
units.
Daily service is operating on the Empire Corridor at 110 mph with
the RTL-2 Turboliner. NYSDOT is upgrading six Rohr Turboliner trainsets
to RTL-3 configuration with advanced turbines to permit operations at
speeds up to 125 mph and with enhanced acceleration capability, with a
target of Albany-NYC service under 2 hours in 1998. NYSDOT is working
with Amtrak and FRA to finance the overall RTL-3 upgrade program. The
$4 million earmarked for this project in fiscal year 1997 will be
obligated when the program financial structure is defined.
3. Grade crossing hazards and low-cost innovative technologies
The State of North Carolina has begun a demonstration their
``Sealed Corridor'' Concept to address grade crossing hazards on a
comprehensive, corridor wide basis using $2 million in FRA funding.
Innovative, low cost techniques, selected and applied on a crossing-by-
crossing basis, and thorough evaluations of the needs and the results,
are key elements of the approach.
Projects are underway at University of Delaware and Zeta Tech
Associates to reduce excessive maintenance requirements and improve
high-speed ride quality at track locations such as highway grade
crossings and bridge ends, where track stiffness changes lead to high
impact forces and chronic problems for both high speed and freight
operators. Rapid track degradation at these locations also poses
potential derailment hazards.
BBN Systems and Technologies successfully demonstrated a brassboard
active noise control unit. It uses roof-mounted loudspeakers driven by
computers and sensors which instanteously create ``anti-noise'' to
cancel the noise waves emanating from the locomotive stack. This has
the potential to significantly reduce wayside exposure to diesel
locomotive engine noise.
Morrison-Knudsen Advanced Systems and the University of Idaho are
investigating the requirements to effectively and efficiently
interconnect multiple flywheels or other energy sources on a single
locomotive.
4. Track and structures technology
Track and signals will be upgraded to permit higher speed
operations on the Portland-Eugene, OR portion of the Northwest
Corridor, using the $5.65 million earmarked in fiscal year 1997.
5. Corridor planning
Funds to support corridor planning activities have been awarded to
several states. See state-by-state corridor status summaries.
Question. Please provide information on how NEXTEA would promote
the funding of the high speed rail projects.
Answer. For the first time rail capital projects would be eligible
for trust fund funding: Both the National Highway System, under certain
circumstances, and the Surface Transportation Program would be open to
passenger rail projects, including those involving Amtrak. States and
MPO's could now use these funds to support intercity passenger rail
service, including high speed rail service, by purchasing equipment, or
constructing or improving rail lines, stations or related facilities.
States may operate the services directly or under contract with private
providers or Amtrak. Direct support of operating costs would remain
prohibited.
All rail projects, including high speed rail, continue to be
eligible under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Program. As long as projects contribute to meeting a non-
attainment area's air quality goals, any transportation project would
be eligible for CMAQ funding. NEXTEA would provide significant funding
increases for CMAQ, allowing states and MPO's more resources to support
innovative projects. The Section 130 Grade Crossing Program would be
retained, and grade crossing projects would remain eligible under
several other programs. Recent changes that allow payments for grade
crossing closings would be retained. Educational programs and safety
improvements for private crossings could be funded.
Grade separations, clearance improvements, and rail relocations
would remain eligible under various FHWA programs.
Intermodal Terminals: Publicly owned terminals could be built using
NHS funds as long as the terminal is located at or adjacent to NHS
routes or connections--the project need not be constructed in a non-
attainment area.
State Infrastructure Banks would be permitted in all states: With
additional funding available for ``SIB's,'' and the expanded
eligibility described above, this program could provide substantial
benefits to high speed rail projects.
The Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Program would be created,
offering credit support for major projects. This program, available to
projects approved by the Secretary, would offer credit support for
major capital projects of national significance. Projects selected
would have to have an overall cost of $100 million and generate
benefits in more than one state. For each selected project, NEXTEA
would establish a fund to reimburse creditors to the extent of the fund
(federal share limited to 20 percent of project cost), in the event
that project revenues were inadequate. This enhancement, (which would
not be a federal guarantee, leaving the project eligible for tax-exempt
financing) should enable project sponsors to secure funds at a lower
interest cost. Both public or public-private partnerships projects
would be eligible (e.g. a high speed rail project where states award a
franchise to a private firm could be eligible.)
trb recommendations on hsr
Question. Please provide a listing of the March 1997 TRB
recommendations for improving HSR. Also provide a detailed explanation
of how FRA is responding to each of the recommendations.
Answer.
FRA Comments on specific TRB committee recommendations
``R1. The (TRB) Committee recommends that FRA staff develop a
timetable for the evolution to a performance-oriented regulatory
approach. One aspect of such an approach would be requiring a ``system
safety plan. To accommodate administrative and institutional factors,
this evolution could follow two paths--one for dedicated operations and
one for mixed passenger and freight operations.''
It is not clear how a specific timetable for evolution to a
performance-oriented regulatory approach would speed the evolutionary
process. FRA is already involved in the development of performance
standards in several contexts. Creating the climate for performance-
oriented regulation requires building confidence among critical
constituent groups. In addition, it is essential that any new
regulatory approach considered by FRA provides a constructive means of
engaging the railroads. This can best be accomplished by developing
performance standards that address discrete areas of concern,
implementing those standards successfully, and moving toward more
flexible approaches as experience is acquired. The Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) and other collaborative rulemaking forums
provide venues for moving this evolution forward at a pace that is
realistic in light of available technical knowledge and all relevant
externalities.
As the TRB Committee recognizes, FRA is subject to a significant
list of legislative mandates requiring specific types of technology and
practice. FRA is not at liberty to set these priorities aside in favor
of a top-to-bottom rewrite of its regulations. System safety planning
and risk analysis are important tools and are increasingly critical as
technology presents new challenges. However, safety is earned through
daily, sustained effort across a broad front of activities. There is no
experience of which we are aware that would warrant wholesale
abandonment of safety strategies that work. Prescriptive regulations
work well in some contexts without inhibiting innovation (e.g.,
specific operating rules and restrictions on alcohol/drug use), and
some performance standards prove difficult to enforce over time (e.g.,
verifying the current functioning of high temperature thermal
protection for tank cars). Rather, a process of transition and growth
must be initiated and tended at whatever pace it can be appropriately
sustained.
However, the charge of the TRB Committee relates specifically to
high-speed rail service. The field of high-speed rail is one in which
FRA has been most aggressive in utilizing system safety and risk
assessment techniques to fashion a regulatory approach. The High Speed
Ground Transportation research series, produced by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, has initiated this process. Our
forthcoming notices of proposed rulemaking for passenger equipment
safety and for the Florida Overland Express strongly emphasize system
safety planning. FRA believes that this effort can provide the
beginning of a template for dedicated operations, as the TRB Committee
suggests. However, the simplicity contemplated by the supplementary
discussion provided by the TRB Committee is far from the reality
confronted by a regulatory agency in evaluating an entirely new
service. Benchmark criteria are needed for systems, subsystems and
critical components in order to evaluate the nature and magnitude of
technical risk before system risk can be fairly estimated.
The complexity of the effort is certainly no reason not to
implement the system safety concept. Commuter railroads and Amtrak have
agreed to undertake broad system safety planning efforts in
consultation with FRA. However, system safety is a process and
discipline that must be internalized by the entity actually operating
the service. Prior audits of entities that have prepared system safety
plans have sometimes found that planning documents have become stale
and were not well integrated into the actual operation of the service.
FRA seeks to foster meaningful system safety planning that becomes an
essential element in the way the system is actually operated. To the
extent this safety focus is established and maintained, reinforcement
can be provided through allowance for much greater flexibility with
respect to the manner in which safety objectives are achieved. Arriving
at this state of maturity will not come quickly, and it cannot be
forced through an administrative timetable.
``R2. The (TRB) Committee also recommends that, as part of a plan
for the evolution to a performance-oriented regulatory process, the
Office of R&D, in conjunction with the Office of Safety, conduct
research on management of the safety regulatory process in order to
establish a framework for the transition. (In its December 30, 1996
letter report, the (TRB) Committee listed ``safety regulatory
processes'' as an appropriate subject for future research.) * * *''
The regulatory process itself has been the subject of extensive
scholarship, including highly focused work by the former Administrative
Conference of the United States. With respect to railroad safety
regulation specifically, FRA is scrutinized daily by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Office of the Inspector
General, the General Accounting Office, various offices within the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, congressional committees,
and the full range of external agency customers. FRA rulemakings are
subject to Executive Branch and Departmental review and clearance
procedures that are identical to those employed for the Federal
Aviation Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and other DOT agencies. The issues and challenges
regarding the manner in which regulations are crafted can be clearly
discerned by those who spend time working within the process, though
the appropriate way of resolving many of these will remain in dispute.
The TRB Committee's emphasis on risk assessment and system safety
is a refreshing counterweight to the understandable and inevitable
focus that FRA, NTSB, and industry parties maintain during
deliberations on individual safety issues. FRA will share the TRB
Committee's views with the RSAC.
``R3. The (TRB) Committee recommends that FRA's approach target
performance goals at a higher level of system concept design, rather
than at the component level, to provide more flexibility and
opportunities for innovation * * *''
FRA agrees in concept; however, component standards, in addition,
may still be needed in many cases. For example, a standard for wheel/
rail interaction is optimal if there is just one wheel design using the
track. Since there are many, the rail specification may need to reflect
``worst case.''
The proposed high-speed track standards discussed with the TRB
Committee feature performance standards for wheel/rail interaction,
which are based on extensive research and experience internationally.
FRA does not specify wheel metallurgy, wheel profile, rail head
profile, truck design, etc. That same document, however, addresses
other issues in a more directive manner. Gage and other geometry
constants are provided so that a variety of equipment manufacturers
will know how to achieve the desired wheel/rail interaction. Other
component standards have been proposed where constituent groups engaged
in the RSAC negotiation felt that they were necessary (and railroad
representatives assented) or where use of performance criteria would
really be impractical. Many benefits flow from this pragmatic approach.
In virtually all areas of regulation, further research will
certainly be appropriate to broaden our knowledge base so that we can
more confidently fashion performance standards (e.g., research into the
thermal tolerances of wheels and discs), but where this learning is not
available, more traditional standards will have to serve.
``R4. Risk assessment capability is the key to establishing
performance-oriented regulations, and FRA has begun to explore risk
assessment methodologies. The committee recommends that those efforts
continue.''
Risk assessment is certainly the key to establishing performance-
oriented regulations, and FRA foresees increasing use of this technique
in the future. However, critical inputs to risk assessments must be
sound. Where insufficient empirically-derived data are available as
inputs, endeavoring to conduct a quantitative risk assessment may
actually increase the chance that flawed assumptions will not be
recognized. Accordingly, risk assessment should only be employed when
sufficient valid and current data are available to ensure the
objectivity of the inquiry.
TRB Recommendations regarding the next generation HSR program
``R5. To accomplish any of the (NGHSR) program goals at the
available funding levels, it is necessary to focus on a smaller number
of objectives and projects, and the (TRB) Committee therefore
recommends that the focus of the program shift accordingly.
Specifically * * *
``The (TRB) Committee recommends that in the development of
positive train control, the number of corridors where demonstrations
are under way or planned be reduced.''
FRA agrees that the program should focus on core projects. In
particular, we have two corridor demonstrations of train control
(Michigan and Illinois). The Pacific NW train control project receives
minimum financial aid from FRA except for earmarked infrastructure
improvement projects; but, we will learn a lot from the project. In the
Next Generation program, FRA is not proposing that demonstrations be
conducted on additional corridors.
R5 continued: ``The flywheel project, viewed as long-term research,
may not produce usable results in the near term and should be
terminated. FRA should, however, stay up to date on flywheel research
being conducted for other modes to determine whether this technology
may become a viable option for use in locomotives.''
FRA agrees that the flywheel project, which has the potential for
substantially enhancing locomotive performance, may have a longer term
delivery than other projects in the program and its development risks
may be greater. Existing non-electric locomotives have a speed range of
79 to 110 mph; and, once such locomotives approach 100 mph, they
however, have little available power for acceleration. The TRB
Committee acknowledged that ``even though existing equipment is capable
of speeds up to 110 mph, in practical use the maximum speed is limited
to about 95-100 mph.'' FRA believes that the flywheel project risk is
justified by the magnitude of the potential performance improvement.
R5 continued: ``The grade-crossing effort should be focused on the
practical, low-cost and low-tech risk-reduction technologies being
applied in North Carolina's ``sealed corridor'' approach (see Annex B),
rather than on more expensive technologies being considered elsewhere
(e.g., the ``arrester net'' project planned in Illinois).''
FRA agrees that the practical, low-cost, low-tech technologies are
a highly valuable approach to the grade crossing problem, and we are
vigorously pursuing that approach. Nonetheless, we believe that the
Next Generation program is an appropriate place to demonstrate and test
state proposals for innovative technology in arrestor nets and other
technology approaches.
R6. ``The state-focused program being pursued by FRA is not
producing generic technologies for the wider-scale adoption of
incremental HSR. In each program area, major projects either have been
canceled, have limited application to one state, or have been
interrupted by freight railroad mergers that have put project
implementation in doubt (see Annex B). The (TRB) Committee recommends
that the limited available funds be focused on projects with the
greatest potential for widespread applicability. To this end, the (TRB)
Committee believes the appropriate investment would be in train control
technology.''
``For the fiscal year 1998 program, funds allocated to locomotive
development and funds available from reprogramming the canceled
lightweight diesel project could be reallocated to this area.
Locomotive technology for the speed range of 79 to 110 mph already
exists to satisfy the needs of many states for incremental high-speed
operation. However, positive train control technology is not available,
and this is a critical constraint. Development of appropriate
technology must meet two conditions: (1) it must be affordable for
freight rail operations, and (2) it must be compatible with existing
equipment.''
The ``Next Generation'' is primarily a demonstration program. The
advantages of having a partner that is invested in eventual
implementation outweigh the advantages of direct FRA management of each
project. Even with the increased coordination it carries, good progress
is being made across the board in the Next Generation program, which
has been in existence for only 30 months. FRA acknowledges that
demonstrations have some risk; not all will succeed. Successful
deployment of incremental high-speed rail will involve multi-faceted
participation from states, passenger and freight railroads, suppliers,
unions, and FRA. The demonstration programs underway have acknowledged
this fact and obtained involvement from all relevant participants. A
GPS based train control demonstration has been tested at 100 mph in
Michigan, the upgraded Turboliner is running at 110-125 mph in New
York, and a ``sealed corridor'' grade crossing demonstration is taking
place in North Carolina. These projects have widespread applicability.
The program areas are all crucial for the states to succeed in
implementing incremental high-speed rail.
``R7. The (TRB) Committee believes FRA's most effective role in the
development of positive train control technology would be in research
that would foster the development of reliable safety-critical software
by ensuring that the algorithms used in advanced train control systems
are sound. These algorithms should address the problem of train
separation by treating it as a problem in resource allocation, where
the track is the resource being allocated to the users (e.g., freight
and passenger trains, maintenance crews). Such algorithms are universal
and have generic application. This effort might lead to actual
development of software and/or to the development of methods for
validating the safety-critical performance of the software.''
FRA agrees that an effective role for FRA in positive train control
would be in developing safety-critical software. Indeed our proposed
``moveable block'' activity in fiscal year 1998 would include some of
this development. However, the development of ``generic'' algorithms
and software is best pursued in the context of a cooperative
demonstration program among freight and passenger railroads and
suppliers, with FRA as a necessary catalyst.
``R8. The (TRB) Committee recommends that FRA strengthen its
program management capabilities to speed up and better control the
individual projects.''
FRA agrees. We have taken steps to improve on our management
capabilities within overall staffing level constraints.
``R9. The (TRB) Committee recommends that the R&D program and the
NGHSR demonstration program be more tightly and explicitly linked
together. NGHSR could also be more closely linked with the Commercial
Feasibility Study, which points out the importance of advances in train
control technologies to permit the mixing of high-speed passenger with
freight operations.''
FRA believes that our three high-speed rail activities: R&D, NGHSR
Demonstration, and Planning/Outreach, are already well linked among
themselves and with our Safety regulatory activities. Nevertheless, we
would appreciate any suggestions the TRB Committee may have for
improving the linkages.
next generation high-speed rail
Question. Have any States applied under the State Infrastructure
Bank program for a HSR corridor project?
Answer. At this time, no States have applied for a HSR corridor
project under the State Infrastructure Bank program.
Question. If the final version of NEXTEA does not allow the
flexibility that FRA is seeking in terms of allowing states to use STP
and other funds for HSR, will FRA need some flexibility to use NGHSR
funds to promote planning and associated activities?
Answer: Yes.
linkage of r&d and nghsr
Question. What steps can FRA take to ensure that the research and
development program and the NGHSR demonstration programs be more
closely and explicitly linked together?
Answer. FRA concurred with the TRB recommendation that the R&D
program and the NGHSR demonstration program be more closely linked. A
number of steps have been implemented to improve coordination among R&D
and the various elements of the high-speed rail program. The Office of
Research & Development pursues research activities in high-speed rail
an acts as a resource in technical issues for the Office of Passenger &
Freight Services, which has the responsibility of implementing the
NGHSR demonstration program. The latter office is also closely linked
to State sponsors of demonstration projects and high-speed rail
corridor implementation programs and thus plays a pivotal role in
bringing the R&D results ``to market'' through the NGHSR demonstration
program. Two senior executives, reporting directly to the Associate
Administrator, link and coordinate the NGHSR & R&D activities. In
addition, the five year strategic plan explicitly addresses both
research and technology demonstration activities, as well as the rail
safety work that takes place through the Office of Research &
Development and NGHSR.
Question. In fiscal year 1997, the appropriated NGHSR program
funding level of $24,757,000 was augmented by $1,420,882 in carryover
authority. How much carryover is anticipated in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The $1,420,882 was the amount remaining to be spent from
the Highway Trust Fund as provided for high speed rail demonstrations
in ISTEA Section 1036c. Congress rescinded authority for this purpose
which otherwise would have been provided in fiscal year 1997. The
$1,420,882 will be obligated in fiscal year 1997 and no Trust Fund
authority will carryover into fiscal year 1998 in the Next Generation
program.
results of cfs
Question. In 1996, the Federal Railroad Administration issued the
Executive Summary of ``High-Speed Ground Transportation for America.''
Known informally as the Commercial Feasibility Study (CFS), this study
analyzed the costs and benefits of achieving several thresholds of
increased speed on several rail corridors. Please describe the emerging
high-speed rail policy issues that have come forth as a result of the
CFS. How are these policy issues reflected in the fiscal year 1998
request?
Answer. The CFS demonstrated that in a number of regions of the
country, ``Accelerail'' solutions--upgraded intercity rail passenger
services utilizing existing track in cooperation with the freight
railroads--may offer the most cost-effective way to provide high-speed
ground transportation. This conclusion raises the key question: how can
the Federal Government--with its limited discretionary resources that
must be conserved for efforts of truly national significance--best
support Accelerail implementation? Given the inability of many States
to effect Accelerail due to its initial investment threshold
requirements, the Department has concluded that Federal efforts would
best be focused on developing and demonstrating existing technologies
that would materially reduce the capital cost of Accelerail in diverse
locations. These promising technologies include: wireless, computer-
based train control (allowing higher speeds at lower cost than typical
track circuit-based signaling systems); high-speed, non-electric
locomotives, offering excellent acceleration without the need to
install capital-intensive overhead electric wires and supporting
systems; highway/rail grade crossing safety enhancements, reducing
risks to occupants of motor vehicles and trains; and more cost-
effective means of upgrading and maintaining track for high-speed
service. The lion's share of the Next-Generation High-Speed Rail
Program, as requested in the fiscal year 1998 Budget, would go toward
these four critical technology areas, thus maximizing the benefits of
Federal involvement in this promising, but as yet largely unfulfilled,
mode of transportation.
cost benefits of hsr projects
Question. The CFS identifies projects as having partnership
potential when total benefits exceed total costs, and when revenues are
sufficient to cover operating costs and continuing investments.
However, a majority of total benefits accrue only to users of the
systems, and in most cases, each dollar of public investment returns
less than one dollar of public benefits. Is it appropriate for the
public at large to find such projects?
Answer. Some additional background is necessary to place the
question in context. First, although a majority of ``total benefits''
(as defined in the CFS) accrue to users, those same users fully pay for
a significant portion of their benefits through farebox revenues. When
we subtract those benefits for which users pay fully, we find that in
several corridors, 50 percent or more of the benefits actually accrue
to the public at large. Second, in a number of cases, each dollar of
public investment returns much more than a dollar of public benefits:
the ratio of public benefits to public costs reaches 2:1, or even 3:1,
in regions as diverse as California, the Chicago Hub, the Pacific
Northwest, and Texas. Finally, specific States may choose to recognize
in their analyses a whole category of public benefits--economic
development and job impacts from high-speed rail construction and
operation--that the CFS ignored because they might not benefit the
Nation as a whole. When we take these three factors into account, we
can appreciate that in several States the perceived return to the
public on the public's investment in high-speed rail may well exceed
the estimates contained in the CFS.
Nevertheless, as your question indicates, the CFS indeed reports on
many cases in which the majority of benefits accrue to users. We
consider it entirely appropriate for the public to consider partial
funding of such cases because transportation benefits are primarily
user benefits. They are typically the largest benefit component in the
benefit/cost analysis used in project justification for a wide variety
of projects including highways, airports, transit systems, canals, etc.
Public funding, including Federal assistance, has for decades been
associated with such projects. For example, a highway project is
justified not according to whether the total additional gas tax
collected exceeds the cost of the road, but rather according to what it
is worth to users and non-users compared to the cost of the road.
Applying the same total benefit/total cost criterion to high-speed rail
projects makes sense as a preliminary screening device, as the CFS has
done.
public funding of hsr
Question. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1993 that
the federal government is the only public entity capable of funding
much of the construction cost of HSGT systems. What portion of the
public cost would the federal government be expected to bear?
Answer. We do not believe that the Federal Government is the only
public entity capable of funding high-speed rail systems. Many
Accelerail options, for example, would have such low capital costs and
such favorable operating economics as to make them suitable candidates
for State/private partnerships, provided that the State sets a
sufficient priority on their implementation. Furthermore, some States
may have sufficient resources and will to finance large portions of the
cost of New HSR and Maglev systems as well.
Clearly, however, cases would exist for which Federal funding would
be indispensable. For administrative convenience, uniform matching
ratios are typically established such as 80/20 Federal/State-Local for
all surface transportation projects, with some exceptions. By making
high speed ground transportation projects eligible for STP funding, for
example, we would extend that general matching ratio to high speed
ground transportation. However, in particular instances, the Federal
Government might be expected to pay more to the extent that the project
benefits the nation as a whole, or the benefits transcend State
boundaries, or the project responds effectively to national goals.
useful life estimates
Question. The CFS used a 40-year time frame for considering project
costs and benefits, which include the continuing investments required
over this period to maintain, replace, and expand the infrastructure.
Are there significant capital replacement costs associated with
infrastructure components whose useful life is greater than 40 years?
If so, do the CFS projections include set-asides for these future
funding requirements? Is an additional public investment expected at
some point after 40 years as the infrastructure requires major
replacements?
Answer. Of course, long-lived items like concrete ties and rail
would ultimately require replacement and consequently additional public
expenditures after the end of the 40-year cycle. The projections do not
include set-asides for these because (1) their impact on the analysis
would be relatively small (the present value of one dollar spent 40
years from now at 10 percent discount rate is about two cents) and (2)
to fairly assess the period beyond 2040 would also require estimates of
revenues, operating expenses, and operating surpluses, which would
likely counterbalance the effect of the future continuing investments.
hsr projects--planned vs actual costs
Question. Large projects such as these tend to substantially exceed
their original construction cost estimates. The CFS includes
contingencies for such increases at the rate of 30 percent for the more
modest technology options, and 41 percent for new high-speed rail and
Maglev options. How were these numbers determined? How do they compare
with final vs. Planned costs for recent rail (or other public works)
projects in these corridors?
Answer. Our engineers developed these numbers based on their
informed judgment and experience with engineering components of the
types envisioned in the commercial feasibility study (CFS), as well as
public transit and highway projects. Standard practice in engineering
cost estimation is to use a higher contingency factor in the
preliminary phases of project planning and to reduce the factor as the
design becomes more detailed.
CFS cost estimates utilize engineering cost databases that are
updated using recently completed projects and thus the costs of key
materials and components (e.g., bridges, rail, electrical systems, and
tunnels) necessarily reflect the current cost structure. Retrospective
studies of ``final'' versus ``planned'' costs for similar work
(feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, final design,
construction) typically yields a series of ``planned'' costs as the
projects become more fully designed. Typically, the project scope
changes, so that the costs projected in the feasibility studies are not
comparable with the actual completed costs. FRA has no comparable
corridor upgrading projects for the more modest options (the Northeast
Corridor, with its density of traffic and hundreds of daily commuter
trains, is unique), nor does FRA have any new high-speed rail or Maglev
projects completed in this country. Cost overruns can occur in projects
for any mode of transportation--highway and airport as well as transit
and railroad.
FRA can adduce, as recent specific examples, two passenger
railroad-related projects that have progressed from a preliminary
design level to final design and have been under construction for about
the last five years. These two examples illustrate the difference
between the preliminary construction cost estimates, with an allowance
of 15 percent contingency factor, and the final estimates in each case.
These two cases show some variance (plus and minus), but they are
typical of well-estimated projects.
NJ Transit Dover and Port Morris storage yard facility
Preliminary estimate including 15 percent contingency... $12,315,000
Final estimate including no contingency................. 12,756,000
Variance................................................ 441,000
or +3.5%
NJ Transit Morrisville Storage Yard Facility
Preliminary estimate including 15 percent contingency... $15,276,000
Final estimate including no contingency................. 14,641,000
Variance................................................ (635,000)
-4.1%
The FRA considers its capital cost estimates to possess a level of
accuracy that is sufficient for the purpose of the CFS--to gauge the
comparative partnership potential of a spectrum of high-speed rail and
maglev projects in a series of illustrative corridors. The States and
their public and private partners will need to conduct detailed
feasibility, preliminary engineering, and environmental studies for
individual corridor projects. Such further studies, including capital
costs on a much more site-specific basis than was possible in the CFS,
will be prerequisite to any financing and implementation decisions for
future corridor projects.
hsr ridership forecasting
Question. In 1993, GAO reported that HSGT ridership forecasting is
more of an art than a science because many of the databases needed do
not exist. Has the situation changed since 1993? How does the CFS
account for the fact that ridership forecasting is difficult?
Answer. The GAO's statement should perhaps be restated to say that
ridership forecasting is more art than science when the data bases do
not exist. In fact, one can spend money on market studies geared to
specific corridors in order to create specific data bases. There are
two types of data bases that are important:
(1) Data on how many persons use different modes of travel between
pairs of zones for different trip purposes.
(2) Behavioral data on what percentage of these people would use a
new high speed system, depending on the relative trip time,
convenience, and price.
Data of type (1) are expensive to collect for individual markets,
particularly for automobile travel. We expect a major breakthrough upon
publication this year of a nationwide survey of intercity personal
travel known as the American Travel Survey sponsored by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics in 1995. Even so, these data must be
supplemented by more detailed surveys of selected markets.
Behavioral data of type (2) have become available in data bases
applicable to several markets and can be adapted to specific markets
based on demographics.
The CFS did not claim that it could produce the accuracy of
projections that could be made through these more detailed surveys for
any specific corridor. However, its data sources were broad based and
its methods consistent across all markets--as appropriate for an
objective study designed to draw broad conclusions across many
corridors and many forms of high speed ground transportation.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status,
problems, and challenges faced, and the fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 FRA investments made in developing
high-speed non-electric locomotive technologies. Please include
information on each major FRA project in this area.
Answer. The table follows.
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------
Federal
Project Federal Federal funds Status 6/97 Problems, challenges
funds funds proposed
1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System \1\ $1.72 $2 $2 Spin testing of rotor components High-speed generator needed more
(ALPS--Flywheel). 8 has begun. development than anticipated to adapt
from prior planned DOD application.
Locomotive Integration................... ......... ......... 6 Project phase will start with Must select suitable demo. platform.
fiscal year 1998 funding;
manufacturers GM-EMD,
Bombardier, plus NYSDOT have
expressed strong interest.
NY Turboliner 3 Upgrades................. 6 4 ......... First $6M will be under contract NYSDOT seeking $20-$40M additional
8/97. financing to upgrade all 7 RTL trainsets.
Test Track Upgrade....................... 3 3 ......... Nearing completion on schedule.. None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded from R&D Appropriation in fiscal year 1996.
focus of hsr locomotive program
Question. Where does FRA believe the focus of the non-electric HSR
locomotive program should be now?
Answer. The goal of the non-electric locomotive program remains
unchanged; that is, the development of a non-electric locomotive with
the acceleration and peak speeds of current NEC electric locomotives
but without the inefficiencies and environmental concerns of earlier
non-electric locomotives. Within this overall goal, the primary focus
of the program today is facilitating the development of a commercially
viable locomotive with enhanced capabilities in these areas in the
short term to meet the needs of service on intercity corridors that are
the subject of State-sponsored incremental high-speed improvements. As
examples, Washington has ordered new passenger cars for the Pacific
Northwest corridor and North Carolina and Illinois will soon be in the
market for equipment on their corridors. However, as of now, the
performance of this equipment is limited by the currently available
diesel-electric locomotives.
non-electric locomotive designs
Question. How is the non-electric locomotive program developing a
consensus about a common design that could serve several markets and
generate sufficient demand? How do the States influence this
development?
Answer. FRA will work with teams seeking to demonstrate
alternatives for faster, non-electric locomotives. FRA will host
quarterly technical sessions between each of the teams and high speed
corridor states to discuss performance targets and progress. The
project teams and FRA will respond to state questions on timing of
availability and performance. As the initial project stages are
completed, FRA will initiate a specific outreach project element to
attain maximum utility and commonality for the ultimate locomotive test
platform.
investment in hsr locomotives
Question. What level of demand for HSR locomotives would be needed
to create an incentive for potential manufacturers to invest? Could
joint ventures among manufacturers be used to reduce risk and
development expenses?
Answer. The willingness of a prospective manufacturer to invest in
development of a new high-speed locomotive is dependent on the size of
the market, on the manufacturer's production costs, and on the price
the manufacturer can charge. A manufacturer has to see a way to recover
its development costs and still earn a profit as great as it could earn
by investing the same sum of money. The manufacturer's production costs
will vary according to the degree to which the new product can be
adapted from, or has components in common with, the manufacturer's
existing product lines so that production costs for the new design can
be shared with other production efforts.
The history most relevant to this subject is the acquisition of
Amtrak's order for 150-mph, high technology electric trainsets for the
Northeast Corridor. The proposed purchase attracted substantial
interest at quantities of 18 trainsets, requiring 36 locomotives once
the decision was made that a power car/locomotive would be required at
each end of each trainset. However, all the prospective bidders were
associated with consortia in which the cost of locomotives was included
in an overall trainset purchase price, and the technology being offered
was largely to be adapted from units in European service. FRA can not
state a specific estimate of demand because the circumstances of each
manufacturer, such as product development already planned or underway,
are highly proprietary activities--areas in which FRA has no
information.
cost share of non-electric locomotives
Question. What is the status of cost sharing efforts to advance
non-electric high-speed locomotives? Please specify amount received for
cost sharing for each project.
Answer. The New York State DOT (NYSDOT) turboliner upgrade project
is matching Federal contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis. After
1997 funds are obligated, FRA and NYSDOT will each have funded $10
million, for a project total available funding of $20 million. The
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System Project is being conducted
through a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program
which requires 50-50 matching.
technical challenge of non-electric locomotives
Question. What are the remaining technical challenges in developing
non-electric high-speed locomotives?
Answer. The core technical challenge of achieving a practical high-
speed non-electric locomotive is to achieve very high self-contained
power levels at relatively light weights. Making such advanced designs
work on a daily basis, in quantity, in the railroad environment are the
heart of the remaining technical challenges.
lightweight diesel project
Question. How much money for the lightweight diesel high-speed
diesel project has not been obligated, and could be reprogrammed? When
will this occur?
Answer. By cooperative agreement, and resulting from a competitive
award under a broad agency announcement, FRA obligated a total of
$2,000,000 of fiscal year 1995 non-electric locomotive funding to New
York State DOT for the lightweight high-speed diesel project. In 1996,
NYSDOT awarded the funding by contract to Republic Locomotive of South
Carolina. Republic was unable to execute the project, and the contract
between NYSDOT and Republic was terminated after total costs of about
$250,000 were incurred. NYSDOT must close out the Republic contract to
make the remaining funding of approximately $1,750,000 again available.
In keeping with the original appropriation, FRA and NYSDOT propose to
redirect the funding to the ongoing Advanced Locomotive Propulsion
System (ALPS) project at the University of Texas (UT), via contract
between NYSDOT and UT. This action is expected to be completed within
fiscal year 1997.
ny turboliner train
Question. How much of the fiscal year 1997 monies will be allocated
to upgrade the NY turbo-liner trains? Will fiscal year 1998 monies also
be used? If so, how much?
Answer. FRA will obligate $4,000,000 of fiscal year 1997 NGHSR
funds to NYSDOT for turboliner upgrades, as directed by the Committees
in the 1997 Appropriations Act. This will be added to the $6,000,000 of
NGHSR funding provided in fiscal year 1996, and NYSDOT will provide
$10,000,000 of state funds to match the FRA funds to provide a total of
$20,000,000 to be applied to the performance enhancement and
refurbishment of the seven turboliner trainsets. NYSDOT has not sought
additional funding for this upgrade program from FRA.
However, the turboliner power car is a candidate platform under
consideration for installation and demonstration of the turbine-
electric and flywheel energy storage technologies. If the turboliner
platform is selected for the ALPS demonstration, a portion of the
requested fiscal year 1998 non-electric locomotive funding might be
directed to NYSDOT.
flywheel project
Question. How many additional years will be required to complete
work on the flywheel project? How much will this likely cost? Please
provide costs for both development and large-scale testing. What is the
likelihood of this technology will be commercialized? What is the
status of this project, and what are the planned activities for fiscal
year 1998? How much is requested for fiscal year 1998, and how much was
spent in prior years? What is the cost sharing arrangement for this
project?
Answer. The flywheel project will require at least three additional
years through 1998, 1999, and 2000. The flywheel energy storage battery
system is expected to cost a total of $9,000,000 including
demonstration testing in conjunction with a prototype locomotive.
Locomotive manufacturers have shown interest in the potential of
flywheel energy storage for railroad use, so commercialization
prospects for this technology appear to be possible.
With regard to project status, an initial spin test of a one-third
scale flywheel rotor has been completed. In this test, the rotor
reached over 39,000 rpm at which its surface was traveling over 2,000
mph. This testing validated rotor design performance in excess of 90
percent of project goals, with further testing to full performance
levels scheduled for July and August, 1997. Construction of full-scale
flywheel components is underway with initial full-scale tests planned
for early fiscal year 1998. Design modifications to adapt the DOD-
sponsored high-speed high-power generator are nearing completion.
fiscal year 1998 activities will include construction and delivery of
the prototype motor/generator for testing with the flywheel,
construction of power electronics for the flywheel and turboalternator,
and construction of a second full-scale flywheel for safety testing.
Integration activities into a prototype commercial locomotive will
begin. The following table details spending on the flywheel project:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Amount
1995 actual....................................................... 800
1996 actual....................................................... 1,728
1997 actual....................................................... 2,000
1998 request...................................................... 2,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 6,528
FRA's fiscal year 1998 request for the flywheel is $2,000,000. As
shown, through fiscal year 1997, $4,528,000 has been obligated for this
project. The cost-sharing arrangement for this project is 50/50.
tier 2 car construction standards
Question. Would FRA support a non-electric HSR locomotive project
that utilized technology meeting the ``tier 2'' (126-160 mph) car
construction standards? Which current locomotive projects are being
designed to these standards?
The energy-absorption capability (crashworthiness) which will be
built into equipment to meet the forthcoming ``tier 2'' standards
provides clear safety benefits for passengers and crew, not only in
train-train collisions, but also during grade crossing collisions and
derailments from any cause. Equipment which successfully meets ``tier
2'' for operation at very high speeds will also likely be of
lightweight construction, to minimize acceleration times and energy
consumption. These features make equipment meeting ``tier 2'' highly
desirable for use as part of any high-speed self-propelled locomotive
demonstration whether on existing corridors or on dedicated right-of-
way, provided the equipment is available at reasonable cost.
The power cars for the Amtrak American Flyer trainsets are being
constructed to a design which is likely to meet the forthcoming ``tier
2'' requirements. FRA is not aware of any other equipment presently
existing or under construction which is likely to meet the ``tier 2''
requirements, in North America or in any other part of the world.
train control system
Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status,
problems and challenges faced, and the fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 FRA investments made in developing
high-speed train control systems. Please include information on each
major FRA project in this program.
Answer. The table follows.
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------
Federal
Project Federal Federal funds Status 6/97 Problems, challenges
funds funds proposed
1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan DOT/Amtrak Incremental Train $3 $1 ......... Installation on 80 mile corridor Interoperability with other systems.
Control (ITCS). segment continuing; revenue
service expected mid-98.
Illinois DOT High-Speed Positive Train 6 ......... \1\ $3.5 RFP for system integrator to be New test zone on METRA under plan
Control (HSPTC). issued 9/97. resulting from UP/SP merger;
interoperability.
Pacific NW BNSF/UP Positive Train \2\ 5 3 ......... Release 2 of 4 software releases Railroads considering implementing PTC
Separation (PTS). now under test on each rather than PTS; location not certain
railroad; fiscal year 1997 after PTS tests are completed;
funds planned for interoperability.
communications upgrade.
Inter-operability demonstration.......... ......... ......... 1.5 Plan is to achieve maximum Coordinate with freight industry
commonality of FRA-sponsored initiatives.
systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Candidate for flexible block demonstration.
\2\ Funded in FRA R&D Safety of High Speed Ground Appropriation, not NGHSR.
train control/its technologies
Question. What efforts have been made to link train control systems
with ITS technologies? What contracts have been signed in this area?
Please specify objectives and funding amounts of specific projects and
indicate the status of each and progress to date.
Answer. Several projects, either directly funded by FRA or funded
with FHWA funds, are now underway.
1. Vehicle Proximity Alerting System (VPAS).--The objective is to
develop a method to alert priority vehicles (such as ambulances, police
cars, fire engines, school buses, and hazmat trucks) of an approaching
train at a highway/rail grade crossing. The challenge is to provide the
warning only to priority vehicles approaching the crossing and not to
other vehicles near the crossing but not headed towards it. This
testing is required by ISTEA Section 1072 and is funded from FHWA ITS
funds, and administered by FRA. Reliability testing of three VPAS
prototype systems at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC), funded
at $600,000, has been completed and the evaluation of the test results
is underway by the Volpe Center. The second phase, funded at $400,000,
will be field testing in an actual railroad corridor of those systems
deemed reliable. The field testing will begin later in 1997. Two
systems, a 3-point system from SmartStops Unlimited, Inc. (Which uses a
transceiver on the locomotive, at the crossing, and a receiver in the
vehicle) and a one-point system from Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems
(which uses a receiver in the vehicle which detects the Front/Rear End
Device (FRED)) will be tested. Potential test locations are in
Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington State.
2. Incremental Train Control System (ITCS).--A portion of the
Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) being implemented in the
Detroit to Chicago corridor by Michigan State Department of
Transportation and Amtrak is developing technologies for ITS and
railroad use. This will allow an ITCS-equipped high speed train and the
grade crossing warning systems to communicate so that the crossing
equipment will provide the required twenty-second warning time without
the need for expensive track circuits to be installed. The Federal
funding for the ITCS system, so far, has been $6.08 million in fiscal
year 1995 and $3 million in fiscal year 1996. Michigan and Amtrak have
provided approximately $12.6 million. An additional $1.0 million from
FRA may be awarded in fiscal year 1997.
3. Long Island Railroad/GRS Atlas project.--General Railway
Signal's ATLAS train control technology is being linked to three
crossings in the Long Island Rail Road system in heavily congested
Queens Borough, New York City. This technology will allow uniform time
warnings to roadway motorists, eliminate unnecessary gate down time if
a train is stopped at a station near a crossing but not blocking it
(the gates will stay up, allowing traffic to proceed; only when the
train is ready to depart will the engineer activate the crossing
warning devices), detect and report stalled highway vehicles in the
crossing, mitigate traffic congestion through intelligent control of
highway traffic signals in the immediate streets nearby to direct
traffic around blocked crossings, detect the arrival of emergency/
priority highway vehicles that require safe passage through the grade
crossing, and monitor the health of crossing equipment. The FHWA is
providing $7.625 million in ITS funds for this project ($2.625 million
fiscal year 1995, $1.25 million fiscal year 1996, $2 million fiscal
year 1997 and $1.75 million from the reprogramming of a Mineola grade
crossing demonstration). GRS is contributing $3.175 million, for a
total project cost of $10.8 million.
4. Texas Transportation Institute/Washington State DOT.--The Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) is working with the Washington State DOT
and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads in
developing the Positive Train Separation system. Part of PTS
development involves examining techniques for connecting the train
control system to the grade crossing warning system. In fiscal year
1995, Washington State DOT was awarded $1 million from the Section 1010
program to examine seven techniques for improving safety at grade
crossings in the high-speed corridor. Two of the areas to be examined
are VPAS systems and integrating the train control system and grade
crossing warning system with the local advanced traffic management
systems being developed by ITS. Linking the local traffic management
system to the grade crossing warning system could be especially useful
in preventing through or turning moments to the grade crossing to
aggravate any backups that occur when a train blocks a crossing, and
alternative signing could be used to direct traffic around a blocked
crossing.
positive train control systems
Question. Please provide an update on what progress has been made
by the railroads in installing positive train control systems. What has
been done since last year, and how many of the major railroads have
installed these systems?
Answer. Testing of the positive train separation project (PTS) by
UPRR and BNSF in the Pacific North West continues; tests of ``Release
2'' of expected 4 releases will be conducted in June, 1997, to verify
differential GPS automatic location capability and begin to verify
``smart'' braking. Testing is expected to be completed in early-1998,
at which time equipment is to be removed from locomotives. UPRR and
BNSF are considering next steps to more advanced demo or deployment
systems.
The Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) has been tested on a
25-mile portion of the 80-mile Amtrak-owned corridor in Michigan in
October, 1996, and hardware is now being manufactured for the remainder
of the corridor. Revenue service at high speeds is expected to begin in
mid-1998.
The joint CR/CSX/NS project started in mid-1997, and is targeted at
creating an interoperable onboard platform. Arinc is their contractor,
and testing of an equipped locomotive on the Harrisburg-Manassas
corridor is expected in 1999.
The Alaska Railroad is in the process of selecting the contractor
for a positive train control system to be installed on the entire 600-
mile railroad. Phase 1, the implementation of a computer-assisted
conflict tracking system, and Phase 2, the issuance of digital track
warrants to trains and maintenance-of way crews, are being funded
through a grant for $2.2 million from fiscal year 1997 FRA funds. Phase
3, the installation of on-board computers and GPS receivers on
locomotives, and Phase 4, the provision for on-board enforcement of
movement authorities, are scheduled to take place in 1998 and 1999.
ptcs--non-federal funding
Question. What is the anticipated level of non-federal spending for
positive train control systems over the next three years? Please
provide further explanation of the importance of these systems, and how
appropriated funds will be used to further this development.
Answer. FRA does not know how much non-federal spending there will
be for positive train control systems over the next three years. A
spate of recent collisions is increasing the pressure from the NTSB,
unions, and the Congress on railroads to install PTC and on FRA to
require railroads to install PTC.
The Union Pacific Railroad is considering a sizable ``initial
implementation'' of PTC on a major high-density corridor that would
involve the equipping of several hundred locomotives. Their project
could cost $50 million or more. However, they have not made their
decision as yet.
Other railroads appear to be taking a ``wait and see'' attitude and
so far have not indicated an interest in making more than token
investments in the next couple of years. Only the Alaska Railroad has
committed to installing PTC on their railroad, and their program is
estimated to cost about $11 million.
FRA is considering the possibility of initiating a rulemaking later
in 1997. Studies are underway to examine corridor safety risks as well
as PTC business benefits, and these studies are scheduled for
completion in August, 1997. What kind of regulation might result from
the rulemaking, and what territories it might cover, are unknown at
this time.
grade crossing hazard mitigation/innovation technologies
Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status,
problems and challenges faced, and the fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997 and planned fiscal year 1998 FRA investments made in developing
grade crossing hazard mitigation technologies. Please include
information on each major FRA project in the program.
Answer. The status of the major projects in developing grade
crossing mitigation technologies is presented in the table below.
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------
Federal
Project Federal Federal funds Status 6/97 Problems, challenges
funds funds proposed
1996 1997 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Sealed Corridor........... $750 $2,000 ( \1\ ) State is installing median Coordination of construction with NCDOT
barriers, 4-quad gates, long highway section is time consuming.
gate arms and beginning to Closing crossings is not possible without
close redundant crossings. an environmental assessment--time
consuming and expensive.
New York Locked Gate at Private Crossings ......... 215 $75 Grant awarded to NYSDOT. Review Project just begun and on schedule.
of barrier systems is complete.
TRB IDEA Program......................... 500 500 500 Four awards have been made so Program has proved very successful and is
far, with two more recommended, continuing to attract innovative
for innovative grade crossing submittals.
hardware, such as a wide angle
lens for viewing the entire
crossing with one camera.
ITS Architecture Support................. ......... 100 100 User Service No. 30 completed. No problems. Challenge will be adjusting
Grade crossing impacts now other user services to incorporate grade
being incorporated in other crossing impacts and developing hardware
user services.. compatible with ITS traffic control
systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not yet determined.
grade crossing hazard mitigation/innovation technologies
Question. Please describe the differences in determining highway/
railroad crossing safety standards for high-speed and non high-speed
rail operations.
Answer. The current guidelines for highway/railroad grade crossings
where train speeds are below 80 mph require warning devices--cross
bucks, flashing lights, bells and gates--appropriate for the volume of
motor vehicles that use the crossing.
Between 80 and 110 mph.--Eliminate redundant crossings; install the
most sophisticated traffic control/warning devices compatible with the
location (median barriers, special signing, four-quadrant gates); and
automated devices should be equipped with constant warning time
equipment.
Between 111 and 125 mph.--Protect the rail movement with full width
barriers capable of absorbing the impact of a highway vehicle,
including vehicle detection capability between the barriers. Notify
approaching trains of warning device or barrier failure in sufficient
time to stop short of the crossing.
Above 125 mph.--Close or grade separate all crossings.
The difference in the highway/railroad crossing safety standards
for high-speed and non high-speed operations is due to the added danger
to railroad passengers from the impact of the train with a large truck
(concrete mixer, log hauler, gasoline tanker, etc.) or a derailment at
high speed following an accident at the highway/railroad grade
crossing. At conventional speeds, the cross bucks, flashing lights,
bells and gates are considered warning devices because they cannot
really protect the motor vehicle driver or the train. Derailments
resulting from accidents at crossings are infrequent, and when there is
a derailment the cars often remain upright. Injuries to passengers
invariably are bumps and bruises. More serious injuries may be suffered
by those passengers who are not seated at the time of the accident--
those standing or moving through the cars. However, for high-speed
operations, although the potential for accidents does not increase, the
potential for more severe passenger injuries does increase due to the
higher train speeds. To prevent more severe injuries, the additional
requirements for crossing protection were developed.
Grade crossing hazard mitigation/innovation technologies
Question. Please discuss the full range of high-speed crossing
technologies. Include a list of any current installations, and
associated federal funding where appropriate (by fiscal year provided).
Answer. Several technologies for use at high-speed highway-rail
crossings are being demonstrated, or will begin shortly:
Vehicle arresting barrier--Illinois
The state of Illinois will demonstrate an innovative arrestor net,
the Vehicle Arresting Barrier (VAB), at three locations on the
Chicago--St. Louis high-speed rail corridor. The VAB is similar to the
nets used on aircraft carriers to stop planes in an emergency and is
used today to provide protection at construction sites and draw
bridges. In tests, the VAB has successfully stopped small vehicles,
pickup trucks, and a fully loaded semitrailer (80,000 lbs) in 100 feet,
six inches with minimal damage to the vehicles. The manufacturing
contract was awarded to the Entwistle Company at a cost of just under
$1.375 million for six units. Installation began in May, 1997 and is
scheduled for completion in the Fall. Following a one year
demonstration period, technical and human factors evaluations will be
conducted.
Federal funding has been provided from the Section 1010 program of
ISTEA. In fiscal year 1993 $950,000 was provided for development and
testing, in fiscal year 1996 $1.5 million was provided for installation
of the six units at three locations, and part of the $575,000 awarded
in fiscal year 1997 will provide for video recording systems to monitor
operation and motorists actions.
Four-quadrant gate with obstruction detection--Connecticut
Four quadrant gates are in operation on various crossings through
the country. However, the State of Connecticut will demonstrate an
advanced grade crossing warning system which will use four-quadrant
gates with an obstacle detection system and a communication system to
notify the locomotive engineer of an obstruction in adequate time for
the train to be stopped. The location for this project is at the School
Street at-grade crossing in Groton, Connecticut, milepost 131.50, on
the Northeast Corridor. It is a two lane road protected now by gates,
flashing lights and bells. It provides access to a residential area and
three boat yards.
The original concept was based on the Swedish X2000 system
technology and that grade crossing warning system is an integral part
of the X2000 train control system. However, it proved infeasible for
the Northeast Corridor. The state of Connecticut and Amtrak are
planning for the installation of additional crossing gates and
obstruction detection circuitry this summer and fall. The obstruction
detection system will be connected to the signal system to be installed
as the segment between New Haven and Boston is electrified. These
modifications will notify the locomotive engineer of an obstruction at
the crossing. Once installed in the Spring 1998, the system will be
tested for one year to measure its performance and to determine any
refinements needed before such a system could be installed at other
high-speed rail crossings.
The total project grant is $1 million. The Federal share is
$800,000 from Section 1036(c) of ISTEA, and the $200,000 balance is
provided by the State. The state has provided an additional $18,600 for
civil engineering design work at the site, and will use approximately
$100,000 from Federal Highway Administration funds to rebuild the
crossing to eliminate a hump that now can cause boat trailers to get
hung up on the crossing.
Sealed corridor initiative
The Sealed Corridor Initiative is a project to address the 130
grade crossings in the 92-mile Charlotte to Greensboro segment of North
Carolina's proposed high speed rail corridor between Charlotte and
Raleigh. Each crossing has been examined for its site geometry, traffic
volume and other factors. Some will be closed, and all that remain will
receive the appropriate treatment for its location and traffic volume.
This Initiative builds upon the demonstrations of innovative warning
devices conducted at Sugar Creek Road in Charlotte, NC, the major
arterial in the corridor. Each violation of the warning devices was
videotaped and the impact of the various improvements tested was
clearly demonstrated:
Violations per week
Baseline/flashing lights and gates................................ 43
Median barriers................................................... 10
Four quadrant gates............................................... 6
Four quadrant gates and medians................................... 1
Other elements of the initiative include examining articulated
gates, long gate arms, and closing redundant crossings. FRA will work
with North Carolina DOT to extend this effort throughout the remainder
of the corridor and to develop a methodology to be used in developing
other high-speed rail corridors around the country.
Federal funding for the Initiative has been provided from the Next
Generation High Speed Rail program ($2.75 million total--$750,000 in
fiscal year 1996 and $2 million in fiscal year 1997) and Section 1010
of ISTEA ($1.2 million total--$450,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $750,000
in fiscal year 1997). Total project cost is estimated at $5.1 million,
with the state providing the balance.
Intelligent Grade Crossing.--FHWA & Long Island Railroad This
system is being developed by the General Railway Signal Company (GRS)
for the Long Island Railroad with $2 million in fiscal year 1996 FHWA
funds and active FRA participation. It will tie the local grade
crossing gate controller to both the train control system and the
highway traffic signal system to minimize the delays to motorists in
the vicinity of stations in urban areas. This project began in July
1996, and the demonstration of the system, at three grade crossings and
involve six locomotives, is scheduled to begin in late 1998.
Friendly Mobile Barrier.--Consolidated Launcher Technology, Inc.
(CLT) of Chesapeake, VA, received a grant for $400,000 in November,
1993, from the Section 1036(c) Technology Demonstration program, to
demonstrate a ``friendly mobile barrier'' (FMB), which is a crash
attenuation device that rises from a vault in the roadway, after the
crossing gates go down, preventing motor vehicles from penetrating and
blocking the tracks while stopping the vehicle safely. Total project
cost was estimated at $500,000. The $100,000 balance was to be provided
by CLT and its partners (BF Goodrich, Environmental Solutions Inc., and
Kamatics Corporation), Old Dominion University and Virginia's Center
for Innovative Technology. CLT and its partners encountered a cost
overrun in the FMB's design and manufacture, and eventually provided an
additional $109,000 in order to complete the required crash tests.
The potential advantage of the FMB was that it would be installed
right next to the track, and there are locations where such a barrier
might have unique advantages. The alternative approach, arrestor nets,
must be installed 100 to 200 feet from the track or more, depending
upon highway speed, which will limit their use.
Vehicle impact testing was conducted four times in March, June and
July 1995. The barrier was damaged in each of the first three tests,
and after each test the barrier was modified to strengthen it and to
improve its performance.
Evaluations of the crash tests were conducted by FRA, FHWA and
Virginia DOT. Meetings were held with FRA, FHWA, CSX, the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VADOT), members of the CLT consortium and
Congressional Staff to discuss the test results (it had failed the
vehicle occupant deceleration criteria) the barrier's stiffness, its
complexity and weight (34,000 lbs.), the power requirements to raise
the barrier and the practicality of using such a device. Liability and
weather concerns, the need for life-cycle testing, and finding a
suitable demonstration site were also discussed.
From these discussions, it became apparent that the technical
complexities of the FMB just could not be overcome. Development costs
were already 20 percent above the original estimate, and the cost to
complete the demonstration was estimated at $500,000 to $1 million! The
cost of using the barrier system at any crossing was estimated to
$800,000 to $1 million for a two lane road (four barriers would be
needed, one for each lane). In addition, because of the FMB's storage
in a vault in the roadway, there was the potential need to have a human
operator deploy the barriers. For all these reasons, the project was
terminated.
Low Cost Grade Separation.--The State of Florida received a grant
for $252,000 to develop a low cost grade separation. The total cost and
time of construction was expected to be approximately 50 percent less
than the time and cost of a traditional pile supported, concrete wall
and beamed structure. The total project cost was estimated in their
original submission at approximately $400,000.
Three designs were to be examined and bid upon by private
contractors:
1. A multi-plate SuperSpan system of prefabricated, corrugated (6
inch by 2 inch) steel panels forming an arch;
2. A ``classic'' design using two vertical walls of reinforced
concrete covered by a concrete deck; and
3. A prefabricated, prestressed concrete arch.
All designs would have reinforced concrete ``thrust beams'' and
eight foot high stem walls to protect the arch from train derailments.
The ``thrust beams'' are poured along the upper portion of the
completed structure and help support the roadway. They prevent
horizontal movement of the soil during backfill, increase the ease of
soil compaction, and reduce the amount of backfill needed.
Site selection proved difficult due to local site conditions, such
as power lines and irrigation channels that would have to be relocated
at additional cost, etc. Despite examining more than 10 locations, none
proved convenient for highway operations and the final construction
costs varied by site from $1.4 to $1.7 million. Because of this
significant cost overrun, the project was terminated by FLDOT.
challenges in high-speed development
Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status,
problems and challenges faced, and the fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 FRA investments made in developing
high-speed rail track and structure technologies. Please include
information on each major FRA project in this program.
Answer. The information follows:
MAJOR TRACK AND STRUCTURES PROJECTS
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------
Federal
Project Federal Federal funds Status 6/97 Problems, challenges
funds funds 1997 proposed
1996 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Corridor Upgrade.............. ......... $5.65 ......... Award Pending.............. None.
Correcting Weak Subgrade................ ......... 0.5 $1.25 Award Pending.............. Final project definition underway.
High-Speed Switches Integrated with ITCS ......... 0.25 .25 Award Pending.............. Final project definition underway.
Signal System on the Detroit-Chicago
Corr.
Several small projects.................. ......... 0.1 .05 Award Pending.............. None.
------------------------------------
Total............................. ......... 6.5 1.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lightweight materials in hsr trainsets
Question. What progress has been made to adapt new, lightweight
materials from aerospace airframe manufacturers to high speed rail
trainsets to meet North American crash worthiness standards?
Answer. Although this topic has been prominently featured in Next
Generation Program solicitations, to date we have not received
meaningful proposals at least in part because demonstrations of these
technologies involve relatively large initial investments in fixed
tooling and other production equipment. The Federal Transit
Administration has sponsored a project to apply advanced materials in
the construction of a transit bus, and expenditures in the tens of
millions of dollars were required to achieve a prototype.
Although progress has not been made in carbody construction,
progress in applying advanced materials is being made in the NGHSR
program. The 4,500 pound flywheel rotor being constructed for the
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System is being constructed of graphite
fiber composites, which weigh one-sixth as much as steel of the same
strength while increasing the energy storage capability of the flywheel
at least three times. These characteristics are necessary to make it
possible to shoehorn a respectable size energy storage capacity into
the railroad carbody. Advanced composite materials are also being
prepared for demonstration as brake friction pads for high speed cars,
using their superb high-temperature characteristics at light weights.
Application of these friction materials could save several thousand
pounds of weight per car over the present steel brake disks, pads, and
shoes.
next generation high-speed rail
Question. Please list separately the time lines for completion of
each of the high speed rail corridor projects now underway, and the
estimated amount of Federal funds that will be needed to assure
completion.
Answer. Since there is no current Federal program for supporting
high-speed rail construction outside the Northeast Corridor we have
shown total capital costs, based primarily on planning documents from
the respective States. If these projects were to be funded from the
proposed NEXTEA fleexible funding, the Federal share would be 80
percent of the figures shown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated total
HSR Corridor project Estimated time of funds needed for
completion completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California--San Diego, Los Unknown........... Unknown.
Angeles, Oakland/Sacramento.
Florida--Miami, Orlando, to 2006 entire $5.3 billion in
Tampa. corridor. 1995 dollars.
Pacific Northwest--Eugene, 20 years.......... WA $400 million.
Portland, Seattle to Vancouver, OR $385 million.
BC.
Chicago Hub Corridor Chicago to Late 2001......... IL $400 million.
Detroit, Chicago to St.Louis, 2003.............. MI $500 million.
Chicago to Milwaukee and WI $360 million.
Minneapolis. MN under study.
Empire Corridor--Albany to New Late 2001......... $100 million.
York.
Southeast Corridor--Washington, 2003-2005......... NC $660 million.
Richmond to Newport News and VA $740 million.
Richmond to Raleigh to
Charlotte.
Deep South Corridor............. Under study....... Unknown.
Philadelphia to Harrisburg, PA.. Under study....... Under study.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northeast Corridor is estimated to be completed in late 1999,
although cost estimates are not included here. Amtrak has provided cost
estimates to Congress on the various projects--track improvements,
signalization, electrification, rolling stock purchase--needed for this
corridor.
hsr cost sharing
Question. How has the FRA incorporated cost-sharing into each of
these program areas? Please quantify cost-sharing for each project.
Answer. Cost sharing varies by program, and by project within that
program. For example: In the Section 1010 program for grade crossing
improvements in high-speed corridors, no cost sharing is required,
although almost all states provide state funds to do additional
projects.
In the Section 1036(c) Technology Demonstration program, cost
sharing varied by recipient:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Grantee funds Match
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Launcher Technology $400,000 $100,000.
(Friendly Mobile Barrier). $109,000 additional
provided later.
Connecticut DOT (4-quadrant gate).. 800,000 $200,000 plus.
$118,600 additional.
$100,000 is FHWA
funds.
Florida DOT (Low Cost Grade 252,000 $142,000.
Separation).
New York DOT (RTL Turbotrain 3,000,000 $2,000,000 from
retrofit). Amtrak.
$2,000,000 from
NYSDOT.
Illinois DOT (Environmental Impact 2,500,000 $625,000.
Statement).
North Carolina DOT (Corridor Master 1,000,000 $200,000.
Plan).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning awards made in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997
require a 50/50 match.
In addition, although not part of the Section 1036(c) program, two
grants were made in fiscal year 1995 to Illinois and North Carolina.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Grantee funds Match
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois DOT (Track rehabilitation from $3,000,000 $750,000.
Granite City to East St. Louis).
North Carolina DOT (Complete Corridor Master 1,000,000 None required or provided.
Plan).
Advanced Train Control (Next Generation High
Speed Rail Program):
Michigan (Incremental Train Control System 9,100,000 $12,591,000 MIDOT and Amtrak.
(ITCS)).
Illinois (High Speed Positive Train 7,000,000 $5,000,000.
Control).
Pacific Northwest (Positive Train 750,000 $35,000,000 BNSF & UP.
Separation).
Non-Electric Locomotives:
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System 4,528,000 $4,528,000 GE, Univ. Texas, and Allied Signal.
(ALPS).
RTL Turboliner Reconstruction (Empire 10,000,000 $10,000,000 NYSDOT.
Corridor).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next generation planning funds
Question. How many states or MPO's have benefited from FRA's
current planning assistance? What is the status of these projects? What
specific projects have been funded with fiscal year 1997 monies?
Answer. Fourteen state Departments of Transportation received
funding from FRA's planning assistance in fiscal year 1997. The table
below provides a project description and other data for the fiscal year
1997 funds. We have focussed the grants primarily on the state DOT's
but have discussed various elements of the work with various MPO's
throughout the country such as the New Orleans MPO (Regional Planning
Commission) which is assisting the Southern Rapid Rail Commission.
FISCAL YEAR 1997--NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR PLANNING AWARDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Grant
State Project description applied for award Remarks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.......................... Conduct additional technical planning along the California corridor........... $900,000 $100,000 ................................................
Florida............................. Conduct ridership and market studies for Miami-Orlando-Tampa HSGT corridor.... 900,000 \1\ 100,000 ................................................
Illinois............................ Complete environmental impact statement (EIS) for Chicago-St. Louis high-speed 125,000 100,000 ................................................
rail corridor.
Michigan and Indiana................ Update right-of-way improvements, ridership and revenue forecasts along the 118,695 118,695 ................................................
Detroit-Chicago HSGT corridor.
Minnesota/Wisconsin................. Phase II of the Minneapolis/St. Paul to Chicago route study................... 1,000,000 100,000 ................................................
Nevada.............................. Evaluate Maglev feasibility in Las Vegas-Southern California corridor......... 100,000 ........... Funding available from earlier grant agreement.
North Carolina...................... Conduct Charlotte-Washington DC corridor environmental study.................. 250,000 200,000 ................................................
Southern Rapid Rail Commission HSGT feasibility study in corridor between Atmore, AL through New Orleans to 200,000 81,305 Continue ridership demand work. Active interest
(LA,MS, AL). Lake Charles, LA. in incremental development.
Washington.......................... Conduct EIS and Reliability and Safety Improvement Study on Pacific Northwest 400,000 200,000 ................................................
Corridor.
VNTSC.............................. Analytical & Planning Support................................................. ........... 250,000 ................................................
--------------------------
Totals for HSR funding........ ............................................................................ 3,993,695 1,250,000
--------------------------
Funding from R&D:
Virginia........................ Complete Southeast corridor rail signal system analysis begun under fiscal 100,000 100,000 Complete study begun under fiscal year 1996
year 1996 grant. grant. R&D funding will be used for this
purpose.
--------------------------
Grand total................... ............................................................................ 4,093,695 1,350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional funding of $260,000 will be transferred from Section 1036 for EIS work.
management of nghsr projects
Question. The TRB has recommended that the FRA strengthen its
program management capabilities to speed up and better control the
individual projects. How will this be accomplished?
Answer. FRA has reassigned the Next Generation Program staff,
moving them from the R&D Office to the Office of Passenger and Freight
Services in order to reflect better an orientation toward project
implementation. Management of the program will be carried out through a
combination of project managers and corridor coordinators. The former
are responsible for working closely with States with which we have
cooperative funding agreements and their contractors and host railroads
on individual Next Generation projects to ensure timely accomplishment
and technical review. The latter are responsible for a broader series
of efforts to help our State partners implement high-speed rail through
technical assistance in planning market and cost analysis, advice on
available funding, and information on work in other States that is of
common interest.
The project managers hold frequent meetings and site visits with
State/contractor/railroad personnel and monitor progress. The corridor
coordinators communicate with State rail planners, maintain a world
wide web page, hold semi-annual meetings with States, and keep track of
developments in individual corridors, whether or not a Next Generation
project is involved. They keep FRA management informed of the needs of
the States in these corridors. Being in the same office, they
communicate closely with the project managers and, together with them,
provide broad based guidance on the direction of the Next Generation
program. The Office of R&D continues to pursue research activities in
the high-speed rail field and to act as a resource on related technical
issues.
planning technology funding
Question. Why is planning technology considered a non-recurring
expense? Is it FRA's view that further federal coordination in these
targeted high-speed rail corridors is no longer needed?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 FRA, as permitted
under the Appropriations Act, used ``planning technology'' funds for
two activities, both of which were aimed at helping our State partners
with the planning and implementation of high-speed rail. The first was
a modest planning grant program to States which provided matching
funds. The Administration did not request planning technology funds in
fiscal year 1998 because of the expected enactment of NEXTEA and the
resulting ability of States to use Federal surface transportation funds
for high-speed rail projects.
The second activity was for contract assistance for FRA to provide
information useful to States planning high-speed rail systems. Further
Federal coordination among those states developing high-speed rail is
very important. Twenty-three States have different levels of activity
regarding high-speed rail and many states have sought FRA's assistance
on various matters such as environmental analyses, market analysis,
cost estimation, and the ownership costs, operational record and safety
record of different types of equipment. Under our NEXTEA proposals the
resulting ability of states to use Federal funds for high-speed rail
projects will put FRA in the mode of providing the same kind of
technical assistance which FTA and FHWA have been providing for
decades. FTA and FHWA, however, have had much larger headquarters and
field staffs and additional resources. In fiscal year 1998 FRA will
provide these services using its own in-house staff.
nghsr administrative expenses
Question. Please break down in detail the expected uses of the
administrative expenses dealing with the next generation of high speed
rail technology. How much of these funds are used to hire consultants?
Why can't FRA employees do the work? Please further justify the
requested increase.
Answer. The NGHSR account is requesting $545 thousand for
administrative support. Funds support the following
[In thousands of dollars]
PC&B (5 FTE)...................................................... 372
Travel............................................................ 41
Communications.................................................... 2
Printing.......................................................... 1
Contractual Services \1\.......................................... 114
Supplies.......................................................... 3
Equipment......................................................... 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 545
\1\ Includes training, TASC, PC and equipment maintenance contracts, IT
support, etc.
No administrative funds will be used to hire consultants.
As noted on pages 171, 172, and 177 of FRA's Congressional Budget
Submission, the fiscal year 1998 request of $545K reflects an increase
of $119K over the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. Of this amount, $118K
is for non-discretionary increases related to payroll, TASC, and
inflation. In fact, $97K represents the transfer of 1 position/FTE from
the OA account to the NGHSR account. The balance of $1K is for the FRA-
wide technology systems.
rhode island rail freight development
Question. What is the total time frame and cost estimate, broken
out by fiscal year, for the freight rail improvement project in Rhode
island?
Answer. The total time frame for the freight rail improvement
project is seven years--1995 through 2001. The Federal investment,
including appropriations through fiscal year 1997 and budgets through
2001, is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Amount
1995.............................................................. 5
1996.............................................................. 1
1997.............................................................. 7
1998.............................................................. 10
1999.............................................................. 10
2000.............................................................. 10
2001.............................................................. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 55
Question. What is the administration's planned Federal grant
schedule by fiscal year for the project?
Answer. The Rhode Island Rail Freight Improvement Project grant was
signed by Administrator Molitoris and the Director of RIDOT in March
1995. This document obligated the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of
$5.0 million. The Grant has not been amended to include the fiscal year
1996 and 1997 appropriations of $1.0 million and $7.0 million
respectively. An amendment to the Grant is scheduled immediately after
publication by RIDOT of the Record of Decision which will complete the
environmental impact phase of the project.
Question. There is a fifty percent funding match required for the
project. Has the State of Rhode Island matched the $13,000,000 provided
by the Federal Government over the past three years? Is FRA aware of
plans to release state funds in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. Rhode Island has matched nearly $1 million of the $13
million appropriated for the Freight Rail Improvement Project.
Significantly more of the appropriation will be matched when the
environmental impact process is completed during the summer of 1997. In
all likelihood, state funds will be released in fiscal year 1997 to
purchase long-lead materials for the 1998 construction season. In
November 1996 Rhode Island voters approved a bond referendum which will
provide the State match of Federal funds.
Question. Has Rhode Island taken advantage of the State's ability
to ``flex'' their highway congestion mitigation or NHS funds for rail
projects?
Answer. The State of Rhode Island did not use the flexibility
allowed by the National Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA). Neither
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality nor funds from any of the other
funding sources for which flexibility was allowed under NHSDA have been
used by RIDOT on this project.
Question. Ultimately, who will own and have responsibility for the
third track once it is built and in operation?
Answer. Amtrak and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation
have begun negotiating ownership and related responsibilities for the
third track. Rhode Island has taken the position that they will own all
newly constructed rail infrastructure and all assets improved by the
Freight Rail Improvement Project, excluding improvements made by Amtrak
in accordance with FRA's Record of Decision (5/95) for the
electrification project. Amtrak, owner of the underlying rail right-of-
way, is studying its options. All parties agree that these issues must
be resolved before construction begins.
Question. Please discuss all potential shared track safety
concerns, if the final EIS recommends the ``partial build'' option.
Answer. Publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is
scheduled for June 1997. The ``partial build'' option is not limited to
a fixed number of additional track miles, but can range anywhere from
eleven to eighteen miles of third track over the twenty-two mile Boston
Switch to Davisville segment of the NEC. The greater the number of
additional track miles recommended the fewer will be the track miles
over which operations will be shared by freight and passenger trains.
Without knowing the exact locations, and likely operating conditions,
where freight and passenger trains will share the right-of-way, it is
difficult to address specific safety concerns. Among the safety issues
which will be addressed are: allowable speeds, hours of operations,
train separation, shifting load detection and appropriate levels of
train control and signals. Amtrak made all of these issues known to
RIDOT in its response to the draft EIS, and it is expected that all
will be addressed in the FEIS.
direct loan financing account-alameda corridor
Question. Between 1992 and the present, have any direct loans been
made to private sector railroads or other entities by the U. S.
Government under the Title V Railroad Rehabilitation loan programs
(Section 505 or 511), other than the fiscal year 1997 provision of
$58,680,000 to leverage $400,000,000 over three years for the Alameda
Corridor project?
Answer. Yes. The Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act included $250,000 to leverage $5,000,000 for a
Section 511 loan guarantee. Funding supported a project between
Syracuse and Binghamton, operated by the New York, Susquehanna and
Western Railway (NYS&W). The final loan guarantee was $4,204,575.
federal role in alameda corridor project
Question. Is FRA responsible for oversight of the Alemeda Corridor
project during the 3-year lending cycle and repayment to the Treasury?
Please describe the federal role in this program.
Answer. The FRA and FHWA will be jointly responsible for the
oversight of this project throughout the 3-year lending cycle, and
throughout the loan repayment period.
The Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
(Public Law 104-208) provides $59 million for FRA/DOT to pay the
capital charges (subsidy costs) associated with making a direct loan
not to exceed $400 million to Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
(ACTA) for the Alameda Corridor Project. It also provides that the loan
must be repaid within thirty years from the date of project completion.
This Federal loan offers permanent financing with flexible payment
features that should alleviate market concerns and promote efficient
use of private capital by positioning the Federal Government as a
patient investor in the project with a long term horizon and no
liquidity requirements. Those features include:
--structuring the loan to include flexible repayment provisions with
deferrable interest and principal, thus matching realized
project revenues;
--facilitating the project's access to private capital by enhancing
senior debt coverage, lowering interest rates, and reducing
reserve requirements; and
--leveraging substantial private financing by limiting Federal
participation to 20 percent of total project costs.
At a budgetary cost of only $59 million, the Federal Government is
providing a $400 million loan that will help advance a $2 billion
project with significant local, regional, and national benefits.
Question. Please update the Committee on the authorization status
of the railroad loan guarantee programs. Are the Section 505 and
Section 511 loan guarantee programs currently authorized? If not, when
did the authorizations expire? To the knowledge of the agency, is there
any movement toward reauthorization of either program by the
appropriate committees?
Answer. Statutory authority for the Section 505 Program has
expired. The Urgent Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1986 extended the
authority to make loans under Section 505 until September 30, 1988. No
further extension has been provided with one exception. The subsidy
appropriation for the Alameda Corridor Project included in the Fiscal
Year 1997 Department of Appropriations Act provided a one-time
authority for that project. While the authorization for the Section 511
Program has not expired, no subsidy has been appropriated to generate
budget authority since fiscal year 1994.
FRA is not aware of any movement toward reauthorization of either
program by the appropriate committees.
Question. Please describe the difference between the two loan
programs.
Answer. The Section 505 Program provided direct loans to railroads
and financially responsible persons for track rehabilitation and
acquisition of rail freight lines. A total of $580.2 million was
provided to 24 recipients. The period of repayment was 30 years or less
and the interest rates ranged from 2.03 percent to 11.9 percent. Under
Section 511, loan guarantees were available for financing or
refinancing to acquire or rehabilitate and improve facilities or
equipment. A total of $253 million was provided to 8 recipients for the
purchase and repair of locomotives and freight cars, track
rehabilitation, acquisition of rail freight lines, and labor protection
payments to furloughed employees of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
and Pacific Railroad.
All of the loan guarantees were financed through the Federal
Financing Bank (FFB). The FFB interest rate is the cost of borrowing to
the Government plus one-eighth of one percent. The rates varied from
5.8 percent to 12.54 percent. The loan repayment period generally
ranged from 10 to 20 years depending on the economic life of the
project. The statutory maximum is 25 years. An investigation fee and
annual premium fee are required. The statutory maximums are one-half of
one percent for the investigation fee and one percent of the
outstanding principal balance for the annual premium fee.
local rail freight assistance program and emergency railroad
rehabilitation and repair
Question. Why is there $6,763,000 in outlays associated with the
local rail freight assistance program?
Answer. Local rail freight assistance remains available until
expended. A total of $10,437,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1995.
It takes several years for states to implement projects, liquidate the
funds, audit the costs incurred, and close out the grants.
Question. Please update the Committee on the authorization status
of the local rail freight assistance program. When did the LRFA
authorization expire? To the knowledge of the agency, is there any
movement toward reauthorization of the program by the appropriate
committees?
Answer. The local rail freight assistance program was authorized
through fiscal year 1995. FRA is not aware of any movement toward
reauthorization of the program by the appropriate committees.
Question. Please update the Committee on applications the FRA has
received from flood-impacted railroads for the fiscal year 1997
emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair funding.
Answer. While we have not yet received any applications for West
Virginia or the Northern Plains States, we anticipate that the full
amount of $18.9 million will be requested and obligated.
operation respond
Question. What are the costs, benefits and current status of FRA's
involvement in the Operation Respond project? Please specify fiscal
year 1995, fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year 1997 funding. How much
longer is it anticipated that FRA will help finance this project? What
is the total amount requested within the Department for Operation
Respond? What is the amount of FRA's share?
Answer. DOT's three-year investment in the Operation Respond
program has produced substantial progress, and has successfully
generated commensurate investments from rail and motor carriers.
Through software and training developed by Operation Respond, fire and
law enforcement dispatch centers are able to quickly and accurately
determine the contents of a hazardous material rail car or truck
trailer which is involved in an accident. Currently there are
approximately 104 installations in 17 States.
The FRA-FHWA-RSPA partnership plans to continue its joint
participation by assisting in continuing research and development
improvements, and in outreach activities. Additional refinements can
extend the software's usefulness and adaptability to other emergency or
law enforcement organizations, and the Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
community. FRA sees benefit in expanding the program to include
regional and shortline railroads as well as continuing refinements in
the area of passenger rail. Greater participation by more members of
the industry will also lead toward voluntary standardization of
software displays, reducing training time and error rates for users,
and enhancing credibility with the chemical industry. FRA will continue
to cooperate with Operation Respond to gain acceptance by additional
surface transportation carriers.
We and our participating private sector partners believe that
continued DOT financial support for the Operation RESPOND Institute,
Inc. is needed through fiscal year 2000.
FRA's grant agreement for the program in fiscal year 1995 included
funds from FRA, FHWA and RSPA: $129,000 from FRA; $350,000 from FHWA;
and $120,000 from RSPA. In fiscal year 1996: $75,000 from FRA; $190,000
from FHWA; and $120,000 from RSPA. In fiscal year 1997: $53,000 from
FRA; and FHWA directly entered into a Cooperative Agreement with
Operation Respond for $1 million earmarked by Congress.
In the fiscal year 1998 budget, the Department has requested
$103,000 for Operation Respond; this amount is in FRA's budget. FHWA
and RSPA will continue to work with FRA in the continued development of
this project. FRA will continue to support outreach efforts in the rail
industry and work towards the development of enhanced software features
and improvements stemming from continued user feedback.
fra personnel reductions
Question. Senate Report 104-325 directed that none of the FRA
personnel reductions planned for fiscal year 1997 be obtained from the
Safety Division of the Office of Chief Counsel. How has this directive
been followed, and how will FRA continue this directive in fiscal year
1998?
Answer. Yes, this directive was followed in fiscal year 1997. In
fiscal year 1998, the Office of Chief Counsel is requesting an increase
of 1 position/FTE for the Safety Division to support the regulatory
process.
need for additional attorney position
Question. FRA is pursuing fewer enforcement cases now compared to
several years ago. Doesn't this free up the time of some of your
attorney staff? If so, why do you need one additional FTE for the
Office of Chief Counsel?
Answer. The reduction in the civil penalty workload has occurred
over a period when the Safety Law Division of the Office of Chief
Counsel has seen its workload expand significantly in several other
areas. FRA's regulatory workload has shown continued growth in the last
several years. New technology, changes in industry practices, and
response to statutory mandates have combined to create a reservoir of
regulatory tasks that require prompt action. At present, FRA has more
than 20 important regulatory projects in various stages of development
and all of these require legal support. FRA, of course, has moved
toward a more collaborative rulemaking process since 1995, having
completed a negotiated rulemaking on roadway worker protection, begun
advisory committee efforts on passenger equipment and emergency
response, and established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to
address a wide range of safety issues. This collaborative method, which
aims at producing consensus-based rules, is actually more attorney-
intensive than the more traditional method. FRA attorneys participate
in every regulatory working group and are generally the primary
drafters of all rulemaking documents recommended by those groups.
Developing these documents through a consensual process often requires
more discussion and redrafting than when FRA drafts rules unilaterally.
Before the drafting begins, of course, the issues are debated at length
in meetings attended by the FRA attorney. While FRA believes the
collaborative process will produce rules that are more soundly based in
fact, more widely accepted and understood, and less likely to be
challenged, an increase in the safety attorneys' workload is one cost
FRA must pay for these improvements.
FRA attorneys also have an increasing workload in the area of
engineer certification. The attorneys both draft decisions for FRA's
Locomotive Engineer Review Board (LEB.) and litigate cases involving
challenges to LEB. decisions before FRA's administrative hearing
officer. In 1996, FRA received the highest number of hearing requests
ever (16), and thus far in 1997 the LEB. is receiving petitions for
review at a record pace.
In 1997, FRA has been sued by a commuter railroad challenging FRA's
assertion of jurisdiction, all freight railroads challenging recent FRA
guidance on equipment inspection issues, and a rail union challenging
FRA's decision about the legality of a renovation of an employee
sleeping quarters. FRA attorneys play a very active role in litigating
these cases.
Even though the number of recommended civil penalty actions has
been down in recent years, there is no guarantee that trend will
continue. More important, despite the lower number of civil penalty
cases, FRA attorneys have been very active in FRA's use of its other
enforcement tools. FRA issued three emergency orders in 1996, and has
entered into two safety compliance agreements so far in 1997.
Developing and drafting these documents takes a great deal of attorney
time. Also, FRA Administrator Molitoris has directed that FRA civil
penalty efforts be more fully integrated with its SACP efforts, which
requires greater coordination between its attorneys and those directing
SACP reviews of railroads. Finally, while FRA has in recent years
become very current in transmitting civil penalty cases and closing
those cases against major railroads, we still have a large number of
cases against small railroads and shippers that need to be settled.
Accordingly, the downturn in the number of violation reports
received in recent years does not signal an overall reduction in the
workload of FRA's safety attorneys. On the contrary, their workload has
continued to increase, and the addition of one attorney will help
significantly in improving timeliness in the areas of regulation,
engineer certification, and civil penalty enforcement against small
railroads and shippers.
video teleconferencing costs
Question. During the last two years, which source of funds from
which FRA sub-account was used to pay for installation of video
teleconferencing equipment? How much has been spent on purchase and
installation? Why can't you use these same funds for actual usage
costs?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, a total of $940 thousand was used for
the purchase and installation of the video teleconferencing equipment.
The source of funds included carryover funds from OA (which are no
longer available) and information technology funds in Safety. The funds
in Safety were non-recurred in the fiscal year 1997 budget since this
was a one-time equipment cost.
No funds were budgeted in fiscal year 1997 for actual usage. At the
time the fiscal year 1997 budget was developed, FRA did not anticipate
the completion of the installation until late fiscal year 1997. Thus,
fiscal year 1998 was the first year that usage costs were budgeted.
While the equipment is now ready, FRA has virtually banned all
usage due to lack of funding. However, this critical communication tool
cannot stay idle in fiscal year 1998. Therefore, it is important that
funding requested be approved, and approved in all FRA accounts as
noted.
office of administration
Question. Why can't the monies requested for technology systems be
split funded during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. How much is
included in the fiscal year 1998 base for computer systems., i.e., to
replace and upgrade hardware and software and to enhance automation
systems. How much is in the base for Technology systems and the
information technology.
Answer. The OA account is requesting $125 thousand for FRA-wide
technology systems.
Of the $125 thousand, $48,000 is for the Video Teleconferencing
Initiative FRA has completed installation if its video teleconferencing
equipment. Funding requested in fiscal year 1998 will support actual
usage and system maintenance--costs that will continue during the life
of the system. If funding is not provided, then FRA will not be able to
use the system. This is the first year funds have been requested for
operation of the system, thus no funds are included in the fiscal year
1998 base.
The remaining $77 thousand is for FRA's Imaging System. Most of
this funding ($62K) is a one-time cost. A minimum amount of funding
will be required for supplies and maintenance of the system. The
project cannot be split funded as the base cost to complete project is
$77K.
The OA account has $67 thousand in its fiscal year 1998 base for
hardware and software replacement and/or upgraded for 154 FT. This is
inadequate, considering the number of computers/printers and other
equipment that must be replaced due to the age of equipment. Much of
the OA computer equipment will be 5 years or older by fiscal year 1998.
The OA is requesting $292 thousand for the replacement/upgrade of
37 computers, 12 notebooks, 35 printers and 1 FAX. Funding will also
support software and database upgrades.
Any delay in replacing this equipment will jeopardize the
management of FRA programs. FRA cannot function without its computers
and automated databases which are experiencing a much higher rate of
breakdowns and lost of productive time than in previous years-again due
to age and increased use.
compliance/enforcement-related functions
Question. Several years ago the Office of Chief Counsel received
additional appropriations to conduct certain compliance/enforcement-
related functions. Please specify the amount of these funds which are
now reflected in the base of the fiscal year 1998 proposed budget and
discuss the amounts actually used in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 versus the amounts actually appropriated.
Answer. In fiscal year 1995, FRA sought $386,000 to fund the costs
of administrative litigation related to the FRA safety program (e.g.,
engineer qualifications, hazardous materials enforcement,
disqualification of unfit railroad employees and emergency orders). FRA
at that time employed, through a reimbursable agreement, administrative
law judges (ALJ's) from the Department's Office of Hearings to preside
over the hearings in these cases. FRA's funding request was based on an
Office of Hearings estimate that each engineer qualification case would
cost approximately $33,000, and FRA's anticipation of having 15 cases
involving a review of railroads' decisions to revoke or deny engineers'
certificates. To reduce the administrative litigation costs to the
agency, in fiscal year 1996 FRA decided to discontinue using DOT ALJ's
and instead use an FRA attorney as a hearing officer, in addition to
handling non-safety FRA legal matters. The fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 1997 budgets reflect a reduction of $368,000 as a result of this
decision. The fiscal year 1997 Enacted Budget contained no funding for
ALJ's and the same is true for the fiscal year 1998 request. FRA's
hearing officer is currently handling all of FRA's administrative
litigation.
enforcement actions over the last three years
Question. Please prepare a table describing, for each of the last
three years, the number of enforcement actions taken, the amount of
civil penalties assessed and those collected or settled, and the number
and type of violation reports submitted. What percentage of these
actions have come from Federal inspectors and what percentage from
state inspectors?
Answer. The tables follow.
FRA CIVIL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1994-1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Dollars Cases closed Dollars
Fiscal year transmitted assessed \1\ collected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................................ 2,019 $16,159,250 1,525 $7,959,765
1995............................................ 1,447 10,897,600 1,313 5,230,044
1996............................................ 827 5,157,500 970 3,588,765
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many cases are closed in years after the year they were transmitted. Accordingly, the cases transmitted and
cases closed are largely different groups of cases.
VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE, FISCAL YEAR 1994-1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Type --------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol and drug use [AD].............. 97 30 30
Accident reports regulations [AR]...... 97 84 41
Bridge worker safety standards [BW].... 2 5 5
FRA Emergency order [EO]............... 46 11 .........
Rilroad safety enforcement [EP]........ ......... ......... 2
Engineer qualifications [EQ]........... 78 48 18
Freight car safety standards [FCS]..... 344 276 204
Grade crossing signal safety [GC]...... ......... ......... 2
Safety glazing standards [GS].......... ......... ......... 1
Hazardous materials regulations [HMT].. 662 419 273
Hours of service laws [HS]............. 1,714 1,440 148
Hours of service record keeping [HSR].. 534 335 76
Locomotive safety standards [LI]....... 538 280 194
Railroad noise emission compliance [NE] 1 3 .........
Rear end marking devices [REM]......... 26 19 9
Railroad operating practices [ROP]..... 116 53 32
Railroad operating rules [ROR]......... 10 3 .........
Radio standards and procedures [RSP]... 28 13 9
Safety appliance statutes [SA]......... 466 411 242
Signal inspection regulations [SI]..... 139 86 74
Track safety standards [TS]............ 151 82 55
--------------------------------
Total............................ 5,049 3,598 1,415
================================
Federal Inspectors (percent)........... 92 91 91
State Inspectors (percent)............. 8 9 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
other services--oa
Question. Why is there a decline in other services on page 17 from
$4,573,000 to $1,928,000? What services will be eliminated?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 estimate of $4.573 million for other
services includes $3.148 million in carryover funds which will not be
available in fiscal year 1998.
travel--office of chief counsel
Question. What is the estimated current travel budget for the
Office of Chief Counsel? How much is proposed for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The information follows:
Office of chief counsel--travel
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year:
1997.......................................................... 79
1998.......................................................... 80
policy and immediate office staffing
Question. Please list separately the number of FTP and FTE in the
Office of Policy and Program Development and in the immediate Office of
the Administrator for each of the last three years.
Answer. The information follows:
STAFFING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Office 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP FTE FTP FTE FTP FTE FTP FTE FTP FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Policy and Program Development.. 34 33 33 32 31 30 28 27 23 22
Immediate Office of the Administrator..... 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of civil rights funding
Question. Please specify the amount appropriated and the amount
spent for each of the last three years for civil rights activities. How
much is requested for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The information follows:
FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation/ Actual/
Civil Rights Office request enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1998................................ 294 294
1997................................ 268 268
1996................................ \1\ 64 250
1995................................ 244 238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include an additional $186K in carryover authority approved
to fund 2 FTE restored to this office.
technical assistance and contractor support
Question. Please list the amount actually spent on technical
assistance and contractor support for the Office of the Administrator
for each of the last three years and compare these amounts to the
appropriated amount for the activity.
Answer: FRA had no ``Technical Assistance'' budget category in
fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996, none of the $20,000 reserve
funds were used for Technical Assistance and Policy Support. This
$20,000 has been carried forward to fiscal year 1997 and will be
obligated along with the $20,000 allocated in fiscal year 1997 to
assist the Office of Policy and Program Development to analyze the
merger proposal of the Norfolk Southern, CSXT, and Conrail.
office of policy contracts
Question. Please indicate the purpose, amount, and recipient of any
contracts, including those for technical assistance and policy support,
signed during fiscal year 1996 and thus far in fiscal year 1997 by the
Office of Policy and Program Development or the immediate Office of the
Administrator?
Answer:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------
Purpose 1996 1997 Recipient
actual estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stracnet Density Data......... $10 $10 U. of Wisconsin
Curt Richards.
Economic/Financial Data....... 75 85 Bureau of Transp.
Statistics;
Association of
American
Railroads;
Operations
Technology
Services; Volpe
Center.
Carload Waybill Sample........ 209 225 ICC/Surface
Transportation
Board.
Operation Respond............. 75 53 Operation Respond
Institute.
Intermodal Network GIS........ 23 100 Ensco; Caliper
Corp.
Network Operations Maintenance 44 56 CSG; Hickling
Lewis; Freight
Services.
Prior Year Deobligation....... -82 ......... ..................
Technical Assistance and ......... 20 ..................
Policy Support.
----------------------
Total................... 354 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of the administrator
Question. Please break down in further detail the expected use of
and the immediate need for contract support service funds requested by
the Office of Policy and Program Development or the immediate Office of
the Administrator. How much is in the base for each of the items listed
on page 23?
Answer. The OA account is requesting and increase of $51,000 for
general contractual services under the Salaries & Expenses budget
activity (not the ``Contract Support'' budget activity). As noted,
increases will support the following:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
Purpose Office Base 1998 1998
increase request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultant Sprt........................... Policy............................. ......... 25 25
Administrative, conference, and other Psngr and Freight.................. ......... 15 15
outreach spt.
Development of training materials for Admin.............................. 26 10 36
automated data bases. Civil Rights....................... 1 1 2
--------------------------------
Total............................... ................................. 27 51 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
policy studies and contributions
Question. What are the most important policy studies and
contributions made by the Office of Policy and Program Development in
fiscal year 1997, and what is planned for fiscal year 1998? Please
specify how this is reflected in the request.
Answer. The Office of Policy and Program Development leads the
Federal Railroad Administration in several areas: rail structural
analysis (mergers), rail network geographic information systems (GIS),
rail needs for national defense, Operation Respond, and railroad data
development. In addition the Office of Policy and Program Development
has taken a lead role in developing tools to evaluate the cost/benefit
of rail projects utilizing innovative financing techniques.
The Office of Policy and Program Development has been the lead
Department of Transportation (DOT) group for analyzing rail merger
proposals for over 10 years. They analyzed and developed the DOT's
written position on the merger of the Union Pacific and the Southern
Pacific railroads. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, they
will similarly lead the DOT analysis of the proposed acquisition of
Conrail by the Norfolk Southern and CSXT railroads. Additionally, they
will begin an assessment of the issues involved in competitive access
in the rail industry. Much of the data (traffic, financial, and general
economic) that will support this as well as other policy analyses is
acquired, compiled, and funded as explained below.
The Office of Policy and Program Development created a rail network
GIS, representing all 150,000 route miles of track in the United States
railroad system. The GIS is extremely detailed, containing ownership,
trackage rights, and traffic statistics for each line segment in the
country. It is updated annually and has been widely distributed to
other federal agencies, states, MPO's, local jurisdictions, and
railroads. It has been coupled with a highway GIS from DOT's Federal
Highway Administration and a waterway GIS from the United States Coast
Guard to create the initial stages of an intermodal network GIS. During
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 the FRA Rail Network GIS will be
updated, enhanced, and distributed to the public. Also, hazardous
materials movements (extracted from the Waybill Sample) will be
simulated over the Rail Network GIS to be used as an aid by the Office
of Safety in deploying its inspection fleet.
The Office of Policy and Program Development, in cooperation with
the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) of the Defense
Department, reevaluates on an annual basis the rail requirements for
the defense of the United States based on changing rail traffic density
and defense traffic pattern shifts. This effort defines the Strategic
Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET), those rail lines identified as
necessary to defense.
The Office of Policy and Program Development administers the FRA's
portion of the federal grant to Operation Respond. FRA's funding helped
to develop a very successful pilot project in Houston, Texas that paved
the way for better response to rail hazardous materials spills. Funding
in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 will expand these efforts to
other localities in the United States and also broaden the railroad
base to include short line carriers.
The Office of Policy and Program Development jointly with the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) funds the creation of the Rail
Carload Waybill Sample data base on an annual basis. Funding is 50
percent FRA and 50 percent STB. The Waybill Sample data base is the
only comprehensive source of rail traffic data that includes details
for both commodity and routing. As such it functions as the official
traffic data source for proceedings before the STB, including mergers,
acquisitions, and abandonments.
The Office of Policy and Program Development purchases and collects
rail economic and financial data to support policy analysis of the rail
industry. Economic data is purchased from Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) to
track economic trends in the rail industry. Rail financial data is
compiled into a financial data base to evaluate individual rail
companies and the industry as a whole. These data are used extensively
in rail structure analysis such as mergers.
The Office of Policy and Program Development has funded the
development of a computerized model (RailDec) to assess the cost/
benefit of innovatively financed rail projects. It has been made
available to and is widely used by states, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO's), and regional jurisdictions to analyze the worth
of such projects in their own areas. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998 the model will be modified to better include projects
directly related to rail/highway crossings.
Funding for all these projects is included in the request of $682
thousand under the budget activity ``Contract Support''.
[Note.--General contractual services are used to support the day to
day operations of the offices.]
intermodal transportation planning
Question. What resulted from the numerous meetings FRA conducted to
help integrate intermodal transportation planning? How much did you
spend on this activity during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997?
How much is planned for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Fiscal year 1996: In fiscal year 1995, FRA had worked
closely with FHWA and FTA on the Department of Transportation's ongoing
series of Enhanced Planning Reviews, focussing on Metropolitan Planning
Organizations where freight, particularly rail and intermodal freight,
was a major issue. The only such review in fiscal year 1996 in this
category took place in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area in November
1995. FRA led the panel on intermodal freight mobility and provided
insight from the experiences of other MPO's and on the availability of
freight-related data sources. The reviews were used by the Department
as a way to assist MPO's in refining their transportation planning
processes, and assess the effectiveness of the ISTEA planning
regulations. Also during 1996, FRA conducted focus group meetings in
Trenton, NJ (July 1996) with state DOT officials and railroads and in
Erie, PA (August 1996) with the executive board of AASHTO's Standing
Committee on Rail Transportation, to solicit information on what had
worked with ISTEA as currently configured and their ideas on needed
changes to ISTEA, including any changes to the planning regulations.
Additionally, FRA participated in Department-led ISTEA outreach
meetings in Philadelphia (August 1996), Providence (Sept. 1996), and
St. Louis (Sept. 1996). The results of these and other DOT-initiated
meetings were the basis of DOT's January 1997 outreach report entitled
``How To Keep America Moving: ISTEA; Transportation for the 21st
Century,'' and helped to shape DOT's NEXTEA legislation. Finally, FRA
participated in the Conference on State and Infrastructure Banks in
Denver (Nov. 1995) and EPA's ISTEA Workshop in Philadelphia (Nov.
1995). Total cost for these activities was approximately $6300, all for
travel expenses.
Fiscal year 1997: The Office continued the process of soliciting
views on the impact of ISTEA and the need for changes by leading a
focus group on ISTEA with a number of railroads meeting in Nashville,
TN (Oct. 1996) and with state DOT officials at AASHTO's semi-annual
meetings of its Standing Committee on Rail Transportation in
Williamsburg, VA (April 1997). FRA participated in the Western
Governors Association meetings on rail planning in Denver (May 1997) to
share the experiences of various MPO's under ISTEA, and to discuss
potential solutions to increased rail freight density problems. Total
cost, again all for travel, was $1,885.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
safety performance
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the four programs in the
Safety Performance Standards Budget for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997.
Answer. Below is a budget comparison table for fiscal years 1995,
1996, and 1997.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
Programs --------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriated Request Appropriated Request Appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle safety............................. 500 500 850 642 589 929
New car assessment......................... 2,460 1,685 2,792 1,707 3,542 2,786
Fuel economy............................... 785 420 2,285 118 1,560 60
Theft and Consum........................... ....... 100 110 106 50 50
Motor vehicle title information............ ....... ............ ....... \1\ 890 ....... ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 3,745 2,705 6,037 3,463 5,741 3,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds administered by Traffic Safety Programs (pilot demo).
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the four programs in
the Safety Performance Standards Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. Below is a comparison tables for Safety Performance
Standards Program for fiscal year 1997 and 1998. There were no
requested increases. Use of fiscal year 1998 funds are as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Vehicle safety and consumer standards -----------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick Reaction Testing................................ 424 424
Consumer Information.................................. 90 90
Cost and Leadtime Analysis............................ 75 75
Off-Set Frontal Testing............................... 340 340
-----------------
Total........................................... 929 929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick Reaction Testing.--$424 thousand will be used to focus on
responding to petitions and continue work trying to reduce on-road,
untripped rollover crashes, prevent backup crashes involving small
children, simplify and clarify the lighting standard, improve rear
signaling lights, determine braking-in-a-curve performance requirements
for large single unit trucks, standardize 5th percentile female, 3 year
and 6 year-old child dummies, negotiated rulemaking on multi-stage
vehicles, and continue work on vehicles adapted for use by people with
disabilities and efforts to harmonize our safety standards with those
of other countries.
Consumer Information.--$90 thousand will be used to conduct
marketing and consumer focus group research, to develop and disseminate
consumer information regarding proper usage of anti-lock brakes, and to
develop and disseminate consumer information materials pertaining to
vehicle theft prevention and Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards
(UTQGS).
Cost and Leadtime Analysis.--$75 thousand will be used to assess
advanced air bag technologies.
Off-Set Frontal Testing.--$340 thousand will be used to test
vehicles as part of establishing a harmonized Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard for frontal offset crash testing.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
New car assessment program ---------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCAP Testing............................................ 2,538 2,538
Consumer Information.................................... 247 247
---------------
Total............................................. 2,786 2,786
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCAP.--$2,538 thousand will be used to conduct a total of 70-75
frontal and side crash tests. A determination has not been made as to
the number of tests for each mode. With two crash modes, the agency
will provide consumers with a better understanding of the potential
safety that a vehicle may provide in high-speed front and side crashes.
Consumer Information.--$247 thousand will be used to update and
disseminate the ``Buying A Safer Car'' brochure, develop and
disseminate a new ``Buying A Safer Car for Child Passengers'' brochure,
update and improve the crash test information site on NHTSA's Web Page,
and develop video news releases and public service announcements on the
results of NCAP crash tests.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Fuel economy program ---------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Economy Analysis................................... 60 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Economy.--Will be used for ``plants and lines'' database to
provide pertinent details on automobile manufacturing plants, such as
products, capacities, employment levels, financial data, and planned
changes.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Theft program ---------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theft Analysis.......................................... 50 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theft.--Will be used to continue to issue the consolidated
insurance information and provide an in-house analysis of FBI theft and
recovery data on stolen motor vehicles from over 26,000 law enforcement
jurisdictions in order to calculate the theft rates of motor vehicles.
Question. Please explain in detail how the fiscal year 1997
appropriated funds have been spent to conduct cost/benefit studies
related to petitions and ongoing rulemaking activities?
Answer. The Office of Planning and Consumer Programs is charged
with conducting manufacturing cost, retail price, incremental weight,
and lead time impact analyses of proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards. Although Safety Performance Standards often develops its own
estimates of the potential benefits of proposed Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, ultimately the estimation of incremental safety
benefits is the responsibility of the Associate Administrator for Plans
and Policy. Safety Performance Standards does not use its contract
program to conduct benefit studies. For fiscal year 1997, expenditures
for cost, weight, and lead time impact assessments of new safety
proposals totaled approximately $190,000. The vast majority of these
funds ($155,000) are supporting cost and lead time analyses of advanced
air bag systems. The remaining funds were expended on analyses of steel
brackets for reflective tape on heavy duty trucks, and temperature and
locking radiator cap technology.
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee urged NHTSA to
proceed with care in processing with the NPRM regarding elimination of
the standard for placing triangular warning devices for certain
disabled buses and trucks. What is the status of this rulemaking
action, when can a final rule be expected?
Answer. On June 16, 1997, the agency terminated its rulemaking
action to eliminate the standard for warning triangles. This means the
warning triangle standard will remain in effect. A copy of the
termination notice is enclosed for your information.
[Federal Register, June 16, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 115), Proposed
Rules]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-56, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF77
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Warning Devices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
summary
In this document, NHTSA terminates rulemaking to rescind the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on triangular warning devices
intended to be placed on the roadway behind disabled buses and trucks
that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs.
Terminating this rulemaking relieves the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) of the necessity for conducting a rulemaking proceeding to adopt
its own requirements on triangular warning devices. Further,
terminating this rulemaking will give the Department more effective
enforcement authority regarding the performance of those devices. This
rulemaking (61 FR 29337, June 10, 1996) was initiated as part of the
agency's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative.
for further information contact
For technical issues: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, NPS-21, telephone (202) 366-5280, FAX (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.
Both may be reached at NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20590.
supplementary information
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives.
During the course of this review, NHTSA identified regulations that it
could propose to rescind as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, application, or appropriateness. Among the
regulations identified for potential rescission is Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR Sec. 571.125).
Background of Standard No. 125
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, Warning
devices, specifies requirements for warning devices that do not have
self-contained energy sources (unpowered warning devices) and that are
designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs. The unpowered warning
devices are intended to be placed on the roadway behind a disabled
vehicle to warn approaching traffic of the vehicle's presence. The
Standard does not apply to unpowered warning devices designed to be
permanently affixed to the vehicle. The purpose of the Standard is to
reduce deaths and injuries due to rear-end collisions between moving
traffic and stopped vehicles.
The standard requires that the unpowered warning devices be
triangular, covered with orange fluorescent and red reflex reflective
material, and open in the center. These characteristics are intended to
assure that the warning device has a standardized shape for quick
message recognition, can be readily observed during both daytime and
nighttime, and provides limited wind resistance so that it does not
blow over when deployed.
NHTSA has never required that any new vehicle be equipped with the
Standard No. 125 warning device or any other warning device. However,
as explained below, FHWA, which has authority to regulate interstate
commercial vehicles-in-use, mandates that operators of those vehicles
carry and use unpowered warning devices meeting Standard No. 125,
fusees or flares.
Previous Changes to Standard No. 125
Before 1994, Standard No. 125 applied to unpowered warning devices
that are designed to be carried in any type of motor vehicle. On May
10, 1993 (58 FR 27314), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to amend Standard No. 125 so that the Standard applied only to
warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks
that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs.
NHTSA proposed to narrow the scope of Standard No. 125 in order to
provide manufacturers of unpowered warning devices with greater design
freedom and to relieve an unnecessary regulatory burden on industry. At
the specific request of FHWA, the agency proposed to retain the
requirements for warning devices for buses and trucks with a GVWR
greater than 10,000 lbs. This aspect of NHTSA's proposal supported
FHWA's regulation of commercial motor vehicles under the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) (49 CFR parts 350-399). Section
393.95 of the FMCSR requires either that three Standard No. 125 warning
devices or specified numbers of fusees or flares be carried on all
trucks and buses used in interstate commerce.
NHTSA limited the applicability of Standard No. 125, as proposed,
in a final rule published on September 29, 1994 (59 FR 49586). In the
final rule, NHTSA stated that it was retaining Standard No. 125 in its
narrowed form largely to ensure the continued availability of
standardized unpowered warning devices which FHWA could specify as a
means of complying with its warning device requirements for commercial
vehicle operators.
Proposed Rescission of Standard No. 125
After reviewing Standard No. 125 in light of the President's
Regulatory Review Initiative, NHTSA tentatively determined that
retaining Standard No. 125 is not necessary to ensure the continued
availability of unpowered warning devices. Accordingly, the agency
developed a rescission proposal which reflected written and oral
comments from FHWA staff. It published the NPRM on June 10, 1996 (61 FR
29337).
In the NPRM, NHTSA suggested that if Standard No. 125 were
rescinded, FHWA would have two options. First, instead of specifying
warning devices meeting NHTSA's Standard No. 125, FHWA could specify
devices meeting criteria adopted by FHWA and placed in its own
regulations. More specifically, FHWA could adopt the current
manufacturing standards for the warning devices, i.e., those in
Standard No. 125, as an appendix to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. Section 393.95 would be revised to reference the newly
created appendix as opposed to Section 571.125.
Second, FHWA could work with an industry voluntary standards
setting organization such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
to develop an industry standard on unpowered warning devices containing
requirements similar to those in Standard No. 125. Once those
requirements were developed, FHWA could incorporate them by reference
in Section 393.95.
Public Comments on Proposed Rescission
NHTSA received mixed comments in response to its proposal to
rescind Standard No. 125. Two commenters, Chrysler and Ford, supported
NHTSA's proposal to rescind the Standard. Chrysler stated its agreement
with NHTSA that Standard No. 125 is unnecessary ``since devices meeting
these requirements are already stipulated by the FHWA for commercial
carriers.'' Ford suggested that Standard No. 125's provisions could be
transferred to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR).
Other commenters, including 3M Company, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates), Dr. Merrill J. Allen, American Highway Users
Alliance (AHUA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), Automotive Parts
and Accessories Association (APAA), Center for Auto Safety (CAS),
Cortina Tool and Molding and James King Company (in one submission)
(Cortina/King), National Private Truck Council (NPTC), Sate-Lite
Manufacturing Company, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
(TSEI), Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) and several members of
the U.S. House of Representatives opposed the proposed rescission of
Standard No. 125. The commenters offered the following reasons for
their opposition:
1. Standard No. 125 Has Value
The commenters opposed to rescinding Standard No. 125 generally
stated that the Standard has value, and expressed various reasons for
their belief. Sate-Lite, a triangular warning device manufacturer,
stated that it did not consider the Standard's performance requirements
unnecessary or a burden. 3M, which operates a fleet of over 5200
vehicles, stated that: ``Each of the criteria in the standard represent
items of value to the users of those devices.'' 3M stated that
deviations from these criteria would reduce and possibly eliminate this
value.
Other commenters stated that Standard No. 125 is needed simply
because it ensures uniformity in the triangular warning devices.
Erosion of uniformity would impair the ability of those devices
designed to meet the current standard to communicate hazards
effectively. 3M and APAA stated that with the recent increases in the
nation's speed limits, there is a greater need for motorists to have
advance, distinctive warning of a disabled vehicle ahead, and the
triangular warning device meets that need. Cortina/King commented that
Standard No. 125 devices are the only safe warning devices for
deployment in conjunction with a stopped vehicle carrying flammable
materials.
TSEI commented that NHTSA appears ready to adopt an ``anything
goes'' approach that would confuse motorists and violate the agency's
longstanding policy of maintaining consistency in visual signals to
motorists. TSEI contrasted the present rulemaking with NHTSA's past
interpretations of Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. Those interpretations emphasized the safety
importance of avoiding even momentary confusion of motorists as to the
meaning of the supplemental lighting signals.
2. State Regulation and International Harmonization Issues
Related to the lack of uniformity issue, Advocates, ATA, and TSEI
expressed concern that the States would regulate in the absence of
Standard No. 125. Advocates, AHUA, and TSEI also suggested that
rescinding Standard No. 125 would conflict with NHTSA's recently
announced efforts (see 61 FR 30657, June 17, 1996) to harmonize the
FMVSSs with international standards.
3. NHTSA Administration and Enforcement of Triangular Warning Devices
is Preferred
Many commenters expressed the view that NHTSA has more effective
statutory authority to administer and enforce a unpowered triangular
warning device standard than FHWA. Some commenters raised the
possibility that there could be a period after NHTSA rescinds the
Standard and before FHWA enacts it, when there would be no triangular
warning device regulation at all. Some commenters incorrectly
speculated that there had not been any consultation between NHTSA and
FHWA during NHTSA's development of its proposal.
4. Rescinding the Standard Would Be ``Arbitrary and Capricious''
Some commenters stated that in its proposed rescission of Standard
No. 125, NHTSA did not show that there is no safety need for the
Standard, and in absence of showing no safety need, NHTSA has no legal
authority to rescind the standard.
Agency Decision
In response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
NHTSA carefully examined Standard No. 125. Although NHTSA has a safety
standard for warning triangles, FHWA is the part of the Department that
has the greatest program responsibilities for warning triangles. It is
FHWA that requires vehicle operators to carry warning triangles or
other warning devices in vehicles and it is FHWA that requires vehicle
operators to use warning triangles or other warning devices to alert
other motorists of the presence of a disabled vehicle. In issuing its
proposal, NHTSA believed it would make the government program for
warning triangles more effective and more efficient if the FHWA were
also responsible for establishing the performance requirements for
these warning devices.
After reviewing the public comments on this proposal and after
further consultation with FHWA, NHTSA believes that the current
division of program responsibilities and regulatory requirements has
served the public well. In fact, the current division of
responsibilities assures the public the benefits of the joint expertise
of NHTSA and FHWA working together on issues that arise in connection
with these warning devices. In addition, the proposal would have forced
FHWA to expend resources to promulgate a rule that would be identical
to the rule NHTSA rescinded. After reconsidering all these factors,
NHTSA has concluded that its proposal to rescind the warning triangle
standard should be terminated. This notice announces that termination.
Potential rulemaking actions may arise from one or more pending
petitions. Because it will retain Standard No. 125, NHTSA will proceed
with its consideration of pending petitions for rulemaking to amend
Standard No. 125 from the TSEI and Gault Industries.
authority
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: June 10, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-15746 Filed 6-13-97; 8:45 am]
______
Question. Please list the purpose, amount and recipients of your
contracts over $50,000 issued during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1996.
Answer. Below is a list of contracts over $50,000 issued during
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1996.
Fiscal year 1996:on Amount
Study rear back up mirrors to identify which ones improve
the rear view for drivers of commercial vans and certain
delivery trucks--Scientex Inc........................... $60,364
Identify baseline child restraint designs and any changes
required to conform to the ISOFIX configuration--Ludtke
& Associates............................................ 70,626
Focus group to examine potential countermeasures to the
problems associated with air bags and children--Global
Exchange, Inc........................................... 91,984
21 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 96 NCAP--MGA........ 256,734
6 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 96 NCAP--MGA......... 139,482
5 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 96 NCAP--TRC......... 109,675
9 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 96 NCAP--Calspan..... 147,295
Fiscal year 1997:
Study the feasibility of possible upgrade to FMVSS No.
218, Motorcycle Helmets--USC, Head Protection Research
Laboratory.............................................. 50,000
Conduct research on consumer knowledge of vehicle safety
and focus group sessions to determine consumer
perceptions and needs about vehicle safety--Global
Exchange, Inc........................................... 75,000
9 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 97 NCAP--Karco
Engineer- ing........................................... 198,893
8 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Calspan..... 144,840
11 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA.................. 188,340
16 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA.................. 262,288
6 side impact tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA 160,4568 offset
frontal tests--Karco.................................... 113,052
Quality assurance for NCAP data--Conrad Technologies...... 85,000
Question. How has NHTSA reduced the average time taken to process a
rulemaking action?
Answer. The time to process rulemaking has always been of concern
to NHTSA. A team comprised of members from the various offices within
NHTSA was established to reviewed the complete rulemaking process. As
part of this assignment, the team interviewed each office involved in
the rulemaking process to obtain what information was necessary to
reach a rulemaking decision and how this information could best be
collected. After analyzing all of the data, the team recommended
several administrative changes. These changes were accepted and
adopted. One of the major changes was to establish a team for each
significant rulemaking. This approach will promote efficiency and
quality by encouraging staff from different offices within the agency
to work collaboratively. A team can be established for non-significant
rulemaking if an office deems one is necessary. Another major change
was to allow certain Preambles to be written in the Safety Performance
Standards office and cleared through the agency instead of having the
Chief Counsel's Office responsible for writing all Preambles. This can
save approximately two to three months of processing time. Even though
the administrative changes recommended by the Team are currently being
implemented, the rulemaking process will continue to be reviewed to see
if these changes are in fact improving the quality of the rulemaking
and reducing the average time to process a rulemaking action.
Question. How have you improved your cost/benefit analyses to help
consumers?
Answer. The agency is continuously trying to improve its economic
assessments and regulatory evaluations. The agency has developed data
bases on motor vehicle crashes that are second to none in the world.
The agency has been recognized by the Office of Management and Budget
as the premier example of how regulatory analyses should be conducted
in the Federal Government. A cost/benefit analysis for consumers is the
central focus of these analyses. We carefully examine safety benefits
(the number of lives saved, injuries reduced and property damage
reduced), consumer costs, and economic costs. The economic assessments
and regulatory evaluations include analyses required by Executive Order
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1990, and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Question. What is the number and nature of the key rulemaking
activities that are now before NHTSA?
Answer. Of the current 108 pending rulemaking activities,
approximately 30 are considered key rulemakings. The majority of these
activities address the issues of air bag aggressiveness particularly as
they relate to the safety of children. A significant number also relate
to the establishment of new and varying sizes of dummies to be used for
compliance testing of new air bags. Other major activities include
labeling requirements to improve consumer information, warning labels
for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles with air bags,
uniform child restraint attachment systems, new technologies for
interior impact protection, exemptions for businesses that modify
vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities from the ``make
inoperative'' prohibitions, and the establishment of a regulatory
negotiation for certification of multi-stage vehicles.
Question. Please prepare for the record a list of all final
rulemakings that have been issued since you submitted a similar list
last year.
Answer. Below is a list of all final rulemakings that were issued
from June 1996 through May 1997.
1996: Description Std./Pt.
Revises the whip resistance test conditions to permit the
use of a supplemental support in attaching certain brake
hose assemblies for the purpose of compliance testing... 106
Requires that the rear of truck tractors be equipped with
retroreflective material similar to that required on the
rear of the trailers they tow to increase nighttime
conspicuity. Adopts new photometric requirements for
motorcycle headlamps.................................... 108
Technical amendment to four standards (109, 117, 119, 120)
and the regulation on the identification and record
keeping to delete obsolete dates, update statutory
citations, correct typographical errors, and update the
designations of the offices to which requests and
reports are submitted (part of the President's
regulatory reinvention initiatives)..................... 109/574
Transfers most of the requirements to the safety standard
on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment
(FMVSS No. 108) and the remaining requirements of the
standard are rescinded (part of the President's
regulatory reinvention initiatives)..................... 112
Combines the vehicle identification number (VIN)
requirements in a single regulation, previously, the VIN
requirements were specified in two separate regulations,
FMVSS No. 115 and Pt. 565 (part of the President's
regulatory reinvention initiatives)..................... 115/565
Amends the reservoir requirements for trucks, buses and
trailers equipped with air brakes amends the location,
labeling, color, activation protocol, and photometric
intensity of antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction
indicator lamps on the exterior of trailers and trailer
converter dollies. Amends the air pressure at which a
bus's air compressor must automatically activate........ 121
Rescinds FMVSS No. 126 and combines its provisions with
Pt. 575.103 to make the requirements easier to
understand and apply (part of the President's regulatory
reinvention initiative)................................. 126/575
Permits the installation of a new item of motor vehicle
glazing, Item 4A--rigid plastic for use in side windows
in motor vehicles to provide greater flexibility for
manufacturers to develop and use more aerodynamic,
lighter weight glazing designs, resulting in lower fuel
consumption............................................. 205
Grants request for a phase-in of the compliance date of
the new requirements and establishes the usual reporting
and record keeping requirements necessary for
enforcement of a phase-in and clarifies the definition
of ``trunk lid'' with respect to vehicles in which the
seatbacks of rear seats fold down to provide additional
cargo space............................................. 206
Requires vehicles with air bags to bear three new warning
labels, two of the labels replace existing labels on the
sun visor, the third is a temporary label on the dash... 208
Addresses the use of child harnesses and backless child
restraints in aircrafts. Corrects and clarifies
provisions made in the July 1995 final rule and permits
manufacturers to produce belt-positing seats with a mass
of up to 4.4 kg (rather than limit the mass to 4 kg) and
permits them to use the word ``mass'' in labeling child
seats................................................... 213
Amends certain labeling requirements, specifically the
inspection interval and deletes references to certain
pamphlets............................................... 304
Publishes the final data on thefts of model year (MY) 1994
passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year
(CY) 1994............................................... 541
Updates the list of passenger motor vehicle insurers that
are required to file reports of motor vehicle theft loss
experiences............................................. 544
Amends the specifications for the hybrid III test dummy
for use in FMVSS No. 208 compliance tests............... 572
1997:
As a result of a negotiated rulemaking, this standard
adopts an option to existing headlamp aiming
specifications which is intended to improve the
objectivity and accuracy of the motor vehicle headlamp
aim. Modifies the final rule requiring that the rear of
truck tractors be equipped with retroreflective material
similar to that required on the rear of the trailers
they tow to increase nighttime conspicuity.............. 108
Includes another phase-in option to allow manufacturers to
carry forward credits for vehicles certified to the new
requirements prior to the beginning of the phase-in
period.................................................. 201
Extends until September 1, 2000, the time period during
which vehicle manufacturers are permitted to offer
manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag
for vehicles without rear seats or with rear seats that
are too small to accommodate rear facing infant seats.
Temporarily amend the standard to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers can quickly depower all air bags so that
they inflate less aggressively.......................... 208
Makes further amendment to previous amendment so that
certain exclusions from requirements in two other
standards are available for vehicle certification to the
unbelted barrier test will also be certified to the
alternative sled test................................... 208
Clarifies and allows additional wording in the required
text of the warning labels on rear-facing child seats on
an interim basis........................................ 213
Established average fuel economy standard for light trucks
manufactured in model year (MY) 1999.................... 533
Adopts modifications to the Hybrid III test dummy used in
compliance testing for neck measurements under FMVSS No.
208..................................................... 572
vehicle safety and consumer standards program
Question. In fiscal year 1997, an additional $340,000 was added to
this program to establish a federal motor vehicle safety standard for
frontal offset crash testing. What is the status of this standard? How
long will it take before it is completed?
Answer. Congress provided $340,000 in fiscal year 1997 funding to
``be used toward establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard
for frontal offset crash testing.'' Further, Congress wanted these
activities to reflect ongoing efforts to enhance international
harmonization of safety standards. In response to this directive, the
agency is studying the recently (November 1996) adopted European Union
(EU) directive as a potential offset testing crashworthiness standard.
With the $340,000 provided in fiscal year 1997, the agency is
conducting eight offset crash tests to evaluate this EU offset test
with both 50th percent male and 5th percentile female dummies (see test
matrix). The agency is coordinating this activity with the safety
community and the vehicle manufacturers through NHTSA's Motor Vehicle
Safety Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC) and has had an initial
meeting with EU representatives. It is not expected that the EU
directive could be adopted as a replacement for Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,'' but is
being considered as an option of harmonization to the standard as a
supplemental regulation. A status report will be delivered to Congress
on this offset testing activity in July 1997.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency has requested an additional
$340,000 for this effort. fiscal year 1998 crash test plans will
address the repeatability and reproducibility of the EU test procedure,
the performance of additional dummy sizes in frontal crashes, and the
feasibility of the test procedure for lighter or heavier vehicles.
After completion of these testing activities, adequate information
should be available to conduct the requisite benefit and cost analysis
to evaluate the feasibility of promulgating a supplemental offset test
requirement to FMVSS 208.
TEST MATRIX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodge Toyota Ford
Frontal test Neon Camry Taurus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full \2\ 48 kph with 50th percent male dummy,
unrestrained \2\............................ ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Full \2\ 56 kph with 50th percent male dummy,
restrained \3\.............................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Full \2\ 48 kph with 5th percent female
dummy, restrained........................... ....... ....... .......
40 percent offset \2\ 60 kph with 50th
percent male dummy, restrained \4\.......... ( \1\ ) ....... .......
40 percent offset \2\ 64 kph with 50th
percent male dummy, restrained \5\.......... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
40 percent offset \2\ 60 kmph with 5th
percent female dummy, restrained............ ....... ....... .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data already exists for this test condition and make model
combination.
\2\ NHTSA FMVSS No. 208 crash test results.
\3\ NHTSA NCAP crash test results.
\4\ Transport Canada test results.
\5\ IIHS EU test results.
new car assessment program
Question. Why did the budget for this program increase 63 percent
from 96 to 97?
Answer. The principle reason for this increase was the new
initiative to provide side impact safety information to the US
consumer. Twenty-six vehicles have been tested in fiscal year 1997 with
the resulting data providing relative side impact crash performance
information to consumers on 46 percent of the model year 1997 passenger
cars. Other minor increases were due to inflation in the costs of
vehicles and testing.
Question. How much front and side impact safety information is
available on the Internet?
Answer. For model year 1997, the agency's Web Site has frontal
safety information on 152 vehicles accounting for about 86 percent of
new vehicles sold in the USA. The Web Site has side impact safety
information on forty-one cars for model year 1997 accounting for about
46 percent of new cars sold in the USA.
During fiscal year 1997, the agency worked diligently to make the
NHTSA Web Site easy to use and to make the information clear. The
quality & clarity of Web Site has been greatly improved during this
period. The numbers of consumers visiting NCAP (on the Web Site) grew
from an average of about 900 visitors a week in June 1996 to an average
of thirty-four hundred visitors a week in May 1997.
For model years 1995 and 1996, the agency has the safety ratings
for frontal impact on the Web Site. Because of staff limitations, we do
not yet have the pre-1995 NCAP information on the Web Site. At this
time, the agency is bringing in a direct support contractor to place
the previous year's NCAP information on the Web Site.
The agency's Web Site provides direct links for consumers to crash
test information at other sites. We provide links to front impact
safety information at sites in Japan, Australia, and the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
Question. Please discuss the cooperative efforts NHTSA has
established with foreign NCAPS. How much do these cost? What do NHTSA
and consumers gain from these?
Answer. The success of United States NCAP prompted international
efforts. As early as 1990, representatives from Japan and Australia met
with the agency to establish NCAP consumer information programs in
their countries. Later, meetings were held with European NCAP
representatives. The first Australian NCAP results were published in
1993. These test data showed that vehicles sold in the Australian
market had a lower level of safety performance than those sold in the
U.S. market. Japan released their first data on full frontal crash
ratings in March of 1996. The Euro NCAP released their first NCAP
results in February 1997.
At the Fifteenth International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles in May 1996, a special session was conducted specifically to
address the international crashworthiness rating systems and to assure
that harmonization be considered by the different countries in the
development and execution of these programs. Representatives from all
major countries attended this session and discussed their activities
and the potential for improved harmonization.
These cooperative efforts lead to international consistency and
harmonization in many of the aspects of the programs. This is very
beneficial for both consumers and vehicle manufacturers. The Japan and
Australian NCAP's use identical full frontal test procedures. The
offset frontal test procedures used in Australia and Europe are the
same as those used by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Many
of the approaches for presenting information to consumers are similar.
The sharing of information and the international cooperation
significantly enhance the knowledge of each individual country in
understanding, evaluating, and developing the best methods for
conducting consumer programs. The agency gains from these cooperative
efforts because it leads to establishing universal procedures such that
data generated in one country may be directly comparable to United
States NCAP data. The consumer in the other country gains because a
safety rating process, developed in the United States, is now available
in his/her country.
As with any harmonization effort, a major cost is travel. Because
the agency's travel budget has been extremely limited, the travel has
been from the foreign countries to the United States. Consequently,
these cooperative efforts with foreign NCAP programs have had little
direct cost to NHTSA.
Question. Please provide an update on how the funds appropriated
for fiscal year 1997 were used to expand NCAP. How many tests have been
conducted, and what were the results?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 NCAP funds were used to continue
frontal NCAP testing, to maintain promotional and consumer activities,
and to expand NCAP into side impact testing. The following tables
provide the costs, number of vehicles tested, and test results.
Detailed breakdown of fiscal year 1997 NCAP costs
Frontal Impact--NCAP fiscal year 1997: Budget amount
Vehicle Purchase (42)..................................... $698,000
Vehicle Testing (42)...................................... 914,000
Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing.......................... 76,000
Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 17,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 1,705,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Side Impact NCAP fiscal year 1997:
Vehicle Purchase (26)..................................... 409,000
Vehicle Testing (26)...................................... 385,000
Dummy Calibrations & Refurbishing......................... 38,000
Administrative Cost....................................... \1\ 8,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 840,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
NCAP Promotional: Promotional Material (Brochures, Radio &
Print Spots and Internet Dissemination)................... 150,000
Program: Reproduce and Disseminate Consumer Material.......... 97,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 247,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1997 NCAP Costs....................... 2,792,000
\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing,
and distribution costs.
1997 FRONTAL IMPACT NCAP VEHICLES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star ratings
Manufacturers Model Body style -------------------------
Driver Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler............................. Caravan................. MPV.................. 4 5
Cherokee................ MPV.................. 3 3
Dakota Excab............ PU................... 4 4
Neon.................... 2DR.................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Ram Excab............... PU................... 4 3
Sebring................. Conv................. 4 4
Wrangler................ MPV.................. 4 5
Ford................................. Club Wagon.............. VAN.................. 3 4
Escort.................. 4DR.................. 3 4
Escort 98............... 2DR.................. ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Expedition.............. MPV.................. 4 5
F-150................... PU................... 4 5
Ranger.................. PU................... 4 4
Windstar................ VAN.................. 5 5
GM................................... Blazer.................. MPV.................. 3 1
C/K..................... PU................... 5 4
C/K-Excab............... PU................... 5 4
Cavalier................ 2DR.................. 4 4
Cavalier................ 4DR.................. 4 3
Deville................. 4DR.................. 4 4
Grand Prix.............. 4DR.................. 4 4
Grand AM................ 2DR.................. 4 5
Grand AM................ 4DR.................. 5 4
Lesabre................. 4DR.................. 4 4
Malibu.................. 4DR.................. 4 4
S-10 Excab.............. PU................... 3 2
Tahoe................... MPV.................. 4 4
Venture................. VAN.................. 4 4
Honda................................ Accord.................. 2DR.................. 4 4
Hyundai.............................. Accent.................. 4DR.................. 3 4
KIA.................................. Sephia.................. 4DR.................. 4 4
Sportage................ MPV.................. 3 3
Mitsubishi........................... Galant.................. 4DR.................. 4 4
Montero................. MPV.................. 3 3
Nissan............................... 200SX................... 2DR.................. 5 4
Pathfinder.............. MPV.................. 3 3
Toyota............................... Camry................... 4DR.................. 4 4
Paseo................... 2DR.................. 4 4
RAV4.................... MPV.................. 3 3
Tacoma Excab............ PU................... 1 3
Tercel.................. 2DR.................. 4 4
Volvo................................ 960..................... 4DR.................. 4 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data being reviewed.
\2\ To be tested.
1997 SIDE IMPACT NCAP PASSENGER CARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star ratings
Manufacturers Model Body style -------------------------
Driver Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler............................. Stratus................. 4DR.................. 3 2
Intrepid................ 4DR.................. 4 3
Ford................................. Escort.................. 4DR.................. 3 3
Thunder-Bird............ 2DR.................. 3 1
Crown Victoria.......... 4DR.................. 4 4
Taurus.................. 4DR.................. 3 3
Contour................. 4DR.................. 3 4
GM................................... Deville................. 4DR.................. 4 4
Malibu.................. 4DR.................. 1 3
Cavalier................ 2DR.................. 1 2
Camaro.................. 2DR.................. 3 4
Lumina.................. 4DR.................. 4 3
Grand AM................ 4DR.................. 1 3
Saturn SL............... 4DR.................. 3 3
Honda................................ Accord.................. 4DR.................. 2 3
Civic................... 4DR.................. 3 3
Hyundai.............................. Sonata.................. 4DR.................. 1 2
Kia.................................. Sephia.................. 4DR.................. 2 1
Mazda................................ 626..................... 4DR.................. 2 3
Mitsubishi........................... Galant.................. 4DR.................. 3 2
Nissan............................... Maxima.................. 4DR.................. 4 3
Subaru............................... Legacy.................. 4DR.................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Toyota............................... Corolla................. 4DR.................. 3 3
Camry................... 4DR.................. 3 3
Tercel.................. 2DR.................. 3 4
Volvo................................ 850..................... 4DR.................. 4 ( \2\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data being reviewed.
\2\ No data available.
Question. How will NHTSA utilize the fiscal year 1998 requested
funding to provide improved information regarding full frontal and side
crashes to consumers?
Answer. The attached tables contain the projected breakdown of the
fiscal year 1998 NCAP costs.
Impact Testing NCAP fiscal year 1998 Budget Plans: Budget amount
Vehicle Purchase (70).....................................$1,093,000
Vehicle Testing (70)...................................... 1,161,000
Dummy Calibration and Refurbishing........................ 70,000
Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................ 110,000
Video Production.......................................... 25,000
Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 80,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,539,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
NCAP Promotional Program:
Promotional Material (Brochures, Radio and Print Spots and
Internet Dissemination)................................. 150,000
Reproduce and Disseminate Consumer Material............... 97,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 247,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
NHTSA Staff (4)........................................... 278,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1998 NCAP Costs....................... 3,064,000
\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing,
and distribution costs.
Question. Please provide a detailed discussion on how this
information will be distributed to consumers, and what will be
contained in that information.
Answer. NCAP data are made available through regular press releases
as the tests are completed. These press releases are distributed to all
the major news services, consumer groups, magazines, and many other
associations. Over 1,000 different organizations with readership in the
tens of millions receive these press releases. The data will be
separate Star ratings for frontal impact and for side impact.
At the time of the press release, the frontal and side impact NCAP
Star ratings will be placed on the agency's Web Site. The NCAP portion
of the Web Site was running about 3,400 visitors a week in May 1997.
In addition to the Star ratings, the test result numbers recorded
by the dummies will be placed on the Web Site for those who wish
greater detail.
In 1995, a joint effort with the American Automobile Association
and the Federal Trade Commission led to the development and
distribution of 230,000 copies of a brochure Buying a Safer Car which
contains NCAP results. It is reasonable to project that a half million
copies of the 1997 Buying a Safer Car will be distributed. The 1997
brochure included side impact crash test results for the first time.
Other evidence of the success of this brochure is that, for the first
year, NHTSA has been asked by numerous manufacturers to include
additional vehicles.
Consumer Reports, a popular publication of Consumers Union (CU),
annually uses the NCAP data in a special issue on automobiles. In
discussions with CU editors, it was verified that this annual
automotive issue is consistently the most popular issue published by
CU. The sales of their annual issue exceed over five million copies.
The Car Book, originally published by the Department of
Transportation in 1980, is now published each year by Jack Gillis of
the Consumer Federation of America. This publication also uses the
crash test data from NCAP tests as the principal source of safety
information. Sales of The Car Book average approximately 75,000 per
year.
The United Services Automotive Association (USAA) Foundation, the
nation's sixth largest insurer of motor vehicles, publishes a very
comprehensive booklet, ``The Car Guide'', which provides its members
with information regarding passenger safety, damage ability, theft
risk, and insurance experience of various vehicles. The safety
information is based on the NCAP test results. ``The Car Guide'' is
distributed annually to USAA's approximately two million members.
The exposure to the public of the NCAP data through the different
media also results in many individual inquiries to NHTSA.
During fiscal year 1997, NHTSA will conduct focus groups to test
whether the public would find a combined frontal and side impact NCAP
rating useful. The focus groups will also examine the usefulness of the
present star rating system currently used for NHTSA is comprehensible
to the public. This activity will be one step towards a summary rating
of a vehicle's crashworthiness.
Question. How does depowering of air bags affect funding needs for
NCAP? Does depowering suggest a need for additional tests?
Answer. The agency's fiscal year 1998 NCAP funding request did not
anticipate the depowering of air bags. Normally vehicles, previously
tested in NCAP, which are not changed in the new model year (MY), are
carried forward to provide consumers with comparative safety
information on a large percentage of the new vehicles. For MY 1997,
this practice provided consumers with comparative frontal crash safety
information on more than 85 percent of the fleet. From information that
the agency has already gathered from the manufacturers, it is known
that a large percentage of MY 1998 vehicles will have depowered air
bags. The effect of depowered air bags on NCAP results is not known.
Therefore, any previously tested vehicle without depowered air bags
cannot be carried forward to represent a MY 1998 vehicle with depowered
air bags. To provide information to consumers on any make/model vehicle
with depowered air bags, NCAP frontal performance will need to be
assessed. NCAP gave frontal safety ratings on 85 percent of the MY 1997
vehicles sold in the United States.
A significant increase in funds will be needed to test this
percentage of the fleet for MY 1998. It is anticipated that at the
presently requested funding level, frontal NCAP data will be available
on approximately 50 percent of the MY 1998 new vehicles. To test 80 to
85 percent of the new depowered vehicles will require additional
resources to conduct an additional 20 tests. In addition to the normal
consumer information, this increased number of NCAP tests of vehicles
with depowered air bags will provide the agency and the safety
community with a comprehensive view of the effects of depowering on the
level of safety provided in high severity crashes.
Question. Please outline the activities NHTSA conducted to promote
NCAP during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, and planned for
fiscal year 1998? How successful have these been? What funding sources
have been used?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 and 1997, the agency initiated several
actions to increase the public's awareness of the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP). A video news release (VNR) releasing the first set of
side impact test results was developed and the story aired on the three
major network morning shows. Upon the release of the 1997 NCAP results,
a series of prepackaged news stories were developed and distributed to
a number of newspaper editors and news and wire services. To increase
the focus on providing consumers more information about NCAP, a
contract was awarded to develop a 60-second PSA to provide audience
participants with relative crashworthiness information on passenger
vehicles to assist them in their car buying decisions. The PSA will be
shown prior to motion picture feature presentations in selected
theaters around the nation.
The agency announced the release of a new edition of the popular
Buying a Safer Car brochure. For the first time, the brochure also
includes ratings for side-impact tests and now provides consumers with
relative safety information on the two most common injury causing crash
events--frontal and side impacts.
The agency worked diligently to make the NHTSA Web Site easy to use
and to make the information clear; thereby increasing the public's
access to crash test information by placing the NCAP results on NHTSA's
Web Site.
In fiscal year 1998, the NCAP program will continue to provide
consumers with relative safety information on a high proportion of new
vehicles. NCAP promotional activities will continue the development and
distribution of brochures, video news releases, public service
announcements, and NCAP exhibits and expand these activities to provide
consumers with additional and improved safety information to help them
make motor vehicle purchase decisions.
The NCAP promotional activities, which are funded out of the NCAP
budget ($247,000 in 1997), have been successful. Release of the NCAP
VNR was made available via satellite to all TV markets and reached
millions of households. Annual distribution of the Buying A Safer Car
brochure exceeds 400,000 copies. During the first month of 1997 alone,
more than 8,000 users made over 50,000 queries to the NCAP database on
the NHTSA home page. While these activities have been successful, much
more needs to be done as a recent NHTSA customer survey found that 40
percent of the respondents had never seen or heard the crash test
ratings.
Question. How many passenger car side impact tests have been
conducted so far during fiscal year 1997, and how many are planned for
fiscal year 1998? How is the cost for conducting these tests reflected
in your fiscal year 1998 budget request?
Answer. The agency crash tested 26 cars in side impact in 1997
NCAP. For 1998, the agency plans to conduct a total of 70-75 frontal
and side crash tests. A determination will be made as to the number of
tests for each mode after all information from manufacturers on air bag
depowering is received. The agency would prefer to test at least
another 26 cars in the 1998 side impact NCAP. However, once the
manufacturers have made public their plans for depowering their frontal
air bags in model year 1998, the agency may find that it is necessary
to shift some tests from side impact to frontal NCAP to maintain a
reasonable amount of consumer information on comparative frontal
crashworthiness.
Question. What is the status of NHTSA's efforts to promote
international harmonization? How much do you plan on spending in this
area during fiscal year 1998? During fiscal year 1997?
Answer. The agency is committed to continuing to carry out the
provisions of the New TransAtlantic Agenda and Action Plan signed by
President Clinton, in December of 1995, in Madrid. These provisions
include promises to achieve global regulatory uniformity and to
encourage a collaborative approach in testing and certification
procedures by promoting greater compatibility of standards and health
and safety-related measures. The agency has led the efforts in the
drafting of a multinational proposal by the Steering Group of the
Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles (WP.29), to establish an
agreement for the development of globally harmonized motor vehicle
regulations. Negotiations regarding the agreement are ongoing and NHTSA
representatives expect to complete the text of the Agreement during the
June Session of WP.29.
The agency has also completed the development of a generic process
for the assessment of functional equivalence of USA and other
countries' motor vehicle safety regulations. NHTSA will soon begin the
process in a final rule that amends Part 552 of the CFR by adding a
flowchart of the process as an appendix. The agency has recently used
this Functional Equivalence process in devising a plan to harmonize the
Unites States and European Union (EU) side impact regulations.
Congress provided $340,000 in fiscal year 1997 funding to ``be used
toward establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard for frontal
offset crash testing.'' Further, Congress wanted these activities to
reflect ongoing efforts to enhance international harmonization of
safety standards. In response to this directive, the agency is studying
the recently (November 1996) adopted EU directive as a potential offset
testing crashworthiness standard. With the $340,000 provided in fiscal
year 1997, the agency is conducting eight offset crash tests to
evaluate this EU offset test with both 50th percentile male and 5th
percentile female dummies. The agency is coordinating this activity
with the safety community and the vehicle manufacturers through the
Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC) and has had
an initial meeting with EU representatives. It is not expected that the
EU directive could be adopted as a replacement for Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection,''
but is being considering as an option of harmonization to the standard
as a supplemental regulation. A status report will be delivered to
Congress on this offset testing activity in July 1997.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency has requested an additional
$340,000 for this effort. fiscal year 1998 crash test plans will
address the repeatability and reproducibility of the EU test procedure,
the performance of additional dummy sizes in frontal crashes, and the
feasibility of the test procedure for lighter or heavier vehicles.
In the fiscal year 1997 Congressional Conference Report 104-785
accompanying H.R. 3675, which provided funding for side impact testing
in the New Car Assessment Program, the conferees noted ``that there are
substantial differences between the U.S. side impact standard and the
new European standard. These differences are inconsistent with the need
for the international harmonization of motor vehicle safety
standards.'' The House and Senate committees on Appropriations
requested the agency develop a plan for achieving harmonization of the
side impact standard and submit a report on this plan to Congress. The
agency has developed a plan and is proceeding with testing and analysis
activities. NHTSA will determine the potential for international side
impact harmonization by: (1) Analyzing past research and performing new
tests to determine the relative safety benefits offered by each
regulation; (2) Coordinating with industry and other interested groups
to establish consensus on the activities, eliminate duplication of
work, and reduce cost; (3) Determining if functional equivalence exists
or can be established between the two requirements; (4) Coordinating
with EU to assess harmonization options and approaches. Presently,
funding for this effort has been provided from the Research and
Development budget. A full report on this project will be sent to
Congress in July.
In addition, the agency is in the process of trying to have the new
U.S. headlamp beam pattern adopted as a worldwide standard. NHTSA
published a final rule implementing the consensus position from its
regulatory negotiation on optical/visual headlamp aim in March 1997.
Participants in the negotiation included manufacturers, dealers, repair
shops, State highway officials, and consumer groups. This new rule will
improve the aim of headlamps in service and give a better beam pattern
to the American public, while reducing costs for manufacturers and
simplifying aiming procedures for dealers and repair shops. The rule
also represents a breakthrough for international harmonization, because
European manufacturers and the Japanese Center for International
Standardization participated in the negotiations and believe that this
new NHTSA standard can become a worldwide standard. NHTSA will
officially submit this rule on behalf of the United States to the UN
group in Geneva, Switzerland in October 1997 in an effort to get the
U.S. standard for headlamp beam pattern adopted as a worldwide
standard.
Question. Please discuss how NHTSA responded to the conclusions and
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' study on consumer
information regarding automotive safety that were released March 26,
1996. How are these responses reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request?
Answer. On May 20, 1997, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal
Register summarizing the recommendations of the NAS study, and asking
for comment on the agency's response to those recommendations and on
programs NHTSA has begun or is considering to address those
recommendations (62 FR 27648).
NHTSA generally agrees with the recommendations of the NAS study,
and has a number of activities planned to address those
recommendations, including: improvements to existing programs;
development of proper use materials; research to determine what
consumers understand about vehicle safety, how safety factors into
vehicle purchase decisions, and how such information should be
presented; exploration of a summary crashworthiness rating for new
vehicles; and dissemination of information on vehicle crash avoidance
features such as braking and lighting.
While the notice requesting comments was recently issued, NHTSA
included initiatives in the fiscal year 1998 budget request that we
anticipated initiating in fiscal year 1998 in response to the NAS
recommendations. These initiatives include the development of proper
use materials on equipment such as anti-lock brakes, consumer research
activities, and assessing the feasibility of providing consumer
information on head lighting and braking performance. While the fiscal
year 1998 budget request is sufficient to begin addressing some of the
NAS recommendations at a very minimum level, it is likely that future
funding requirements will be much greater.
fuel economy program
Question. What is the Administration's policy on changing the CAFE
standards for passenger cars? For light trucks and vans? What is the
status of NHTSA's rulemaking activity with respect to changing CAFE
standards for light trucks and vans?
Answer. The statute fixes the passenger car CAFE standard at 27.5
mpg unless the Administration sees a need to change it under the
statutory considerations. The last change was for model year 1989 when
the standard was lowered to 26.5 mpg before returning to 27.5 mpg for
model year 1990 and thereafter. NHTSA has no plans to propose amending
the passenger car CAFE standard. On the other hand, the statute does
not provide a basic standard for light trucks, but directs the
Department to establish a standard for each model year. The agency
issued a fuel economy standard for light trucks for model year (MY)
1999 of 20.7 mpg as required by the DOT Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1997. The standard for MY 2000 must be issued by March 31, 1998.
To meet that date, the agency will issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking before the end of this calendar year.
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation of the efforts
underway to maintain the plants and lines database. What data have been
collected, and what are these data telling you?
Answer. The Volpe Transportation Systems Center is refining the
database structure to improve the access and utility of the
information. Data are extracted from public media sources on individual
auto manufacturers and major suppliers. The data include product
planning information; plant locations, capacities, and employment; the
relationship of assembly plant products to engine and transmission
plant products; and basic financial information on the domestic auto
manufacturers. The information in the database is used in agency
rulemaking analyses by providing insights into manufacturers'
technological and economic capabilities.
theft prevention
Question. Please explain the request to repeal the requirements for
collection and analysis of insurance information relating to the
effectiveness of the parts-marking standards.
Answer. 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurance reports and information,
requires insurers to report annually on vehicle thefts and recoveries
and provides that NHTSA ``shall compile and publish information''
obtained from insurers in a form that will be helpful to the public,
the law enforcement community, and Congress. NHTSA receives information
from certain insurance companies and rental/leasing companies regarding
theft activities, comprehensive rates and payments for stolen motor
vehicles each year. Contractors compile and evaluate this information
for the agency. The agency requested that Section 33112 be repealed
because the reporting requirement represents a paperwork burden for
motor vehicle insurers and rental/leasing companies, while the reports
provide untimely information (the data is three years old when
submitted to NHTSA) that has not proven useful in assessing the
program. Both the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation are currently assessing the effectiveness of the parts-
marking standards. Neither Department has found the data submitted
under the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 33112 to be of value to their
respective evaluation efforts. This is why NHTSA's regulatory reform
efforts identified insurer reporting requirements as something that
could be eliminated. Such a change can only be made by Congress, since
the existing law must be amended. The Department's NEXTEA proposal
includes a provision that would eliminate this requirement.
Question. If this requirement is repealed, would that eliminate the
need for the $50,000 request for this purpose?
Answer. Approximately half the original contract cost would still
be necessary. In addition to supporting contractor analysis of the
information submitted by insurance companies and rental/leasing
companies, the funds also support computer time sharing costs to
perform in-house analysis of FBI theft and recovery data on stolen
motor vehicles from over 26,000 law enforcement jurisdictions in order
to calculate annual theft rates and issue rules requiring the
designation of likely high-theft vehicles.
safety assurance
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the four programs in the
Safety Assurance Program for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Answer. The information follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety Compliance... $5,400,000 $5,231,000 $5,353,000 $4,775,000 $6,033,000 $5,837,000
Auto Safety Hotline......... 557,000 557,000 1,667,000 657,000 1,787,000 1,483,000
Defects Investigation....... 2,481,000 2,481,000 2,460,000 2,419,000 2,481,000 2,478,000
Odometer Fraud.............. ........... ............. 100,000 60,000 100,000 60,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 8,438,000 8,269,000 9,580,000 7,911,000 10,401,000 9,858,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the four programs in
the Safety Assurance Program, showing how all of the funds requested
for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please include in
that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of those
activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please justify the
need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Compliance Testing.................... $3,670,000 $3,575,000
Equipment Compliance Testing.................. 1,800,000 1,770,000
Uniform Tire Quality Grading (Facility in San
Angelo, Texas)............................... 367,000 367,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 5,837,000 5,712,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFECTS INVESTIGATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Identification and Evaluation.......... $1,428,000 $1,428,000
Testing and Surveys........................... 700,000 700,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance............. 350,000 350,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 2,478,000 2,478,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call handling Support......................... $348,000 $125,000
Contract Personnel............................ 575,000 650,000
Defect Reporting.............................. 160,000 228,000
Phone......................................... 300,000 330,000
Printing...................................... 100,000 125,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 1,483,000 1,458,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODOMETER FRAUD INVESTIGATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Agreements for 3 States to conduct
in-State program............................. $60,000 ...........
Cooperative Agreements for 4 States to provide
law enforcement agent........................ ........... $210,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 60,000 210,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
justification for increases
Auto Safety Hotline.--Savings accrued from one-time hardware
upgrades purchased in fiscal year 1997 will be used in fiscal year 1998
to increase contractor personnel support, defect reporting, and
increases in phone and printing costs. The agency anticipates that four
additional representatives will need to be hired in fiscal year 1998 in
order to decrease the hangup rate to an acceptable rate.
In addition, the agency would like to continue to develop and
expand the Hotline outreach program which was begun in fiscal year
1997. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) relies heavily on
consumer reports of problems with motor vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment.
Odometer Fraud Program.--In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997,
NHTSA entered into contracts or cooperative agreements to three states
to provide ``seed money'' for enhancement of state odometer enforcement
programs. Those states, working independently, conducted investigations
and assisted defrauded consumers in recovering damages within their
states. Each of the states received $20,000 for this level of effort.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency plans to enter into cooperative
agreements with four states and change the nature of the cooperative
agreements. Under agreement, each of the four states will provide an
investigator to the agency's odometer enforcement program. This will
not only to stimulate the enforcement programs in those states, but
will also supplement NHTSA's investigative staff. While working with
NHTSA's enforcement staff, the state investigators will receive the
training necessary to enhance the state's enforcement program plus
increase the number of investigations the agency can conduct,
particularly in areas that are known ``hotbeds'' of odometer fraud,
thereby reducing NHTSA's backlog of investigative leads. The requested
funds will pay living expenses for the investigators, approximately
$52,000 each, for one year while they are assigned to NHTSA. Although
this type of cooperative agreement is more costly than the prior
system, the agency believes the program, states, and the public will
benefit in the short term (as more odometer fraud investigations are
commenced and completed) and in the long term (by training state
employees who will continue to use their newly-developed skills to
combat odometer fraud in the future).
auto safety hotline
Question. Why did the budget for the Auto Safety Hotline more than
double from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997?
Answer. The Auto Safety Hotline budget increased from $657,000 in
fiscal year 1996 to $1,483,000 in fiscal year 1997. Approximately
$300,000 of this increase was necessary to pay the phone bill, which
was previously paid out of agency operating expenses. The Operating
Expenses budget was reduced accordingly. The remaining increase has
allowed the agency to upgrade the electronic and computer hardware
equipment utilized by the Hotline and to hire additional contract
representatives, with a small portion being used for activities which
will increase the number of potential defects reported to the Hotline
in support of defect investigations.
Question. What is the number of calls to the hotline each year for
the last three years?
Answer. Total calls received by the Hotline for the last three
calendar years are as follows:
Years Calls
1994.......................................................... 533,801
1995.......................................................... 809,496
1996.......................................................... 778,819
Question. Could improved or more use of the Internet save money for
NHTSA?
Answer. The Internet is a useful tool for individuals to get
information about various motor vehicle safety issues and to report
problems with their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, such as child
safety seats. The agency is continuously examining ways to improve and
expand use of the Internet, including hotlinks with other websites.
Additionally, the outreach program that the Auto Safety Hotline has
undertaken to increase defects reports to the agency is promoting both
the Hotline and the Internet as methods of filing. Both the Hotline and
the Internet are complementary methods for consumers to gain valuable
safety information and to report potential defects and both must be
used to get the maximum amount of exposure to NHTSA and the services it
offers. However, at the present time the agency does not believe that
increases in the use of the Internet will save money for NHTSA. The
number of consumers with access to the Internet is still limited.
Approximately 36 percent of the households in the United States have a
personal computer, with a smaller number having access to the Internet.
Additionally, nationwide call center surveys indicate that 70 percent
of the people who call hotlines indicate a preference to speak directly
to a person who can answer their questions.
Question. Please explain why NHTSA maintains that fiscal year 1998
funding for the Hotline should not revert to the fiscal year 1996
level.
Answer. Approximately $300,000 of the increase to the Auto Safety
Hotline was necessary to pay the telephone bill, which previously had
been paid for out of agency operating expenses. The Operating Expenses
budget was reduced accordingly. Reverting back to the fiscal year 1996
funding level would drastically reduce the services provided by the
Hotline. The cost of the contract representatives hired during fiscal
year 1997 with the increased funding is a recurring expense, and the
agency anticipates that four additional representatives will be needed
in order to decrease the hangup rate to an acceptable rate. Finally,
the agency would like to continue to develop and expand the Hotline
outreach program, which was begun in fiscal year 1997. The Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) relies heavily on consumer reports of
problems with motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
Hotline complaints are the agency's primary source of information
regarding vehicle problems. However, most consumers do not contact the
Hotline. Therefore, it is important that funds are available to educate
the public about the benefits of reporting potential defects to the
Hotline or through the Internet. A 1995 consumer survey by NHTSA has
shown that the public perceives a need for a federal Hotline from which
they can receive and to which they can report safety information.
However, that same survey shows that less than 20 percent of the public
knows of the Auto Safety Hotline, and of those who know, only five
percent know that it is operated by NHTSA. By increasing the outreach
efforts, the motoring public will receive the safety information they
need and be able to report important information for use in the
agency's investigations.
Question. What activities would cease if the fiscal year 1996 level
of funding was provided?
Answer. With funding at $657,000, the fiscal year 1996 level, the
operations of the Auto Safety Hotline would have to be drastically
reduced. The telephone expenses are based on a monthly flat rate, plus
a fee-per-minute charge. It is anticipated that with fewer
representatives to answer the phone calls, more callers would leave
their names and phone numbers for call-backs or their names and
addresses for information to be mailed to them. Thus, the reduced
amount of time spent on each call would reduce the phone bill
proportionately. The agency estimates that the bill would be reduced to
$176,000. Printing costs would remain the same at about $125,000. The
cost to transcribe telephone messages left on the automatic answering
system would increase due to the increased number of messages left on
the automatic phone answering system. The agency estimates that the
cost to transcribe these calls would increase to $110,000. That would
leave $246,000 to be spent on contract representatives to answer the
phones. Approximately five representatives could be hired for this
amount. Currently, the Auto Safety Hotline has 16 contract
representatives that answer the telephones. To reduce this number to
five would seriously diminish the Hotline's ability to provide quality
service to the motoring public.
odometer fraud program
Question. Please explain the $150,000 increase requested under the
odometer fraud program for fiscal year 1998. How will the additional
funding be spent, and what will be done in this program that was not
done during fiscal year 1997?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, NHTSA entered
into contracts or cooperative agreements to three States to provide
``seed money'' for enhancement of state odometer enforcement programs.
Those States, working independently, conducted investigations and
assisted defrauded consumers in recovering damages within their States.
Each of the States received $20,000 for this level of effort. In fiscal
year 1998, the agency plans to enter into cooperative agreements with
four States and change the nature of the cooperative agreements. Under
agreement, each of the four States will provide an investigator to the
agency's odometer enforcement program. This will not only to stimulate
the enforcement programs in those States, but will also supplement
NHTSA's investigative staff. While working with NHTSA's enforcement
staff, the state investigators will receive the training necessary to
enhance the state's enforcement program plus increase the number of
investigations the agency can conduct, particularly in areas that are
known ``hotbeds'' of odometer fraud, thereby reducing NHTSA's backlog
of investigative leads. The requested funds will pay living expenses
for the investigators, approximately $52,000 each, for one year while
they are assigned to NHTSA. Although this type of cooperative agreement
is more costly than the prior system, the agency believes the program,
States, and the public will benefit in the short term (as more odometer
fraud investigations are commenced and completed) and in the long term
(by training State employees who will continue to use their newly-
developed skills to combat odometer fraud in the future).
Question. Do the States have more resources than NHTSA to
investigate these types of violations? Did the States request NHTSA to
increase their participation in the odometer fraud program?
Answer. The amount of resources each State has available to
investigate odometer fraud varies from State to State. Generally, other
than the funds provided by NHTSA to the States, the States have not
dedicated resources to full-time odometer fraud enforcement. Several
States have more investigators than NHTSA that conduct odometer fraud
investigations; however, those investigators are involved in numerous
other types of enforcement activities. Although NHTSA has received no
specific requests from the States to increase participation in the
odometer fraud program, the States continually look to NHTSA for
assistance in carrying out their enforcement programs. Each year, more
States submit applications for cooperative agreements than are
available.
Question. Which States does NHTSA have cooperative agreements with
in fiscal year 1997, and which four States will NHTSA enter into an
agreement with if the fiscal year 1998 requested level is provided?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA entered into cooperative
agreements ($20,000 each) with the New Jersey State Police, Georgia
Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs, and the Colorado Department of
Motor Vehicles. Because Congress has not acted on the fiscal year 1998
DOT Appropriations bill, NHTSA has not selected any States. When
funding is available for fiscal year 1998, the agency will solicit
applications from the States for cooperative agreements. The States
will be selected based on the information contained in the
applications.
highway safety safe communities injury control program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the Safe Communities Injury
Control program for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Communities Injury Control... ......... ............. 5,600 675 1,800 900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for the Safe Communities Injury
Control Program, showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal year
1998 are intended to be spent, and please include in that table a
comparison with the amount provided for each of these activities for
fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please justify the need for the
requested increases.
Answer. The table follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration and Evaluation Cooperative
Agreement.............................. $800,000 $400,000
Materials Development, Printing and
Distribution........................... 100,000 100,000
Safe Communities Quality Improvement
Strategies or Alternative Demonstration
Project................................ .............. 400,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 900,000 900,000
===============================
Safe Communities Newsletter............. \1\ 131,000 \1\ 150,000
Cooperative Agreement with American
Association of Health Plans to promote
Safe Communities....................... \1\ 275,000 \1\ 275,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded with additional Section 403 program funds
There was no increase requested for the Safe Communities Injury
Control Program in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Who were the grants made to in fiscal year 1997? Where
are they located?
Answer. A Federal Register Notice was published on February 12,
1997, announcing the program. The application period expired on May 1,
1997. A technical evaluation panel was convened and is still in the
process of evaluating the proposals. Awards to two sites will be made
in August 1997.
Question. What overlap is there with the injury control programs
funded under the alcohol program?
Answer. There is no overlap with the injury control program funded
under the alcohol program. The Safe Communities program is intended to
support the expansion of partners from the health and medical
communities as part of NHTSA's efforts to involve health and medical
groups in motor vehicle injury control programs. Funds from the alcohol
program will be used to increase training and technical assistance for
health and medical partners so they can develop impaired driving
messages and programs, and implement the strategies in Partners in
Progress: An Impaired Driving Guide for Action, with their members and
constituents.
Question. What evidence do you have of injury prevention resulting
from this program?
Answer. It is too early to judge the results from the program.
Three year cooperative agreements were awarded to two sites in fiscal
year 1996.
These agreements will end in fiscal year 1999, at which time
results from the efforts are expected. Two additional three year
cooperative agreements will be awarded in August 1997, with results
expected in fiscal year 2000. An interim report will be developed and
is expected to be available two years into the program cycle. In
addition, a large-scale evaluation effort is planned for fiscal year
1999.
Question. When will NHTSA funding for this initiative end?
Answer. NHTSA expected to request funding through fiscal year 1999
to expand the current demonstration and evaluation program, to explore
and evaluate alternative implementation strategies such as a quality
improvement methodology, and to conduct a large-scale evaluation of the
Safe Communities program.
alcohol, drug and state programs
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the four subprograms
in the Alcohol, Drug and State program for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol..................... 6,767 6,604 9,057 8,398 9,015 8,800
DEC......................... 1,530 1,499 957 907 600 599
Ped/Bike.................... 594 248 474 250 474 473
Motorcycle.................. 345 338 327 327 338 337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the four subprograms
of the Alcohol, Drug and State program showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities in fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Program:
Education and Prevention.................. $4,077,000 $3,075,00
Enforcement and Sanction.................. 1,450,000 1,725,00
Prosecution/Adjudication.................. 1,000,000 1,150,00
Youth..................................... 1,217,000 1,181,00
Innovative Grants (Partners in Progress).. 1,056,000 544,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 8,800,000 7,675,000
=========================
Drug Evaluation and Classification............ 599,000 476,000
=========================
Pedestrian and Bicycles:
Pedestrian Program........................ 224,000 285,000
Bicycle Program........................... 130,000 200,000
School Bus Safety......................... 120,000 170,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 474,000 655,000
=========================
Motorcycle Program............................ 337,000 337,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increases in the Alcohol Program are in the areas of: (1)
enforcement and sanctions and (2) prosecution and adjudication. The
agency will target enforcement programs at the high risk groups,
including youth and repeat offenders. NHTSA will continue training for
prosecutors and judges and outreach to other larger organizations, such
as the American Bar Association, to provide information on impaired
driving cases.
The increases in the Pedestrian and Bicycle program reflect new
initiatives with Cops on Bikes, the National Association of City and
County Health Officials, and other health, medical and business
partners. NHTSA will also initiate documentation of case studies of
successful pedestrian and bicycle program implementation to provide to
communities interested in initiating such programs and develop
approaches to reduce the incidence of illegally passing stopped school
buses. The Pedestrian and Bicycle funding request also reflects
resources needed to advance programs and activities initiated in
response to recommendations from the National Transportation Safety
Board: completion and distribution of an in-service training module on
key school bus safety issues and development of a school bus hazard
routing system.
Question. What specific areas of the alcohol program have been
enhanced with the additional fiscal year 1997 funds?
Answer. The $400,000 increase from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year
1997 has focused on the innovative grant program to support the
strategies identified in the Partners in Progress: Impaired Driving
Guide for Action. The guide identifies broad strategies in seven areas:
public education; individual responsibility; health care community;
businesses and employers; legislation; enforcement/adjudication; and
technology. Many grass-roots organizations have creative and innovative
ideas on how to implement these strategies, but lack resources. These
grants will fund several promising ideas, see if they work, and
document their successes.
Question. What are the highest priorities of NHTSA within the
alcohol and drug program?
Answer. The highest priorities of NHTSA with the alcohol and drug
program are to continue progress towards the national goal to reduce
alcohol-related fatalities to 11,000 by the year 2005. NHTSA's key
initiatives in these areas include implementing the strategies
identified in the Partners in Progress: An Impaired Driving Guide for
Action to reach this ambitious national goal. NHTSA will continue to
support effective laws--administrative license revocation, zero
tolerance for under age 21, graduated licensing systems, .08 BAC,
vehicle sanctions and new 410 incentive grant criteria.
The agency will continue its special emphasis on youth--to stop
drinking and driving before it starts--using strategies including
identifying efficient methods of processing offenders, testing
effective alcohol beverage control programs, and identifying more
effective prevention programs. There will be an increased emphasis on
cooperative activities with partners such as NETS, TEAM, with the 3D
Prevention Month Coalition, and with health care and advocacy partners.
NHTSA will also build collaborative partnerships with other Federal
agencies, such as youth enforcement activities with the Department of
Justice; a zero tolerance educational campaign with the Department of
Education; and research activities with the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee encouraged NHTSA
to maintain a focused youth-oriented initiative under the 403 program,
and recommended $1,772,000 for public education and enforcement under
this program. Please specify in detail how these funds have been spent,
what the continued activities are, and what the new components of this
program are.
Answer. NHTSA continues to maintain a focused youth-oriented
initiative across the entire 403 program. On-going alcohol programs
include a National Zero Tolerance Education Initiative in which NHTSA
is forming partnerships with other Federal Agencies (e.g., with DOEd
and with HHS' Secretary's Initiative on Youth Substance Abuse
Prevention) and with the private sector to develop a national awareness
campaign. Resources have been provided to the ``youth enforcement
training traffic workshops'' to enhance zero tolerance enforcement. A
youth traffic safety state assessment program is being developed to
assist states in assessing, among other issues, their youth enforcement
and adjudication activities.
New initiatives will include a combination of zero-tolerance law
enforcement, education and public awareness efforts. Resources will be
provided to enforcement organizations to enhance local activities.
Resources will also be provided to prevention groups, national
organizations and other efforts to form partnerships with a variety of
state and local enforcement agencies, local police departments,
educators, etc. NHTSA has also provided resources for the development
of new interactive technology to reach youth, and the agency is
assisting Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD) to demonstrate, train,
and implement this technology at the local level.
drug evaluation and classification
Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has
underway or planned, that will help the criminal justice system deal
with drug-impaired drivers.
Answer. This fall NHTSA, with the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, will convene a panel of experts on the Drug
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program to discuss the results of
recent research activities and determine future efforts. Specific
research activities include the following:
Joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory research to validate and improve DEC
procedures is nearing completion. Research is also underway to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of the DEC program in different
enforcement contexts, and to determine the relative importance of the
various types of information available to DEC officers in those
different contexts.
Also underway is research to determine the accuracy of relatively
inexpensive drug screening kits that could be used by both DEC and non-
DEC officers. A field test of these devices will be initiated this year
and a follow-up field application study will be conducted to determine
the usefulness of the devices in actual law enforcement settings.
Question. What would be the effect of further reducing the Federal
role in DEC? What data exist that show the specific benefits that have
resulted from NHTSA's research in this area over the last several
years?
Answer. NHTSA's role in DEC has gradually reduced since fiscal year
1994, when the last funding was committed to provide DEC training
instructors to jurisdictions and states without this advanced impaired
driving program. The agency has continued limited technical support and
training materials through the International Association of Chiefs of
Police to the thirty-two states that are currently participating in the
DEC program.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency will reduce funding that supports
legal research and DEC training to judges and prosecutors through the
National Traffic Law Center (NTLC).
As indicated in the 1996 Report to Congress on the Drug Evaluation
and Classification Program, the program was found to be an effective
method for detecting, apprehending and removing drug impaired drivers
from our highways.
Recent research is focusing on new technology that may allow
officers in post-arrest situations to use testing devices to confirm
the presence of drugs. A field test of the devices is expected to start
by the end of fiscal year 1997.
Question. How much of the DEC training provided to enforcement
officers is being paid for by NHTSA? Please specify the funds used, and
how these monies were spent during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997. If training is still paid for by NHTSA, how is this reflected in
the fiscal year 1998 request?
Answer. The last year that the agency used Section 403 dollars to
fund DEC instructor services to train law enforcement officers was
fiscal year 1994.
Question. If funding for DEC was eliminated, would IACP and others
continue to improve this program?
Answer. IACP is a non-profit, international law enforcement
membership organization that depends on grants and membership fees to
support its program technical assistance role. It is important for the
IACP to continue its national leadership role in the DEC program to
ensure that standards are strictly followed and accepted by the courts
as valid. If the program is modified or improved, it must be done on a
national level. This will ensure that the protocol is conducted in a
systematic and standardized manner across the country in order to
maintain the program's validity and integrity. Without federal support,
IACP could not accomplish this task.
Some states have institutionalized the DEC program in selected
communities while others are still struggling. Further expansion to
additional communities and states would be difficult without the
assistance of the IACP and NHTSA.
Question. Please outline specific advances and benefits that have
resulted from NHTSA's research on DEC during the last two years? What
specific changes in the DEC protocol have resulted from this research?
Answer. Several research studies conducted over the past two years
will soon be completed and recommendations from them presented to the
DEC Technical Advisory Panel. Joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory research to
validate and improve the DEC procedures used by police officers to
examine a suspect for drug impairment has already shown that the DEC
procedures are valid. The report will make recommendations to improve
and streamline them. A study is underway that could improve the
standardized DEC officer interview procedures. A third study is
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the DEC program in
different enforcement contexts and determining the relative importance
of the various types of information available to DEC officers in those
different contexts. Finally, a study is analyzing blood specimens from
drivers injured in crashes and assessing the causal role of drugs in
those crashes.
In addition, the agency recently completed a research study to
determine the accuracy of relatively inexpensive drug screening kits
that could be used by both DEC and non-DEC officers and will be
initiating a field test of these devices this year. A follow-up field
application study will be conducted to determine the usefulness of the
devices in actual law enforcement settings.
pedestrian and bicycles
Question. What would be the effect of restricting funding to
current levels? Why is the requested increase needed at this time?
Answer. Restricting funding to the current levels would severely
hinder the agency's ability to continue strengthening programs to
decrease pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus related injuries and
fatalities. An estimated 131 million Americans regularly bicycle or
walk for exercise, sport, and recreation and an estimated 20 million
children are transported by school bus each school day.
Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities make up about 16 percent of
traffic fatalities annually. For each fatality, there are about twenty-
four serious injuries. Economic costs to society due to pedestrian
fatalities and injuries total more than $13 billion.
The fiscal year 1998 request reflects the Secretary's focus on
pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety programs. FHWA and NHTSA
jointly promote walking and biking as alternative forms of
transportation and important forms of exercise. NHTSA also emphasizes
the safety aspects of the increased walking and biking to reduce
injuries and fatalities.
NHTSA will continue initiatives such as the Partnership for a
Walkable America; development of a pedestrian program targeted to
Hispanic children and bicycle programs targeting at-risk urban youth.
New initiatives will be developed with Cops on Bikes, the National
Association of City and County Health Officials, and other health,
medical and business partners. The funding request also reflects needed
resources initiated in response to a series of prominent school bus
crashes and safety issues, including clothing drawstrings snagging on
school bus handrails that require immediate attention and corrective
action.
Requested funding will complete development of an in-service
training module on key school bus safety issues, initiate development
of a school bus hazard routing system, and develop approaches to reduce
the incidence of illegally passing stopped school buses.
Question. How does this program relate to FHWA's Bicycle and
Pedestrian activity and program?
Answer. Several years ago, NHTSA and FHWA recognized the importance
of a cooperative pedestrian and bicycle safety program. Both agencies
agree that enforcement, education and engineering approaches work best
together, as part of a total system. As a result, the two agencies have
been pursuing a joint multi-year bicycle and pedestrian program plan.
Each agency has taken primary responsibility for specific
activities within the joint program. FHWA has the responsibility for
pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including facility design,
construction, signal timing and related roadway issues. NHTSA deals
with the behavioral aspects of the programs, such as educating youth on
how to cross the street safely, proper selection and use of bicycle
helmets, and bicycle rules of the road. Activities listed in the fiscal
year 1998 NHTSA budget request reflect those joint activities NHTSA is
responsible for. These activities are coordinated with and complement
the FHWA programs.
Question. How much of this account is spent on safety involving
school buses?
Answer. School bus safety receives approximately $170,000. The
funds are used to address the serious problem of motorists illegally
passing school buses stopped to load and unload students. The funding
is used to develop and distribute a one day in-service school bus
driver training program (covering the issues of highway-rail grade
crossings, route hazards, handrail snagging, etc.), and develop and
distribute a school bus routing and hazards marking system for school
district use.
youth, drugs and driving initiative
Question. Please further justify the request for $2 million for the
Youth, Drugs and Driving initiative. How will these new funds augment
the current efforts to deal with the challenges of the younger driver?
Answer. While still well below peak levels attained in the late
1970's, and after a decade of declining use during the 1980's, drug use
by youth has risen steadily in the 1990's. Marijuana use has shown the
sharpest increase. For example, the 1996 Monitoring the Future Study
found that 18 percent of 8th graders had used marijuana in the past
year, compared to 6 percent in 1991. Among 12th graders, marijuana use
in the past increased from 24 percent in 1991 to 36 percent in 1996.
In response to this startling increase in drug use by American
youth, President Clinton has urged stronger measures to reduce the
incidence of drug use by teens and to reduce driving under the
influence of drugs. A report entitled Presidential Initiative on Drugs,
Driving and Youth recommended concerted efforts to improve the DUID
(Driving Under the Influence of Drugs) system. This means stronger laws
and more consistency in enforcement, prosecution, adjudication,
prevention, education, drug testing, and treatment. A similar approach
has reduced the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol,
especially for youth, and could do the same for other drugs.
A key part of a four-part strategy to assist states in implementing
a systematic and comprehensive state DUID system is a new federally-
funded demonstration program, to be conducted by 2-4 states over a two-
year period. This program will provide necessary resources to these
states to develop and test essential core elements of pre-driver
licensure drug testing. Because the driver's license is an effective
motivator for youth, this pre-driver licensure drug testing program has
great potential for impact. In 1995 there were 21.95 million young
people aged 15-20 in the U.S. Of these, 11.92 million were licensed
drivers. Pre-licensure drug testing would send an important message to
America's youth that drugs and driving don't mix. Instituted as part of
a systematic strategy to deter drug use and drugged driving it should
result in reduced drug use and drug-related driving by youth. If
combined with some form of unscheduled testing, after crashes or
driving violations, its effects should be even greater.
To learn the views of youth regarding drug testing, informal
nationwide focus groups and discussions with almost 6,000 teenagers
were conducted. Almost two-thirds favored requiring a drug test before
a young person could receive a drivers license. About half felt that
greater enforcement of drugged driving laws combined with pre-licensure
testing would change drug use behavior.
Question. What is the likelihood that any state could afford pre-
license drug screening or would require applicants to pay for youthful
drivers? What do States do now in this area?
Answer. Using Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) approved procedures for collecting,
testing, and reporting, it is estimated that pre-licensure screening
tests would cost $35 to $45 per test. These procedures require
standardized collection steps (currently in use in over 10,000 sites
across the U.S.); analysis at DHHS-certified laboratories (currently 71
laboratories in place); and review of positive results by qualified
physicians. Less stringent testing procedures would likely reduce the
per test cost. While states possibly could assume the cost of pre-
license testing, it is more likely they would require the applicant to
bear the expense, as a requirement for obtaining a license. Under this
scenario, license applicants would be required to present a certified
test result obtained within a specified time period (probably 30 or 60
days), indicating no recent drug use.
No state currently conducts pre-licensure drug tests. However,
testing license applicants in other areas is a routine part of the
process of granting licenses. For example, all states test for
knowledge of the rules of the road and for visual acuity. Some states
also require certain categories of drivers to obtain medical
certificates prior to licensure (e.g., epileptics). In addition, drug
testing programs are already conducted in other contexts, such as for
high school athletes and employers.
Question. Where is it legal to conduct pre-licensure drug testing
on youth? How would this testing be useful in deterring drug use?
Answer. States have generally delegated to their licensing agencies
authority to establish necessary rules and regulations to ensure that
only safe drivers are licensed. Testing licensed applicants is a
routine part of the process. For example, all states test for knowledge
of the rules of the road and for visual acuity. A licensing test
procedure could be considered unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to
law if it were deemed to be discriminatory or not adequately supported
by public safety or other important government interests. NHTSA and the
Department of Justice believe that reducing drug-impaired driving would
be considered a legitimate exercise of governmental authority and could
adequately support a reasonably designed drug-testing program.
Pre-driver licensure drug testing is likely to be effective in
deterring drug use among new license applicants because, for most young
applicants, the ability to drive a motor vehicle is an important step
into adulthood. Most would not want to lose their opportunity to obtain
a driver's license by failing a drug test. Pre-licensure testing (like
zero tolerance of alcohol) would send an important message to America's
youth that drugs and driving don't mix and that there are immediate and
tangible consequences of using drugs. Instituted as part of a
systematic strategy to deter drug use and drug-related driving, such
measures will reduce the incidence of drug-related driving, at least
among some youth. If combined with some form of unscheduled testing,
after crashes or driving violations, its effects should be even greater
and will promote public safety.
Question. Won't the youth applicant know that he or she will be
tested prior to receiving an operator's license?
Answer. In order to deter drug use, it is vitally important that
applicants know that they will be tested prior to receiving an
operator's license. There are few, if any, better motivators for youth
than the driver's license. Many youth will refrain from drug use rather
than risk not being able to obtain a license when eligible. NHTSA hopes
that the pre-license drug testing programs will be instituted as part
of a systematic strategy to deter drug use and drugged driving.
Combined with some form of unscheduled testing, e.g., after crashes or
driving violations, the deterrent effects will be even greater.
Question. What are the expected total costs of this demonstration?
What are NHTSA's costs projected to be for each of the next four years?
Answer. The total cost of this demonstration program is expected to
be $16 million. NHTSA is requesting $2 million in fiscal years 1998,
and will request $2 million in fiscal year 1999 and 2000. The Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is providing $2 million in fiscal
year 1997, and will request $4 million in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Question. Other than the demonstration project, what specific
portions of the fiscal year 1997 and the proposed fiscal year 1998
budget address the issue of youth driving and impairment by controlled
substances? Please indicate specific activities and associated funding
amounts.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, $599 thousand was appropriated to
support education and technical assistance activities for law
enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and the general public. In
fiscal year 1998, the budget request includes $476 thousand to continue
such education and technical assistance. These funds are used for
programs such as the Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program
that supports law enforcement officers trained to detect persons
impaired by drugs, and for providing up-to-date information and
training on drugged driving to judges and prosecutors. Both of these
activities increase the risk of detection, arrest, and punishment for
drug use and drugged driving by youth. Finally, a research study to
determine the incidence of drugs in non-fatal serious injury crashes
will be completed in fiscal year 1997 and will provide up-to-date
information on drug use by young, injured crash involved drivers.
Question. If monies for the demonstration program were denied, what
else could NHTSA do to address this issue? What activities does NHTSA
have planned for fiscal year 1998? What is the associated funding
level?
Answer. NHTSA will continue its efforts to strengthen and improve
the enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, prevention, education and
treatment of young drugged drivers. However, it is unlikely that other
efforts will have as strong an impact on youth as the proposed pre-
license drug testing program. One reason this pre-driver licensure drug
testing program is likely to be effective is that the driver's license
is a strong motivator for youth. Pre-license testing would send an
important message to America's youth that drugs and driving don't mix.
Instituted as part of a systematic strategy to deter drug use and
drugged driving, it should by itself, reduce drug use and drugged
driving by some youth. If combined with some form of unscheduled
testing after crashes or driving violations, its effects should be even
greater and will promote public safety.
NHTSA has requested $476 thousand in the fiscal year 1998 budget to
support current education and technical assistance activities for law
enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of drugged drivers including
youth. These funds are used for a variety of programs, including the
Department's Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program, that
supports law enforcement officers trained to detect persons impaired by
drugs, and for providing up-to-date information and training on drugged
driving to judges and prosecutors. Both of these activities increase
the risk of detection, arrest, and punishment for drug use and drugged
driving by youth.
Question. Are there any data specific to youth (15 to 20) that
indicates a strong relationship between drugs and youth driving
problems? Please cite specific publications and their findings.
Answer. The evidence is clear that drug use among American youth is
increasing. The 1996 Monitoring the Future Study, a self-reported
survey of 49,000 students in the 8th, 10th and 12th grades revealed
that, since 1991, the use of illicit drugs nearly doubled for 8th
graders (i.e., it increased from 11 percent to 21 percent). This report
also indicated that, since 1992, illicit drug use increased by nearly
50 percent for 12th graders (i.e., from 27 percent to 39 percent use).
Marijuana use showed the sharpest increase.
Other studies have reported similar findings. Studies of drivers
involved in crashes indicate that many have used drugs. NHTSA currently
estimates that drugs are used by approximately 10-22 percent of crash
involved drivers, often in combination with alcohol. NHTSA's most
recent study of fatally injured drivers found evidence of drug use in
17.8 percent of these drivers (evidence of alcohol use was found among
51.5 percent). Drug use rates among younger drivers tend to be higher
than for any other age group.
An ongoing NHTSA study of non-fatally injured drivers has found
that 12 percent of all drivers tested positive for drugs other than
alcohol, while 23.3 percent of drivers under 21 years of age tested
positive. The National Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education
(PRIDE) 9th Annual Survey of Students (an annual self-administered
questionnaire) recently found that, among 12th grade students,
marijuana is more likely to be used in a car than alcoholic beverages.
Twenty percent reported that they smoked marijuana in a car, compared
with 16.3 percent who reported drinking beer in a car, and 9.5 percent
who reported drinking wine coolers in a car.
The available evidence clearly points to the fact that youth are
increasing their use of drugs and often drive in conjunction with drug
use. While the precise nature and extent of the youth drugged driving
problem can not be specified with any single estimate at this time,
there is ample evidence the problem is growing and presents a serious
threat to public safety.
Question. Since last year, please specify how many States have
adopted graduated licensing provisions, open container laws, and those
that have lowered alcohol thresholds limits for convictions of impaired
driving laws for youth.
Answer. Georgia, North Carolina, and New Hampshire have enacted
Graduated Driver licensing legislation this term. In Illinois, a
Graduated Driver Licensing bill has passed the legislature and is
currently awaiting the Governor's signature. Hawaii has enacted some
provisions of a Graduated Driver Licensing system.
Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, and North Dakota have
enacted lower alcohol threshold limits for impaired driving convictions
among youth. In Vermont, a bill lowering the alcohol threshold for
youth is awaiting the Governor's signature. Montana passed legislation
revising its sanctions for violation of its lower threshold law.
The agency is unaware of any state which has passed or modified an
open container law this legislative session.
Question. What have been some of the challenges facing States when
implementing or adopting such laws? How does your 1998 budget request
address these challenges? Please indicate funding amounts.
Answer. Graduated licensing requires states to pass legislation
changing the manner in which young persons can obtain a driver's
license. Additional issues arise over the states capabilities to
administer a graduated licensing system. Because it is a more complex
system, it can require additional administrative expenses for the
licensing authority.
Another challenge concerns the specific provisions, or components,
of a graduated system. For example, a night time curfew is a
recommended part of the system. Some legislators are concerned that
this will cause problems for those young people engaged in school,
religious, work or family activities that cause the young person to be
out late at night.
There has been little, if any, resistance to the passage of lower
alcohol threshold limits for young drivers. As of June 23, 1997, forty-
one states (and the District of Columbia) have set their BAC threshold
at .02 BAC for youthful DWI offenders under age 21. All states are
expected to enact zero tolerance laws by October 1, 1998, so that they
will not be subject to having funds withheld.
The requested fiscal year 1998 funding would provide incremental
support for a graduated driver licensing system evaluations in Michigan
($100,000). An additional evaluation (currently funded) will also be
conducted in North Carolina. These evaluations include an assessment of
administrative procedures by the states. Information, as it becomes
available, will be shared with other states interested in graduated
licensing.
Question. What is NHTSA doing to improve the enforcement of drunk
driving laws affecting youth? How does NHTSA's fiscal year 1997 budget
and the fiscal year 1998 budget request address this issue?
Answer. To improve the enforcement of drunk driving laws affecting
youth, NHTSA has undertaken activities in four major areas: provision
of technical assistance materials, conducting training, implementing
demonstration projects and promoting innovative strategies.
Manuals and video tapes have been developed to assist enforcement,
Alcohol Beverage Control agencies, and other organizations to implement
new strategies and programs. Training has been, and will continue to
be, provided to improve youth enforcement techniques and adjudication
strategies (e.g., use of ``teen courts''). Ten community demonstration
programs have been initiated to encourage comprehensive enforcement
activity. Innovative concepts, such as youth offender ``visitation'' to
trauma units and ``holdover'' facilities to temporarily detain youthful
alcohol offenders are being tested. All of these activities, in
addition to programs specifically focused on ``zero tolerance''
enforcement, are being funded in the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998 budget.
Question. Please specify the nature and total amount of all youth-
oriented activities for fiscal year 1996; fiscal year 1997, and planned
for fiscal year 1998, separately.
Answer. NHTSA has initiated a wide variety of youth projects, some
of which are multi-year efforts. Attached is a table listing on-going
or planned projects. Many of these projects have had previous years
funding or will use multi-year funding.
See list of projects below.
NHTSA YOUTH PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Project -----------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACCHUS Awareness Program....................... 30 ...... ......
Graduated Licensing............................. 50 ...... ......
RID Underage Drinking Workshops................. 45 ...... ......
Messages for School Children.................... 100 ...... ......
Evaluate Magnetic Stripe for ID................. 60 ...... ......
DC Model Underage Drinking Program.............. 191 200 ......
Scholastic Magazine Messages.................... 75 ...... ......
State Youth Assessment.......................... 25 ...... ......
Alcohol Beverage Control Project................ 75 ...... ......
SADD ``Strides for Safety''..................... 67 ...... ......
FHA Awareness Campaign.......................... 30 ...... ......
National Organization Support................... 215 ...... ......
Parents as Role Models.......................... 50 ...... ......
``Teen Courts''................................. 110 100 ......
Evaluate MI Graduated Licensing................. ...... 100 ......
ATS Juvenile Visitation Program................. 45 ...... ......
National Zero Tolerance Campaign................ ...... 200 200
BACCHUS/SADD Zero Tolerance..................... ...... 96 ......
Peer Helpers Zero Tolerance..................... ...... 93 ......
Enforcement of zero tolerance laws.............. ...... 140 200
Evaluation of Zero Tolerance Laws............... ...... 150 ......
MADD Training of Student Activists.............. 50 118 30
Strides for Safety--NSC......................... ...... 81 ......
Juvenile ``Holdover'' Project................... ...... 100 100
NOYS meeting support............................ 45 150 ......
National Organization Project Support........... ...... 200 ......
NOYS Youth Summit............................... 69 ...... ......
Cross Age Peer Mentoring Program................ 25 ...... ......
Nat'l Science Teachers Curr..................... ...... 50 ......
Youth Sanctions Guide........................... 75 ...... ......
Outdoor Billboard Campaign...................... 50 ...... ......
Youth Urban Diversity project................... 50 50 ......
Evaluation of youth projects.................... 25 25 ......
Guidelines for age-appropriate ed materials..... ...... 150 ......
Strategies to increase safety belt use by youth. 40 50 ......
Decisionmaking skills of young drivers.......... 256 ...... ......
Community Compliance With ABC Laws.............. 150 ...... ......
SADD National Conference........................ 50 ...... ......
``Traffic Safety Box''.......................... 50 50 ......
Drinking and Impaired Driving-College........... 100 100 ......
Matching Strategies to Youth Characteristics.... 28 ...... ......
Determine Reasons for Reduced Youth DWI......... 100 50 ......
Bicycle Programs................................ 80 100 ......
Pedestrian/Diversity Programs................... ...... 200 ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many States are now receiving grant funds to carry
out graduated licensing systems? What have been the results? Are any
new States considering them? How does the fiscal year 1998 budget
request and the fiscal year 1997 budget address this matter? Please
indicate funding amounts.
Answer. In fiscal year 1995 the Agency awarded grants to five
states to demonstrate and evaluate components of a graduated licensing
system: Alaska ($77,000), Florida ($225,000), North Carolina
($397,000), Tennessee ($317,700), and Vermont ($183,000). All of these
states needed to pass legislation when the grants were awarded. Florida
and North Carolina have since passed graduated licensing legislation.
Evaluation data are not yet available. A number of states introduced
related legislation this calender year. For example, Vermont
legislation to create a new system did not get out of Committee;
California legislation to improve their current system is still being
considered; Maryland also introduced legislation to improve their
current system but the legislature requested additional information.
The fiscal year 1997 budget included funds ($100,000) to evaluate
Michigan's graduated system. These funds being provided to the
University of Michigan which is conducting an evaluation of the
program. Incremental funds ($100,000) are being requested in fiscal
year 1998 for this effort.
The fiscal year 1998 request also includes a proposed incentive
grant program designed to encourage states to implement laws and
programs to combat alcohol-impaired driving. One of the qualifying
criteria for a basic grant is the enactment of a graduated driver
licensing law with nighttime driving restrictions and 0.02 BAC for
persons under age 21.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the five subprograms
of the National Occupant Protection Program in fiscal years 1995, 1996,
and 1997.
Answer. See table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI & E...................... $2,213 $2,450 $2,414 $2,314 $2,364 $2,360
Belt Law.................... 1,704 1,676 1,904 1,886 1,674 1,670
Target Pop.................. 1,321 1,296 1,635 1,253 1,637 1,498
Eval and Tech............... 451 444 447 439 538 537
Patterns.................... ........... ............. 1,600 952 745 744
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the five subprograms
in the National Occupant Protection Program, showing how all of the
funds requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and
please include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for
each of those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page,
please justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
National Occupant Protection Program -----------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Information & Education........................ 2,360 2,263
Belt Law Compliance................................... 1,671 1,594
Target Population Education........................... 1,498 1,540
Evaluation and Technology Sharing..................... 537 498
Patterns for Life..................................... 744 715
-----------------
Total........................................... 6,810 6,610
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification
Overall, the fiscal year 1998 request represents a decrease of
$200,000. Target Population Education includes an increase of $42,000
which will be used to bring air bag information to Hispanic populations
to reduce the risk of air-bag related injuries to children channels
will be supported and utilized to ons.
public information and education
Question. How do the activities conducted under this program which
relate to child safety seats and air bag use differ from the agency's
activities in these areas in other NHTSA programs?
Answer. The public information and education activities funded
under this program are all related to educating the public on safety
belts, child safety seats, and air bags. They include developing,
producing, marketing and distributing educational materials used by
national, state and community programs and a public service campaign
conducted through the Advertising Council. Child safety seat and air
bag activities in other NHTSA programs including research, training
programs, demonstration programs, and outreach.
Question. Please describe all agency activities related to child
safety seat use and from which program they are funded.
Answer. The following child safety seat use activities are funded
under Occupant Protection Public Information and Education: Developing,
producing, marketing, and distributing brochures, posters, videos,
manuals, certain pieces in the Campaign Safe & Sober Quarterly
Planners, and video news releases for Child Passenger Safety Week. The
1997 Safety Belt Education Campaign public service announcements
produced with the Advertising Council sent the message that children
belong in the back seat of air bag cars. The ``Protecting Your
Newborn'' video and child passenger safety training programs are funded
under the Patterns for Life Program. This video is being distributed by
Ford Motor Company to over 100,000 medical and health professionals to
educate parents of new babies on how to transport their children
safely, especially in cars equipped with passenger side air bags. The
Patterns for Life Program is also funding the development of ``Your
Child, Your Car, Your Choices,'' the interactive CD-ROM program that
shows which seating positions in a specific vehicle are safe for
installing a specific child safety seat. Cooperative agreements and
grants with national organizations that partner with NHTSA to deliver
the child safety seat messages and materials to the public are funded
under the Occupant Protection Target Populations Program. State
demonstration programs that focus on enforcing the State's child
passenger safety law are funded under the Occupant Protection Belt Law
Compliance program. Research on behavioral questions that affect proper
use of child safety seat questions are funded under the Traffic Safety
Programs Research Program.
Although the Agency does not contribute money to the Air Bag Safety
Campaign, it is a major partner and participates in the Campaign's
decisions and activities. This $14 million Campaign supports the
Agency's messages that children should sit in the back seat and be
properly retrained. The Campaign also helps enact and enforce child
passenger safety laws. Thus, the Campaign leverages NHTSA's dollars to
achieve a greater impact on the problem of unrestrained children than
would otherwise be possible.
Question. Please describe all agency activities related to air bags
and specify which program they are funded from.
Answer. Developing, producing, marketing, and distributing
educational materials to educate the public on the benefits and risks
of air bags are currently being funded as part of the National Occupant
Protection Public Information and Education Program. All of NHTSA's
outreach programs funded under the National Occupant Protection Target
Populations now include air bag issues. Campaign Safe & Sober Quarterly
Planners include air bag information and are funded out of the Alcohol,
Occupant Protection, and Enforcement Programs. NHTSA's participation in
the Air Bag Safety Campaign (ABSC) leverages the agency's dollars to
achieve a greater impact than would be possible otherwise. While the
agency does not contribute money to the ABSC, it is a major partner and
the principal designer of the Campaign's strategy for addressing the
problem of air bag related injuries: educate the public on how to
eliminate or reduce the risks associated with air bags, enact stronger
belt and child seat laws, and enforce the laws.
belt law compliance
Question. Please explain how the efforts and activities to be
conducted using the requested $2 million on page HS-46 for an Air Bag
Safety program are different than efforts and activities outlined on
page HS-34 for an Occupant Protection program. Why can't these
activities be combined? Please break down the expected uses of these
funds.
Answer. The $2 million initiative focuses specifically on the
interaction of the airbag with occupants. The program will educate the
public about air bag safety issues and the associated need to increase
the national safety belt use rate. These funds will be used to (1)
enhance public education on airbag, safety belts and child safety
seats, (2) enhance the enforcement of existing laws for safety belts
and child safety seats, and (3) evaluate the enforcement efforts
implemented to reduce airbag induced deaths and injuries.
Combining these efforts with the overall Occupant Protection
program would de-emphasize the important message and specific program
elements that NHTSA is trying to accomplish. Many people transporting
children in cars do not understand the importance of proper restraint
use, the need for using age-appropriate restraint devices, and how air
bags work both for themselves and with children. There have been over
1.5 million air bag deployments, saving over 2,000 lives. In 1996
alone, over 700 lives were saved by air bags.
This initiative will accelerate the public's understanding that:
(1) the rear seat is the safest place for children of any age to ride,
(2) that all occupants, children and adults, must be buckled no matter
where they sit, and (3) rear-facing child seats must never be placed in
front of an air bag.
target populations
Question. How do the activities in this program overlap with
activities being conducted elsewhere within NHTSA?
Answer. Target Populations is a budget line item under Occupant
Protection. Therefore, the activities in target populations focus on
increasing use and correct use of seat belts and child safety seats by
networking with national organizations capable of delivering programs
and messages to target populations whose restraint use is below
average. The program is designed to generate a critical mass of
activity and information at the state and local level to assist the
State in meeting its safety belt and child passenger safety goals. This
is the only program in NHTSA that conducts activities of this nature.
Thus, there is no overlap.
Question. The budget for this program was increased by $245,000
from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997. What was this increase used
for?
Answer. The increased monies were used to fund a competitive grant
program for national organizations to develop and implement programs
designed to educate constituents and communities on the risk of air
bag-related injuries to children. Funds for up to five organizations
were made available. We are in the process of reviewing the grant
applications. Grant awards should be made in August 1997.
Question. Please justify the $42,000 requested increase in this
program.
Answer. The resources will be used to bring air bag information to
Hispanic populations to reduce the risk of air-bag related injuries to
children. Hispanic media and information channels will be supported and
utilized to deliver messages, materials and information to Hispanic
populations.
Question. Please list the 21 states which will participate in this
program?
Answer. To date, the following 19 states have been identified to
participate in the program in fiscal year 1998: Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.
evaluation of state programs
Question. Why does the federal government need to subsidize
evaluation of state programs?
Answer. Future progress in reducing highway safety crashes requires
effective programs that successfully target high risk groups,
situations, and behaviors. It is critical that scarce resources be used
on programs with demonstrated benefits. While the states and local
communities have developed and implemented many programs that appear
promising in reducing crashes, in many cases their effectiveness has
not been determined or documented. Most States and communities do not
have sufficient capabilities or resources to conduct scientifically
sound studies of their countermeasure programs--they turn to NHTSA for
guidance in evaluating their programs.
evaluation and technology sharing
Question. How much money is being proposed to be spent in fiscal
year 1998 on disseminating information and educational materials for
influencing the public's knowledge and attitudes toward air bags?
Answer. The agency has requested $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, to
address the problem of air bag related injuries. Of that amount,
$650,000 is proposed for developing, producing and disseminating
information and educational materials. The balance of the request will
be used to enhance the enforcement of existing laws for safety belts
and child safety seats, and to evaluate the enforcement efforts
implemented to reduce air bag induced deaths and injuries.
Question. How has NHTSA worked with the states of Alabama and
Alaska in this area?
Answer. NHTSA is working closely with Alaska and Alabama to provide
them with up to date information and assistance in the area of air bag
safety. In Alaska, NHTSA Regional staff have provided information and
technical assistance to several groups, including the Alaska Highway
Safety Planning Agency, Emergency Medical Services, Alaska State
Troopers, and the Anchorage Safe Communities program. Technical
assistance was also provided for three Air Bag Safety Campaign press
events, held in November 1996, February and over the recent Memorial
Day holiday. Information and technical assistance was made available to
federal agencies and military bases throughout Alaska, through the
Alaska Federal Safety & Health Council.
In Alabama, Regional personnel worked with the Alabama Governor's
Safety Coordinating Committee and Alabama representatives of Highway
Safety Advocates and the National Safety Council. NHTSA provided an air
bag safety information booth at a three day conference of the Alabama
Association of Educators. NHTSA also initiated talks with the State
Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education to urge
them to write letters to educators and parent-teacher groups,
emphasizing the importance of air bag safety.
In addition to the above activities, NHTSA has responded to
numerous requests in each state, providing technical assistance and
information on air bag and occupant protection issues.
Question. Please summarize the agency's efforts to address the
adverse effects of air bag deployment, specifically as related to
serious injuries and fatalities.
Answer. On May 23, 1995, the agency published a final rule to
permit vehicle manufacturers to offer manual cutoff switches for the
passenger air bag for new vehicles without rear seats or with rear
seats that are too small to accommodate rear-facing child restraints,
until as late as September 1, 1998. On January 6, 1997, the agency
extended the expiration date of this cutoff switch rule until September
1, 2000. The agency is optimistic that advanced, automatic, air bag
technologies will be available after this date, to replace manual
systems.
On November 22, 1996, the agency published a final rule amending
both Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and Standard 213,
Child Restraint Systems, to require improved labeling on new vehicles
and child restraints to better ensure that drivers and other occupants
are aware of the danger posed by passenger air bags to children. The
labeling emphasizes the placement of rear-facing child restraints in
the rear seats of vehicles with operational passenger air bags. These
requirements are in place now.
On March 19, 1997, the agency issued a final rule to permit
manufacturers to depower air bags by 25-30 percent, and adopted
different test protocols that make this conversion quick to implement
for the vehicle manufacturers.
On January 6, 1997, the agency published a proposed rule to allow
auto dealers and repair businesses to deactivate air bags, after
receiving written authorization from vehicle owners. Final decisions on
this proposal will be made soon.
The agency has developed a comprehensive and high priority Advanced
Air Bag Technology program plan to expedite achieving the goal of
introducing advanced air bag systems. Advanced air bag systems are
expected to remove many of the disbenefits apparent in current air bag
designs, while providing optimum protection for belted occupants as
well as occupants who do not wear belts. This program plan for Advanced
Air Bag Technology specifies the necessary tasks that must be
undertaken to achieve the objective of installing advanced air bag
systems in future vehicles.
The plan specifically includes tasks to ensure that future crash
testing is responsive to the needs of children and small statured
adults. The agency has granted petitions for rulemaking to include the
5th percentile female dummy as part of the new crash test protocols.
The agency expects to complete the technical evaluation of the 5th
percentile Hybrid III female dummy, the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old
Hybrid III dummies by December 1997. Thus, by the end of this year, the
agency will be in a position to include any or all of these test
dummies in test protocols dealing with out of position occupants and/or
combinations with pre-crash braking or other considerations.
NHTSA along with an independent effort by NASA, will carefully
assess the emerging new air bag technologies. The agency has conducted
testing in a program to assess the injury causing potential of air bag
systems when occupants are out of position relative to the air bag
deployment. These baseline air bag systems have been compared to
depowered (reduced inflator output) and new air bag designs provided by
auto manufacturers and air bag suppliers to determine the effectiveness
of the air bags in preventing injuries to out of position occupants, in
addition to providing adequate protection to normally seated occupants.
The agency intends to test any additional advanced technologies
that are close to production and determine if these technologies can
provide benefit to the out of position child and provide protection in
high speed crashes where depowered air bags may lose some of their
restraint capacity. As part of the Advanced Air Bag Technology program
plan, the agency will develop and conduct performance testing of
advanced air bag inflator technologies. These performance tests will
focus on the capabilities of advanced inflators to tailor air bag
output based on the crash severity, belt-use status, and/or other
occupant and vehicle parameters. A series of static and dynamic sled
and crash tests to evaluate the state of this technology has been
planned for the near future.
Based on the results of this test program and other research
information, the agency plans to issue an NPRM on advanced air bags,
including test procedures, by the end of calendar year 1997.
In addition, NHTSA has been pro-active in educating the public,
promoting state and local legislation, and encouraging active
enforcement of occupant protection laws to address the adverse effects
of air bag deployment. Efforts include hosting a national ``Call to
Action'' conference, producing an Air Bag alert folio which was
distributed to over 500,000 organizations, and assisting in the
establishment of the Air Bag Safety Campaign (ABSC), which is alerting
the public to the dangers of air bag deployments to unrestrained and
improperly restrained children. NHTSA is an active member of the
coalition and supports its efforts.
The agency has also prepared informational air bag facts sheets,
published informative articles in various media and research
publications, and developed and distributed 40,000 quarterly Safe &
Sober Planners containing air bag safety information. These planners
went to state highway safety offices as well as national safety,
health, medical, and enforcement organizations.
The agency is providing funding demonstrations in 21 states to
conduct highly visible occupant protection law enforcement programs and
to provide education on air bags and adult and child occupant
protection laws. NHTSA has also developed a brochure emphasizing the
correct positioning of child car seats in air bag-equipped vehicles.
air bag safety program
Question. Please provide in detail the amount spent on this area
during fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, and planned for fiscal year
1998, being certain to identify purposes and objectives of these
expenditures.
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 the Air Bag Safety
Program did not formally exist as a budget line item in the Highway
Safety Program, and there were no specific program expenditures.
However, in fiscal year 1997, Highway Safety Programs allocated
approximately $3 million for air bag efforts. This included specific
projects dedicated to the air bag issue such as the Ad Council public
information campaign and outreach efforts directed at various target
populations. Nearly every other aspect of the Occupant Protection
Program, including Technology Sharing, Belt Law Compliance, and
Patterns for Life programs supported the Air Bag Safety Program. Most
of the material development and delivery for outreach programs, for
example, include air bag information.
Additionally, a portion of the agency's Section 403 Special Traffic
Enforcement grant program (fiscal years 1995-1997 budget $4.6 million)
is used to improve both child passenger safety and air bag safety. In
addition, all states have directed a portion of their Section 402
funding at the state and community levels on strategies to address this
issue.
In fiscal year 1998, $2,000,000 will support three major
initiatives: (1) continuation of high visibility, statewide enforcement
and education campaigns in 21 states to increase seat belt and child
safety seat use and reduce air bag injuries ($1,050,000); (2)
monitoring of public awareness of various belt law enforcement and
education efforts and measuring the associated changes in occupant
restraint use ($300,000); and (3) development and distribution of
public information materials on the correct use of seat belts and child
safety seats in air bag-equipped vehicles. This effort will include the
distribution of 30,000 ``Protecting Your Newborn'' videos, posters and
brochures with the new attention-getting air bag warning labels. It
will also include other targeted materials, including a Spanish
language brochure ($650,000).
In addition, in the Research and Analysis program, air bag safety
was also addressed through ongoing programs in the safety systems,
biomechanics, and real-world crash investigation and analysis programs.
Because these programs provide information and support a wide range of
safety issues in addition to the air bag safety issues, it is not
possible to provide a specific dollar amount. In fiscal year 1997,
specific budget devoted to air bag research is approximately $1.311
million. In addition, the agency has proposed to reprogram $2.8 million
to support fiscal year 1997 high priority air bag projects. Work in
fiscal year 1997 continued on laboratory testing and real-world crash
analyses aimed at identifying technical approaches to address inflation
caused injuries. Research efforts were geared to assessing near-term
mitigation concepts primarily related to depowering air bag systems.
The proposed reprogrammed funding will be used to support high priority
biomechanics, air bag research, and real-world crash investigation of
air bag-equipped vehicles. Projects will include the validation of
child and adult dummies to be utilized in air bag research, joint
research with Transport Canada, and the collection of additional
detailed crash investigations within the agency's Special Crash
Investigation program.
In fiscal year 1998, $6.331 million in additional funding has been
requested for air bag research, which is directed toward collecting
additional real-world crashes involving air bag-equipped vehicles and
to expanding the biomechanics and vehicle and air bag research and
testing programs. The following provides brief descriptions:
Special Crash Investigation (SCI) Program ($1.031 million). SCI
data are critical to understanding real-world air bag performance. The
SCI is a quick reaction crash investigation activity in which an
investigator is sent to the crash site when the agency learns of
unusual or special interest crashes. Virtually all funds are being
directed toward air bag investigations.
Biomechanics Program ($3.15 million). Design of less aggressive air
bags requires a better understanding of injury mechanisms and
tolerances of the human body to air bag loading. This is especially
true for children and small females. This research will allow the
generation of sufficient biomechanical data and provide necessary
physical and analytical tools to address this issue.
Safety Systems Program ($1.85 million). Research will continue to
focus on the development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air
bag systems to find solutions to the air bag problems identified in the
field experience, including those injuries resulting from aggressive
air bag deployments. For the advanced air bag systems under
development, research will identify the better performing systems,
evaluate their best features, and determine the need for performance
requirements.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) collects information from a sample
of hospital emergency rooms across the country. NHTSA has worked with
NEISS data, collecting specific types of motor vehicle injury
mechanisms. This effort will provide additional information on air bag-
related injuries. ($.3 million).
Question. What is the agency doing to monitor the adverse effects
of air bags? How is this reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request?
Answer. The agency has a number of programs directed at monitoring
real-world crashes and identifying adverse effects of air bags. The
following describe programs that are included in the fiscal year 1998
budget request:
The Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program data are critical to
understanding real-world air bag performance. The SCI is a quick
reaction crash investigation activity in which an investigator is sent
to the crash site when the agency learns of unusual or special interest
crashes. Virtually all funds are being directed toward air bag
investigations. ($1.031 million)
The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) is a database
containing a random sample of crashes representative of all police-
reported towaway crashes occurring in the United States. The focus of
the NASS investigations is on the last four model year vehicles. As a
result of the Agency's air bag regulation, this means virtually every
investigation will contain at least one air bag equipped vehicle. ($9.7
million)
The Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of all fatal
crashes in the United States. FARS is an essential resource that
permits the agency and the traffic and highway safety community to
quantify and describe the national traffic safety environment. As with
NASS, studies utilizing this file will continue to analyze specific air
bag issues and evaluate the effectiveness of air bags in fatal crashes.
Currently, the FARS files contain approximately 45 percent of crashes
involving air bag equipped vehicles. (i.e., $2.3 million of $5.2
million)
The Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) database
is being implemented to improve the prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation of motor vehicle crash injuries through an integrated
national network of physicians and engineers. Detailed crash
investigations will be conducted and results entered into a uniform
format, single database to allow for studies of air bag-related and
other types of crashes. Current ``CIREN'' case inclusion criteria
direct approximately 40 percent of the total effort toward
investigation of air bag related cases, (i.e., $480 thousand of $1.2
million)
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) collects information from a sample
of hospital emergency rooms across the country. NHTSA has worked with
NEISS data, collecting specific types of motor vehicle injury
mechanisms. This effort will provide additional information on air bag-
related injuries. ($.3 million)
Question. What are the near-term actions to be taken by the agency
that may reduce or eliminate these problems? How is this reflected in
the fiscal year 1998 budget request?
Answer. The agency has developed a comprehensive, high priority
Advanced Air Bag Technology program plan to expedite achieving the goal
of introducing advanced air bag systems. Our comprehensive plan
contains both near- and long-term efforts.
Advanced air bag systems are expected to remove many of the
disbenefits apparent in current air bag designs while providing optimum
protection for belted occupants as well as occupants who do not wear
belts. This program plan for Advanced Air Bag Technology specifies the
necessary tasks that must be undertaken to achieve the objective of
installing advanced air bag systems in future vehicles.
The plan specifically includes tasks to ensure that future crash
testing is responsive to the needs of children and small statured
adults. The agency has granted petitions for rulemaking to include the
5th-percentile female dummy as part of the new crash test protocols.
The agency expects to complete the technical evaluation of the 5th-
percentile Hybrid III female dummy, the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old
Hybrid III dummies by December 1997. Thus, by the end of this year, the
agency will be in a position to include any or all of these test
dummies in test protocols dealing with out-of-position occupants and/or
combinations with precrash braking or other considerations.
In addition, the agency along with an independent effort by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will carefully assess
the emerging new air bag technologies. The agency has conducted testing
in a program to assess the injury causing potential of air bag systems
when occupants are out of position relative to the air bag deployment.
These baseline air bag systems have been compared to depowered (reduced
inflator output) and new air bag designs provided by auto manufacturers
and air bag suppliers to determine the effectiveness of air bags in
preventing injuries to out of position occupants, in addition to
providing adequate protection to normally seated occupants.
The agency intends to test the additional advanced technologies
that are closest to production and determine if these technologies can
provide benefit to the out-of-position child and provide protection in
high speed crashes where depowered air bags may lose some of their
restraint capacity. As part of the Advanced Air Bag Technology program
plan, the agency will develop and conduct performance testing of
advanced air bag inflator technologies. These performance tests will
focus on the capabilities of advanced inflators to tailor air bag
output based on the crash severity, belt-use status, and/or other
occupant and vehicle parameters. A series of static and dynamic sled
and crash tests to evaluate the state of this technology has been
planned for the near future. Based on the results of this test program
and other research information, the agency plans to issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on advanced air bags, including test procedures, by
the end of calendar year 1997.
This work is reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
$6.331 million of additional funding.
Other near term actions that will help eliminate these problems are
(1) increasing the use of occupant protection restraints by all
occupants; and (2) educating the driving public about the proper use
and placement of occupants in air bag equipped vehicles.
Conducting high visibility enforcement programs and enacting
primary enforcement legislative provisions in states and communities
nationwide, provides much potential for significantly increasing
occupant protection use rates.
Question. What are the longer term actions by the agency that may
reduce or eliminate these problems? How is this reflected in the fiscal
year 1998 budget request?
Answer. The agency has developed a comprehensive and high priority
Advanced Air Bag Technology program plan to expedite achieving the goal
of introducing advanced air bag systems. Our comprehensive plan
contains both near- and long-term efforts. Advanced air bag systems are
expected to remove many of the disbenefits apparent in current air bag
designs while providing optimum protection for belted occupants as well
as occupants who do not wear belts. This program plan for Advanced Air
Bag Technology specifies the necessary tasks that must be undertaken to
achieve the objective of installing advanced air bag systems in future
vehicles.
The plan specifically includes tasks to ensure that future crash
testing is responsive to the needs of children and small statured
adults. The agency has granted petitions for rulemaking to include the
5th-percentile-female dummy as part of the new crash test protocols.
The agency expects to complete the technical evaluation of the 5th-
percentile Hybrid III female dummy, the 3-year-old and the 6-year-old
Hybrid III dummies by December 1997. Thus, by the end of this year, the
agency will be in a position to include any or all of these test
dummies in test protocols dealing with out-of-position occupants and/or
combinations with precrash braking or other considerations.
In addition, the agency along with an independent effort by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will carefully assess
the emerging new air bag technologies.
The agency has conducted testing in a program to assess the injury
causing potential of air bag systems when occupants are out of position
relative to the air bag deployment. These baseline air bag systems have
been compared to depowered (reduced inflator output) and new air bag
designs provided by auto manufacturers and air bag suppliers to
determine the effectiveness of the air bags in preventing injuries to
out of position occupants, in addition to providing adequate protection
to normally seated occupants.
The agency intends to test the additional advanced technologies
that are closest to production and determine if these technologies can
provide benefit to the out-of-position child and provide protection in
high speed crashes where depowered air bags may lose some of their
restraint capacity. As part of the Advanced Air Bag Technology program
plan, the agency will develop and conduct performance testing of
advanced air bag inflator technologies. These performance tests will
focus on the capabilities of advanced inflators to tailor air bag
output based on the crash severity, belt-use status, and/or other
occupant and vehicle parameters. A series of static and dynamic sled
and crash tests to evaluate the state of this technology has been
planned for the near future.
Based on the results of this test program and other research
information, the agency plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on advanced air bags, including test procedures, by the end of calendar
year 1997. Work will continue after this on safety performance and air
bag safety monitoring. This work described above is reflected in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request for $6.331 million of additional
funding.
Beginning in fiscal year 1998 Highway Safety Programs will conduct
information and education programs to support this rulemaking, as well
as support the overall occupant protection program. These efforts will
include widespread distribution of posters and brochures, including
Hispanic versions, with air bag warning labels and the production and
distribution of newborn and other child passenger videos. Additional
educational materials will be developed and distributed which focus on
securing children under age 13 in the back seat.
NHTSA will continue to provide funding, combined with matching
funds from the states, to reinforce high visibility enforcement and
education efforts. Other long term actions planned include support of
the Air Bag Safety Campaign's (ABSC) enforcement and public education
grants program.
This partnership of NHTSA, the private sector, and the state
highway safety offices will encourage the adoption of primary
legislation and maintain the enforcement of occupant restraint laws.
Over time, these efforts will result in major increases in seat belt
use rates, as they have in other nations and in some high use states.
Increasing the seat belt use rate will, in turn, significantly reduce
the problems associated with air bag deployments.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs in the
Enforcement and Emergency Services Program for fiscal years 1995, 1996,
and 1997.
Answer. The information follows.
See table below:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS......................... 1,209 1,187 1,606 1,286 1,209 1,207
EMS......................... 769 655 1,122 1,122 1,180 1,178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
enforcement and emergency services program
Question. Please prepare a table for both of the programs in the
Enforcement and Emergency Services Program, showing how all the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
these activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Traffic Services:
Traffic Law Enforcement Projects.... $328,000 $797,000
Technology Transfer................. 240,000 300,000
Public Information and Education.... 210,000 290,000
Training and Technical Assistance... 170,000 168,280
National Organizations.............. 259,000 294,720
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,207,000 1,850,000
===============================
Emergency Medical Services:
Leadership.......................... 290,691 295,000
Injury Prevention/Control, PIER..... 307,061 369,000
National Standard Curricula......... 81,919 391,00
EMS System Component Support........ 198,757 421,000
EMS Information, Technologies and
Dissemination...................... 299,572 74,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,178,000 1,550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional funding for Police Traffic Services is needed to develop
effective programs and strategies, using state of the art technology to
combat the aggressive driver and speeding problem. Funds will be used
to develop model specifications and training for automated enforcement
devices and for the implementation of a large scale countermeasure
program to combat aggressive driving behaviors.
Additional funding for the Emergency Medical Services program is
needed to support revision and updating of the National Standard
Curricula, additional technical assistance to State EMS programs and
completion of the Bystander Care program.
police traffic services
Question. How much money is planned to be spent in fiscal year 1998
on efforts to demonstrate the link between traffic enforcement and the
detection of criminal activity.
Answer. NHTSA plans to spend $204,000 on efforts to demonstrate the
link between traffic enforcement and its positive impact on the
reduction of criminal activity.
Question. How much was spent on this in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 $160,000 was spent on efforts to
demonstrate the link between traffic enforcement and its positive
impact on criminal activity.
Question. What is the compelling reason why such a large increase
in PTS activity is justified in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The problem of the aggressive driver has emerged as one of
the most serious traffic safety problems in our nation. The Police
Traffic Services (PTS) budget has increased to address this problem.
PTS will develop a comprehensive program to combat aggressive driver
behaviors and its consequences by increasing awareness of the problem
using a public information and education campaign. The agency will
build coalitions to combat aggressive driving and unsafe driving
behaviors and develop a technology-based model enforcement program.
NHTSA will also develop model legislation to assist states and
communities in dealing with the problem as well as provide technical
assistance and technology transfer to states and communities interested
in setting up programs to combat the aggressive driver.
emergency medical services
Question. Please discuss what NHTSA is doing to further the use of
cellular 911 numbers. How is this reflected in your fiscal year 1998
budget request? What could be done to expedite the use of a uniform
system anywhere in the nation?
Answer. NHTSA is working with the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) and the major
professional organizations representing public safety answering points
to facilitate implementation of the FCC rule that requires cellular
providers to implement automatic caller location technology by the year
2001. The lack of automatic caller location capability is currently the
major obstacle to effective use of cellular 911. In May 1997, NHTSA and
these organizations cosponsored a ``call to action'' meeting to solicit
support for implementation of the FCC rule from national safety and
health organizations.
NHTSA plans to continue working with these partners to facilitate
implementation of the FCC rule, which provides the best mechanism for
nationwide implementation of a uniform cellular 911 system. This is
reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request as technical
assistance for state emergency communication needs.
Question. Please further justify the request for an additional
$372,000 over last year's request. Is this request needed simply to
follow through on the recently completed EMS Agenda? Exactly how will
these additional monies be used.
Answer. The additional funds will support implementation of the EMS
Agenda for the Future, which continues to be a major component of both
program development and outreach activities in the EMS area. Among the
funded activities will be a national conference focusing on
implementation of the visions in the EMS Agenda, revision of the
Blueprint for EMS Education and Practice, and implementation of the
model EMS quality improvement program.
Question. Please provide dollar amounts of resources NHTSA received
from other Federal agencies in fiscal year 1996 and 1997. Are there any
Federal agencies planning on providing funds in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The Department of Health and Human Services, Emergency
Medical Services for Children Program (EMSC) of the Health Resources
and Services Administration, contributed $387,000 during fiscal year
1996 and is planning to contribute $325,000 in fiscal year 1997 toward
EMS projects being administered by NHTSA. No specific plans for funding
by other agencies in fiscal year 1998 have been made known to the
agency.
Question. What evaluations, if any, have been conducted on the
effectiveness and value of the NHTSA EMS program? What were the
results?
Answer. A formal evaluation was conducted on the NHTSA State
Technical Assessment program in 1995. This evaluation included NHTSA
technical assessments that had been completed in 40 states between 1988
and 1994. This evaluation found that significant accomplishments were
made in state EMS systems following delivery of the technical
assessment efforts. These accomplishments included: enactment of
comprehensive enabling legislation in 8 states; development of trauma
system legislation in 11 states; development of statewide EMS plans in
9 states; establishment of EMS Advisory Councils in 9 states; support
for consistent medical direction in 10 states; and initiation of
statewide EMS data collection in 5 states.
An evaluation of NHTSA involvement in EMS education was conducted
as part of the December, 1996 National Conference on EMS Training. At
this conference, NHTSA solicited input from about 30 national EMS
organizations concerning future agency involvement in EMS education.
The resulting consensus statement recommended that the agency continue
its support for the development and maintenance of the National
Standard Curricula for Emergency Medical Providers. The consensus
statement also recommends that NHTSA support the update and revision of
the Blueprint for EMS Education and Practice.
state motor vehicle services program records and licensing
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997.
Answer. The information follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&L......................... 1,330 1,319 1,284 1,284 1,330 1,329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activities -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Clearinghouse................ 80,000 80,000
Traffic Safety Manager Quantitative
Analysis Training...................... 60,000 60,000
Traffic Safety Manager Training in Use
of Analytical Software................. .............. 44,000
Intermediate Data Analysis Training..... 58,000 50,000
Minimum Crash Data Set.................. 60,000 60,000
Traffic Records Forum................... 60,000 60,000
Population Data Base.................... 60,000 55,000
Traffic Records Technology Grants....... .............. 302,00
AAMVA MYPLAN............................ 100,00 50,000
NCUTLO Marketing Plan................... 50,000 50,000
SCS Transfer--Technical Assistance to
States (data linkage/program
evaluation)............................ 800,000 768,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,328,000 1,579,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic safety manager training
Traffic Safety Managers lack the necessary skills to use analytical
software for analysis of traffic records licensing data. Training in
analytical software use will increase their capability to effectively
use traffic records data for decision-making purposes.
Traffic records technology grants
A number of states have completed assessments of their traffic
records systems and are now ready to initiate recommended system
improvements. Technology grants would enable three to four of these
states to test existing and emerging technologies that can be used to
collect, store, manage, retrieve and analyze traffic records data more
efficiently and effectively. The experience of these states in the use
and application of new technologies will provide valuable information
to other states considering similar applications.
Question. How much money was spent in fiscal year 1997 on
activities related to the Technology Clearinghouse? How much is
proposed for this activity in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The amount of money spent in fiscal year 1997 for
activities related to the Technology Clearinghouse was $80,000. The
amount of money proposed for this activity in fiscal year 1998 is
$80,000.
Question. How much money does FHWA spend on this program?
Answer. FHWA will spend $195,000 on this program from fiscal year
1996 through fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is the scope and nature on the older driver program
mentioned on page HS-59?
Answer. This program refers to efforts to have the AAMVA working
group of Public Affairs and Consumer Education educate the public about
older driver issues. It provides an information kit to states and
Canadian provinces dealing with correct communication about older
driver issues for both the general public and older drivers themselves.
highway safety research program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the nine subprograms in the
Highway Safety Research Program for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriation Request Appropriation Request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol and Drugs.............. 2,006 1,960 1,802 1,772 1,606 1,603
Occupant Protection............ 670 655 645 635 575 574
Older Driver................... 444 500 390 490 444 543
Ped and Bicyl.................. 355 252 302 302 302 301
Speed and Unsafe............... 620 366 615 615 556 655
Driver Education............... .......... ............. 350 255 350 349
Driver Fatigue................. .......... ............. .......... 1,000 0 980
Evaluation..................... .......... ............. .......... ............. 1,000 100
EMS............................ .......... ............. .......... ............. .......... .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1997 and 1998 research budgets compared
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the nine subprograms
in the Highway Safety Research Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. See tables below and additional information on the need for
the requested increases.
ALCOHOL & DRUG RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify Target Groups and Situations... $400,000 $550,000
Develop Enforcement Improvements........ 350,000 450,000
Develop Traffic Law System Improvements. 205,000 200,000
Develop Programs To Change Driver
Attitudes.............................. 150,000 150,000
Evaluate Injury Control Programs........ 108,000 100,000
Develop Programs to Reduce Repeat
Offenders.............................. 125,000 100,000
Improved Methods for Police Enforcement
of Drugged Driving..................... 275,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,603,000 1,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No increase in funding is requested for fiscal year 1998.
OCCUPANT PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategies for Increasing Belt Use By
Teenagers.............................. $50,000 $100,000
Field Test Strategies to Increase
Enforcement............................ 50,000 100,000
Target Group Identification............. 200,000 224,000
Strategies for Specific Target Groups... 224,000 250,000
Develop and Test Methods to Increase
Proper Use of Child Safety Seats....... 50,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 574,000 774,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLDER DRIVER RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop Model Screening and Assessment
Procedures............................. $100,000 $100,000
Guidelines for Family and Friends....... 100,000 100,000
Improved Intersection Negotiation....... 25,000 100,000
Develop Driving Decision Guidelines..... 275,000 150,000
Validate Statistical Models of
Functional Limitations................. 43,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 543,000 550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEED AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determine the Magnitude of the Speeding
Problem................................ $400,000 $350,000
Guidelines for Setting and Enforcing
Speed Limits........................... 100,000 50,000
Develop And Test Counter-measures for
Selected Targets....................... 56,000 99,000
Fleet Study of Crash Risk............... .............. 200,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 556,000 699,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop and Test Programs for Target
Groups................................. $200,000 $125,000
Develop Crash Type Software............. 101,000 25,000
Large City Demonstration Program........ .............. 225,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 301,000 375,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRIVER FATIGUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyze role of fatigue, sleep in
highway crashes........................ 200,000 ..............
Develop and Test Educational Programs... 780,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 980,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRIVER EDUCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Decision Making of Novice
Drivers................................ $100,000 $50,000
Develop Two-Phase Driver Education
Program................................ 25,000 300,000
Pilot Test Materials to Support Parent
Participation.......................... 150,000 ..............
Use of Simulation in Novice Driver
Education.............................. 50,000 50,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 349,000 400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMS Outcomes Evaluation................. ( \1\ ) $125,000
Rural Preventable Mortality Follow-on... ( \1\ ) 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. ( \1\ ) 225,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not funded out of research.
SAFETY PROGRAM EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignition Interlock Program Evaluation... $100,000 ..............
Evaluate Air Bag Safety Campaign........ .............. $500,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 100,000 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for Increases
Additional funding for Occupant Protection Research is needed to
support the President's Belt Use Plan and will be used to develop and
test ways of reaching low use target groups and identifying more
effective ways to upgrade, enforce, and publicize occupant protection
laws. It will also be used for developing methods for increasing proper
use of child safety seats.
Additional funding for Speed and Aggressive Driving Research is
needed to initiate a study of the increased crash risk associated with
specific types of speeding. A fleet of vehicles will be equipped with
low cost data recorders that will measure when, and under what
circumstances, the vehicles are driven above the posted limit. This
project will provide critical information on the situations and
circumstances in which speeding elevates crash risk and will allow the
development of targeted enforcement focused on the situations where
speeding is most likely to cause crashes.
Additional funding for Pedestrian and Bicycle Research will be used
to initiate a large city demonstration program to determine the
combined effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures directed at
all ages of pedestrians (young to old). This demonstration program
should provide convincing evidence to other cities of the cost
effectiveness of reducing their pedestrian crash problem.
Additional funding for Driver Education Research will focus on the
development of a two-phase driver education program designed to
complement graduated licensing programs currently being implemented by
the states. The two-phase driver education program will provide the
young novice driver with opportunity to acquire more supervised driving
experience, with gradually increasing responsibility.
New funding for Emergency Medical Services Research is needed to
reduce rural preventable mortality and to evaluate pre-hospital care to
ensure that it is delivered efficiently and effectively. Funding for
Emergency Medical Services Research has been moved to the research
office to take advantage of the greater research and evaluation
expertise and experience so that only research of the highest quality
is produced.
Additional funding for Program Evaluation is will evaluate major
activities resulting from the agency's efforts to increase safety belt
and child safety seat use, the Air Bag Safety Campaign (ABSC), and the
Partners in Progress program. Special emphasis will be placed on
evaluating the impact of the legislative and enforcement efforts.
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee encouraged NHTSA
to work with several private sector organizations to ensure a smooth
transition away from dependence on Federal funding for highway traffic
safety programs. Please provide detailed information on how this has
been accomplished.
Answer. The National Traffic Law Center (NTLC), a component of the
American Prosecutors Research Institute, was started with funds from
NHTSA. After several years of funding, NHTSA is currently phasing out
its direct support of the Law Center. The NTLC is currently seeking
private sector funds to continue their service to the prosecutorial
community.
A number of programs that were nurtured during their infancy with
NHTSA funds, such as the Network of Employers in Traffic Safety (NETS),
have been taken over by coalitions of public and private sector groups
that have raised sufficient funds to sustain their programs independent
of the government. NHTSA still participates in these activities, but as
a coalition member rather than its sole source of funding. NHTSA has
helped create several valuable organizations and programs, including
those cited above. These organizations can, however, compete for NHTSA
funding to provide specific products and needs. In some cases, they may
be the best source for specific products or services.
occupant protection research
Question. How does this program differ with the National Occupant
Protection Program?
Answer. This program provides research and evaluation support for
the National Occupant Protection Program. The research program provides
basic and applied research in such areas as risk taking, general
deterrence, behavior modification, obstacles to enforcement, effect of
public information, etc. It also provides evaluation support for the
National Program by documenting program implementation activities in
states and localities. In addition, the research program monitors
public attitudes, knowledge, and reported behaviors related to seat
belts and child safety seats.
Information from the Research Program is applied by the National
Occupant Protection Program in its development of program plans and
strategies to increase occupant restraint usage nationwide. Large scale
examples have included the development of the Operation Buckle Down
Program and Campaign Safe and Sober. These programs operationalized the
results of findings from both the occupant protection and the impaired
driver research efforts.
older driver research
Question. Last year, in Senate Report 104-325 the Committee
indicated that NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration
activities for technologies and practices intended to improve driver
performance of older drivers at risk of losing their licenses. How is
it reflected in the fiscal year 1998 budget request and in the fiscal
year 1997 spending plan for TSP? Please be certain to break out
activities and specific funding levels for each activity.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the agency has included a project
($298 thousand) to complete the development of a model system to screen
and assess older drivers and to develop a plan for demonstrating the
acceptability and effectiveness of the model system. To improve our
understanding of what the general public, older people and their care
givers know and think should be done about licensing and mobility of
older people we will conduct a nationally representative survey ($321
thousand). The latter is needed to see what support there is for
different activities surrounding the licensing issues of seniors, such
as paying for alternative transportation, need and payment for more
extensive assessment, and issuance of limited or graded licenses.
The fiscal year 1998 budget includes a project ($200 thousand to
initiate a demonstration of this model system. This field test will
determine whether evaluating functionally impaired individuals can be
effective in enabling these individuals to drive safely within their
capabilities. It is expected to continue into fiscal year 2001. Further
analyses of the relationships between medical conditions, functional
disabilities and crash risk will be done to further refine which groups
of older drivers pose an unacceptable risk ($100 thousand). Work to
reduce the potential for losing mobility research on training
functionally disabled drivers to overcome their weakness will continue
($100 thousand).
Question. What have been the continuing efforts of NHTSA to improve
the safe mobility of older drivers? What are the results achieved
during the last year?
Answer. NHTSA staff have been at the forefront of activities to
improve the safe mobility of older drivers. The agency's research
program has had a major role in developing the Secretarial initiative
on ``Improving Transportation for a Maturing Society;'' it has affected
the restructuring of research needs of the Transportation Research
Board's (TRB) Committee on the Safe Mobility of Older Persons; and it
has conducted several research activities dealing with safe mobility of
older persons.
Studies completed in the last year include: ``Improving
Transportation for a Maturing Society'' (Secretarial initiative to
appraise the current status and future needs for transportation in our
maturing society); ``Safety Wheel Program'' (developed guidelines for
individuals and social service agencies to assist older drivers);
``Development of Statistical Relationships Between Vehicle Crash Rates,
Moving Violations and Age-related Physical and Mental Limitations''
(analyzed selected data bases and developed a model establishing the
relationships needed to identify older driver groups that are at an
unacceptable risk); ``Family and Friends Concerned About an Older
Driver'' (identified what role families and friends have in dealing
with older, functionally disabled drivers and provides guidance to
these individuals); ``Mobility Consequences of the Reduction or
Cessation of Driving by Older Persons (determined how people reduced or
stopped driving and what the consequences were of these changes); and
``A Combined Study: Improving the Safe Mobility of Older Persons and
Measures for Increasing the Mobility of Aging Commonwealth Citizens.''
(identified what needs to be done to keep older persons safe as drivers
and to provide mobility to the aging population).
Question. What is NHTSA doing to demonstrate new approaches in the
licensing of older drivers in fiscal year 1997? During fiscal year
1998? What is the status of research being conducted and is it behind
schedule? How have these demonstrations of improved screening been
effective?
Answer. During fiscal year 1997, NHTSA is completing a series of
studies that will develop a model screening and evaluation system for
older drivers. The model system brings together all the earlier studies
conducted to identify at-risk older drivers and assess their driving
performance. NHTSA is also developing the field test plan to evaluate
the model system. These activities are currently on schedule.
During fiscal year 1998 a field test of the model system will begin
in one or more states. This effort will be designed to determine if a
graded license system is effective in providing safe mobility for
older, functionally limited people. Until such field tests are
complete, NHTSA will not know whether such activities are effective or
feasible.
Question. Please discuss how you used the GM settlement monies to
supplement appropriated older driver research monies? How much did you
allocate for this purpose?
Answer. The GM settlement monies on older driver research are being
used to fund a new program to assist and encourage self regulation
activities of older drivers. One of the studies will determine whether
the risk associated with older drivers is primarily to themselves to
others. Where appropriate, it will deal with ways to reduce premature
driving cessation which can best be handled by the private sector
versus driver licensing groups. GM is funding the program for $5
million over a five-year period of time.
driver education
Question. What activities would cease if this program was held to
the 1997 level?
Answer. The agency requested level funding for driver education for
fiscal year 1998 ($400,000). These funds would continue to support the
development of a risk management training module and parent
participation materials for novice drivers, and provide incremental
funding for Michigan's graduated licensing system evaluation.
Without these funds it will be difficult to support driver
education as an element of a graduated licensing system.
emergency medical services research
Question. Why is this program being funded as a separate research
item, instead of out of the program budget?
Answer. EMS research is being funded from the Office of Research
and Traffic Records. Directing the EMS research program from this
office enhances the program by utilizing staff with specialized
research skills and background. The research office and the program
office work closely on these projects, sharing progress reports,
interpretations and insights, and developing joint plans for follow-on
activities.
Question. Did the program budget take a $225,000 cut to reflect
this transfer?
Answer. The EMS program did not take a cut. The research was
covered within the Office of Research and Traffic Records budget,
allowing the EMS budget to be directed to other program activities,
including revision of the EMS Blueprint for Education and Practice,
development of additional technical assistance programs for emergency
communications issues, and conducting a national conference for the EMS
Agenda for the Future.
safety program evaluation
Question. Why can't this program be conducted as part of your new
initiative under air bags or under other Section 403 activities?
Answer. The safety program evaluation effort has been created in
response to an increase in major legislative and program events
currently being implemented either by the states or by the agency.
This effort focuses on events or programs which have the potential
for nationwide or statewide impact. Examples include special traffic
enforcement program (STEP) demonstrations, public information and
enforcement efforts implemented in the states as part of the Air Bag
Safety Campaign, the passage of primary laws and the repeal of
motorcycle helmet laws in various states, implementation of a multitude
of efforts within the President's Initiative to Increase Safety Belt
Usage and within the Partners for Progress Program, the graduated
licensing movement, etc.
Some program areas have provided funds to help evaluate initiatives
within their domain. However, most programs do not have sufficient
resources to fund all of the desired implementation efforts, much less
program implementation and evaluations. This is particularly true in
the occupant protection area where the President's Plan requires a
significant increase in program and outreach activity. It is also true
of smaller program areas, such as in motorcycle safety, where resources
are constrained but where major changes are occurring (e.g. repeal of
motorcycle helmet laws).
The unpredictability of many major events provides additional need
for resources dedicated to program evaluation. The passage of primary
laws and repeal of motorcycle helmet laws are examples of such events,
but there are many more. They include zero tolerance for youth, upgrade
of child passenger safety laws, graduated licensing, statewide roadside
sobriety checkpoints, child passenger safety ``correct use'' clinics,
statewide implementation of increased sanctions for repeat offenders,
etc.
In order to measure impact, an evaluation effort must be
implemented very quickly following the occurrence of an events. This
immediacy adds to the need for funds available specifically for
evaluation purposes.
driver fatigue and inattention
Question. Senate Report 104-325 directed NHTSA to prepare a report
on driver fatigue and inattention, describing the collaborative efforts
and funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep
Disorders Research. Please provide the status and findings of this
report, and whether it is on schedule.
Answer. The report is being prepared. It was delayed briefly by the
initial need for major collaborative efforts between the two agencies.
In August 1996, NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep Disorders
Research (NCSDR) signed an interagency agreement.
One of the first actions initiated by this cooperative agreement
provided funds for NCSDR to convene a panel of experts to establish
guidelines, boundaries, and oversight for NHTSA's program development
projects. The NCSDR recruited a chairperson and ten members from highly
regarded professionals in sleep research and highway safety.
Panel meetings included NCSDR and NHTSA staff, as well as a project
contractors' staff. The Panel has now reviewed information in four
areas: mechanisms of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of
drowsy driving crashes, population groups at highest risk, and
effective drowsy driving countermeasures. The Panel recently made
targeting recommendations to the NHTSA contractor and is completing its
written report.
NCSDR and NHTSA are negotiating a new interagency agreement, funded
at about $200,000. These funds would support the NCSDR's effort to
create and disseminate drowsy-driving information to school age drivers
in cooperation with private-sector partners.
The forthcoming report will list panel members, the panel's
recommendations to NHTSA, and details of NCSDR's fiscal year 1997
program.
Question. Please present an updated chart showing which projects
have been funded, their purposes, amounts and participants. Please
present a similar updated chart showing a schedule of anticipated
projects. When were these contracts signed? What are the challenges
that remain in developing this program?
Answer. All the components of the development program are currently
in place and the evaluation and implementation components are in the
final phases of award, as summarized in the tables below. The primary
challenge will be to keep the projects on schedule in order to meet the
Summer 1998 deadline.
FUNDED PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount and
Project Purpose date Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyze role of fatigue, sleep Describe characteristics of $130,000 National Center on Sleep
disorders, & inattention (FSDI) in FSDI crashes. 8/14/96 Disorders Research.
highway crashes. Identify subgroups most at
risk.
Investigate instances of fatigue- Observe drivers during fatigue- 100,000 NHTSA Vehicle Research
related events in motor-vehicle related inattention incidents. 9/23/96 and Test Center.
operation. Establish characteristics of
inattention.
Develop and test educational Specify target populations.... 175,000 Harvard Univ. School of
countermeasures for fatigue-related Determine message themes 6/26/96 Public Health.
highway crashes. (content).
Establish motivational
approaches.
Establish dissemination
strategies.
Develop strategy and lay foundation Determine campaign objectives 325,000 Global Exchange, Inc.
for education and information & target audience. 9/20/96
campaign. Determine content, strategy, &
media mix.
Prepare and test draft
materials.
Refine materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTICIPATED PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedted
Project Purpose amount Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluate information and education Determine appropriate outcome $500,000 Systems Assessment and
campaign to combat fatigue-related measures & evaluation design. Research, Inc.
highway crashes. Choose evaluation sites
Collect pre- and post-campaign
data.
Evaluate campaign.
Recommend revisions.
Promulgate the educational program to Identify communities, \1\ 370,000 To be arranged.
implementation sites. organizations and \2\ 200,000
associations that serve
appropriate target group
constituencies.
Create interest in program
implementation.
Award competitive grants to
support implementation
activities.
Provide program materials to
implementors.
Conduct supplementary implementation Adapt campaign themes for use 200,000 National Center on Sleep
activities. in ongoing educational Disorders Research
programs for target audiences.
Produce and disseminate
supplementary materials
through appropriate channels
to reach target audience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Materials production & program management costs.
\2\ Grants to implementing organizations.
Question. What new findings have resulted from research to
determine the role of sleep disorders or fatigue as a causal factor in
traffic crashes?
Answer. The objective of NHTSA's research efforts has been to
develop an education program to reduce driving while fatigued. At the
present time, there is no known way to measure the presence of fatigue
among drivers. Thus experts differ in their assessments of the role of
fatigue in crashes. NHTSA and NCSDR have agreed not to dwell on the
differing estimates of the magnitude of the problem.
Rather, the two agencies have agreed to conduct research to
identify the most likely targets of fatigue-related driving, develop
messages appropriate for such targets, and develop and demonstrate
educational programs incorporating such messages.
Members of the NCSDR panel concur with the view that more extensive
knowledge about the role of fatigue in crashes will require some yet
undiscovered method for reliably assessing the level of fatigue of
crash-involved drivers.
Question. What progress has been made in the development and
implementation of public education programs?
Answer. The contractors responsible for the development of the
education program have actively participated with NCSDR's expert panel,
developed preliminary definitions of target groups, and have recently
received the panel's recommendations for refinement of these groups.
Selection and interview protocols for discussions with members of
potential target groups are under development. Focus groups are planned
for late summer or early fall. Although there was some delay due to the
initial collaboration effort, the contractors remain optimistic that
they will meet the original goal for completing program development by
summer, 1998.
The basic strategy for implementing the educational program has
been established and a contract is about to be awarded for marketing
the demonstration effort and for supporting program implementation in
the communities and organizations selected for the demonstration
effort.
Question. What is planned for fiscal year 1998, and how is this
reflected in the budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations fully support
the development and implementation of the educational program and the
evaluation of its effectiveness. NHTSA's fiscal year 1998 budget
request does not contain any funds for drowsy-driver education. The
agency will establish plans for funding future efforts in this area
after reviewing results of the evaluation of the program currently
under development. The results and recommendations of the evaluation
are expected by summer of 1999.
research and analysis crashworthiness research program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs in the
Crashworthiness Research Budget for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. The table summarizing the fiscal year 1995-1997 budget
requests and the amounts enacted is shown below for the Safety Systems
and Biomechanics programs of the agency's Crashworthiness Research
Program.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Research area Action --------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems................................. Request....................... 6,050 6,000 6,500
Enacted....................... 7,050 5,910 6,488
Biomechanics................................... Request....................... 4,500 7,450 7,450
Enacted....................... 5,600 5,890 7,437
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for both of the programs in the
Crashworthiness Research Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The following table provides a comparison of the Safety
Systems program expenditures, by activities, for the fiscal year 1997
program to the proposed funding level for the fiscal year 1998 program.
SAFETY SYSTEMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -----------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection...................... 1,888 1,365
Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection..................... 1,000 1,100
Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility.............. 1,000 1,300
Upgrade Side Crash Protection......................... 1,500 1,338
Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems.................... 700 1,385
Electric/Alternatively Fueled Vehicles................ 400 .......
Advanced Air Bag Research............................. ....... 1,850
-----------------
Totals.......................................... 6,488 8,338
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional funds requested for the Advanced Air Bag Research
($1.85 million) are for continuing research that will focus on the
development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air bag systems
that build upon the short-term technological solutions to air bag
problems identified in the field experience, including those of
injuries resulting from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to
children). For the advanced air bag systems under development, research
will be conducted to identify the better performing systems, evaluate
their best features, and determine the need for performance
requirements regarding these systems. The research will identify the
necessary performance characteristics of an advanced air bag system so
that it will reduce or prevent air bag induced injuries. Based on these
characteristics, a comprehensive set of tests will be defined to ensure
the advanced air bag system will not cause injury. Further, these tests
will ensure the air bag system provides effective restraint for
normally seated occupants over the range of occupant sizes, while
mitigating inflation injuries to out-of-position occupants. Finally,
laboratory test procedures will be defined. The following table
provides a comparison of the Biomechanics program expenditures, by
activities, for the fiscal year 1997 program to the proposed funding
level for the fiscal year 1998 program.
BIOMECHANICS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -----------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Traffic Injury Studies........................ ....... 1,200
Impact Injury Research................................ ....... 2,200
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis.................. ....... 1,937
Crash Test Dummy Component Development................ ....... 2,100
Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries...................... ....... 3,150
-----------------
Total........................................... ....... 10,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional funds requested for Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries
($3.15 million) will be directed toward efforts that will: (1) upgrade
the capabilities and specificity of various sized, currently available
test dummy systems to allow their near-term use as regulatory
instruments in out-of-position testing, (2) continue efforts to develop
and provide the best current injury criteria for evaluating safety
system performance and initiate new research efforts to improve or
address gaps in injury mechanism knowledge for critical body regions
such as the head, neck, and chest, and (3) initiate necessary
modifications and improvements to the various sized dummies that will
increase their capabilities to accurately evaluate inflation related
injury risks.
safety systems
Question. Please break down in extensive detail on a project-by-
project basis the amount of funding requested for Safety Systems in the
fiscal year 1998 request, and compare these expenditures, by
activities, to the fiscal year 1996 and the fiscal year 1997 program.
Please demonstrate the continuity or completion of research in your
answer.
Answer. The following table provides a breakdown of the funding for
the projects during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 along with
the funding request for fiscal year 1998:
SAFETY SYSTEMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity --------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection............. 1,810 1,888 1,365
Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection............ 1,000 1,000 1,100
Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility..... 500 1,000 1,300
Upgrade Side Crash Protection................ 1,500 1,500 1,338
Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems........... 700 700 1,385
Electric/Alternatively Fueled Vehicles....... 400 400 .......
Advanced Air Bag Research.................... ....... ....... 1,850
--------------------------
Totals................................. 5,910 6,488 8,338
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in the table, funding adjustments have been made in
each of the continued activities for fiscal year 1998. These
adjustments reflect the particular requirements for fiscal year 1998.
In each of the activities, continuity has been preserved. Due to the
scope of the research required to address the problem of the fatalities
and injuries that current aggressive air bag designs are causing in
relatively low speed crashes to a small, but growing, number of
children, and occasionally to adult occupants, the funding for the
supporting efforts has been requested in the newly added activity,
Advanced Air Bag Research. Again, the research planned for fiscal year
1998 builds upon the results achieved during fiscal year 1997.
Question. What new research has been performed with the additional
funds allocated last year?
Answer. The additional allocated funds last year were used in the
Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility Program. However, the emphasis
within this program was redirected to focus on providing an immediate,
but interim, solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries
that current aggressive air bag designs are causing in relatively low
speed crashes to a small, but growing, number of children, and
occasionally to adult occupants. This effort led to the Final Rule
announced on March 19, 1997, that allows manufacturers to provide
depowered air bag systems that will inflate less aggressively.
Question. Please provide an updated discussion on the progress made
in implementing the strategic plan for heavy truck research.
Answer. In June 1995, NHTSA developed a strategic plan outlining
the future direction of the Heavy Truck Safety Research Program. The
proposed implementation plan for the research was based on the
assumption that sufficient funding would be available for the research
projects. A brief discussion of ongoing research projects is given
below:
The trucking industry has identified driver fatigue as their number
one safety issue. In cooperation with the FHWA's Office of Motor
Carriers, the trucking industry, and various other research entities, a
major program is underway to address this issue. NHTSA's portion of
that program is focused on developing and facilitating deployment of
high-technology in-vehicle systems that will be capable of detecting
the onset of drowsiness and providing warning to the driver. Prototype
systems have been developed, and a long-term on-road test of these
systems in actual service is just beginning. That research is expected
to determine how effective, reliable, and durable such devices are, and
it will identify areas where additional development is needed.
A major stumbling block to the deployment of high-technology safety
systems on heavy combination vehicles is a means for providing reliable
electrical powering and communication between truck tractors and the
trailers they pull. The agency has two cooperative research agreements
under which prototype high-technology tractor-trailer units have been
built, each using somewhat different approaches to address the same
problem. Two of these combinations are now in actual revenue service,
one in the Eastern United States, and one on the West Coast. This field
test will continue for 18 months.
Research is also underway to develop on-board sensors to detect
incipient rollover, and for wheel-by-wheel brake performance
monitoring. These sensors hold promise for possible future interaction
with infrastructure-based systems and electronic braking to reduce the
incidence of heavy truck rollovers, particularly on expressway exit
ramps.
In addition to research directed at future high-technology safety
improvements, the agency has ongoing research projects to support the
promulgation and enforcement of its Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. The agency is conducting research on truck brake performance
testing, truck tire performance, and truck cab integrity in support of
the agency's regulatory efforts.
Question. Many of the activities being conducted in this area could
also be conducted by the private sector. Please define the public
purposes being served, the scope and the nature of any cost sharing,
and the amounts received from the private sector.
Please describe how NHTSA's research does not overlap that
conducted by the private sector.
Answer. The agency is concerned with the approximately 40,000
fatalities and the millions of injuries that occur each year on the
nation's highways. The focus of the industry has been on two issues.
The first is committing substantial resources for ensuring that
manufacturers' fleets meet the requirements of the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. Their immediate concern is to provide
depowered air bag systems as quickly as possible to address the problem
of the fatalities and injuries that current aggressive air bag designs
are causing in relatively low speed crashes. Second, the industry has
focused its energy on reducing the costs of the current safety systems
in order to remain competitive, both domestically and abroad.
Conversely, NHTSA's efforts are directed at expanding the performance
envelope of the vehicle safety systems. The agency develops test
procedures and demonstrates advanced safety systems, including advanced
air bag and occupant restraint designs, thus advancing the safety
technology and crash performance of these systems. As part of this
activity, the agency has entered into cooperative agreements with the
industry to utilize the advanced technology that the industry is
developing and to encourage activity in areas in which the industry is
not involved. To date, the agency has been successful in not
overlapping the research being conducted by the private sector.
biomechanics
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, NHTSA was urged to redouble its
efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with other organizations
which benefit from the center. What progress has been made in that
area?
Answer. In spite of the fact that the National Transportation
Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC) allocated significant time and
resources to address urgent air bag issues, it still made significant
progress in its efforts to obtain cooperation commitments from other
organizations. NTBRC engaged several organizations in an effort to
increase interagency and interorganization cooperation in biomechanics
research. The following list gives some of the principal cooperative
efforts between NTBRC and outside organizations:
U.S. Army's Walter Reed Institute of Research.--Collaboration to
study head impact biomechanics.
Occupant Safety Restraint Panel, Honda R&D, Volvo, Transport
Research Laboratory of the United Kingdom, Japan Automotive Research
Institute/Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.--NTBRC cooperation on advanced dummy test
and evaluation efforts. Further cooperative advanced dummy test and
evaluation efforts are planned this year with Japan Automotive Research
Institute/Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Volvo, Autoliv
(Sweden), ADRIA Consortium (TNO, University of Madrid, Transport
Research Laboratory of the United Kingdom), Occupant Safety Restraint
Panel, Federal Office of Road Safety (Australia), Autoliv (Australia),
New Car Assessment Program of Australia.
Transport Canada.--Cooperative efforts on small female dummies.
American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Association of
International Automotive Manufacturers, and American Occupant Restraint
Council.--Cooperation on advanced air bag technology assessment
methodologies.
U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory.--Collaboration on development
of system for sharing biomechanics data.
Society of Automotive Engineers and the International Standards
Organization.--Cooperation on 5th-percentile female, 3- and 6-year-old
child Hybrid III dummies for air bag assessment.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Army.--
Collaboration for the development of impulsive thoracic injury
criteria.
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.--Collaboration
on the development of advanced instrumentation for the detection of
fast chest deflections.
U.S. Navy.--Collaboration on impact injury research, sharing of the
biomechanics data, and in development of small stature dummies.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.--Cooperation regarding biomechanics
related to smart air bag technologies.
crash avoidance research program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the two subprograms of the
Crash Avoidance Research Program for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. The information follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount
requested appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver/Vehicle Performance:
Fiscal year:
1995................................. ........... ............
1996................................. ........... ............
1997................................. 4,000 1,000
Heavy Vehicles:
Fiscal year:
1995................................. 597 597
1996................................. 597 517
1997................................. 597 595
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the two subprograms in
the Crash Avoidance Research Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for each of
those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please
justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------
1998 1997
requested appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver/Vehicle Performance:
ABS Driver/Vehicle Performance........... 800 700
Light Vehicle Rollover Propensity........ 200 250
Non-planar Mirror Driver Performance..... ........... 50
--------------------------
Total.................................. 1,000 1,000
==========================
Heavy Vehicles:
Brake Test Instrumentation & Procedures.. 495 374
Crashworthiness Test Procedures.......... 100 200
Update Tire Performance Database......... ........... 21
--------------------------
Total.................................. 595 595
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification of the need for increased funding: The fiscal year
1998 request represents the same funding levels for each of the
subprograms; namely, the driver/vehicle performance and heavy vehicles
research. Thus, no overall increase is requested. Within each of the
subprograms, there will be some shift of emphasis. The research
programs within both of these subprograms are primarily for the purpose
of supporting the agency's efforts to develop motor vehicle safety
standards and consumer information, and as such are typically ongoing,
multi-year efforts. However, different aspects of a particular problem
may be studied in different years, as the needs of the Safety
Performance Standards of the agency dictate.
driver/vehicle performance
Question. This program was initiated in 1997; when will it be
completed? Do you anticipate that it will be a permanent program?
Answer. It is not really correct to say that this program was
initiated in 1997. Throughout the history of the agency, there has
always been a program of research in the area of driver/vehicle
performance. With the advent of the Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) program, all of the agency's crash avoidance research was
directed toward development of countermeasures for collision
prevention, using intelligent technologies. The budget for this NHTSA
research has been part of the ITS budget for the past several years.
However, there is an ongoing need for crash avoidance research to
support NHTSA's regulatory responsibilities, such as braking, lighting,
visibility, controls and displays. By reinstating driver/vehicle
performance as a separate, non-ITS line item in fiscal year 1997 in the
NHTSA budget, the agency has been able to initiate research on two
critical current safety issues--light vehicle ABS and rollover
propensity. Work on these two areas will continue in fiscal year 1998,
and the ABS research is expected to be completed in fiscal year 1999.
However, there is a backlog of other safety issues relating to
lighting, mirrors, etc., that need to be studied. This program is
expected to continue as long as the agency continues its activities in
promulgating motor vehicle safety standards, in providing consumer
information, and its enforcement efforts. There will always be new
technologies and products that are introduced by manufacturers which
will present new challenges in vehicle safety performance. Without
ongoing research to understand how new technologies affect driver and
safety performance, products that are intended to make driving easier
and vehicles safer could actually have adverse effects on highway
safety. It is therefore important that NHTSA continue its research
activities in conventional collision avoidance technologies.
Question. How is NHTSA merging the AVCS program with the AHS
initiative? What cost savings can be realized and how is this reflected
in the fiscal year 1998 request?
Answer. The relationship between all vehicle-related ITS programs
within DOT is currently being reviewed. This review includes the NHTSA
collision avoidance and post-crash activities, as well as the work of
the National Automated Highway System Consortium. The review has not
yet been completed and no recommendations have yet been made that would
result in changes in funding for either program.
heavy vehicles
Question. Heavy Vehicles--How does this research overlap with motor
carrier research in federal highways, and with the MCSAP?
Answer. The NHTSA Heavy Vehicle research program complements, but
does not overlap, the research being done by the FHWA's Office of Motor
Carrier (OMC). NHTSA's research is directed toward the development of
test equipment and procedure to evaluate the safety performance of new
vehicles, in areas such as braking performance, stability, visibility,
crashworthiness, etc. The program of the OMC concentrate on operational
issues such as maintenance, inspection, driver fitness for duty, etc.
NHTSA and FHWA/OMC work very closely together, and often coordinate
their activities when the needs of both agencies can be met by
cooperative on-road test programs that will serve both purposes.
national center for statistics and analysis (ncsa)
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the six programs in the NCSA
Budget for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Appropriated Request Appropriated Request Appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARS.............................. 4,338 4,251 5,000 4,585 5,251 5,242
NASS.............................. 8,359 9,086 9,500 9,200 9,675 9,658
Data Analysis..................... 1,824 1,479 2,000 1,414 2,100 1,635
State Data Program................ 1,436 1,397 2,000 1,550 3,850 3,041
Restraint Usage Data.............. .......... ............ .......... ............ 300 300
Special Crash Investigations...... 315 310 315 315 331 331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the six programs in
the NCSA Program, showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal
year 1998 are intended to be spent, and please include in that table a
comparison with the amount provided for each of those activities for
fiscal year 1997. On a separate page, please justify the need for the
requested increases.
Answer. See table below.
FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYSTEM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Description ---------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 Cooperative Agreements with States, DC, and
Puerto Rico...................................... 4,102 4,102
Quality Control................................... 25 25
Analyst Training.................................. 225 225
Data Processing................................... 890 890
---------------------
Total....................................... 5,242 5,242
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE SAMPLING SYSTEM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Description ---------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Data Collection and QC: 24 Teams and 2
Quality Control Units............................ 6,254 6,318
Contract Closeouts: Payments of Post Contract
Audits........................................... 60 100
CDS Data Revision: Changes and modifications for
new and revised data collec- tion............... ......... 50
Field Training: NASS researchers and other
Federal, State and Local government employees.... 330 330
Maintenance and enhancements to the crash
reconstruction program........................... 75 50
Field Systems Oversight and Support............... 303 328
NASS CDS ADP, File Storage and Distribution....... 1,391 1,270
NASS GES ADP...................................... 660 675
Converting from Paper to Electronic Data
Collection....................................... 585 537
---------------------
Total....................................... 9,658 9,658
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATA ANALYSIS PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
----------------------
Products and activities 1997 1998
budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytic Support................................. 500 500
Database Augmentation............................ 125 125
Sampling Support and Quality Control............. 660 660
Customer Service Support......................... 350 350
Clinical Study of Injuries Associated with Air
Bag Deployment.................................. ......... 289
(Exposure Data Collection--Pilot Test)........... ......... (1,000)
----------------------
Total...................................... 1,635 1,924
------------------------------------------------------------------------
data analysis
Justification for increase
The proposed increase for the Data Analysis program is to support
the clinical study of injuries associated with air bag deployment as
part of the Agency's efforts to obtain detailed information on the
critical aspects of these injuries. This funding will support an
interagency agreement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) to obtain data on a sample of cases of injuries treated in
hospital emergency rooms through CPSC's National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS).
STATE DATA PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
Products and activities 1997 1998
budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Acquisition and Processing................... 658 700
State Data Enhancement and Technical/Analytical
Assistance....................................... 150 250
Research New Data Linking Strategies and Evaluate
Linked Medical Outcome and Crash Databases....... ......... 75
Promote Linked Medical Outcome and Crash Data
among State and Local Agen- cies................ 310 206
Assist State and Local Agencies in Data Linkage... 323 310
Data Linkage Grant Program for New States......... 1,600 1,500
---------------------
Total....................................... 3,041 3,041
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCCUPANT PROTECTION PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
Products and activities 1997 1998
budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey and Sample Design Revisions and Other
Survey Preparations.............................. ......... 70
Conduct a National Occupant Protection Use Survey. 100 200
Tabulate, Analyze, and Publish Survey Results..... 200 30
---------------------
Total....................................... 300 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL CRASH INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Description ---------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations of Special Crashes of Interest to
NHTSA............................................ 264 964
Quality Control and Data Management............... 58 58
File Storage and Distribution..................... 9 9
---------------------
Total....................................... 331 1,031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
special crash investigations
Justification for increase
This increase in data collection is an essential part of the
Department's Air Bag Assessment Program. The Special Crash
Investigations (SCI) program provides detailed information about
crashes of special interest that are not included in the NASS CDS
program. The NASS CDS is a probability sample of all motor vehicle
crashes, thus it cannot provide information on all air bag crashes
involving serious or fatal injuries. The SCI is a quick reaction crash
investigation activity in which an investigator is sent to the crash
site when we learn of serious air bag crashes. It is a small program
currently operating at about $0.3 million per year. Additional funds
were requested in fiscal year 1998 to increase the number of field
investigators in this program. This increase in investigators will
result in more than 175 real-world crash investigations per year,
including ``depowered'' air bag equipped vehicles and all passenger
side air bag related child injury cases that NHTSA discovers. The cost
of the increased operations is $1.03 million per year.
data analysis program
Question. Please further explain the need for an additional
$300,000 in fiscal year 1998. Why can't the study on air bag deployment
injuries be conducted within the base program or at the injury trauma
centers within the base amount?
Answer. The additional $300,000 requested in the fiscal year 1998
funding for the Data Analysis Program will provide for collection of a
sample of cases on injuries related to air bag deployment in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS). NEISS, a three (3)-level system consisting
of surveillance of emergency room injuries; follow-back telephone
interviews with injured persons or witnesses; and comprehensive
investigations with injured persons and/or witnesses, obtains data from
a sample of 91 of the 6,127 hospitals nationwide with at least six beds
that provide emergency care on a continuing 24-hour basis. The agency
used NEISS in the past as a cost-effective way to obtain data on
injuries associated with motor vehicle hazards that are non-crash
related (e.g., injuries associated with the inadvertent closing/
malfunctioning power windows; battery explosions) as a basis for
developing national estimates of the injuries associated with these
hazards.
Question. What are the implications of holding Data Analysis to the
fiscal year 1997 level?
Answer. Holding the fiscal year 1998 Data Analysis budget to the
fiscal year 1997 level will impact two critical areas; in providing
support to the agency's air bag research initiative and in the ability
to meet the agency's analytical needs in general. Collection of data on
a larger sample of injuries associated with air bag deployment via the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) will not be possible at the fiscal year
1997 funding level, thus limiting the amount of valuable data available
to the agency on this critical issue. Data analysis activities provide
a great deal of leverage on highway safety activities for a very modest
investment. Analysis is used in NHTSA to help support state efforts to
pass tougher alcohol, safety belt use, and traffic enforcement laws.
Analysis also supports wide ranging rulemaking and enforcement
activities in the agency. During fiscal year 1997, analytical support
is being provided to study the impact of a wide range of safety issues,
e.g., increased speed limits, effects of specific alcohol legislation,
injuries associated with specific motor vehicle hazards, etc.
occupant protection use survey
Question. Why did the program receive no money in 1996 if a survey
was conducted that year?
Answer. Data collection for the 1996 National Occupant Protection
Use Survey was conducted during the months of October, November and
part of December, 1996. fiscal year 1997 funds were available for this
period.
partnership for a new generation of vehicles (pngv)
Question. How have NHTSA's efforts been coordinated with those of
DOE and DOC?
Answer. The agency has provided frequent input to DOC regarding its
activities and budget requests for NHTSA's PNGV program support.
Furthermore, the agency has given a formal briefing in Detroit to DOC,
DOE, and USCAR regarding the specific details of the efforts both
underway as well as planned.
Question. Please rank the various PNGV activities in order of
importance. Please identify activities which absolutely must be funded
during fiscal year 1998, and the ones that were funded in fiscal year
1997.
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, funds were requested for
crashworthiness and other safety related research ($3.5 million),
infrastructure analysis ($1.2 million), and peer review of the PNGV
program ($0.3 million). Funds were approved only for the
crashworthiness and other safety related research ($2.496 million). The
fiscal year 1998 budget request ($2.496) is to provide for the
continuation of the crashworthiness and other safety related research
that was approved for the previous fiscal year. This must be funded in
order for the agency to achieve its goal to ensure that the PNGV
developed vehicles will meet existing and anticipated safety standards
and that the overall crash and other safety attributes are not
compromised by their light weight and the use of new advanced materials
used in the production of the vehicles. This is important as the latest
projections indicate that the PNGV developed vehicles may be ``down
weighted'' by approximately 40 percent in order to achieve the fuel
economy goals of the program. NHTSA recently released a summary report
backed by six technical studies describing how a vehicle's size affects
the safety of its occupants and the safety of those sharing the road.
One of the six studies found that the fatal crash rate for passenger
cars increased by 1.1 percent for each 100-pound decrease in passenger
car weight. The injury crash rate for these vehicles increased by 1.6
percent for each such reduction. These findings suggest that a future
100-pound reduction in passenger car weight, unless offset by safety
improvements, could result in an estimated 302 additional fatalities
and 1,823 moderate-to-critical injuries per year.
Question. What funds has the NHTSA spent, or plan to spend on non-
safety aspects of PNGV? How much has been spent on economic analysis,
market-penetration studies, industry impact, and regulatory impact
evaluations?
Answer. NHTSA has not spent any money during fiscal year 1997 nor
has planned to spend any money during fiscal year 1998 on the non-
safety aspects of PNGV. For fiscal year 1998, NHTSA plans to continue
the crashworthiness and other safety related research begun in fiscal
year 1997.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount requested
and the amount actually appropriated for the three subcomponent of the
General Administration budget for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
Answer. The information follows.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 1996 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------
Request Enacted Request Enacted Request Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program evaluation.................................. 489 475 489 480 475 474
Strategic planning.................................. 200 100 200 ........ 325 75
Economic analysis................................... 100 100 75 75 175 75
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 789 675 764 555 975 624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the three
subcomponents in the General Administration budget showing how all of
the funds requested for fiscal year 1998 are intended to be spent, and
please include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for
each of those activities for fiscal year 1997. On a separate page,
please justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 funding request for each of the three
subcomponents of General Administration are the same as the fiscal year
1997 enacted level. Within the Program Evaluation subcomponent there
are differences in funding amounts for each activity between 1997 and
1998 because projects for a particular evaluation may be different in
scope.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
Program evaluation project 1998 planned
funding 1997 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Truck Conspicuity (Standard 108)
Evaluation............................. $75,000 $150,000
Support National Occupant Protection Use
Survey (Standard 208).................. 50,000 50,000
Improved Air Bag Technology (Standard
208)................................... 100,000 ..............
Cost Study of Latest Airbag Technology
(Standard 208)......................... 50,000 30,000
Child Safety Seat Registration Survey
(Standard 208)......................... 79,000 34,000
Cost Studies of other safety standards
(fiscal year 1998--Standards 214 cars,
201, 202, 203, 204 light trucks. Fiscal
year 1997--214 cars, 208 cars and light
trucks.)............................... 120,000 80,000
Domestic content Labeling (49 CFR Part
583)................................... .............. 130,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 474,000 474,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRATEGIC AND PROGRAM PLANNING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
Strategic and program planning project 1998 planned
funding 1997 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental scan and future plausible
events................................. .............. $60,000
Develop revised SEP..................... $50,000 ..............
Council for Continuous Improvement
membership fee......................... 15,000 15,000
Continuous improvement materials,
equipment and conference fees.......... 10,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 75,000 75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
Economic analysis project 1998 planned
funding 1997 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of pediatric derivative of
Functional Capacity Index continued in
fiscal year 1997 and published in
fiscal year 1998, literature survey
published in fiscal year 1997,
application of Functional Capacity
Index continued........................ $75,000 $75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategic planning program
Question. Please state the reasons for hiring an outside contractor
for $75,000 to improve the agency's strategic planning.
Answer. During fiscal year 1997 the agency used contractor support
to complete an environmental scan that identifies the changes in
external factors and future plausible events most likely to affect
highway safety to the year 2010. Included in the scan were general
demographic, lifestyle, and transportation issues.
Fiscal year 1998 funding will be used for the development of a
revised Strategic Execution Plan (SEP) in response to the Departmental
Strategic Plan, which will be completed in September, 1997. Contractor
facilitation and publication support will be used for the development
of the revised SEP. Fiscal year 1998 funding will also be used to move
forward the process improvements currently underway in the agency. This
includes membership in the Council for Continuous Improvement, which
provides access to a multitude of continuous improvement information,
documents, and techniques, and access to bench marking information.
Continuous improvement funding is also used for materials for in-house
support and training of process improvement teams and staff. If this
support were provided directly to agency staff by outside contractors,
the cost to the government would be at least 10 fold.
Question. For fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and planned for
fiscal year 1998, please provide a table similar to that found in last
year's Senate hearing record, showing the amount of funds spent or
allocated for non-mandatory awards and bonuses, PCS and overtime pay.
Answer. The information follows.
FUNDING FOR OVERTIME, BONUSES, AND AWARDS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
enacted enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Performance:
PCS................................ ......... ......... .........
Overtime........................... ......... 1 2
Bonuses/Awards..................... 80 61 68
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 80 62 70
================================
Safety Assurance:
PCS................................ ......... ......... .........
Overtime........................... 24 25 26
Bonuses/Awards..................... 84 86 95
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 108 111 121
================================
Highway Safety Program:
PCS \1\............................ 88 88 88
Overtime........................... 5 6 6
Bonuses/Awards..................... 182 172 190
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 275 266 284
================================
Research and Analysis:
PCS................................ ......... ......... .........
Overtime........................... ......... ......... .........
Bonuses/Awards..................... 94 110 121
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 94 110 121
================================
Office of the Administrator:
PCS................................ ......... ......... .........
Overtime........................... 4 4 5
Bonuses/Awards..................... 58 56 62
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 62 60 67
================================
General Administration:
PCS................................ ......... ......... .........
Overtime........................... 33 34 36
Bonuses/Awards..................... 113 104 115
--------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 146 138 151
================================
Grand Total:
PCS................................ 88 88 88
Overtime........................... 66 70 75
Bonuses/Awards..................... 611 589 650
--------------------------------
Total............................ 765 747 813
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AII PCS funds are allocated to the Highway Safety Program as the
predominant use is the transfer of field personnel to headquarters.
Question. Please prepare an updated table similar to last year's
Senate hearing record indicating the amount of funds for computer
support. Also provide a separate chart for communication systems for
each of the last three fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The following tables show the funding for computer support
and communication systems for the last three fiscal years and proposed
for fiscal year 1998.
COMPUTER SUPPORT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
----------------------------------------------------------------
1998
1974 1995 1996 1997 (proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Support............................... 2,042 2,552 2,711 2,711 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide updated tables similar to those in last
year's Senate hearing record on operating expenses, personnel
compensation, and benefits combined with operating expenses for each
major NHTSA program. Please compare the fiscal year 1997 appropriation
with the fiscal year 1998 request.
Answer. The information follows.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1997 Change
appropriation 1998 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Funds:
Personnel Compensation:
Permanent positions..................................... 38,567 38,979 412
Other than permanent positions.......................... 1,226 1,227 1
Other................................................... 676 695 19
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries....................................... 40,469 40,901 432
Personnel Benefits...................................... 7,463 7,503 40
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Benefits.......................... 47,932 48,404 472
Travel.................................................. 1,082 1,082 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses.......................... 49,014 49,486 472
===============================================
Allocation to Programs:
Safety Performance:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 6,862 6,938 76
Travel.................................................. 60 60 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 6,922 6,998 76
===============================================
Safety Assurance:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 7,440 7,523 83
Travel.................................................. 95 95 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 7,535 7,618 83
===============================================
Highway Safety Programs:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 14,634 14,735 101
Travel.................................................. 616 616 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 15,250 15,351 101
===============================================
Research and Analysis:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 9,534 9,641 107
Travel.................................................. 140 140 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 9,674 9,781 107
===============================================
Office of the Administrator/Staff Offices:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 2,961 2,994 33
Travel.................................................. 129 129 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 3,090 3,123 33
===============================================
General Administration:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 6,501 6,573 72
Travel.................................................. 42 42 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 6,543 6,615 72
===============================================
NHTSA:
Salaries and Benefits................................... 47,932 48,404 472
Travel.................................................. 1,082 1,082 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 49,014 49,486 472
===============================================
Use of Funds:
Headquarters operating expenses:
Personnel-related costs................................. 325 305 (20)
Administrative services................................. 2,790 2,791 1
Rent.................................................... .............. 4,593 4,593
WCF/TASC................................................ 2,894 3,451 557
Computer support........................................ 2,711 2,426 (285)
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, headquarters................................ 8,720 13,566 4,846
Field operating expenses.................................... 482 482 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total, operating expenses................................. 9,202 14,048 4,846
===============================================
Allocation to Programs:
Safety Performance: Headquarters expenses................... 1,479 2,301 822
Safety Assurance: Headquarters expenses..................... 1,573 2,447 874
Highway Safety Programs:
Headquarters expenses................................... 2,085 3,184 1,099
Field expenses (Regions)................................ 375 375 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 2,460 3,559 1,099
===============================================
Research and Analysis: Headquarters expenses................ 1,651 2,568 917
Office of the Administrator/Staff Offices: Headquarters
expenses................................................... 638 993 355
General Administration: Headquarters expenses............... 1,401 2,180 779
NHTSA:
Headquarters expenses................................... 8,827 13,673 4,846
Field expenses.......................................... 375 375 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 9,202 14,048 4,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a listing of Schedule C employees
currently on board, by Title, Salary, Office and Location.
Answer. There are two Schedule C employees on board as of June
1997: Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, $78,466, Office of
the Deputy Administrator, Washington, DC; Chief, Consumer Information
Division, $83,528, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, Washington,
DC.
Question. Please prepare a table, similar to last year's Senate
hearing record regarding positions and funding for the Office of the
Administrator and staff offices.
Answer. The information follows:
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF OFFICES FULL TIME POSITIONS \1\ AND FUNDING, FISCAL YEARS 1996-1998
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1996 \2\ 1997 \2\ 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Position Funding Position Funding Position Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator................... 4 $353 4 $358 4 $396
Deputy Administrator.......................... 2 176 2 179 2 198
Executive Director............................ 2 176 2 179 2 198
Intergovernmental Affairs..................... 1 88 1 89 1 99
International Harmonization................... 2 176 2 239 3 357
Executive Secretariat......................... 6 529 6 537 5 495
Civil Rights.................................. 4 353 4 358 3 297
Public and Consumer Affairs................... 12 1,059 12 1,074 13 1,286
Chief Counsel................................. 30 2,647 30 2,684 30 2,968
Less: Mission Support......................... (22) (1,941) (22) (1,968) (22) (2,176)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 41 3,618 41 3,728 41 4,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Positions are rounded for display purposes.
\2\ Enacted levels.
Question. Please display the amount and nature of reprogramming
that occurred during fiscal year 1996, or fiscal year 1997 in any of
the NHTSA accounts. Also in a separate table, please show any
unobligated funds or carryover for these years.
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, there were no reprogramming actions
that required advance notification of the Congressional Appropriations
Committees, including shifts of funds that affected activities
considered to be Congressional earmarks or identified as areas of ``key
Congressional interest'' in the Quarterly Reports of Reprogramming
Actions. No transfers of funds occurred between accounts other than
minor shifts of funds among object classes within an account. These
shifts have resulted from account-wide reductions which were allocated
to the individual program offices and from necessary fine-tuning which
typically takes place when the agency implements its budget.
In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA requested Congressional approval to
reallocate $2.86 million of fiscal year 1996 carryover funds for
additional airbag safety research. Of this amount $1.660 million will
be shifted from Research and Development carryover, representing
contract program savings from fiscal year 1996 and prior years in the
areas of Motor Vehicle Research and the National Center for Statistics
and Analysis. An additional $1.2 million will be reallocated from
fiscal year 1996 salaries and benefits carryover. These carryover funds
are a one-time savings resulting from a reduced Full-Time Equivalent
usage rate in fiscal year 1996. The $2.860 million will be distributed
among the National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center ($1.350
million), Safety Systems and Air Bag Research ($.8 million), and
Special Crash Investigations ($.710 million). The following table
represents the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 carryover into
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997:
FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND FISCAL YEAR 1996 CARRYOVER
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1995 into 1996 1996 into 1997
actuals actuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program:
Safety Performance.................. 60 84
Safety Assurance.................... 166 404
Highway Safety...................... 175 549
Research and Development............ 8,724 8,378
General Administration.............. 792 261
Salaries and Benefits................... 1,595 1,287
Miscellaneous operating expenses........ 1,111 610
Recoveries and Other Deobligations...... 1,005 1,863
-------------------------------
Total............................. 13,628 13436
------------------------------------------------------------------------
national driver register
Question. Please provide an updated status report of NHTSA's review
of state driver licensing systems. How have the states progressed in
this area?
Answer. The study of the current driver licensing information
systems, the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS), the
National Driver Register's Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS), and
Driver License Reciprocity is scheduled for completion in August 1997.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Federal
Highway Administration, and NHTSA have been partners in this
cooperative effort.
The states appear willing to take the next step that is suggested
by the report (i.e., combining the best features of the three systems
into an integrated driver licensing system) but most are concerned
about the significant cost and technological problems associated with
such an endeavor.
Question. How have the results of this review provided guidance on
managing the National Driver Register?
Answer. The review has brought to the surface a number of issues
that must to be resolved to improve the service provided by the
National Driver Register (NDR). These issues include: dual reporting of
actions (by the state where the offense occurred and the state where
the individual is licensed, when they are different); non-highway
safety related suspensions being reported; the use of clearance letters
with an electronic system; and how to handle actions that are on the
system and more than seven years old.
To develop consensus on these and other issues the agency plans to
publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Notice will be used to
update the list of violation exchange codes that are required to be
reported to the NDR. Additionally, the Proposed Rulemaking will discuss
the agency's views on these issues and will request the opinions of
interested parties. Based on this input the agency will determine how
best to address the issues.
Question. How have the data that are received by the NDR been
improved? How are further improvements reflected in the fiscal year
1998 budget request?
Answer. NDR data are now more accurate and current than previously.
The states maintain the conviction, suspension, and revocation data and
the NDR only contains an indicator (pointer) that points to the state
holding the information. Because the NDR no longer duplicates what the
state has on its file, the NDR is no longer in the position of trying
to ``catch up'' with the data on the states' files.
The fiscal year 1998 budget request will cover operating costs for
the NDR. Software and hardware upgrades will come out of these funds.
No significant upgrades are planned.
Question. Please provide an update on the PDPS. What has NHTSA done
to encourage all States to use this system? How many states are
actively using this system?
Answer. NHTSA has provided grants to the states to assist in their
conversion to the PDPS. In addition, the agency funds a help desk to
assist them in the conversion process by testing their programs before
they go on-line. The agency also funds user workshops that allow states
to discuss problems of mutual interest and suggest possible solutions.
To date, 49 states have converted to the PDPS. Oregon and the
District of Columbia are scheduled to convert in the fall of 1997.
Most importantly, all states are connected electronically and
participate in the National Driver Register (NDR). The best indicator
of the success of the program is a comparison of operational statistics
from 1993, the last full year under the old system, and 1996. In 1993,
the NDR processed 25.3 million inquiries, 8.5 million of which were
interactive (immediate) inquiries. In 1996, the NDR processed 31.9
million inquiries, 26.7 million of which were interactive inquiries.
Question. How many states are not able to use PDPS? How is NHTSA
assisting these States and how is it reflected in the fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1997 budgets?
Answer. All states are able to electronically exchange information.
Budget and system problems have prevented the District of Columbia and
Oregon from converting to the PDPS. In the meantime, they are still
able to send and receive information electronically from the NDR. The
agency has maintained a help desk staffed by system professionals to
assist states in the conversion process. Help desk assistance includes
answering questions, testing state systems prior to implementing the
system changes, participation in a users workshop to share experiences,
and site visits. Funding for the help desk is included in the fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 budgets.
air bag safety
Question. Will attempts by NHTSA to ``fix'' airbags divert NHTSA
resources to solving problems at the expense of studying and
encouraging new technologies that could be a more effective replacement
for airbags?
Answer. The agency actions to provide an immediate, but interim,
solution to the problem of the fatalities and injuries that current
aggressive air bag designs are causing in relatively low speed crashes
to a small, but growing, number of children, and occasionally to adult
occupants required redirecting funds from existing research programs.
However, this has not been at the expense of studying and encouraging
new technologies. Furthermore, the new technologies that are emerging
have largely been based on improving current air bag systems by having
the improved system automatically adapt its deployment characteristics
according to the crash environment, to the size and/or weight of the
occupant, and/or to the proximity of the occupant to the air bag
module. Inflatable technologies remain among the most practical and
effective ways to mitigate crash injuries and fatalities while not
encroaching on critical occupant space in the vehicle.
Question. Would a focus by NHTSA on ``fixing'' air bags be
inconsistent with NHTSA's approach of identifying a problem,
establishing a desired result and the means of testing performance? Is
NHTSA committed to a performance-based criteria as a regulatory
philosophy? Does NHTSA believe that performance-based criteria create a
level playing field that allows competition and encourages technology
and innovation?
Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
dedicated to the goal of encouraging and facilitating the advent of
advanced air bags through performance-based safety standards. As part
of this process, the agency has identified specific problems with
current-design air bags. The desired outcome is quite apparent: no
adverse affects of air bags. Therefore, the remaining agency effort is
and will be to establish a performance-based test program and
regulation which will ensure systems that will mitigate the negative
effects of current-design air bags. Only through measuring occupant
restraint system performance, including the air bag, can vehicle and
equipment manufacturers have design incentives and flexibility. Even
with performance-based tests, safety regulations have to be updated as
technology advances. For example, several occupant-presence-sensing
systems being developed rely on measuring human-like characteristics,
such as body heat, which is not currently part of the design
characteristics of the current crash test dummies. Therefore, the
agency is dedicated not only to performance-based safety standards, but
intends to update these requirements to remove regulatory barriers to
technological advances as needed. As in any regulatory action by the
agency, the best available scientific approaches will be utilized to
identify the problem and to establish requirements to reach the desired
outcome.
In working on the Advanced Air Bag program with the automobile
manufacturers' associations, air bag suppliers, the insurance
institutions, and academia, through the Advanced Air Bag Technology
Working Group of the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee,
the agency intends to maintain a partnership with the companies
responsible for developing advanced systems. This partnership will help
the agency clearly define the current and future safety needs and
develop a performance-based test protocol, which will assure a level
playing field that allows competition and encourages technology and
innovation.
Question. Is it the position of NHTSA that ``smart'' airbags are
the best means for preventing airbag deaths? If so, how was this
conclusion reached?
Answer. During the time leading up to the announcement of the Final
Rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to ensure
that vehicle manufacturers can quickly depower all air bags so that
they inflate less aggressively, the agency met frequently with vehicle
and restraint system manufacturers to discuss the technologies
available in both the near term and the long term that would provide a
solution to the problem of fatalities and injuries. While the consensus
was that depowered air bags could provide an immediate solution toward
addressing part of this safety problem, it became apparent during these
discussions that ``smart'' or advanced air bag technology would be
required to address eliminating the problem altogether. Hence, the
agency has established its research program for Advanced Air Bag
Technology so as to continue to work toward eliminating this safety
problem.
Question. If NHTSA defines ``smart air bags'' through a regulation,
would NHTSA be setting the basis for regulations that require one
specific approach and thereby exclude all other ``smart solutions?''
Answer. The purpose for the comprehensive review and comment
process for the implementation of a safety standard is to minimize or
eliminate regulatory barriers in order to permit innovation in the
future. In the area of advanced air bag rulemaking, as in all other
regulatory actions, the agency's goal is to develop and select
performance-based requirements and test procedures that will not
exclude any innovative safety technology.
Question. Certain industry leaders have stated that smart airbag
technology may be up to five years away from commercial availability
because of their technological complexity. Is NHTSA exploring short-
term available solutions, aside from a public awareness campaign, which
would not require new technology, such as variable sizes of air bags,
variable deployment speeds for airbags, variable reaction time for
airbags depending on the vehicle speed? Are any of these approaches
currently available?
Answer. An outcome of the February 11-12, 1997, NHTSA workshop,
``Smart Air Bag Public Meeting,'' was a proposal by the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) to work with NHTSA to
establish a process for defining the issues to be addressed by advanced
technology restraint systems. In reviewing the AAMA proposal, the
agency agreed that industry cooperation would be essential for meeting
the objectives of the agency's research program, particularly since the
industry would be the source for the advanced technologies to be
evaluated. Hence, the agency has established the Advanced Air Bag
Technology Working Group under the Motor Vehicle Safety Research
Advisory Committee's Crashworthiness Subcommittee. Members for this
working group have been solicited to represent the domestic and foreign
automobile manufacturers, the restraint system suppliers, the insurance
industry, academia, and the medical community. This Working Group will
serve as an active participant by undertaking efforts that lead to the
completion of the research tasks.
As part of this undertaking, a comprehensive crash investigation
program to evaluate the effectiveness of air bags is underway. To help
the agency with its ongoing Special Crash Investigations, the
automobile industry has committed to identifying the vehicles equipped
with depowered air bag systems as the vehicles enter the fleet. NHTSA
is working with the industry to establish the effectiveness of these
systems. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been
signed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a
joint research program to contribute to the agency's effort for
understanding and defining critical parameters affecting air bag
performance, assessing air bag technology state-of-the-art and its
future potential, and identifying new concepts for air bags. Also,
under an MOU with Transport Canada, joint research will be conducted to
establish cooperation in the test procedure development for advanced
air bags and development of improvements for anthropomorphic dummies
and associated injury criteria.
This overall program should provide for long-term and short-term
evaluation of variations in air bag designs, advanced air bag
technologies, and various methods to suppress air bag deployment.
Research and Special Programs Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
office of pipeline safety
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually obligated for the different major categories
and sub-components of the pipeline safety budget for each of the last
three years, as well as the fiscal year 1998 request levels.
Answer. The following information is provided:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1995
Information and analysis................ $1,752 $1,751
Risk assessment and technical studies... 2,250 2,245
Compliance.............................. 4,875 4,866
Training and information dissemination.. 925 925
Emergency notification.................. 100 100
OPA:
Derived from OSLTF.................. 2,267 2,257
Derived from pipeline safety user
fees............................... 252 252
R&D:
Information systems................. 665 665
Risk assessment..................... 318 330
Compliance.......................... 150 150
Mapping............................. 1,200 \1\ 650
Non-destructive testing............. 1,742 1,742
Grants.................................. 12,000 11,900
FISCAL YEAR 1996
Information and analysis................ 1,200 1,194
Risk assessment and technical studies... 1,750 1,747
Compliance.............................. 300 300
Training and information dissemination.. 850 850
Emergency notification.................. 100 100
Damage prevention (Natl Pub Ed)......... 500 500
Environmental indexing.................. 500 500
OPA: Derived from OSLTF 2,520 2,520
R&D:
Information systems................. 400 400
Risk assessment..................... 300 300
Mapping............................. 1,200 58
Non-destructive testing............. 100 100
Grants.................................. 12,000 \2\ 12,354
FISCAL YEAR 1997 \1\
Information and analysis................ 1,200 1,143
Risk assessment and technical studies... 1,800 1,494
Compliance.............................. 300 106
Training and information dissemination.. 860 860
Emergency notification.................. 100 100
Damage prevention (Nat Pub Ed).......... 200 ..............
OPA: Derived from OSLTF................. 2,336 445
R&D:
Information systems................. 400 400
Risk assessment..................... 300 25
Mapping............................. 400 ..............
Non-destructive testing............. 400 17
Grants.................................. 13,200 \1\ 13,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations thru 6/13/97.
\2\ Includes carryover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Program year 1998
request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information and analysis..................................... $1,200
Risk assess and tech studies................................. 1,200
Compliance................................................... 300
Training and information dissemination....................... 821
Emergency notification....................................... 100
Damage prevention (Natl Pub Ed).............................. 200
OPA:
Copy derived from OSLTF.................................. 2,127
Derived from pipeline safety user fees................... 200
R&D:
Information systems...................................... 400
Risk assessment.......................................... 300
Mapping.................................................. 400
Non-destructive testing.................................. 239
Grants....................................................... 13,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of funds (of
more than 10 percent) between the fiscal year 1997 appropriation and
estimated obligations.
Answer. We have not reallocated contract or R&D funding from what
was enacted. We do not reallocate personnel compensation and benefits
or administrative expenses more than five percent.
Question. What are the current unobligated balances in the Office
of Pipeline Safety? What is anticipated to be unobligated at the end of
fiscal year 1997? Will unobligated ``one-year'' funds be returned to
the pipeline safety fund?
Answer. As of May 20, the unobligated balance for Operation
expenses was $4,325,000; Contract program activities (1 year funds) was
$758,000; R&D program activities (3 year funds) was $1,057,000 and
Grants was $12,200,000. We plan to obligate all Contract Program
funding by close of fiscal year 1997. We estimate that our 3-year
funding for R&D will have an unobligated balance of approximately
$1,800,000 at the end of fiscal year 1997. At this time, we are
estimating a lapse of approximately $100,000 (less than 1 percent) of 1
year Operating Expenses. We plan to transfer 5 percent of our PC&B to
equipment. Those funds will be used to purchase enhanced computer
equipment for OPS inspectors that will allow them to access information
currently being developed in the Integrated Operator Compliance System
(IOCS). IOCS is the first step in our transition from mainframe-based
data technology to client-server type computers. The IOCS will maintain
a sizable data base and requires more processing power to assess each
operator's risk data and better link OPS Headquarters and Regions. In
addition, it consolidates several existing data sets and will better
support inspector's work in their integrity management-based
inspections.
By law, unobligated ``one-year'' funds for a given fiscal year are
returned to the Pipeline Safety Fund 5 years after the close of the
fiscal year in which they were appropriated.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. Please summarize the steps OPS has taken to implement the
Government Performance and Results Act.
Answer. We have taken steps to prepare for requirements of the GPRA
and have developed performance measures and a strategic plan. One of
our first steps was to establish our Risk Assessment Prioritization
program, (RAP). All pipeline stakeholders were surveyed to establish a
set of pipeline safety issues and to determine if there were cost
effective solutions to those issues. This program guides our allocation
of resources and we plan to update the survey next year.
We have revised our mission statement, identified two performance
goals supporting that mission, and have organized our fiscal year 1998
budget around them. Within the risk management initiative, we produced
a guidance document on how to develop and use performance measures and
we are beginning to test that guidance this summer in our consulting
with candidate operators. We have data analysis improvement initiatives
and are carefully validating data entry from accident reports and other
sources. Our mapping project will also help us relate accident history
with data on consequences in populated and environmentally sensitive
areas.
We have worked in the Departmental effort to create a strategic
plan and are adapting departmental measures that will be appropriate to
pipeline safety. We also are working with state agencies on a
consistent set of performance measures. We are cooperating with
industry trade associations to survey their members to evaluate our
customer service.
Question. Which performance-based regulations have been issued
during the last year?
Answer. The following are the regulatory accomplishments for the
year ending June 1997. All final rules are performance-based.
Final Rules/Direct Final Rules:
--05/24/96.--Periodic Updates to the Pipeline Safety Regulations.
--06/03/96.--Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, Reporting
Requirements, Gas Pipeline Safety Standards, and Liquefied
Natural Gas Facilities Standards.
--06/06/96.--Regulatory Review: Gas Pipeline Safety Standards.
--06/20/96.--Excess Flow Valves--Performance Standards.
--02/25/97.--Liquefied Natural Gas Regulations, Miscellaneous
Amendments.
--06/09/97.--Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and
Terminals.
authorization issues
Question. Please prepare a table summarizing each of the new
responsibilities specified in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and
Partnership Act of 1996 and indicate how and when you will complete
these items. Be certain to summarize the specific components of your
budget request that are necessary to implement each of these specific
tasks?
Answer. The following table is provided:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 104-304 Requirement(s) OPS response(s) Components of budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3(b)..................... Changes requirement to Now preparing SNPRM in Risk Assessment &
define ``regulated Docket No. PS-122, Technical Studies
gathering line'' from ``Gas Gathering Line (fiscal year 1998).
``the Secretary shall'' Definition'' for
to ``the Secretary Federal Register
shall, if appropriate''. publication in July
1997.
Section 4(a)..................... Emphasizes requirement to The Secretary has PC&B (fiscal year 1998).
ensure that individuals convened a Negotiated
performing O&M on Rulemaking (RegNeg)
pipelines be qualified. committee on
Main change here is in qualification of
Sec. 60102 (a)(1)(C) pipeline personnel
and Sec. 60102 (a)(2); performing operations &
requirement to ``test maintenance and
and certify'' becomes emergency response
``qualified''. functions. It is
expected that the
committee will reach a
consensus on a proposed
rule on operator
qualification. A
proposed rule could be
published in early 1998.
Section 4(b)..................... Adds new language to OPS' cost/benefit PC&B (fiscal year 1997
clarify requirements for analyses already comply and fiscal year 1998).
consideration of risk with this requirement.
assessment, environment, Further work is being
cost/benefit analysis, performed to address
and recommendations of environmental costs.
advisory committees.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires consideration of Most of the specific PC&B (All future fiscal
costs and benefits; items required for years).
exploration of consideration under
regulatory and ``risk assessment'' are
nonregulatory options; already required by
explanation of E.O. 12866 (October 4,
selection; 1993), Regulatory
identification of Planning and Review.
information on which All new cost/benefit
risk assessment is based. studies will be in
compliance with this
requirement.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires submission of All risk assessments PC&B (All future fiscal
any risk assessment supporting cost/benefit years).
supporting cost/benefit analyses are being
analysis to the pipeline submitted to the
safety advisory pipeline safety
committee(s). Risk advisory committees and
assessment information are being docketed for
must be available to the public comment.
public.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires advisory OPS is providing risk PC&B (All future fiscal
committees to function assessment and cost/ years).
as ``peer review benefit analysis
panels'' for risk information on proposed
assessment information; rules to the pipeline
must submit this safety advisory
information to advisory committee(s) for review
committees; advisory in their role as ``peer
committee reviewing risk review panels''.
assessment information
has 90 days to submit a
report on risk
assessment evaluation
and recommendations on
associated rulemaking.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires Secretary to OPS will respond to each PC&B (All future fiscal
respond to advisory peer review report on years).
committee(s) regarding the risk assessment and
their peer review report the features of the
and their advice on the rulemaking before
proposed rule. issuing any final rule.
Section 4(b)..................... Provides an exception to Will implement PC&B (None).
risk assessment exceptions as
requirement for rules appropriate.
that are the product of
a negotiated rulemaking
or a rule, such as a
Direct Final Rule
adopting updated
industry standards, that
receives no adverse
comments; for a
recommendation by a \3/
4\ths vote of the
advisory committee(s);
or for rules that the
Secretary determines do
not require a public
procedure.
Section 4(b)..................... Report on risk assessment Will prepare report to PC&B (fiscal year 1998;
and rulemaking program Congress on risk fiscal year 1999;
by March 31, 2000; assessment, regulatory, fiscal year 2000).
include suggestions for and nonregulatory
making risk assessment a approaches by March 31,
useful means of 2000.
assessing benefits and
costs of regulatory and
nonregulatory options.
Section 4(e)..................... Requires new and The final rule in Docket PC&B (fiscal year 1998).
replacement natural gas No. PS-126 directed
transmission and that all new lines be
hazardous liquid built to accommodate
pipelines to accommodate ``smart pigs''; a final
``smart pigs''; allows rule in response to the
extension of such petitions for
standards to require reconsideration from
accommodation in AGA and INGAA is being
existing pipelines. prepared.
Section 4(e)..................... Allows Secretary to OPS is cooperating with R&D (fiscal year 1998).
determine if periodic industry groups on
inspections using advanced ``smart pig''
``smart pigs'' are research to determine
necessary. if a requirement for
periodic inspections
using ``smart pigs''
can be justified; a
rulemaking may be
forthcoming in late
1998.
Section 4(f)..................... Directs the Secretary, as An annual process to Operations (fiscal year
necessary, to update update industry 1998).
industry standards that standards that are
are incorporated by incorporated by
reference in the reference in the
pipeline safety pipeline safety
regulations. regulations was
established in 1996;
the 1997 update is
being drafted in Docket
RSPA-97-2251 for Fall
1997 publication.
Section 4(g)..................... Requires interstate gas OPS is working with National Public
pipelines to provide all industry, professional Education Campaign
``municipalit(ies)'' associations, and the (fiscal year 1998).
(defined as any public to evaluate
political subdivision of existing public
a state per Sec. education programs to
60101(a)(15)) through determine which are
which it passes with a most effective in
map showing the location reaching excavators,
of the pipeline operators, the public,
facilit(ies); requires and local communities.
by June 1, 1998, to A survey is now
survey and assess the underway. OPS' Damage
public education Prevention Quality
programs under section Action Team (DAMQAT)
60116 and the public will design nationwide
safety programs under campaign using
section 60102(c) and appropriations and
determine their industry resources.
effectiveness and After the survey is
applicability as completed, a rulemaking
components of a model may be instituted to
program; not later than promulgate new
one year after the regulations to promote
survey (<6/1/99) must public awareness of
initiate a rulemaking to excavation damage and
determine effective one call systems.
public education program
and, if appropriate,
must amend regulations;
if regulations not
needed, send report to
congress with reasons.
Section 4(h)..................... By June 1, 1998, prepare A public workshop on the Operations (fiscal year
a report on remote application of remote 1998).
control valves on an control valves in
interstate gas pipeline; interstate natural gas
include determination on pipelines will be held
whether remote valves in early 1998. By June
are technically and 1, 1998, OPS will
economically feasible to complete an assessment
reduce risks after a of the appropriateness
rupture. of the expanded use of
By June 1, 1999 (one year remote control valves
after this report), if in interstate natural
remote valves are gas pipelines. If this
determined to be useful, assessment indicates
the Secretary shall that the use of remote
prescribe regulations control valves is
for their use on technically and
interstate natural gas economically feasible,
pipelines. OPS will propose
regulations specifying
the conditions under
which interstate
natural gas pipelines
must use such valves.
Section 5(a)..................... Authority to establish OPS' Notice of Request Risk Assessment &
risk management for Letters of Intent Technical Studies
demonstration projects. (3/27/97) requested (fiscal year 1998).
Authority to exempt owner eligible operators to
or operator of express their interest
demonstration facilities in participating in the
from regulations that risk management
would otherwise apply. demonstration program.
New regulations do not OPS has issued a Risk
apply to the Management Program
demonstration facilities Framework, a Program
during period of Standard, a
demonstration. Communications Plan,
and a Training
Curricula to assist
operators in preparing
their risk management
demonstrations.
Section 5(b)..................... Risk management OPS is complying with Risk Assessment &
demonstrations must these requirements in Technical Studies
exhibit ``equivalent or preparing for its risk (fiscal year 1998).
greater overall level of management
safety''; President's demonstration programs.
October 12, 1996, memo
requires only ``superior
levels of safety'' and
only participants with a
``clear and
established'' safety and
environmental record.
Section 5(b)..................... Secretary may revoke or OPS will comply with Risk Assessment &
amend any exemption these requirements in Technical Studies
granted in a RM plan for the individual risk (fiscal year 1998).
noncompliance with terms management
or failure to achieve demonstrations.
greater safety.
RM demonstrations must
provide for public
comment in the approval
process.
Must take into
consideration the ``past
safety and regulatory
performance'' of all
applicants.
Section 5(b)..................... Any exemption may be This will be an explicit Risk Assessment &
revoked for substantial requirement for the Technical Studies
noncompliance with an approval of any risk (fiscal year 1998).
approved risk management management
plan. demonstration program.
Section 5(d)..................... Secretary may consult OPS is closely Risk Management Grants
with states with coordinating with the (fiscal year 1998).
certifications and may state pipeline safety
make an agreement with a representatives in
state to carry out a implementing risk
risk management program management
on intrastate pipelines. demonstration programs.
Section 5(e)..................... Report on risk management A report will be Risk Assessment &
demonstration projects prepared before March Technical Studies
by March 31, 2000. 31, 2000. (fiscal year 1998).
Section 6........................ Eliminates requirement OPS' inspection program PC&B (fiscal year 1998).
for two-year mandatory is in compliance with
inspection cycle; also this requirement.
eliminates ``navigable
waters (as defined by
the Secretary)'' and
replaces it with a
``substantial likelihood
of commercial
navigation'' standard.
Section 7........................ Eliminates ``shall Considering definition Environmental Indexing;
include'' language in of areas unusually OPA (fiscal year 1998).
favor of ``shall sensitive to
consider'' under AREAS environmental damage
TO BE INCLUDED AS through public process
UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE; in Docket No. PS-140,
adds drinking water Areas Unusually
resources as a Sensitive to
consideration; deletes Environmental Damage.
earthquakes and other
ground movement.
Section 8........................ Requires that excess flow A final rule on EFV PC&B (fiscal year 1998).
valve (EFV) rules performance standards
consider not just was adopted in Docket
installation, but also No. PS-118 (61 FR
maintenance and 31449; June 20, 1996);
replacement costs; industry standards will
provides authority to likely be adopted as
adopt industry standards they are developed.
for EFV performance. Comments have been
received in response to
an NPRM in Docket No.
PS-118A (EFV Customer
Notification) (61 FR
33476; June 27, 1996);
although this proposed
rule considers only
installation costs, the
final rule will
consider EFV
installation,
maintenance, and
replacement costs.
Section 9........................ Drops requirement to take OPS has already taken PC&B (fiscal year 1998).
action to promote the action in Docket No. PS-
adoption of measures to 135 to require
improve the safety of notification of
customer-owned service customers owning their
lines. own service lines.
Section 10 Advisory committees are OPS will submit risk Risk Assessment &
the peer review assessments and cost/ Technical Studies
committees for risk benefit analyses to the (fiscal year 1998).
assessment and cost/ advisory committee(s)
benefit analyses. as required.
Section 10....................... Requires the membership Committee appointments Risk Assessment &
of each advisory will be designed to Technical Studies
committee to be one- maintain the broadest (fiscal year 1998).
third industry, one- possible representation
third public, and one- consistent with the
third government; required composition.
requires at least one of
the public and one of
the industry members to
have risk assessment and/
or cost/benefit analysis
background.
Section 10....................... Advisory committees can OPS will maintain twice Operations (fiscal year
meet up to four times a a year meetings and to 1998).
year. keep advisory
committees informed
between meetings
through newsletters,
mailings, and informal
working groups.
Additional meetings of
the advisory committees
will be held as
necessary.
Section 12....................... Establishes ``cooperative OPS requested, and will R&P (fiscal year 1998).
agreement authority''. make use of this
authority to expand
cooperation with
industry, the states,
and others in the
advancement of pipeline
safety.
Section 15....................... Requires that OPS issue OPS will publish the Operating Expenses
an annual report first biennial report (fiscal year 1998).
biennially, beginning (1995-1996) by August
August 15, 1997. 1997.
Section 16....................... Requires OPS to make TRB Special Report 219 Risk Assessment &
available Transportation is being made available Technical Studies
Research Board (TRB) to appropriate (fiscal year 1998).
Special Report 219 to officials in all
appropriate official(s) states. A public
in each state; requires workshop on population
an evaluation of the encroachment will be
recommendations in the held in early 1998.
report, especially to Feedback from the
what extent they are states will assist in
being implemented, ways OPS' evaluation of
to improve population encroachment
implementation, and issues. A report on
other initiatives to OPS' evaluation of
further awareness of population encroachment
local planning and issues will be
zoning entities completed in late 1998.
regarding population
encroachment on pipeline
rights-of-way.
Section 17....................... Report to Congress by A draft report was Operating Expenses
October 12, 1997, on presented to the (fiscal year 1998).
user fee assessment pipeline safety
measures, bases, and advisory committees in
appropriateness; May 1997. Advisory
consider wide range of committee comments and
assessment factors and comments by the general
comments from public. public will be
carefully considered in
preparing a final
report for submission
to Congress by October
12, 1997.
Section 19....................... Establishes specific OPS is working with National Public
authority to engage in industry to evaluate Education Campaign
promotional activities existing public (fiscal year 1998).
relating to the education programs to
underground damage determine which are
prevention. most effective in
reaching excavators,
operators, the public,
and local communities.
A survey is now
underway. OPS'
Excavation Damage
Prevention Quality
Action Team (DAMQAT)
will design nationwide
campaign using
appropriations and
industry resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the status of the proposed new national one-call
program authorizing legislation?
Answer. The one-call program authorizing legislation is part of the
Department's safety bill. Congressman Dingell, by request, introduced
the Administration's NEXTEA safety titles as H.R. 1720. The one-call
proposal is in Title XI, Underground Damage Prevention.
user fees
Question. Please prepare a comparative historical table displaying
the per mile user fee assessed to gas transmission and liquid pipeline
operators, and the total collected in user fees from each industry in
fiscal years 1994 through 1997 and anticipated for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Below is a table which shows the per mile rate and the
total collections for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. We are in the
process of collecting for fiscal year 1997 now, so the amount shown is
what we assessed from gas and liquid operators. We estimated the fiscal
year 1998 figures based on the amount of $32,171,020. This includes the
President's Budget Request for the Pipeline Safety Program of
$32,988,000, less OPA funding of $2,328,000 from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, plus an offset to the Research and Special
Programs Appropriation for labor costs to support the Pipeline Safety
Program. Other variables include the offset from previous year
collections, the allowance by law to collect 105 percent of the
appropriation, and pipeline mileage, are subject to change prior to the
December 1997 assessment date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas transmission Liquid
---------------------------------------------------
Per mile Total Per mile Total
rate collected rate collected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1994.................................................... $44.49 $13,000,000 $32.33 $5,008,000
1995.................................................... 95.57 27,830,000 47.03 7,215,000
1996.................................................... 77.49 22,475,000 49.67 7,683,000
1997.................................................... 67.46 \1\ 19,914,000 61.27 \1\ 9,508,000
1998.................................................... 72.91 \2\ 21,362,000 67.90 \2\ 10,527,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1997 based on assessment.
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 anticipated assessment.
Question. Please describe the billing cycle for industry user fees.
What changes in this procedure are being considered? What has been
industry's reaction to these proposals.
Answer. We assess user fees during the first quarter of our fiscal
year (October-December time frame). In fiscal year 1997, the user fee
assessments were issued on December 10. This date was selected in
response to discussions with our customers and their fiscal concerns.
Since Treasury regulations require payments within 30 days, and since
the industry's fiscal year is not concurrent with the Federal fiscal
year, issuing the assessments in mid-December gave our customers the
flexibility industry wanted to either pay at the end and/or beginning
of its fiscal year. We have had a favorable response from industry and
have no immediate plans to change the billing cycle.
Question. How did you allocate the user fee between gas
transmission lines and product lines for fiscal year 1997? Does this
accurately reflect the true allocation of your efforts and resources?
How is this allocation determined every year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, gas operators paid 55 percent of
program costs and 88 percent of grants. Liquid operators paid 45
percent of program costs and 13 percent grants. Although we feel
additional focus has been given to liquid program activities, these
percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts and
resources.
The allocation is determined through analysis of our planned
expenditures for the year. This includes Personnel Compensation &
Benefits (PC&B) for inspectors, administrative expenses, information
systems, compliance, training, risk assessment, research and
development. Consideration is also given to apportionments in previous
years and comments filed in user fee dockets.
pipeline safety fund
Question. What is the current balance in the pipeline safety
reserve fund? Please provide a historical table displaying the annual
unappropriated balance in the fund from the end of fiscal year 1987
through 1996, with an estimated level for 1997.
Answer. The following table is provided.
Pipeline safety fund
Fiscal year: [Year end unappropriated balances]
1986......................................................$7,848,270
1987......................................................17,060,016
1988......................................................17,672,184
1989......................................................17,179,509
1990......................................................17,982,653
1991......................................................17,469,218
1992......................................................17,694,592
1993......................................................16,971,943
1994......................................................18,684,690
1995......................................................18,485,209
1996......................................................20,291,839
1997 \1\..................................................19,291,839
\1\ Estimated.
Question. Are the funds in the Pipeline Safety Fund reserve
invested in an interest-bearing account? If not, has there been an
analysis of the potential for such investment? Would legislation be
required to invest these funds? (If so, please provide sample
legislation.) To your knowledge, are there currently any plans to enact
such legislation.
Answer. The money in the Pipeline Safety Fund is not invested in an
interest-bearing account. Legislation would have to be enacted to allow
RSPA to invest the funds. We are not aware of the introduction of any
such legislation.
Question. What is the minimum dollar amount that should be retained
in the pipeline safety fund balance in order to maintain the integrity
of the pipeline safety program? What is the justification for this
amount?
Answer. We believe a fund balance of not less than $11 million
would be sufficient to maintain the integrity of the pipeline safety
program, based on an internal review of our options.
ops oil pollution
Question. Please cost allocate and describe all OPS costs
associated with Oil pollution Act (OPA) requirements in fiscal year
1997, and anticipated in fiscal year 1998. How does this compare in
each fiscal year with the amount derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund? In each fiscal year, what was the OSLTF level requested by
RSPA prior to the OMB passback?
Answer. Allocations for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 are
provided on the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
OPA -------------------------------
1997 enacted 1998 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B $147,000 $156,000
Administrative expenses................. 45,000 45,000
Contracts............................... 2,336,000 \1\ 2,327,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $200,000 to be derived from user fees.
The following table provides request levels before and after the
OMB Passback for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request prior Request after
to OMB passback
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1997................................ $2,528,000 $2,528,000
1998................................ 2,528,000 \1\ 2,328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 200,000 to be derived from user fees.
Positions and FTE............................................. $500,000
7 FTE address environmental policy, regulatory
development, spill response plan review & exercise,
pipeline inspection & spill response technical
monitoring; special task force/studies of oil pipeline
company risk management programs & operations
Data analysis................................................. 500,000
Over half the incident reporting, data collection,
analysis & trending labor.
Identifying accident cause & consequence, evaluating &
acting on environmental impacts, particularly related to
protecting drinking water sources.
Compliance & spill response monitoring........................ 150,000
Technical field engineering support for monitoring major
spills & remediation.
Dedicated personnel for integrating public & private
sector OPA response activities, communications
coordination & decision support for protective actions.
National pipeline mapping systems operations & maintenance.... 400,000
Collecting & digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline
location information as it becomes available.
To be used in conjunction with data on population,
drinking water intakes, terrain. Needed to set
priorities for prevention & response actions.
Environmental Index........................................... 250,000
Work with state agencies to identify & categorize
information on unusably sensitive environmental areas.
Establish central repository in each state to be focal
point for exchange of data.
State grants for hazardous liquid programs.................... 1,500,000
Fund 13 states oversight of intrastate pipelines
operations & maintenance, construction, repairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 3,300,000
Question. Do you consider the environmental indexing effort
complete? What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal year
1996? How much is being obligated in fiscal year 1997 for this
activity, and for what purpose? What will be done during fiscal year
1998 and how much will this cost? When will this activity be completed?
Answer. The environmental indexing effort is well under way but not
complete. RSPA has been working with other Federal agencies, the
environmental community, and the liquid pipeline industry to identify
the resources, and their supporting areas, that are unusually sensitive
to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid release, including
drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources, which might include
archeological sites. RSPA is also working with these groups and state
government agencies to identify the location and attribute information
that is available on these resources.
RSPA has used the funding provided in 1996 to determine the
location and relevant information of some of the nation's unusually
sensitive resources. In June of 1996, RSPA held a public meeting to
discuss drinking water resources that could be considered unusually
sensitive, and to determine what available data could be used to
identify and locate these resources. Participants at that meeting
included the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Water Works
Association, the liquid pipeline industry, and the public. Major issues
were discussed and resolved, and RSPA is attempting to locate the
unusually sensitive resources identified in the meeting.
Almost all drinking water resource data is created and maintained
by state government agencies. Because the data is not created and
maintained by a single government agency, the data varies in format,
completeness, and accuracy. Extra work is therefore required to collect
the data and to put it in a common format. RSPA is requesting relevant
data from each of the states that have information, and is merging the
location information into an electronic database that will include the
location of the unusually sensitive drinking water resources. This
database will be part of the environmental index and a layer in our
national pipeline mapping system. To date, RSPA has collected partial
information from nearly all the states.
RSPA is also collecting information on possible unusually sensitive
ecological and cultural resources. RSPA has met with the federal
agencies responsible for these resources and has begun to collect the
data they believe will be needed to identify and locate the unusually
sensitive ecological and cultural resources. Like the drinking water
resource data, ecological resource data is primarily maintained within
the states. RSPA believes that most of the data that will be needed to
identify unusually sensitive cultural resources has been collected by
the Department of Interior and entered into an electronic database.
This will minimize the burden of collecting the data and putting it
into the environmental index. A public workshop on unusually sensitive
ecological resources will be held in July of 1997 and a public workshop
on unusually sensitive cultural resources will be held this fall.
RSPA will use the remainder of the money allotted to this project
to finalize a catalog of data available to help identify and locate
unusually sensitive areas and, to the extent possible, collect the data
and create an electronic data layer on the unusually sensitive areas.
RSPA expects to have collected representative data from most states and
will continue to update and maintain in the future with funding
requested under OPA.
Question. Please provide the committee with the results of last
year's review of the pipeline operators' emergency response plans.
Include the number of plans reviewed, the number accepted, and the
number of plans that required corrective measures. How do you ensure
that your suggestions are incorporated into the plans?
Answer. More than 1,252 facility response plans have been submitted
to RSPA/OPS, and over 850 of which were designated by operators as
posing a risk of ``significant and substantial harm'' to the
environment. All operators with ``significant and substantial'' plans
received approval letters from RSPA/OPS by the February 1995 statutory
deadline, following a rigorous plan review process. In the two years
since February 1995, RSPA/OPS has continued to review revised and newly
submitted plans.
October 1, 1997-September 31, 1996:
Number of new sig & sub plan reviews.......................... 62
Number of new sig & sub plans requiring revisions after
initial re- view............................................ 62
Number of new sig & sub plan approved......................... 17
Number of plan revisions reviewed............................. 78
Number of plan revisions accepted............................. 78
October 1, 1996-May 31, 1997:
Number of new sig & sub plan reviews.......................... 52
Number of new sig & sub plans requiring revisions after
initial re- view............................................ 52
Number of new sig & sub plans approved........................ 18
Number of plan revisions reviewed............................. 136
Number of plan revisions accepted............................. 136
RSPA/OPS receives several plan revisions or newly submitted plans
each week. Most of the plan revisions are minor (e.g., changing
telephone number listings) and do not necessitate a full review. Of
those plans which required review, two thirds of them required
significant refinement before RSPA/OPS was able to approve them. RSPA/
OPS works closely with the operators, over the phone and fax, to
provide advice and technical assistance to them as they revise their
response plans. Because of our commitment to assisting operators in
compliance with our requirements, RSPA/OPS has been able to approve all
of the ``significant and substantial'' plans we have received.
RSPA/OPS uses several methods to ensure that our suggestions are
incorporated into operators' facility response plans. Before approving
a revised response plan, RSPA/OPS checks the newly revised sections to
ensure that the operator has adequately addressed our plan review
comments. Also, RSPA/OPS has had its technical support contractor take
a sample of response plans and verify the data (names, phone numbers,
response contracts, etc.) contained in them. In the sample group, only
a very small percentage of the plans contained outdated or inaccurate
information. Another way RSPA/OPS ensures that operators incorporate
our suggestions for improvement is through our exercise program, in
which we observe the operators' ability to implement their response
plan.
Question. Please discuss the amount of funds obligated on spill
response exercises during each of the last three years. How much do you
expect to spend during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. In fiscal year 1995, OPS focused on response plans and made
some initial preparation for exercises. In fiscal year 1996, RSPA/OPS
obligated $530,000 to conduct both tabletop and area exercises. In
fiscal year 1997, the figure was $548,000. Our projected exercise
program budget for fiscal year 1998 is $612,000. This includes the
costs of developing, conducting, and evaluating 20 tabletop exercises
and two area exercises annually, and for disseminating the lessons
learned also. (This does not include travel costs for RSPA/OPS staff to
participate in exercises.)
Question. In view of the substantial experience acquired from past
exercises, why are you convinced that continued testing at this
sustained level is necessary? Why are 20 or so tabletop exercises each
year still necessary?
Answer. RSPA/OPS is committed to continually improving the pipeline
industry's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to oil spills.
Our exercise program, combined with a rigorous plan review process, is
vitally important to accomplish this.
There are several examples of cases in which our oil spill response
exercises have been very effective in improving the overall level of
emergency response capability of oil pipeline operators. Three weeks
before a major gasoline spill in Gramercy, Louisiana in late May 1996,
Marathon Pipeline Company conducted a large-scale spill response
exercise. Marathon's performance in the actual spill response was
greatly improved because of their holding an exercise beforehand. A few
months before their major diesel fuel spill in Simpsonville, South
Carolina in June 1996, Colonial Pipeline Company participated in a
RSPA/OPS tabletop exercise which tested their ability to respond to a
worst case discharge, and prepared them for an actual spill several
months later. Similarly, the successful response to the catastrophic
pipeline spill in the San Jacinto River in October 1994 was directly
attributed to the responders' participation in a spill response
exercise seven months before the actual spill. The designation of a
facility in Baytown, Texas to serve as a unified command post in the
San Jacinto spill was a result of successfully using the facility for
an exercise seven months before.
Exercises are a vital component of our OPA 90 program, and provide
one of the best ways to measure pipeline operators' capabilities to
respond to oil spills. RSPA/OPS believes that the twenty tabletop
exercises per year is the minimum number which still allows us to
verify that oil pipeline operators are capable of implementing their
facility response plans.
RSPA/OPS has received universally positive comments from pipeline
operators who have participated in our exercises. Operators indicate
that the exercises bring attention to weaknesses in their response
plans that need to be addressed, such as increasing their spill
management teams' awareness of the incident command system, fine tuning
their notification procedures to ensure timely notification, and
working on ways to improve their, coordination with Federal, state and
local responders. Some operators have discovered the need to combine
their training efforts with local and state response personnel. RSPA/
OPS magnifies the benefits of its exercises by sharing the lessons
learned in a quarterly newsletter that we distribute to pipeline
operators and exercise participants so other operators and emergency
responders can benefit from them.
operating expenses
Question. RSPA is proposing about a $1.1 million net increase in
the total pipeline safety budget. Please prepare a table showing the
growth of this program during the last five years (both in funding
levels and personnel).
Answer. The requested table follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------------------------
Program activity 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
enacted enacted enacted enacted enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation............................................ $15,050 $19,376 $37,340 $31,448 $31,886
Personnel:
FTP.................................................. 72 72 105 105 105
FTE.................................................. 72 72 90 105 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please further justify the request for an additional
$383,000 for travel and transportation as indicated on page 129?
Answer. Our request provides for increased travel in the field
including compliance/inspection and state liaison activities, as well
as continued risk management and other OPS public outreach programs.
The field component covers travel for training and full deployment of
our increased inspection force. As we implement a more risk-based
compliance process we will be emphasizing multi-region inspections
focusing on facilities. In fiscal year 1998, up to 10 risk management
demonstration projects will be in progress throughout the country.
Under the Presidents directive which accompanied the Accountable
Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996, and the directions of the
National Performance Review, OPS will be getting out of Washington to
involve the public in risk management and other pipeline safety
initiatives.
Question. For fiscal year 1995, 1996, 1997 and budgeted for fiscal
year 1998, please prepare separate expense charts for resources
obligated on overtime, bonuses, travel, permanent change of station,
and communications.
Answer. The following table is provided:
OBLIGATIONS BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------------------------------
1995 actual 1996 actual 1997 estimated 1998 estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overtime........................................ $7,318 $4,191 $4,200 $4,200
Bonuses \1\..................................... 20,350 36,400 42,000 42,000
Travel \2\...................................... 770,000 820,000 1,139,000 1,242,000
Permanent change of station..................... 21,010 25,210 50,000 100,000
Communications.................................. 430 452 470 470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA budgets do not include funding for bonuses. If available, funding from unoccupied positions is used
within a modest internal administrative limit.
\2\ Fiscal year 1997 includes $300,000 of operating expenses carryover funding from fiscal year 1996.
Question. How many staff does OPS have in the Anchorage Joint
Pipeline Office? What are their responsibilities?
Answer. OPS has three inspectors in Alaska. One person is assigned
full time to monitoring the Alyeska Pipeline and represents OPS in the
Joint Pipeline Office. The second person is tasked with monitoring all
other pipelines in Alaska. The third person, a junior inspector,
assists the other two inspectors as needed.
Question. Please discuss the Alyeska memorandum of agreement
regarding valves and corrosion.
Answer. The corrosion program was initiated in November of 1992
based on a ``Memorandum of Agreement for a Task Force on Oversight of
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS),'' executed by the State of
Alaska, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of
Transportation on November 21, 1990. A November, 1992, Task Force
report outlined the corrosion prevention program for TAPS and the
parameters necessary to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection
on the pipeline.
Alyeska agreed to attempt to determine better ways to monitor
cathodic protection (corrosion prevention) levels because traditional
monitoring methods are not always effective for a variety of Alyeska
specific conditions including the impact of the Northern Lights
phenomenon and under film corrosion caused by disbonded coating. One
method Alyeska is trying is a corrosion coupon program where pieces of
steel are installed at one (1) mile intervals on the pipeline and
periodically checked for corrosion levels. To date Alyeska has
installed 400 coupons and will test all 400 in the summer of 1997.
Attempts are being made to correlate internal inspection tool (pig)
runs and ongoing corrosion prevention activity. In 1996, the NKK (a
Japan-based company) pig was run twice from pump station 1 to pump
station 4 to see if correlation was possible. Initial indications are
promising and OPS anticipates data evaluation will be completed by
September of 1997.
OPS is overseeing all facets of the corrosion program and
anticipates closure to this issue in January of 1998.
On January of 1997, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) and
the Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
in the matter of the assessment of valves on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS).
Alyeska agreed to identify which valves are most critical to the
overall system safety, determine how to test them to ensure their
integrity and prioritize which valves should be tested first. In
addition, Alyeska will propose precautionary measures for valves of
unknown condition. Alyeska is also developing performance criteria to
evaluate in-service valves(s) and means of determining their overall
risk factors. APSC will evaluate the results of the risk assessment
within 30 days of its completion.
APSC will initiate repair procedures promptly if the parties
determine that a condition exists at any given valve(s) that presents
an unacceptable risk. A final valve testing plan will be based upon the
results of the risk assessment and initial testing, and submitted by
June 30, 1997 to JPO for review.
APSC will perform valve tests by December 31, 1997 on all valves
designated with the highest testing priority in the final plan. The
agreement does not modify the requirement that APSC comply with 49 CFR
Part 195 and does not preclude DOT from taking action to address any
violation or hazardous condition that may arise with respect to the
valves covered in the agreement.
information systems
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of funding used
to improve your information systems during each of the last three
years.
Answer. The following table is provided.
Pipeline safety information systems expenditures
1995: Budget item Funding
Hardware/software for increased staff..................... $325,000
Drug/Alcohol System and Risk Based Planning computer model 100,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information
System.................................................. 270,000
Transportation Safety Institute Training Initiative....... 180,000
Vax Maintenance........................................... 115,000
Baseline Data Study....................................... 510,000
Software, hardware, and training support to State pipeline
safety programs......................................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total 1995 Information Systems and Analysis........... 1,750,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
1996:
Upgrade regions to Wide Area network...................... 160,000
Equipment costs: Desktop and notebook computers to meet
expanding staff needs................................... 110,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information
System.................................................. 340,000
VAX maintenance costs..................................... 150,000
Site license costs for software........................... 40,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures,
support risk based planning, G.P.R.A, identify outside
sources of data......................................... 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total 1996 Information Systems and Analysis........... 1,200,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
1997:
Hardware/Software for increased staff..................... 110,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information
System.................................................. 500,000
VAX maintenance costs..................................... 140,000
Site license costs for software........................... 45,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures,
support risk based planning, G.P.R.A, identify outside
sources of data......................................... 330,000
Software, hardware, and training support to State pipeline
safety programs......................................... 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total 1997 Information Systems and Analysis........... 1,200,000
Question. What specific improvements have been made in your
information systems and analytical capabilities since last year? Break
down how you obligated the relevant fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 fund and what specific benefits to your overall program were
realized. How do you expect the relevant fiscal year 1998 requested
funds will further improve these capabilities?
Answer: OPS has been addressing improvements to our analytical
capabilities as well as improvements to the information systems
hardware and software which support them. We have studied our data
bases and worked with national standards organizations to revise
instructions to our accident report forms to improve consistency and
thoroughness in data collection. We instituted new procedures to audit
accident reports to ensure completeness and accuracy. We have begun
contacting operators when inadequate outside force damage information
has been provided. To improve our ability to access externally caused
corrosion, we have begun work with the hazardous liquid industry to
access information that could help normalize data and evaluate the
miles of pipelines that are coated or cathodically protected. We have
requested supplemental reports from operators who indicated selected
``other'' as a cause of an accident. We are providing for electronic
reporting through our work with contractors. We are evaluating Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission data from their Form 6 for information on
liquid operators mileage and throughput. We are adding county data to
inspection unit definitions to provide linkage between inspection and
incident data. We are building a national pipeline mapping system to
locate pipelines with reasonable accuracy in relation to population,
water, environment, jurisdiction borders, transportation and
topography.
A breakdown of expenditures includes $370,000 for maintaining
computer hardware on personal computers in a wide area network and on a
mainframe which links OPS, States and the Volpe National Transportation
Systems; $350,000 for entering reported information in the database and
disseminating data to the public; and $480,000 for analyzing incident,
pipeline inventory and operator data.
Fiscal year 1998 funding will further improve these capabilities
through actual deployment and further development of our Integrated
Operator Compliance System. Preliminary design and testing of this
system occurred in 1997. This system is being designed for data entry
and access on-site during inspections on notebook computers. Existing
systems will be converted to improved software which will allow
linkages among all operator data bases, including the National pipeline
mapping system, incident, inspection and annual report data. This will
enable us to improve our data usefulness and accuracy. Improved
computer modeling will help integrate all available data pertaining to
operators, providing for a variety of analytical needs. We will also
improve data availability through electronic media and OPS's world-wide
web page. The web page will provide a useful feedback mechanism
allowing public comment on all our activities, rulemakings, and access
to pipeline statistics.
Additionally, we will work toward a standard for data operators to
maintain on site. A comprehensive understanding of operations and
maintenance history, valve locations, inspection findings, pipe
manufacture and installation would focus our inspection attention on
the most important integrity management issues. We are working with
industry on innovative ways of accessing this kind of information
without burdensome collection processes.
risk assessment and performance
Question. OPS is proposing a one-third decrease in funding for risk
assessment and related technical studies ($1.8 million in fiscal year
1997; $1.2 million requested for fiscal year 1998). Please summarize
the reasons that OPS is able to make this adjustment. How will this
proposed decrease affect your ability to implement relevant provisions
of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act?
Answer. OPS, working through joint government/industry quality
teams, has completed the planning for the Risk Management Demonstration
Program. OPS created a new oversight approach to use to evaluate
pipelines with more flexibly but with some uniformity and fairness
across the country. We received public input through numerous public
meetings, conferences and via Internet. OPS created (1) a Program
Framework to instruct pipeline operators on how to participate in the
program and to identify the steps we will use to approve and monitor
their proposals; (2) a Program Standard to describe the necessary
elements in a company's risk management program; (3) Performance
Measures Guidance to provide a way of knowing if we are accomplishing
what we set out to do; (4) a Communications Plan to help get meaningful
community involvement; and (5) a Training Curriculum to continue to
prepare us for our new roles during the Program. Additionally, we
evaluated other federal, State and industry uses of risk management. We
also created protocols to standardize our actions in implementing new
procedures for each of the demonstration projects that may be staffed
with different OPS personnel from around the country.
With this planning completed, in fiscal year 1998 we will continue
to require contractor support to assist with the new feasibility study
by a quality team focusing on application of risk management at the
distribution. This study will take several years to complete. We will
require consultative and monitoring support during the project
implementation. We require assistance with an extensive communications
and outreach effort for each of the projects. We will continue to
provide training to ourselves, States and operators in the Program. The
fiscal year 1998 requirements are estimated to cost considerably less
than the support required for the conceptual and planning phase of the
Program. Since the Program is entirely new and without precedent, it is
hard to gauge precise requirements. OPS believes, however, with the
experience and training gained in fiscal year 1997, that we can
implement the program using more in-house staff and less contractor
support.
compliance and state programs
Question. In your budget justification on page 132, OPS states that
by working cooperatively with industry, ``we have maintained complete
compliance.'' What does this mean?
Answer. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, all onshore oil
pipelines must have approved facility response plans in order to
continue to transport and store oil. RSPA/OPS has ``maintained complete
compliance'' in that there has never been a case of a pipeline operator
having to shut down its facility because of non-compliance with our
facility response planning requirements. The rigorous process that is
used to review operators' response plans often reveals deficiencies in
the plans which must be corrected before RSPA/OPS can approve the plan.
RSPA/OPS provides operators with guidance and technical assistance to
improve the plans and bring them into compliance.
While working to bring the plan to acceptable status, the operator
is allowed to continue to operate the facility by providing written
documentation that they have obtained sufficient resources to respond
to a worst-case discharge.
Question. Please provide fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997
program goals for the risk-based Pipeline Inspection Priority Program
(PIPP) and specify which regions were unable to meet these goals, and
please explain why?
Answer. In the last quarter of 1996 and 1997, OPS began
implementing changes to provide greater public safety and protection of
the environment by enhancing its current risk-based inspection program.
This is done by concentrating the deployment of our inspection
resources to the areas of greatest safety and environmental risk. To do
this, we are performing more system-wide engineering-based integrity
evaluations and shifting away from ``checklist'' standard inspections.
Additionally, we are performing more inter-regional inspections that
provide a comprehensive review of operator procedures and allow more
time for performing independent field verifications and evaluating
possible problem areas. This change is reflected in a slight decrease
in the number of planned standard inspections in CY 1997. Furthermore,
because the integrity evaluations are more resource intensive than
standard inspections, we expect the overall number of inspections to
decrease and the overall number of days per inspection to increase.
Those regions that were unable to meet the inspection goals are as
follows:
Eastern Region: The Eastern Region was unable to meet its 1996 PIPP
standard inspection goals due to special assignments including the
Colonial Task Force investigation and projects to streamline compliance
activity.
Western Region: The Western Region was unable to meet its 1996
standard inspection goals due to long-term illness of one employee and
redirection of resources to pipeline construction inspection.
Question. Please provide a table by region identifying the number
of inspections called for under the PIPP and the actual number of
inspections conducted.
Answer. Inspection goals are planned by calendar year. The number
of actual inspections for CY 1997 will not be available until CY 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 1996
-------------------------------- CY 1997
Region Number of Number of number of
planned actual planned
inspections inspections inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern......................................................... 103 74 81
Southern........................................................ 120 121 100
Central......................................................... 113 114 99
Southwest....................................................... 161 163 158
Western......................................................... 120 94 100
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 617 566 538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How does the PIPP relate to your current risk-based
objectives?
Answer. PIPP is an important inspection prioritization tool which
helps OPS identify high-risk pipeline units based on a variety of risk
factors. OPS will continue to perform standard inspections on PIPP
identified high risk units, but will slightly reduce the number of
lower risk standard inspections in favor of system-wide integrity-based
inspections.
Question. OPS has stated in the budget justification that it will
report changes resulting from Federal assessment of operations, without
formal compliance action. What does this mean? Under what conditions
will you bring enforcement actions?
Answer. Rather than simply notifying operators of noncompliance, we
have been trying to encourage them to address problems system-wide.
During an interview following each inspection, the operator is advised
of the areas that need improvement. When given this chance, operators
often voluntarily undertake actions that address problems on a system-
wide basis. Following an accident, pipeline operators often work with
OPS to identify problems with their pipeline system and commit to
significant and costly rehabilitation projects without the necessity of
initiating compliance action. Of course, if the noncompliance is
serious or an operator has a history of noncompliance in this area, or
will not cooperate, OPS does not hesitate to initiate enforcement
action.
Question. Please bring us up to date on the enforcement activities
of OPS. For each of the last three fiscal years, please provide data on
all enforcement actions taken by OPS, including the number of
enforcement cases opened, closed, and the amount of civil penalty
assessments collected. Please compare these data with the number of
reportable events, number of deaths and injuries, and any other
measures of pipeline safety for both hazardous liquids and gases.
Answer. The following table is provided:
ENFORCEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY
Measures -----------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases opened \1\................................................ 165 132 190
Cases closed \1\................................................ 130 107 167
Civil penalty assessment........................................ $607,000 $339,666 $97,975
Reportable events:
Incidents reported.......................................... 465 350 374
Deaths...................................................... 22 19 20
Injuries.................................................... \2\ 120 64 85
Property damage (in millions)............................... $154 $54 $64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Warning Letters.
\2\ During the 1994 Texas flooding, several pipelines failed and ignited. The accident reports received from
impacted pipeline operators stated that 1,851 claims were received. It is unknown how many of these claims
have been validated.
Question. What non-regulatory approaches to improve ``pipeline
integrity'' are you exploring?
Answer. OPS is focusing on the best ways of accomplishing
improvements to pipeline integrity, rather than simply devoting
additional resources to enforcement of regulations and exacting
penalties. Two new priorities are of special significance in
accomplishing program improvements--integrating risk management
concepts into our compliance program, and increasing our attention to
investigation and study of major pipelines. Industry and State pipeline
programs has responded very favorably to these approaches by
demonstrating willingness to undertake more activities to address
pipeline integrity in a partnership environment and by cooperating
fully in major investigations. Together, we are developing new
performance measures to validate our belief that it is at least as
important to monitor improvements to the integrity of pipelines as to
track compliance.
Question. How many companies were inspected during fiscal year 1996
that did not have enforcement actions taken against them? How many were
provided technical education on how to come into compliance with the
regulations, when enforcement action could have been taken?
Answer. OPS issued enforcement actions to approximately one-half of
all operators inspected during CY 1996. During every inspection,
pipeline operators are advised of methods to improve compliance with
the Federal pipeline safety requirements and industry practices. The
issues discussed involve minor problems not warranting enforcement
action, such as a single missing pipeline marker, or industry best
practice policies. We issue warnings with respect to noncompliance.
However, no record is currently maintained of the various items
discussed because they are not considered enforcement actions. However,
OPS is developing performance measures to track these items.
OPS will undertake enforcement action against any operator found to
be in violation of the pipeline safety regulations. However, if minor
improvements can be made to an operator's procedures, record keeping or
operations, OPS may provide the operator the opportunity to correct the
circumstances before taking enforcement action.
Question. How many of these companies provided with technical
education were reinspected? Did you find these companies still out of
compliance? If so, how many enforcement actions were taken against
these companies?
Answer. While no record is currently maintained of the various
items discussed we see value in the information and are developing
performance measures to track these items. In the future these
situations will be noted at reinspection to determine if there has been
proper handling of suggested items and, if not, enforcement action will
be taken where appropriate as part of that enforcement process.
Question. Please prepare an updated table indicating the number of
pipeline safety inspectors on board and the number of pipeline safety
inspector positions authorized for each of the last three fiscal years.
Please explain whether the number of authorized positions has or has
not increased relative to Congressional directives. If not, why not?
Answer. The total number of filled inspector positions varies
during the year due to personnel turnover and hiring of new inspectors.
OPS is in the process of hiring additional inspectors in the Eastern
and Central Regions.
NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1997 \1\ 1996 \1\ 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Onboard Authorized Onboard Authorized Onboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern..................... 7 5 9 7 9 6
Southern.................... 8 8 8 8 8 8
Central..................... 12 11 11 9 7 5
Southwest................... 11 11 11 9 8 8
Western..................... 13 13 12 8 9 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 51 48 51 49 41 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers do not include headquarters inspector positions that supply technical support.
Question. How many accident investigations were conducted during
each of the last three fiscal years? Please include information on the
number of follow-up accident investigations and the results.
Answer. The following table is provided:
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of investigations..................... 39 21 64
Follow-up investigations..................... 33 60 58
Accident reports generated................... 11 6 \2\ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There may be several follow-up investigations/inspections from each
accident investigation. These are not included in the number of
accident investigations.
\2\ Additional reports are forthcoming.
training and information dissemination
Question. Please list the companies with technical education and
training in fiscal years 1996 and thus far 1997?
Answer. The training program has been active in an effort to
provide technical material/education and training to industry, i.e.,
the American Gas Association (AGA), the Midwest Gas Association (MGA),
the Southern Gas Association (SGA), Pacific Gas Association (PGA),
American Petroleum Institute (API), Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America (INGAA), etc., concerning the federal minimum safety
requirements. The Pipeline Employee Performance Group (PEPG) has been
established by OPS, industry, and our State partners to exchange
information on pipeline safety training. The training division at
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) is developing a database to track
industry training needs and employee-specific information, and should
be active by fiscal year 1998.
Question. Please discuss the changing emphasis of the training
program from ``recognizing threats to [pipeline structural] integrity''
to the new focus on ``preparing regulators to consider various
alternatives * * * as the most effective course of action''.
Answer. Training courses at Transportation Safety Institute (TSI)
are being structured around risk management and prioritizing the
evaluation of operator facilities. The highly technical block of
instruction, presently taught by TSI, will be continued with a risk
management approach. Courses are becoming more involved in the
operation, maintenance, and emergency response areas. The courses
emphasize a rational, and thorough basis for determining safe operating
practices and safe operating systems. Risk management courses, such as
Risk Management Fundamentals, and more specific training modules are
being developed to aid Federal and State pipeline safety inspectors.
All courses are designed to reflect industry standards and current
technology in an effort to better prepare inspectors to advise and
evaluate small gas and liquid systems. Performance-based training,
through the use of computer-based training, (CBT), is also being
implemented in an effort to keep all inspectors competent in their
areas of expertise. The training section also utilizes internet
technology to facilitate current practices to all pipeline employees.
Hands-on programs are being developed where performance in a given
application is paramount in the proper operation, maintenance, and
emergency response areas. Long-range planning will examine the
possibility of using video conferencing, CBT, internet and other cost-
effective measures that would facilitate, training needs. Updates of
job task analyses, lesson plans, class design documents, etc., are also
under scrutiny for utilizing new technology and accuracy.
research and development
Question. What technical advances have resulted from research
sponsored during the last three fiscal years by the OPS?
Answer. Technical advances that have resulted from research
sponsored by OPS during the last three fiscal years include a study on
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) methods which is used
to monitor pipeline operations. The SCADA study determines the
feasibility and costs of requiring pipeline operators to install a leak
detection system, which would allow for the detection of impediments or
needed system improvements.
Future technical studies that should result in technical advances
include an investigation into criteria for establishing leak-before-
rupture criteria for pipelines. This will establish pipeline design and
operations conditions to limit catastrophic failures. In addition,
technical advances should result from two ongoing studies on mechanical
damage. One study examines analytical and experimental research into
fatigue behavior of pipelines that have mechanical damage, such as
dents and gouges. This will help operators decide when to repair
pipelines by establishing damage acceptance or rejection criteria. The
other study is being conducted in collaboration with the Gas Research
Institute on detection of pipeline mechanical damage by in-line
inspection equipment, or ``smart pigs.'' The study, which was started
in 1996, will facilitate the design of smart pigs that can be used for
in-line inspection of pipelines to detect cracks, dents, gouges, and
stress corrosion cracking. All of these conditions are potentially
detrimental to the safe operation of pipelines. The research will
specify sensor technologies and data evaluation methods to reliably
distinguish between various types of mechanical damage.
Question. Please list all of the reports that you issued as a
result of your R&D program during the last few years and the NTIS
number for each report?
Answer. Following is a list of the R&D reports issued by OPS in
recent years. None of the reports are presently in the NTIS system.
However, the reports issued in 1966 and after will be placed in the
NTIS system:
--An Examination of the Feasibility of Regulating Excavators, October
1990
--Emergency Flow Restricting Devices Study, March 1991
--Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices, November 1992
--Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines, 1994
--Remote Control Spill Reduction Technology: A Survey & Analysis of
Applications for Liquid Pipeline Systems, September 1995
--Natural Disaster Study Prototype (Task 1), September 1995
--Comparison of U.S. with Foreign Pipeline Land Use and Siting
Standards and Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting
Policies and Practices, April 1996
--Natural Disaster Study, National Pipeline Risk Index Technical
Report (Task 2), July 1996
--Natural Disaster Study, National Pipeline Consequences Index
Technical Report (Task 3), July 1996
--Natural Disaster Study, High Hazard, High Consequence Pipelines
Technical Report (Task 4), July 1996
--Pipeline Accident Effects for Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines,
August 1996
--Pipeline Accident Effects for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, August
1996
--Pipeline Accident Consequences for Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquids Pipelines and Pipeline Accident Consequences Analysis
Using GIS for Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines,
August 1996
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of your mapping
initiative. When will the project be completed. How much was
appropriated and obligated on this effort in fiscal years 1995, 1996,
1997 and planned for 1998.
Answer. The Joint Government-Industry Mapping Quality Action Team
completed its work last June with the publication of the team's report.
The team researched existing pipeline locational data and mapping
initiatives that companies, states, private industry, pipeline
companies and one-call systems have developed. The team created
criteria for evaluating data sources and concluded that no available
data source met the specified criteria for data quality, usability,
maintenance, and implementation. The team recommended the building of a
national system for efficient data exchange, creation of pipeline data
standards, collection of data from sources willing to meet the
standard, acceptance of the data in paper and electronic format, and
extensive communication to promote the standards and the program. A
second team was formed to complete the implementation of the
recommendations. This team recently presented, at a public meeting,
draft standards and a concept for a decentralized repository system in
which states would be encouraged to play the major data collection and
maintenance role. They also presented criteria for the selection of the
repositories that would link to a national repository.
The team has begun pilot testing the standards at the Department of
Energy/Argonne National Laboratory and at the Texas Railroad
Commission. This summer, numerous companies will be solicited to
participate in pilot testing of the standards. At the same time, OPS
will prepare cooperative agreements with state agencies that plan to be
repositories for the collection of data. We will begin funding these
agreements this summer so that operations can accelerate in fiscal year
1998. Evaluations and revisions to the standards will follow the pilot
testing and will be completed in Spring of fiscal year 1998. This
project is expected to achieve comprehensive collection of transmission
and hazardous liquid pipeline data within three to five years.
Maintenance of data will be an ongoing cost. It is difficult to
estimate the cost at this time because the mapping system will be built
through partnerships that leverage voluntary participation by states
and industry. The costs of the system at the state level is expected to
be shared with other users of the information outside the pipeline
industry, including various state and local agencies such as
departments of natural resources, public works, environmental
protection, tax collection, etc.
Expenditures to date have totaled $678,000. The following table
shows the amounts appropriated and obligated in fiscal years 1995,
1996, 1997, and planned for 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1995................................ $1,200,000 $650,000
1996................................ 1,200,000 58,000
1997 \1\............................ 400,000 ..............
1998 (request)...................... 400,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of June 13, 1997.
We expect to utilize a majority of the funding in cooperative
agreements that we will begin executing by the end of fiscal year 1997.
Question. Generally, what is the reaction of hazardous liquid and
natural gas transmission companies to the national pipeline mapping
initiative? Are there concerns about the potential for industrial
sabotage, or inappropriate information sharing?
Answer. The pipeline companies are supportive of the approach OPS
and the team have taken because it allows for flexibility in format and
scheduling collection of the data. Voluntary participation allows
industry to meet the needs of the government in a manner consistent
with their own ongoing business needs. OPS is optimistic about company
participation as the cost of more accurate data collection using Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) is rapidly decreasing. GPS data collection
can be accomplished along with other field activities like corrosion
monitoring. While questions about security have been raised, the
information we are collecting is already available on an individualized
basis from various sources. Nevertheless, we continue to work with
states, industry, and national security agencies to address this
important issue.
Question. Please provide an update of research and development
initiatives that support your risk-based priority program, specifically
addressing cost-effective smart in-line inspection tools, leak
detection systems, line location technology, state and regional cost-
effective training, and higher quality incident data base.
Answer. An in-line inspection or ``smart pig'' research initiative
is being conducted in collaboration with the Gas Research Institute to
improve the ability of smart pigs to detect pipeline mechanical damage.
The study, which was started in 1996, will facilitate the design of
smart pigs that can be used for in-line inspection of pipelines to
detect cracks, dents, gouges, and stress corrosion cracking. All these
conditions are potentially detrimental to the safe operation of
pipelines. The consortium conducting the study is investigating the
sources of magnetic flux leakage from these conditions, are determining
the magnetic effects of stress and deformation from these conditions,
and have determined multi-levels of magnetic signals are necessary to
characterize these conditions and are presently evaluating methods to
achieve this on a single pig, both in pig sensor design and the
computer analysis of data stored during a pig run.
A leak detection research initiative was conducted by the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe). On September 29, 1996,
Volpe released a report entitled ``Remote Control Spill Reduction
Technology: A Survey and Analysis of Applications for Liquid Pipeline
Systems.'' The study examined the pipeline industry's use of
application of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems
and leak detection systems. The report evaluated several leak detection
performance measures, including response time, false alarms,
sensitivity, and leak location accuracy. Volpe is enhancing the
findings of this report by developing and analyzing several leak
detection system scenarios on actual pipelines in cooperation with the
American Petroleum Institute.
Although OPS has not sponsored any research on line location
technology, various industry groups and universities have ongoing
programs in this area.
OPS is working with two joint Federal/industry teams, one for
liquid pipeline data issues and one for natural gas pipeline data
issues. The teams are working to identify data shortcomings and
efficient solutions to data needs.
Through TSI, a computer-based training initiative will incorporate
functions of risk management to reduce travel and administrative costs.
Lessons learned associated with CBT and Internet will be incorporated
to provide easier access to training materials.
A group of educational and technical trainers was formed at TSI in
fiscal year 1997 to exchange ideas and provide recommendations to the
pipeline industry on employee performance issues such as what
constitutes the ``best practices.'' The group plans to develop
``recommended guidelines'' for evaluating the technical skills of
pipeline employees and provide opportunities for information or data
exchange. The group will promote consistency in training throughout the
industry by providing state-of-the-art techniques. This in turn will
provide cost savings through unified development of technical training.
Question. What progress has been made on the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the Gas Research Institute on non-destructive
evaluation technology? What are the accomplishments to date of this
partnership? How does your request for a decrease in funding for this
activity relate to the MOU?
Answer. The first study under the MOU to be conducted in
collaboration with the Gas Research Institute regards non-destructive
testing by in-line inspection tools or ``smart pigs.'' This study
commenced in June 1996. The study will improve the analytical ability
to detect pipe wall cracks, dents, gouges, and stress corrosion
cracking, mechanical damage which may lead to pipe failure if not
detected. The research will determine sensor technologies to utilize,
and then to adapt the sensor to a test vehicle so that non-damaging
metallurgical inclusions in pipe and the more serious mechanical damage
can be distinguished. The request for a decrease in funding does not
relate to the MOU but will affect the timetable for completion of
testing with the test vehicle in the 4700 foot flow loop used to
simulate actual pipeline operations.
state grant program
Question. What are the eligibility criteria for states to receive
pipeline safety grants? What states are not currently eligible to
participate?
Answer. Performance factors used by OPS to allocate grant funds to
a State agency are:
--Field Evaluation of State Pipeline Program (50 points)
--Extent of Intrastate Safety Jurisdiction (12 points)
--Inspector Qualifications (8 points)
--Number of Inspection Person-Days (9 points)
--State Adoption of Maximum Civil Penalty Requirement (2 points)
--State Adoption of Applicable Federal Regulations (8 points)
--One-Call System Minimum Requirements (8 points)
--State Attendance at National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives Regional Meeting (3 points)
--Penalty Points for untimely submittal of documentation to OPS (up
to 4 points to be deducted)
Many performance factors used by OPS were derived from a long-
standing use of such standards in our Federal/State partnership. OPS,
in conjunction with the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives, formed committees to maintain this close working
relationship. These committees allow States to participate in OPS
activities and decision-making that affects the programs. These
committees' efforts previously provided criteria used by OPS to qualify
inspectors and the performance factors used by OPS to evaluate the
States.
Four states do not participate in the State Gas Pipeline Safety
Program. These states are Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, and Maine.
Question. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, please list the states
that participated in your hazardous liquids and hazardous gas state
grants programs. For each participating state, display the amount
requested by the state, the amount of federal grant funds received, and
the percentage of federal contribution total costs represented by that
grant.
Answer. The information for fiscal year 1996 follows. The
information for fiscal year 1997 should be available after July 1,
1997.
1996 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percent
State Request points Allocation funded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... $373,897 100 $323,007 43
Arizona..................... 381,100 100 329,229 43
Arkansas.................... 165,478 100 142,955 43
California.................. 1,143,469 100 987,834 43
Colorado.................... 171,358 100 148,035 43
Connecticut................. 150,000 95 123,105 41
Delaware.................... 19,069 95 15,650 41
Florida..................... 53,000 100 45,786 43
Georgia..................... 202,827 95 166,460 41
Illinois.................... 248,937 100 215,055 43
Indiana..................... 147,439 100 127,371 43
Iowa........................ 142,050 100 122,716 43
Kansas...................... 329,034 95 270,037 41
Kentucky.................... 218,045 100 188,367 43
Louisiana................... 343,920 95 282,254 41
Maryland.................... 151,792 100 131,132 43
Massachusetts............... 291,550 95 239,274 41
Michigan.................... 213,385 95 175,125 41
Minnesota................... 511,770 100 442,114 43
Mississippi................. 123,950 100 107,079 43
Missouri.................... 237,875 90 184,948 39
Montana..................... 29,602 95 24,294 41
Nebraska.................... 78,528 95 64,448 41
Nevada...................... 123,401 100 106,605 43
New Hampshire............... 82,362 95 67,594 41
New Jersey.................. 333,838 100 288,400 43
New Mexico.................. 161,678 80 111,738 35
New York.................... 1,271,347 100 1,098,307 43
North Carolina.............. 177,342 100 153,204 43
North Dakota................ 38,471 100 33,235 43
Ohio........................ 419,500 100 362,403 43
Oklahoma.................... 208,320 100 179,966 43
Oregon...................... 124,750 100 107,771 43
Pennsylvania................ 276,936 95 227,281 41
Puerto Rico................. 31,777 85 23,334 37
Rhode Island................ 61,382 95 50,376 41
South Dakota................ 46,975 90 36,523 39
Tennessee................... 217,425 95 178,440 41
Texas....................... 1,021,077 95 837,995 41
Utah........................ 135,150 95 110,917 41
Vermont..................... 44,973 100 38,852 43
Virginia.................... 250,000 100 215,973 43
Washington, DC.............. 60,694 95 49,811 41
Washington.................. 121,500 100 104,963 43
West Virginia............... 140,000 95 114,898 41
Wisconsin................... 172,100 85 126,374 37
Wyoming..................... 123,850 90 96,294 39
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 11,372,923 ....... 9,577,530 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``request'' represents 50 percent of the States estimated
budget. The percent of fund is the percentage of the budget
represented by the allocation.
1996 HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Percent
State Request points Allocation funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $22,600 100 $19,524 43
Arizona....................................................... 40,025 100 34,577 43
California.................................................... 991,856 100 856,857 43
Louisiana..................................................... 83,615 100 72,234 43
Minnesota..................................................... 125,200 100 108,159 43
Mississippi................................................... 4,888 100 4,222 43
New Mexico.................................................... 9,250 90 7,192 39
New York...................................................... 42,060 100 36,335 43
Oklahoma...................................................... 151,585 95 124,406 41
Texas......................................................... 180,189 95 147,880 41
Virginia...................................................... 42,482 90 33,030 39
Washington.................................................... 53,090 90 41,277 39
West Virginia................................................. 37,500 95 30,776 41
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 1,784,339 ....... 1,516,470 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. RSPA and the states have agreed to attempt to provide 50
percent of the states' pipeline safety program funding from the federal
government. As aggregate, what percent of the states' pipeline safety
program funds were appropriated through the OPS state grant program in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997? Is the total national program level
increasing due to more active pipeline safety programs at the state
levels? Please discuss.
Answer. The percent of the states' pipeline safety grant funding in
fiscal year 1996 was 42 percent compared to an estimated 44 percent in
1997. The states for some time have been assigned additional tasks and
jurisdiction without an increase in grant funds. Some additional
efforts undertaken by the states are drug and alcohol inspections and a
larger percentage of intrastate jurisdiction such as master meter and
offshore (state waters) inspections.
Question. Part of the original justification for the increase in
the pipeline grant program was that with increased funds the states
would be encouraged to expand their enforcement responsibilities.
Please provide quantitative data on a state-by-state basis indicating
whether this has happened.
Answer. OPS has encouraged states to expand their enforcement
jurisdiction in the past few years by adding seven new gas and liquid
programs and eleven new areas of Municipal, liquefied petroleum gas or
master meter operator jurisdiction in their states. This information
will be provided within 30 days of reviewing the 1997 state
certification documents.
Question. Please provide an assessment of your monitoring of the
state grant program. How has OPS improved various state programs?
Answer. Over the last four years, OPS has taken steps to improve
our oversight of the state pipeline safety programs including the full
time designation of an inspector in each region office to monitor and
evaluate activities.
These inspectors, the state liaison representatives, have worked
together to improve the monitoring and evaluation process so that areas
of needed improvement can be more readily identified and corrected.
When OPS identifies a potential weakness in a state pipeline program,
we work with the program manager to correct the circumstances and
provide technical support.
The following is a summary of the field evaluation scores and other
performance factors that are used in our certification of the state
pipeline programs. The total maximum score is the score used for
allocating grant funds.
1996 GRANT ALLOCATION--STATE POINTS (GAS)
[From certification/agreement attachments]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State adoption State adoption
Inspector Number of of maximum of applicable One-call Attendance at
Gas State Jurisdiction qualification inspection civil penalty Federal notification Federal/State Penalty Total maximum
(12) (8) person days regulations regulations requirements Mtg. (3) points (-) (50)
(9) (2) (8) (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Arizona......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Arkansas........................................ 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
California...................................... 9 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 47
Colorado........................................ 12 8 9 2 5 8 3 .............. 47
Connecticut..................................... 12 4 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 46
Delaware........................................ 6 8 9 N/A N/A 8 3 .............. 44
Florida LPG..................................... 12 8 9 .............. 8 6 3 .............. 46
Georgia......................................... 10 8 9 .............. 8 8 3 .............. 46
Illinois........................................ 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
Indiana......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Iowa............................................ 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Kansas.......................................... 12 8 9 2 5 8 3 .............. 47
Kentucky........................................ 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Louisiana....................................... 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
Maryland........................................ 12 4 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 46
Massachusetts................................... 9 8 9 1 8 6 3 .............. 44
Michigan........................................ 12 8 5 2 8 8 3 -4 42
Minnesota....................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Mississippi..................................... 12 8 9 2 8 6 3 .............. 48
Missouri........................................ 10 8 9 .............. 8 8 3 .............. 46
Montana......................................... 12 8 5 2 3 7 3 .............. 40
Nebraska........................................ 12 8 5 2 8 8 3 .............. 46
Nevada.......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
New Hampshire................................... 10 8 5 2 8 8 3 .............. 44
New Jersey...................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
New Mexico...................................... 12 8 3 2 8 0 3 .............. 36
New York........................................ 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
North Carolina.................................. 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
North Dakota.................................... 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
Ohio............................................ 12 8 9 2 8 6 3 .............. 48
Oklahoma........................................ 12 8 9 2 8 6 3 .............. 48
Oregon.......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
Pennsylvania.................................... 5 8 9 2 8 6 3 .............. 41
Puerto Rico..................................... 12 8 3 2 8 .............. 3 -2 34
Rhode Island.................................... 12 4 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 46
South Dakota.................................... 12 4 3 2 8 7 3 .............. 39
Tennessee....................................... 12 8 5 2 8 6 3 .............. 44
Texas........................................... 12 8 9 2 8 .............. 3 .............. 42
Utah............................................ 12 4 9 2 8 6 3 .............. 44
Vermont......................................... 12 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 50
Virginia........................................ 10 8 9 2 8 8 3 .............. 48
Washington, DC.................................. 12 4 9 2 8 8 3 -2 44
Washington...................................... 12 8 9 2 8 7 3 .............. 49
West Virginia................................... 12 8 9 1 8 .............. 3 .............. 41
Wisconsin....................................... 8 8 .............. 2 5 8 3 .............. 34
Wyoming......................................... 12 8 5 2 8 4 3 .............. 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--No rating--Did not participate in the program in 1995.
Question. For each participating state, indicate the number of
times during each of the last three years that OPS conducted an audit,
a joint inspection, a training activity.
Answer. The following chart illustrates the number of times OPS has
conducted an audit, a joint inspection, and seminar or training
activity in each state participating in an OPS pipeline safety program.
The number of joint inspections include the number of joint
accident response investigations in which OPS has participated. The
relatively high number of joint inspections for New Jersey, New York,
and Texas in 1994 was due to the accident in Edison, New Jersey;
preparation for New York to become an interstate agent; and the floods
in Houston, Texas. The high number of joint inspections for Puerto Rico
in 1996 was due to the incident in San Juan.
OPS has given state inspectors training required for certifying a
pipeline safety program. The numbers of students trained are 315, 279
and 355 for 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of audits Number of joint Training/ seminars
--------------------- inspections --------------------
State total ---------------------
1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1
Arizona.......................................... 2 2 2 2 3 3 ..... 2 1
Arkansas......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
California....................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 6
Colorado......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
Connecticut...................................... 1 1 1 1 2 2 ..... ..... .....
Delaware......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... .....
Washington, DC................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... .....
Florida.......................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
Georgia.......................................... 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 .....
Illinois......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1
Indiana.......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... .....
Iowa............................................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1 .....
Kansas........................................... 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1
Kentucky......................................... 1 1 1 1 2 1 ..... 1 1
Louisiana........................................ 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 5
Maryland......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... 1
Massachusetts.................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1 .....
Michigan......................................... 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 ..... .....
Minnesota........................................ 2 2 2 3 5 2 2 2 .....
Mississippi...................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 ..... 1 .....
Missouri......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1
Montana.......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1
Nebraska......................................... 1 1 1 1 2 1 ..... 2 .....
Nevada........................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... 1
New Hampshire.................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... 1
New Jersey....................................... 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 ..... .....
New Mexico....................................... 1 1 1 1 1 2 ..... 3 1
New York......................................... 2 2 2 5 7 3 5 ..... .....
North Carolina................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 .....
North Dakota..................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1
Ohio............................................. 1 1 1 2 1 1 ..... 3 2
Oklahoma......................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1
Oregon........................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ..... .....
Pennsylvania..................................... 1 1 1 1 2 1 ..... 2 .....
Puerto Rico...................................... 1 1 1 1 1 \2\ 4
9 ..... ..... .....
Rhode Island..................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... .....
South Carolina................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 3 .....
South Dakota..................................... ..... 1 1 ..... 1 1 1 2 .....
Tennessee........................................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1 .....
Texas............................................ 2 2 2 \1\ 4
4 2 3 ..... 1 5
Utah............................................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ..... 2
Vermont.......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... ..... .....
Virginia......................................... 1 1 2 1 3 3 ..... 1 .....
Washington....................................... 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 .....
West Virginia.................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ..... 2
Wisconsin........................................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..... 1 .....
Wyoming.......................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 ..... 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This substantial increase was due to a major flood in October 1994.
\2\ This increase was due to the major incident in San Juan in 1996.
risk management grants
Question. Eight risk management demonstration projects were
authorized in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act. Who
are the participants in these demonstration projects? Is funding for
these demos provided through the risk assessment/technical studies
contract program, or through the risk management grants program? How
much funding was associated with these demonstration projects in fiscal
year 1997, and how much is requested for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. To clarify the question, the APS&P act does not limit the
number of risk management demonstration projects, but the Presidential
Directive limits the number to 10, to ensure appropriate monitoring and
oversight.
To date, we have received five Letters of Intent from companies
wishing to conduct demonstration projects. They are Northwest Pipeline,
Tennessee Gas, and Shell Pipeline. We believe the following states may
be affected: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana,
Texas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
Funding will be provided through both the Risk Assessment/Technical
Studies contract and the risk management grants program.
Funding associated with demonstrations projects in fiscal year 1997
was $1.8 million and $1.2 million is requested for fiscal year 1998 for
the Risk Assessment/Technical Studies contract. This funds the
development of the Demonstration Program ``building blocks'' (the
Program Framework, the Program Standard, Performance Measures Guidance,
a Communications Plan, and Training), delivery of training, evaluation,
approval, and auditing of demonstration projects, development of a
database to support project reviews, communication with stakeholders
through internet, electronic town meetings, public meetings and other
mechanisms, status reports on the existing demonstration program, and a
quality team investigating the feasibility of risk management for local
distribution companies.
Additionally, $200,000 of funding in fiscal year 1997 and $500,000
requested in fiscal year 1998 is for State Risk Management Grants. The
grants fund travel for states participating in risk management training
and the consultative reviews of candidate demonstration projects.
Question. How will the OPS ensure that equal or greater levels of
safety are achieved by companies that are participating in the
demonstration projects? How will the safety performance of these
companies be evaluated?
Answer. Although the statute requires ``equal or greater'' safety,
the Demonstration Program developed by OPS and its stakeholders is
consistent with a Presidential Directive that each project achieve
``superior levels of public safety and environmental protection when
compared with regulatory requirements that otherwise would apply.''
OPS has designed several mechanisms into the review and approval of
demonstration projects that will ensure their superior performance. For
example, each project must have built-in and predefined accountability
mechanisms--called performance measures--that ensure the expected
results are achieved. The performance measures will be part of a
company's project proposal, will be specific to each project, and will
be used by OPS to monitor companies' safety. Companies must define and
achieve safety goals, rather than simply comply with regulations.
During the review of demonstration projects, OPS will see if
companies are employing the new process described in the Program
Standard and Program Framework. These new processes result in a
comprehensive, systematic, and integrated approach to assessing and
addressing pipeline risks. The processes also ensure that the most
broad based input possible--from throughout the company, from State and
Federal government agencies, and from affected communities--can be
factored into the provisions of a demonstration project.
Finally, the risk reduction activities companies implement--some of
which may conflict with a regulation--must also lead to superior
safety. OPS will follow its review protocols in determining if a
demonstration project proposal can lead to superior safety.
one call
Question. What percentage of natural gas and liquid pipeline
releases and accidents can be attributed to 3rd party damage?
Answer. For 1996, 17 percent of all incidents involving hazardous
liquid lines was attributable to third party damage. For natural gas,
39 percent of transmission line incidents and 40 percent of
distribution line incidents were caused by third party damage. Third
party damage was the cause for 28 percent of all pipeline incidents.
Question. OPS is requesting to use $1 million of funds from the
reserves of the Pipeline Safety Fund to pay for grants to States for
setting up and improving the efficiency of one-call systems. How did
you determine that this was an appropriate amount?
Answer. OPS based the $1 million on States' requests for one-call
funds.
Question. Did you try to get OMB or OST to allow you to draw down
more of the balance in the pipeline safety fund for this purpose? How
much did you originally ask OST as well as OMB for?
Answer. RSPA requested $1 million for one-call systems.
Question. What would an additional $500,000 for the state grant
one-call program obtain?
Answer. In 1997, with restricted grant application amounts (no
state more than $50,000) we were able to only fund at an average level
of 61 percent of the request. All applying states requested funding of
$1,643,200.
Question. Please update past data on the status of one-call
systems, their completeness, effectiveness, legislative status, and
enforcement capabilities of the States. How many, and which, States
have utilized one-call grant funds to establish one-call programs? Have
any States established one-call programs without the use of federal
grant funds?
Answer. Within the past three years, thirteen States have passed or
improved one-call legislation: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Texas has made strong attempts to
pass legislation for many years but failed. This year, their attempt is
promising. Their bill has passed the State House and Senate, which has
never been done before, and is awaiting the Governor's signature.
Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico, last year, we have
been working closely with Puerto Rico (PR) to seek legislative
authority to create a one-call center. The governor of PR has recently
issued a provision for a one-call damage prevention system to be
operated by the PR Public Service Commission, with legislation expected
to be enacted later this year. These significant increases in one-call
activities have been evident in these past few years, and OPS played a
major role in supporting States to pass or improve on one-call
legislation.
There is also a growing number of states with a strong one-call
enforcement mechanism (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia) that includes:
--A specific agency with jurisdiction over excavators and facility
operators.
--Authority to issue immediate citations and the power to collect
penalties.
--Administrative encouragement and staff assigned to enforce the law.
Fewer than 20 States do not require all underground facility
operators to belong to one-call organizations. We expect several state
legislatures to enact or modify one-call legislation for this purpose.
About half of the States have emergency service available on a 24-
hour basis. In States without 24-hour emergency service, excavators
have to notify operators of impending excavation after business hours.
OPS also utilizes one-call grant funds to support States to
establish one-call programs. This year, 37 States have requested one-
call grants to further their efforts with one-call activities. These
are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia.
The one call grant funds that have been available the past three
years have been used mostly for enhancement of one call systems. During
that period there have been three states that have adopted one call
programs with the assistance of grants funds and one other is pending.
Question. How will you be using your new authorities provided in
the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act to improve one-call
systems?
Answer. 49 U.S.C. 60114 directs the Secretary to prescribe
regulations providing for establishing and operating one-call
notification systems. These regulations would set certain minimum
requirements, including the following: one-call systems would have to
provide state-wide coverage; all excavators would be required to call
prior to digging; all underground facility operators would have to
belong to one call systems; qualifications for operation of a one-call
system; and enforcement procedures.
We will use our cooperative agreement authority to partner with the
state pipeline agencies, other state mapping agencies and one call
centers to upgrade the one call locating systems to the more accurate,
geographically-based National Pipeline Mapping System.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of RSPA's one-
call damage prevention team, and highlight any recommendations that
have been made.
Answer. The Damage Prevention Quality Action Team was formed to
conduct a national campaign on excavation damage prevention. This issue
affects all underground utilities, not just pipelines. The composition
of the team reflects the breadth of this problem. The team includes
representatives from the Office of Pipeline Safety, the hazardous
liquid and natural gas industries, telecommunications, one-call
systems, insurance, excavators, the National Association of State
Pipeline Safety Representatives, and the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
The Team recommended that, prior to undertaking a campaign, it
would be necessary to: (1) discern the level of awareness among the
public and critical groups, excavators, facility operators, state and
local highway and public works departments; and (2) determine the most
effective means of communicating the damage prevention message. The
Team commissioned a survey to gather this data. The survey is almost
complete and the Team will meet in July to proceed to design the
campaign and educational programs based on the findings.
Question. In terms of improving the enforcement process related to
one call, what else could be done by the one-call damage prevention
team? What about judicial outreach or prosecutorial training? What is
OPS doing in these areas.
Answer. The Damage Prevention Quality Team is not addressing
enforcement issues. The team was formed to address the issue of damage
prevention education. OPS believes it is important to address public
education and the promotion of best one-call program practices before
improving the enforcement process. In our work with programs at the
state level, we strive to get better legislation with sanctions. In our
experience, the weakness in enforcing one-call legislation would best
be addressed through administrative enforcement remedies. Historically,
prosecutors and courts have shown little interest in devoting their
resources to excavation damage.
Question. Please specify all activities relevant to the one-call
challenge or damage prevention/public education, and indicate how much
you are spending for each activity during fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
and proposed for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The Department has transmitted a safety bill to Congress
which was introduced in the House on May 22, 1997. This bill specifies
minimum requirements for one-call systems, grants for establishment or
support of one-call systems and enforcement provisions. A staff member
from the Office of Pipeline Safety has been working with the Facilities
Solution Team, a group chartered by the Federal Communications
Commission, to further address third party damage. Last year, the
Research and Special Program Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety
established a Damage Prevention Quality Action Team, to undertake the
congressional mandate for a damage prevention campaign. OPS staff has
recently made presentations at annual meetings for the one-call and
excavator industries to promote the Team's work and damage prevention
efforts.
Our budget is $500,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $200,000 for fiscal
year 1997. About one fifth of the fiscal year 1996 funds are being
obligated on surveys to collect data on current levels of awareness of
damage prevention efforts and the most effective methods of educating
select groups about damage prevention on a national level. The majority
of these funds will contribute to the design and implementation of the
national public education campaign.
Our proposed budget for fiscal year 1998 is $200,000, which will
support plans for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of
the national education campaign and for expanded damage prevention
efforts, such as working with other Federal agencies to leverage
municipal government and utility participation in one-call and other
damage prevention activities.
Question. If the damage prevention/public education activity
received an additional $200,00 in fiscal year 1998 (for a total of
$400,000), what specific additional outreach activities could be
accomplished?
Answer. The funds would be used to produce and broadcast public
service announcements (PSA's) on third party damage. While the
broadcast and cable industry may be willing to underwrite the expense
of running some of these announcements, indications are that PSA's run
during peak times have much greater impact. Funds would probably be
used to underwrite advertising in print media and production of
materials for school programs.
Question. What specific commitments for cost sharing have you
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call damage
prevention outreach effort? Please quantify cash and in-kind
contributions.
Answer. In terms of participation on the Damage Prevention Team,
the private sector participants, both pipeline and other industries,
have absorbed the costs of salaries and travel, as well as providing
meeting space, staff support and essential supplies for Team meetings.
It would be very difficult to quantify these outlays. According to one
estimate, the cost of underwriting participation in each meeting is
$2,500. This is based upon an estimate of two days of meetings, one day
of preparation and one day of travel at annual salary of $90,000 for a
pipeline engineer, plus airfare and hotel. OPS does not receive any
direct cash contributions.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute has an annual budget
of $300,000 for damage prevention public education that it undertakes
directly. API and other trade associations and companies expect to pool
their resources in support of the campaign developed by the Team.
regulatory activities
Question. Please specify the nature of any National Transportation
Safety Board pipeline safety recommendations that remain open or have
been closed because of an unsatisfactory response. What is OPS doing
about each of them?
Answer. OPS currently has 29 NTSB recommendations classified as
open. Open NTSB recommendations and OPS' actions are outlined by
category below. In addition, OPS is having discussions with NTSB
regarding closing several of recommendations listed below.
Inspection/testing requirements
P-87-4.--Require periodic testing and inspections to identify
corrosion and other time-dependent damages.
Current technical and economic data do not support the
establishment of an arbitrary period to retest or conduct instrumented
pig surveys. OPS is taking a risk-based approach to the testing and
inspection needed to identify corrosion-caused and other time-dependent
damages.
P-87-5.--Establish criteria to determine appropriate intervals for
inspections and tests.
OPS believes the development of such criteria is beyond the current
state-of-the-art because criteria to determine what intervals are
appropriate for inspections and tests would have to account for all
flaw-growth mechanisms and growth rates. Many flaw-growth mechanisms,
such as stress corrosion cracking, depend on environmental and
metallurgical conditions about which operators have little knowledge.
In an upcoming NPRM, OPS intends to propose that operators judge what
inspections and testing are needed based on operational and
geographical factors that indicate the level of risk a pipeline poses.
P-87-23.--Establish criteria for determining safe service intervals
between hydrostatic retests.
OPS believes that hydrostatic retests should be performed on a
case-by-case, based on leak history and other relevant operational
factors. This approach is in keeping with Sections 108 and 207 of the
Pipeline Safety Reauthoriziation Act of 1988, which directed OPS to
determine the frequency and type of mandatory pipeline tests on a case-
by-case basis. OPS is evaluating this recommendation based on a risk-
based approach to regulation.
Hydrogen sulfide pipelines
P-88-1.--Establish maximum allowable concentration of
H2S in gas pipelines.
P-88-2.--Require reporting of all incidents where concentration of
H2S is in excess of maximum allowable concentrations.
P-88-3.--Require installation of equipment to detect excess
concentrations of H2S.
In March 1996, OPS withdrew an NPRM that proposed changes in the
Pipeline Safety regulations to address the hazard of excessive levels
of hydrogen sulfide in natural gas transmission pipelines. A review of
information and comment from many sources, including advice from the
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), indicated that a
regulation to address hydrogen sulfide in transmission lines is not
warranted. Instead, OPS believes that regulatory attention to hydrogen
sulfide issues should be limited to gathering lines.
Recommendations from the Edison, NJ incident
P-95-4.--Expedite the completion of the study on methods to reduce
public safety risks in the siting and proximity of pipelines.
OPS recently completed a two-year contract with the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) to study the probability and
consequences of pipeline failures on gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities located in high risk areas. Because OPS has no authority
regarding the siting of pipelines, the NJIT analysis was limited to
identifying methods to reduce public safety risks in relation to the
proximity of pipelines to public facilities and high population density
areas. OPS is currently reviewing the NJIT report.
P-91-1.--Establish standards for detecting leaks.
OPS sponsored a study by the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (VNTSC) on the potential of leak-detection systems to reduce the
risks from hazardous liquid pipeline leaks. The report, entitled
``Remote Control Spill Reduction Technology: A Survey and Analysis of
Applications for Liquid Pipeline Systems,'' was issued by VNTSC in
September 1995. OPS intends to publish an NPRM to establish standards
for leak detection on hazardous liquid pipelines.
P-95-2.--Develop toughness standards for new pipe installed in gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
OPS will increase the incorporation by reference of industry
standards in the pipeline safety regulations and will increase OPS'
participation on national consensus standard committees. Specifically,
OPS is working with the pipeline industry on the API 5L standards
committee to establish pipe toughness requirements and expects to adopt
the latest standard accepted by the API committee.
In addition, OPS funded the Texas Transportation Institute, College
Station, Texas for research into the fatigue and fracture behavior of
dented pipelines, and research into the application of leak-before-
rupture concept to determine the conditions that a small crack causing
product leak may grow to critical size resulting in unstable crack
propagation and a large spill.
P-95-1.--Expedite requirements for installing automatic or remote-
operated mainline valves on high pressure pipelines.
OPS developed an action plan to address the recommendations that
were conducted by a Joint Inspection Task Force comprised of OPS and
the New Jersey Public Utilities Board, as outlined in the New Jersey
Comprehensive Inspection Report. OPS is acting on the report
recommendation that a new technical study be initiated to establish
criteria for the installation of automatic or remote valves on gas
transmission pipelines. OPS is proposing to work with the Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) on this issue.
In addition, OPS has been monitoring the valving study of INGAA's
Valve Task Group, and has reviewed a final report sponsored by the Gas
Research Institute (GRI) entitled ``Remote and Automatic Main Line
Valve Technology Assessment.'' The results from this study, although
focussed on gas transmission pipelines, will provide information for
the development of an NPRM that will specify those circumstances under
which operators of hazardous liquid pipelines are required to use
remote-operated mainline valves. OPS has also requested the Gas Piping
Technology Committee, which produces the Guide for Gas Transmission and
Distribution Piping Systems, to develop guidance for the placement of
automatic and remote-controlled valves.
Relationship w/MMS and other Federal agencies
P-90-29.--Require inspection, burial, and protection of submerged
pipelines.
OPS has contracted with Texas A&M University to conduct a study of
underwater inspection of offshore pipelines. This study will determine
if pipeline depth and condition constitute a hazard to navigation. In
addition, the study will recommend methods and intervals for periodic
inspections of any offshore pipelines. The results of the study will be
used to issue regulations to identify what constitutes a hazard to
navigation with respect to underwater abandoned pipeline facilities as
required by the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
P-90-31.--Evaluate need for emergency planning and coordination
between offshore pipeline operators and producers.
OPS issued an Advisory Bulletin (ADB-94-04) on April 5, 1994,
regarding the need for emergency planning and coordination between
pipeline operators and offshore producers. OPS is increasing its
efforts with the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Minerals Management Service (MMS) and others to clarify jurisdiction
and authorities. In addition, OPS has signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to clarify agency responsibilities for offshore pipeline
safety and inspection.
Leak detection/one-call--public education & performance standards
P-90-21.--Assess industry programs for educating public on dangers
of gas leaks.
OPS, industry, states, and local government representatives
recently formed a Damage Prevention Quality Action Team to identify the
audiences most in need of education about excavation damage prevention
and gas leaks, and to find the most effective ways to reach each
audience. The team is evaluating damage prevention and public education
materials used by industry and the states. In addition, OPS is
advocating enactment or strengthening of Federal and state one-call
legislation.
Guidance in the pipeline safety regulations
P-84-26.--Require level of safety for HVL pipelines comparable to
natural gas pipelines.
OPS issued a Final Rule (Docket PS-113; 59 FR 6579, February 11,
1994) on ``Operation & Maintenance Procedures for Pipelines,'' which
requires greater consistency of operation & maintenance procedures for
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The rule also requires that
operators update their Operations and Maintenance manuals each calendar
year. Currently, OPS and NTSB are discussing similar measures that may
be needed for other areas such as establishing criteria for the
performance of systems used to monitor the operation of pipelines.
P-87-2.--Require operators to annually qualify employees.
OPS established a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to develop a
proposed rule on the qualification of personnel to perform certain
safety-related functions for pipelines subject to 49 CFR Parts 192 and
195. The committee will make its recommendations after a negotiation
process and is composed of persons who represent the interests affected
by the rule. It will also recommend a proposed final rule after
reviewing comments.
P-87-3.--Require operators to examine exposed pipelines for
external corrosion.
Although pipeline companies already examine exposed pipelines for
external corrosion, OPS will adopt consistent requirements for both
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
P-87-26.--Obtain data on ERW pipe to determine hazard to public
safety.
As a consequence of the unique safety problems with longitudinal
seams on certain Electronic Resistance Welded (ERW) pipe manufactured
before 1970, OPS published a Final Rule (Docket PS-121; 59 FR 29370;
June 7, 1994) on Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon
Dioxide Pipelines. The final rule provides that operators may not
transport a hazardous liquid in a steel interstate pipeline constructed
before January 8, 1971, a steel interstate offshore gathering line
constructed before August 1, 1977, or a steel intrastate pipeline
constructed before October 21, 1985, unless the pipeline has been
pressure tested hydrostatically according to current standards or
operates at 80 percent or less of a qualified prior test or operating
pressure. In addition, OPS is developing a proposed rule on risk-based
alternatives to pressure testing that may result in further decrease of
the risks posed by pre-1970 ERW pipe.
P-87-34.--Require operators to maintain maps and records.
OPS co-sponsors a joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping
Quality Action Team (MAQAT) which has analyzed various mapping
alternatives and determined a cost-effective strategy for creating an
accurate depiction of natural gas and hazardous liquid transmission
pipelines and LNG facilities in the United States. The team's report,
which OPS is reviewing, included:
--Investigating the pipeline mapping issues in detail and identifying
the challenges of creating a National Pipeline Mapping System
(NPMS);
--Determining the status of mapping today and understanding current
mapping practices and specific mapping products;
--Evaluating various mapping alternatives and their cost
effectiveness;
--Identifying the U.S. Geological Survey's 1:100,000 scale map series
as the appropriate base map for the NPMS;
--Developing a strategic plan for a NPMS; and
--Agreeing on evaluation criteria; in particular, agreeing that
pipeline coverage and integration with other data is more
important than positional accuracy.
P-89-6.--Establish requirements to maintain proper functioning of
check valves.
P-90-24.--Define various terms used for valves.
Through its risk-based efforts, OPS is supporting installation of
check valves or remote-operated valves on liquid pipelines in all high
risk areas to provide for rapid isolation of failed pipeline segments.
In addition, OPS is completing a check valve study that addresses the
issues outlined in the two recommendations. OPS will take follow-up
action when the report is finalized.
P-90-15.--Identify regulations not containing explicit objectives/
criteria.
P-90-16.--Develop guidance for operator compliance with regulations
not containing explicit objectives/criteria.
OPS is presently undergoing extensive regulatory reform efforts
resulting from the President's ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative''
(RRI) that focus on reducing the burden of government regulations and
requires that agencies review all regulations and eliminate or revise
those that are outdated or in need of reform. OPS has reviewed the
pipeline safety regulations and has published four regulatory actions
that will lessen unnecessary burdens on the pipeline industry by
revising or updating areas including gas pipeline and liquefied natural
gas safety standards, administrative practices, and industry standards
incorporated by reference. In keeping with RRI, these regulatory
revisions are performance based; they provide much latitude for
pipeline operators to address risks. The risk-based requirements
contemplated for the future regulatory regime will develop risk-based
guidance to assist operators in complying with regulations not
containing explicit design requirements.
P-90-19.--Extend regulations to cover buried lines from outlet of
meter to customer building.
OPS published a Final Rule, (60 FR 41821; August 14, 1996) on
``Customer-Owned Service Lines,'' which addressed this recommendation
consistent with a Congressional directive. In addition, OPS is
completing a Congressionally directed study of these lines to determine
if further action is warranted.
P-90-20.--Require, by time certain, that unprotected gas piping be
protected against corrosion or be replaced.
OPS believes that a realistic cast iron pipe and ductile iron pipe
replacement program should be conducted on a risk-based basis,
recognizing the various pipeline characteristics and risks to public
safety, and that replacement should be based on need rather than on an
arbitrary date.
P-93-9.--Develop safety requirements for underground highly
volatile liquids and natural gas storage facilities.
After completion of an ongoing study by the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC) on standards for underground storage, OPS
may recommend that the states take individual action based on local
geologic and hydrologic conditions.
P-96-2.--Require gas-distribution operators to notify all customers
when excess flow valves are available.
OPS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR 33476; June
27, 1996), titled ``Excess Flow Valves (EFV)-Customer Notification.''
The proposed rule would require operators of natural gas distribution
systems to notify all customers in writing of the availability of EFV's
that meet DOT-prescribed performance standards, the safety benefits of
the valves, and the costs of installation. If a customer requests
installation and pays the costs of installation, the operator would be
required to install an EFV.
Enhancing pipeline accident databases
P-96-1.--Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for collecting
and using gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accident data.
OPS recognizes the need for a comprehensive plan for identifying
and obtaining adequate gas and hazardous liquid data to support our
pipeline risk management demonstration program development. OPS is
analyzing its current database capabilities and will develop within one
year, a comprehensive plan for the improvement of its collection and
use of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline accident data. In addition,
within two years, OPS will implement the comprehensive database
improvement plan.
The following initiatives outline OPS' current efforts that address
Recommendation P-96-1 requirements for improved pipeline accident
databases:
Developing new databases to support OPS operations
--Cooperation with industry groups such as the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) and the Gas Research Institute
(GRI) is the cornerstone of OPS' plans to identify and obtain
needed data. OPS is currently working with INGAA, GRI, AND API
to identify needed data. Two data issues workgroups have been
formed, one for liquid pipeline data issues and one for natural
gas data issues. The adequacy of existing data is being
reviewed. New needed data will be sought in efficient ways,
with emphasis on voluntary participation by operators and
industry cooperation. OPS also supports development of an
electronic reporting system to collect this data directly from
operators. GRI/INGAA will retain certain data that will be
shared with OPS. This electronic reporting system, the Incident
Reporting and Trending System (IRATS), is an INGAA/GRI
initiative based on voluntary participation, and is still in
the formative stage.
--OPS is cooperating with INGAA to determine how two other proposed
electronic data systems, the Work History and Trending System
(WHATS) and the Integrated Spatial Analysis Techniques System
(ISATS), might provide needed data. WHATS will capture
comprehensive information about each segment of an operator's
pipeline, including inspection history, manufacturing
information, valve locations, pipeline installation dates,
compressor information, and repair history. ISATS will contain
geographical information, including latitude and longitude data
required for spatial analysis tasks such as assessing the risks
posed by pipelines to populated and environmentally sensitive
areas. ISATS will help standardize how the industry captures
and uses locational data and promote national standards for
geo-spatial data definitions and use.
Improving OPS' current databases
--OPS has been aggressively seeking supplemental reports for incident
and accident data by reviewing data collected, identifying
trends, and identifying areas in which more data is needed.
--OPS is currently normalizing all databases and auditing historical
data systems and reports. Specifications for re-engineering
existing data systems have been developed. System and data
security features and rigorous edit features are being added.
FERC data is being considered that may be useful for
normalizing liquid pipeline data.
Substantial threats to pipelines
P-96-21.--Require operators of liquid pipelines to address, in
their Oil Pollution Act of 1990 spill response plans, identifying and
responding to events that can pose a substantial threat of a worst-case
product leak.
On January 24, 1997, OPS issued an alert notice to remind operators
to examine their facility response plans to ensure that the plans
adequately address the actions that the operator would take to prevent
or minimize substantial threats to hazardous liquid pipelines.
Question. Please bring us up to date on your regulatory response to
the Edison, New Jersey release.
Answer. The 1994 gas transmission line incident in Edison, New
Jersey resulted in three recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). OPS has responded to each of the
recommendations as follows:
P-95-4.--Expedite the completion of the study on methods to reduce
public safety risks in the siting and proximity of pipelines.
OPS recently completed a two-year contract with the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) to study the probability and
consequences of pipeline failures on gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities located in high risk areas. Because OPS has no authority
regarding the siting of pipelines, the NJIT analysis was limited to
identifying methods to reduce public safety risks in relation to the
proximity of pipelines to public facilities and high population density
areas. OPS is currently reviewing the NJIT report.
P-91-1.--Establish standards for detecting leaks.
OPS sponsored a study by the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (VNTSC) on the potential of leak-detection systems to reduce the
risks from hazardous liquid pipeline leaks. The report, entitled
``Remote Control Spill Reduction Technology: A Survey and Analysis of
Applications for Liquid Pipeline Systems,'' was issued by VNTSC in
September 1995. OPS intends to publish an NPRM to establish standards
for leak detection on hazardous liquid pipelines.
P-95-2.--Develop toughness standards for new pipe installed in gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
OPS will increase the incorporation by reference of industry
standards in the pipeline safety regulations and will increase OPS'
participation on national consensus standard committees. Specifically,
OPS is working with the pipeline industry on the API 5L standards
committee to establish pipe toughness requirements and expects to adopt
the latest standard accepted by the API committee.
In addition, OPS funded the Texas Transportation Institute, College
Station, Texas for research into the fatigue and fracture behavior of
dented pipelines, and research into the application of leak-before-
rupture concept to determine the conditions that a small crack causing
product leak may grow to critical size resulting in unstable crack
propagation and a large spill.
P-95-1.--Expedite requirements for installing automatic or remote-
operated mainline valves on high pressure pipelines.
OPS developed an action plan to address the recommendations that
were conducted by a Joint Inspection Task Force comprised of OPS and
the New Jersey Public Utilities Board, as outlined in the New Jersey
Comprehensive Inspection Report. OPS is acting on the report
recommendation that a new technical study be initiated to establish
criteria for the installation of automatic or remote valves on gas
transmission pipelines. OPS is working with the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) on this issue.
In addition, OPS has been monitoring the valving study of the Valve
Task Group, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and
has reviewed a final report sponsored by the Gas Research Institute
(GRI) entitled ``Remote and Automatic Main Line Valve Technology
Assessment.'' The results from this study, although focussed on gas
transmission pipelines, will provide information for the development of
an NPRM that will specify those circumstances under which operators of
hazardous liquid pipelines are required to use remote-operated mainline
valves. OPS has also requested the Gas Piping Technology Committee,
which produces the Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems, to develop guidance for the placement of automatic and remote-
controlled valves.
Question. Please prepare a table listing all current rulemakings,
indicating the date the rulemaking was started, its current status,
topic, expected completion date, and statutorily set deadline, if any.
Answer. The following chart describes all outstanding pipeline
safety rulemakings. See notes at bottom of the chart for identification
of priority rulemakings, rulemakings in response to the Pipeline Safety
Act of 1992, and rulemakings in response to the Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative (RRI).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled
Docket No. Title Current phase completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS-94 \1\ \6\................. Qualification of Pipeline Negotiated rulemaking underway; NPRM will be issued................... 02/98
Personnel.
PS-101A \6\................... Mandatory Participation in Final Rule being prepared............................................. 06/97
Qualified One-Call Systems by
Pipeline Operators.
PS-102........................ Control of Drug Use and Direct Final Rule being prepared...................................... 06/97
Alcohol Misuse in Natural
Gas, Liquefied Natural Gas,
and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Operations.
PS-107........................ Determining the Extent of Final Rule being prepared............................................. 09/97
Corrosion on Exposed Gas
Pipelines.
PS-117........................ Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Direct Final Rule..................................................... 06/97
Operated at 20 percent or
Less of Specified Minimum
Yield Strength.
PS-118 \1\ \6\................ Excess Flow Valve (EFV) Response to Petition for Reconsideration.............................. 01/17/97
Performance Standards.
PS-118A \1\ \6\............... Excess Flow Valve (EFV) Final Rule being prepared............................................. 09/97
Customer Notification.
PS-121........................ Pressure Testing of Older Response to Petition for Reconsideration.............................. 06/97
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines.
PS-122........................ Gas Gathering Line Definition. Supplemental NPRM being prepared...................................... 08/97 \2\
PS-124 \5\ \6\................ Further Regulatory Review; Gas NPRM being prepared................................................... 07/97
Pipeline Safety Standards.
PS-126........................ Passage of Instrumented Response to Petitions for Reconsideration............................. 08/97
Internal Inspection Devices.
PS-128........................ Drug and Alcohol Testing: NPRM being prepared................................................... 07/97
Substance Abuse Professional
Evaluation for Drug Use.
PS-130........................ Response Plans for Onshore Oil Interim Final Rule published 1/93; all plans filed; Final Rule being 10/97
Pipelines. prepared.
PS-133 \1\.................... Emergency Flow Restricting NPRM on leak detection being prepared; further action will follow..... 07/97 \4\
Devices (EFRD's).
PS-140 \1\.................... Areas Unusually Sensitive to Next in series of Public Workshops 05/97; NPRM to follow.............. 11/97 \2\
Environmental Damage (USA's).
PS-141 \1\.................... Increased Inspection Industry/public input being sought; NPRM to follow.................... 06/98 \3\
Requirements.
PS-144........................ Risk-based Alternative to NPRM being prepared................................................... 07/97
Pressure Testing Rule.
PS-151........................ Liquefied Natural Gas Direct Final Rule..................................................... 02/25/97
Regulations; Miscellaneous
Amendments.
PS-153........................ Pipeline Safety: Metrication.. Public Comments requested; NPRM may follow............................ 09/97
RSPA-97--2094 \1\............. Underwater Abandoned Pipeline NPRM being prepared................................................... 11/97
Facilities.
RSPA-97--2095................. Pipeline Safety: Adoption of Direct Final Rule being prepared...................................... 08/97
Industry Standards for
Breakout Tanks.
RSPA-97--2096................. Pipeline Safety: Regulations NPRM being prepared................................................... 09/97
Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding with the Dept.
of Interior.
No Docket No \5\.............. Periodic Updates to Pipeline Direct Final Rule being prepared...................................... 07/97
Safety Regulations (1997).
Do \1\.................... Regulated Gas and Hazardous NPRM will be considered after gas gathering line is defined under PS- n.a.
Liquid Gathering Lines. 122.
Do........................ Maps and Records of Pipeline Mapping Quality Action Team underway; draft data standards being 07/97
Location and Characteristics; prepared.
Notification of State
Agencies; Pipe Inventory.
Do \1\.................... Permanent Underwater Study being conducted; NPRM may follow................................ 12/97
Inspections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requirement of Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
\2\ Statutory deadline 10/94.
\3\ Statutory deadline 10/95.
\4\ Statutory deadline 10/96.
\5\ Response to Regulatory Reinvention Initiative (RRI).
\6\ `Priority' Rulemakings.
Question. Please prepare a table listing all rulemakings that your
are considering to initiate and expected date of ANPRM or NPRM.
Answer. The table provided in response to the preceding question
includes rulemaking activities that are set to be completed or
initiated through 1998. In addition, a rulemaking to revise the
pipeline corrosion regulations in 49 CFR Parts 192 (gas) and 195
(hazardous liquids) is being considered. A public meeting is planned to
be held in Chicago in September 1997 to explore how industry consensus
standards on corrosion protection can be incorporated by reference into
the pipeline safety regulations.
Question. Has OPS followed through on each of the major
recommendations or key findings resulting from your pipeline safety
summit?
Answer. RSPA's response to each of the key findings resulting from
the National Pipeline Safety Summit in Newark, NJ on June 20, 1994 are
as follows:
--Finding 1.--The need for partnerships between pipeline operators,
regulators and the public (i.e. local officials, potential
impacted residents).
Solutions/Directions: RSPA has begun a number of initiatives in
its pipeline safety regulatory program to foster cooperation,
collaboration and partnerships with the pipeline industry and
the public. The Pipeline Infrastructure Study conducted by the
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) includes two teams of
experts, one from industry and the other representing
environmental and public interest groups, which meet with the
NJIT staff to provide data for the study. As part of the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, OPS has
conducted grassroots partnership meetings in Houston, Dallas
and Denver to obtain local public participation in regulatory
reform and improved customer service for RSPA's pipeline safety
program. RSPA is planning a series of public workshops before
proposing new requirements on the placement of emergency
valves, leak detection systems, increased inspection by smart
pigs and the definition for environmentally sensitive areas to
assure that all the relevant issues are addressed. RSPA is
committed to moving toward risk-based principles in its
rulemaking process and to that end provides leadership on a gas
pipeline risk assessment quality team and a hazardous liquid
pipeline risk assessment quality team formed to develop
guidelines in formulating risk management programs which would
be used as alternatives to the present prescriptive federal
regulations. Additionally, we are using the quality team
approach to develop solutions to our national pipeline mapping
requirements. Membership of these quality teams are from
industry, other federal agencies, state agencies, and the
public.
--Finding 2.--Minimizing of Third Party Damage with An Enhanced One-
Call System.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA issued a regulation on March 20, 1995
(60 FR 14646) extending the existing excavation damage
prevention requirements for gas pipelines in urban areas to gas
pipelines in rural areas, and established excavation damage
prevention requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide
pipelines. On the same day, RSPA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (60 FR 14714) proposing to require that operators of
onshore gas, hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines
participate in qualified one-call systems as part of the
required excavation damage prevention programs. In addition,
RSPA supports one-call legislation at the Federal and state
levels, especially Title XI (Underground Damage Prevention) in
the proposed NEXTEA legislation.
--Finding 3.--Improved monitoring techniques to reduce potential pipe
failures.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA, in collaboration with Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA), Department of Defense, has
contracted with the consortium of OCA Applied Optics and Los
Alamos Science Inc. to develop a diagnostic tool using laser
technology which can be strapped on an aircraft to identify gas
and hazardous liquid leaks from pipelines. In addition, RSPA
plans to enter into a study in cooperation with the Gas
Research Institute to advance the state-of-the-art of smart pig
technology to assess pipe walls for mechanical damage and to
assess the existence of stress corrosion cracking which could
lead to failure.
--Finding 4.--Need for a centralized comprehensive database related
to accidents and incidents in the pipeline industry.
Solutions/Directions: The study with NJIT is taking a fresh look
at the accident, incident and annual data which RSPA has been
collecting for over 25 years to determine how it can be used in
risk assessment, to identify gaps in the data and what
additional data is necessary. In addition, RSPA is developing,
through a GIS system, the ability to depict the geographic
location of pipelines in relation to areas of high-density
population, environmental sensitivity, water intakes and other
areas of importance. This data is needed to assess pipeline
systems in determining appropriate responses to identified
risks, including the decisions of land use officials, and
emergency and environmental planners and responders.
--Finding 5.--The pipeline transport industry is safer than other
means of transport (e.g., truck, rail) of natural gas or
hazardous liquids.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA will continue to articulate the safety
of the pipeline mode of transportation through initiatives
leading to more openness with our stakeholders and customers
and closer cooperation and collaboration with each group. The
new emphasis on developing regulations using risk-based
principles will enable the pipeline industry to commit its
limited resources to those areas of highest risk to maintain
and improve on the already high level of safety in the
industry.
--Finding 6.--Maintaining or restoring public confidence in light of
periodic catastrophic pipeline failures.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA, in creating an atmosphere of greater
openness and participation with the public, industry, the
states and other customers will promote greater confidence in
the pipeline program through an awareness of the functioning of
the program. Through research into better leak detection,
enhanced pipe wall evaluation by smart pigs, and mapping, the
level of public confidence in the safety of pipeline systems
will be strengthened.
--Finding 7.--Maintain Economic Viability of the Pipeline Industry.
Solutions/Directions: The economic consequences of new
regulations have been considered by RSPA for some time. This
will become an overriding issue in the development of new
regulations to assure that regulations have a net positive
benefit. The greater use of risk management principles will
also provide the operator with a more cost effective method of
operating its pipeline systems.
--Finding 8.--Need for new and improved technologies.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA's response to this issue has been
addressed under earlier issues including greater use of
research, risk management assessment, and listening to our
customers.
research and technology fiscal year 1997 omnibus funding
Question. The Committee provided two earmarks to Research and
Special Programs in the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act. $2,500,000 was provided for RSPA to conduct a
transportation system vulnerability assessment. Is this assessment
complete? Please summarize the findings (or include the executive
summary verbatim if the report is complete.)
Answer. The Transportation Vulnerability Assessment, which is being
conducted jointly with the Department's Office of Intelligence and
Security, is expected to be complete in March 1998. The scope of the
study covers the entire U.S. surface transportation system: passenger
and cargo, military and civilian, private and government owned and the
domestic and international elements of the U.S. system. Proper
coordination between other transportation infrastructure studies, such
as the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection,
has allowed us to tailor the use of these funds to address new issues
or current issues at a more in-depth level.
The last stage of the project will be to evaluate the
vulnerabilities and threat to each mode and transportation system in
order to understand the relative risks and priorities for establishing
solutions. Best practices, lessons learned and pilot tests will be
conducted to better understand the specifics of the vulnerabilities and
identify possible solutions.
Question. $500,000 was provided for a contract with the National
Academy of Sciences for an advisory committee on surface transportation
security. Has this advisory committee been established? Please detail
the committee's actions, schedule, and any recommendations made thus
far. What RSPA staff officials, if any, sit on the advisory committee?
Answer. The National Advisory Committee on Surface Transportation
Security will be established in July of 1997. The committee will be
managed by the National Materials Advisory Board and include
representation from other boards (e.g., Transportation Research Board,
the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, the Marine Board,
Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, and Board on
Manufacturing and Engineering Design). The committee is expected to
hold its first public meeting in September 1997, have initial
recommendations on promising technologies and processes to improve
transportation-system security by December 1997, and issue a final
report in July 1998 after the Department has completed its assessment.
The Department's portion of the surface vulnerability study will help
define the vulnerabilities and identify key areas for the committee to
explore technology solutions. The RSPA Deputy Administrator and
Associate Administrator for Research Technology and Analysis will sit
on the committee.
two funding streams
Question. For fiscal year 1998, the Office of Research and
Technology is assuming a dual funding stream: $3,900,000 is requested
in appropriated general funds, and the President's NEXTEA proposal
assumes $10,000,000 in contract authority from the highway trust fund.
How will the appropriated and contract authority dollars be spent? Are
the two funding streams designed to serve distinctly different
purposes, or is there overlap?
Answer. The two funding streams are designed to serve different but
inter-related purposes. The $3,900,000 would be used to fund RSPA's
Research and Technology Office in its traditional role of strategic
research planning and system assessment, coordinating and facilitating
transportation research, technology and safety training, disseminating
information on departmental, national and international transportation
R&D, managing strategic (intermodal/multimodal) transportation
research, and stimulating university research and education. These
activities provide strategic planning support and guidance for R&D
performed across the Federal government and the Department of
Transportation, including those projects performed under the
$10,000,000 contract authority.
The $10,000,000 would fund the activities of the NEXTEA-proposed
Intermodal Transportation Research and Development (ITRD) Program. The
purposes of the ITRD Program in the NEXTEA proposal are as follows:
``(1) enhance the capabilities of Federal agencies in meeting
national transportation needs as defined by their missions through
support for basic and applied research and development impacting the
various modes of transportation including research and development in
safety, security, mobility, energy and environment, information and
physical infrastructure, and industrial design;
(2) identify and apply innovative research performed by the
Government, academia and the private sector to the intermodal and
multimodal transportation research, development, and deployment needs
of the Department and the Nation's transportation enterprise;
(3) identify and leverage research, technologies, and other
information developed by the Government for national defense and non-
defense purposes for the benefit of public, commercial and defense
transportation sectors; and
(4) share information, analytical and research capabilities among
Federal, state and local governments, colleges and universities, and
private organizations to advance their transportation research,
development and deployment needs.''
(See Title VI of the Administration's bill introduced as H.R. 1720;
This would be codified as 52 USC Sec. 5231(b)).
If the ITRD Program is authorized and funded, a council comprised
of representatives from the DOT modal administrations and other Federal
departments supporting transportation-related research would direct the
new contract authority program. The Program would conduct inter/multi-
modal innovative and applied research to meet transportation needs for
the 21st century. This program would identify and fund innovative
research, engineering concepts, technologies, and strategic
opportunities in academia, Federal laboratories and industry for
addressing critical crosscutting transportation issues pertaining to:
safety; security; mobility; energy and environment; human behavior and
physiology; and information/physical infrastructure. More specifically,
activities would include: (1) reducing the transportation-related loss
of life and property by first understanding human behavior, and then
using ``human-centered'' approaches to make systems easier to use, and
more forgiving of errors; (2) reducing the potential of disruptions
from tampering or system failures by applying new sensor and
information technologies; (3) developing new ways of managing and
operating transportation systems to reduce transportation-related
energy consumption and environmental pollution while sustaining
economic growth; and (4) improving system planning by developing and
using improved tools (e.g., models), knowledge, information and
techniques.
new nextea contract authority research program
Question. Please display the NEXTEA contract authority request for
Research and Technology over the six year authorization cycle, with a
total.
Answer. The contract authority requested in the NEXTEA proposal for
the Intermodal Transportation Research and Development Program (Title
VI of the Administration's bill introduced as H.R. 1720) is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Amount
1998.............................................................. 10
1999.............................................................. 15
2000.............................................................. 20
2001.............................................................. 25
2002.............................................................. 30
2003.............................................................. 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 135
NEXTEA gives the Secretary the authority to determine which office
within the Department will manage the program.
Question. What input will the other modes have in determining the
allocation of the intermodal R&D contract funds requested under NEXTEA?
Answer. If the Intermodal Transportation R&D Program is authorized
and funded by Congress, we anticipate that a departmental council would
provide program direction and management oversight. This council would
be made up of representatives from the DOT modal administrations, and
include representatives from other Federal agencies responsible for
research important to national transportation needs. The council would
provide the program with broad guidance on strategic research needs and
approve projects based on a competitive, peer-reviewed selection
process. An office, to be designated by the Secretary, would manage the
program for the Secretary based on the guidance of the council.
Question. If one assumes that the RSPA Research and Technology
Office will be the coordinating point for all transportation research
and development across the Federal Government, then please describe in
detail the process of proposing, approving, planning and deploying
research programs and projects, and disseminating the resulting
knowledge to interested parties in the public and private sector.
Answer. There are two parts to this question. (1) what does the
RSPA strategic planning and coordination function for transportation
research and development (R&D) provide to the Federal Government and
the Department of Transportation (DOT); and (2) how would a project
funded by the proposed Intermodal Transportation R&D Program be
identified, approved, reviewed and results disseminated?
(1) The $3,900,000 in the RSPA Research and Technology Office
fiscal year 1998 budget would fund strategic planning and system
assessment, coordinating development of partnerships in transportation
research, technology and safety training, and disseminating information
on departmental, national and international transportation R&D.
Authorization has been sought under Title VI (Section 6001) of NEXTEA
to help institutionalize the strategic planning process for
transportation R&D.
The following outlines the steps RSPA took in fiscal year 1997 and
will take in fiscal year 1998 to help create a comprehensive strategic
planning process for transportation R&D:
--Strategic direction. In fiscal year 1997, RSPA lead the development
of the Federal Transportation Science and Technology Strategy
which: (1) takes a long-term and systemic view of the Nation's
transportation needs (e.g., safety, security, sustainability);
(2) forecasts trends; (3) provides strategic direction for
transportation R&D to address those needs; and (4) provides
meaningful and relevant indicators for measuring the impact of
R&D on the performance of the nation's transportation system.
--A National Transportation S&T Strategy, proposed in the RSPA fiscal
year 1998 budget, will build on the first Strategy. This
effort, in addition to the individual Strategic Plans developed
by the Federal agencies in response to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), forms the basis for
planning, programming and budgeting guidance and decisions for
the individual agencies and DOT operating administrations.
--Planning, Programming and Budgeting.--Interagency plans
(Transportation Technology Plan and Intermodal/Multimodal
Transportation Strategic Research Plan) identified in the RSPA
fiscal year 1998 budget will provide the vehicle to do systemic
R&D planning needed to achieve an intermodal transportation
system.
--A DOT Transportation R&D Plan will expand on the ISTEA Surface
Transportation R&D Plans, to include all modes of civil and
commercial transportation. The DOT Transportation R&D Plan
replaces the Fifth Edition of the Surface Transportation R&D
Plan proposed in the fiscal year 1998 budget submission.
These two planning efforts will be used by the agencies and DOT
operating administrations to develop their own detailed plans, adjust
their programs, and develop their budgets.
--Program/Project Implementation. Each agency and DOT operating
administration is responsible for executing their programs.
Procedurally, this step is unchanged. Substantively, all
agencies and operating administrations are guided to identify
and develop partnerships, where appropriate, with other Federal
organizations, state and local governments, academia and
industry. This will help minimize duplication among Federal R&D
programs while fostering the dissemination of information and
technology.
--Program/Project Evaluation. Each Federal agency and DOT operating
administration will conduct program and project evaluations, as
they currently do. Starting in the fiscal year 1999 budget
cycle, all Federal agencies and DOT operating administrations
are encouraged to perform self assessments of their
transportation R&D programs using recognized Federal (i.e.,
President's Quality Award criteria) and industry (i.e., Malcolm
Baldrige criteria).
--Transportation Assessments. In the past, DOT has had limited data
on the system-wide performance of the nation's transportation
system (e.g., safety, security, and efficiency) and the impact
transportation R&D has had on it. Furthermore, they have had
limited data on foreign R&D and its potential application to
U.S. transportation needs.
The RSPA fiscal year 1998 budget funds the first-ever National
Transportation System Assessment and International R&D Assessment to
start gathering (Bureau of Transportation and Statistics function) and
analyzing (RSPA function) this type of data. This data will be used
extensively in strategy development and in planning, program and budget
development.
An example of this type of assessment is the comprehensive
``Transportation System Vulnerability Assessment'' of the U.S.
transportation system currently being performed by RSPA. This
assessment will provide information necessary to recommend
countermeasures to make the Nation's transportation system more secure
from both physical and information-based threats.
--Peer and Independent Reviews. In the past, the Federal Government
and DOT have not conducted peer and independent reviews of: (1)
its transportation R&D portfolio from a systemic perspective;
(2) the process used to define and manage the portfolio; and
(3) system-level assessments. An example of these types of
reviews would be the Congressionally directed National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) ``Advisory Committee on Surface
Transportation Security'' (ACSTS), a Committee of experts who
provide independent inputs to DOT on ways to improve the
security of the U.S. transportation system.
The RSPA fiscal year 1998 budget funds the National Research
Council (NRC) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to review the
Transportation S&T Strategy, the Federal strategic planning process for
transportation R&D and Federal transportation R&D priorities. In
addition, they will be used to provide inputs into transportation
system-level and program assessments.
--Dissemination of Program/Project Results. The RSPA fiscal year 1998
funds would initiate the development of a DOT R&D Tracking
System to provide accurate information about R&D project status
and accomplishments. Currently, there is no such system. This
will enable the DOT to provide an input into the Federal-wide
R&D tracking system--Research and Development in the United
States (RaDiUS) database--and enable more informed decision
making on transportation R&D issues.
In addition, a National Transportation S&T Homepage will be
expanded in fiscal year 1998 to include information on private and
public sector transportation R&D as well as provide an interactive
forum for public involvement in the strategic planning process for
transportation R&D. Other mechanisms for disseminating information will
also continue to be encouraged (e.g., reports and other publications,
conferences and seminars).
(2) The $10,000,000 of contract authority in fiscal year 1998 would
fund projects under the NEXTEA-proposed Intermodal Transportation
Research and Development (ITRD) Program. Assuming the Secretary
delegates the staff function for ITRD to RSPA, it would provide an
Executive Director to manage the program on a day-to-day basis under
the direction of a senior-level council. The council would ultimately
approve research projects based on a competitive, peer-reviewed
selection process. The council would be made up of representatives from
the DOT modal administrations and could include representatives from
other Federal agencies responsible for research important to national
transportation needs. Projects in the program would go through the
following process:
--Identification. The Transportation S&T Strategy identifies areas of
enabling or long-term and high-risk transportation research.
Using the Strategy as a basis, a NSTC Transportation R&D
Committee interagency team, comprised of members from the DOT
operating administrations and Federal agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE,
NASA and NSF) who perform basic or advanced transportation-
related R&D, will document ongoing research and identify future
research needs, priorities and potential project areas. The
team will develop a broad-gauged, forward-looking Strategic
Transportation Research Plan for the Federal Government; this
is the Research Plan identified under Planning, Programming and
Budgeting under Question (1). This Plan will help minimize
duplication and foster collaborative projects across the
Federal Government. In addition, it will identify opportunities
for either leveraging or filling major gaps in ongoing
research. The development of this Plan is not funded by the
ITRD.
--Approval. We anticipate that the council would review the
interagency Strategic Transportation Research Plan and develop
broad program guidance that would be used in soliciting
proposals. Interagency research area working groups would
receive the proposals, review them for programmatic and
technical merit, and submit them for council consideration.
Prior to approval by the council, the guidance and the proposed
projects would be reviewed by an independent scientific
advisory board. Once completed, the council would approve the
projects and funding would be awarded.
--Results Dissemination. Data would be collected and disseminated
continuously via INTERNET on the status and results of research
projects. Reports on individual projects would be published at
appropriate intervals.
Question. How much authority will the R&T Office have to approve or
disapprove research projects in other DOT agencies or other Executive
Branch agencies?
Answer. The R&T Office does not exercise authority to approve or
disapprove research projects in other DOT administrations or Executive
Branch agencies.
Working with other Federal agencies and DOT administrations and
secretarial officers, the R&T Office provides recommendations on
program directions and priorities to the White House and Federal
agencies, including DOT. Recommendations for government-wide research
and development (R&D) activities are coordinated through the Office of
Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Recommendations for DOT R&D activities are coordinated through the DOT
R&T Coordinating Council and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs.
Question. Would the new contract authority program actually fund
research projects, or is the Research and Technology Office's role
still that of planning, coordination, and dissemination?
Answer. The new contract authority proposed under the President's
NEXTEA proposal would fund research projects. A council made up of
representatives from the DOT modal administrations and other Federal
agencies supporting transportation-related research would direct the
new contract authority program. If assigned, RSPA's Research and
Technology Office would manage the program for the Secretary based on
the guidance of the council.
The RSPA Research and Technology Office would also continue in its
traditional role of research planning and coordination, as well as
managing those inter/multimodal research coordination and training
programs assigned to it by the Secretary (such as the University
Transportation Centers and the University Research Institutes programs,
and the Transportation Safety Institute).
Question. If projects will actually be paid for from this account,
please characterize the types of research programs the contract
authority program would fund.
Answer. The contract authority under this program would be used to
fund long-term, innovative, multimodal research in seven broad
categories: Human performance and behavior; advanced materials;
computer, information, and communications systems; energy and
environment; sensing and measurement; and tools for transportation
modeling and design.
This interagency/departmental program would identify and fund
innovative research, engineering concepts, technologies, and strategic
opportunities in academia, Federal laboratories and industry for
addressing critical crosscutting transportation issues pertaining to:
safety; security; mobility; energy and environment; human behavior and
physiology; and information/physical infrastructure. It would enable
the Department of Transportation to leverage the investments being made
across the Government and to play a role in major interagency and
intergovernmental research initiatives that have application to
transportation in the categories listed above.
Research areas of particular interest are: (1) reducing the
transportation-related loss of life and property by first understanding
human behavior, and then using ``human-centered'' approaches to make
systems easier to use, and more forgiving of errors; (2) reducing the
potential of disruptions from tampering or system failures by applying
new sensor and information technologies; (3) improving the energy
efficiency and environmental quality of motor vehicles and ships (e.g.,
fuel cells); (4) developing new ways of managing and operating
transportation systems to reduce transportation-related energy
consumption and environmental pollution while sustaining economic
growth; and, (5) improve system planning by developing and using
improved tools (e.g., models), knowledge, information and techniques.
Question. How many positions are associated with the NEXTEA first-
year funding of $10,000,000? Are additional PC&B expenses in the RSPA
R&T Office associated with the new program, or will the program be run
by the existing staff? If there are new staffing requirements, how many
new FTE's are anticipated in the first year of funding? Will these
positions be paid for by the contract authority funds?
Answer. If RSPA's Research and Technology Office is designated by
the Secretary to manage the intermodal research program, we do not
anticipate additional staffing requirements will be needed.
Question. You have stated that RSPA needs to do cross-cutting and
intermodal research. Please give specific examples of key needs in
cross-cutting or intermodal research which are not being met.
Answer. Based on a GAO Report: Surface Transportation: Research
Funding, Federal Role and Emerging Issues, September 1996, DOT should
perform cross-cutting, intermodal and long-term and high-risk research.
The report states, ``Investment in surface transportation research is
inadequate to build knowledge, either in three emerging areas--system
assessment, policy research and intermodal research--or in basic, long-
term, high-risk research.'' ``Because about 80 percent of the projects
are applied, short-term or low-risk, the officials were concerned that
quantum leaps--generally credited to basic research--would not occur
and users' needs would not be met.'' Because of RSPA's intermodal
responsibilities, it has taken the lead to propose such a research
program for the Department.
Today, DOT's predominantly modal structure and Congress's focus on
near-term transportation needs of specific modes (air, surface,
maritime) provide no mechanism to fund innovative research aimed at:
optimizing overall transportation system performance, making
transportation systems more adaptable to human needs and safety, and
reducing regulatory barriers; or long-term, high-risk, high-payoff
research that has pervasive benefits to the transportation enterprise
or could provide major breakthroughs in transportation. Most of the
basic and applied transportation-related research in the United States
is performed in its universities and Federal laboratories. Harnessing
this capability and applying the best ideas from international R&D
performers not only would save taxpayers' dollars, but would also open
up the opportunity for major advances in all modes of civil and
commercial transportation.
In addition, transportation infrastructure lasts for generations
and has many long-term effects, but the tools and methods for
estimating these effects are inadequate and there is little incentive
for the private sector to develop them. Underinvestment in long-term,
inter/multi-modal transportation research limits the ability of the
Department and the Federal Government to develop realistic national
policies and to steer and advance the U.S. transportation enterprise.
National transportation goals for safety, security, energy,
environment, mobility, accessibility, and global competitiveness must
ultimately be achieved over time periods measured in decades. This
requires support from an aggressive strategic, interdisciplinary,
inter/multi-modal, long-term research agenda. Its elements can start,
for example, to:
--reduce the cost for maintaining the nation's deteriorating
transportation infrastructure,
--improve access to transportation services for an aging population,
--decrease the vulnerability of the nation's transportation system to
natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks,
--provide reliable service for both passenger and freight transport
(on time with no damage).
Most of the potential cross-cutting transportation research topics
are interdisciplinary and complex, such as:
--human performance and behavior (e.g., fatigue research, research on
human-centered systems, use of simulator for driver training
and assessment);
--advanced materials for infrastructure and vehicle application
(e.g., composites);
--computer, information and communication systems (e.g., high-
confidence systems, Next Generation Internet);
--energy and environment (e.g., fuel cells);
--sensing and measurement (e.g., structural monitoring,
instrumentation and repair);
--tools for transportation modeling and design (e.g., industrial
design).
Many involve aspects outside the traditional transportation
mainstream research areas (e.g., computer sciences, industrial design,
biotechnology). Achieving meaningful results will take a long-term
commitment of resources and will require overcoming institutional
barriers, including basic changes in the ``corporate culture'' of the
Department and the transportation industry at large.
Question. Please give specific examples of RSPA's successes in
intermodal research or in cross-cutting research?
Answer. RSPA has worked extensively to promote cross-cutting
research and coordinate the Department's transportation research
programs. As a result, DOT has been able to avoid duplicative projects
among the research agendas of the various DOT operating
administrations. In addition, research cost savings have resulted from
more sophisticated program design, and multimodal applicability of
modal-specific technologies. Specific examples of RSPA's successes
include:
--University Transportation Centers and University Research
Institutes Programs. The University Transportation Centers
(UTC) and University Research Institutes (URI) Programs are
managed by RSPA. The UTC Program has engaged research personnel
and facilities in more than 1,000 research projects with the
help of $187 million in Federal and non-Federal matching funds.
To date, the UTC Program supports 14 centers with 67
participating universities nationwide, has issued more than
1,000 reports and involved more than 3,200 university students
and faculty.
The URI Program, established under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is similar in mission to the UTC
Program but differs significantly in that all of the Institutes are
located at named universities, and they address topics that were
specified in the legislation, such as surface transportation policy,
infrastructure technology, urban transit, and intelligent
transportation systems.
The URI Program has initiated and completed over 100 intermodal
research projects and provided financial support to at least 70
students in the transportation field. Both the UTC and URI Programs
have: held several technology conferences and symposia on intermodal
surface transportation topics; briefed thousands of transportation
practitioners on new technologies and the latest research results; and
developed and offered dozens of interdisciplinary transportation
courses.
--Small Business Innovation Research Program. RSPA has taken a
leadership role in promoting use of the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) to develop multimodal technologies.
RSPA has already awarded one SBIR contract on use of natural
basalt to reinforce concrete, which has great potential for
markedly cutting transportation system installation. Proposals
for innovations in nanotechnology and transportation system
security were included in this year's solicitation, and are now
under evaluation.
--Partnership with Advanced Research Projects Agency. RSPA also
served as the focal point for interactions with the Advanced
Research Projects Agency on its technology re-investment
program. Many of these projects are now completed: an
ultraviolet LIDAR system to measure air pollution, and an
uncooled infrared sensor for night security applications were
particularly successful. In addition, RSPA's Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center now performs cross-cutting
research for all modal administrations and other Federal
agencies, including the Department of Defense.
--Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan. On a broader
basis, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 requires DOT to annually update an integrated national
surface transportation R&D plan that focuses on research needed
over the next decade. RSPA's Volpe Center has completed the
text of the fourth edition of this plan, which is now being
prepared for distribution. RSPA released previous editions of
the plan in July 1993, March 1995, and March 1996.
The fourth edition of the plan has been extensively revised to
reflect the new government-wide National Science and Technology Council
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy. Both in the Strategy
and in the Plan, enabling research on six cross-cutting topics is
highlighted: Human performance and behavior; advanced materials;
computer, information, and communication systems; energy and
environment; sensing and measurement; and tools for transportation
modeling, design, and construction.
RSPA has had successes in all of these areas, in terms of
coordinating Departmental activities, actual conduct of needed
research, and dissemination of promising research results beyond their
initial modal audiences. For example, RSPA has led a Departmental
initiative on advanced materials since the early 1990's. The RSPA
report Materials Research and Technology Initiatives provides DOT's
project managers, customers and prospective research partners with a
consolidated summary of materials-related research projects for
baseline use in research planning, thereby reducing the possibility of
duplication.
Question. Doesn't the Department's Research and Technology
Coordinating Council already promote cross-cutting research? If so,
what funds are used?
Answer. The Council does promote cross-cutting research for the
Department. Since the RSPA Associate Administrator for Research,
Technology and Analysis has been assigned responsibility for managing
the Council, funds for this function come from the RSPA Office of
Research, Technology and Analysis budget. The Council is also starting
to perform some cross-cutting policy research, such as in understanding
the technological and behavioral implications of alternative
transportation infrastructures and developmental patterns of long-term
environmental sustainability, addressing intermodal freight issues and
defining meaningful and relevant performance measures for
transportation research and development. These activities require
funding and are also included in the RSPA budget.
Question. What are the recent specific accomplishments of the
Research and Technology Coordinating Council?
Answer. Over the last year, the Research and Technology
Coordinating Council [R&T Council] has made improvements in several
areas:
DOT has implemented coordinated programs to high-potential
technologies with applicability that spans modal lines. Within DOT
cooperation and collaboration are particularly apparent on human
factors and advanced materials research. Work is ongoing to develop a
coordinated program for fuel cells for use in maritime applications and
large-scale vehicles. The Departments of Defense and Energy and NASA
are becoming involved in supporting several of these efforts.
The linkages between DOT's R&T activities and the departmental
priorities as outlined in the DOT Strategic Plan are more clearly
defined, and explicitly stated in the NSTC Transportation Science and
Technology Strategy.
In response to the Government Performance and Results Act, DOT's
research managers are developing a consensus on specific quantitative
indicators to evaluate the impact of research and technology
investments. Preliminary material on this topic will be included in the
Fourth edition of the DOT Surface Transportation R&D plan, and an R&T
Council working group is developing a more detailed document exploring
this specific topic.
The working relationships which resulted from developing the
Surface Transportation R&D Plan are now facilitating DOT efforts to
streamline and institutionalize a broader, formal strategic R&D
planning process across all modes in the Department as well as lead
government-wide efforts to create a strategic planning process for
transportation R&D.
The President's NEXTEA proposal includes a proposal for creating a
strategic planning process for transportation research and development
and an advanced intermodal transportation R&D program for the
Department. This action occurred as a direct result of the Council's
efforts to respond to the recommendations of the GAO report on Surface
Transportation: Research Funding, Federal Role, and Emerging Issues,
that the Department needed to a framework for establishing R&T
priorities and more emphasis on high-risk, long-term research with
broader applicability.
The improved staff working relationships among the surface
transportation elements of DOT facilitate cross-modal cooperation on
individual research projects. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) agreed to participate in RSPA's evaluations of
advanced materials proposals received in response to last year's SBIR
solicitation. FHWA ultimately funded one of the non-selected proposals
itself in addition to the RSPA award. Similar cooperation has become
evident between FHWA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on
pavement research issues.
Results of DOT research will soon be more accessible through a new,
integrated transportation science and technology home page.
The centralized DOT Technology Sharing program is now providing
outreach services for a wider variety of operating administrations: in
addition FHWA, FTA and FRA, the Maritime Administration and FAA now use
this program to share information on their research activities.
To support their R&D planning and reduce the possibility of
duplicating initiatives undertaken in other Federal agencies, R&T
Council representatives now have access to and are using the Research
and Development in the United States (RaDiUS) data base operated by
Rand's Critical Technologies Institute for the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. RaDiUS describes ongoing research throughout the
Federal Government, and is a particularly useful tool for preventing
research duplication on an interagency basis.
Question. You have stated that RSPA needs additional funds to help
coordinate research in the Department. Isn't this a function of the
Research and Technology Coordinating Council within the Department?
Answer. The RSPA Associate Administrator for Research, Technology
and Analysis manages the Research and Technology Coordinating Council
for the Department. Since the Research and Technology Coordinating
Council receives no funding from Congress and coordinates Department-
wide and inter-modal research and technology issues, RSPA's Office of
Research, Technology and Analysis is responsible for funding its
activities (e.g., developing the Surface Transportation R&D Plan),
managing the Department-wide technology transfer and technology sharing
programs, facilitating research and technology programs with other
agencies (e.g., maritime applications of fuel cells), and performing
analysis on performance measurement which impacts all modes of
transportation.
fiscal year 1998 appropriations request
Question. The Research and Technology Office's budget justification
is detailed, but does not indicate any program cost allocation. RSPA
has requested $3,900,000 for the Research and Technology Office in
appropriated funds for fiscal year 1998. Please display in tabular form
the highlighted bullets on pages 70-75 of the budget justification,
indicating the level of funding to be applied for each research area or
activity.
Answer. These are the funding levels anticipated for each research
area and activity:
Strategic planning: Fiscal year 1998
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy Deployment. $300,000
Develop DOT Surface Transportation Research and
Development Plan........................................ 150,000
Publish Transportation Technology and Strategic Research
Plans................................................... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 550,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
System assessment:
Surface Transportation System Assessment.................. 650,000
International Surface Transportation System Assessment.... 250,000
Transportation System Vulnerability Assessment............
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 900,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Policy research: Sustainable Transportation................... 150,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Research and technology coordination and facilitation:
Interagency--NSTC......................................... 525,000
Intragency--DOT........................................... 50,000
National--Government, University, Industry................ 425,000
International............................................. 200,000
Information Access........................................ 375,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 1,575,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Intermodal and multi-modal research and education:
Transportation Safety Institute........................... 100,000
University Programs....................................... 275,000
Strategic Transportation Research & Development programs:
Human-Centered Transportation......................... 50,000
Advanced Materials.................................... 50,000
Information Systems and Security...................... 200,000
Biomechanics & Micro/Nano Devices..................... 50,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal............................................ 725,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 3,900,000
Question. Please break down how the $5.2 million provided for the
RSPA R&T Office in fiscal year 1997 (combined regular appropriations
and Omnibus appropriations) is being allocated on a contract-by-
contract basis. Please do the same for the fiscal year 1996 monies.
Answer. RSPA's research and development activities performed at
Volpe for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were funded as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic planning:
Develop Transportation Science and
Technology Strategy and Deployment. $200,000 $200,000
Develop Surface Transportation
Research and Development Plan...... 66,000 100,000
Develop Transportation Technology
and Strategic Research Plans....... .............. 200,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 266,000 500,000
===============================
System assessment:
Surface Transportation System
Assessment......................... 100,000 100,000
International Surface Transportation
System Assessment.................. .............. 100,000
Transportation System Vulnerability
Assessment......................... .............. 2,275,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 100,000 2,475,000
===============================
Policy research: Sustainable
Transportation......................... .............. 75,000
===============================
Research and technology coordination and
facilitation:
Interagency--NSTC................... 350,000 400,000
Intragency--DOT..................... 50,000 50,000
National--Government, University,
Industry........................... 45,000 145,000
International....................... 30,000 100,000
Information Access.................. 219,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 694,000 795,000
===============================
Intermodal and multimodal research and
education:
University Programs................. 192,000 100,000
Strategic Transportation Research &
Development Programs............... 260,000 195,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 452,000 295,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,512,000 4,140,000
===============================
Additional monies will be provided to
the following organizations/contractors
for assisting RSPA in conducting the
Transportation System Vulnerability
Assessment, supporting the Department's
Technology Transfer program, tapping
the National Academy of Sciences to
review the Federal and Departmental
transportation science and technology
strategic planning process, and in
representing the Department on various
National Research Council roundtables
and conferences:
National Research Council/
Transportation Research Board...... 100,000 200,000
National Academy of Sciences........ 125,000 625,000
Sandia National Laboratories........ .............. 75,000
San Jose State University........... 19,000 50,000
Department of Justice............... .............. 100,000
Logistics Application Inc........... 40,000 40,000
Critical Technologies Institute..... 70,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 354,000 1,090,000
-------------------------------
Grand total....................... 1,866,000 5,230,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much is requested to prepare and distribute the
Annual Surface Transportation R&D plan?
Answer. RSPA has requested $150,000 in fiscal year 1998 to prepare
and distribute the Department's annual Surface Transportation R&D plan.
Question. Do you plan on spending monies to promote
commercialization of research discoveries made by DOT in the private
sector?
Answer. RSPA plans to provide funding to develop mechanisms which
promote commercialization of DOT research in the private sector, rather
than funding individual commercialization efforts. For example, through
the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee, National Academy of Sciences'
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable and DOT-wide Small
Business Innovative Research and Technology Transfer and Sharing
activities, RSPA will ensure quicker and broader access to information
on new technologies by involving partners from government, industry and
academia in the strategic planning and technology development process.
This should improve the diffusion of these technologies into the
market.
RSPA is also facilitating and coordinating the following DOT-wide
initiatives:
--Promoting development, promulgation, and adoption of international
technical standards;
--Identifying opportunities to reduce regulatory and institutional
barriers and, hence, the time and resources required to
establish partnerships, including state, local and tribal
governments and large, medium and small businesses; and
--Creating a more flexible intellectual property regime and applying
ideas, knowledge and concepts rapidly, if not directly, to the
development of new products and services by industry.
These initiatives will reduce the resources and time it takes for
innovative transportation technology to reach the market. In addition,
the proposed National Science and Technology Strategy, which RSPA
played a leadership role in developing, puts particular emphasis on
``partnership initiatives'' as a vehicle to move technologies from
development to commercial applicability.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the different major categories and
subcomponents of the Research and Technology budget for each of the
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of
funds.
Answer. RSPA's research and development activities for fiscal year
1995 were appropriated and obligated as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995
R&D program area -------------------------------
Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology development.................. $1,061,000 $859,000
Technology dissemination................ 50,000 50,000
Technology application.................. .............. 202,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,111,000 1,111,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1996, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation and RSPA
Administrator initiated a major restructuring of the Department's
strategic planning and management process for research and development.
As such, RSPA's fiscal year 1996 and 1997 budgets were restructured to
provide needed funding to support this new approach which focuses on:
strategic planning, systems assessment and policy research; research
and development coordination and facilitation; and inter/multi-modal
research and education programs. The following table indicates the
allocation of funds for R&D activities in fiscal years 1996 and 1997:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997
Activity ---------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Obligated Appropriated Obligated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic planning, system assessment and policy research:
Develop Transportation Science and Technology Strategy
and Deployment......................................... $250,000 $250,000 $200,000 $200,000
Develop Surface Transportation Research and Development
Plan................................................... 66,000 66,000 100,000 100,000
Develop Transportation Technology and Strategic Research
Plans.................................................. ............ .......... 200,000 200,000
Surface Transportation System Assessment................ 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000
International Surface Transportation System Assessment.. ............ .......... 100,000 100,000
Transportation System Vulnerability Assessment/NAS...... ............ .......... 3,000,000 1,725,000
Sustainable Transportation.............................. ............ .......... 75,000 75,000
Research and technology coordination and facilitation:
Interagency--NSTC....................................... 400,000 400,000 550,000 535,000
Intragency--DOT......................................... 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
National--Government, University, Industry.............. 210,000 210,000 310,000 270,000
International........................................... 30,000 30,000 100,000 100,000
Information Access...................................... 289,000 289,000 100,000 100,000
Intermodal and multi-modal research and education:
University Programs..................................... 192,000 192,000 100,000 100,000
Strategic Transportation Research & Development Programs 279,000 279,000 195,000 95,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,866,000 1,866,000 5,230,000 3,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. With a $10,000,000 contract authority research program
assumed for fiscal year 1998, why does RSPA need an appropriated
research and technology program at all?
Answer. The appropriated research and technology program serves
different but inter-related purpose. The $3,900,000 request is needed
to fund the RSPA Office of Research and Technology in its role as the
Department's and Federal Government's hub for strategic research
planning and system assessment, coordination and facilitation of
research, technology and safety training, and university research and
education. In addition, the funding would be used to disseminate
information on departmental, national and international transportation
R&D, and to stimulate university research and education. These
activities provide strategic planning support and guidance for R&D
performed across the Federal government and the Department of
Transportation, including those projects that will be performed under
the $10,000,000 contract authority.
The $10 million included in the Highway Trust Fund request responds
to a specific recommendations from several GAO studies that DOT should
perform more basic, long-term, high-risk and intermodal research. This
funding would provide a means to leverage technology and research
performed government-wide for civil and commercial transportation
applications at the Federal, State and local level.
In particular, the $10 million represents startup funding for an
Inter/Multi-modal Advanced Research Program as proposed in the National
Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA). It will
enable the Department of Transportation to leverage the investments
being made across the Government and to play a role in major
interagency and intergovernmental research initiatives that have
application to transportation, specifically in areas such as: human
performance and behavior; advanced materials; computer, information,
and communication systems; energy and environment; sensing and
measurement; and tools for transportation modeling and design.
Potential areas for basic research or exploratory development of
particular interest are: (1) reducing the transportation-related loss
of life and property by first understanding human behavior, and then
using ``human-centered'' approaches to make systems easier to use, and
more forgiving of errors; (2) reducing the potential of disruptions
from tampering or system failures by applying new sensor and
information technologies; (3) developing new ways of managing and
operating transportation systems to reduce transportation-related
energy consumption and environmental pollution while sustaining
economic growth; and, (4) improve system planning by developing and
using improved tools (e.g., models), knowledge, information and
techniques.
surface transportation research and development plan
Question. Pursuant to Section 6009(b) of ISTEA, the third edition
of the DOT Surface Transportation R&D Plan was published in March 1996,
outlining the Department's near-term research agenda for 1996-1998. How
could the Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan be more
beneficial to the Department?
Answer. RSPA has undertaken a carefully planned program to upgrade
and improve the utility and relevance of the Surface Transportation R&D
Plan to research planners within and outside of DOT.
In response to Congressional concerns, the Third Edition of the
Plan placed much more emphasis on research to address longer-term (the
next 10 years and beyond) transportation needs.
The Fourth edition, which is now awaiting release, has been
restructured to better link plans for DOT's surface transportation
research with the top-level goals and directions established in
documents like the DOT Strategic Plan and the proposed NSTC
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy. Recognizing the need to
evaluate the effectiveness of research, it also indicates the range of
performance measures available for research, and explores how they
might be applied.
In the fiscal year 1998 budget request, we are recommending that
the Surface Transportation R&D Plan be broadened to include all of
DOT's research and development as well as private sector research
investments in transportation. A DOT Transportation R&D Plan would help
the Department and Congress get a better picture of national
transportation R&D needs, trends, and opportunities. The broader-based
Plan would provide an integrated, multimodal strategic vision and
elaborate on the DOT R&D thrusts necessary to realize that vision.
Emphasis will be on defining a national framework for capitalizing on
Departmental and Government-wide transportation R&D investments for all
modes and the system at large.
Future editions will further expand in scope to consider
Departmental, Government-wide, domestic and international surface
transportation R&D investments.
Question. What lessons have been learned about DOT's surface
transportation research from preparing the initial plans?
Answer. Based on experience with the Surface Transportation R&D
plan and other research coordination activities, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
--DOT's R&D Plan should be fully multimodal--including aviation,
surface systems, and maritime systems--to assure no duplication
of research internal to DOT, except in special cases when
competitive approaches need to be considered. Also, there is a
need for the plan to include research performance measures, not
only to improve management of R&T programs, but also to measure
the effectiveness of R&T investments on the performance of the
national transportation system. This includes improvements in
safety, mobility, and environmental quality.
--DOT's R&D budget is a relatively small component of all
transportation R&D conducted in the Federal government, and in
the U.S. private sector. DOT's research planners should
consider research being done by all DOT elements, other Federal
agencies, the private sector, and other non-transportation
advanced-technology fields.
--DOT's R&D planning should consider information on foreign R&D,
including advanced systems work in Japan and Europe such as in
intelligent transportation systems, to assure competitiveness
of U.S. transportation products and services in world markets.
--A coherent science and technology program should include enabling
research on a multimodal basis, partnership initiatives to
demonstrate potential and assure implementation of new
technologies, and educational programs to develop a cadre of
trained professionals as part of a coherent technology
development strategy.
--The transportation system of the 21st century will require a new
mix of enabling and multidisciplinary research activities to
take advantage of breakthroughs expected in a variety of areas:
materials, human factors, computing and information systems,
planning techniques and industrial design, sensing, and system
sustainability. It will also require a new set of technical and
management skills for the Federal, state and local government
as well as the transportation industry to support it.
--Because of increasingly complex and interdependent patterns in the
economy, communication systems, and the government, we need to
use new approaches to perform research and technology
development, and new mechanisms to move the technologies into
the marketplace.
Question. What tangible results have been realized from efforts to
coordinate research across surface transportation modes?
Answer. Most of the efforts to coordinate surface transportation
research within DOT have been focused by, or implemented through, the
DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council [R&T Council].
Interagency coordination efforts through the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) Transportation R&D Committee have also helped
forge a closer working relationship among the surface modes in the
Department and with other Federal agencies that perform transportation-
related research, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy. The
Deputy Secretary chairs the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee, and RSPA
provides technical and analytical support.
Results of these efforts include:
--The DOT modal administrators have been added as ad hoc members of
the NSTC Transportation R&D Committee, increasing the
coordination among all transportation modes and other Federal
agencies. New planning activities resulting from a proposed
Transportation S&T Strategy are fostering teaming relationships
among the various modes to provide intermodal solutions to
national transportation needs, such as enhancing freight
movement through domestic and international gateways (e.g.,
maritime terminals), improving access for aging and
transportation-disadvantaged Americans, and creating an
environmentally sustainable transportation system.
--DOT is implementing more coordinated and intermodal R&T programs in
areas such as human factors and advanced materials research. In
energy and environmental technologies, the Department has
initiated an effort to develop a coordinated program for fuel
cells for use in maritime applications and large-scale
vehicles. Fuel cells offer the opportunity for energy savings
while improving air quality. The Departments of Defense and
Energy and NASA are becoming involved in supporting several of
these efforts.
--The linkages between DOT's R&T activities and the departmental
priorities as outlined in the DOT Strategic Plan are more
clearly defined, and explicitly stated in the proposed NSTC
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy and other
Executive branch planning and budgeting documents.
--In response to the Government Performance and Results Act, DOT's
research managers are developing a consensus on specific
quantitative indicators to evaluate the impact of research and
technology investments. Preliminary material on this topic will
be included in the Fourth edition of the DOT Surface
Transportation R&D plan, and an R&T Council working group is
developing a more detailed document exploring this specific
topic.
--Working relationships which resulted from developing the Surface
Transportation R&D Plan are now facilitating DOT efforts to
create a broader strategic R&D planning process for the
Department and to lead government-wide efforts to create a
strategic planning process for transportation R&D.
--The President's NEXTEA proposal includes a proposal for formalizing
strategic planning within the Department for R&D as well as
creating an advanced intermodal transportation R&D program for
the Department as a whole. This proposal is a direct result of
increased cooperation among the DOT operating administrations,
and their efforts to response to the GAO report, Surface
Transportation: Research Funding, Federal Role, and Emerging
Issues, which identified the need for: ``an integrated
framework for surface transportation research,'' ``a better
understanding of the transportation system's parts and their
interrelationships,'' and a more aggressive research program in
``either in three emerging areas--systems assessment, policy
research and intermodal research--or in basic, long-term, high-
risk research.''
--The improved staff working relationships among the surface
transportation elements of DOT facilitate cross-modal
cooperation on individual research projects. For example, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreed to participate in
RSPA's evaluations of advanced materials proposals received in
response to last year's SBIR solicitation. FHWA ultimately
funded one of the non-selected proposals itself in addition to
the RSPA award. Similar cooperation has become evident between
FHWA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on pavement
research issues.
--Results of DOT research will soon be more accessible through a new,
integrated transportation science and technology home page
being developed by RSPA for the White House and the Department.
--The centralized DOT Technology Transfer and Sharing programs are
now providing outreach services for a wider variety of
operating administrations beyond FHWA, FTA and FRA: new
publications from the Maritime Administration and FAA were
released this year through its distribution channels.
--To support their R&D planning and reduce the possibility of
duplicating initiatives undertaken in other Federal agencies,
DOT operating administrations now have access to and are using
the Research and Development in the United States (RaDiUS) data
base operated by the Critical Technologies Institute for the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. RaDiUS describes
ongoing research throughout the Federal Government, and is a
particularly useful tool for preventing research duplication on
an interagency basis.
university research
Question. How do you ensure that only high priority projects are
funded at these institutions?
Answer. RSPA requires each University Transportation Center and
University Research Institute to devise and implement a project
selection process that responds to criteria such as regional needs,
national priorities, modal balance, availability of matching funds, and
student and faculty involvement. Many of these criteria are statutorily
mandated and require a balancing of priorities. Each year during the
annual review, RSPA evaluates the effectiveness of the project
selection process in the previous year and approves any changes to the
process for the coming year. RSPA also requires that research projects
undergo academic peer or expert review to ensure that they advance the
body of knowledge in transportation. Note, RSPA does not directly
manage project selection at University Transportation Centers and
University Research Institutes.
Question. Please bring us up to date on how RSPA has improved the
management and oversight of the university centers and research
institutes program.
Answer. Since RSPA took over management of the program in 1992,
each University Transportation Center and University Research Institute
has been required annually to develop a strategic plan for the
following year. This plan is review by DOT staff and discussed with the
respective Center or Institute.
Each Center and Institute submits an annual report describing how
well they implemented their previous year's annual plan. This is also
reviewed by DOT staff and discussed with the particular Center or
Institute.
These actions have resulted in a high level of confidence in the
effectiveness and value of the University Transportation Centers and
University Research Institutes programs.
In 1996, RSPA conducted a program-level review of the Department's
University Transportation Centers Program. The purpose of the review
was to determine whether the program is meeting its statutory goals to
promote transportation education, research and technology transfer. A
final report was issued in February 1997, concluding that the program
was successful in meeting its legislative mission and merits further
consideration at the time of reauthorization under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Question. Please discuss how the DOT's surface transportation
reauthorization bill will improve the Department's contribution to
university research.
Answer. The DOT's surface transportation reauthorization bill (the
Administration's bill was introduced as H.R. 1720) will improve the
Department's contribution to university research in several ways
without requiring any additional Federal funding for the program. It
would institutionalize the planning requirement by which each Center
must produce an annual plan outlining how it proposes to meet the
common mission and goals of the program. This approach has strengthened
the program by providing the universities with maximum flexibility
consistent with prudent oversight. Including it in the legislation will
provide the constancy of purpose which is essential to effective
management.
The University Transportation Centers and University Research
Institutes have been parallel but separate programs. Consolidating them
into a single program of National University Transportation Centers
will reduce the cost of program oversight. More importantly, it will
facilitate the synergy that the Centers, but not the Institutes, have
been able to achieve by virtue of their shared program structure and
goals.
The proposed legislation would also increase the amount of non-
Federal funding available for transit research by specifically allowing
transit operators to use operating funds received from the Federal
Transit Authority to support transit-related research at University
Transportation Centers.
Question. How much is spent on conducting numerous annual on-site
evaluations? What are the benefits of these assessments and how does
RSPA ensure that the university responds to its comments?
Answer. Each year RSPA staff conduct an annual review of each
University Transportation Center and University Research Institute.
Whenever possible, that review entails a site visit. The cost of travel
for two RSPA staffers to visit the 19 sites once a year is
approximately $12,000.
The site inspections serve many purposes, not least of which is
providing the reviewers an opportunity to judge the quality of the
facilities, equipment, and personnel associated with the program. Site
inspections permit the reviewers to meet all of the people associated
with the Center or Institute and to judge from their interaction the
extent to which they comprise a unified center. Meeting the students is
another way to assess the validity of the described education program.
Finally, site visits far exceed written or telephonic exchanges as
effective means to communicate a center's actual achievements.
Annual site visits enable the reviewers to determine how effective
a Center or Institute has been in the prior year; and they set the
stage for negotiating the annual plan that will be the basis for the
next year's award. Each approved annual plan is incorporated by
reference in the grant awarded by RSPA. If the Center or Institute does
not amend its plan or take a particular action to reflect RSPA's
comments, then RSPA will suspend, reduce or disapprove the grant.
office of hazardous materials safety (ohms)
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the different categories and
subcomponents of the Hazardous Materials Safety budget for each of the
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of
funds.
Answer. The following table shows the appropriated & actual amounts
obligated for the major categories and subcomponents of the Hazardous
Materials Safety budget for each of the last three years.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
projected
Appropriation Obligation Appropriation Obligation Appropriation to end of
year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
Information Systems........ 950 940 950 950 1,075 1,075
Research & Analysis........ 300 300 256 256 565 565
Rulemaking Support......... 481 481 365 365 382 383
Inspection & Enforcement... 220 220 180 180 260 260
Registration............... 1,000 1,000 750 750 750 750
HAZMAT Training............ 350 350 350 350 475 475
Information Dissemination.. 170 170 170 170 485 485
Emergency Preparedness..... 310 310 370 270 370 370
International Standards.... 140 140 140 140 80 80
R&D:
Information Systems........ 300 300 300 300 300 300
Regulation Compliance...... 386 \1\ 623 386 \1\ 425 236 211
Research & Analysis........ 714 \1\ 775 699 \1\ 628 464 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations may include carryover funding from prior years.
Question. Please identify the amount and nature of any
reprogramming that occurred during the last two years.
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, $20,000 was transferred from the
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's PC&B account to the equipment
account to fund the purchase of computers to access DOT's new Docket
Management System. The Office of the Secretary's goal was that each
operating administration be on line by October 1, 1996. Because of the
dollar amount involved and its source/destination (PC&B to equipment),
that transfer was not considered a reprogramming action within
Departmental definitions. No reprogramming is planned for fiscal year
1997.
Question. Why is the requested legislative language that includes
``travel expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials
exemptions and approvals functions'' as an allowable cost necessary for
RSPA this year?
Answer. This is a technical correction to facilitate continued
reimbursement of RSPA's costs to inspect the facilities of certain
packaging manufacturers subject to RSPA's exemptions and approvals
program. To ensure that safety standards are maintained regardless of
product origin, RSPA conducts inspections at cylinder manufacturers,
independent inspection agencies, and cylinder requalification
facilities in foreign countries. This program permits foreign
manufacturers access to the U.S. market while maintaining the same
safety standards required of U.S. manufacturers.
personnel issues and operating expenses
Question. Please provide the Committee with the current on-board
staff count, by position, for the regional OHMS enforcement offices.
What is the grade level for the head of each regional office? How does
this compare with the grade level of the supervisor for each OPS
regional office? Is there a discrepancy between the grade levels of
these two jobs?
Answer. Each Hazardous Materials Enforcement regional office has a
Grade 14 position, a Grade 13 position, and four journeymen positions.
As of June 9, 1997, the following represents the staffing of the
regional offices:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHME unit Authorized On-board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special investigations (HQ)................... 5 4
Eastern region................................ 6 5
Central region................................ 6 3
Southern region............................... 6 3
Southwest region.............................. 6 5
Western region................................ 6 6
-------------------------
Total................................... 39 29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full performance level of each regional supervisor is Grade 14.
The full performance level of each OPS regional supervisor is Grade 15.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the authorized number of
inspectors for each of the last three years, and the number of
inspectors actually on-board during this period.
Answer. The following table shows the authorized number of
inspectors and the actual number of inspectors on-board for the last
three years:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Authorized On-board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.......................................... 23 21
1996.......................................... 22 22
1997.......................................... 37 \1\ 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA was authorized to hire 15 new inspectors in fiscal year 1997.
Interviews for these positions were conducted in two phases, with five
new inspectors hired following phase one. Phase two interviews were
completed in June 1997, and one inspector was hired in May and we
expect to have the remaining nine inspectors on board by August 1997.
Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, please prepare a break
out of the number of personnel assigned to each office for each of the
last three years, the grade level, and number of current vacancies.
Answer. The following table summarizes the on-board staff count,
grade levels, and current vacancies in the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety for the last three years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 as of 6/1/95 Fiscal year 1996 as of 6/10/96 Fiscal year 1997 as of 6/4/97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Full time Full time Full time
Vacancies Positions Grade Vacancies Positions Grade Vacancies Positions Grade
positions levels positions levels positions levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Administration and International Standards........... 8 0 2 SES 8 0 2 SES 6 1 2 SES
2 15 2 15 1 15
1 14 1 14 1 14
1 13 1 13 1 13
1 8 1 11 1 7
1 6 1 6
Standards...................................................... 17 1 1 15 18 1 1 15 16 4 1 15
3 14 3 14 3 14
3 13 3 13 1 13
7 12 7 12 4 12
2 11 1 11 1 11
1 7 2 7 3 9
1 6 1 6 2 7
1 6
Technology..................................................... 16 3 1 15 15 4 1 15 14 5 1 15
5 14 4 14 4 14
8 13 8 13 7 13
1 7 1 7 1 7
1 6 1 6 1 6
Exemptions and Approvals....................................... 14 1 2 14 15 0 1 15 15 2 1 15
4 13 1 14 1 14
3 12 5 13 5 13
1 11 4 12 4 12
1 10 1 10 1 9
2 7 1 8 2 7
1 6 1 7 1 6
1 6
Enforcement.................................................... 21 4 1 15 23 1 1 15 29 10 1 15
2 14 3 14 6 14
4 13 4 13 6 13
7 12 9 12 8 12
2 11 4 11 6 11
2 9 2 7 1 9
1 7 1 7
1 6
1 5
Initiatives and Training....................................... 10 0 1 15 10 0 1 15 8 3 1 15
2 14 2 14 1 14
1 13 1 13 1 13
4 12 4 12 4 12
1 9 1 9 1 7
1 7 1 7
Planning and Analysis.......................................... 13 4 2 15 14 2 2 15 14 2 2 15
1 14 1 14 1 14
3 13 5 13 5 13
1 12 3 12 3 12
4 11 1 11 1 11
1 7 1 7 1 7
1 6 1 6 1 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................... 100 13 103 8 101 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional fiscal year 1997 funding for air transport hazardous
materials efforts
Question. In the wake of the May 1996 ValuJet crash, the Senate
provided additional funding above the President's request, and directed
RSPA to strengthen air transportation hazardous materials inspection,
research, training, and rulemaking efforts. Please display how this
additional funding above the fiscal year 1997 requested level has been
distributed.
Answer. Following the ValuJet incident, Congress provided twenty
(20) additional positions, all of which have been filled. Congress also
provided funds to support enhancements in the following four program
areas:
Hazardous materials information system (HMIS) ($125,000)
A contractor is designing and implementing an on-line document
storage and retrieval system that will allow DOT intranet and Internet
accessibility of OHMS documents to agency employees, other DOT
administrations, Federal, State, and local agencies, and industry and
the general public.
Hazardous materials information center (HMIC) ($315,000)
RSPA anticipates that contract negotiations will be completed by
the end of July and contractor service will be in place by the end of
August. The services provided will: (1) continue and enhance the high
standard of customer service provided by the HMIC; (2) maintain,
update, and index the HMIC reference library which will provide sources
of information to hotline inquiries; and (3) provide contractor support
for the specialists in the office to allow them to devote more time to
update, revise, and streamline the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR).
A contractor is allowing greater access to current and updated
information to agency employees, other DOT administrations, and
Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as industry and the general
public by placing the HMR, and active exemptions and letters of
interpretation on OHMS' web page.
Hazardous materials training ($225,000)
In fiscal year 1997, RSPA cooperated with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to increase public and shipper carrier outreach
and focus on air transportation issues involving hazardous materials;
develop additional training materials and programs involving the air
transportation of hazardous materials; and increase information
dissemination on compliance with the HMR. To accomplish this, RSPA led
a team composed of representatives from FAA, the Transportation Safety
Institute (TSI), the air transport industry, and Federal & State
enforcement officials who provided technical assistance in developing
new training materials and informational brochures targeted to enhance
the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Industry and State
enforcement personnel/associations participated as distribution
partners in distributing the training products to the targeted
audiences.
RSPA's CD-ROM modular training series were updated and revised to
include a new module developed specifically for transportation of
hazardous materials by air. This modular training series was
distributed on CD-ROM at a nominal cost and is available for
downloading free of charge from the OHMS website. Both distribution
avenues are cost-effective for small businesses to train employees in
compliance with the HMR. These training modules were developed as self-
paced tutorials which do not require an instructor, and RSPA used mass
communications technology to reach a wider audience, especially among
those smaller jurisdictions that cannot afford formal classroom safety
training.
RSPA developed and distributed an 18-minute awareness video that
highlights the precautions that must be taken when transporting hazmat
on passenger or cargo aircraft to ensure compliance with the Hazardous
Materials/Dangerous Goods Regulations. The video, the second in the
``ENSURING SAFETY'' series, was made available to air carriers and
shippers throughout the country--literally to anyone involved in
offering, accepting or transporting hazardous materials for shipment by
air.
RSPA continues to make compliance training available to FAA
inspectors, logistic and depot staff, and State and local compliance
personnel through the Transportation Safety Institute's (TSI) resident,
train-the-trainer courses, and at RSPA-sponsored seminars and
conferences. In addition, through TSI, RSPA is developing an
interactive training course for both highway and air transportation to
be made available on the Internet.
Hazardous materials technology ($315,000)
This item is used to provide contractor support and additional
technical expertise to conduct safety reviews, failure analyses and
evaluate exemptions and approvals, particularly those relating to new
technologies. The following are example of the ongoing activities under
this item:
--Risk assessment studies to quantitatively evaluate the inherent
risk of transporting hazardous materials in aircraft cargo
compartments with and without the presence of countermeasures.
--Failure analysis and technical expertise to evaluate exemptions
involving advanced materials applications such as design,
testing and service life issues related to carbon fiber-
reinforced pressure vessels and other high performance pressure
vessels. Work includes improving testing techniques for
periodic recertification of in service pressure vessels.
Support is being provided by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
--Technical work on explosives and reactive materials, for example,
developing a test method to discriminate between explosive and
nonexplosive forms of ammonium nitrate. Support is being
provided by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health.
--Technical system evaluation of emergency product transfer shutdown
systems for cargo tanks transporting liquefied compressed
gases. This work supports RSPA's emergency rulemaking and
industry efforts to develop emergency product transfer shutdown
systems for cargo tanks transporting liquefied compressed
gases. Current systems installed on the national fleet of more
than 25,000 trucks have been shown not to function properly
when transfer hoses rupture. Technical support and expertise is
being provided by the Volpe National Transportation System
Center.
Question. In the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill, $1,111,000
above the President's requested level was provided for additional
hazardous materials inspectors. How many new positions are provided by
this funding increase? When did these positions become available, and
how many new inspectors have been hired to date? Will all the
additional inspectors be hired by the end of this fiscal year?
Answer. The additional funding provided for 15 new hazardous
materials inspectors. These positions became available in October 1996.
A first round of interviews was conducted in December 1996 and January
1997, and five of the 15 inspectors were hired. A second round of
interviews was conducted in April-June 1997 and the remaining ten
inspectors were selected. We plan to have all of the inspectors on
board by the end of fiscal year 1997.
Question. Where have these additional inspectors been deployed?
What is the rationale for these assignments?
Answer. Fourteen inspectors will be deployed in the five regional
offices to bring the staffing in each office to six inspectors. One
inspector will be assigned to the Headquarters Special Investigations
unit.
RSPA believes that each regional office should have the same number
of inspectors because we located each office in the heart of a center
of hazardous materials manufacturing and shipping. The inspector
assigned to the Headquarters unit is an explosives specialist who will
provide a dedicated resource with this critical inspection function.
Question. Has the OHMS requested that the RSPA Administrator
exercise his discretionary authority to transfer up to two hazmat
safety positions and $200,000 into program support? If so, which
contract program(s) received the additional funds?
Answer. RSPA's supplemental request for resources following the
ValuJet accident included two attorney positions and associated PC&B to
provide legal support to the new inspection personnel. These resources
were deployed as requested following passage of the fiscal year 1997
appropriations act.
ntsb recommendations
Question. The NTSB recommended that the FHWA in cooperation with
RSPA implement a program to collect information necessary to identify
patterns of cargo tank equipment failure. What steps has RSPA taken to
expand the 5800.1 incident reporting form, and what has been done to
assist FHWA in accomplishing this recommendation? Will there be
additional fiscal year 1998 costs associated with addressing this?
Answer. The original recommendation by the NTSB was in response to
the perceived inadequate reporting or recording of information. The
responsibility for reporting was significantly increased by HM-200
which expanded the scope of reportable accidents to include intrastate
transportation as well as interstate movement of hazardous materials.
In some markets this will impact reporting by more than 50 percent.
Further, in conjunction with the expected expansion of the data
collected, RSPA intends to conduct a complete review of the content,
procedures, and data developed by the existing reporting system. We
have not requested additional funding for this effort.
Question. Please provide a detailed list of the hazmat
recommendations made by the NTSB during the last three years. Also
provide a status update for each recommendation that has been closed
acceptable or closed unacceptable, and those that remain open. How were
each of these addressed, and by which agency?
Answer. In the last three years (1994, 1995, 1996) NTSB made four
safety recommendations to RSPA involving the transportation of
hazardous materials. They were: R-95-11, Periodic Inspections of Tank
Car Linings and Coatings; H-95-37, Improve Crash-worthiness of the
Front Ends of Cargo Tanks; A-96-29, Chemical Oxygen Generators as Cargo
on Aircraft; and A-96-39, Oxidizers and Oxidizing Materials in Air
Cargo Compartments.
These Recommendations are summarized as follows:
R-95-11.--In R-95-11, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation
with the FRA, require that any party using a tank car to transport
corrosive materials determine the periodic inspection interval and
testing technique for linings and coatings, and require that this
information be provided to parties responsible for the inspection and
testing of tank cars. A final rule under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201,
issued on June 26, 1996, requires the owner of a tank car lining or
coating to inform the inspection parties of the interval, test
technique, and acceptance criteria required to test the tank car
integrity. This recommendation was ``Closed-Acceptable Action'' on
February 10, 1997.
H-95-37.--In H-95-37, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation
with FHWA, study methods and develop standards to improve the crash-
worthiness on the front ends of cargo tanks used to transport liquefied
flammable gases and potentially lethal nonflammable compressed gases.
In response to NTSB Recommendation H-95-37, in July 1996 RSPA
contracted with Pressure Sciences Incorporated for a feasibility study
of enhanced protection of MC-331 cargo tanks in frontal collisions. It
is expected that the contractor will provide RSPA with a draft report
by July 1997. Based on the results of the feasibility study, additional
work may be undertaken to fully evaluate the benefits and costs
associated with design changes. To date, $30,000 has been spent on the
feasibility study.
A-96-29 and A-96-30.--As a result of the ValuJet aviation accident
on May 11, 1996, NTSB issued two safety recommendations to RSPA (A-96-
29 and A-96-30). In A-96-29, NTSB recommended that RSPA, in cooperation
with FAA, permanently prohibit the transportation of chemical oxygen
generators as cargo on board any passenger or cargo aircraft when the
generators have passed expirations dates, and the chemical cores have
not been depleted. A Final Rule was published on December 30, 1996,
prohibiting the transportation of all oxygen generators as cargo on
passenger carrying aircraft. This is broader than NTSB's
recommendations which applied only to oxygen generators which had
passed their expiration dates. In A-96-30, NTSB recommended that RSPA,
in cooperation with FAA, prohibit the transportation of oxidizers and
oxidizing materials in cargo compartments that do not have fire or
smoke detection systems. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published
on December 30, 1996, which will permit air transportation of oxidizers
only in accessible locations on cargo aircraft. Further under a Final
Rule published June 5, and effective July 7, if the oxygen generator is
attached to any type of incitation mechanism its transportation must be
specifically approved by RSPA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials and the generator must be transported in a package prepared
by the holder of the approval.
In the last three years RSPA has closed eighteen safety
recommendations from NTSB, while twenty-five remain open. RSPA is
pursuing appropriate actions to address each of the remaining open
recommendations. The disposition and status of these NTSB
recommendations are summarized as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record Number Date closed Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations closed
acceptable or no longer
applicable:
A-88-120.................... February 15, 1994......... Restriction notices at all freight acceptance
facilities ``Closed-Acceptable.''
H-91-034.................... November 8, 1996.......... Devices on manhole cover meet same standards as
manhole ``Closed-Acceptable.''
I-78-009.................... February 16, 1994......... Develop a plan of analysis to control risks
``Closed-Acceptable.''
I-81-003.................... May 3, 1994............... Develop a common identifier in compliance records
``Closed-Acceptable.''
I-87-005.................... May 3, 1994............... Establish classification system for explosives
``Closed-Acceptable.''
I-90-005.................... July 28, 1995............. Procedure for test of containers that do not
comply with standards ``Closed-Acceptable.''
I-90-006.................... July 28, 1995............. Recall of containers not in compliance with DOT
specifications or exemption packagings ``Closed-
Acceptable.''
R-85-061.................... February 10, 1997......... Tank-head protection of aluminum & nickel tank
cars ``Closed-Acceptable.''
R-91-011.................... June 28, 1994............. RSPA and FRA develop and agree upon a list of
hazardous materials to be transported in pressure
tanks ``Closed-No Longer Applicable.''
R-95-011.................... February 10, 1997......... DOT and FRA to determine periodic inspection
interval and testing techniques for linings and
coatings and provide to responsible parties for
inspection and testing of tank cars ``Closed-
Acceptable.''
Recommendations (closed--
unacceptable):
H-83-029.................... February 16, 1994......... HM-183C rulemaking failed to address the necessity
to inspect void space between compartments in
multiple compartment cargo tank trailers ``Closed-
Unacceptable.''
H-85-034.................... December 12, 1995......... Mandatory Routing of HazMat Vehicles on the
Highway ``Closed Unacceptable.''
H-88-026.................... March 7, 1994............. Vacuum Protection of Cargo Tanks ``Closed-
Unacceptable.''
H-88-027.................... March 7, 1994............. Reporting Vacuum Failures of HazMat tanks ``Closed-
Unacceptable.''
I-78-012.................... July 7, 1994.............. Conflict between existing DOT and EPA regulations
on shippers and carriers affecting transportation
of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes
``Closed-Unacceptable.''
I-83-004.................... July 8, 1994.............. Preshipment Inspection Criteria for reused drums
``Closed-Unacceptable.''
I-87-004.................... July 8, 1994.............. Thermal protection of explosives ``Closed-
Unacceptable.''
I-90-011.................... October 4, 1995........... Visibility of Hazard Placards after accident
``Closed-Unacceptable.''
Recommendations open:
H-90-91..................... Open acceptable........... Remote shut-off valves.
H-91-34..................... Open acceptable........... Manhole cover fittings and devices.
H-92-01..................... Open acceptable........... Rollover protection; guidance to manufacturers.
H-92-02..................... Open acceptable........... Rollover protection; evaluate design.
H-92-03..................... Open acceptable........... Rollover protection; modeling and analysis.
H-92-04..................... Open acceptable........... Rollover protection; develop standards.
H-92-05..................... Open acceptable........... Rollover protection; phase out older tanks.
H-92-06..................... Open acceptable........... Improve/expand information system for cargo tank
accident reporting.
H-93-34..................... Open acceptable........... Cargo tank emergency cut-off valves
H-95-14..................... Open acceptable........... Revise/test and inspect requirements for cargo
tanks.
H-95-37..................... Open acceptable........... Improve crash worthiness of front end of cargo
tanks.
I-80-1...................... Open Unacceptable......... Volume and temperature at loading for tank car
loading records.
I-90-8...................... Open unacceptable......... Cylinders-cargo restraint systems.
I-90-9...................... Open unacceptable......... New and reconditioned low pressure cylinders
require independent inspection.
I-90-10..................... Open unacceptable......... Amend inspect and test cylinder requirements.
I-92-01..................... Open acceptable........... Design of attachments to HazMat packagings.
I-92-02..................... Open acceptable........... Pressure relief venting for DOT 57 containers.
I-93-1...................... Open acceptable........... Amend pamphlet C-6 (CGA). Thread gage for
cylinders.
I-93-2...................... Open acceptable........... Prohibit use of cylinders not meeting C-6 criteria
(noted above).
R-89-52..................... Open unacceptable......... Carriers should notify shippers of accident.
R-89-53..................... Open acceptable........... Tank car closure fitting design.
R-89-83..................... Open unacceptable......... ``Life-threatening situations'' to update and
correct the emergency response guide.
R-92-23..................... Open acceptable........... Periodic testing and inspection of tank cars.
A-96-29..................... Open acceptable........... Prohibit oxygen generators as cargo on passenger
aircraft.
A-96-30..................... Open acceptable........... Prohibit the air transportation of oxidizers and
oxidizing materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How have you responded to the 1995 recommendation on
crash worthiness of front heads on MC 331 cargo tanks, and what have
been the associated costs in providing resolution to this
recommendation?
Answer. In response to NTSB Recommendation H-95-37, in July 1996
RSPA contracted with Pressure Sciences Incorporated for a feasibility
study of enhanced protection of MC-331 cargo tanks in frontal
collisions. It is expected that the contractor will provide RSPA with a
draft report by July 1997. Based on the results of the feasibility
study, additional work may be undertaken to fully evaluate the benefits
and costs associated with design changes. To date, $30,000 has been
spent on the feasibility study.
research and analysis
Question. What technical advances have resulted from research
sponsored during the last three fiscal years by the OHMS?
Answer. Most of the OHMS-sponsored research is focused on the
development of national and international standards, assessment of
issues related to the issuance of rulemakings and exemptions,
characterization of material hazards, assessment of risk, and the
development of information on hazardous materials transportation.
Research results in the technical basis to develop, assess, guide and
support program activities. For example, in the past several years we
have gained a better understanding of:
--The factors influencing the choice of mode and route by shippers
and carriers of spent nuclear fuel.
--The flows of selected hazardous materials by highway.
--The quality of information obtained through Hazardous Materials
Information System (HMIS) release reports, and the implications
the report data have for targeting hazmat safety regulatory and
enforcement resources.
--The ability of advanced communication technologies to improve
responder and community safety at hazardous materials incident
sites, as well as to help responders reduce the costs and
impacts associated with such incidents.
In addition, research projects have resulted in technical advances.
For example, work performed to support development of Initial Isolation
and Protective Action Distances used in the 1996 North American
Emergency Response Guidebook resulted in technical advances in
techniques for dispersion modeling of toxic vapor plumes from hazardous
material spills. That work introduced the use of probabilistic
application of atmospheric data and advanced a technique for use of
commonly available toxicological exposure guidelines where specific
emergency exposure guidelines did not exist. This work demonstrated
that spills at night could require much larger protective action zones
than those required under typical day conditions. Work in support of
the 1996 North American Emergency Response Guidebook yielded a list of
materials that can produce large toxic vapor plumes when spilled into
water.
Question. What are the critical research activities that are being
pursued by OHMS and how do these relate to open rulemakings?
Answer. Most R&D is conducted to address current or future issues
prior to opening a rulemaking action. Studies are used to assess if
rulemaking action is warranted and to identify and evaluate potential
rulemaking options. The following is a list of critical research
activities that OHMS is pursuing:
--``Design, Testing and Requalification Standards for Composite
Cylinders''--potential rulemaking to incorporate new composite
cylinder standards.
--``Identification of Factors for Selecting Modes and Routes For
Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel''--legislatively mandated report to increase information
base regarding mode/route selection process--potential
rulemaking.
--``Information Technology and Emergency Response''--critical issue
that will guide further research and funding for technology
deployment at hazardous materials incident sites.
--``Development of Improved Test Methods and Criteria for Ammonium
Nitrate Fertilizers.'' Project to determine if United Nations
Explosives Test Series 2 can distinguish between explosive and
nonexplosive forms of ammonium nitrate fertilizers--
international standards issue and potential rulemaking.
--``Evaluation of Small Explosive Devices''--potential rulemaking to
deregulate certain small explosive devices.
--``Hazards Assessment of Lithium-Ion Batteries'' is an assessment to
support a decision on the proper level of regulation for this
new type of lithium battery--potential rulemaking.
--``Hazardous Materials Risk Management Framework'' is a project to
develop a risk management framework to assist RSPA in the risk
management of hazardous materials transportation--critical
issue and potential rulemaking.
--``National Assessment of Transportation Risk Posed by Poison
Inhalation Hazard Materials, Explosives, Flammable Liquids and
Gases'' is an assessment to determine the risk associated with
the transportation of highly toxic hazardous materials. The
study uses the risk of flammable liquid transportation as a
benchmark to assess and characterize high-probability low-
consequence and low-probability high-consequence events for the
subject materials--critical issue and potential rulemaking.
--``Development of Basis and Draft Guidance for Certification of
Cylinders Containing Nonfissile and Fissile Excepted Uranium
Hexafluoride'' will provide regulatory guidance and the basis
for adoption into the Hazardous Materials Regulations new
International Atomic Energy Agency transportation
requirements--planned rulemaking.
--``Guidance for Implementing Revised Transportation Regulations for
Low Specific Activity Materials and Surface Contaminated
Objects''--planned for publication as a joint Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and RSPA regulatory guidance document
that will facilitate safe and efficient transportation and
regulatory compliance.
--Development of Regulatory Guidance on Transportation of Very Large
Contaminated Equipment and Components''--based upon the results
of this work, the project will result in a joint Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and RSPA regulatory guidance document or
rulemaking proposal.
--``Impact Resistance of Specification MC-330 and 331 Cargo Tank
Heads In Accidents''--in response to accident experience, a
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendation and
a potential rulemaking need.
--``Analysis of Risks Associated With Transportation of Hazardous
Materials in Aircraft Cargo Compartments''--in response to
accident experience, NTSB Recommendation and potential
rulemaking need.
Question. What have been the major technical reports that have
resulted from research sponsored during the last two years by the OHMS?
Which of these reports were entered into the National Technical
Information Service? (Indicate NTIS numbers.) Which weren't and why?
Answer. The following are the major final technical reports that
resulted from research sponsored during the last two years.
--``Technical Documentation in Support of the 1996 North American
Emergency Response Guidebook,''--NTIS-UILU-ENG-97-4001.
--``Technical Documentation to Support `List of Dangerous Water-
Reactive Materials,' 1996 North American Emergency Response
Guidebook,'' NTIS-UILU-ENG-97-4004.
--``Exploration of the Global Positioning System and Related
Technologies to Enhance the Safe Transportation of Hazardous
Materials,'' Draft Final, will be sent to NTIS shortly.
--``Information Technology and Emergency Response,'' Draft Final,
will be sent to NTIS shortly.
--``Truck Transport of Hazardous Chemicals: Dodecene-1,'' DOT-VNTSC-
RSPA-96-2.
--``Truck Transport of Hazardous Chemicals: 1-Butanol,'' DOT-VNTSC-
RSPA-95-4.
--``Report on Identification of Factors for Selecting Modes and
Routes for Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent
Nuclear Fuel,'' Draft Final, will be sent to NTIS shortly.
--``Operation Respond: Lessons Learned--A Research and Development
Program to Promote Safe and Secure Transportation by Improving
Information Available to First Responders,'' Final Report, will
be sent to NTIS shortly.
Question. Please describe how each component of your research
request relates to pending or future rulemakings.
Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety's (OHMS) Research
and Development (R&D) Program provides the technical and analytical
foundation necessary to support the hazardous materials program. The
R&D Program is composed of three activity areas: Information Systems,
Research and Analysis, and Regulations Compliance. The information,
technical and analytical analyses, and data produced by the R&D Program
support national and international standards development, exemptions,
information dissemination, training, emergency response guidance,
compliance, and the development of program strategies and their
implementation.
The three activity areas of the R&D Program support pending and
future rulemaking in the following ways:
--The Information Systems Activity Area directly supports studies,
software development, and maintenance to facilitate the
analysis and use, by Federal, State, and public users, of
information collected in the Hazardous Materials Information
System (HMIS). OHMS uses HMIS data to support its mission
activities; develop regulations; issue exemptions, approvals,
and interpretations; and promote compliance with safety
regulations. Information derived by analysis of hazardous
materials spill incident data in the HMIS is used to determine
the need for and justify rulemakings. Incident data are used in
risk and benefit/cost analyses by Federal, State and public
analysts to support rulemaking proposals and comments.
--The Research Analysis Activity Area directly supports rulemaking
and is used to assess the need for new regulations and the
effectiveness of current regulations, and to perform studies
mandated by Congress. The knowledge gained is essential to
understand the risks associated with hazardous materials
transportation and to develop safety regulations both the risks
and the burdens on industry, allow maximum operational
flexibility, and enhance international competitiveness.
--The Regulations Compliance (Testing) Activity Area provides for
compliance testing of Packagings used to transport hazardous
materials. Packaging performance is critical to the safe
transportation of hazardous materials. This work provides an
assessment of the level of compliance with packaging
specifications and performance standards. It also identifies
sections of packaging specifications and performance standards
where rulemaking revisions could improve compliance.
Question. The FHWA is conducting and has planned research
activities that will evaluate the real risks associated with hazardous
materials transportation, their social impact, and the benefit of their
mitigation. Does the OHMS agree that this is the type of research that
is needed to mitigate the occurrence of hazardous materials incidents?
Is this an idea that is worth pursuing?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has undertaken a
research project to assess the additional hazards posed by the
transportation of hazardous materials by highway compared to non-
hazardous material shipments. RSPA supports research which will help
both RSPA and OMC better understand and manage the risks of hazardous
materials shipments by highway.
Question. How much money did OHMS allocate for Operation Respond in
fiscal year 1996? How much is planned for fiscal year 1997 and planned
for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, RSPA (OHMS) allocated $120,000 to
Operation Respond. No OHMS funding has been allocated for Operation
Respond activities in fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998. RSPA has
identified Operation Respond Institute's computer software and training
courses as eligible uses of grant funds made available annually to the
Department's Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning grant recipients.
Question. Is DOT developing a coordinated approach to funding
Operation Respond? Please comment on other agencies' support, and
display the total coordinated fiscal year 1998 request for the program.
Answer. FRA, FHWA, and RSPA have taken a coordinated approach to
Operation Respond. With the transition of Operation Respond from its
developmental and demonstration phase to an independent operated
foundation, the modal administrations are reviewing the extent of their
prior support and the potential for additional support of Operation
Respond activities.
At this time, it is our understanding that FRA is requesting
$103,000 for Operation Respond in the fiscal year 1998 budget. RSPA has
identified Operation Respond Institute's computer software and training
courses as eligible uses of grant funds made available annually to the
Department's Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning grant recipients.
inspection and enforcement program
Question. Please present detailed data for the last three years on
the number of HAZMAT inspectors and describe how OHMS measures
productivity. Be certain to include average number of enforcement
cases, warnings issued, amounts of civil penalties assessed, and the
amounts collected. Please evaluate these data on a per inspector or
similar normalized basis.
Answer. The following table provides the requested information:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases initiated.................. 262 246 239
Tickets initiated................ ........... ........... 84
Cases closed..................... 177 189 189
Tickets closed................... ........... ........... 62
======================================
Case penalties collected......... $964,040 $1,047,842 $902,438
Ticket penalties collected....... ........... ........... $70,725
--------------------------------------
Total penalties collected.. $964,040 $1,047,842 $973,163
======================================
Warning letters.................. 134 168 166
Work years of effort............. 18.4 18.0 19.75
Cases initiated/work-year........ 14.2 13.7 12.1
Cases closed/work-year........... 9.6 10.5 9.6
Penalties/work-year.............. $52,207 $58,213 $45,693
Warning letters/work-year........ 7.3 9.3 8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tickets are not included in the per-work-year statistics because the
first activity did not occur until June 1996.
Question. Please calculate the average settlement percentage
[amount of civil penalties collected for valid claims divided by the
amount of civil penalties originally assessed for valid claims] for
these hazmat cases. Please provide compatible data to that provided
last year.
Answer. The following table provides the requested information:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties proposed.............................................. $1,382,085 $1,540,391 $1,358,225
Penalties collected............................................. $964,040 $1,047,842 $902,438
Percentage collected............................................ 70 68 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include tickets.
Question. As evidenced by OHMS inspections, what is the overall
level of compliance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations? What
innovative or new strategies are you using to improve your impact on
compliance?
Answer. RSPA can continue to report that a majority of its
inspections have found no violations of the regulations, although it is
difficult to determine a precise rate of compliance (or noncompliance)
for any given year. This is due in part to the fact that enforcement
actions initiated in a given year may be based on inspections conducted
in the previous year. Also, many inspections are initiated on the basis
of prior allegations of non-compliance and thus are not an unbiased
sample of the regulated community. In the past, in order to come up
with a statistic in this area, RSPA simply took the number of
enforcement actions (civil penalty cases and warning letters) initiated
in a given year and divided that number by the number of inspections
conducted in that same year. For example, from 1992 through 1996, RSPA
conducted 5,769 inspections, and initiated 1,125 civil penalty cases
and issued 700 warning letters based on those inspections. Using the
previously mentioned simplistic method, this would equate to a 31.6
percent rate of noncompliance for that five-year period. Users of this
data must understand that it is only an estimate.
With the training of most of the new inspectors completed by the
end of fiscal year 1997, RSPA will increase the number of compliance
inspections conducted, particularly inspections of shippers. RSPA's
regional hazardous materials offices also have an important secondary
mission to provide outreach, typically through information and training
for State and local enforcement and response personnel, and assistance
to industry and interaction with the public through presentations,
seminars, and workshops. The additional inspector resources will allow
these offices to perform more outreach activities to improve
compliance.
In fiscal year 1997, RSPA cooperated with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to increase public and shipper/carrier outreach
and focus on air transportation issues involving hazardous materials;
develop additional training materials and programs involving the air
transportation of hazardous materials; and increase information
dissemination on compliance with the HMR. To accomplish this, RSPA led
a team composed of representatives from FAA, the Transportation Safety
Institute (TSI), and the air transport industry, and Federal & State
enforcement officials who provided technical assistance in developing
new training materials and informational brochures targeted to enhance
the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Industry and State
enforcement personnel/associations participated as distribution
partners in distributing the training products to the targeted
audiences.
RSPA is strengthening the Hazardous Materials Information Center
which assists shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers, enforcement
personnel, and others in their understanding of requirements in the HMR
for the purpose of maximizing voluntary compliance. In addition, the
Center staffs the statutorily mandated toll-free number for
transporters of hazardous materials, and others, to report possible
violations of the HMR or any order or regulation issued under Federal
hazardous materials transportation law.
As part of our efforts to improve compliance, RSPA implemented an
interagency agreement with the Department of Defense for package
testing. A number of packages were procured and tested by the Army's
testing facility at Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania. Testing has revealed
significant failure problems for certain Packagings and RSPA has
alerted the manufacturers about them. Package testing is on-going.
RSPA initiated a limited materials testing program to determine if
shippers are properly classifying the hazardous materials they are
offering for transportation. Thus far, we have concentrated on
Packaging Group III corrosive materials and have found violations,
which we are pursing through enforcement.
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation on how compliance
will increase, or decrease with the implementation of HM-200. How will
this affect the RSPA workload? Does this explain the decrease from
$260,000 to $155,000 in inspection and enforcement program costs, and
how will the fiscal year 1998 budget be affected?
Answer. The majority of companies who will be subject to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations when HM-200 is implemented will be
small companies with a lack of detailed knowledge about the
regulations. Therefore, compliance could decrease somewhat. However,
RSPA plans to take steps to increase awareness of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations through additional training and outreach
activities. RSPA's inspection workload is based on inspectors
performing a specified number of weeks of inspection travel per year.
RSPA is not expecting the workload to increase under HM-200.
The difference in funding has no relation to workload under HM-200.
The difference reflects the transfer of the COHMED program from the
Inspection and Enforcement program area to the Information
Dissemination area. It is a presentation change only. The fiscal year
1998 activity levels will not be affected.
Question. What is RSPA's plan for implementing the new HM-200
provision? How will RSPA communicate the regulatory changes outlined in
the rulemaking with the OMC so that intrastate motor carriers and
shippers of hazmat are properly informed of their responsibilities
under the regulations? How will the hazmat industry be assured that
enforcement components of this new rule are fairly applied?
Answer. RSPA's strengthened Hazardous Materials Information Center
will assists shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers, enforcement
personnel, and others in their understanding of requirements in HM-200
for the purpose of maximizing voluntary compliance. In addition, the
Center staffs the statutory mandated toll-free number for transporters
of hazardous materials, and others, to report possible violations of
the HMR or any order or regulation issued under Federal hazardous
materials transportation law. Reported violations will be followed up
by the appropriate modes.
RSPA has advised FHWA of the regulatory changes required by HM-200.
RSPA also published, on February 27, 1997, and distributed over 50,000
copies of a Safety Alert newsletter which highlights the requirements
for shippers and carriers involved in intrastate transportation and
reminds them of their responsibilities to ensure that hazardous
materials are properly identified, packaged, authorized for
transportation, handled, loaded, and transported in conformance with
the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
The Spring and Fall Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement
Development (COHMED) program conferences and Multimodal seminars
provide for the exchange of information among States, local
governments, and industry on compliance and enforcement issues. HM-200
has and will continue to be a focus of COHMED efforts. We have
developed and will continue to develop educational materials which we
will widely disseminate information using industry associations and
groups.
Question. What will be the associated costs to the hazmat industry
for intrastate carriers and shippers to come into compliance with this
new provision?
Answer. The final rule will affect many intrastate shippers and
carriers, many of whom are small businesses, but RSPA believes that the
economic impact is minimal. Twenty States have adopted the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR) in their entirety, and the vast majority of
remaining States have adopted transport safety regulations similar to
the HMR. However, a number of States have adopted safety regulations
which continue to except certain intrastate highway carriers from the
HMR or continue to provide safety standards which do not fully track
with those in the HMR. Accordingly, compliance costs for shippers and
carriers in those States that have fully adopted or adopted similar
regulations to the HMR are minimal. Shippers and carriers in those
States that have provided exceptions or waivers to intrastate shippers
and carriers from applicability of the HMR will be the entities most
affected by HM-200 rulemaking. In the assessment of costs and benefits
prepared in support of this rule, RSPA estimated that operators of
cargo tank motor vehicles that do not conform to current standards
specified in the HMR would experience annual costs of compliance of
$164 per cargo tank.
RSPA has provided several exceptions in HM-200 to minimize the
impacts on many of these entities. For example, the Materials of Trade
exception provides a common sense approach in regard to the
applicability of the HMR to small and local businesses. The exceptions
for Materials of Trade can also used by interstate motor carriers. This
exception alone provides a significant reduction in compliance costs
for both interstate and intrastate motor carriers.
Other exceptions have been provided for the continued use of non-
specification small cargo tanks. A phase-in period of approximately
three years has been provided. Non-specification cargo tanks used for
the transportation of flammable liquid petroleum products in those
States that currently allow the use of these non-specification cargo
tanks within their State, can continue to be used indefinitely, under
specified conditions. These non-specification cargo tanks will be
required to meet the continuing operational and retest requirements
HMR. The retest requirements ensure that these cargo tanks are capable
of containing the flammable products being transported; e.g., they do
not leak during transportation. Since most on the non-specification
cargo tanks that are currently being used under State exceptions are
used for the transportation of flammable liquid petroleum products, the
only increase in costs is associated with continuing maintenance and
operations. The three-year phase-in period for testing will also
minimize immediate costs.
RSPA has also provided a total exception (not including compressed
gases) from the HMR for farmers who transport agricultural products
between fields of their own farm over local roads, provided the State
in which they operate has provided a similar exception. Therefore there
are no cost impacts for these farmers as a result of HM-200.
Additionally, under specified conditions, farmers have been provided
exceptions from the emergency response information and training
requirements. RSPA believes that other requirements of the HMR, such as
hazard identification (including shipping papers, labels, and placards)
are necessary to provide information on the hazardous materials being
transported to emergency responders. RSPA believes that the exceptions
provided in HM-200 for Materials of Trade, farmer, and continued use of
non-specification cargo tanks for flammable liquid petroleum products
will provide substantial relief to farmers.
Question. Since last year have you made any improvements in how
RSPA prioritizes and selects hazmat shippers and manufacturers for
inspections?
Answer. RSPA continues to prioritize its selection of companies for
inspection. We give priority to complaints and reinspections of
companies previously subject to civil penalty enforcement. We follow up
leads developed during inspections. Regarding manufacturers and related
companies, we attempt to strike a balance between inspections of high-
consequence, low-incident packaging like compressed gas cylinders, and
low-consequence, high-incident packaging like steel and plastic drums.
We target shippers of high-hazardous materials and those frequently
appearing on hazardous materials incident reports. We established a
program to place emphasis on inspections of shippers who offer
hazardous materials for transportation by all modes, especially by air.
Question. What further progress has been made in converting to a
more risk-based selection process?
Answer. RSPA is working with its on-site information systems
contractor to refine current programs for selecting shippers for
inspection. Our effort is underway. We are trying to make better use of
the packing group system in the regulations, which provides a priority
rank for hazardous materials as high, medium, or low hazard through the
assignment of packing group number. We are also utilizing our knowledge
and experience to target industry segments and individual companies
known or suspected to have compliance problems.
Question. What system does RSPA have in place that will ensure that
all reports of hazmat incidents are properly forwarded to the FHWA for
action?
Answer. Prior to August 1993, RSPA provided FHWA's Office of Motor
Carrier Field Operations with copies of all hazmat highway incident
reports received on the 5800.1 form. In August 1993, FHWA requested
that RSPA discontinue sending copies of the form, since the data were
readily available through RSPA's Hazardous Materials Information System
which FHWA may access.
Question. For each of the last two fiscal years, please specify;
the average time spent processing enforcement cases by regional staff
before being submitted to headquarters; and the time spent reviewing
these cases at headquarters before being first submitted to the Office
of the Chief Counsel.
Answer. For 1995 enforcement cases, inspectors processed cases in
50 days; headquarters review and referral to the Office of the Chief
Counsel (OCC) took 36 days. For 1996 enforcement cases, inspectors
processed cases in 46 days; headquarters review and referral to OCC
took 53 days.
Question. What are your doing to reduce these backlogs?
Answer. Through 1995, the time intervals for processing enforcement
cases were decreasing and we considered them to be acceptable, given
the other duties of inspectors and their supervisors which affect
report and referral production. The increase in processing time in 1996
was due to key personnel shifts and new assignments within the
Hazardous Materials Safety program for most of the year. RSPA currently
is considering ways in which this upward trend might be reversed,
including the hiring of a staff assistant to help in the processing of
referrals to the Office of the Chief Counsel.
Question. What changes in enforcement philosophy or practice have
you made since last year?
Answer. In June 1996, as part of Reinventing Government, RSPA
established a Pilot Ticketing Program which included certain single
violations that are determined to have little or no direct impact on
safety, such as operating under the terms of an expired DOT exemption,
failure to register with RSPA, failure to maintain training records, or
failure to file hazardous materials incident reports. We expect the
ticketing program to reduce costs to both government and industry, to
substantially reduce the time between inspection and notification of a
violation, and to encourage faster resolution of cases through reduced
penalties.
In all, 84 tickets were issued by the Office of Hazardous Materials
Enforcement in 1996, all of which would otherwise have been issued as
regular civil penalty cases by OCC, thereby reducing the burden on OCC.
In fact, the 62 tickets closed in 1996 were closed in an average of 38
days from date of issue, compared to 16 months for the average civil
penalty case. The penalty for each ticket is half of the civil penalty
case amount.
In other actions, RSPA is hiring 15 new inspectors in fiscal year
1997 in order to increase the number of shipper inspections, with an
emphasis on shippers who offer hazardous materials for air
transportation. We target shippers of high-hazardous materials and
those frequently appearing on hazardous materials incident reports.
Finally, we will be increasing our efforts to offer compliance training
and assistance through our regional offices.
Question. What steps have been taken during the last year to
shorten the time period from inspection to case closure? What
instructions have been provided to your inspectors and attorneys on
this issue? Please provide comparative data for each of the last three
fiscal years on the processing time involved in hazardous materials
cases.
Answer. The following table provides the case processing data for
the past three years.
RSPA CIVIL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT CASE PROCESSING TIMES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to report............................................ 81 days 50 days 46 days
Report to referral.............................................. 49 days 36 days 53 days
Referral to notices of probable violation....................... 34 days 30 days 53 days
Notices of probable violation to order.......................... 282 days 247 days 142 days
Order to close.................................................. 114 days 78 days 31 days
-----------------------------------------------
Total time................................................ 560 days/
18.4 months 441 days/
14.5 months 324 days/
10.7 months
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSPA's emphasis on prompt post-inspection processing and early
issuance of Notices of Probable Violations (NOPVs) has resulted in a
large increase in cases opened. This activity has consumed a great
amount of attorney time and resulted in a growing backlog of open
cases.
For 1994, the total processing time from inspection to issuance of
NOPV was 5.4 months. This period decreased to 3.8 months in 1995, and
increased to 5.0 months in 1996. The NOPV-to-case closure time for
1994-1996 is currently 13.0 months, 10.7 months, and 5.7 months,
respectively. We use the word ``currently'' because cases started in
these years continue to be closed in later years. Thus, the total
inspection-to-closure times for 1994-1996 are 18.4 months, 14.5 months,
and 10.7 months respectively. This downward trend reflects the steps
taken by the Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement (OHME) and the
Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) over the last several years. No new
steps were taken during the last year; the increase in report-to-
referral time in 1996 was due to personnel reassignments for a major
portion of the year. The increase in referral-to-NOPV time was due to
attorneys being assigned to high-priority statutorily-mandated
regulatory Reinvention rulemaking projects.
Inspectors and attorneys have timely processing of reports and
cases as part of their performance plans. They are aware of the need to
process cases as quickly as possible.
Question. What are you doing to ensure timely prosecution of all
parties responsible for the Valujet crash?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for
initiating enforcement actions based on the ValuJet accident. RSPA will
provide support as requested.
rulemaking support
Question. Please list all pending dockets and rulemakings before
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. Please specify the date of
origin of these regulatory dockets and their expected completion dates.
Answer. A listing of pending rulemaking actions for calendar year
1997, follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking project Summary Current status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrosive miscellaneous To make Initiated: 5/93
amendments (HM-166Y). miscellaneous NPRM estimated: 7/
revisions to the 97.
HMR that are not
significant or
controversial.
Hazardous materials Yearly revision to Project
regulations: Miscellaneous the regulations to identified: 10/96
corrections (HM-189N). make Final rule
nonsignificant anticipated: 9/
corrections of 97.
typos, spelling,
etc.
Hazardous materials in Extends the ANPRM published:
intrastate commerce (HM-200). applicability of 1987 Delayed
the HMR to the awaiting HMTUSA 1/
transportation of 90 NPRM
hazardous published: 7/9/93
materials in SNPRM published:
wholly intrastate 3/20/96 Extension
commerce. of Comment Period
Published: 5/17/
96 Final rule
published: 1/8/97
Response to
petitions for
reconsideration
anticipated: 7/
97.
Improving hazardous materials To determine HMTUSA: 11/90
identification systems (HM- methods of ANPRM published:
206). improving the 6/9/92 NPRM
current system of published: 8/14/
placarding 95 Public
vehicles hearing: 10/18/94
transporting Final rule
hazardous published: 1/8/97
materials and Final rule
improving other responding to
identification petitions for
systems. reconsideration
anticipated: 7/
97.
Safeguarding food from Requests comments SFTA: 11/90 ANPRM
contamination during concerning options published: 2/20/
transportation (FS-1). relative to 91 NPRM
regulations to published: 5/21/
ensure that food 93 Further action
and other consumer undetermined.
products are not
made unsafe as a
result of certain
transportation
practices.
Tank cars and cargo tank motor To allow the use of Initiated: 2/92
vehicles: Attendance signaling systems NPRM published: 9/
requirements (HM-212). (sensors, alarms, 14/92 Final rule
electronic anticipated:
surveillance Undetermined
equipment) to pending HM-223.
satisfy the
attendance
requirements
unloading tanks
cars and for
loading cargo tank
motor vehicles.
Requirements for cargo tanks To make revisions Project
(HM-213). and updates to the Identified: 6/96
requirements for FHWA's OMC has
the manufacture, lead. NPRM
maintenance and anticipated early
use of fiscal year 1998.
specification
cargo tanks.
Incorporation of recent U.N. Revises the HMR by Initiated: 11/95
recommendations (HM-215B). incorporating NPRM: 10/26/96
changes based on Partial Final
the most recent rule published:
changes to the 12/16/96 Final
U.N. Rule published: 5/
Recommendations, 6/97 Effective
ICAO, and IMO date: 10/1/97.
requirements.
Specification 3AL aluminum To revise Sec. Initiated: 7/87
cylinders (HM-176A). 173.34 and Spec. Combined with HM-
3AL to correct a 220.
specification
deficiency related
to an aluminum
alloy.
Labeling requirements for To solicit comments Initiated: 6/93
poisonous materials, PG III on revising ANPRM published:
(HM-217). labeling 11/8/93 NPRM
requirements for anticipated: 10/
Div. 6.1, PG III 97.
materials
consistent with
International
requirements.
Quantity limitations on To review utility ANPRM published: 4/
aircraft (HM-192). of quantity 6/84 Public
limitations and hearing: 5/30/85
provisions for Future action
cargo compartments undetermined.
on aircraft.
Motor carrier safety permits To prohibit Initiated: 5/93
(HM-218). shippers from Companion rule to
offering to motor FHWA/OMC
carriers certain rulemaking on
hazardous safety permits.
materials for Current
which the motor rulemaking action
carrier must have terminated.
a safety permit.
Shipping paper retention To implement self- HMTAA 1994
requirements (HM-207B). executing enacted: 8/29/94
requirement of Project
HMTAA, Sec. 115, initiated: 9/26/
that shippers and 94 Further action
carriers retain pending
copies of shipping legislation
papers for 1 year revision.
after termination
of transportation.
Consolidation of specifications To revise the Initiated: 1/94
for high-pressure cylinders requirements for Outreach meeting:
(HM-220). reinspection, 2/18/95 NPRM
retesting, and anticipated: 12/
repairing 97.
cylinders and
consolidate
seamless cylinder
specifications.
Filling of propane cylinders Responds to Project initiated:
(HM-220C). petitions for 4/96 ANPRM
rulemaking to published: 8/23/
allow propane 96 Further action
cylinders to be to be determined.
filled by volume
rather than by
weight.
Use of nonspecification open- This final rule Project
head fiber drum packaging (HM- terminates RSPA's identified: 2/96
221B). rulemaking NAS report
relating to completed: 3/97
alternate Direct final rule
standards for open- published: 6/2/97
head fiber drum Effective date:
packaging. 10/1/97 Comment
Additionally, this period closes: 8/
final rule 1/97.
provided for the
continued use,
until September
30, 1999, of drums
filled before
September 30, 1997.
Hazardous materials program To resolve Project initiated:
issues--jurisdiction (HM-223). regulatory 1/96 ANPRM 7/29/
jurisdictional 96 Three public
issues regarding meetings held.
applicability of Further action to
the HMR. be determined.
Prohibition of oxidizers on To prohibit the Project
aircraft (HM-224A). carriage of identified: 6/96
oxidizers on NPRM published:
passenger carrying 12/30/96 Final
aircraft and in rule on proper
certain cargo shipping name for
holds on cargo oxygen generators
aircraft. published: 6/5/97
Effective Date: 7/
7/97 SNPRM
anticipated: 7/
97.
Cargo tank motor vehicles in Interim final rule Project
Liquefied Compressed Gas specifies identified: 11/96
Service (HM-225). conditions under I-FR published: 2/
which certain 19/97 Three
cargo tank motor public meetings
vehicles may or workshops
continue to be held. Notice
used on an interim published: 6/6/97
basis, even if the Authorization
emergency expires: 8/15/97
discharge control Final rule
system may not anticipated: 8/97
function as NPRM anticipated:
required by the 8/97.
regulations.
Infectious Substances: Proposes to revise Project
International Harmonization the requirements identified: 1/97
and Bulk Packaging (HM-226). for infectious NPRM anticipated:
substances to late CY 1997.
harmonize the
requirements with
international
standards and
propose bulk
packaging
requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What were your major regulatory accomplishments during
the last two fiscal years?
Answer. The following is a listing of final rules or other final
actions issued for fiscal year 1995 through June, 1997.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RULEMAKING ACTIONS FINAL RULES FISCAL YEAR 1995 THROUGH
JUNE 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM docket Title Action Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM-145K.............................. Hazardous substances... Final rule............. 8/2/95.
HM-169A.............................. Compatibility with IAEA Final rule............. 9/28/95.
for radioactive Response to petitions.. 5/8/96.
materials.
HM-175A/201.......................... Crash worthiness Final rule............. 9/21/95.
protection
requirements for tank
car tanks.
HM-181E.............................. Intermediate bulk Final rule............. 7/26/94.
containers. Response to petitions.. 8/4/95.
HM-181G.............................. Infectious substances.. Final rule............. 9/20/95.
HM-181H.............................. Performance-oriented Final rule............. 9/26/96.
packaging. Response to petitions.. 3/26/97.
HM-189L.............................. Editorial revisions and Final rule............. 9/21/95.
corrections.
HM-189M.............................. Editorial revisions and Final rule............. 10/1/96.
corrections.
HM-200............................... Hazardous materials in Final rule............. 1/8/97.
intrastate commerce.
HM-206............................... Improvements to Final rule............. 1/8/97.
hazardous materials
identification systems.
HM-207C.............................. Exemptions, approvals, Final rule............. 5/9/96.
registration and
reports; miscellaneous
amendments.
HM-207D.............................. Penalty action Final rule............. 3/6/95.
guidelines.
HM-207E.............................. Enforcement-related Final rule............. 2/26/96.
documents, ticketing.
HM-207F.............................. Penalty guidelines..... Final rule............. 1/21/97.
HM-208B.............................. Registration and fee Final rule............. 5/23/95.
assessment program.
HM-215A.............................. Incorporation of latest Final rule............. 12/29/94.
U.N. recommendations. Response to petitions.. 5/18/95.
Response to additional 11/13/95.
petitions.
HM-215B.............................. Harmonization with the Final rule............. 12/16/96.
U.N. recommendations, Final rule............. 5/6/97.
IMO dangerous goods
code, and ICAO
technical instructions.
HM-216............................... Miscellaneous Final rule............. 6/5/96.
amendments; rail. Response to petitions.. 7/25/96.
Response to petitions.. 9/25/96.
HM-219............................... Approval of multi-unit Termination of 5/8/95.
tank car tanks. rulemaking action.
HM-220A.............................. Periodic inspection and Final Rule............. 5/28/96.
testing of cylinders. Response to petitions.. 10/1/96.
HM-220B.............................. Restructuring of Final rule............. 5/23/96.
cylinder Response to petitions.. 10/1/96.
specifications.
HM-221............................... Alternate standards for Termination of 9/29/95.
open-head fiber drum rulemaking action.
packaging.
HM-221A.............................. Extension of authority Final rule............. 2/29/96.
for continued use of
open-head fiber drum
packagings.
HM-221B.............................. Use of non- Direct final rule...... 6/2/97.
specification open-
head fiber drum
packaging.
HM-222............................... Improving the hazardous Notice................. 4/4/95.
materials safety
program.
HM-222A.............................. Elimination of Final rule............. 4/29/96.
unnecessary,
duplicative
regulations.
HM-222B.............................. Revision of hazardous Final rule............. 5/30/96.
materials regulations: Response to petitions.. 10/1/96.
Regulatory review.
HM-224............................... Temporary prohibition Emergency final rule... 5/24/96.
of oxygen generators Final rule............. 12/30/96.
in air commerce.
HM-224A.............................. Shipping description Final rule............. 6/5/97.
and packaging of
oxygen generators.
HM-225............................... Cargo tank motor Final rule............. 2/19/97.
vehicles in liquefied
compressed gas service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the key challenges facing you in fiscal year
1997? What challenges lie ahead in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The key challenge RSPA faces is focusing our resources to
maximize compliance, whether through regulations, enforcement,
training, publications, or technical assistance. The important
regulatory challenges this year and during the next fiscal year involve
completion of several current rulemakings. These include issuing final
rules responding to petitions for reconsideration on Dockets: HM-200--
Intrastate Transportation of Hazardous Materials; HM-206--Hazardous
Materials Identification Systems; and HM-225--Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles
in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service. RSPA also plans to continue is
rulemaking efforts to address: revisions to the cylinder specifications
(HM-220); jurisdictional issues (HM-223); issues involving the
transportation of hazardous materials by air (HM-224A); and
requirements for cargo tanks (HM-213). Additionally, RSPA plans to
continue its efforts to harmonize the Hazardous Materials Regulations
with international regulations, including those addressing infectious
substances.
RSPA also plans to continue the efforts initiated as a result of
the Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to simplify, clarify, and reduce
regulatory burdens so that the focus is on safety and not unnecessary
paperwork.
Question. Is OHMS considering the feasibility of a risk management
demonstration program similar to that conducted by OPS? How is this
reflected in your fiscal year 1998 budget request? If it isn't, how
much would be needed to initiate planning for such a program?
Answer. The Hazardous Materials Safety Program and the Pipeline
Safety Program are very different and require different applications of
risk management. The Pipeline Safety Program involves distinct fixed
facilities where risk management can be uniquely applied to optimize
safety and economic benefits. The Hazardous Materials Safety Program is
a national and international intermodal program, involving hundreds-of-
thousands of shippers and carriers transporting tens-of-thousands of
hazardous materials by highway, rail, water and air. Because hazardous
materials are packaged and transported world-wide, RSPA employs a
single uniform hazard and risk-based regulatory system that is critical
in providing safety and efficiencies in packaging, inventory, training
and compliance. Uniform hazard and risk-based safety standards also
facilitate national and world-wide trade and open markets for American
industries.
An essential feature of the hazardous materials risk management
program is the regulatory exemptions authorized by the hazardous
materials transportation law to address specific cases. Exemptions to
the Hazardous Materials Regulations establish alternative regulations
that provide for a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the
regulations. For more than 20 years, the Office of Hazardous Material
Safety has granted hundreds of such exemptions a year to allow the use
of new technologies and alternative methods to improve transportation
efficiency or to reduce regulatory burden.
Hazard- and risk-based management continue to be used by the
Hazardous Materials Safety Program to support the development of
regulations and to prioritize issues, needs and resources. Hazard, risk
and cost/benefit analysis are also important tools in informing the
public about the actual risk and cost as opposed to the perceived
hazards, risk and cost involved in an activity. An acceptable level of
risk for regulations and exemptions is established by consideration of
risk, cost/benefit and public comments. Hazards analyses often are used
where risk analysis is not practical or justified. Because of the broad
scope and complexity of hazardous materials transportation, a
predominately hazard-based system is used to provide a simple,
efficient surrogate measure for risk without the cost of detailed risk
analysis.
Under the Research and Analysis section of the budget, RSPA has
initiated two projects to aid in the risk management of hazardous
materials. The first project is to develop a ``Hazardous Materials Risk
Management Framework'' that will serve as a structure to guide all risk
management activities associated with hazardous materials
transportation. The second project is an ``Analysis of Risks Associated
with Transportation of Hazardous Materials in Aircraft Cargo
Compartments''. Under the Research and Development section of the
budget, RSPA has initiated a ``National Assessment of Transportation
Risk Posed by Poison Inhalation Hazard Materials, Explosives, Flammable
Liquids and Gases''. These projects are designed as initial efforts to
develop the risk based information necessary to better manage the risk
associated with hazardous material transportation. The results from
each of these projects are expected to identify questions and
information needs that must be addressed in order to perform more
comprehensive risk management.
propane gas service emergency interim final rule
Question. In February, RSPA published an Interim Final Rule on
cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied compressed gas service that was
effective immediately, and was promulgated without an opportunity for
notice and comment from the propane industry or general public. The
rule attempts to address a specific safety concern involving the
potential for release of propane during unloading operations. Please
provide a complete list of all accidents resulting directly from this
safety concern over the past decade, including any related injuries or
deaths, and a description and cost assessment of any damage which
occurred as a result of the accident.
Answer. Following is a summary of data taken from RSPA's Hazardous
Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIS) on incidents that: occurred
between 1987-1996, involved the unintentional release of a liquefied
compressed gas, occurred during unloading operations, and are of a type
that may be immediately stopped through operational controls imposed by
the interim final rule.
REPORTED PROPANE SPILLS--SELECTED INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED DURING UNLOADING FROM CARGO TANK MOTOR VEHICLES
[1987-1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Injuries
Date Location spilled Deaths ---------------- Reported Remarks
(gallons) Major Minor damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/10/87....................... Jeffersonville, 640 ...... ...... 2 $250 Hose rupture.
IN. Fire.
2/17/88....................... Rochester, NY... 245 ...... ...... ...... 120 Pump failure.
8/01/88....................... Weldon, NC...... 50 ...... ...... ...... 100 Valve failure.
8/22/88....................... Huntington, NY.. 20 ...... 1 ...... 10,000 Hose separation.
Flash fire.
8/26/88....................... DeLeon, TX...... 3,500 1 ...... ...... 28,500 Hose separation.
Flash fire.
10/17/89...................... Waitsfield, VT.. 10 ...... 1 ...... 15,000 Hose rupture.
Explosion.
Fire.
12/17/89...................... Lowell, MI...... 3,000 ...... 1 ...... 950 Valve failure.
3/15/90....................... Ringtown, PA.... 12 ...... 1 ...... 356 Hose rupture.
Flash fire.
10/02/90...................... Brighton, CO.... 50 ...... ...... ...... 100 Hose rupture.
3/04/91....................... Fredericksburg, 30 ...... ...... ...... 711,016 Filler valve
VA. broke.
Explosion and
fire.
Evacuation.
11/26/91...................... Titusville, FL.. 180 ...... ...... ...... 100 Pump failure.
9/09/92....................... Milwaukee, WI... 1,255 ...... ...... ...... 424 Hose rupture.
4/19/93....................... Derry, NH....... 1,850 ...... ...... 1 165,060 Hose rupture.
Fire.
7/07/93....................... Horseheads, NY.. 1 ...... ...... ...... 3 Valve failure.
6/09/94....................... Tucson, AZ...... 2,000 ...... ...... ...... 900 Valve failure.
Evacuation.
11/25/94...................... Louisville, KY.. 50 ...... ...... ...... 4,477 Pump failure.
Fire.
Evacuation.
2/10/95....................... Honesdale, PA... 5 ...... ...... ...... 1,328 Pump failure.
Evacuation.
2/16/95....................... Fisshersville, 16 ...... ...... 1 102 Hose rupture.
VA.
7/05/95....................... Woburn, MA...... 200 ...... ...... ...... 90 Pump failure.
Evacuation.
8/16/95....................... Ashton, ID...... 2,000 ...... 1 ...... 27,000 Piping failure.
Flash fire.
3/14/96....................... Sister Bay, WI.. 1,500 ...... ...... ...... 740 Hose coupling
failure.
8/16/96....................... Danielsville, GA 600 ...... ...... ...... 270 Pump failure.
Evacuation
9/08/96....................... Sanford, NC..... 40,000 ...... ...... ...... 20,200 Hose coupling
failure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSPA does not have a complete list of all incidents of this type,
because reporting of incidents involving motor carriers that transport
liquefied compressed gases in intrastate commerce was not required
during the requested period. A final rule issued earlier this year will
bring those carriers under the Hazardous Materials Regulations on
October 1, 1997 and requires their reporting of each unintentional
release.
In the case of propane, RSPA recognizes that most unloading
operations are performed by motor carriers in intrastate commerce. RSPA
is now working to develop a precise estimate of the probability of
future releases of these hazardous materials, by gathering available
information concerning past incidents from other government agencies,
like State Fire Marshals, and private safety organizations, like the
National Fire Protection Association.
The Emergency Interim Final Rule was issued following an incident
on September 8, 1996 in Sanford, North Carolina when more than 35,000
gallons of propane were released during a delivery at a bulk storage
facility. During the unloading of a specification MC 331 cargo tank
motor vehicle into two 30,000-gallon storage tanks, the discharge hose
from the cargo tank separated at its hose coupling at the storage tank
inlet connection. Most of the cargo tank's 9,800 gallons and more than
30,000 gallons from the storage tanks were released during this
incident.
The driver became aware of the system failure when the hose began
to violently oscillate while releasing liquid propane. He immediately
shut down the engine, stopping the discharge pump, but he could not
access the remote closure control to close the internal stop valve. The
excess flow feature of the emergency discharge control system did not
function, and propane continued to be released from the system.
Additionally, the back flow check valve on the storage tank system did
not function and propane was released from the storage tanks. In light
of the large quantity of propane released, this incident could have
resulted in a catastrophic loss of life and extensive property damage
if the gas had reached an ignition source. Fortunately, there was no
fire.
Question. Does the Interim Final Rule effectively mandate that two
or more attendants be present while unloading propane from cargo tank
motor vehicles? If so, was this RSPA's intent?
Answer. Following the investigation of a September, 1996 propane
spill at Sanford, North Carolina, the propane industry determined that
none of their cargo tanks, as currently equipped, conform to safety
regulations concerning emergency discharge control systems that have
been in place for nearly 50 years. Consequently, RSPA and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) saw a need to provide for public safety
by applying additional operational controls designed to immediately
stop the discharge of material in an emergency.
The Interim Final Rule allows industry to continue operating while
we work collaboratively on a technical solution to this issue. Since
issuance of the Interim Final Rule, RSPA and FHWA have worked closely
with industry to develop a permanent solution to this problem. RSPA
held public workshops on March 4 and April 16, 1997, and a public
meeting on March 20, 1997 to discuss short and long term solutions to
the problem.
The major objection by the propane industry is to that part of the
Interim Final Rule that specifies the operator must have an
unobstructed view of the discharge system and be within arm's reach of
a means for closure of the internal valve. Industry representatives
interpret the rule as requiring at least two operators. The rule does
not require that two operators be in attendance for each unloading
operation. In fact, the preamble to the rule notes the acceptability of
various alternatives. One alternative being perfected by the propane
industry involves use of a radio frequency remote activation device
that permits one attendant to immediately stop the discharge from the
cargo tank and to shut-down the vehicle's engine.
Question. It is the Committee's understanding that DOT has received
Petitions for Reconsideration from the National Propane Gas Association
and other organizations. Has RSPA given the petition its priority
consideration? How is the agency working to resolve the issues raised
in the NPGA's petition?
Answer. RSPA is giving its highest priority to the resolution of
issues raised in petitions for reconsideration filed by the National
Propane Gas Association and one other organization. On June 9, 1997,
RSPA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Deferral of Decision
on Petitions for Reconsideration of Interim Final Rule. RSPA deferred
action on the petitions for reconsideration in order to avoid
prejudging issues that are more appropriate for resolution in the final
rule. RSPA will address the issues raised by petitioners and commenters
in a final rule, which it intends to issue prior to August 15, 1997,
the expiration date of the interim final rule.
On June 23, 1997, RSPA will conduct another public meeting at which
two equipment manufacturers are scheduled to provide data on recently
developed pressure-differential valves that reportedly meet, or exceed,
the current standard to immediately stop the discharge of product in
event of a hose separation. Installation of a fully conforming valve
would have the effect of removing the cargo tank from the scope of this
emergency regulation, thereby eliminating concerns raised by the NPGA.
RSPA believes the partnership it formed with this segment of the
hazardous materials transportation industry created the synergy that
fostered development of this technology.
Question. In light of the fact that over 90 percent of the
businesses affected by the Interim Final Rule are small businesses, did
RSPA conduct a cost/benefit analysis on the Interim Final Rule prior to
its effective date, or since? If so, did the analysis address whether
those small businesses would bear disproportionate impacts from the
Interim Final Rule?
Answer. RSPA conducted a preliminary assessment of estimated costs
and benefits of the Interim Final Rule. While the assessment does not
specifically consider whether small businesses would bear a
disproportionate impact, RSPA recognized that at least 90 percent of
the affected entities are small businesses.
RSPA's decision to apply the selected operational controls was
based, in part, upon our sense that most small businesses would select
the least costly means for complying with the requirement to be within
arms reach of a means for closure of the emergency shut-down device. In
the case of small cargo tank motor vehicles the annual cost of
compliance was estimated at $1,324 per vehicle.
Question. According to RSPA's current estimates, what would be the
total annual costs to society from propane releases if RSPA had not
promulgated the Interim Final Rule?
Answer. In its regulatory evaluation, RSPA determined that
annualized costs to society for the sixteen incidents reported between
1990-1996 range from a low of $322,192 to a high of $1,520,705. To
calculate total annual costs for all such incidents RSPA must first
know the number, and consequences, of related incidents involving motor
carriers that transport hazardous materials in intrastate commerce.
RSPA is currently working to collect those data.
The regulatory assessment also considered the possibility that such
a release of propane could have catastrophic consequences on a level
similar to other unintentional releases, like a 1975 incident at Eagle
Pass, Texas. That incident, involving the release of 8,000 gallons of
propane, resulted in 16 fatalities and serious injuries to 51 persons.
In monetary terms, RSPA determined that a single plausible unloading
incident on that order would result in losses in excess of $50 million.
Question. According to RSPA's current estimates, what are the total
annual costs relating to a requirement to have two attendants be
present while unloading propane from a cargo tank motor vehicle?
Answer. RSPA's rule does not require that two operators be in
attendance for each unloading operation and allows operators to use
various alternatives to achieve the level of safety contemplated in the
Hazardous Materials Regulations. Our preliminary regulatory evaluation
prepared in support of the interim final rule estimates that there
would be increased costs to propane marketers who choose to use a
second attendant of $0.00041 per gallon in the wholesale market and
$0.00123 per gallon in the retail market, or an overall increase in
costs of $0.00164 per gallon. In the case of a delivery of 200 gallons
of propane, RSPA estimated that the retail customer will pay an
additional $0.33. Considering that, at the time of that estimate, the
national average retail price of propane was $1.255 per gallon, the
extra $0.33 on a fuel bill of $251 was not considered to represent a
significant or unreasonable cost increase.
Question. Please discuss the underlying issue of excess flow valve
failure. What new automatic emergency shut-off equipment technologies
are being considered by RSPA and the industry? What about remote shut-
off technology?
Answer. Following the investigation of a September, 1996 propane
spill at Sanford, North Carolina, the propane industry determined that
none of their cargo tanks, as currently equipped, conform to safety
regulations that have been in place for nearly 50 years concerning
emergency discharge control systems. The requirement is to ensure that
the flow of lading is stopped in the event of a separation or rupture
of a hose or piping.
RSPA and FHWA have worked closely with industry to develop a
permanent solution to this problem. The regulated industry has agreed
that it is the best position to develop new emergency discharge control
systems since it is aware of the operational constraints and costs
associated with developing new systems or modifying existing systems.
RSPA and FHWA have recently been made aware of two fully automatic
and several radio-controlled remote manual shut-down systems that
industry has developed and is presently testing. The automatic shut-
down systems would function if a hose ruptured or separated. The radio-
controlled remote shut-down systems require the operator to initiate
shut-down, but would stop any leakage observed by the operator. RSPA
has requested details on the automatic systems from the manufacturers
and is awaiting information from the industry associations (National
Propane Gas Association and The Fertilizer Institute) on the remote
systems their task forces have tested.
Question. Has RSPA identified any additional hazardous materials
research and analysis needs that would assist the timely development of
improved liquefied gas delivery safety equipment?
Answer. The Volpe Center has been tasked to provide RSPA and
industry with technical assistance in systems development and
evaluation. Volpe has developed a computer model of typical cargo tank
piping and hose systems to evaluate system performance over variations
in operating conditions. To date, RSPA has not identified any
additional research or evaluation needs that would assist the timely
development of improved liquefied gas delivery safety equipment.
hazmat training
Question. How many joint inspections did OHMS regional inspectors
conduct last year with State inspectors? (Do not include joint
inspections conducted with the IPA hazardous materials specialists).
Answer. In 1996, OHMS headquarters and regional inspectors
conducted five multi-day multi-agency joint inspections and 14
individual inspections with State compliance personnel.
Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, and frequency of
assistance that OHMS regional staff provided to State hazmat personnel
during the last year. Please include data on the number of training
programs conducted by the regional inspectors for the benefit of State
inspectors.
Answer. RSPA does not inspect carriers. Because most State
enforcement involves highway carriers, RSPA does not receive many
requests for training from the States. We continue to attend every
Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED)
program meeting, either making presentations or making staff available,
and assure the States that our headquarters and regional offices will
assist them in any request they make.
OHMS headquarters and regional staffs receive phone calls from
State and municipal agencies on a regular basis. These calls involve
requests for clarification of regulations, for other informational
material, and, occasionally, a request that RSPA investigate a matter
outside the State's jurisdiction. Because most State inspectors work in
areas other than those of OHMS inspectors, we receive relatively few
requests for training.
In 1996, OHMS headquarters and regional inspectors participated in
five multi-day and 14 individual inspections, all of which included
State inspection personnel. Although no formal training was conducted,
OHMS inspectors made a point to provide training to State and other
inspectors during these activities.
Question. How many State officials participated in the IPA
specialists program during each of the last three years? How much money
was appropriated for this program during each of the last three years?
How much is requested for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. In 1995, five State officials participated in the IPA
specialists program, in 1996, three participated, and in 1997, one has
participated thus far. In fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1997,
$40,000 was appropriated for the IPA program. No funds were
appropriated for the program in 1996.
Question. Please discuss the extent of interest that State and
local governments have expressed in the Hazardous Materials Specialists
Program. How many applications did you receive for the available
positions during fiscal year 1996 and thus far during fiscal year 1997?
What do you anticipate for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The Hazardous Materials Specialist program has generated
widespread interest. In 1996, we received 3 applications from potential
candidates; so far, in 1997 we have received 1 application.
We anticipate receiving a high volume of written and verbal
inquiries requesting information about the program in 1998 as a result
of the new HM-200 requirements.
information dissemination
Question. Please breakout the subcategories of anticipated spending
by activity for the information dissemination contract program.
Answer. The $520,000 \1\ requested for fiscal year 1998 to fund the
Information Dissemination program is broken down as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development
(COHMED) and the HM Specialist Internship Program, previously shown
under Inspection and Enforcement, were moved to Information
Dissemination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--For maintenance of the COHMED program sponsored by the Office of
Hazardous Materials Initiatives and Training--$100,000. This
program, through semi-annual conferences and the COHMED
newsletter, provides for the exchange of information among
States, local governments, and industry on compliance,
enforcement and regulatory issues.
--To fund the Hazardous Materials Specialist Internship program
sponsored by the Office of Hazardous Materials Initiatives and
Training--$40,000. In this program, candidates from State and
local HM transportation enforcement agencies participate in a
six-week residency with RSPA.
--RSPA will also continue outreach and information dissemination
efforts through the Hazardous Materials Information eXchange
(HMIX), interagency agreements and by direct contact with the
public and private safety and emergency response personnel--
$25,000.
--RSPA will develop, produce and distribute a video for drum
reconditioners, the third in the ``ENSURING SAFETY'' video
series. Drum reconditioners are primarily very small businesses
in a competitive industry. They requalify a packaging with high
risk potential not only because of the nature of the contents,
but because of the volume of distribution--$40,000.
--RSPA is enhancing its Hazardous Materials Information Center
capabilities by purchasing up-to-date telephone, facsimile, and
computer hardware and software for Internet accessibility to
assist HMS permanent staff in answering telephone inquiries--
$315,000.
shipper and carrier registration program
Question. Please provide a detailed breakout of costs and
expenditures for the shipper and carrier registration program.
Answer. The registration program is implemented through four
contractual arrangements. Forms and fees are submitted to a lockbox
bank, which deposits checks and credit car payments into the Treasury,
provides data-entry services, and forwards data files and the submitted
paperwork to RSPA at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
(VNTSC) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lockbox bank contract is
supplied through the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service
(FMS).
VNTSC provides data management services, and operational support,
including a 24-hour 800-number service. Because VNTSC is an element of
RSPA, the vehicle used to obtain these services is a Multi-Year Project
Plan Agreement, which is adjusted annually to reflect the level of
effort required. In fiscal year 1997, $600,000 was budgeted for these
services.
Additional programming and information request response services,
including a full-time help desk available during business hours, are
provided through an on-site contract at the headquarters office. In
fiscal year 1997, $100,000 was budgeted for these services.
The remaining $50,000 was budgeted for printing and distributing
the registration brochure and form, other mailings, and other
administrative costs of the program.
Question. The shipper and carrier registration program is in its
sixth full year of operation. Please display the total in registration
fees collected each year, broken out by use (emergency preparedness
activities and registration activities). How much do you expect to
collect during fiscal year 1997?
Answer.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND--RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants program Registration
Fiscal year receipts receipts Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................ 1,433 8,117 9,550
1994............................................................ 1,397 6,986 8,383
1995............................................................ 1,365 6,873 8,238
1996............................................................ 1,605 6,910 8,515
1997 (estimated)................................................ 1,200 6,910 8,110
1998 (estimated)................................................ 1,200 6,910 8,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. RSPA has requested $750,000 for the Shipper and Carrier
Registration System. What cost analysis has been done to indicate that
this amount is appropriate? What would be the consequences of reducing
the amount of funding for this program?
Answer. RSPA has evaluated the costs of this program and concluded
that $750,000 is the minimum amount necessary to provide timely
collection and deposit of the fees and issuance of registration
certificates, and to respond adequately to the heavy demand for
assistance from the public. The costs themselves could be reduced by
limiting some of the services we currently supply, such as, the 24-hour
800-line service for expedited registrations. All customer-oriented
services, however, are heavily used by persons either required to
register or who need assistance in understanding the registration
requirements. To curtail these services would tend to adversely impact
on the public's ability to get information on a timely basis.
Question. For each of the modal administrations that enforce the
registration requirement, please present data on the number of
enforcement actions taken against those that have not registered or
paid the required fee, or failed to present the registration number as
required.
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) opened 295 cases
between June 1993 and September 1996 that included citations for
violations of the registration regulations. Additionally, FHWA has
issued 96 ``Notices of the Requirement to Register,'' an informal
notice developed for use during Roadcheck 1993, but used beyond that
exercise. FRA has issued 155 of these informal notices and has
initiated 3 cases against parties for failure to register. Since the
beginning of fiscal year 1994 RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials
Enforcement has initiated 48 enforcement actions which included
violations for failure to register, 35 of which were civil penalty
cases and 13 of which were ticket citations.
Question. What is the scope of cooperation and assistance that you
are receiving from the Office of Motor Carriers regarding enforcement
of the hazmat registration program? Are you satisfied with the extent
to which OMC Safety Specialists are disseminating information on the
registration program and its associated fees?
Answer. RSPA and FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) continue to
work together to improve compliance with the registration program. For
example, OMS has incorporated the registration regulations into its
routine compliance review procedures and has issued at least 295
citations for the failure to register or for related record-keeping
requirements. When cases for failure to register are completed, OMC
frequently issues a press release to highlight the enforcement actions
taken. RSPA supplies copies of the registration brochure to the OMC
regional offices for them to distribute. Additionally, RSPA and OMC
worked together during Roadcheck 1995 to further identify parties
failing to register and to obtain more current and accurate compliance
information.
Question. What are RSPA, OMC, and FRA doing to publicize
enforcement actions against companies who are required to, but are not
paying, the registration fee required under the HMTUSA?
Answer. RSPA provides copies of its civil penalty case orders to
six trade press publishers. It also publishes an annual Penalty Actions
Report that includes all actions taken by RSPA and the Department's
modal administrations for violations of the hazardous materials
regulations. This report is also incorporated into RSPA's biennial
report to Congress on the transportation of hazardous materials. OMC
frequently issues press releases to highlight enforcement actions
taken.
Question. What compliance rates were achieved in the 1994-95
registration cycle, estimated for the 1995-96 registration cycle, and
projected for the 1997-98 registration cycle for the hazardous
materials registration program?
Answer. We believe compliance with the registration requirement is
greater than 90 percent. This conclusion is based upon analysis by use
of the Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS) (1987), which provides
specific data on truck characteristics and other data on
characteristics of the hazardous materials industry. Included in TIUS
are data on the number of trucks involved in hazardous materials
transport, and the number of trucks and/or trailers owned and/or
operated at the same home base. We were able to extrapolate from these
data the approximate number of companies, not under lease, using one or
more placarded trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more. Airlines and
railroads are well known, and we are confident that they are
registered. Compliance enforcement with the registration requirements
was a key element of ROADCHECK-93 and ROADCHECK-95, nationwide
inspection efforts sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. Of
2,300 placarded trucks that were checked for proof of registration
during the 1993 inspection, 88 percent were registered and had proof on
board. Of the 12 percent that did not have proof on board, 80 percent
were already registered. Thus, there was approximately 98 percent
compliance with the registration requirement. Of the 1,220 placarded
trucks that were checked during the 1995 inspection, 91 percent were
registered and had proof on board. Of the nine percent that did not
have proof on board, 60 percent were already registered. Therefore,
there was approximately 96 percent compliance with the registration
requirement. Similarly, during fiscal year 1995 the Office of Motor
Carriers conducted 2,338 compliance reviews of carriers of hazardous
materials and initiated 100 enforcement cases that cited the
registration regulations. This indicates a 96 percent compliance rate.
During fiscal year 1996 the Office of Motor Carriers opened 79
enforcement cases citing the registration regulations as a result of
3,215 compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers, indicating a
97 percent compliance rate. During CY 1995 RSPA's Office of Hazardous
Materials Enforcement conducted 1,217 inspections of hazardous
materials shippers and initiated 15 cases that involved the
registration regulations. In CY 1996 1,208 inspections were performed,
resulting in 15 citations of the registration regulations. These two
sets of inspection results indicate a compliance rate of 99 percent. We
expect that the compliance rate for 1997 will remain consistent with
the previous years.
implementation of hazardous transportation act
Question. Please provide a detailed update of how RSPA has
implemented Section 116 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Authorization Act (Public Law 103-311), which requires the Secretary to
designate a toll-free telephone number for the reporting of possible
violations of hazardous materials transportation laws or regulations.
How has the implementation of this provision shown to be beneficial,
and how well is this system working?
Answer. RSPA's toll free number (1-800-HMR-4922) was established on
May 8, 1995. Each modal Administration (i.e., USCG, FRA, FAA, FHWA) and
RSPA have established their own toll-free numbers to handle the
reporting of possible violations in their respective enforcement area.
RSPA's toll-free number is a computer operated system that allows a
caller who wishes to report a possible violation of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to be transferred to RSPA's hazardous materials
enforcement office or to any of the other modal administrations without
having to place another call. Each mode has established its own
mechanism for responding to complaints involving possible violations of
the regulations. In addition, through RSPA's toll-free number, a person
can receive clarification on the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR),
copies of training materials, and copies of recent Federal Register
publications. Callers can also leave a message requesting information
on the HMR. We have set a customer service standard that calls
requesting assistance with the HMR will be returned within 24 hours.
RSPA receives more than 25,000 phone calls annually to the
Hazardous Materials Information Line (HMIL). Since callers can access
the HMIL either by a standard long distance telephone number or by
dialing an 800 telephone number, we cannot identify accurately the
number of callers using the 800 number. Additionally since callers have
a series of selection options, we do not have information on the number
of callers that select an individual option. We estimate that
approximately 20,000 of these calls are received using the 800 number.
Most of these calls (an estimated 80-90 percent) are requests for
information on compliance with the HMR. The remaining calls to the 800
number are requests for rulemaking actions, requests for training
materials, and reports of possible violations. RSPA believes, that by
establishing and operating the 800 number, it has provided better
access for the regulated public to obtain regulatory guidance,
instructional materials, and rulemaking information, and to report
suspected violations of the regulations.
Question. How is the information that is gathered through this
system shared with other modes and agencies?
Answer. Callers wanting to report violations of the regulations can
be automatically transferred to the appropriate modal administration.
Question. Does the information that is collected through this
system include hazmat shippers? If so, how? If not, please provide an
explanation on how the system could be modified to incorporate shipper
data, and what the costs would be.
Answer. Use of the toll free 800 number provides the opportunity
for anyone to report a potential violation of the regulations,
including shippers, carriers, freight transporters, and packaging
manufacturers.
Question. How does RSPA, OMC and FRA follow-up on complaints or
notices of possible violations that are received through this system?
Answer. Complaints received by RSPA through the toll-free number
which allege violations by persons under the jurisdiction of RSPA are
electronically routed to the Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement
(OHME) through a ``blind'' transfer feature incorporated into the
system. OMC and FRA receive calls in a similar manner.
OHME enters the complaint into its COMPLAINT data set. The
complaint is then assigned and investigated. OHME investigates all
complaints that it receives.
The message routing calls to OMC advises complainants that their
complaint must be in writing and contain specific information about
dates, times, material facts, violator name and address and/or
location. Complainants must clearly state the alleged violation and/or
problem. OMC provides its headquarters address for submission of these
written complaints. Upon receipt, OMC forwards them to the appropriate
division for handling.
FRA follows a process similar to RSPA's. Complaints (hazmat and
otherwise) are logged in and assigned to the appropriate region for an
investigation.
Question. What are the fiscal year 1997 and expected fiscal year
1998 costs associated with this system?
Answer. RSPA received $315,000 in a supplemental appropriation in
fiscal year 1997 for the Hazardous Materials Information Center and is
requesting the same funding level for fiscal year 1998.
Question. Which provisions of current law regarding hazmat safety
have not been fully implemented by OHMS? What are your plans to
implement these provisions? When will these actions be taken?
Answer. RSPA has implemented all provisions of current law
regarding hazmat safety.
reauthorization issues
Question. When does the OHMS's current authorization expire? Has
the administration proposed new authorizing legislation? What action
has been taken to date, if any, by the appropriate Senate and House
authorizing committees?
Answer. OHMS's authorization expires at the end of fiscal year
1997. On April 17, 1997, the Administration proposed reauthorizing
legislation as Title X of the National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA). This legislative
proposal is under consideration by the House and Senate authorizing
committees. Congressmen Dingell and Oberstar, by request, introduced
the Administration's NEXTEA safety titles (titles IX-XIV) as H.R. 1720.
The Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
held a public hearing on the Administration's proposal on May 8, 1997.
Question. What are the major components of your reauthorization
bill and how is this strategy or direction reflected in your fiscal
year 1998 budget request and program planning?
Answer. The major component of the Administration's bill is a
series of amendments that would enhance and clarify the enforcement
authority of DOT inspection personnel. These amendments would clearly
establish DOT inspectors' right to inspect packages, take samples, hire
experts to sample and analyze materials, and issue orders to stop
transportation of an undetermined material if an imminent hazard may
exist. They also would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
issue emergency orders when there is an emergency situation involving a
hazard of death, injury or significant harm to the environment. These
authorities would improve DOT's ability to prevent undeclared shipments
of hazardous materials, detect violations of the hazardous materials
regulations, and prevent hazardous materials transportation that
jeopardizes people or the environment.
The fiscal year 1998 budget requests no additional funding for
implementation of these provisions. We are planning to implement these
authorities when they are enacted through delegations, training and
establishment of standards and procedures.
office of emergency transportation
Question. How much of your budget request supports maintenance of
the Crisis Management Center?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, of the $200,000 requested for the
Crisis Management activity, $40,000 is designated for Crisis Management
Center (CMC) on-going maintenance, based on fiscal year 1977 funding
levels. Funding for on-going maintenance is vital to maintaining a
technologically strong focal point for transportation response to
disasters. The remainder of the funding is allocated for headquarters
and regional response team training, the Regional Emergency
Transportation Coordinator (RETCO) program support funding, ongoing
data processing and geographical outreach efforts with industry.
Question. How useful are the Regional Transportation Coordinators
trained by your Office? Are they able to provide full time and
attention to the disaster in lieu of their regular positions?
Answer. The 10 Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinators
(RETCO's) are senior regional executives from the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and the United
States Coast Guard. Under the general supervision of the Office of
Emergency Transportation, their function is to provide the overall
leadership and policy direction for the regional emergency response
effort. This includes not only DOT Operating Administrations, but also
other Federal transportation support agencies. This leadership role
requires a modest expenditure of time and does not interfere with their
day-to-day activities.
Each RETCO also has a Regional Emergency Transportation
Representative (RETREP). This employee has day-to-day responsibility
for planning, monitoring and reporting incidents and providing on-site
management of the DOT response during a disaster within their region.
Currently, RETREP duties within the DOT Operating Administrations vary
from full time, sole duty, to part-time, collateral duty. The work of
the RETREP's is pivotal to the Department's ability to deliver
assistance to the victims of disasters.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the different major categories and
subcomponents of the Emergency Transportation budget for the last three
years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of funds.
Answer. The table below shows the three requested years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Appropriation Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995:
Contract programs:
Transportation Res management... $42,000 $42,000
Operational readiness........... 80,000 80,000
Crisis management............... \1\ 454,000 442,000
R&D: Operational management support. 50,000 6,000
1996:
Contract Program: Crisis management. 250,000 250,000
R&D: Operational management support. 50,000 81,000
1997:
Contract program: Crisis management. 200,000 \2\ 215,000
R&D: Operational management support. 50,000 \3\ 57,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for CMC design and construction.
\2\ Transfer PC&B to contract program.
\3\ Estimated obligations.
Question. Please specify what research and development activities
the Office of Emergency Transportation plans to accomplish with a
budget of $50,000?
Answer. The R&D budget for the Office of Emergency Transportation
allows us to harness new technologies to enhance the Department's
ability to provide Federal assistance to the States under the Federal
Response Plan. This funding allows the CMC to remain contemporary, so
that we can manage our future response operations reliably and
efficiently. In addition, this funding allows us to upgrade software to
extend existing computer databases used within this office to support
our response efforts. Finally, we will continue the expansion of our
series of informational monographs on threats to transportation systems
around the nation, prepared in partnership with the natural hazard
scientific community. Over 1,000 copies of the first two volumes of
this series have been distributed by the private publishers who has
made the publication available through the Internet and by DOT. Copies
have been distributed to Federal, State and local agencies, private
industry, regional transit operators and engineering firms. The current
monographs developed by the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC)
and the Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC) each discuss the
importance of increased awareness with regard to earthquake risk and
vulnerability of the transportation system (infrastructure). The
monographs center around areas in the central U.S. (AR, IL, IN, KY, MS,
MO and TN) as well as in the western U.S. (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT,
NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY, Guam, the Yukon Territory and British
Columbia).
emergency preparedness grants
Question. Please describe the allocation formula for emergency
preparedness grants.
Answer. RSPA allocated grant funds for fiscal year 1996 based on
objective factors using verifiable publicly available data which
represented community risks and needs. With the exception of the States
and territories that did not apply, and the three percent of the
training funds that were set-aside for Indian tribes, each grantee
received an award equal to its share based on RSPA's allocation
factors.
RSPA used the following factors for allocation of training grants:
--Fifty percent of the funds were allocated to States (including
territories) based on their percentage of total population.
Population is a surrogate for the number of responders needing
training.
--Thirty percent of the funds were allocated to States based on their
percentage of total highway miles, which is a surrogate for
highway risk.
--Twenty percent of the funds were allocated to States on the basis
of their percentage of the total number of chemical facilities,
as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. This allocation measure
is a surrogate for fixed-facility risk.
We used an appropriately different approach in allocating planning
funds:
--Twenty percent of the funds were allocated to States based on their
percentage of total population.
--Forty percent of the funds were allocated based on the State's
percentage of total hazardous materials truck miles.
--Forty percent of the funds were allocated on the basis of the
State's percentage of the SuperFund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 Sec. 302 chemical facility reports.
Question. What are the measures of success or accomplishments for
this program? How do you know whether the grant funds are used
effectively by the States?
Answer. RSPA measures the success of the program by the States'
accomplishments in terms of training and planning for emergency
response to hazardous materials incidents. To the present time, 424,000
hazmat emergency responders have been trained, in part, using grant
funds. Also in the latest year, 511 commodity flow studies, which
identify where hazardous materials are being transported to facilitate
emergency response planning, were accomplished; 770 exercises were
held, and 4,477 response plans were created or updated.
RSPA's grants have supported emergency response training along the
U.S.-Mexican border in support of NAFTA. Grants have totaled $3.9
million over four years (fiscal years 1993-1996) to the States of
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. RSPA also used the program
to fund translation of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook
into Spanish, thus helping Spanish-speaking first responders in the
U.S. and Mexico.
RSPA grantees have used their grant funds effectively and
creatively to train a large number of emergency responders at a modest
cost. For example, Arkansas used an educational TV network to provide
hazmat training to emergency responders in its communities. North
Carolina uses mobile training facilities to provide technician
training, and Idaho provides hazmat training in a training center
developed at an unused airport.
the volpe center
Question. For fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, what percent
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, what
percent of funds do you plan to contract out?
Answer. For fiscal year 1996 about 74 percent of the Center's
obligations were contracted to the private and university sectors. The
percentage is not expected to change significantly in fiscal year 1997
or fiscal year 1998.
Question. What percent of your personnel costs are for contract
administration, technical program direction, and in-house research?
Answer. About 3 percent of personnel costs is for contract
administration. About 73 percent is tied to specific technical project
work, including both technical direction and technical performance. No
funds or staff were devoted to in-house research (i.e. independent
research and development not tied to a client project) in fiscal year
1996 and none is planned for fiscal year 1997-98. The remaining 22
percent of personnel costs covers facility operations and all other
Center administrative and management services.
Question. What have you done to stop ``pass throughs'' to the Volpe
Center?
Answer. Neither the Volpe Center Working Capital Fund nor RSPA work
acceptance policy permits the Center to accept funds earmarked by the
customer for a specific contractor, commonly known as ``pass-
throughs.'' The responsibility for the selection, technical direction,
and performance of all Volpe Center contracts rests with the Volpe
Center (except for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Program in which the funding agency usually provides the technical team
to select and oversee the contracts.) In fiscal year 1996 less than 2
percent of the Center's contract obligations were sole-sourced.
Question. Please break out, in tabular form, obligations by each of
the DOT modal administrations to the Volpe Center for each of the last
three years. What is the significance of these funding trends?
Answer.
OBLIGATIONS OF DOT MODAL ADMINISTRATIONS TO THE VOLPE CENTER
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------
1995 1996 1997 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA......................................... 93.6 86.5 85.0
FHWA........................................ 10.7 10.0 10.0
USCG........................................ 7.2 5.3 6.0
FRA......................................... 12.3 9.5 9.0
FTA......................................... 5.6 4.8 4.5
NHTSA....................................... 6.1 7.9 7.3
RSPA........................................ 4.5 4.2 5.2
Other DOT................................... 2.1 2.8 3.0
OST......................................... 1.2 1.5 1.2
---------------------------
Total................................. 143.3 132.7 131.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
Note.--Each amount includes that customer's participation in DOT's SBIR
program, which the Volpe Center manages.
The trends generally reflect the appropriations to our customers
and changes in their program emphasis.
Question. What are you doing to build up the in-house expertise of
Volpe personnel and their technical capabilities to do more of their
own research?
Answer. This year the Center focused on improving staff
competencies in safety and security, environmental issues, traffic
management and infrastructure renewal areas. Transportation lecture
series focused on issues such as transportation safety, airport
strategic planning and information systems modeling. In addition,
lunchtime meetings were held monthly to share information, experiences,
and current trends of interest to the technical community.
Since last year the number of Center staff who possess advanced
degrees has increased from 229 to 236. This increase is due, in part,
to the Center's Fellows Program which is designed to provide career
staff with the opportunity to seek graduate and post-graduate education
in key transportation areas.
During the first eight months of fiscal year 1997 the Center hired
two technical staff members for each technical staff loss which
resulted in net increases in many technical occupations including
Operations Research, Computer Engineering, Computer Systems Analysis,
and Environmental Engineering. The Center also has a very active
cooperative education intern program involving 12-15 Universities and
Colleges.
Question. When was the last time that Volpe conducted customer
surveys? What were the results?
Answer. All Volpe Center customers participated in our first round
of structured customer satisfaction interviews in 1995 and 1996. The
summary results, based on interviews with 219 customers' project
managers and 62 senior-level customers, are shown as follows. More
detailed results were reported to all customers in a report, ``Round 1
Executive Summary of the Customer Satisfaction Monitoring Initiative,''
October, 1996. The Volpe Center plans to complete its second round of
customer satisfaction monitoring during the spring of 1998.
The overall customer satisfaction rating is on a scale of 0 to 10
where 10 equals extremely satisfied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project-level Senior-level
Satisfaction rating interviews interviews
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10...................................... 7 ..............
9....................................... 22 23
8....................................... 40 43
7....................................... 19 17
6....................................... 7 7
5....................................... 1 7
4....................................... 2 ..............
3....................................... 2 3
<3...................................... .............. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table showing the percent of the Volpe
work that has been conducted for non-DOT agencies for each of the last
four years.
Answer.
VOLPE CENTER OBLIGATIONS FOR NON-DOT AGENCIES
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD................................ 24 12 12 12
Other non-DOT...................... 10 15 16 18
------------------------------------
Total........................ 34 27 28 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
Question. What are the Volpe overhead charges and how have you
tried to reduce these? Please provide a detailed explanation and dollar
figures of what all of the overhead costs are for each of the last
three fiscal years.
Answer. Following is the distribution of the Center's indirect
expenses:
[In millions of dollars obilgated]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Indirect activity ---------------------------
1995 1996 1997 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility operations......................... 3.7 4.0 3.7
Business services........................... 8.2 7.6 7.9
Line management............................. 2.0 2.3 2.4
Centerwide services......................... 1.2 0.9 1.2
Computer & LAN services..................... 3.6 3.8 4.1
Executive operations:
Industry outreach....................... 0.3 0.3 0.2
Capability development.................. 0.3 0.3 0.5
Plans and program development........... 1.0 1.1 1.2
Chief counsel........................... 0.4 0.4 0.5
Executive management.................... 1.1 0.8 0.8
---------------------------
Total indirect........................ 21.7 21.5 22.5
---------------------------
Total obligations..................... 198.2 186.1 195.0
===========================
Indirect to total (percent)................. 10.9 11.6 11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
The estimated fiscal year 1997 indirect expenses reflect increases
for salaries, benefits, negotiated contract price adjustments and other
normal cost growth. Reductions from our $25.7 million fiscal year 1993
indirect budget (baseline established by the Federal Workplace
Restructuring Act of 1994) have been achieved primarily by
administrative staff reductions of 46 FTE. Continuing efforts are
focused on process simplification, improved automation and introducing
current energy conservation technology.
Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1997
new start reimbursable agreements that the Volpe Center has with other
Federal agencies. Be certain to include all costs that are paid out to
contractors hired by the Volpe Center.
Answer. Through eight months of fiscal year 1997 there have been
five new starts totaling $1,008,700. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned
Project Customer Funding contract
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for the President's
Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Project........ EPA \1\.......... $320,000 10
Strategic planning support to EPA.............. 80,700 .........
region III.
Yosemite National Park
environmental logistics &
transportation analysis....... Interior......... 350,000 79
Technical litigation support... Justice.......... 8,000 18
Facilities management system
planning, development, and
implementation support........ USPS............. 250,000 48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Multi-agency effort.
Question. Please provide detailed explanation as to why the Volpe
Center tends to hire outside contractors to complete technical aspects
of work tasks. Federal agencies using the Volpe Center assume that work
is done by ``in-house'' staff as part of the negotiated amount of
contract. Further, please explain why it is critical for Volpe staff to
travel, sometimes long distances at huge costs, to provide ``quality
control'' to hired contractors. How can quality be handled without
excess travel?
Answer. At any point in time the Volpe Center is responsible for
about 350 projects. For each, the Volpe Center determines the
appropriate contract support role, if any. Projects in support of
Federal regulatory or policy analysis typically rely primarily on our
Federal staff. Projects that require extensive software development,
specialized testing, or extensive system deployment typically use
contractor support more intensively. Project agreements with customer
agencies identify the anticipated costs associated with Volpe Center
federal staff and with contractor support.
While some Volpe Center staff travel is for contractor oversight,
most is for coordination with our agency customers, data collection, or
interaction with the ultimate users of systems being developed and
deployed. All Volpe Center travel is performed in accordance with
federal regulations, and is taken only when it is a cost effective way
to achieve results.
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Prepared Statement of David G. Sanders, Deputy Administrator
This budget request for fiscal year 1998 from the Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is different from past budget
requests. As a result of the Administration's effort to convert the
SLSDC to a Performance Based Organization (PBO), the SLSDC is not
making an appropriation request. Financing is to be derived from an
automatic annual payment from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF).
The PBO proposal includes an automatic annual payment for fiscal year
1998 of $11,200,000 from the HMTF, and $1,220,000 from non-federal
source revenue collections and the Corporation's financial reserve. The
Corporation's fiscal year 1998 budget program level totals $12,420,000.
This includes $11,680,000 to fund operations and maintenance, and
$740,000 for capital improvements.
On March 4, 1996, as part of the Administration's reinventing
government initiative, Vice President Gore announced the
Administration's plans to restructure eight federal agencies as PBO's.
The SLSDC was one of the eight agencies chosen for conversion to a PBO.
Prerequisites for becoming a PBO candidate: have a clear mission,
measurable services, and a performance measurement system in place or
in development; generally focus on external, not internal, customers;
have a clear line of accountability to an agency head who has a policy
accountability for the functions; have top level support to transfer a
function into a PBO; and have predictable sources of funding.
Immediately following the March 4 announcement, Corporation staff
began work at three levels: the National Performance Review (NPR) PBO
Advisory Group; the SLSDC Conversion Team, which included NPR, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Transportation
Officials (DOT), and SLSDC staff; and an internal Corporation work
group led by the Administrator. In coordination with these groups the
SLSDC developed options and recommendations for proposed management,
organizational structure, performance indicators, administrative
waivers, and a financial plan. OMB the SLSDC PBO plan on June 3, 1996.
Legislation, including the financial plan, was submitted to the
Congress on July 16, 1996.
On July 31, 1996, the Senate passed the DOT appropriations for
fiscal year 1997, which included a sense of the Senate amendment to
consider legislation to establish SLSDC as a PBO beginning in fiscal
year 1998. The Conference Committee deferred consideration of the SLSDC
PBO proposal; however, the Committee directed the GAO to conduct a
review of the PBO concept, with special emphasis on SLSDC. This year,
revised PBO legislation was resubmitted to the Congress May 5, 1997,
and the GAO study was completed May 15, 1997.
Under the PBO plan, the SLSDC would be funded, beginning in fiscal
year 1998, by an annual automatic payment (fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2002) from the HMTF. The payment is to be a dollar amount
equal to the rolling five year average of U.S. international metric
tonnage moved through the Seaway, adjusted by a factor of 1.076, and
adjusted for inflation by the percentage difference between the
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for the first
quarter of calendar year 1996, and the CPI-U for the first quarter of
the calendar year in which an annual payment is determined. The
Corporation would have flexibility to use the funds and other resources
to meet the performance targets specified in the COO performance
contract. Achieving these targets would meet the overall goals of the
PBO initiative: to improve the performance of government by making it
more responsive and efficient at reduced cost.
1996 navigation season overview
Overall tonnage levels in 1996 were almost even with 1995 levels.
Total tonnage through the Montreal/Lake Ontario section of the St.
Lawrence Seaway in CY 1996 was 38.1 million metric tons, which was
610,000 tons or 2 percent below the 1995 total. The decrease was the
first downturn in Seaway traffic since 1992. Even with the slight
reduction from 1995, the 1996 season exceeded the previous five year
average (1991 through 1995) by 8 percent or 3 million tons. Vessel
transits were 2,707, down 3 percent from 1995.
During the 274-day 1996 navigation season (March 29-December 27),
the Seaway experienced a sluggish first half of the season, before
rebounding during the latter months with the fall harvest of corn and
soybeans. Both U.S. and Canadian grain export shipments were down more
than 2 million tons or 16 percent below 1995 levels. At the start of
the season, U.S. wheat movements and transshipments through St.
Lawrence River elevators were temporarily suspended by the Canadian
Agricultural Ministry for possible contamination from the Karnal Bunt
fungus. Despite a strong overseas market for U.S. grains, exports
declined 9.4 percent nationally due in part to low carryover stocks
from 1995. By contrast, Seaway movements of iron ore increased 6
percent to 11.6 million tons, the highest tonnage level for ore since
1981.
There was also strong growth in the movement of general cargo,
including manufactured iron and steel, which rose sharply in CY 1996.
All general cargo through the Seaway totaled 5.9 million tons, an
increase of 25 percent. The gain was led by increases in manufactured
iron and steel at 4 million tons, an increase of 25 percent, and steel
slabs at 1.7 million tons, an increase of 27 percent.
The U.S. locks were open for navigation 274 days in 1996 and
available to vessel customers 97 percent of that time. Delays to
navigation for all causes totaled 187.6 hours of which weather and
visibility conditions accounted for 73 percent or 137.2 hours.
1996 accomplishments
Pilotage transfer
On December 11, 1995, regulation of Great Lakes pilotage was
transferred to SLSDC from the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG). This transfer
of regulatory responsibility has been very smooth and has not resulted
in any disruption to navigation. The pilotage staff completed the first
full pilotage rate making review since 1987. The audit was completed at
a cost of $50,000, considerably lower than the cost of past audits in
the USCG. This resulted in the first increase in pilotage rates since
1992. The final rates became effective March 1, 1997.
Toll negotiations
For the 1996 season, the SLSDC negotiated a freeze on the Canadian
Tariff of Tolls at the 1993 Tariff level for the third consecutive year
with the Canadian Seaway Authority (SLSA).
PBO conversion
The SLSDC PBO conversion team, beginning in March 1996, worked
throughout the year preparing a plan to transform the SLSDC into a PBO.
Working closely with Seaway union and non-union employees, NPR, OMB,
DOT's Office of the Secretary, and Seaway users, the conversion team
developed a draft bill that was submitted to the Congress in July.
While the bill was not eventually adopted, a sense of the Senate
resolution was attached to the DOT Appropriations Bill declaring the
SLSDC PBO initiative worthy of future consideration. The SLSDC's draft
bill was used by the NPR as a model for other agencies being considered
as PBO's. Since November of 1996, the SLSDC conversion team has worked
closely with the GAO staff studying the SLSDC's PBO plan. The report
was completed and released on May 15, 1997.
NPR hammer award
On October 4, 1996, the SLSDC and the USCG received a joint Hammer
Award for improving the vessel screening program conducted in Montreal.
The screening program supports implementation of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 and the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990. Combining Seaway and Coast Guard inspections with SLSDC
also reduces transit time and operating costs for vessel customers
entering the Seaway.
Vessel fleet study
The SLSDC completed a first-of-its-kind ``State of the Seaway
Fleet'' analysis of the world vessel fleet as part of a long-term
program to address the challenge of aging vessels in the Seaway fleet.
The study found that many more vessels than expected are able to
transit the Seaway--over 40 percent of the world fleet.
Trade development
As a result of SLSDC trade development meetings with vessel owners
in Denmark and the Netherlands, eighteen new vessels will be equipped
with Seaway fittings. Meetings with vessels owners and operators in
Greece and Cyprus resulted in two new vessel services beginning
operations in July 1996. Ferum Lines, a Greek firm, has committed four
vessels to the Seaway for break-bulk monthly service between the lake
ports and the Mediterranean. A Portuguese firm initiated a ``project
cargo'' charter service with a first sailing to the port of Chicago
during July.
The SLSDC refocused its trade development efforts during the past
year. Instead of organizing large delegations on multi-country trade
missions, the SLSDC is now concentrating on smaller, more focused
missions. The agency will participate in already existing conferences
and events, sponsored by other organizations. This will allow more
effective use of resources; instead of focusing on organizing an event
and making travel arrangements for an entire delegation, SLSDC can
devote more of its resources to targeting important companies and
individuals. Greater emphasis is now placed on meeting with companies
and individuals that own, operate, and control vessels capable of
entering the Seaway. In addition, the SLSDC will devote more time and
resources on existing North American customers and potential customers
of the Seaway. For example, during the first week in March, SLSDC and
SLSA officials traveled to Minneapolis, Winnipeg, and Calgary to meet
with U.S. and Canadian grain industry representatives. The SLSDC
intends to work more closely with our Canadian counterpart, SLSA, and
Seaway stakeholders to plan, fund, and implement trade development
initiatives together. The SLSDC's planned trade development schedule
for the remainder of Calendar Year 1997 includes: attending the Montana
Coal Conference in Butte, Montana (July); during August the Corporation
plans to conduct a Seaway North America/Great Lakes trade mission, with
programs and events at several U.S. and Canadian lake ports. Each port
event, which will include port customers and new business potential
users, will be co-sponsored with local port authorities. We have
tentative plans at this time to participate in the Universal Congress
of the Panama Canal in and the third biennial International Canals and
Waterways Chief Executives Conference meeting, both in Panama, during
September 1997, and vessel operator, broker and financier exhibitions
in Hamburg, Germany, and South Africa during October 1997.
Global positioning system
At the insistence of the SLSDC, a work group has been formed among
the two Seaway entities, the two Coast Guards, and Great Lakes vessel
carrier associations to determine operational requirements for Global
Positioning System (GPS/DGPS) applications throughout the System. The
group is also exploring cost-sharing of identified GPS/DGPS systems for
implementation. An implementation and cost-sharing timeline is being
developed at this time.
Customer exit survey
On June 12, 1996, the Corporation published a report of the 1995
Customer Exit Survey of all ocean and lake vessels transiting the
Seaway. The response to the survey was extremely positive, and the
information received has been shared with the SLSA to determine what
areas are significant to improving customer satisfaction. The
Corporation is working with the SLSA to implement many of the
suggestions and ideas generated by the Seaway's customers.
United States/Canada working group
Following a June 5, 1996 meeting between the Secretary and the
Canadian Minister of Transport, a U.S./Canada Binational Working Group
was formed to examine the possibility of greater cooperation between
the two countries in administering and managing services in the Great
Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System. The group, which includes a steering
committee and subgroup committees, has exchanged information on
respective restructuring of the two Seaway entities, explore options
for binational management of the Seaway, and increased binational
cooperation in the provision of other Great Lakes services. Several
meetings took place during 1996 to prepare for an interim progress
report that was presented to the Secretary and Minister on September
17, 1996. The work of the group is expected to continue throughout
fiscal year 1997.
Emergency response drill
The SLSDC participated with SLSA, the U.S. and Canadian Coast
Guards, and local U.S. and Canadian agencies in the Canada-U.S. Lake
emergency response drill that ran round-the-clock for four days during
September 1996. The program simulated a major oil spill in the St.
Lawrence River. The value of these drills is to ensure 100 percent
readiness for quick resolution of emergency situations affecting safety
and the environment.
significant 1997 accomplishments to date
1997/1998 toll negotiations
The Deputy Administrator and the President of the Seaway Authority
reached agreement on a Tariff of Tolls for the 1997 and 1998 navigation
seasons. The final agreement calls for elimination of Lockage fees at
the Welland Canal in 1998 and would allow for a 2.5 percent tariff
increase across-the-board for all commodity tariff items, to be
implemented August 1, 1997. Effective in 1998, the Welland Canal
Lockage fee, which discourages smaller vessel transits, will be
eliminated and replaced with a $0.12 cent (Canadian) increase on cargo
and vessel tolls at the Welland Canal only.
PBO conversion
The revised PBO legislation was completed and submitted to the
Congress on May 5, 1997. SLSDC and DOT initiated consultations with
appropriations and authorizing committees in both the Senate and the
House. The Corporation also worked closely with the GAO PBO study team
that prepared a congressionally mandated review of the PBO initiative,
with specific analysis of the SLSDC PBO candidacy. The report was
completed and submitted to the Congress May 15, 1997.
New union contract
SLSDC successfully concluded negotiations with its bargaining unit
employees, represented by AFGE Local 1968, Massena, N.Y. The three-year
agreement includes a major rewrite of the union contract and a wage-
level increase on a par with industry contracts prevailing in the
Massena area. No issues went to mediation or impasse.
Pilotage accomplishments
In the last year, pilotage accidents are down and vessel delays due
to pilotage have decreased. All three Great Lakes pilotage associations
have adopted improved training plans. All three Great Lakes pilotage
associations have adopted improved applicant pilot selection processes.
Audits of the pilot associations have improved, current audits are more
independent, timely and thorough. All three pilot associations are now
in compliance with Federal drug testing requirements. The office of
Great Lakes Pilotage hosted the first-ever Great Lakes Pilotage Safety
Summit, which brought together pilots and industry to discuss safety
matters. The Pilotage office approved funds for each pilot association
to test and evaluate the latest Differential Global Positioning System
(DGPS) technology, and continues to support the development of this
promising new technology.
Ocean vessel inspections
The Corporation and the USCG in conjunction with Transport Canada
and the Canadian Seaway Authority, signed a memorandum of understanding
March 27 that will more closely coordinate inspection and enforcement
activities in the Seaway and on the Lakes. This will expedite the safe
transit of shipping through the Seaway and the Great Lakes with
significant cost savings to Seaway users. Under the agreement all
vessels will be cleared in Montreal before entering U.S. waters; no
inspection boardings will be conducted while a vessel is underway
except when it is clearly agreed to by all concerned that the boarding
will not interfere with safe navigation of the vessel; the number of
vessels that require more than one port state control boarding during a
navigation season will be minimized; and international shipping
throughout the System will continue to meet the highest standards of
safety and environmental protection.
Binational GPS steering group
In coordination with Volpe Center staff, the SLSDC completed a
review of a Canadian Coast Guard pilot project on alternative Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS). The GPS Steering Group will determine the
utility of the pilot program for use in development of DGPS-based AIS
operational requirements for Seaway operations. The Canadian Seaway
Authority has agreed to 50 percent cost-sharing with SLSDC on the Volpe
contract to develop the Seaway AIS operating requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
performance based organization (pbo) initiative
Question. Please fully discuss all points of difference between the
July 15, 1996 and May 5,1997 versions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation's (``the Corporation'') proposed PBO
legislation.
Answer. In agreement with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), SLSDC implemented a change to the application of the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) element of the PBO financial plan to calculate more
accurately year-to-year inflation. The revised legislation reference
now reads: ``* * * adjusted for inflation by the percentage difference
between the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for
the first quarter of calendar year 1996, and the CPI-U for the first
quarter of the calendar year in which an annual payment is
determined.''
Significant changes to the 1996 legislation are the result of a
collaborative effort among the NPR, OMB, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and
the General Services Administration (GSA). The group developed a PBO
template legislation to be used by all PBO candidates. The model
legislation has been cleared through the interagency legislative review
process; the personnel flexibilities were prepared by OPM, the
procurement flexibilities by OFPP, the support service flexibilities by
GSA. The title of Chief Executive Officer changed to Chief Operating
Officer (COO). by a team at the Commerce Department. Application of the
template to the SLSDC bill results in some additional potential
personnel and acquisition flexibilities. It is our understanding that
these changes were developed in consultation with national federal
employee union representatives.
Question. The Committee understands that one difference in the new
proposed legislation is that this revision would not create a reduction
in the discretionary spending cap scored to offset the mandatory
funding stream. How would this work? Is an amendment to the Budget
Enforcement Act necessary?
Answer. We understand that considered with other elements of the
President's proposed program, this proposal meets the pay-as-you-go
requirements. Therefore an amendment to the Budget enforcement Act is
not necessary.
Question. Please update the Committee on any legislative actions
taken by either the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
or by the Senate Commerce Committee toward moving the performance based
organization legislation in the 105th Congress.
Answer. There has been no legislative action taken to date by
either the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee or by the
Senate Commerce Committee.
Question. Has there been any official reaction from the Senate
Commerce Committee or any members of the committee regarding the lack
of confirmation procedures in the Chief Operating Officer (COO)
selection process?
Answer. There has been no official reaction from any committee
staff or members regarding the lack of Congressional confirmation in
the COO selection process.
Question. What are the benefits of having a COO versus an
Administrator? How were goals in the proposed COO's performance
contract developed? What are the sanctions if performance is not met?
Answer. The COO would be vested with all the authority currently
residing in the position of Administrator, however there would be
significant changes that would increase the position's effectiveness.
For example, the competitive selection of a COO would ensure that the
head of the agency possesses the highest qualifications. The selection
of a COO based on knowledge and experience rather than political
affiliation would help ensure that SLSDC operates in the most
economically and operationally rational manner possible. The COO would
have to agree to clearly articulated performance goals and the COO's
record in achieving or failing to achieve those goals would be easily
measured. Currently, the Administrator enters into a yearly performance
agreement with the Secretary, however, the only penalty for failure to
meet those goals is a mild rebuke. The proposed performance incentives
and penalties would ensure that the COO meets agreed-to goals. Failure
to meet these goals will result in termination of the COO's position.
The financial incentives provided in the PBO plan are a powerful tool
to the COO and all SLSDC employees to foster greater productivity,
creativity and effectiveness.
The goals and performance measures were developed over the course
of the past 16 months, since the SLSDC PBO initiative was begun in
March 1996.
Representatives from the SLSDC, NPR, OMB, and DOT/OST developed the
draft document.
Sanctions will be listed in the performance agreement between the
Secretary and the COO. The ultimate sanction for failure to meet
performance goals will be dismissal of the COO by the Secretary.
Question. For purposes of comparison, please display the enacted
appropriated funding level for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation from fiscal year 1983 through 1997. In a second column,
please adjust each year's funding to 1997 dollars. In a third column,
please project what the PBO formula would have provided to the
Corporation (in constant 1997 dollars), using actual tonnage figures
for each year.
Answer. For fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 1986, SLSDC did
not receive appropriations. We became appropriated April 1, 1987, and
received a partial appropriation for the year, and used emergency
reserves to meet our needs. fiscal year 1988 was the first full year
for SLSDC as an appropriated agency. Therefore the requested
information is shown for fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation
Enacted HMTF in 1997 PBO formula in
Fiscal year appropriation dollars 1997 dollars
(nominal (constant (constant
dollars) dollars) dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988............................................................ $10,806 $10,806 $12,788
1989............................................................ 11,097 11,325 12,755
1990............................................................ 11,375 11,936 13,327
1991............................................................ 10,250 12,438 13,447
1992............................................................ 10,550 12,811 13,513
1993............................................................ 10,734 13,195 10,502
1994............................................................ 10,765 13,598 10,439
1995............................................................ 10,193 13,917 10,263
1996............................................................ 9,549 14,335 10,568
1997............................................................ 10,322 14,722 11,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. One of the primary reasons for pursuing PBO status is the
Corporation's belief that mandatory payment will give them more
reliable funding. Are there other means besides becoming a PBO to
ensure the necessary level and stability of funding?
Answer. The only other means to achieve more reliable funding is
alternative legislative action by the Congress within the budget
process.
Question. Please provide specific examples of Departmental
constraints from which a PBO framework would free the Corporation.
Please estimate the personnel time and associated funding that would be
saved in each instance, on an annualized basis.
Answer. Rather than constraints, we characterize the issue as a
Departmental mandate that requires SLSDC to participate in all DOT-wide
programs and initiatives along with the other, much larger, operating
administrations. Mandatory participation in all DOT-wide programs
coupled with the relatively limited Corporation mission and resources
add up to a serious challenge to the agency's effectiveness.
We do not maintain time allocation records however, a reliable
estimate is 3 to 5 FTE's (17 percent to 29 percent of total D.C. staff)
annually, is spent in this area at a total SLSDC average annual
compensation of $168,000 to $280,000.
Question. What reporting requirements are currently placed on the
Corporation by the Department of Transportation? Has the Corporation
sought a waiver from any of these reporting requirements?
Answer. We have sixty-two reports, ranging from weekly to annual,
that are required by the Department, some of which are required of DOT
by other federal agencies. As a PBO the Corporation will have fewer
report requirements. We also have 32 reports required by other federal
agencies, primarily due to our Corporation structure.
We have not sought a waiver from DOT or other federal agency
reporting requirements.
Question. Unlike the British ``Next Steps'' agencies, the PBO
concept focuses on improving performance rather than reducing operating
costs. In the statement of purpose and need included in the May 1997
proposed PBO legislation, performance measures for the corporation are
listed as: (1) safety; (2) reliability; (3) trade development; (4)
management accountability; and (5) cost effectiveness. For each of
these five areas, explain why improved performance is necessary. Use
concrete examples and numbers to the greatest possible extent.
Answer. With respect to the SLSDC PBO conversion plan, reduction of
operating costs is included in improved performance. The SLSDC plan has
four performance areas. The actual measures and numbers to develop a
basis for performance evaluation in the COO performance contract are
being developed at this time. Examples of programs being considered for
measurement are noted below.
Safety.--Safety measures will apply to vessel and workplace safety,
the first priorities of the SLSDC, as well as to environmental
protection. The SLSDC will be held accountable for maintaining
acceptable levels of safety and reducing the likelihood of accidents
that result in costs to users and injuries to workers. It will have to
demonstrate that it is prepared to respond in a timely manner in the
event of an environmental emergency, such as an oil spill. In its role
as Captain of the Port, the SLSDC is responsible for initial response
to and containment of environmental emergencies. Draft performance
areas being considered, include but are not limited to: reduction of
the risk of vessel incidents; reduction of employee lost time from work
injuries; and response time to vessel spill incidents.
Long and Short Term Reliability.--The Corporation seeks to maximize
the Seaway while minimizing costly delays to ships going through the
Seaway. The SLSDC's plans and decisions must ensure Seaway user
confidence in System availability and the long term reliability of U.S.
navigation facilities. Draft performance areas being considered,
include but are not limited to: SLSDC measures to maintain the
availability and reliability of the navigation facilities each
navigation season; reduction of vessel delays due to facility failure
and pilot delays; and evaluation of maintenance and inspection
programs.
Trade Development.--The SLSDC will make every effort to increase
the international tonnage through the Seaway, through trade development
and promotional programs. The goal is to encourage greater System
utilization, which benefits the Midwest economy and increases System
competitiveness. Draft performance areas being considered, include but
are not limited to: the annual growth rate of international tonnage
volume; and the increase of ocean vessel utilization.
Management Accountability, including Customer Service, Fiscal
Performance and Cost Effectiveness.--The SLSDC must provide direct
mechanisms to ensure that the customers themselves will have a voice in
evaluating its performance and contributing to business decisions. The
SLSDC will ensure that the capital reserves are adequate to keep U.S.
Seaway navigation facilities in good working condition. Human resources
must be managed in a way that promotes the health and productivity of
the organization. Performance targets will be used to promote both
employee satisfaction and human resources management practices that
serve the business needs of the SLSDC. To achieve those targets, the
SLSDC will continue to partner with employees and their
representatives. Draft performance areas being considered, include but
are not limited to: vessel customer satisfaction ratings; an employee
baseline satisfaction survey; emergency reserves management and goals;
and reduced operating costs.
Question. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request assumes
enactment of PBO legislation and does not include an appropriations
request for the Corporation. If the authorizing committees fail to
enact PBO legislation before the Senate passes its version of the
fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill, will the
administration submit a budget amendment requesting an appropriation of
$11,200,000 from the harbor maintenance trust fund? If not, and
appropriations legislation is conferenced and passed without including
appropriated funds for the Corporation, how will the agency make up the
funding shortfall?
Answer. If the PBO legislation is not enacted, we believe the
administration will submit a budget amendment, however we do not have
formal confirmation of such action.
If not, the Corporation would have no choice but to rely on its
available emergency reserves.
navigation season
Question. Please provide the opening and closing dates and number
of shipping days for the Seaway for the 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996
navigation seasons, and the opening for 1997.
Answer. The information follows.
MONTREAL-LAKE ONTARIO SECTION OPENING AND CLOSING DATES 1993-1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigation
Navigation season Opening date Closing date days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..................................... March 30................... December 26................ 272
1994..................................... April 05.................. December 29................ 269
1995..................................... March 24................... December 28................ 280
1996..................................... March 29................... December 27................ 274
1997..................................... April 02................... ........................... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of administrator
Question. When did Gail McDonald leave her position as
Administrator of the Corporation? Has a new Administrator been
nominated?
Answer. Administrator McDonald's resignation was effective May 1,
1997. A new Administrator has not been nominated by the President.
advisory board membership
Question. Please list all the current members of the Seaway
Advisory Board. Provide each Board member's term dates and a brief
description of their employment background and qualifications.
Answer. The information follows. Currently the term dates for
Advisory Board members are at the pleasure of the President.
Anthony S. Earl.--Appointed October 3, 1994. Mr. Earl has been a
Partner, in the Quarles and Brady Law Firm since 1987 and was Governor
of the State of Wisconsin from January 1983 to December 1986. Other
positions include: Assistant District Attorney, Marathon County, WI
1965; City Attorney, Wausau, WI, 1966-1969; Member WI State
Legislature, 1969-1974; Secretary, WI Department of Administration,
1975; and Secretary WI Department of Natural Resources, 1976-1980.
Vincent J. Sorrentino.--Appointed October 3, 1994. Mr. Sorrentino
has been a Senior Partner of Cole, Sorrentino, Hurley and Hewner, P.C.
since 1964. Other positions include: 1988 to the present, Mr.
Sorrentino has served as Commissioner of the Buffalo and Fort Erie
Bridge Authority and Town Attorney and/or Deputy Town Attorney for
Hamburg, NY; since 1989 to the present, he served as Commissioner of
the Erie County Water Authority; and 1991 to the present, Treasurer of
the Erie County Water Authority.
Jay C. Ehle.--Appointed August 14, 1995. Mr. Ehle joined Cleveland
Builders Supply in 1938 and retired as President and Chairman in 1985,
remaining on the Board of Directors until 1989. He served on the Board
of the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Port Authority for nineteen years,
eleven years as Chairman, and later as a special consultant to the
Board.
George D. Milidrag.--Appointed December 26, 1995. Mr. Milidrag is
the Chairman and owner of Engineering Technology, Ltd., an engineering
and design firm which he founded in 1973. Mr. Milidrag served as a
Director of Midwest Guaranty Bank. He was honored in 1993 as Commodore
of the United States Naval Institute and recently honored by the
Society of Automotive Engineering as one of the Chief Executives of 100
of the world's leading automotive industries.
William L. Wilson.--Appointed June 11, 1996. Mr. Wilson is a
Research Fellow at the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the
University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Center in Minneapolis.
From 1980 to 1993 he served as Council member (and as President from
1989 to 1993) of the Saint Paul City Council. Mr. Wilson has previously
served as Commissioner of the Saint Paul Port Authority and serves
currently as a member of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota World
Trade Corporation.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Question. Please discuss the current status of the pending appeal
against the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling that the harbor
maintenance tax is unconstitutional. If this ruling is not overturned,
what are the potential ramifications for the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation's source of funding?
Answer. Our understanding is that the ruling applies only to the
Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on export goods in transit, and not to
imports, domestic trade or cruise ships. If the Supreme Court agrees to
hear the appeal, resolution of the issue could be delayed another 18
months or more. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal,
refunds to exporters could begin in as little as nine months. If the
Tax is revoked on exports alone, we believe sufficient funds would be
available in the HMTF to fund the SLSDC. If that is not the case, the
Corporation would have to pursue Congressional action to provide
funding.
Question. Please update the table on page 984 of Senate Report 104-
671, part 2, regarding harbor maintenance trust fund revenues,
transfers, and year-end balances for fiscal years 1994 through 1997.
Answer. The U.S. Customs Service furnished the following available
information, published report data is not available at this time.
HMTF REVENUE AND TRANSFERS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning balance................................. 670,532 698,267
Revenues:
HMTF.......................................... 670,532 698,267
Toll receipts............................. 173 .........
Interest.................................. 30,186 40,870
---------------------
Net revenue............................. 700,891 739,137
---------------------
Net available........................... 1,152,276 1,360,331
=====================
Transfers:
Corps of Engineers............................ 519,196 482,126
SLSDC......................................... 10,193 9,539
Toll rebates.................................. 1,512 .........
DOT/SLSDC rent................................ 181 169
Administration costs.......................... ......... 3,000
---------------------
Net expenditures............................ 531,082 494,834
=====================
Surplus/(Deficit)................................. 621,194 865,497
------------------------------------------------------------------------
revenue available
Question. Please update the table on page 991 of last year's
hearing record regarding revenue available by source in fiscal years
1997 and 1998.
Answer. The information follows.
REVENUE AVAILABLE BY SOURCE FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FISCAL YEAR 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest on retained earnings..................... $500,000 $500,000
Concession operation.............................. 300,000 300,000
Rental of administration building................. 44,000 45,000
Miscellaneous..................................... 56,000 55,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
financial position
Question. Please update the tables on pages 991 through 993 last
year's hearing record regarding the statement of your financial
position, as well as the statement of operations and changes.
Answer.
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, 1995, AND 1994
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash:
Held by U.S. Treasury.......... 1,573 2,631 4,031
Held in banks and on hand...... 20 13 22
Short-term time deposits in
minority banks................ 10,908 10,403 9,180
Tolls and other receivables.... 131 138 1,510
Other current assets........... ......... 4 3
Inventories.................... 279 292 316
--------------------------------
Total current assets......... 12,911 13,481 15,062
================================
Non-current assets: Long-term time
deposits in minority banks............ 1,470 1,207 1,206
================================
Plant, property and equipment:
Plant in service................... 151,848 151,495 150,993
Less accum depreciation............ -63,912 -62,250 -60,205
Net plant in service............... 87,936 89,245 90,788
Work in progress................... 302 162 429
--------------------------------
Total plant, property and
equipment....................... 88,238 89,407 91,217
================================
Other assets:
Lock spare parts................... 777 659 674
Less accum depreciation............ -109 -82 -54
--------------------------------
Net Lock spare parts............. 668 577 620
--------------------------------
Investment in Seaway Int'l Bridge
Corporation, Ltd.................. 7 7 7
--------------------------------
Total other assets............... 675 584 627
================================
Deferred charges: Workman's
compensation benefits................. 1,397 1,232 1,179
--------------------------------
Total assets..................... 104,691 105,911 109,291
================================
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT
Current liabilities:
Payable to the U.S. Treasury....... ......... ......... 1,403
Accounts payable................... 691 743 875
Accrued leave...................... 691 611 596
Accrued payroll costs.............. 373 297 293
Deferred revenue................... ......... ......... 3
--------------------------------
Total current liabilities........ 1,755 1,651 3,170
================================
Actuarial liabilities: Workman's
compensation benefits................. 1,397 1,232 1,179
--------------------------------
Total liabilities................ 3,152 2,883 4,349
================================
Equity of the U.S. Government:
Invested capital................... 103,053 104,230 106,050
Cumulative results of operations... -1,514 -1,202 -1,108
--------------------------------
Total equity of the U.S.
Government...................... 101,539 103,028 104,942
--------------------------------
Total liabilities and equity of
the U.S. Government............. 104,691 105,911 109,291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE RESULTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996,
1995, AND 1994
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1995 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating revenues:
Appropriations expended............ 8,950 9,337 9,694
Other.............................. 897 467 534
--------------------------------
Total operating revenues......... 9,847 9,804 10,228
================================
Operating expenses:
Locks and marine operations........ 2,163 1,999 1,971
Maintenance and engineering........ 3,006 3,166 4,021
General and development............ 2,725 2,486 2,947
Administrative expense............. 2,935 2,800 2,746
Depreciation....................... 1,776 2,667 2,693
--------------------------------
Total operating expenses......... 12,605 13,118 14,378
================================
Operating loss......................... -2,758 -3,314 -4,150
================================
Other financing sources:
Interest on deposits in minority
banks............................. 670 553 383
Transfer from invested capital for
depreciation...................... 1,776 2,667 2,693
--------------------------------
Total other financing sources.... 2,446 3,220 3,076
================================
Excess of operating revenues and other
financing sources over operating
expenses.............................. -312 -94 -1,074
Beginning cumulative results of
operations............................ -1,202 -1,108 -34
--------------------------------
Ending cumulative results of
operations...................... -1,514 -1,202 -1,108
------------------------------------------------------------------------
vessel casualties
Question. Please detail any major vessel casualties in the American
waters of the Seaway for the 1996 navigation season, and for the 1997
navigation season to date.
Answer. There were no major casualties during 1996, just four
groundings. We have experienced one grounding during 1997 to date. Each
of these groundings were resolved without incident.
VESSEL GROUNDINGS DURING CY 1996 AND CY 1997 TO DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Dates 96/97 Location Cause Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Flower.................... April 5, 1996..... Near LT. 212...... Lost power........ None/no pollution.
Kapitonas Stulpinas............. June 11, 1996..... Above Eisen. Lk... Lost steering..... None/no pollution.
Sauniere........................ Sept. 15, 1996.... Bay State Shoal... Human error....... Holed/no
pollution.
Utviken......................... Nov. 26, 1996..... Near LT. 5........ Lost steering..... Holed/no
pollution.
Canadian Mariner................ June 18, 1997..... Near Lt. 162...... Lost steering..... Holed/no
pollution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
travel and transportation costs
Question. In a similar format to that on pages 995 through 996 of
last year's hearing record, please provide a listing of trade, mini-
trade, Lake State, industry, and other travel missions made by or
planned for Seaway personnel September 1996 through September 1997. Be
inclusive, including the dates of travel, trip purposes, location,
Seaway Development Corporation representatives, travel costs for each,
and actual or planned trip results.
Answer. There were no overseas trade missions since the March 1996
mission reported in the fiscal year 1997 questions for the record. We
do have tentative plans at this time to participate in the Universal
Congress of the Panama Canal and the International Canals and Waterways
Chief Executives meeting, both in Panama during September 1997, and
vessel operator, broker and financier exhibitions in Hamburg, Germany,
and South Africa during October 1997.
Question. For fiscal years 1995 and 1996 actual, and fiscal years
1997 and 1998 estimated, please break out travel and transportation of
persons into two categories: (1) trade and travel missions to both
potential new markets and traditional markets; and (2) non-trade
related travel.
Answer. The information follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
1995 actual actual estimated estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade missions.............................................. $30,000 $23,000 $20,000 $20,000
Non-trade related travel.................................... 128,000 135,000 154,000 154,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In as clear and precise a manner possible, please
describe specific benefits and new trade or business resulting from
previous Seaway trade missions conducted in calendar years 1995 and
1996.
Answer. 1995 Trade Mission to Italy and Morocco. Locations: Milan
and Casablanca. Dates: March 24 to April 1. Fertilizer shipments from
Morocco to the port of Ogdensburg; wheat shipments from the United
States to Italy shipped by Louis Dreyfus. Steel shipments to and from
Italy and North America.
1995 Trade Mission to Brazil, Venezuela and Panama. A shipment of
500,000 tons of HBI from Venezuela to mini steel mills in the Great
Lakes region; the Corporation and the Panama Canal Commission
established an Employee Exchange Program; plans for the shipment of
fertilizers, iron ore, and other minerals are being arranged for
movement between Brazil and North America; arrangements to move DRI and
HBI between Venezuela and mini-mills in Cleveland are underway.
1996 Trade Mission to Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. At least
18 new ships will be built with Seaway fittings and are planning to
trade in the Seaway (the first is scheduled to call on the port of
Chicago in August); the port of Duluth expects to handle a shipload of
drilling equipment from Denmark this summer; the port of Toledo
received a shipload of fertilizers from Norway and three more shipments
are scheduled for later this year; two shiploads of U.S. export grain
totaling 33,000 tons were arranged for delivery to Europe; and one
shipload of U.S. grain was fixed for delivery to the Mediterranean.
seaway sponsored events
Question. Please provide a listing of any trade, industry, or other
visits, seminars, or ``summits'' at the Seaway that have been sponsored
by the Corporation during the last year. Please outline the results of
and benefits derived from each of these sponsored events.
Answer. The following is a list SLSDC sponsored activities that
occurred after the submittal of the fiscal year 1997 report.
July 23, 1996.--The Corporation and the Seaway Authority (SLSA) co-
sponsored the first meeting of the binational GPS--Steering committee
in Ottawa. Membership includes the two Seaway entities, the two Coast
Guards, and carrier representatives of the ocean and domestic laker
fleets. The responsibilities of the Steering Committee include
determining technologies to be used, proper cost-sharing, developing an
overall schedule establishing and approving system requirements,
reviewing and approving system design, and overseeing installation and
implementation of the system.
August 6 and 7, 1996.--The SLSDC sponsored a Seaway Safety and
Pilotage Summit meeting with industry in Linthicum, Maryland. Primary
issues raised included GPS technology status; maritime safety training;
speed surveillance activities; emergency response procedures; pilotage
ratemaking, billing procedures, rest periods and training.
September 24, 1996.--SLSDC conducted a congressional staff
briefing, in Washington D.C. to discuss any questions on a published
notice of proposed rulemaking which proposed an increase in pilotage
compensation.
December 3, 1996.--The Corporation sponsored a meeting of steel
importers and exporters, in New York City, to determine the steel
customer viewpoint on the Seaway System firsthand.
December 5, 1996.--The Corporation and the Seaway Authority co-
sponsered a second meeting of the GPS steering group in Montreal.
March 4, 1997.--The SLSDC and SLSA co-sponsored the third meeting
of the GPS steering group.
March 4 and 5, 1997.--The SLSDC and the SLSA sponsored outreach
meetings with U.S. and Canadian grain industry customers in Minneapolis
and Winnipeg.
March 11, 1997.--The Corporation sponsored a public outreach
meeting on Great Lakes Pilotage, in Cleveland, to obtain public input
on long-range planning for the pilotage system throughout the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.
March 20, 1997.--The SLSDC and SLSA co-sponsored the Annual
Industry day event in Montreal with vessel operators to review
operations for the 1997 navigation season.
April 2, 1997.--Opening Day ceremonies were conducted in Massena,
NY.
During August the Corporation plans to conduct a Seaway North
America/Great Lakes trade mission, with programs and events at several
U.S. and Canadian lake ports. Each port event, which will include port
customers and new business potential users, will be co-sponsored by the
local port authority.
discretionary changes in the fiscal year 1998 operations and
maintenance budget
Question. Almost $600,000 in management savings are assumed in the
Corporation's outlay program, as well as a reduction of 2 FTE's. Please
specifically detail these anticipated savings.
Answer. Management savings are derived from an overall reduction in
the Corporation's fiscal year 1998 capital outlay program and the
elimination of two management positions.
Question. Is the $150,000 increase in discretionary changes
associated with office rent a one-time moving cost from the Nassif
Building to other office space, or the difference between Nassif
Building rental costs and those costs at other Washington, D.C. office
locations?
Answer. The $150,000 represents estimated annual rent after
relocating the D.C. office out of the current Nassif building site.
global positioning system-based vessel traffic service
Question. Are any budgeted fiscal year 1998 capital costs
associated with the global positioning system (GPS) vessel traffic
service? How much has been spent on this program by the Corporation
thus far (broken out by fiscal year cost was incurred)? What is the
anticipated total project cost?
Answer. No funds were budgeted in fiscal year 1998 for projects
associated with the GPS-based Vessel Traffic System (VTS) until cost-
sharing issues are resolved. To date SLSDC has expended a total of
$200,000; fiscal year 1994--$50,000, fiscal year 1995--$125,000, and
fiscal year 1997--$25,000. The anticipated remaining project cost is
estimated at $500,000.
Question. Please list the members of the GPS Steering Committee and
their organizational affiliation. How many times and when has the
Steering Committee met? When will the committee's deliberations be
complete?
Answer. Members of the binational GPS Steering Committee are:
Stephen Hung.--Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Pat Vincelli.--The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
CDR. Ken Prime.--United States Coast Guard
Lea Barker.--Canadian Coast Guard
S.B. MacPhee.--Canadian Hydrographic Service
Rejean Lanteigne.--Canadian Shipowners Association
Ivan Lantz.--Shipping Federation of Canada
The Committee has met five times to date, in July, September and
December 1996, and in March 1997. The next scheduled meeting is June
25, 1997. A series of meetings will be held over the next 18 to 24
months to resolve major program elements such as: system requirements,
test and evaluation plans, performance specifications, cost-sharing
issues, and program implementation. Our goal is to have implementation
by April 1999.
Question. Have any cost-sharing requirements for project costs been
determined by the Steering Committee?
Answer. Detailed cost-sharing requirements have not been discussed
thus far but will be addressed as significant elements of the program
are resolved. The Canadian Seaway Authority is sharing half of the cost
for the fiscal year 1997 technical assistance provided by the Volpe
Transportation Systems Center.
Question. What other issues are being addressed by the GPS Steering
Committee?
Answer. In addition to cost-sharing, the Committee must resolve
major program elements such as: system requirements, test and
evaluation plans, performance specifications, and program
implementation.
Question. Has the National Research Council Marine Board study on
VTS privatization issues yet been released? If so, please provide a
copy of the report's executive summary for the record.
Answer. The report was released in June 1996. A copy of the
executive summary will be provided under separate cover as an
attachment to these questions for the record.
[The information follows:]
Executive Summary of Vessel Navigation and Traffic Services for Safe
and Efficient Ports and Waterways, Interim Report, Committee on
Maritime Advanced Information Systems, Marine Board Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council
executive summary
Background
The economic vitality of the United States depends on growing
trade, both domestic and international. Foreign trade in particular is
of increasing importance. The overwhelming portion of foreign trade
moves by water through major seaports on all U.S. coasts. It is,
therefore, critical that U.S. ports and waterways foster U.S. economic
growth and affirm the position of the U.S. in world trade by ensuring
safe and efficient transit for vessels and meeting the demands for the
smooth flow of goods.
The United States does not have a centralized, national management
structure for ports and waterways, which are remarkably diverse in
terms of geography and environmental conditions, the vessel traffic
they serve, and the variety of services they provide. Ports must
provide efficient, rapid turnaround capabilities to accommodate
expanding trade and the increasing size and speed of oceangoing ships,
a growing proportion of which are foreign. Many U.S. ports must also
handle a large volume of coastal and inland traffic.
Stakeholders in safe and efficient maritime transportation are
diverse. The activities that take place in ports and connecting
waterways affect practically every citizen. The major categories of
stakeholders include federal agencies, commercial groups, state and
local groups, and public and community groups. All stakeholders share
the following goals:
--Ensuring safety, protecting the environment, reducing the costs of
accidents, and promoting law enforcement and national security;
--Moving vessels and cargo in and out of ports efficiently under all
conditions;
--Ensuring a smooth flow of goods from one mode of transport to
another to save time and reduce costs; and
--Fostering economic growth, creating jobs and prosperity in the
process.
Navigational information systems, such as vessel traffic services
(VTS), can contribute to the achievement of these goals if vision,
leadership, resources, and state-of-the-art technology are combined.
This interim report by the Committee on Maritime Advanced Information
Systems addresses issues surrounding navigational information systems
in general but particularly the U.S. Coast Guard's VTS-2000 program,
under which new or upgraded VTS systems would be installed in as many
as 17 ports.
Navigational information systems: Needs and solutions
A wide variety of navigational information systems are already
being used to foster safe and efficient vessel transits in U.S. ports.
The fundamental system essential to all classes of mariners encompasses
the buoys, lights, and ranges operated and maintained by the Coast
Guard. Combined with nautical charts, notices to mariners, and other
primary data about waterways which are still delivered primarily in
paper form, these constitute the basic information essential for
navigation. A final component is a ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore
communications system, which is essential for the adequate exchange of
data among waterway users and managers.
Some additional data can now be provided in electronic form using
advanced technology, which is more accurate and reliable. New systems
include satellite-based positioning systems and electronic charts,
which are now available in various forms and will probably become
standard in years to come. In selected ports, real-time water levels,
currents, and other data now can be delivered electronically.
Although some users and providers of navigational information
cooperate and share data, no central entity is responsible for
management or control of port-specific or national information on
vessel movements or cargo. Furthermore, because of gaps in the
deployment of navigational information systems, information is not
always available to users who need it. Evidence of uneven deployment is
largely anecdotal, based in part on outreach workshops and site visits
conducted by the committee. The evidence indicates that, despite the
substantial efforts of federal agencies that maintain navigational
information systems and services, and despite recent advances in
technology, deficiencies at U.S. ports range from outdated charts to
inadequate vessel traffic management. Advanced information delivery
services are of little value if the underlying data are inaccurate or
unreliable. Some of these underlying data are in question now.
State-of-the-art components and systems are available to meet or
exceed most functional requirements. These systems are accurate,
reliable, and adaptable. In other words, funding and institutional
issues, not technology, are the limiting factors in the implementation
of improved navigational information systems. The institutional issues
include bringing all vital interest groups together, providing
responsible leadership, and fostering a consensus on needs and
mechanisms for funding and management.
Existing vessel traffic services
Currently, VTS and related information systems in the United States
are federal, federal/private, private, or port authority operations.
The Coast Guard has installed and operated VTS systems in a number of
major U.S. ports and paid for them with appropriated federal funds. The
eight systems currently operating are located in Puget Sound
(Washington), New York/New Jersey, Houston/Galveston, San Francisco,
Prince William Sound (Alaska), Berwick Bay (Louisiana), St. Mary's
River (Michigan), and Louisville (Kentucky). Users of these systems
report varying levels of satisfaction. Some assert that VTS systems
provide few benefits, while others say they are essential to safe
navigation. In general, the committee found that Coast Guard-operated
VTS systems are well managed and make a significant contribution to
port safety.
In some ports, private entities have deployed VTS-like systems. The
most prominent of these are in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
(LA/LB) and the Delaware River and Bay. The LB/LB system, authorized by
state legislation, is managed by the local Marine Exchange and is
manned by both the Marine Exchange and the Coast Guard, both of which
have agreements with the state. The Marine Exchange is the
legislatively authorized agent of the state of California (which, by
statute, has addressed the issue of liability) and collects the tariffs
authorized by the ports. The funds are then transmitted the state to
pay for the Coast Guard billets, which make up half of each operating
shift. The Coast Guard has an interagency agreement with the state to
ensure funding and clarify the conditions under which operation of the
VTIS is carried out. This agreement was authorized by the Coast Guard
appropriation bill. The Coast Guard provides half of the staff, which
means it has the authority of the captain of the port, which can be
exercised in an emergency. The Delaware Bay system is operated by local
pilots, and cost are recovered through increased pilot charges to
vessels. This system is fully private and does not have legal authority
to mandate participation or to direct traffic.
These and other private systems usually satisfy the needs of the
operators and users who established the system, but most of them
provide limited coverage, and they may not fully serve the needs of the
public.\1\ Fully private operators do not have legal authority to
intervene in emergencies, as the Coast Guard does. There is also
widespread concern among private operators about the potential tort
liability associated with providing information or direction that could
be implicated vessel accidents. This concern has often been advanced as
a reason fully private systems are unworkable, but the state of
California and Delaware have addressed the liability issue in separate
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This committee finding is supported by comparisons of the
capabilities of specific private systems with international guidelines
for VTS and by input from stakeholders such as environmental and harbor
safety organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee could not locate any comprehensive data that could be
used to quantify improvements in safety and efficiency provided by VTS
and VTS-like systems. However, there is anecdotal evidence of the
utility of these systems in averting accidents and saving lives. It is
interesting to note that the benefits of VTS are accepted as obvious in
certain foreign ports. A committee work group visited the ports of
London (United Kingdom), Rotterdam (Netherlands), and the Elbe River
(Germany). Although formal cost-benefit analyses were not available,
VTS systems enable the Rotterdam and German ports to stay open on many
days when they otherwise would be closed. The managers of these systems
stated that improved safety and efficiency were obvious benefits and
that formal analysis was not necessary.
In general, the history of VTS development in the United States is
dominated by public concern about oil spills and tanker accidents.
These problems led to national legislation requiring studies of port
safety and supporting the development of VTS. Consequently, the
available data and analyses are focused mostly on the risk of tanker
accidents, which is reflected in references to tanker problems and the
discussions of tanker accidents in this report. The committee
recognizes that other benefits of VTS are also important and encourages
further analyses of the improvements to overall safety and efficiency
they can provide.
Perspectives on VTS-2000
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380) required the
Coast Guard to investigate the risk of oil spills in all U.S. ports,
estimate the number of (oil spill) accidents that could be avoided with
improved VTS, and implement a nationwide program for improving or
implementing VTS systems. The resulting program is VTS-2000.
If VTS-2000 is implemented as planned, then the estimated total
development and installation costs will be between $260 and $310
million in fiscal year 1993 dollars. The estimated annual operating
cost for the complete 17-port system is $42 million. The difficulty of
obtaining federal funding at these levels in an era of tight budgets
has prompted the administration, the U.S. Congress, and others to
question the extent and cost effectiveness of the program as well as
the viability of current funding plans. Private initiatives that have
established user fees to recover costs, like the one in LA/LB, have
been held up as alternatives.
Although the Coast Guard has yet to design VTS-2000 systems for
specific ports, the maritime industry, port managers, vessel operators,
and other interested parties already have strong opinions about how the
program should be implemented and alternative approaches that may serve
their needs and ensure safe and efficient maritime transportation:
--Local users in many ports believe VTS-2000 goes beyond their needs.
--The VTS-2000 program, as currently structured, will not fulfill the
most urgent needs, such as improving basic navigational safety
in some ports.
--If local stakeholders will be required to pay user fees, they
demand more involvement in VTS design and procurement than in
the past.
--Although the Coast Guard conducted an outreach program to determine
VTS-2000 requirements, many do not feel their concerns were
heard.
--In other words, many local stakeholders say the federal government
should fully fund VTS systems. If that is not possible, some
local users may tolerate paying modest user fees, but this
would increase the need for a partnership approach to
development and implementation of the system.
conclusions
The VTS-2000 program originated in response to a congressional
mandate following the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident and subsequent oil
spill in Alaska. But the context in which VTS-2000 is being carried out
has changed since the program was designed. Efforts to reduce the
federal budget and the role of the federal government have become major
items on the national agenda. Many policy makers now advocate shifting
responsibility for programs like VTS from the national to the state or
local level. Therefore, it now appears that justifications for a fully
national system with complete federal funding cannot be sustained in
the future.
Given the importance of ports and waterways to U.S. trade and
economic prosperity, and the persistent risk of maritime accidents
involving casualties and environmental damage, there is significant
public interest in ensuring the safety and efficiency of maritime
transportation through Coast Guard missions addressing port safety and
security, maritime law enforcement, and search and rescue operations.
The committee concludes that there is a compelling national interest in
protecting the environment and in providing safe and efficient ports
and waterways. This interest serves the purposes of ensuring national
security, enhancing public safety, facilitating commerce, and fostering
environmental protection. The public interest in safety and
environmental protection is especially important. Efficiency, which is
of some national interest economically, may be of greater concern to
the commercial sector.
Many factors contribute to the safety and efficiency of maritime
transportation. Chief among these factors is the availability of
accurate and reliable navigational information. The committee concludes
that environmental protection, safety, and the efficiency of ports and
waterways depend on the accuracy and availability of traditional and
advanced navigational aids, nautical charts, and real-time hydrographic
and meteorological data. When multiple vessels are involved, safety and
efficiency also depend on effective waterways management, adequate
electronic communications, and local knowledge of the kind typically
supplied by pilots. In addition, the committee concludes that there are
deficiencies in the accuracy and availability of many essential types
of navigational information provided by federal agencies.
VTS can enhance maritime safety and efficiency by collecting and
managing the most reliable navigational information, monitoring and
evaluating vessel traffic and potentially dangerous traffic situations,
and providing accurate and timely information to mariners. When
dangerous situations arise, the Coast Guard has the authority to impose
traffic controls in areas covered by VTS to ensure safety of life and
prevent accidents and pollution. The committee concludes that VTS can
be a significant factor in enhancing the safety and efficiency of ports
and waterways when used in conjunction with other traditional aids to
navigation and hydrographic and other information.
The public derives substantial national benefits from safe and
efficient ports and waterways, and VTS systems can contribute to safety
and efficiency. Therefore, the committee concludes that the
implementation, function, and role of VTS systems are integral to the
Coast Guard's federal mission of safeguarding the nation's ports and
waterways. However, VTS-2000 was developed in a different political
atmosphere than exists today. Possible user fees have changed the
attitudes of waterway users toward the perceived scope and costs of
VTS-2000. Progress now depends on achieving better understanding and
building partnerships among federal agencies and port and waterway
users at the local level.
Private support has been suggested as a means of reducing federal
costs for VTS-2000. The existence of private VTS-like systems indicates
that user fees are feasible and acceptable to local maritime
communities under certain circumstances. A key requirement for
acceptance of user fees is some measure of local control. However,
local funding of VTS may not be possible in many ports, primarily
because the amount of revenues required and the willingness to pay
could vary significantly. The committee concludes that there are
significant unresolved issues associated with competitiveness, both
domestic and international, that are affected by port-specific fees.
User fees to pay for VTS systems would be affected by the capital and
operating costs of the system, which would differ widely among ports
depending on geography and port-specific needs. In addition, there are
major impediments to nonfederal development of VTS-like systems. These
impediments include the significant capital needed to acquire and
install VTIS systems and the potential liability inuring to private
operators. Significant concerns could also be raised about the
uniformity and consistency of systems, which need to be established
through federal standards.
the importance of public/private partnerships
Both public and private stakeholders have a role In the development
and implementation of navigational information systems.
The Coast Guard needs to maintain the legal authority to ensure the
safe operation of ports and waterways, and private users need to be
involved in development and operation of local VIS.
The utility of all types of navigational information systems
depends on (a) recognition of needs and (b) Mechanisms for cooperation
among users and stakeholders.
Although the Coast Guard has consulted With local stakeholders in
the past, we need true federal/local partnerships, similar to the ones
in LA/LB and Some foreign ports.
Local stakeholder groups, such as port authorities and harbor
safety committees, need to be identified and should work with the Coast
Guard to make decisions.
Federal/local partnerships can foster the development of a
consensus on local needs and establish institutions to identify,
design, acquire, implement, and operate the most urgently needed
systems.
Given the difficulty of implementing VTS-2000 in a cost effective
and timely manner and meeting the myriad needs of local users, it may
be useful to consider ways of reducing front-end costs and implementing
the program in stages. With careful consideration of port-specific
needs through continued Coast Guard interaction with local
stakeholders, the 17 ports on the current list could be divided into
two categories. The high-priority group could include ports with the
greatest safety needs, if those needs could best be satisfied by VTS.
This group might include four to six ports, roughly equivalent to the
current list of four ports scheduled for implementation by the year
2000 and the three scheduled for implementation in 2001. Justifying the
selection of these ports would depend on the results of ongoing re-
evaluations of the current and specific needs of each port by the Coast
Guard. The second group could include ports with less urgent needs
where VTS or, perhaps another, more appropriate navigational
information system could be implemented at a later date. This approach
might reduce the overall capital costs of VTS-2000.
To support this approach and justify continued federal funding, the
minimum scope and service level of VTS to ensure safety must be
established. The Coast Guard would need to establish a baseline for
each port slated to receive a VTS-2000 system, as well as for each
existing VTS and VTS-like system, to ensure minimum safety levels
nationwide. The committee concludes that local institutions, in
partnership with federal agencies, could introduce new strategies for
implementing VTS-2000. Acceptance of VTS-2000 could be promoted by
shifting the focus to establishing a generic baseline system for a
small number of high priority ports to meet national safety needs and
Coast Guard mission requirements.
Recommendation 1.--The Coast Guard should take the lead in
promoting public/private partnerships for the acquisition and operation
of VTS systems in specific ports. Partnerships have already evolved in
certain localities, and the Coast Guard has adequate experience working
with the maritime community and other stakeholders to evaluate
problems, identify needs and improve navigational safety. Organizations
like harbor safety committees already exist in some ports and could
help develop the partnerships.
Recommendation 2.--The Coast Guard should use public/private
partnerships to help establish local institutions for implementing
local VTS systems. These institutions must bring all parties together
and establish specific requirements for each port. They must also seek
acceptance from all stakeholders for specific designs, operational
approaches, and funding schemes.
Recommendation 3.--The Coast Guard should select ports with the
greatest safety needs for VTS and identify a minimum generic, baseline
system that meets national safety needs as well as Coast Guard mission
requirements for each port. A second group of ports should be selected,
for a phase 2 program, and a similar baseline system should be defined
for this group. Funding for both capital and operating costs for the
baseline systems should be the responsibility of the Coast Guard and
should be incorporated into long-range funding plans.
Recommendation 4.--Each port, through a public/private partnership,
should apply to the Coast Guard for enhancements beyond the generic
system that would provide economic and other benefits to users. The
application should include proposals for funding. Funding for
enhancements should be the responsibility of local partnerships.
Applications may also be used to justify or modify the priority status
of ports.
Recommendation 5.--The Coast Guard should examine its existing VTS
as well as private VTIS and enhancements in order to upgrade all
systems to meet national safety needs and Coast Guard mission
requirements. Upgrades required to meet national safety needs should be
funded by the Coast Guard. Enhancements beyond the generic baseline
system should be funded by the local entities in the partnership.
cost-sharing options
Although the national interest in safe and efficient ports and
waterways justifies federal funding for generic VTS systems that meet
national safety needs and Coast Guard mission requirements, the
committee recognizes that full federal funding may not be feasible in
the future. Private support can best be encouraged by negotiations to
determine a cost-sharing formula acceptable to local stakeholders. The
committee identified three general cost-sharing mechanisms that could
be used as a basis for developing a more specific formula. Each
mechanism would provide for both federal funding and local user
funding, with specific shares to be determined by the relative benefits
derived by each party. Some mechanisms would make use of existing
institutions and authorities, but others would require establishing new
authorities and, possibly, legislation. All of them would require the
establishment of local partnerships to facilitate implementation. Any
one of the three could be selected and applied to fit a specific
situation. The options include (1) establishing new or using existing
national trust funds, (2) using federal grants combined with local
cost-sharing measures, and (3) imposing local user fees to supplement
federal funding.
RELATED AGENCY
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan, Chairman
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Linda J.
Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). It is my
pleasure to submit the budget request for the Board for fiscal year
1998.
background on the board
As you know, on January 1, 1996, the Board was established pursuant
to Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA).
Consistent with the trend toward less economic regulation of the
surface transportation industry, the ICCTA eliminated the ICC and, with
it, several regulatory functions that it had administered. The ICCTA
transferred to the Board core rail functions and certain non-rail
adjudicative functions previously performed by the ICC. Motor carrier
licensing and certain other motor functions were transferred to the
Federal Highway Administration within the Department of Transportation
(DOT).
The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent,
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT. The rail
oversight of the Board encompasses rate reasonableness, car service and
interchange, mergers and line acquisitions, and line constructions and
abandonments. The important rail reforms of the Staggers Rail Act of
1980 are continued under the ICCTA. The jurisdiction of the Board also
includes limited oversight of the intercity bus industry and certain
pipeline carriers; rate regulation involving non-contiguous domestic
water transportation, household goods carriers, and collectively
determined motor rates; and the disposition of motor carrier
undercharge claims. The ICCTA empowers the Board, through its exemption
authority, to promote deregulation administratively. The Board
currently has pending a little over 500 adjudications related to all of
these functions. The number of cases pending at the Board at any given
time remains relatively constant at a level between 500 and 600
because, even as cases are resolved, new cases are filed.
the board's fiscal year 1998 budget request
The Board's fiscal year 1998 budget request totals $15.853 million
and 134 FTE's. This budget proposes the same level and manner of
funding provided to the Board for fiscal year 1997, and reflects the
relatively constant workload expected and the statutory and regulatory
deadlines associated with the resolution of the cases filed.\1\ This
amount includes an appropriations request of $12.753 million and a
request for $3.1 million in reimbursements from the offsetting
collection of user fees, based on the Board's existing program
assessing fees to cover the costs incurred by the Board for fee-related
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attached (Attachment 1) is a table that presents in more detail
the specifics of the Board's fiscal year 1998 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By comparison, the President's fiscal year 1998 budget for the
Board totals $14.3 million, all to be funded by user fees. In this
regard, additional statutory authority would be required to implement
the President's user fee proposal, as the Board's current user fee
authority would not allow the Board to increase user fees sufficiently
to fully fund itself.\2\ The difference between the Board's request of
$15.853 million and the President's request of $14.3 million is $1.5
million. The Board estimates that funding at the President's level
would require the reduction of 24 FTE's: the Board's budget is
predominantly for personnel costs, and includes little in the way of
other discretionary funds that can be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Such a statutory change, if enacted would have needed become
law by early June of this year. This would have allowed the minimum
time necessary for the Board to complete a rulemaking to implement, by
October 1 of this year, whatever new fee structure is needed to fully
fund the Board in fiscal year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
overall goals and accomplishments of the board
In the performance of its functions, the objective of the Board is
to ensure that, where regulatory oversight is necessary, it is
exercised efficiently and effectively, integrating market forces, where
possible, into the overall regulatory model. In particular, the Board
seeks to resolve matters brought before it fairly and expeditiously.
Through use of its regulatory exemption authority, streamlining of its
decisional process and the regulations applicable thereto, and
consistent application of legal and equitable principles, the Board
seeks to facilitate commerce by providing an effective forum for
efficient dispute resolution and facilitation of appropriate business
transactions. The Board continues to strive to develop, through
rulemakings and case disposition, new and better ways to analyze unique
and complex problems, to reach fully justified decisions more quickly,
and to reduce the costs associated with regulatory oversight.
The Board thus views its responsibility as one of promoting, where
appropriate, substantive and procedural regulatory reform in the
economic regulation of surface transportation. In this regard, the
Board has exempted certain commodities and classes of transactions from
regulation. It also has adopted several rulemakings that eliminated
unnecessary regulations, streamlined existing regulations, and provided
for expedited procedures and deadlines to handle various adjudicative
matters before the Board. In addition, it has processed various matters
brought before the Board in a way that has promoted private-sector
negotiations and resolutions, where appropriate, and facilitated
market-based transactions in the public interest.
To be more responsive to the surface transportation community by
fostering governmental efficiency, innovation in dispute resolution,
private-sector solutions to problems, and competition in the provision
of transportation services, the Board will:
--Continue to strive for a more streamlined process for the
expeditious handling of rail rate reasonableness and other
complaint cases, in an effort to provide additional regulatory
predictability to shippers and carriers;
--Continue to reduce processing time for all cases before the Board,
in particular to ensure that appropriate market-based
transactions in the public interest are facilitated; and
--Continue to develop new opportunities for the various sectors of
the transportation community to work cooperatively with the
Board and with one another to find creative solutions to
persistent industry and/or regulatory problems involving
carriers, shippers, employees, and local communities.
board workloads for fiscal year 1997 and 1998
Attached is a table (Attachment 2) that shows workload trends,
which form the basis for the Board's request to have its current level
of funding maintained in fiscal year 1998. As the table indicates, the
Board believes that the number of decisions issued is the best measure
of workload. In accordance with the Board's continued commitment to
resolving matters before it expeditiously, it anticipates approximately
the same amount of work and output in fiscal year 1998 as is estimated
for fiscal year 1997.
In forecasting future workload trends, workload related to rail
carrier consolidations is expected to remain constant for fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998. In particular, the Board will continue to
monitor the implementation of the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger
pursuant to the five-year oversight condition that the Board imposed as
part of its approval of the merger in 1996. In addition, a joint
proposal for the control of Conrail will soon be filed by CSX and
Norfolk Southern (NS).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On April 10, CSX, NS, and Conrail jointly filed a notice of
intent to file such a proposal on or before July 10, 1997. These
parties have indicated that such a filing will be made on June 16,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding oversight of rail rates and services, the workload is
expected to remain at the fiscal year 1996 level through fiscal year
1997 and then increase somewhat in fiscal year 1998 in anticipation of:
rate reasonableness complaints expected to be filed as long term coal
transportation contracts continue to expire; and the anticipated filing
of complaints seeking application of the Board's recently issued non-
coal rate guidelines.\4\ In addition, the Board anticipates activity by
parties seeking competitive access remedies in accordance with the
Board's recent bottleneck rate decision.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ On December 31, 1996, the Board issued simplified guidelines to
govern the disposition of small rail rate complaints for which the
application of a more complex rate analysis is too costly.
\5\ On December 31, 1996, the Board issued guidelines to govern
rail rate reasonableness and route issues in cases where a portion of
the rail transportation moves over a bottleneck segment (a segment
serving a point for which no other rail transportation route is
available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the ongoing restructuring occurring throughout the rail
industry, rail abandonments and line constructions are expected to
remain at the fiscal year 1996 level through fiscal year 1997. The
Board's recently completed rulemaking streamlining the abandonment
process should further facilitate abandonments that might have already
been planned. A small decrease in abandonment activity, however, is
projected for fiscal year 1998 due to an expected increase in line sale
activity. Normally, it is expected that as line sales increase,
abandonments decrease, and vice-versa, as line sales usually involve
lines that would otherwise be abandoned. Other line transactions (such
as leases and trackage rights) are expected to continue at the fiscal
year 1996 level during fiscal year 1997, and to increase somewhat
during fiscal year 1998.
Other rail activities are expected to remain steady during fiscal
year 1997 (at the fiscal year 1996 levels) and then increase somewhat
in fiscal year 1998 due to: workload related to labor arbitration
appeals following implementation of railroad mergers recently approved;
and the continued use of exemption authority as appropriate, with a
view toward continuing to eliminate unnecessary rail regulations and
streamline remaining rail regulations.
Motor carrier undercharge workload is expected to follow the fiscal
year 1996 level during fiscal year 1997 and then to decrease in fiscal
year 1998. As these cases have tended recently to be filed in large
groups, primarily in response to court action, a high volume of work
remains pending at this time. While the filing of new cases should end
at some point, it cannot be said with confidence when that point will
arrive.
Other non-rail activities are expected to remain at fiscal year
1996 levels during fiscal year 1997, but indications are that there
will be an increase in workload in this area during fiscal year 1998,
in particular because of the statutorily mandated review of motor
carrier collective rate-making agreements that the Board must
undertake, and continued intercity bus restructuring transactions.
summary
The Board's budget request would ensure the resources needed for
the Board to continue to implement its responsibilities expeditiously
and effectively as Congress intends. I would be happy to answer any
other questions that the Committee may have about the Board's fiscal
year 1998 budget request.
ATTACHMENT 1.--SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------- Difference
1996 actual 1997 1998 from
\1\ enacted request enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent positions......................................... 132 134 134 ...........
Full-time equivalents....................................... 106 134 134 ...........
===================================================
Personnel compensation and benefits......................... $10,171 $11,623 $12,009 $386
Former personnel............................................ 2,858 712 20 (692)
Travel...................................................... 35 36 38 2
Other costs................................................. 4,316 3,087 3,786 699
---------------------------------------------------
Total budget resources................................ \2\ 17,380 15,458 15,853 395
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 1996 numbers represent only three quarters of the fiscal year. The Board was established on
January 1, 1996.
\2\ This number includes expenses associated with the closure of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
changes in resources
For personnel compensation and benefits, $12,009,000 is requested
to support 134 FTE's. This is an increase of $386,000 over fiscal year
1997, of which $78,800 is required to fund the annual cost of the
January 1997 pay raise and $207,200 is required for the January 1998
pay raise originally estimated at 3.1 percent.\6\ The request also
includes $100,000 for lump-sum leave payments to retiring employees.
Funding for costs for former personnel severance and unemployment
payments is requested at $20,000, which is a decrease of $692,000 from
fiscal year 1997. This is due to a decrease in payments to former ICC
and Board employees who were separated from Federal service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Administration has revised the civilian pay raise
assumptions for fiscal year 1998 since the Board's budget request was
originally developed. The revised civilian pay increase is 2.8 percent,
which amounts to a $22,000 change in personnel compensation
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A travel budget of $38,000 is requested primarily for on-site
visits to railroads to finalize audits and review public accountants'
workpapers, for physical inspection of proposed rail abandonment and
construction sites and verification of environmental data provided by
parties to proceedings, for defense of the Board's decisions in courts
across the country, and for the general presentation upon request of
issues within the Board's jurisdiction.
Funding to cover other costs is requested at $3,786,000, a $699,000
increase over fiscal year 1997. Included in this number is a rental
payment increase directed by the General Services Administration (GSA).
However, the Board's rent funding requirements will decrease over the
long term as GSA amortizes the cost for the space alterations and
accounts for the rental rate decreases anticipated in connection with
the Board's new location. This amount also includes regular cost
increases in telephone service, mail delivery, general equipment
maintenance and replacement, and the maintenance associated with the
operation of the Board's existing software system.
ATTACHMENT 2.--FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
WORKLOAD SUMMARY \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Estimated \3\ Estimated
fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year
Workload category 1996 \2\ 1997 1998
decisions decisions decisions
issued issued issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail carrier consolidations.... 124 160 160
Rail rates and service......... 71 100 110
Rail abandonments and
constructions................. 369 500 480
Other line transactions........ 147 200 250
Other rail activities.......... 94 125 140
Motor carrier undercharges..... 480 640 580
Non-rail activities............ 55 75 100
----------------------------------------
Total decisions.......... 1,340 1,800 1,820
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Board believes that the number of decisions issued is the best
measure of workload at the Board. Certain activities performed at the
Board that provide direct and indirect support to rulemakings and
decisions in specific cases are not reflected in these workload
numbers. Such activities not reflected include: enforcement action;
judicial review work; rail audits and rail carrier reporting
oversight; administration of the rail waybill sample and development
of the Uniform Rail Costing System; and case-related correspondence
and informal public assistance.
\2\ This column represents three-fourths of a year (January 1, 1996 to
September 30, 1996).
\3\ Estimated workload for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 are based on
historical information regarding actual filings and best estimates of
probable future filings by parties. Because the Board is principally
an adjudicatory body, it does not directly control the level or timing
of actual case filings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
board members' terms and staffing
Question. Who are the current Surface Transportation Board (``the
Board'') members, and when do their terms expire? Please display each
Board member's office staffing, by name, position title and grade.
Answer. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) provided that the
term for each member of the Board shall be 5 years and shall begin when
the term of the predecessor of that member ends. Also under the ICCTA,
a Board Member cannot be reappointed for more than one additional term.
board members and expiration of terms
Gus A. Owen, December 31, 1997.
Linda J. Morgan, December 31, 1998.
Vacancy, December 31, 2000.
OFFICE STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Title Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda J. Morgan................. Chairman.......... EX-03
Richard Armstrong III........... Chief of Staff.... GM-905-15
Mary L. Turek................... Confidential GS-301-12
assistant.
Gus A. Owen..................... Vice Chairman..... EX-04
Vacancy (as of 6/6/97).......... Staff advisor..... GS-301-15
Valerie A. Nicholas............. Executive GS-301-11
assistant.
Vacancy......................... Commissioner...... EX-04
Vacancy......................... Staff advisor..... GS-301-15
Vacancy......................... Executive GS-301-11
assistant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
funding history
Question. Please prepare a table displaying the Board's funding
request, the Administration's request, the enacted funding level, and
the end of year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal year
1994 to that requested for fiscal year 1998. Please display both
appropriated funds and offsetting collections.
Answer. The following table displays the funding history of the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Board for fiscal years
1994 through 1998.
BUDGET REQUESTS AND ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
[By fiscal year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC STB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 \1\ 1996 \1\ 1997 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
Appropriation.............. $49,053,000 $45,069,000 $32,892,000 ........... $12,344,000 $12,753,000
Offsetting collections..... 7,300,000 7,300,000 8,300,000 ........... 3,000,000 3,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request........... 56,353,000 52,369,000 41,192,000 ........... 15,344,000 \2\ 15,853,000
================================================================================
President:
Appropriation.............. 45,466,000 44,429,000 33,202,000 ........... ........... ..............
Offsetting collections..... 7,300,000 8,300,000 8,300,000 ........... 15,344,000 14,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request........... 52,766,000 52,729,000 41,502,000 ........... 15,344,000 14,300,000
================================================================================
Enacted:
Appropriation \3\.......... 44,960,000 33,083,000 13,379,000 $8,414,000 12,244,000 ..............
Offsetting collections \4\. 7,300,000 7,738,000 3,200,000 652,000 3,000,000 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request............. 52,260,000 40,821,000 16,579,000 9,066,000 15,244,000 ..............
================================================================================
End of year:
Staffing level............. 571 402 \5\ 317 132 134 134
FTE level.................. 607 416 \5\ 86 106 134 134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During fiscal year 1996, the ICCTA was passed, the ICC was eliminated effective December 1, 1995, and the
Board was established effective January 1, 1996. The enacted funding levels for the ICC for fiscal year 1996
reflect ICC operational and termination expenses for one-quarter of the fiscal year and the Board funding
levels for fiscal year 1996 reflect Board operational expenses for three-quarters of the fiscal year.
\2\ The Board's fiscal year 1998 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for
fiscal year 1997) plus inflationary and personnel salary increases.
\3\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\4\ Actual offsetting collections.
\5\ As of December 31, 1995.
user fees and offsetting collections
Question. Please display in tabular form the level of anticipated
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998 budget
requests. Please also include columns displaying the President's budget
assumptions for user fee income in each of these three fiscal years. In
addition, please display the level of user fee offsets included in the
appropriations legislation for the Board in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Finally, please include columns displaying the actual amount of user
fees collected in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 (both up to the present,
and projected through the end of this fiscal year).
Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of
user fees for fiscal year 1996 through 1998.
[By fiscal years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB
ICC 1996 ------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User fee:
Anticipated income in budget request...................... $8,300,000 N/A $3,000,000 $3,100,000
President's budget assumptions............................ 8,300,000 .......... 15,344,000 14,300,000
User fee offsets in appropriations language............... \1\ 8,300,0
00 N/A 3,000,000 ..........
Offsetting collections:
Actual.................................................... \2\ 3,200,0
00 \2\ $651,5
20 \3\ 761,914 ..........
Projected end of fiscal year.............................. ........... .......... \4\ 3,021,3
75 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Offsetting collections of $8,300,000 were intended to cover, during fiscal year 1996, both the ICC and its
successors (the Board and the Department of Transportation (DOT)) to carry outtransferred rail and motor
functions.
\2\ These numbers do not include the fees collected by DOT for the transferred motor functions.
\3\ User fees collected 10/1/97-2/28/97.
\4\ Includes $1,779,000 for two Class I merger applications filed in CSX/Conrail/Norfolk Southern rail merger.
Question. Please describe the Board's current user fee structure
and schedule of fees. Are any other fees authorized by the Interstate
Commerce Commission Termination Act?
Answer. The Board's 1997 User Fee Update became effective on
January 23, 1997. The fee schedule includes 109 fee items: fees based
on specific types of proceedings; hourly fees for the searching and
duplication of records by professional and clerical staff; and
administrative fees for photocopying of records, certifications, and
generation of computer-generated data files. The fees are updated
annually and include direct labor cost, operations overhead, Board and
office general administrative costs, and publication costs associated
with providing services to the requesting public. There were no new
fees authorized by the ICCTA. A copy of the 1997 User Fee Update
follows. In addition, the response to the question that follows
concerning the history of agency user fees includes other background
information pertaining to the existing fee schedule.
Service date--January 23, 1997
This decision will be included in the bound volumes of printed
reports at a later date.
Decision--STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 1)
Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed in Connection With
Licensing and Related Services--1997 Update
Decided: January 13, 1997
The Board adopts the 1997 User Fee Update.
background
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is required by the
regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3 to update its user fees annually. The
Board's fees are revised based on the cost study formula set forth at
49 CFR 1002.3(d). Also, in some previous years, selected fees were
modified to reflect new cost study data or changes in Board or
Interstate Commerce Commission fee policy. The Board's last user fee
update was issued in Regulations Governing Fees for Service, 1 S.T.B.
179 (1996) (1996 Fee Update I).
The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3(a) provide that the entire
fee schedule or selected fees can be modified more than once a year, if
necessary. Because Board employees will receive a salary increase of
3.33 percent in January 1997, and the cost of publishing documents in
the Federal Register significantly increased on January 1, 1997, we are
updating our user fees to recover these costs. All fees, with the
exception of the ones discussed below, will be updated based on the
cost formula at 49 CFR 1002.3(d).
1997 update factors
For this update, the direct labor cost data have been revised to
reflect the combined 1997 Government-wide general salary and 1997
locality salary increase of 3.33 percent that will take effect in
January 1997. The Government Fringe Benefit Cost used in the update
formula remains at 49.55 percent. Based on the Board's Fiscal 1996
actual budget data,\1\ the Office General and Administrative Expense
Factor has decreased from 26.73 percent to 20.06 percent, while the
Board's General and Administrative Expense Factor has increased from
11.36 percent to 12.20 percent. In addition, the Operations Overhead
Factor, which is developed from Fiscal 1996 payroll cost data, has
increased from 13.97 percent to 23.13 percent. Finally, the cost of
publishing documents in the Federal Register has increased as discussed
below. The 1997 fully allocated cost for each fee item developed from
these factors is set forth in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Board, which was created by the ICC Termination Act of
1995, Public Law No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 began operation on January
1, 1996. Therefore, the budget data from which these costs were derived
covers the period of January 1, 1996 to September 30, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
federal register cost
On January 1, 1997, the cost for publishing documents in the
Federal Register increased to $126 per column. The minimum cost for
publishing a document also increased to $126. Accordingly, we have
modified the Federal Register cost for each fee item that includes such
cost to reflect these changes.
We have determined that our current fees for items (38) through
(41)(i) and (ii) involving major and significant rail finance
proceedings do not include Federal Register publication costs. Based on
a review of documents published in the Federal Register for two recent
rail merger proceedings,\2\ we have calculated that Federal Register
costs of $4,630.50 for major transactions and $926.10 for significant
transactions should be included in the cost for those fee items. We
also have increased the Federal Register publication costs for minor
transactions and responsive applications to $1,183.96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Burlington Northern Inc. and Burlington Northern Railroad
Company--Control and Merger--Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and The
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Finance Docket No. 32549
and Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific
Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, St Louis
Southwestern Railway Companny, SPCSL Corp., and The Denver And Rio
Grande Western Railroad Company, Finance Docket No. 32760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fees items not affected by this update
In 1996 Fee Update I, based on concerns expressed by various
commenting parties in that decision, the Board determined that fees for
formal complaints would be set at 10 percent of the fully allocated
cost and would be increased gradually to the fully allocated levels.
However, because of on-going legislative debate regarding complaint
fees when the 1996 Fee Update I was decided, the Board initially
maintained all complaint fees at $1,000. In Regulations Governing Fees
for Service Performed in Connection With Licensing and Related
Services--1996 Update, STB Ex Parte No. 542 (STB served Dec. 17, 1996)
(1996 Fee Update II), the Board established fees for items (56)(i) and
(iii), which do not involve rail maximum rates filed by small shippers,
at $23,300 and $2,300, respectively. Those fee increases became
effective on January 16, 1997. Consequently, in the current update we
will not revise the fees for these two types of complaint
proceedings.\3\ We will increase the fees for these items under the
formula adopted in 1996 Fee Update I, in subsequent update proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under a gradual fee increase program over a multiple-year
period as established in the 1996 Fee Update I, we would be justified
in adopting a fee for Item 56(i), Formal complaints filed under the
coal rate guidelines set at $24,800 per filing [$248,533.78 (total 1997
cost) times 10 percent and then rounded]. We would also be justified in
adopting a fee for Item 56(iii), All other formal complaints set at
$2,400 per filing [$24,658.77 (total 1997 cost) times 10 percent and
then rounded].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the filing fee for Item 56(ii), A formal complaint
involving rail maximum rates filed by a small shipper, remains at
$1,000 in keeping with Congressional mandate discussed in 1996 Fee
Update II. In addition, the $150 filing fees that were established in
1996 Fee Update I for items involving trails use requests, Amtrak
conveyance and compensation proceedings, appeals to Board decisions,
and motor carrier undercharge proceedings and the $150 filing fee for
labor arbitration proceedings, adopted in 1996 Fee Update II, will be
maintained. Moreover, the fee for Item 13, A feeder line development
program, will remain at $2,600 and fees for Item 58(i), Petition for
declaratory order involving a dispute over an existing rate or
practice, and Item 58(ii), All other petitions for declaratory order,
are held at the current levels of $1,000 and $1,400, respectively.
other adjustments to the fee schedule
In Central Power & Light v. Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, No. 41242 (STB served Dec. 31, 1996), the Board indicated that
in certain cases ``bottleneck'' rate relief would be available in
connection with the filing of a competitive access complaint. Our
existing fee schedule, however, does not contain a separate fee for
competitive access complaints. In light of our limited experience to
date with competitive access complaint filings, we will initially set a
fee of $150 for these cases. This fee will be designated Item 56(iv),
Competitive access complaints. We will reevaluate our fee for this
activity as we gain further experience handling these types of
proceedings.
In Class Exem. For the Construction of Connecting Track, 1 S.T.B.
75 (1996), the Board adopted new regulations at 49 CFR 1150.36, that
allow for the filing of notices of exemption for the construction and
operation of connecting railroad track. Prior to the revisions of the
fee schedule in 1996 Fee Update I rail line acquisition and operation
proceedings and construction proceedings were grouped under the same
item. When these two activities were given separate fee item numbers in
1996 Fee Update I, the revised schedule did not include a fee for
notices of exemption involving construction of rail lines. Therefore,
we are adding Item 12(ii), Notices of exemption involving construction
of rail lines under 49 CFR 1150.36, to cover that activity. The fee for
Item 12(ii), is established as $1,100, which is the same level as the
fee for notices involving acquisition or operation of rail lines. In
future fee updates, that fee level may be adjusted based on our
experience handling those proceedings. In order to be consistent with
other fee items in our fee schedule, we are also providing for a
separate Fee Item (12)(iii), Petitions for exemptions involving
construction.
notice and comment requirement
The fee increases involved here only result from the mechanical
application of the current update formula at 49 CFR 1002.3(d), which
was adopted through notice and comment procedures in Regulations
Governing Fees for Services-1987 Update, 4 I.C.C.2d 137 (1997).
Therefore, we believe that good cause exists for finding that notice
and comment is unnecessary for this proceeding. See Regulations
Governing Fees For Services-1990 Update, 7 I.C.C.2d 3 (1990),
Regulations Governing Fees For Services-1991 Update, 8 I.C.C.2d 13
(1991), Regulations Governing Fees For Services-1993 Update, 9 I.C.C.2d
855 (1993).
regulatory flexibility analysis
We certify that these rules will not cause a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities because the Board's
regulations provide for waiver of filing fees for those entities which
can make the required showing of financial hardship.
It is ordered:
1. 49 CFR Part 1002 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as set forth in APPENDIX B. Notice of the final rules adopted here will
be transmitted to Congress pursuant to Pub. L. 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996).
2. These rules are effective on February 24, 1997.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice-Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
APPENDIX A
[STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 1)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Direct
1996 Direct labor Government Total (2+3) Operations Publication Total sum
FEE No. labor updated fringes overhead Office G&A Board G&A cost (4-8)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. $1,029.66 $1,063.95 $527.19 $1,591.13 $368.03 $393.01 $286.96 $4.00 $2,643.14
2................................. 434.09 448.55 222.25 670.80 155.16 165.69 120.98 149.88 1,262.50
3................................. 6,382.49 6,595.03 3,267.84 9,862.86 2,281.28 2,436.12 1,778.79 149.88 16,508.93
4i................................ 1,029.66 1,063.95 527.19 1,591.13 368.03 393.01 286.96 149.88 2,789.02
4ii............................... 24.75 25.57 12.67 38.25 8.85 9.45 6.90 ............ 63.44
5................................. 116.13 120.00 59.46 179.46 41.51 44.33 32.37 5.00 302.65
11i............................... 1,655.51 1,710.64 847.62 2,558.26 591.73 631.89 461.39 126.00 4,369.26
11ii.............................. 354.50 366.30 181.50 547.81 126.71 135.31 98.80 231.00 1,139.62
11iii............................. 2,882.61 2,978.60 1,475.90 4,454.50 1,030.33 1,100.26 803.38 149.88 7,538.34
12i............................... 17,300.29 17,876.39 8,857.75 26,734.14 6,183.61 6,603.30 4,821.57 162.00 44,504.62
12ii.............................. 354.50 366.30 181.50 547.81 126.71 135.31 98.80 231.00 1,139.62
12iii............................. 17,300.29 17,876.39 8,857.75 26,734.14 6,183.61 6,603.30 4,821.57 162.00 44,504.62
13................................ 5,313.76 5,490.71 2,720.65 8,211.35 1,899.29 2,028.19 1,480.94 147.00 13,766.77
14i............................... 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 149.88 3,741.93
141i.............................. 354.50 366.30 181.50 547.81 126.71 135.31 98.80 231.00 1,139.62
14iii............................. 1,494.58 1,544.35 765.23 2,309.57 534.20 570.46 416.54 165.38 3,996.16
15................................ 357.86 369.78 183.22 553.00 127.91 136.59 99.74 128.86 1,046.10
21i............................... 5,119.05 5,289.51 2,620.95 7,910.47 1,829.69 1,953.88 1,426.67 126.00 13,246.71
21ii.............................. 764.16 789.61 391.25 1,180.86 273.13 291.67 212.97 319.78 2 278.41
21iii............................. 1,418.72 1,465.96 726.38 2,192.35 507.09 541.51 395.40 183.27 3,819.61
22................................ 110.71 114.40 56.68 171.08 39.57 42.26 30.85 ............ 283.76
23................................ 441.74 456.45 226.17 682.62 157.89 168.61 123.11 ............ 1,132.23
24................................ 422.68 436.76 216.41 653.17 151.08 161.33 117.80 ............ 1,083.38
25................................ 363.59 375.70 186.16 561.86 129.96 138.78 101.33 ............ 931.92
26................................ 5,268.56 5,444.00 2,697.50 8,141.51 1,883.13 2,010.94 1,468.34 ............ 13,503.92
27................................ 272.60 281.68 139.57 421.25 97.43 104.05 75.97 ............ 698.70
36................................ 4,364.04 4,509.36 2,234.39 6,743.75 1,559.83 1,665.70 1,216.25 149.88 11,335.41
37................................ 2,337.14 2,414.97 1,196.62 3,611.58 835.36 892.06 651.36 149.88 6,140.24
38i............................... 345,266.30 356,763.67 176,776.40 533,540.07 123,407.82 131,783.75 96,225.26 4,630.50 889,587.39
38ii.............................. 69,054.64 71,354.16 35,355.99 106,710.15 24,682.06 26,357.28 19,245.44 926.10 177,921.01
38iii............................. 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
38iv.............................. 332.32 343.39 170.15 513.53 118.78 126.84 92.62 216.57 1,068.34
38v............................... 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
38vi.............................. 2,139.22 2,210.46 1,095.28 3,305.74 764.62 816.51 596.20 149.88 5,632.94
39i............................... 345,266.30 356,763.67 176,776.40 533,540.07 123,407.82 131,783.75 96,225.26 4,630.50 889,587.39
39ii.............................. 69,054.64 71,354.16 35,355.99 106,710.15 24,682.06 26,357.28 19,245.44 926.10 177,921.01
39iii............................. 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.98 4,776.01
39iv.............................. 241.20 249.23 123.49 372.73 86.21 92.06 67.22 233.10 851.32
39v............................... 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
39vi.............................. 2,139.22 2,210.46 1,095.28 3,305.74 764.62 816.51 596.20 149.88 5,632.94
40i............................... 345,266.30 356,763.67 176,776.40 533,540.07 123,407.82 131,783.75 96,225.26 4,630.50 889,587.39
40ii.............................. 69,054.64 71,354.16 35,355.99 106,710.15 24,682.06 26,357.28 19,245.44 926.10 177,921.01
40iii............................. 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
40iv.............................. 223.42 230.86 114.39 345.25 79.86 85.28 62.27 190.59 763.24
40v............................... 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
40vi.............................. 2,139.22 2,210.46 1,095.28 3,305.74 764.62 816.51 596.20 149.88 5,632.94
41i............................... 345,266.30 356,763.67 176,776.40 533,540.07 123,407.82 131,783.75 96,225.26 4,630.50 889,587.39
41ii.............................. 69,054.64 71,354.16 35,355.99 106,710.15 24,682.06 26,357.28 19,245.44 926.10 177,921.01
41iii............................. 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
41iv.............................. 265.63 274.48 136.00 410.48 94.94 101.39 74.03 216.00 896.84
41v............................... 1,401.44 1,448.11 717.54 2,165.65 500.91 534.91 390.58 1,183.96 4,776.01
41vi.............................. 1,494.58 1,544.35 765.23 2,309.57 534.20 570.46 416.54 165.38 3,996.16
42................................ 479.72 495.69 245.62 741.31 171.47 183.10 133.70 273.00 1,502.58
43................................ 16,189.86 16,728.98 8,289.21 25,018.19 5,786.71 6,179.46 4,512.09 149.88 41,646.34
44i............................... 2,966.04 3,064.81 1,518.61 4,583.42 1,060.15 1,132.10 826.63 149.88 7,752.18
44ii.............................. 24.75 25.57 12.67 38.25 8.85 9.45 6.90 ............ 63.44
45................................ 184.23 190.36 94.33 284.69 65.85 70.32 51.34 ............ 472.20
46................................ 1,820.53 1,881.15 932.11 2,813.27 650.71 694.87 507.38 149.88 4,816.11
47................................ 35,016.04 36,182.07 17,928.22 54,110.29 12,515.71 13,365.18 9,758.92 ............ 89,750.10
48................................ 42,470.72 43,884.99 21,745.02 65,630.01 15,180.22 16,210.53 11,836.53 ............ 108,857.30
56i............................... 96,965.56 100,194.51 49,646.38 149,840.89 34,658.20 37,010.52 27,024.17 ............ 248,533.78
56ii.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 1,000.00
56iii............................. 9,620.63 9,941.00 4,925.76 14,866.76 3,438.68 3,672.07 2,681.26 ............ 24,658.77
56iv.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 150.00
57................................ 2,063.49 2,132.20 1,056.51 3,188.71 737.55 787.61 575.09 ............ 5,288.96
58i............................... 1,938.52 2,003.07 992.52 2,995.60 692.88 739.91 540.26 472.50 5,441.15
58ii.............................. 1,533.86 1,584.94 785.34 2,370.27 548.24 585.45 427.48 126.00 4,057.46
59................................ 1,594.62 1,647.72 816.45 2,464.17 569.96 608.65 444.42 149.88 4,237.07
60................................ 3,159.82 3,265.04 1,617.83 4,882.87 1,129.41 1,206.06 880.64 ............ 8,098.98
61................................ 1,540.45 1,591.75 788.71 2,380.46 550.60 587.97 429.32 ............ 3,948.35
62................................ 2,440.51 2,521.78 1,249.54 3,771.32 872.31 931.51 680.17 ............ 6,255.31
76................................ 288.83 298.45 147.88 446.33 103.24 110.24 80.50 2.00 742.30
77................................ 30.55 31.57 15.64 47.21 10.92 11.66 8.51 ............ 78.30
78i............................... 5.75 594 2.94 8.89 2.06 2.19 1.60 ............ 14.74
78ii.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 1.00
79i............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 45.00
79ii.............................. 36.40 37.61 18.64 56.25 13.01 13.89 10.14 ............ 93.30
80................................ 142.47 147.21 72.94 220.16 50.92 54.38 39.71 ............ 365.17
81i............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 45.00
81ii.............................. 36.40 37.61 18.64 56.25 13.01 13.89 10.14 ............ 93.30
82................................ 57.85 59.78 29.62 89.40 20.68 22.08 16.12 ............ 148.28
83................................ 9.56 9.88 4.89 14.77 3.42 3.65 2.66 ............ 24.50
84................................ 61.97 64.03 31.73 95.76 22.15 23.65 17.27 ............ 158.84
85................................ 266.35 275.22 136.37 411.59 95.20 101.66 74.23 ............ 682.69
86................................ 347.03 358.59 177.68 536.27 124.04 132.46 96.72 ............ 889.48
96................................ 7.47 7.72 3.82 11.54 2.67 2.85 2.08 ............ 19.15
97................................ 5.69 5.88 2.91 8.79 2.03 2.17 1.59 ............ 14.58
98i............................... 72.33 74.74 37.03 111.77 25 85 27.61 20.16 ............ 185.39
98ii.............................. 107.77 111.36 55.18 166.54 38.52 41.13 30.04 126.00 402.23
99i............................... 44.45 45.93 22.76 68.69 15.89 16.97 12.39 ............ 113 93
99ii.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 25.00
100i.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 50.00
100ii............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 10.00
100iii............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 20.00
1OOiv............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 500.00
100v.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 400.00
100vi............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 50.00
100vii............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 1,500.00
101i.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 450.00
101ii............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 150.00
101iii............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 650.00
101iv............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 450.00
101v.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 500.00
101vi............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ 50.00
102*.............................. 3.97 4.10 2.03 6.13 1.42 1.52 1.11 ............ 10.18
103*.............................. 24.52 25 34 12.55 37.89 8.76 9.36 6.83 ............ 62.85
104*.............................. 16.97 17.54 8.69 26.22 6.07 6.48 4.73 ............ 43.50
105*.............................. .56 .58 .29 .87 .20 .21 .16 ............ 1.44
106*.............................. 42.69 44.11 21.86 65.97 15.26 16.29 11.90 ............ 109.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 1)]
Appendix B
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 49, chapter X,
part 1002, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Part 1002--FEES
1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49
U.S.C. 721(a).
2. Section 1002.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (e)(1) and the chart in paragraph (f)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 1002.1 Fees for records search. review, copying, certification,
and related services.
* * * * * * *
(a) Certificate of the Secretary, $10.00.
(b) Service involved in examination of tariffs or schedules for
preparation of certified copies of tariffs or schedules or extracts
therefrom at the rate of $25.00 per hour.
(c) Service involved in checking records to be certified to
determine authenticity, including clerical work etc., incidental
thereto, at the rate of $17.00 per hour.
* * * * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A fee of $44.00 per hour for professional staff time will be
charged when it is required to fulfill a request for ADP data.
* * * * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Rate Grade Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-1........................... $7.37 GS-9 ............ $17.20
GS-2........................... 8.02 GS-10............ 18.95
GS-3........................... 9.04 GS-11............ 20.82
GS-4........................... 10.15 GS-12............ 24.95
GS-5........................... 11.35 GS-13............ 29.67
GS-6........................... 12.66 GS-14............ 35.06
GS-7........................... 14.06 GS-15 and over... 41.24
GS-8........................... 15.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2. In Sec. 1002.2, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1002.2 Filing fees.
(a) ***
(f) Schedule of filing fees.
Type of proceeding Fee
PART I: Non-Rail Applications or Proceedings to Enter Upon a
Particular Financial Transaction or Joint Arrangement:
(1) An application for the pooling or division of traffic. $2,600
(2) An application involving the purchase, lease,
consolidation, merger, or acquisition of control of a
motor carrier of passengers under 49 U.S.C. 4303........ 1,200
(3) An application for approval of a non-rail rate
association agreement. 49 U.S.C. 13706.................. 16,500
(4) An application for approval of an amendment to a non-
rail rate association agreement:
(i) Significant amendment............................. 2,700
(ii) Minor amendment.................................. 60
(5) An application for temporary authority to operate a
motor carrier of passengers. 49 U.S.C. 14303(i)......... 300
PART II: Rail Licensing Proceedings other than Abandonment or
Discontinuance Proceedings:
(11) (i) An application for a certificate authorizing the
extension, acquisition, or operation of lines of
railroad. 49 U.S.C. 10901............................... 4,300
(ii) Notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31-1150.35. 1,100
(iii) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502.... 7,500
(12) (i) An application involving the construction of a
rail line............................................... 44,500
(ii) A notice of exemption involving construction of a
rail line under 49 CFR 1150.36...................... 1,100
(iii) A petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502
involving construction of a rail line............... 44,500
(13) A Feeder Line Development Program application filed
under 49 U.S.C. 10907(b)(1)(A)(i) or 10907(b)(1)(A)(ii). 2,600
(14) (i) An application of a class II or class III carrier
to acquire an extended or additional rail line under 49
U.S.C. 10902............................................ 3,700
(ii) Notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41-1150.45. 1,100
(iii) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502
relating to an exemption from the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 10902........................................ 3,900
(15) A notice of a modified certificate of public
convenience and necessity under 49 CFR 1150.21-1150.24.. 1,000
PART III: Rail Abandonment or Discontinuance of Transportation
Services Proceedings:
(21) (i) An application for authority to abandon all or a
portion of a line of railroad or discontinue operation
thereof filed by a railroad (except applications filed
by Consolidated Rail Corporation pursuant to the
Northeast Rail Service Act [Subtitle E of Title XI of
Pub. L. 97-35], bankrupt railroads, or exempt
abandonments............................................ 13,200
(ii) Notice of an exempt abandonment or discontinuance
under 49 CFR 1152.50................................ 2,200
(iii) A petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502.. 3,800
(22) An application for authority to abandon all or a
portion of a line of a railroad or operation thereof
filed by Consolidated Rail Corporation pursuant to
Northeast Rail Service Act.............................. 250
(23) Abandonments filed by bankrupt railroads............. 1,100
(24) A request for waiver of filing requirements for
abandonment application proceedings..................... 1,000
(25) An offer of financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
10904 relating to the purchase of or subsidy for a rail
line proposed for abandonment........................... 900
(26) A request to set terms and conditions for the sale of
or subsidy for a rail line proposed to be abandoned..... 13,500
(27) A request for a trail use condition in an abandonment
proceeding under 16 U.S.C.1247(d)....................... 150
PART IV: Rail Applications to Enter Upon a Particular
Financial Transaction or Joint Arrangement:
(36) An application for use of terminal facilities or
other applications under 49 U.S.C. 11102................ 11,300
(37) An application for the pooling or division of
traffic. 49 U.S.C. 11322................................ 6,100
(38) An application for two or more carriers to
consolidate or merge their properties or franchises (or
a part thereof) into one corporation for ownership,
management, and operation of the properties previously
in separate ownership. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction................................. 889,500
(ii) Significant transaction.......................... 177,900
(iii) Minor transaction............................... 4,700
(iv) Notice of an exempt transaction under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)........................................... 1,000
(v) Responsive application............................ 4,700
(vi) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502..... 5,600
(39) An application of a non-carrier to acquire control of
two or more carriers through ownership of stock or
otherwise. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction................................. 889,500
(ii) Significant transaction.......................... 177,900
(iii) Minor transaction............................... 4,700
(iv) A notice of an exempt transaction under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)........................................... 850
(v) Responsive application............................ 4,700
(vi) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502..... 5,600
(40) An application to acquire trackage rights over, joint
ownership in, or joint use of any railroad lines owned
and operated by any other carrier and terminals
incidental thereto. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction................................. 889,500
(ii) Significant transaction.......................... 177,900
(iii) Minor transaction............................... 4,700
(iv) Notice of an exempt transaction under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)........................................... 750
(v) Responsive application............................ 4,700
(vi) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502..... 5,600
(41) An application of a carrier or carriers to purchase,
lease, or contract to operate the properties of another,
or to acquire control of another by purchase of stock or
otherwise. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction................................. 889,500
(ii) Significant transaction.......................... 177,900
(iii) Minor transaction............................... 4,700
(iv) Notice of an exempt transaction under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)........................................... 850
(v) Responsive application............................ 4,700
(vi) Petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502..... 3,900
(42) Notice of a joint project involving relocation of a
rail line under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5)..................... 1,500
(43) An application for approval of a rail rate
association agreement. 49 U.S.C. 10706.................. 41,600
(44) An application for approval of an amendment to a rail
rate association agreement. 49 U.S.C. 10706:
(i) Significant amendment............................. 7,700
(ii) Minor amendment.................................. 60
(45) An application for authority to hold a position as
officer or director under 49 U.S.C. 11328............... 450
(46) A petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 (other
than a rulemaking) filed by rail carrier not otherwise
covered................................................. 4,800
(47) National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
conveyance proceeding under 45 U.S.C. 562............... 150
(48) National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
compensation proceeding under Section 402(a) of the Rail
Passenger Service Act................................... 150
PART V: Formal Proceedings:
(56) A formal complaint alleging unlawful rates or
practices of rail carriers, motor carriers of passengers
or motor carriers of household goods:
(i) A formal complaint filed under the coal rate
guidelines (Stand-Alone Cost Methodology) alleging
unlawful rates and/or practices of rail carriers
under 49 U.S.C. 10704(c)(1) except a complaint filed
by small shipper.................................... 23,300
(ii) A formal complaint involving rail maximum rates
filed by a small shipper............................ 1,000
(iii) All other formal complaints (except competitive
access complaints................................... 2,300
(iv) Competitive access complaints.................... 150
(57) A complaint seeking or a petition requesting
institution of an investigation seeking the prescription
or division of joint rates or charges. 49 U.S.C. 10705.. 5,200
(58) A petition for declaratory order:
(i) A petition for declaratory order involving a
dispute over an existing rate or practice which is
comparable to a complaint proceeding................ 1,000
(ii) All other petitions for declaratory order........ 1,400
(59) An application for shipper antitrust immunity. 49
U.S.C. 10706(a)(5)(A)................................... 4,200
(60) Labor arbitration proceedings........................ 150
(61) Appeals to a Surface Transportation Board decision
and petitions to revoke an exemption pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 10502(d)......................................... 150
(62) Motor carrier undercharge proceedings................ 150
PART VI: Informal Proceedings:
(76) An application for authority to establish released
value rates or ratings for motor carriers and freight
forwarders of household goods under 49 U.S.C. 14706..... 700
(77) An application for special permission for short
notice or the waiver of other tariff publishing
requirements............................................ 70
(78) (i) The filing of tariffs, including supplements, or
contract summaries (per page. $14 minimum charge.)...... 1
(ii) Tariffs transmitted by fax (per page)............ 1
(79) Special docket applications from rail and water
carriers:
(i) Applications involving $25,000 or less............ 45
(ii) Applications involving over $25,000.............. 90
(80) Informal complaint about rail rate applications...... 350
(81) Tariff reconciliation petitions from motor common
carriers:
(i) Petitions involving $25,000 or less............... 45
(ii) Petitions involving over $25,000................. 90
(82) Request for a determination of the applicability or
reasonableness of motor carrier rates under 49 U.S.C.
13710(a)(2) and (3)..................................... 100
(83) Filing of documents for recordation. 49 U.S.C. 11301
and 49 CFR 1177.3(c) (per document)..................... 24
(84) Informal opinions about rate applications (all modes) 150
(85) A railroad accounting interpretation................. 650
(86) An operational interpretation........................ 850
PART VII: Services:rved]
(96) Messenger delivery of decision to a railroad
carrier's Washington, DC, agent (per delivery).......... 19
(97) Request for service or pleading list for proceedings
(per list).............................................. 14
(98) (i) Processing the paperwork related to a request for
the Carload Waybill Sample to be used in a Surface
Transportation Board or State proceeding that does not
require a Federal Register no- tice..................... 150
(ii) Processing the paperwork related to a request for
Carload Waybill Sample to be used for reasons other
than a Surface Transportation Board or State
proceeding that requires a Federal Register notice.. 400
(99) (i) Application fee for the Surface Transportation
Board's Practitioners' Exam............................. 100
(ii) Practitioners' Exam Information Package.......... 25
(100) Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS) software and
information:
(i) Initial PC version URCS Phase III software program
and manual.......................................... 50
(ii) Updated URCS PC version Phase III cost file, if
computer disk provided by requester................. 10
(iii) Updated URCS PC version Phase III cost file, if
computer disk provided by the Board................. 20
(iv) Public requests for Source Codes to the PC
version URCS Phase III.............................. 500
(v) PC version or mainframe version URCS Phase II..... 400
(vi) PC version or mainframe version Updated Phase II
databases........................................... 50
(vii) Public requests for Source Codes to PC version
URCS Phase II....................................... 1,500
(101) Carload Waybill Sample data on recordable compact
disk (R-CD):
(i) Requests for Public Use File on R-CD--First Year.. 450
(ii) Requests for Public Use File on R-CD Each
Additional Year..................................... 150
(iii) Waybill--Surface Transportation Board or State
proceedings on R-CD--First Year..................... 650
(iv) Waybill--Surface Transportation Board or State
proceedings on R-CD--Second Year on same R-CD....... 450
(v) Waybill--Surface Transportation Board of State
proceeding on R-CD--Second Year on different R-CD... 500
(vi) User Guide for latest available Carload Waybill
Sample.............................................. 50
* * * * * * *
history of user fees
Question. Please briefly summarize the history of user fees at the
Surface Transportation Board, and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
(Include a synopsis of the most recent fee increases in January 1997.)
Answer. In 1982, after a critical report by the General Accounting
Office, in Interstate Commerce Commission Should Revise Its User Fee
Program (GAO Report RCED 83-55, 1983), Congress directed the ICC to
revise its user fee program. In response, the ICC instituted a complete
review of all of its activities to identify all of those services for
which fees should be assessed. Subsequently, the ICC conducted an
agency-wide cost study to determine the cost of providing the
identified services to the public.
In Regulations Governing Fees for Services, 1 I.C.C. 2d 60 (1984),
the ICC adopted a new fee schedule, which reflected direct labor costs
and overhead costs of providing services to the public. Those overhead
costs included Employee Fringe Benefits, an Operations Overhead Factor,
which reflected upper-level supervisory costs, and a Commission
Overhead Factor, which covered costs associated with the Commissioners
and their immediate staff. When it was appropriate, Federal Register
publication cost was added for each fee item. In addition, pursuant to
a Congressional mandate, the ICC adopted a rule in 49 CFR 1002.3(a) \7\
requiring that its fees be updated annually pursuant to the cost
formula in 49 CFR 1002.3(d) that measured the changes in the ICC's
direct labor and overhead costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In 1994, that rule was modified to allow the ICC to update fees
more than once a year, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1985 to 1994, the ICC issued annual user fee updates. Most of
those use fee update proceedings were limited to revising fees
according to the cost formula to reflect increases in direct labor and
overhead costs. In the 1987 update proceeding, however, the ICC
modified the cost formula by adding an Office General and
Administrative Cost Factor to reflect costs for personnel support,
rent, communications, utilities, etc., for each office involved in fee-
related activities. In the 1988, 1990, and 1994 user fee update
proceedings, the ICC revised the fees for various items in the existing
fee schedule and added new fee items based on cost studies conducted by
the ICC's staff.
The Board issued its first user fee update in 1996. In its decision
in Regulations Governing Fees For Service Performed, 1 S.T.B. 179
(1996), the Board: (1) revised its entire fee schedule based on the
cost study formula set forth at 49 CFR 1002.3(d) related to
inflationary increases in direct labor and overhead costs; (2) modified
selected fees to reflect new cost study data; (3) established new fees
for services and activities that had not been previously included in
the Board's fee schedule; and (4) removed caps on various fee items.
The Board also eliminated fee items related to activities that were
transferred to the Federal Highway Administration or were no longer
under the Board's jurisdiction. In a subsequent decision in Regulations
Governing Fees for Services Performed In Connection with Licensing and
Related Services--1996 Update (STB Ex Parte No. 542, STB served Dec.
17, 1996), the Board limited the filing fee for rail maximum rate
complaints filed by small shippers to $1,000, as required by Section
1219 of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
264, 110 Stat. 3213 (Oct. 9, 1996).
In Regulations Governing Fees For Services Performed In Connection
With Licensing and Related Services--1997 Update, (STB Ex Parte No. 542
(Sub-No. 1), STB served Jan. 23, 1997), the Board modified its fees to
reflect the 1997 combined Government-wide general salary and 1997
locality salary increase of 3.33 percent that took effect in January
1997, and changes in the Board's overhead costs.\8\ In addition, the
Federal Register publication costs in the user fee items were adjusted
to reflect the increase in Federal Register charges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In 1997, there was no change in Government Fringe Benefits. The
changes in the overhead factors for 1997 are as follows: (1) the
Administrative Expense Factor decreased from 26.73 to 20.06 percent;
(2) the Board's General and Administrative Expense Factor increased
from 11.36 to 12.20 percent; and (3) the Operations Overhead Factor
increased from 13.97 to 23.23 percent.
\9\ We note that, because the Board uses the fee rounding formula
in 49 CFR 1002.2(e), not every fee changes annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please detail in tabular form the 1997 user fee schedule,
including all 109 fee items or sub-fee items, including both the 1996
and 1997 fee amounts, with a column showing the amount of increase, if
any.
Answer. The following displays the pricing for fee items under the
1996 User Fee Update and the 1997 User Fee Update, along with the
change from the 1996 to the 1997 schedules.
COMPARISON OF STB EX PARTE NO. 542 FEE SCHEDULE WITH STB EX PARTE NO. 542 (SUB-NO. 1 FEE) SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB EP 542 STB EP 542-S1
------------------------------------ Change
Fee or sub-fee description 1996 1997 from
fee 1996 fee fee 1997 fee 1996 to
item amount item amount 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application pooling or div. traf. non-rail........................ 1.0 $2,400 1.0 $2,600 $200
Application purchase, Lease--MC passenger......................... 2.0 1,100 2.0 1,200 100
Application approval non-rail rate association AGR................ 3.0 15,400 3.0 16,500 1,100
Application amend non-rail rate association--signifi- cant....... 4.1 2,500 4.1 2,700 200
Amend non-rail rate association agree--minor...................... 4.2 50 4.2 60 10
Application for temporary authority MC passing.................... 5.0 250 5.0 300 50
Application extension or acquisition or operation................. 11.1 4,000 11.1 4,300 300
Notice of exemption 1150.31-1150.35............................... 11.2 1,000 11.2 1,100 100
Petition for exemption (except construction)...................... 11.3 7,000 11.3 7,500 500
Application involving the construction of line.................... 12 41,700 12.1 44,500 2,800
Notice of exemption 1150.36 construction.......................... ...... 950 12.2 1,100 150
Petition for exemption construction of line....................... 12.1 41,700 12.3 44,500 2,800
Feeder line development program application....................... 13.0 2,600 13.0 2,600 ........
Application class II-III acquire or extend line................... 14.1 3,400 14.1 3,700 300
Notice of exemption acquire or extend line........................ 14.2 950 14.2 1,100 150
Petition for exemption acquire or exte line....................... 14.3 3,700 14.3 3,900 200
Notice of modified certificate PC&N............................... 15.0 950 15.0 1,000 50
Application to abandon or discontinue service..................... 21.11 2,400 21.1 13,200 800
Notice of exemption abandon or discontinue........................ 21.2 2,000 21.2 2,200 200
Petition for exemption abandon or discontinue..................... 21.3 3,500 21.3 3,800 300
Application to abandon CRC-NE rail service........................ 22.0 250 22.0 250 ........
Abandonment filed by bankrupt railroads........................... 23.0 1,000 23.0 1,100 100
Waiver request for filing required--abandonment................... 24.0 1,000 24.0 1,000 ........
Offer of financial assistance (OFA)............................... 25.0 900 25.0 900 ........
OFA--set terms and conditions..................................... 26.0 12,700 26.0 13,500 800
Request for a trails use condition................................ 27.0 150 27.0 150 ........
Application for use of terminal facilities........................ 36.0 10,600 36.0 11,300 700
Application pooling or DIV. TRAF. (Rail).......................... 37.0 5,700 37.0 6,100 400
Application to merge or consolidate--major........................ 38.1 830,500 38.1 889,500 59,000
Application to merge or consolidate--significant.................. 38.2 166,100 38.2 177,900 11,800
Application to merge or consolidate--minor........................ 38.3 3,400 38.3 4,700 1,300
Notice of exemption merge or consolidate.......................... 38.4 950 38.4 1,000 50
Responsive application merge or consolidate....................... 38.5 3,400 38.5 4,700 1,300
Petition for exemption merge or consolidate....................... 38.6 5,200 38.6 5,600 400
Application non-carrier to control--major......................... 39.1 830,500 39.1 889,500 59,000
Application non-carrier to control--significant................... 39.2 166,100 39.2 177,900 11,800
Application non-carrier to control--minor......................... 39.3 3,400 39.3 4,700 1,300
Notice of exemption non-carrier control........................... 39.4 750 39.4 850 100
Responsive application non-carrier control........................ 39.5 3,400 39.5 4,700 1,300
Petition for exemption non-carrier control........................ 39.6 5,200 39.6 5,600 400
Application to acquire track rights--major........................ 40.1 830,500 40.1 889,500 59,000
Application to acquire track rights--signficant................... 40.2 166,100 40.2 177,900 11,800
Application to acquire track rights--minor........................ 40.3 3,400 40.3 4,700 1,300
Notice of exemption acquire track rights.......................... 40.4 650 40.4 750 100
Responsive application acquire track rights....................... 40.5 3,400 40.5 4,700 1,300
Petition for exemption acquire track rights....................... 40.6 5,200 40.6 5,600 400
Application of carrier to purchase property--major................ 41.1 830,500 41.1 889,500 59,000
Application of carrier to purchase property--significant.......... 41.2 166,100 41.2 177,900 11,800
Application of carrier to purchase property--minor................ 41.3 3,400 41.3 4,700 1,300
Notice of exemption carrier purchase property..................... 41.4 800 41.4 850 50
Responsive application carrier purchase property.................. 41.5 3,400 41.5 4,700 1,300
Petition for exemption carrier purchase property.................. 41.6 3,700 41.6 3,900 200
Notice of a joint project involve relocation...................... 42.0 1,300 42.0 1,500 200
Application rail rate association agreement....................... 43.0 39,000 43.0 41,600 2,600
Amendment rail rate agreement--significant........................ 44.1 7,200 44.1 7,700 500
Amendment rail rate agreement--minor.............................. 44.2 50 44.2 60 10
Authority to hold position--officer/director...................... 45.0 400 45.0 450 50
Petition for exemption RR not otherwise covered................... 46.0 4,400 46.0 4,800 400
Amtrak conveyance proceeding. 45 USC 562.......................... 47.0 150 47.0 150 ........
Amtrak compensation proceeding. sec. 402(a)....................... 48.0 150 48.0 150 ........
Complaint filed under coal rate guidelines........................ 56.1 23,300 56.1 23,300 ........
Complaint filed by small shipper--rate............................ 56.2 1,000 56.2 1,000 ........
Complaint--all other except competitive access.................... 56.3 2,300 56.3 2,300 ........
Competitive access complaint...................................... ...... ........ 56.4 150 150
Complaint or petition request investigation....................... 57.0 4,900 57.0 5,200 300
Petition for declaration order--existing rate..................... 58.1 1,000 58.1 1,000 ........
Petition for declaration order--all others........................ 58.2 1,400 58.2 1,400 ........
Application for shipper antitrust immunity........................ 59.0 3,900 59.0 4,200 300
Labor arbitration appeal reviews.................................. 60.0 150 60.01 150 ........
Appeals to STB Dec. Pet. revoke exemption......................... 61.0 150 61.0 150 ........
Motor carrier undercharge proceeding.............................. 62.0 150 62.0 150 ........
Application--authority released value rates....................... 76.0 650 76.0 700 50
Application special permission short notice or waiver............. 77.0 70 77.0 70 ........
Tariffs, including supplement and contract summary................ 78.1 13 78.1 14 1
Tariffs submitted by fax.......................................... 78.2 1 78.2 1 ........
Special docket application involving $25,000 or less.............. 79.1 40 79.1 45 5
Special docket application involve over $25,000................... 79.2 80 79.2 90 10
Informal complaints about rail application........................ 80.0 300 80.0 350 50
Tariff reconciliation petition MC $25,000 or less................. 81.1 40 81.1 45 5
Tariff reconciliation petition MC over $25000..................... 81.2 80 81.2 90 10
Request availability or reasonable MC rates....................... 82.0 100 82.0 100 ........
Filing of documents for recordation............................... 83.0 22 83.0 24 2
Informal opinions rate application--all modes..................... 84.0 100 84.0 150 50
Railroad accounting interpretation................................ 85.0 600 85.0 650 50
An operational interpretation..................................... 86.0 800 86.0 850 50
Messenger delivery of decision--RR agent.......................... 96.0 17 6.0 19 2
Request for service or pleadings list............................. 97.0 13 97.0 14 1
Request carload WAYB no FR notice require......................... 98.1 150 98.1 150 ........
Request for service FR notice required............................ 98.2 350 98.2 400 50
Application for the STB practioners' examination.................. 99.1 100 99.1 100 ........
Practioners' examination information package...................... 99.2 25 99.2 25 ........
URCS--initial PC versus PH III soft PROG/MAN...................... 100.1 50 100.1 50 ........
Updated PC versus CST file, disk by requst........................ 100.2 10 100.2 10 ........
Updated PC versus CST file, disk by STB........................... 100.3 20 100.3 20 ........
Public request for source codes--PH III........................... 100.4 500 100.4 500 ........
PC versus or mainframe versus URCS phase II....................... 100.5 400 100.5 400 ........
PC versus or mainframe versus update phase II..................... 100.6 50 100.6 50 ........
Public request for source codes--phase II......................... 100.7 1,500 100.7 1,500 ........
Requests for public use file R-CD first year...................... 101.1 450 101.1 450 ........
Requests for public use file R-CD additional years................ 101.2 150 101.2 150 ........
Waybill--STB or ST. proceeding R-CD FIR........................... 101.3 650 101.3 650 ........
Waybill--STB or ST. proceeding R-CD--DIFF......................... 101.4 450 101.4 450 ........
Waybill--STB or ST. proceeding on R-CD--same...................... 101.5 500 101.5 500 ........
User guide latest available carload WB............................ 101.6 50 101.6 50 ........
Certificate of the secretary...................................... 102.0 9 102.0 10 1
Examination of tariff or schedules--certification................. 103.0 24 103.0 25 1
Checking records to certify authenticity.......................... 104.0 16 104.0 17 1
Electrostatic copies tariffs, reports, et......................... 105.0 5 105.0 5 ........
Search and copy services add process.............................. 106.0 42 106.0 44 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
offsetting collection request
Question. Why doesn't the Board anticipate a greater increase in
fiscal year 1998 in offsetting collections above the fiscal year 1997
level of $3,000,000, given that fees collected throughout all twelve
months of the fiscal year will be at the higher 1997 user fee schedule,
whereas in fiscal year 1997, four months of collections were at the
1996 schedule levels?
Answer. The Board does not project a significant increase in fiscal
year 1998 offsetting collections above the fiscal year 1997 level
because the Board anticipates its workload to remain essentially the
same into fiscal year 1998. In fact, based on current estimates, if no
class I rail merger is filed in fiscal year 1998 (which is likely), the
Board could very well fall short of its fiscal year 1998 goal. The
Board has collected $761,914 through February 1997, due in part to the
increased fees adopted in the 1997 User Fee Update. However, this five-
month figure represents only 25 percent of the Board's user fee target
of $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. The two $889,500 filing fees by CSX
and Norfolk Southern to accompany applications to acquire control of
Conrail will allow the Board to attain the $3.0 million level. Because
the Board's current user fee collection program is based on actual
filings, the Board has no control over what is actually collected, and
estimates of future collections may or may not be realized.
Question. In the Board's opinion, who are the ``beneficiaries'' of
the Surface Transportation Board's activities?
Answer. The direct beneficiaries of the Board's activities are the
parties that request the Board to approve or exempt from regulation a
particular transaction, such as a merger or construction, sale, or
abandonment of a rail line, or the parties that ask the Board to
resolve an adjudication, such as a rail rate complaint or a rail labor
dispute. By law, the Board is to assess fees against direct
beneficiaries based on the cost of specific services rendered to them.
Because these parties are the direct beneficiaries of the Board's
actions, it is appropriate that user fees for those activities be paid
by such parties.
The Board also recognizes that the general public is the indirect
beneficiary of the Board's activities. However, because the benefits
that flow to the public generally are incidental to the private
benefits that are derived from the Board's activities, it is not
necessary to allocate costs for these activities to the public. See
Cent. & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. United States, 777 F.2d
722 at 732, (D.C. Cir. 1985), in which the court stated: ``If the
asserted public benefits are the necessary consequence of an agency's
provision of the relevant private benefits, then the public benefits
are not independent, and the agency would therefore not need to
allocate any costs to the public.''
Question. Will the Board realize ``the anticipated carryover of
approximately $800,000 in fees derived from 1997 rail merger
activities'' [Appendix, fiscal year 1998 Budget of the United States
Government, p. 822]? If not, how in the Board's opinion was this number
derived?
Answer. In the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Passback on
the Board's fiscal year 1998 Budget Request, OMB assumed that, with the
filing of two merger applications and associated filing fees, the Board
would have $800,000 more than the $3.0 million limit for fiscal year
1997, which would carry over into fiscal year 1998. The Board cannot
explain OMB's carryover assumption. As previously indicated, with the
user fees associated with the two merger applications for Conrail, the
Board will barely meet the $3.0 million level, based on the current
fiscal year 1997 fee item workload filings.
Question. Will the Board have any carryover user fees above
$3,000,000, to be available for obligation after October 1, 1997. If
so, how much?
Answer. With the filing of the two merger applications associated
with the Conrail merger, the Board projects that it may have
approximately $21,000 carrying over into fiscal year 1998 under the
statutory provision contained in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation
allowing for user fee collections in excess of the $3.0 million amount.
personnel compensation and benefits
Question. The President's budget submission states that the Board's
request reflects a higher 1998 pay raise for Surface Transportation
Board employees than the Administration requests for other federal
employees. Please discuss this statement.
Answer. The Board, because it is organizationally housed within
DOT, depends upon the Department for administrative updates of
information and guidelines so that it may conform to, among other
things, budgetary development guidance. In July 1996, the Board was
notified by DOT that the fiscal year 1998 cost of living adjustment
(COLA) would be set at 3.1 percent for Federal employees. This figure
was used to calculate the pay raise for Board employees for the fiscal
year 1998 budget. Only after the President's budget was prepared and
submitted was the Board notified that the COLA for fiscal year 1998 had
been decreased to 2.8 percent.
Question. Why wasn't the $78,000 associated with the January 1997
pay raise paid from fiscal year 1997 funding?
Answer. Federal cost-of-living pay raises increase Federal annual
salary rates for the entire year even though they are enacted in
January of each year. This means that three-fourths of COLA will be
paid out in fiscal year 1997 and one-fourth in fiscal year 1998. When
the fiscal year 1997 appropriation request was enacted, the Board,
along with other agencies, received funding for three-fourths of the
1997 pay raise. The remaining part of the 1997 pay raise must be funded
in fiscal year 1998, thereby increasing the salary base by $78,000.
Question. If the Board assumes a 2.8 percent pay increase for
fiscal year 1998 (for 134 employees), what will be the total fiscal
year 1998 costs associated with the January 1998 pay raise?
Answer. The total fiscal year 1998 costs associated with the
January 1998 pay raise of 2.8 percent for 134 employees is $185,200.
board's request vs. president's budget
Question. How many FTE's would a total funding level of $14,300,000
support in fiscal year 1998 (assuming a 2.8 percent pay increase on
January 1, 1998)?
Answer. Using an average salary method, the Board estimates that a
reduction from the current staffing level of approximately 24 FTE's
would be required for the Board to meet the President's funding
allocation.
Question. In meetings with Appropriations Committee staff, Board
officials have asserted that a funding level of $14,300,000 would
result in a cut of 24 FTE's. However, the President's budget avers that
this funding level would result in the elimination of only 2 FTE's; and
that these positions would no longer be required because of the
completion of the one-time workload imposed by the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act, and productivity improvements. There is a
marked difference between the Administration's and the Board's
correlation of funding levels to staffing levels. Please explain this
disconnect in detail.
Answer. There are three fundamental differences in assumptions
between the President's budget proposal and the Board's budget request
that contribute to the disparity between the two.
--The President's budget assumes that the Board funded the 1997
relocation to new office space. In fact, the General Services
Administration (GSA) funded the relocation due to the fact that
it was a forced move associated with the closing and renovation
of the old ICC building. Therefore, the assumption that one-
time funds associated with the Board's move can be eliminated
from the Board's fiscal year 1998 budget request is unfounded:
elimination of such an amount from the Board's fiscal year 1998
budget would mean that more FTE's than estimated by the
Administration would need to be eliminated.
--The President's budget proposal assumes a reduction in rent costs
due to the Board's relocation to new office space, and the
repricing of the space based on GSA's anticipated rental rates.
The Board, as of yet, has not received a final rent bill for
the new office space. GSA has indicated that the Board would
pay approximately $26 per square foot of office space. However,
the build-out and relocation costs incurred by GSA will be
amortized over the term of the lease that GSA has negotiated
for the Board and included in the rent bill. Thus, the reduced
rental costs assumed in the President's budget proposal cannot
be justified by any documentation that the Board has received
from GSA: an underestimation of rent puts at risk the FTE level
needed and requested by the Board.
--Even assuming that the President's budget only would result in the
reduction of 2 FTE's, this reduction is based on an unfounded
assumption that these 2 FTE's are no longer needed because they
were originally dedicated to handle one-time workload
associated with the ICCTA. While many rulemakings have been
completed in accordance with the ICCTA, other rulemaking
activity pursuant to the ICCTA continues as the Board further
rescinds unnecessary and obsolete regulations, streamlines the
decisional process, and explores new ways to analyze and
resolve complex problems presented to it. In addition, as staff
complete tasks associated with implementation of the ICCTA,
they are shifted to case work: if the current staffing level is
reduced, the Board will find it more difficult to meet case
deadlines and to resolve matters before it expeditiously in
accordance with Congressional intent.
other services costs
Question. Please explain the dramatic increase in the fiscal year
1998 requested funding for ``purchases of goods from government
accounts'' ($327,000 in fiscal year 1997; $871,000 requested for fiscal
year 1998).
Answer. The increase in the fiscal year 1998 requested funding for
``purchases of goods from government accounts'' is primarily
attributable to the anticipated need for VOLPE's facility management of
the Board's software systems and computer database network. A smaller
amount of the increase reflects additional funds for employee training.
rent & utilities costs
Question. Please explain the increase in the fiscal year 1998
requested funding for ``communications, utilities, miscellaneous
charges'' ($211,000 in fiscal year 1997; $352,000 in fiscal year 1998).
Answer. The increase in the fiscal year 1998 requested funding for
``communications, utilities, miscellaneous charges'' is due to an
increase in local telephone costs associated with Bell Atlantic service
at the Board's new location and to the replenishment of the Board's
postage meters. The Board's postage meters had preexisting fund
balances when transferred from the ICC, pursuant to the ICCTA, and
covered the needs of the Board in fiscal year 1997.
Question. Please compare rental costs at the Board's 1925 K Street,
N. W. office site to the old Interstate Commerce Commission building.
What is the difference in total annual rent? What is the cost per
square foot and total square footage utilized by the Board at each
site? How long does the Board intend to stay at its site?
Answer. The Board's relocation was directed and funded by GSA
because of the impending closure and renovation of the old ICC building
at 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW. The rental rate at the old ICC
building is estimated at $32.59 per net usable square foot for office
space. The Board's assigned space totaled 64,658 square feet as of
December 15, 1996.
The Board has not received a rent bill for the new office space at
1925 K Street, NW. The Board has included $1,806,000 for rental
payments in the fiscal year 1998 Budget Request. GSA has indicated that
the Board would pay approximately $26 per square foot of office space.
However, the build-out and relocation costs incurred by GSA would be
amortized over the term of the lease that GSA has negotiated for the
Board. While the total assigned square feet of office space to be
subject to rental payments has yet to be finally determined by GSA, the
Board occupies less office space at the new location than in the old
ICC building.
The original lease was for five years; however GSA exercised a five
year option and the current term is now ten years.
Question. Under what object classification line item are costs of
publication in the Federal Register included? What were the fiscal year
1996 and 1997 costs of Federal Register publications of official
decisions and other matters? What costs are anticipated for fiscal year
1998? What is the estimated annualized cost for the Board of Federal
Register printing, taking into account the January 1997 price increase
per column?
Answer. The object classification line item which includes the
Board's publications in the Federal Register is 26.00, Supplies and
Materials. The fiscal year 1996 cost for publication in the Federal
Register was $104,700. The fiscal year 1997 and 1998 budget allocations
are $82,500 and $90,750, respectively. However, as of March 1, 1997,
the Board obligated $64,630 for publications costs, and the new
estimated annualized cost for Federal Register publishing for fiscal
year 1997 is $113,000, due to the January 1997 price increase per
column and the number of documents necessitated by the ICCTA and
required to be published in the Federal Register.
travel
Question. The Board has requested $38,000 for travel in fiscal year
1998. Generally, what sort of travel is required for Board members and
employees? What were travel costs in fiscal year 1996 and 1997?
Answer. Travel resources provide for Board representation upon
request at meetings and conferences with shippers, carriers, employees,
States and localities, and other parties interested in the activities
of the Board. Court appearances throughout the country by Board
employees are required to defend Board decisions and present the
Board's views on issues within its jurisdiction. Travel funds are also
required for activities associated with personnel complaints, visits to
railroads to review public accountants' workpapers, and physical
inspection of rail abandonment and construction sites by environmental
staff. Travel funds allocated for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997
were $35,333 and $36,000 respectively.
omb passback vs. board's request
Question. Please provide a table contrasting the Board's proposed
fiscal year 1998 budget request and the OMB Passback, by office.
Answer. The Board's Budget was developed by object classification
rather than individual offices. The side-by-side comparison table
follows.
[By fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Title Board's 1998 1998 budget
budget request request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel compensation.................. $10,383,900 \1\ $9,067,800
Personnel benefits...................... 1,625,400 \1\ 1,448,500
Payments to former personnel............ 20,000 20,000
Transportation of personnel............. 38,000 38,000
Transportation of things................ 8,000 8,000
Rent.................................... 1,806,000 1,806,000
Communications and utilities............ 352,000 352,000
Printing................................ 33,000 33,000
Contractual services.................... 1,254,700 \1\ 1,194,700
Supplies................................ 272,000 272,000
Equipment............................... 60,000 60,000
-------------------------------
Total request..................... 15,853,000 14,300,000
===============================
Appropriation........................... 12,753,000 ..............
Offsetting collections.................. 3,100,000 14,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table reflects that reductions in personnel and training would
be necessary to meet the President's funding level. The other expenses
to be incurred by the Board are not discretionary and thus cannot be
reduced in order to meet the President's level.
authorization issues
Question. The Board's current authorization is in the Interstate
Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. When does the
authorization expire? Who are the House and Senate authorizing
committees?
Answer. Pursuant to Section 705 of the ICCTA, the Board has a 3-
year authorization through fiscal year 1998. The Senate and House
authorizing committees are the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Question. Please discuss the Senate Commerce Committee's proposal
to merge the Surface Transportation Board with the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Answer. S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997, proposes to
transfer the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) functions to the Board
and renames the Board the Intermodal Transportation Board (ITB)
effective January 1, 1999. Two members would be added to create a five-
member ITB. The FMC would be authorized at $15.0 million for fiscal
year 1998. The Board is already authorized for fiscal year 1998. The
Board/ITB authorization for fiscal year 1999 and beyond is not
addressed in S. 414.
relationship with department of transportation
Question. Please describe the Board's relationship with the
Department of Transportation. Does the Secretary have any input into
the Board's budget request or operations?
Answer. The Board is a decisionally independent body
organizationally housed within DOT. The Board's decisional independence
is explicitly expressed in the ICCTA. However, DOT is apprised of
rulemakings and adjudications as they are served or published and may
appear before the Board as a party in the Board's regulatory activities
and decisions, just as DOT appeared before the ICC as a party. Any role
or input that DOT may have in a Board's regulatory activity or
decision, like any other party, is carried out through a filing of
public record. Administrative functions such as accounting,
procurement, warehousing, equipment inventory, and personnel security
are performed by DOT staff, and the Board reimburses DOT for the cost
of those services.
The ICCTA provides the authority for the Board to develop and
submit budget estimates, requests for information, and legislative
recommendations and testimony directly to Congress at the same time
they are sent to the Secretary of Transportation. The ICCTA allows for
the review and assessment of the budgetary needs of the Board by the
Secretary in each annual request for appropriation by the President.
administration of severance pay benefits for rail employees
Question. What are the Board's statutory responsibilities in regard
to the administration of severance pay benefits for rail employees?
Answer. The Board's responsibilities in this area derive from the
statutory provision at 49 U.S.C. 11326 governing employee protective
arrangements in transactions involving rail carriers. Subsection (a) of
section 11326 embodies the pre-ICCTA provision at 49 U.S.C. 11347,
which mandates labor protective conditions for employees affected by
Board-approved railroad consolidations, mergers, or acquisitions of
control. The Board has similar responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 10901
to protect employees adversely affected by Board-approved railroad
abandonments and discontinuances.
The Board meets these responsibilities by imposing conditions upon
transactions it approves that require protection at or above the level
mandated by statute. For most types of transactions, standard
conditions have evolved and are routinely imposed. For example, in
railroad mergers, the Board imposes the conditions set out in New York
Dock Ry.--Control--Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60, aff'd sub
nom. New York Dock Ry. v. U.S., 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979). For
railroad leases and trackage rights, respectively, the Board imposes
conditions set out in Mendocino Coast. Rwy., Inc.--Lease and Operate,
354 I.C.C. 732 (1978), and Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage
Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), both as modified in Mendocino Coast
Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), and both aff'd sub
nom. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n v. U.S., 675 F.2d 1248 (D.C. Cir.
1982). In abandonments and discontinuances, the Board imposes
conditions set out in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen,
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
These conditions provide for severance pay benefits for adversely
affected railroad employees under certain conditions. These benefits
normally take the form of dismissal allowances or separation
allowances. A dismissed employee may elect a separation allowance in
lieu of other protective benefits and accept a lump sum payment that is
computed in accordance with section 9 of the Washington Job Protection
Agreement of May 1936.
As a general matter, the Board does not administer the process by
which severance or other protective payments are made because the
conditions are self-executing. The Board may, however, from time to
time, be called upon to ensure that parties, in implementing a
transaction and the applicable protective conditions, have not
abrogated employees rights provided by the protective conditions (see
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz, 404 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) and Rilling
v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 31 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 1994)), or to
resolve disputes, most often in the context of a request that the Board
review a decision of an arbitrator who has issued a ruling as provided
for where disputes arise in the implementation of Board-imposed
conditions.
The ICCTA added a new statutory provision at subsection (b) of
section 11326, which limits the labor protection mandated by subsection
(a) of that section to one year of severance pay in consolidations,
mergers, or acquisition of control transactions involving a Class II
and one or more Class III rail carriers. Similar language limiting
labor protection to one year's severance pay for line purchases by
Class II carriers is included in 49 U.S.C. 10902 (also a new
provision), which governs short line purchases by Class II and Class
III rail carriers. See 49 U.S.C. 10902(d). Also under the ICCTA, the
Board may not require labor protection in consolidations, mergers, or
acquisition of control transactions that involve only Class III
carriers (see 49 U.S.C. 11326(c)), in transactions involving line
purchases by Class III carriers (see 49 U.S.C. 10902(c) and (d)), or in
transactions involving line purchases by noncarriers (see 49 U.S.C.
10901(c)).
In Wisconsin Central Ltd.--Acquisition Exemption--Lines of Union
Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No. 33116 (STB served Nov.
27, 1996), which involved a proposed line purchase by a Class II
railroad, the Board sought public comments on whether it should
establish and oversee procedures and standards for employee protective
arrangements in that type of transaction. The Board found that it had
authority to oversee implementation of approved or exempted
transactions and the labor protection mandated by the new statutory
provisions.
Question. What severance pay administration responsibilities, if
any, does the Board have in relation to layoffs associated with
termination of Amtrak lines?
Answer. The Board has no such responsibilities.
rulemakings
Question. Please list all unnecessary and obsolete rulemakings that
have been rescinded by the Surface Transportation Board since January
1996.
Answer. The following table list rulemakings that have been
rescinded by the Board.
obsolete proceedings terminated
Rail:
--State Intrastate Rail Rate Auth'y Pub. L. No. 96-448, Ex Parte No.
388 (Apr. 3, 1996).
--Cost Ratio for Recyclables--1994 Determination, Ex Parte No. 394
(Sub-No. 13) (Mar. 29, 1996).
Motor:
--Revision of Tariff Regs.--Indexes, Ex Parte No. MC-211 (Mar. 8,
1996).
--Policy Statement on the Transp. Industry Regulatory Reform Act of
1994, Ex Parte No. MC-222 (Apr. 3, 1996).
--Policy Statement on Motor Contract Requirements Under the
Negotiated Rates Act of 1993, Ex Parte No. MC-198 (Sub-No. 1)
(May 3, 1996).
--Review of Motor Tariff Regs.--1993, Ex Parte No. MC-212 (May 3,
1996).
superseded proposals withdrawn
Rail:
--Uniform System of Records of Property Changes for Railroad
Companies, Ex Parte No. 512 (Mar. 7, 1996).
--Abandonment Proceedings: Elimination of the Revenue and Cost Data
for All Years Prior to the Base Year Period, Ex Parte No. 274
(Sub-No. 26) (Mar. 15, 1996).
--New Procedures in Rail Exemption Revocation Proceedings, Ex Parte
No. 400 (Sub-No. 4) (Mar. 22, 1996).
--Rail Gen. Exemption Auth'y--Exemption of Nonferrous Recyclables and
Railroad Rates on Recyclable Commodities, Ex Parte No. 346
(Sub-No. 36) (May 5, 1997).
obsolete regulations removed:
Multimodal:
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Filing Quotations for Gov't
Shipments, 1 S.T.B. 39 (May 16, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 547)
(removing 49 CFR 1330).
Rail:
--Removal of Obsolete Rail Tariff Regs., 1 S.T.B. 4 (Feb. 28, 1996)
(STB Ex Parte No. 530) (removing 49 CFR 1314).
--Removal of Obsolete Recyclables Regs., 1 S.T.B. 7 (Feb. 28, 1996)
(STB Ex Parte No. 531) (removing 49 CFR 1134, 1135.1, 1145).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. for Reasonably Expected Costs and Joint
Rates Subject to Surcharge or Cancellation, 1 S.T.B. 10 (Feb.
28, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 532) (removing 49 CFR 1138, 1140 &
1039.18).
--Removal of Obsolete Passenger Train or Ferry Discontinuance Regs.,
1 S.T.B. 14 (Feb. 28, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 534) (removing 49
CFR 1153).
--Removal of Obsolete Securities Regs., 1 S.T.B. 17 (Feb. 28, 1996)
(STB Ex Parte No. 535) (removing 49 CFR 1175).
--Removal of Obsolete Valuation Regs., 1 S.T.B. 20 (Mar. 7, 1996)
(STB Ex Parte No. 539) (removing 49 CFR 1262).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. for Determination of Avoidable Losses
under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, 1 S.T.B. 23 (Apr.
11, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 540) (removing 49 CFR 1154).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Railroad Contracts, 1 S.T.B.
71 (June 7, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 550) (removing 49 CFR
1039.23).
Motor:
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. for Discontinuance of Bus Transp. in One
State, 1 S.T.B. 26 (Apr. 22, 1996) (STB Ex Parte No. 544)
(removing 49 CFR 1169).
--Regulations Implementing Section 7 of the Negotiated Rates Act of
1993, 1 S.T.B. 29 (May 3, 1996), pets. to reopen denied, Ex
Parte No. MC-180 (Sub-No. 3) (Mar. 12, 1997) (removing 49 CFR
1053).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Owner-Operators, 1 S.T.B. 33
(May 10, 1996) (removing 49 CFR 1164 & 1311).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Exemption of Motor Carrier of
Property Finance Transactions, STB Ex Parte No. 553 (Feb. 4,
1997) (removing 49 CFR 1186).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Expedited Complaint Procedures
Against Bus Carrier Rates, STB Ex Parte No. 621 (Feb. 4, 1997)
(removing 49 CFR 1142).
Water:
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Water Carriers, STB Ex Parte
No. 557 (Oct. 17, 1996) (removing 49 CFR 1070 & 1071).
--Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Extension of Operations by
Water Carriers, STB Ex Parte No. 620 (Jan. 30, 1997) (removing
49 CFR 1166).
alameda rail corridor
Question. In June 1996, the Board approved the construction of the
Alameda Rail Corridor in California. What are the Board's adjudicative
responsibilities as they apply to new rail corridor construction?
Please briefly and generally describe the approval process, and outline
the factors considered in deciding whether to approve such
construction.
Answer. Under 49 U.S.C. 10901, a person may construct an additional
railroad line or an extension to any of its railroad lines only if the
Board issues a certificate authorizing the construction. A proceeding
before the Board commences when a person files an application for
construction authority. On receiving the application, the Board
publishes notice of it in the Federal Register and affords members of
the public the opportunity to comment on it. Following consideration of
the application and the comments, the Board must grant the sought
authority and issue a certificate unless it finds that the construction
is inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.\10\ Under
the law, the Board may approve the application as filed or with
modifications, and may require compliance with conditions (other than
labor protection conditions) that it finds necessary in the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The law that existed prior to the passage of the ICCTA, and
which governed processing of the Alameda Rail Corridor proceeding,
differed slightly from the law in effect now. The old law permitted
construction only if the agency found that the present or future public
convenience and necessity required or permitted it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute does not define ``public convenience and necessity,''
but the agency and its predecessor have developed and applied certain
criteria for evaluating whether a proposed construction project is
permissible. Principally, the Board asks: (1) whether the applicant is
financially fit to undertake the construction and provide services; (2)
whether there is a public demand or need for the proposed services; and
(3) whether the construction project will be in the public interest and
not unduly harm existing services. In deciding railroad construction
applications under the statute, the agency and its predecessor have
applied Section 10901 in light of the Rail Transportation Policy (RTP)
now set out at 49 U.S.C. 10101. The agency considers the RTP to be a
statement of the public interest that it uses as a guideline in
determining whether the construction of a new rail line is consistent
with the public convenience and necessity. Finally, the agency also
considers environmental and energy impacts in deciding whether to
approve construction.
While Board approval for construction of the Alameda Corridor was
sought and obtained through an application filed under 49 U.S.C. 10901,
Board authorization for construction can alternatively be pursued
through the Board's exemption powers found at 49 U.S.C. 10502. Under
that provision, the Board must exempt rail construction if
consideration of an application is not necessary to carry out the RTP
and either the proposed construction is limited in scope or
consideration of an application is not necessary to protect shippers
from an abuse of market power. Even if an exemption is appropriate,
however, the environmental impacts of the construction must be
considered.
Question. Specifically, in the Board's review of the Alameda Rail
Corridor construction application, what were the determining factors
for a favorable decision?
Answer. In reviewing the Alameda Rail Corridor construction
application, the Board found numerous factors warranting a favorable
decision. First, as there was broad-based financial support for the
construction, and the applicants (the cities of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, CA) projected greatly increased tonnage that would generate
revenues and associated economic benefits, the project was deemed
feasible and financially viable. Next, it found that, as applicants
anticipated a substantial growth in port-related train movements over
rail lines serving the port area, there was a clear public need for the
proposed project and service. The agency further found that the
proposed consolidation of rail traffic of three rail carriers onto a
single, high-density rail system would divert from the railroads'
separate lines port-related traffic that traversed residential areas.
Next, as applicants projected an increase in the percentage of their
traffic that would move in intermodal cargo containers and a
concomitant reduction in the truck transportation of containers from
ships to rail transfer facilities, the Board concluded that
inefficiencies and traffic congestion would be reduced. The Board also
found that the project would not result in harm to existing carriers.
To the contrary, it was noted that the three major rail carriers
serving the port area had reached agreements with applicants and were
willing participants in the project. The Board further noted that the
project was pro-competitive, as each involved railroad would continue
to serve non-port-related shippers over its own rail lines, and each
would be solely responsible for any improvement to its existing rail
lines that might be required to carry out that railroad's common
carrier obligations.
The Board found that approval of the construction application would
significantly advance specific goals of the RTP. It found that the
proposal would contribute to a sound transportation system, meet the
public need, and promote effective competition and coordination among
rail, motor, and ocean carriers. Finally, the Board concluded that,
subject to specified environmental ``mitigating measures,'' a grant of
a certificate was warranted and that its action would not significantly
affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation
of energy resources.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies for
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the
fiscal year 1998 budget request.
The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses,
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for
nondepartmental witnesses.
Aviation-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc.
introduction
The Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (``ATCA'') is a
professional association of forty-years standing dedicated to
advancement in the science and profession of air traffic control and
aviation safety. Its membership is worldwide in scope and represents
all aspects of the air traffic control discipline, from air traffic
control specialists and airway facilities technicians who operate and
maintain the air traffic control system, to those individuals and
companies who develop and manufacture the technology, equipment, and
services which support the system, to the citizens, government
agencies, and airlines who use the system.
Because of rapid growth in the volume and complexity of air
traffic, and the availability of new technologies to meet that growth,
ATCA urges the Congress to make increased funding for activities and
projects of the Federal Aviation Administration in fiscal year 1998 a
National priority.
the challenge
Between 1995 and 1996, US domestic air traffic increased over 5
percent. US air carrier traffic increased over 4 percent worldwide, up
nearly 7 percent on routes to Latin America and the Pacific. This trend
is expected to continue. Over the next twelve years, US air traffic
activity is anticipated to increase at an annual rate of 1.5 percent or
more per year. Worldwide traffic is expected to increase 5 percent per
year. These large increases in air traffic will mean proportional
increases in accidents and fatalities, unless improvements in aviation
safety continue apace. Achieving increased safety in air transportation
will require substantial investments, both in aviation infrastructure
and technology.
Rapidly increasing air traffic also is resulting in congestion in
all phases of air transportation--choking congestion in many terminal
airspace areas and airports. Air transportation--both for commercial
and business purposes and for recreation and tourism--is a significant
driver of the Nation's economy, and can be a limiting factor on
economic growth if capacity is inadequate to meet demand. Therefore,
substantial and continuous expansion of air transportation capability
is an absolute necessity, in addition to maintaining an acceptable
level of aviation safety.
Despite the clear need for expanding and improving the Nation's air
transportation capability, the National Airspace System gradually is
being permitted to deteriorate. Delayed infusion of new or replacement
equipment, deferred maintenance, resource deprivation, and personnel
reductions have exhausted all reserves of flexibility and unexploited
operating potential in the system.
In testimony last year at this time, the Association described for
the Congress an air traffic control system which by all indicators is
under considerable strain. Nothing has changed. Older equipment
continues to break down and is more and more time consuming and
difficult to repair. Reductions in force (FAA has experienced the
unfortunate distinction of being a leader within the Federal Government
in ``downsizing'' activities) are creating personnel shortages which
delay or eliminate important safety and capacity-enhancing activities--
training, new procedures, research, engineering and development.
Acknowledging the value of reducing fat in federal government
activities, a ``leaner and meaner'' FAA will not result from cutting
into muscle and bone. Rather, the organization must be invigorated and
sustained with resources--both financial and human--suffcient to fuel
not only continued safe operation of a patched-up, antiquated National
Airspace System, but adequate to replenish and improve infrastructure
so as to keep pace with expanding global aviation demands.
assuring adequate funding
The Administration requests $5.386 billion for FAA Operations in
fiscal year 1998, an 8.7 percent increase over the fiscal year 1997
enacted level. This amount would fund an additional 500 controllers,
326 additional flight standards inspectors, and 25 new field
maintenance technicians. It also would provide $47 million to bring
operational new safety and capacity equipment.
It's not enough. The proposed increase is approximately offset by
non-discretionary increases associated with mandatory pay adjustments
and inflationary growth in costs, rendering the proposal merely a
current services budget. Virtually no additional funds would be
available for personnel and other costs of eliminating backlogs of
deferred maintenance, training on new equipment and procedures,
accelerated development of innovative operating concepts and
procedures, intensified international standardization and harmonization
efforts, and other important activities that enhance aviation safety
and efficiency. FAA's Operations account must be funded significantly
above the amount the Administration requests for fiscal year 1998 if
FAA is to meet aviation challenges of the 21st century.
The Administration requests $1.875 billion in fiscal year 1998 for
FAA Facilities and Equipment, a 3 percent decrease from the fiscal year
1997 enacted level. Again, it's simply not enough.
Although FAA controllers today provide safe ATC services to the
world's largest aviation marketplace, they do this using proven but
antiquated equipment improved by a patchwork of temporary fixes and
upgrades designed to enhance system reliability and capacity while
modernized equipment is being developed and fielded. Although
dedicated, creative airway facilities personnel keep the system
operating remarkably well, equipment continues to deteriorate, wiring
becomes more brittle, spare parts are increasingly difficult to obtain,
and repairs are more difficult and time consuming. Meanwhile the volume
and complexity of air traffic is increasing exponentially. Major
infrastructure investment is an absolute necessity, and it must be made
now.
Concern also is intensifying over potential security threats to
aviation, including the threat of attack on the air traffic control
system. Significant new resources will have to be made available to
protect against these threats--resources which cannot come from funding
allocated for air traffic control modernization or aviation safety
improvements.
Other news however is very good. FAA has programs and projects well
underway to replace legacy air traffic control systems with modernized
equipment which not only is more reliable, but also is capable of
enhancing capacity and permitting more flexible operating procedures.
For example, modernized communications for en route ATC facilities
(Voice Switching and Control System) already is being fielded. New air
traffic controller work stations (Display System Replacement) will
begin to appear in 1998. ATC terminal automation (Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System) is on a fast track to begin
implementation in 1998.
These new systems will accommodate useful automation tools
(Decision Support Systems) that will help air traffic controllers align
and sequence aircraft in ways that increase safety and expedite the
flow of air traffic. For example the Converging Runway Display Aid/
Controller's Automated Sequencing Aid projects the ``ghost'' of one
aircraft onto the displayed flight path of another, helping the
controller visualize the distance between two aircraft and thereby
establish safe spacing between them, even though they are approaching
to land on diverging runways. Another new tool is the Center/TRACON
(Terminal Radar Approach Control) Automation System, computer software
that provides the controller optimal aircraft arrival and departure
sequences. A third tool is the Surface Movement Advisor, a much needed
safety system which aids controllers in separating aircraft on the
airport surface.
Between departure and arrival, Traffic Flow Management will be
enhanced with Automated En Route Air Traffic software under development
that will probe the ATC system for potential conflicts between the
routes of aircraft, alert the controller, and suggest to the controller
a safe maneuver to resolve the potential conflict. Like tools used by
terminal controllers, AERA will foster more efficient use of airspace,
allowing en route controllers to reduce unnecessarily large buffers of
airspace between aircraft without degrading safety.
Technological advances such as these potentially will allow safe
transition to ``Free Flight,'' a new concept in air traffic operations
permitting aircraft operators to select their route and speed of
flight, with air traffic control intervening only to ensure safety.
Aircraft will be taking advantage of the entire volume of airspace
rather that just fixed corridors, and it is hoped therefore that Free
Flight will increase airspace capacity.
Also well underway is the application of satellite technology to
air traffic control. Enhanced by the Wide Area Augmentation System,
planned for initial implementation in 1998, and by Local Area
Augmentation Systems the Global Positioning System will permit aircraft
to determine their own position to within ten meters. This information
will increase the flexibility of aircraft operators to land at airports
without ground based landing aids. Through the concept of Automatic
Dependent Surveillance, aircraft can provide position information to
air traffic control, allowing ATC to compile a depiction of air traffic
even in places where radar is unavailable such as over the oceans.
Future systems will allow this location information to be broadcast,
giving appropriately equipped aircraft a Cockpit Display of Air Traffic
Information. Widespread aircraft equipage and use of ADS and ADS-B
(Broadcast) will allow ATC safely to reduce separation between
aircraft, thereby increasing airspace capacity. It also will reduce
costs by eliminating the need for many ground based navigation aids and
sensors.
All of these essential technological improvements are on the
horizon, promising substantial and long term operating benefits for
users and economies for the Federal Government. Controllers, airway
facility maintenance technicians, and aircraft operators eagerly await
these needed new technologies and systems. The Vice President's
Commission on Airline Safety and Security (the ``Gore Commission'') has
endorsed accelerated application of satellite technology to air traffic
control. Now simply is not the time to pinch pennies on ATC
infrastructure improvements.
ATC modernization is well underway, and will be a continuing
process. As air traffic increases and technology advances, new concepts
and improved systems will become available to make air traffic control
more safe, productive, and efficient. As in other enterprises, wise and
systematic investment will continue to make good economic sense. The
Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal is below that
[required to maintain momentum and prevent funding shortfalls from
becoming a limiting factor in the progress of needed and promising
modernization initiatives. Inadequate investment today will translate
directly into deferred operating benefits and lost economies. To
maintain the momentum of needed ATC modernization and to pursue the
objective of accelerated application of satellite technology to air
traffic control, ATCA urges Congress to appropriate $1.969 billion, 5
percent more than the Administration's request, for FAA Facilities and
Equipment in fiscal year 1998.
The Administration proposes $200 million in fiscal year 1998 for
FAA Research, Engineering and Development, a decrease of 4 percent from
the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. In view of the aviation challenges
ahead and the great benefits to be derived from investments in aviation
research, ATCA urges Congress to increase the amount appropriated for
FAA RE&D to $250 million in fiscal year 1998.
Aviation research plays a critical role in advancing aviation
safety and efficiency.. Not only must FAA continue a high level of
research directed toward aircraft safety and security. The increasing
level and complexity of air traffic, and the emergence of operating
concepts such as ``Free Flight'' are opening new areas for safety-
critical and capacity-enhancing research. Aviation human factors
including human-machine interaction, high levels of automation, wake
vortex and hazardous weather detection and dissemination, advanced
traffic flow management, improvements in communications technologies
and data link, applications of information technology to ATC, modeling
and simulation, satellite technology in ATC, and cockpit collision
avoidance are new and expanding avenues of research which can yield
significant safety and economic benefits. Work in many of these areas,
especially advanced air traffic management and developments in ATC
communications, navigation and surveillance directed toward enabling
``Free Flight'', could be accelerated with additional funding. As in
the case of ATC modernization, prudent and systematic investment in
aviation research and development makes good sense.
The Administration proposes a one-third drop in funding for Airport
Grants-in-Aid, from $1.46 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $1 billion in
fiscal year 1998. Again, the funding proposed simply is not enough.
ATCA urges Congress to enact funding of at least $1.5 billion for
Airport Grants in fiscal year 1998.
The complexity and volume of traffic through the nation's airports
increases daily. Regardless of how safe and efficient the air portion
of the journey is, congestion and delay before take-off or after touch-
down can make the difference between a peasant, timely trip and a
harried, unsatisfactory ordeal. Although the ability of airports to
assess a limited passenger facility charge provides some measure of
relief, localities especially small communities are hard pressed to pay
for the airport improvements needed to keep pace with an expanding
aviation marketplace. Continued prudent investment in airport
infrastructure remains an essential component of a balanced plan to
meet aviation demands of the 21st Century.
reliable funding stream needed
During the coming year, aviation policy makers in partnership with
the aviation community will conduct comprehensive discussions directed
toward devising a mechanism that will assure adequate and reliable
funding for aviation safety and air traffic control activities of the
Federal Government. ATCA looks forward with other members of the
aviation community to these deliberations.
Regardless of the outcome, the ultimate reality is that greater
levels of resources--both dollars and people--must be applied to the
air traffic control system now, today, if FAA is going to be able to
meet the demands of increasing air traffic while continuing to provide
the same safe and reliable ATC and aviation safety services the
traveling public enjoys and has come to expect, and which have fueled
the national economy since the inception of Federal air traffic control
in 1936.
conclusion
The potential for rapid advance of ATC-related technology and the
emergency of new concepts for air traffic management give cause for
optimism about the future of air transportation, and provide
opportunities for the United States to forge ahead in its position as
world leader in aviation and air traffic control. The Air Traffic
Control Association urges Congress to join hands with FAA and the
aviation community in a partnership for progress, enacting funding
levels for FAA in fiscal year 1998 which are not merely adequate, but
which foster excellence into the 21st Century.
______
Prepared Statement of Wellington Webb, Mayor, City and County of Denver
On behalf of the City and County of Denver, I am proud to say that
Denver International Airport successfully completed its second full
year of operations on February 28, 1997.
I want to thank Congress, and particularly this Subcommittee, for
providing the funding that enabled the FAA to provide AIP grants and
equipment and facilities for this nationally important project. DIA is
the first major airport built in the United States in over 20 years. It
is a critical component of our national transportation infrastructure
and its successful completion simply would not have happened without
the close cooperation of the City, the FAA, the DOT and Congress. To
those of you who have not yet seen DIA, I would like to extend an
invitation to visit the airport and would like to give you a personal
tour of its state-of-the-art facilities, which are serving as a model
for other cities that are building new airports all over the world.
There are three main reasons why DIA was built.
One was to provide a more efficient, cost-effective and user-
friendly facility for the citizens of the City of Denver, the State of
Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region, and the millions of visitors
who are so important to the region's economy.
The second, closely tied to the first, was to provide a more cost-
effective and efficient hub by reducing or even eliminating the delays
that were keeping Denver from taking maximum advantage of its central
geographical location and were impacting the nation's air
transportation system.
Third, Stapleton was the source of serious noise problems that
required a resolution. It was located only seven miles from downtown
Denver and was surrounded on three sides by residential communities.
About 14,000 people lived within the 65 LDN contour--the noise level
which the FAA has determined is unsuitable for homes.
Against the background of these three objectives, I can report to
you that DIA has met or exceeded our goals in every respect. The
Airport's revenues have exceeded its expenses; it is highly efficient
and has the least delays of any of the nation's 20 busiest airports and
the second highest percentage of on-time arrivals; and we have slashed
the number of people impacted by noise from about 14,000 to about 500.
By virtue of this performance, DIA has made a major contribution to
the efficiency of the carriers operating at the Airport and, according
to the FAA, to the national system through reduced flight delays. What
seems to remain, however, are some cobwebs of myth and echoes of the
past which I would like to take the opportunity to dispel.
Let me now turn to more specifics about the results of DIA's first
two years of operation.
a. dia's first two years of operations have been very successful
1. DIA Is Financially Sound.
DIA's record of performance confirms that the Airport is managed
properly and is financially very viable. For our second full year of
operations, we project that our net revenues, i.e., revenues less
operating expenses and debt payments, will more than $30 million, an
increase of 50 percent over the prior year. Under our agreement with
the airlines, 80 percent of these net revenues are provided to the
carriers, which reduces their costs at DIA. We are achieving these
highly favorable financial results despite the fact that Continental
Airlines eliminated its Denver hub operations for reasons, I might add,
unrelated to the fact that DIA was built. To put Continental's
withdrawal into perspective, in 1993, only four years ago, Continental
and Continental Express had over 250 flights per day at Stapleton and
accounted for about 35 percent of the passengers. Today, Continental
accounts for only about a dozen flights per day and less than three
percent of DIA's passengers. While some airports would have suffered
tremendously from such a downsizing by a major airline tenant, Denver
bounced back extremely well. The gap was substantially filled by our
other airlines, almost all of which have reported increases in
passengers compared to their passenger levels at Stapleton. As a
result, traffic for 1996 was up to about 32.3 million (or four percent
over 1995). This solid traffic level is evidence of Denver's strong
origin and destination market and also its central geographic location
for east-west hubbing operations.
We also carefully managed our other sources of revenue, such as
concessions and parking, and our costs, particularly through successful
refinancing of our debt obligations. As a result of the strong revenue
performance and the Airport's ability to control operating costs, our
bonds were upgraded to investment grade by Standard & Poor's to BBB and
are presently rated at Baa by Moody's. The marketability of our bonds,
tested by our refinancing, reflects the Airport's overall financial
strength and the public's support for DIA. As you also know, the GAO
issued a report confirming that DIA is financially sound and, despite
all the allegations about problems at DIA, the Airport has uniformly
received a clean bill of health.
I would also like to address questions that have arisen concerning
the cost to build DIA. The total cost was $4.9 billion, which includes
FAA and airline costs. This has to be considered in the context of
other airport projects. As shown in Attachment 1, the cost for this new
airport is low by comparison with other new airports worldwide and
other airport projects here in the United States, such as the $4
billion projects at JFK International and Miami International.
As we enter our third year of operations, we expect our record of
financial success to continue and believe that DIA will continue to be
one of the world's most efficient airports.
2. DIA Has Substantially Reduced Delays.
Our second major goal was to reduce delays. The latest results for
1996 show DIA to be the least delayed of the nation's 20 busiest
airports. Specifically, we had 1.9 delays per thousand operations, half
the amount of the airport ranked number two. We also enjoyed the second
highest percentage of on-time arrivals for 1996 among the top 20 U.S.
airports. In contrast, at Stapleton, we suffered 14 delays per thousand
operations, one of the worst records in the United States. Stapleton, a
major connecting airport for travelers flying between the eastern and
western parts of the country, was a terrible bottleneck during bad
weather. While Stapleton could handle 88 air carrier jet arrivals per
hour on two runways in good weather, it would be down to only one
runway and barely 32 arrivals per hour in a storm, resulting in
tremendous backups throughout our national aviation system. That was
one of the major reasons for then-Secretary of Transportation Skinner's
strong support which was the impetus that allowed DIA to be built.
Since DIA opened, its benefits to the national air transportation
system have been dramatic. In fact, on the day we opened, Denver was
hit by a snowstorm that would have left Stapleton with only one
operating air carrier jet runway and only 32 operations per hour.
Despite the bad weather, DIA had three runways operating at the same
time and the capacity to handle up to 120 flights per hour. As a
result, the FAA has credited DIA for contributing to a nationwide
reduction of 11 percent in flight delays due to bad weather.
3. DIA Has Substantially Reduced Airport Noise Impacts.
Our third major goal was to reduce the tremendous impact of
aircraft noise on the people of our communities. As previously
mentioned, Stapleton was located only seven miles from downtown Denver
and had about 14,000 people living within the 65 LDN contour, a noise
impacted area which the FAA has determined to be unsuitable for homes.
To solve this serious problem, DIA was built 23 miles from downtown
Denver on a 53-square-mile site. The location and size of the site were
chosen specifically to minimize noise problems as far as possible. The
result was to reduce almost to the point of elimination the number of
individuals within the 65 LDN contour from 14,000 at Stapleton to only
about 500 at DIA.
Although this is a dramatic reduction, DIA, like every major
airport in the nation, still receives noise complaints, in some cases
from individuals as far as 50 miles away where the noise impact is
significantly below 65 LDN. The noise levels for many of these
individuals, while no doubt bothersome to them, are not within the
FAA's established criteria, so that there are no Federal resources
available for mitigation purposes. However, we are taking these
community concerns very seriously.
Under our Intergovernmental Agreement with Adams County, noise
limits were established at 101 specific points. We are in compliance
with 97 of these points and are working to comply with the remaining
four. The City has also established a technical task force consisting
of experts from DIA, United Airlines, other airlines at DIA, noise and
airspace consultants and seven counties to address the noise impacts on
all the surrounding communities. The Task Force issued nine
recommendations, including construction of DIA's sixth runway. Denver
and the FAA have implemented seven of these recommendations. The eighth
recommendation is under review. The ninth recommendation is the sixth
runway.
In summary, DIA's successful first two years have proven that we,
and by that I mean the people of Denver, Colorado, the Rocky Mountain
region, the FAA, the DOT and Congress, have been able to build the
safest, most efficient airport in the world, and the first new airport
in this country since Dallas/Fort Worth was built over 20 years ago.
This statistic alone is evidence of the enormous hurdles that cities
face today in trying to build new airports. Chicago and Minneapolis, as
most recent examples, have considered building new airports, only to
give up because of the almost insurmountable obstacles facing such
massive projects. Yet, Denver took on this difficult challenge. Sure,
with hindsight, there are some things we might have done differently
but, as DIA's performance has demonstrated, there are lots of things
that we did right and a lot of things that no other city has been able
to achieve in over 20 years and for who knows how many more years to
come.
I would hope that this Subcommittee, Congress and people across the
country will focus on this positive achievement in building this great
airport and the tremendous benefits it has for the entire nation.
When we did not open on time and things did not go as we had
planned, there were some grounds for valid criticism and, where that
was the case, we accepted responsibility. But that is the past and we
must now deal with the present and the future. If we do not--if we
continue to focus only on the negative--a strong signal will be sent to
other communities that the risks of building a new airport are simply
not worth it and we may never see a major airport built in the United
States again. That would be terribly damaging to aviation and to the
nation's overall transportation system.
b. denver should not be barred from seeking aip funds for dia's sixth
runway
Having reported on what DIA has achieved, we must now focus on one
significant component of the DIA project that is only partially built
and requires completion--the sixth runway.
Your Subcommittee has been a strong advocate of measurable criteria
for federal funding at airports, an initiative Denver supports. In
conjunction with this, I would like to request that this Subcommittee
allow Denver the opportunity to be measured under these criteria by
eliminating the unique statutory prohibition on our ability even to
apply for, much less to receive, AIP funding for our sixth runway. As
you know, this prohibition was first enacted in 1994, before DIA was
opened and while we were addressing the problems with the baggage
system. The statutory prohibition was repeated again the following year
and then, again, the year after that for the third time in a row. Since
we now have a successfully operating airport, it is simply not
appropriate to single DIA out for this harsh treatment. There are over
3,000 airports nationwide that are eligible to complete for AIP funds
and we believe we merit an equal right to compete by having the
statutory prohibition lifted. Punitive legislation against us is not
warranted. If there are continuing concerns with DIA that you will
share with us, we will work with you, the FAA or whoever else is
involved to address them, but we ask that the blanket prohibition on
our eligibility for AIP funding be lifted.
I also want to highlight that DIA is a national asset. We estimate
that about 75 percent of the 32 million passengers using DIA each year
come from states other than Colorado. Thus, the AIP funding prohibition
impacts not only Denver, but also people throughout the country.
Some people have questioned why we want to add a new runway to an
airport that just opened a year ago. This issue, of course, is separate
from whether Denver has the right to apply for AIP funds under the same
criteria as other airports. However, the fact is that the sixth runway
is not a recent development. DIA was designed originally to have six
runways so that the Airport would have three separate arrival runways
and three separate departure runways in order to minimize delays.
The record clearly shows the long-term planning and support for the
sixth runway.
--The sixth runway was included in the Environmental Impact Statement
for DIA.
--The sixth runway is on DIA's Airport Layout Plan, which was
approved by the FAA several years ago.
--The local FAA Air Traffic personnel and the FAA's Northwest
Mountain Region have long supported the sixth runway, as
evidenced by a White Paper entitled ``Completion of the Sixth
Runway by Opening Day''.
--The Airline Flight Operations and Airfield Subcommittee supported
the sixth runway in 1991 and the Airline Technical and Affairs
Committee several times since then.
--The FAA awarded Denver a $10 million AIP grant in September 1993
for site preparation work for this runway and Denver has
completed this work.
The total cost of the runway will be about $85 million. About $15
million has been spent for site preparation work and about $70 million
is needed for construction, of which up to $52 million is eligible for
AIP funds. Note that I say ``eligible''. If the sixth runway
prohibition is not enacted again, it will still be up to the FAA, using
the same criteria it applies to every other airport in the nation, to
decide how much it will provide for DIA.
However, there is a condition that must be met before DIA would
apply for FAA funds for the sixth runway. That condition is that Denver
must demonstrate, through the use of an FAA-approved computer
simulation, that annual operating cost savings are equal to or exceed
the annual debt service and operating and maintenance costs of the
sixth runway. The computer simulation process requires FAA input on
flight patterns, which, in turn, affects the noise impact of the sixth
runway on surrounding communities. This is a significant community
issue which we are very much trying to address and we need FAA
participation in the process. Yet, this Subcommittee's prohibition on
the use of FAA funds ``for planning, engineering, etc.'' is construed
by the FAA as barring its involvement and stands in the way of what
would be a productive process of analyzing the runway's cost-benefits
and community noise impacts. It is, we hope, an unintended result but
it is obstructive, nonetheless, and represents another cogent reason
why, after three years of enactments, and two years of successful
airport operation, the time has come to eliminate the prohibition.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I am not asking this Subcommittee to give
us AIP funds for the sixth runway. I am simply asking this Subcommittee
to let the AIP statutory criteria and FAA regulations apply to DIA,
just like thousands of other airports nationwide, and ask that you not
re-enact the prohibition on AIP funding for DIA's sixth runway.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this report on DIA's second
year and invite you to visit our airport to see its operation first-
hand.
Thank you.
[attachment 1]
Denver International Airport Project Cost Comparisons
The City County of Denver received considerable value for its $4.2
billion outlay to build Denver International Airport (DIA's total cost
is $4.9 billion when FAA, airline and other tenant costs are added). A
comparison with current U.S. airport improvement projects and with new
international airport construction projects is illustrative.
NEW AIRPORT PROJECTS COMPARISON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Passenger
Airport (acres) Runways capacity Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Int'l.......................................... 34,000 5 50,000,000 $4,900,000,000
Inchon Int'l (Seoul, Korea)........................... 11,715 2 27,000,000 4,980,000,000
Chep Lap Kok (Hong Kong).............................. 3,083 2 30,000,000 9,000,000,000
Kuala Lumpur.......................................... 24,989 2 25,000,000 3,800,000,000
Kansai Int'l (Osaka).................................. 1,300 1 30,000,000 14,000,000,000
Franz Joseph Srauss (Munich).......................... 3,705 2 15,000,000 6,000,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMPARISON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Projects Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver International................... New airport........................................ $4,900,000,000
Los Angeles Int'l...................... 20-year expansion.................................. 12,000,000,000
John F. Kennedy Int'l.................. New international terminal, light rail, other 4,300,000,000
improvements.
Miami International.................... New terminal, parking garages, cargo buildings, 4,000,000,000
fourth runway.
San Francisco Int'l.................... International terminal, light rail ground 2,400,000,000
transportation center, other improvements.
Washington National and Dulles New National terminal, Dulles terminal expansion, 2,000,000,000
International. other improvements.
St. Louis Lambert...................... New terminal, new runway, runway extension, more 2,000,000,000
gates, people mover, parking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Airports, Aviation Week & Space Technology, FAA, Franz Joseph Strauss Airport, Jane's Airport Review,
Korea Airport Construction Authority, Metro Detroit Connections, New York Times, San Francisco International
Airport Master Plan Executive Summary.
______
Prepared Statement of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
Senator Shelby, and distinguished members of the Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee:
The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) is extremely pleased
to submit written testimony to you, and we deeply appreciate this
opportunity to provide you with the current status of the development
of Orlando International Airport (OIA). GOAA is very grateful for the
past support of this Committee, and will strive to maintain your trust
and confidence. The future ability of the national aviation system to
ensure safe and secure air transportation will strongly depend on the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). In order to ensure the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has the resources needed to fund critical
capacity improvement projects, GOAA respectfully requests the Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to fully fund AIP at the
authorized level of $2.347 billion with an obligation ceiling of no
less than $1.46 billion.
Airfield improvements are intended to increase needed capacity,
provide improved flight safety operations, and enhance the efficiency
of the national aviation system. The AIP is a critical component of the
financial strategy to ensure airports, including OIA, have the
resources necessary to construct essential airfield improvements.
Past aggressive planning efforts have enabled OIA to accommodate a
phenomenal growth rate over the past 15 years. Forecasts indicate OIA
will experience at least a 7-10 percent annual growth rate during the
next five-year period. In 1996 OIA marked a 13.8 percent increase in
passenger traffic which was among the top three fastest growing
airports in the world. During the same year OIA recorded 25.6 million
passengers which was an increase of 3.1 million passengers over the
previous year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.031
The Central Florida community continues to grow at an amazing rate.
Walt Disney World is only 25 percent developed and will open its fourth
theme-park in 1998 (Animal Kingdom). Universal Studios is underway with
a seven year, $3 billion expansion program that will create 14,000 new
jobs. The Orange County Convention Center recently completed a major
expansion program that now ranks Orlando as one of the top 5 US cities
for convention facilities. Orlando is the fastest growing Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) in the US and currently ranks as the 39th
largest. Orlando is expected to generate 232,000 new jobs, an increase
of 32.4 percent, between 1994 and 2005. Businesses in the areas of
computer software, laser optics, and health services are among the
fastest growing employers in Orlando. The development of Orlando
International Airport must keep pace with the growth of the community.
An independent economic impact study reports Orlando International
Airport generates an annual economic benefit of $14 billion and is
responsible for more than 54,000 jobs throughout Central Florida. This
report further stated the total economic benefit will be $20 billion
when passenger traffic reaches 30 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.032
Orlando International Airport has the largest acreage of any
commercial airport on the East Coast, and is located at a key strategic
crossroads for future global commerce. During the past twenty years
GOAA has acquired almost 15,000 acres to ensure OIA will have the
ability to satisfy future aviation demands. Our airport has the
potential to become the focal point connecting European, South
American, and domestic air service. Existing airport property and
environmental mitigation will allow the development of an airfield
capacity that could exceed one million flight operations per year
serving eighty to ninety million passengers. GOAA believes future
investments in developing OIA capacity will maximize the national
aviation system.
In an effort to create a logical method to fund future airport
projects, GOAA has developed a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to
implement the OIA Master Plan. During the next seven years GOAA will
undertake nearly $2 billion of airfield, terminal, and roadway
improvements. The CIP includes an estimated $170 million or 9 percent
of the total projects costs to be funded under the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP). On January 23, 1997 GOAA submitted an application for a
Letter of Intent (LOI) to the FAA to partially fund three major
airfield capacity improvements with a total cost of $208,750,000. The
federal share is $156,562,500 which is 75 percent of the full amount.
These projects included the construction of a fourth runway system,
north crossfield taxiway, and the final rehabilitation of an original
primary runway.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.033
An October 1990 Capacity Design Team Report recommended the
construction of a single north crossfield taxiway. The team consisted
of FM, GOM, Airline Transportation Association (ATA), and officials
representing other airlines serving OIA. This recommendation was based
on 294,000 annual operations in 1988. In fiscal year 1996 OIA reported
a total of 341,984 operations representing a 16 percent increase. The
report further indicated the construction of the north crossfield
taxiway would result in $2.9 million annual savings due to improved
operational efficiency. In addition, the Airport Capacity Enhancement
Tactical Initiative--North Crossfield Taxiway System was completed in
November 1995 indicating an eventual annual savings of $4 million. This
project will cost $70,600,000.
The Annual Service Volume (ASV) of the existing airfield
configuration at OIA is 471,000 operations. On May 21, 1996 the FM
accepted as part of the OIA Master Plan that the airport will incur a
4.4 percent increase in annual flight operations through the year 2000.
Therefore, it is anticipated this growth requires GOAA to begin
construction of a fourth runway in 1998 when operations will reach 80
percent of the established ASV. In addition, the Capacity Design Team
Report recommended a fourth runway should be commissioned when the
airport reached 400,000 annual operations. This level of aircraft
operations is expected in the year 2000. As flight operations increase
beyond 400,000 the 1990 Capacity Design Team Report states the fourth
runway will generate $47.3 million in annual benefits from reduced
delays. Most importantly, the FM, GOAA, and FDOT have committed $72
million towards this project. This amount represents land acquisition,
mitigation requirements, initial site preparation, relocation of a high
voltage power line, and the preparation of 30 percent design costs. The
fourth runway will cost $128,130,000.
GOAA received an earlier FM grant to rehabilitate the initial 9,000
feet of runway 18R/36L. This concrete runway is deteriorating at the
joints and has been patched with bituminous material. Continuing
deterioration is resulting in excessive foreign object debris.
Replacement of this runway will assure the Authority of three
operational runways, prevent the unplanned emergency shutdown of the
runway, and reduce maintenance costs. The runway's remaining 3,000 feet
now requires rehabilitation and will cost $10,020,000.
The OIA Master Plan includes the construction of a new 300 foot Air
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). The proposed tower is absolutely
essential for the future development of OIA. The planned construction
of a fourth airside building, fourth runway system, and south terminal
complex requires the immediate design and construction of this ATCT
which is needed to eliminate existing and future line-of-sight
problems. GOAA is attempting to identify alternative funding sources;
however, OIA will require at least $10 million FAA participation in the
construction of the tower and at least $5 million to procure equipment
for the tower to be included in the 1998 budget. GOAA hopes these funds
will be made available through the FAA Facilities and Equipment budget.
In closing, we would like to express our gratitude for allowing
GOAA to submit this testimony. We are confident that our comments have
provided you with a better understanding of the future expansion and
financial dynamics impacting Orlando International Airport.
______
Coast Guard-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Charles L. Calkins, National Executive Secretary,
Fleet Reserve Association
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: The
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates this opportunity to present
its position on the fiscal year 1998 Coast Guard Budget.
The FRA was founded in 1922 and now represents over 162,000 active
duty, reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine
Corps. The association is chartered by Congress and represents the
interests of its members on personnel issues which are the focus of
this statement.
coast guard parity
FRA strongly supports full funding of the Coast Guard at the level
requested by President Clinton in his proposed fiscal year 1998 Budget.
The request addresses the important issue of parity with the Department
of Defense (DOD)--an issue especially important to adequate funding for
personnel programs.
In the past, the Coast Guard has often been placed in the position
of having to rely upon DOD to supplement its annual funding in order to
maintain equivalent pay and allowances for its people. The President's
budget request addresses this disparity with attention to important
quality of life programs. In addition, the request supports the fourth
year of a highly effective Coast Guard ``streamlining plan'' resulting
in continued personnel and spending reductions.
compensation and allowances
Full employment cost index (ECI) annual active duty pay adjustments
are a top priority with not only the FRA--but also The Military
Coalition (TMC), a consortium of 24 groups representing the interests
of over five million active duty, reserve, and retired military
personnel. FRA is a founding member and active participant in TMC.
Competitive pay is important to maintaining the all-volunteer
force, yet pay raises have been capped below ECI in 11 of the past 15
years resulting in a pay gap in excess of 12 percent and decreased
adjustments in allowances tied to annual pay increases.
FRA strongly urges your support of a full ECI pay adjustment. The
requested 2.8 percent adjustment is .5 percent less than the ECI, and
touted as the ``maximum'' amount established by law. Not only is this
less than the full ECI rate, it is implemented 15 months after
statistics are compiled, exacerbating the substantial gap between
military and civilian pay.
In the event Congress approves a pay adjustment larger than 2.8
percent, we implore your distinguished panel to include money in the
Coast Guard budget to make up the difference and thus ensure parity
with DOD compensation and allowances.
FRA also strongly supports the budget request of nearly $8 million
for quarters/housing allowances; sea pay for 65' cutter crews;
increased dislocation allowance; VHA locality floor; and round trip
travel expenses for POV drop-off during overseas PCS moves. In
addition, funds (over $1.2 million) are included to bring Coast Guard
child care centers up to the level comparable to DOD standards. This
funding will ensure parity with DOD for these vital quality of life
programs.
Finally, the FRA supports establishment of a standard measure for
the basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) and opposes the DOD proposal
to revamp the BAS program by limiting annual adjustments to only 1
percent over several years until BAS is in line with the new standard.
Such a plan would result in a decrease in total compensation for
enlisted personnel over the adjustment period. Although this is not
under the cognizance of your distinguished panel, the FRA wishes to
share its position on DOD's proposed revisions to BAS.
The Association supports the 7th Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation (QRMC) recommendation that establishes a BAS standard
based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) moderate plan level,
along with adjusting basic pay in all cases to preserve the value of
the compensation package.
housing
Adequate, safe, and affordable housing is a major concern for Coast
Guard personnel. Currently, the Coast Guard maintains 5,200 family
units and 4,900 barracks rooms for unaccompanied personnel. The
condition of many of these units is unacceptable, and there is a six-
year backlog for maintenance of major facilities along with a
substantial maintenance backlog for family housing units.
Examples of this growing problem include seeping brick walls and
leaking windows that flood berthing areas during heavy rains; housing
with rotted walls and leaking basements; termite damage; kitchens with
rusty and dented metal cabinets; and substandard electrical wiring.
These problems are often handled via expensive short-term, piecemeal
repairs utilizing scarce housing operating funds. Just as within DOD,
which has similar housing problems, deferred maintenance vastly
increases the total cost and postpones a permanent resolution to the
problems. It's difficult for active duty personnel in all branches of
the Armed Forces to understand why housing and barracks facilities have
been left to deteriorate to their present condition, while senior
officials annually extol the importance of military people and their
quality of life. Ironically, incarcerated felons are often afforded
better housing than many uniformed personnel who are forced to live in
inadequate or substandard housing.
Also compounding the situation is the fact that housing management
staffing has fallen to 70 percent of what the Coast Guard indicates is
necessary to adequately manage a housing inventory of this size.
The budget request allocates nearly $9 million for housing and
barracks maintenance plus funds for additional housing management staff
personnel to address these challenges.
Your attention is also invited to the environmental risk assessment
of Coast Guard housing units. In 1995, the service began a multi-year
evaluation of environmental risks posed to occupants of its housing
units and child care centers. Threats include radon, lead, and asbestos
especially in the older units which comprise the bulk of the Coast
Guard's inventory. While the final results are yet to be determined,
the data already indicates that at least 20 percent of the units
require immediate attention to remove these hazards. Accordingly,
$3,700,000 is included in the budget request to begin work on this
threat to Coast Guard personnel and their families.
recruiting
The budget includes additional funding for Coast Guard recruiting.
Recent surveys indicate only about 25 percent of young people are
interested in a military career--and of these, less than 6 percent
reveal an interest in the Coast Guard.
Just as the other military services rely on volunteers to fill the
ranks, so too does the Coast Guard and the budget includes enhanced
funding to support recruiting efforts.
invaluable service
The Coast Guard provides invaluable service to our nation. A
relatively small number of personnel perform a vast array of operations
supporting our national security, maritime safety, drug interdiction
program, and environmental protection.
Unfortunately, many of these valuable services receive little media
and/or public attention. As a return on the taxpayer's investment, the
Coast Guard yields significant value in terms of lives and property
saved annually. Accordingly, these dedicated professionals deserve
parity with the Department of Defense regarding compensation, benefits,
and entitlements--essential components of their quality of life.
in gratitude
The FRA wishes to express appreciation to you and other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee for past support of quality
of life programs benefiting Coast Guard personnel and asks for your
endorsement of the President's budget request.
______
Prepared Statement of Ed Carter, Boating Law Administrator, Tennessee,
President, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Ed Carter,
Boating Law Administrator for the State of Tennessee and I serve as
President of the National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators.
The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
(NASBLA) is a professional association consisting of state officials
having responsibility for administering and/or enforcing state boating
laws.
Our Association is recognized for it's stewardship of
``Recreational Boating Safety''. We have over the years worked closely
with the U.S. Coast Guard, the States and others to insure that the
intent of Congress to promote uniformity, reciprocity and comity among
the various states was given high priority. Testimonial of this is the
many resolutions, model acts etc. that has been generated by our
Association. In doing this we bring to the table at various meetings,
highly qualified personnel in the field of boating law enforcement,
education, boating safety and on the water, search and rescue.
Our membership takes pride in their accomplishments and the many
words of praise we have received from the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
and the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board over the years.
Our reward is saving a life and what a wonderful reward that is.
My testimony today will focus on the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
(Wallop-Breaux) and more specific, the Reauthorization/Appropriation of
the Boat Safety Account of this fund.
The boating safety account of the trust fund is derived solely from
the tax boaters pay on their motorboat fuel. This user fee paid by the
boaters, is returned to the States to help defray their cost for
services provided to the recreational boater. We think this is indeed
in keeping with the user fee concept, (i.e.) user pays-user benefits,
thus not costing the general tax payer one cent and especially
noteworthy, does not add one penny to the national debt.
The Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund has resulted in a willingness on the
states part to assume a major share of the boating safety and boating
law enforcement responsibilities. This, I think is noteworthy since
this responsibility is logically and statutorily a joint federal-state
responsibility. The financial base provided by Wallop-Breaux funding
allows the states to concentrate on establishing an administrative
infrastructure, purchase equipment and promote the education and
enforcement techniques to stimulate increased boating safety awareness,
and thereby decrease fatalities.
Funds made available from the boating safety trust funds have made
a major contribution to boating safety. With these trust funds, the
states have been able to reduce boating accidents and fatalities,
relieve the Coast Guard boating safety teams on many of the nation's
waterways, thus allowing the Coast Guard to pursue higher priority
programs, provide a higher quality of boating safety education, produce
a system of investigating and reporting boat accidents and most of all,
provide a more rapid response to boats in distress. It is the desire of
the states to continue and strengthen this proven boating safety
program known to be in the best interest of the boating public we
serve.
Congress (and rightfully so) continues to be concerned over the use
and effectiveness of these trust funds. So the question is often asked,
``How do the states use federal boat safety trust funds?'' Attached is
a comprehensive listing of the use of these funds.
Specifically what we are asking this Subcommittee for is
appropriation as authorized for the state boating safety program.
Again, these are trust funds derived solely from the tax boaters pay on
their gasoline used in motorboats.
During the 2nd Session of the 103rd Congress and again in the 104th
Congress, legislation surfaced to provide stable and dependable funding
for grants to state boating safety programs. If passed, this would have
alleviated the uncertainty each year for these trust funds in order
that the state could make long range plans and insure continuity in our
boating safety efforts.
Again this year we see in the highlights of the Coast Guard's 1998
budget as submitted to the Congress, a proposal of $55 million for the
boat safety grant. This proposed legislation would convert state grants
to a mandatory appropriation from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
(Wallop-Breaux).
Where our National Association is recognized for it's stewardship
of ``recreational boating safety'', this Subcommittee over the years,
is recognized for their untiring efforts in providing appropriation of
boating safety trust funds to help defray the cost of services provided
by the states to the recreational boating public. Be assured the
efforts of this Subcommittee is well recognized and appreciated
throughout the boating community.
Areas of concern to our Association as we focus on long range plans
for the 21st century are:
(1) Identify and evaluate future impacts on boating safety and
apprise our Association of the status of any legislation, policies or
procedures relative to the issue at hand.
(2) Surface use conflicts--Study what is being done and what can be
done to alleviate these problems.
(3) Personal Watercraft--Examine what is being done through
education, enforcement and regulations and what is the long-range
outlook for their sales and use.
(4) Education options--Research what has happened in the states
that have adopted ``mandatory education'' for adults, phase in versus
more immediate methods, what is the cost effectiveness of these
programs and are they making a difference in the target audience. What
about other educational initiatives--dealer-based education or
education using computers or the Internet.
(5) Drinking and Boating--Examine what more needs to be done as far
as education or legislation.
(6) Personal Flotation Devices. If wearing a PFD will save 80
percent of the boating accident victims--what should we be doing to
encourage it, model it or require it?
(7) Funding issues--Examine the outlook and future for state/
federal funding.
(8) The Role of the U.S. Coast Guard and the States--Where should
we be in the next 10 years in boating safety?
The national trend shows a general boating growth pattern. The
momentum is not only expected to continue, but to increase in the
coming years. This is readily understandable when you consider that as
available land becomes scarce and with 70 percent of the earths'
surface covered by water, our waterways are a natural place to seek
relief from the pressures of a growing population. The beautiful waters
that abound our states satisfy the insatiable appetite of sport
fishing, the recreational boating enthusiast and those who desire to
leave pressures behind and to relax and absorb the tranquility of our
waters and beaches.
Additionally, the commercial traffic (i.e.) passenger and cargo
ships, oil tankers, off shore drilling for oil on the continental
shelf, fishing fleets etc. add new responsibility to the states in
managing this priceless natural resource, ``our waterways''. Further,
the Coast Guard is downsizing and even more of the responsibilities
once absorbed by the Coast Guard are being given to the states. Boating
safety is and will continue to be of high priority.
We take pride in the fact that we make the best use of these trust
funds and that the end product is a major contribution by the states to
the overall reduction in the boating fatality rate.
However, recreational boating safety is still on the National
Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' list. We must continue to
focus our attention and coordinated efforts to remove recreational
boating safety from this list. (See attached NTSB report).
To keep the momentum in our boating safety efforts we strongly
request appropriation as authorized for the states boating safety
program for fiscal 1998.
We feel the state program, to date, is a shining example of an
ideal State/Federal partnership. We will continue to strive for more
innovative use of the funds to better educate the boater and further
reduce boating fatalities. However, we cannot over-emphasize that
stability in the boating safety trust funds is needed if the true
fruits of our efforts are to be realized. Needless to say, the Federal
boat safety trust funds are critical to the success or failure of our
state recreational boating safety program.
We appreciate this Subcommittee continuing support and again ask
for your consideration for appropriation as authorized from the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux) for the states boating safety
program for fiscal 1998.
Thank You.
States Use of Federal Boat Safety Funds Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
``Wallop-Breaux''
The states are proud of the use and effectiveness of the federal
boat safety funds in pursuing our goal of ``safe and enjoyable boating
for all who use our nation's waterways''.
We feel, as statistics validate ``that'' the state program to date,
is living up to the high expectations of the Congress. With full
funding as authorized, we will strive for more innovative use of the
funds to better educate the boater and further reduce boating accidents
and fatalities. We foresee the states taking an even greater lead role
in boating safety, boating education and boating law enforcement, thus
allowing the Coast Guard to pursue the re-prioritized responsibilities
and assignments placed on the service by Congress.
Congress (and rightfully so) continues to be concerned over the use
and effectiveness of these trust funds. So the question is often asked,
``HOW DO THE STATES USE FEDERAL BOAT SAFETY TRUST FUNDS?''. Following
is a comprehensive listing of the use of these funds.
--Increased boating safety patrols;
--Better boating accident investigations have pointed to causes which
are targeted for increased education and enforcement;
--Increased training of enforcement officers;
--Better communications and enforcement equipment;
--Now reaching more boaters with free education classes;
--Working towards better statistical data on effects of alcohol and
boating, (i.e.) in California, a two year study showed that in
59 percent of fatal motorboat accidents where testing could be
conducted, alcohol was a contributing factor to the cause of
the accident;
--The erection of Kiosks to provide boaters information on coastal
bar crossings, navigation, equipment requirements, rules of the
road and related information including charts;
--Erection of wind warning strobe lights across heavily used bodies
of water to warn boaters of impending high winds;
--Courtesy boat safety inspections;
--Conducting boating surveys, which provide critical data for
assessing boat use, conflict areas and safety courses;
--Handing out free literature on boat noise, sailboarding safety,
make way in dealing with large ships, hypothermia, pleasure
craft, use of life jackets (PFD's) and dealing with alcohol
use;
--Waterproof exhibits at boat launching ramps with boater safety
information;
--Marking of hazards to recreational vessels;
--Development of school video systems;
--Some states are now handling all regatta permits and thereby
completely relieving the Coast Guard of this responsibility.
--States picked up the load after the Coast Guard removed their
boating safety detachment teams (BOSDET) from joint
jurisdictional waters;
--Developed and placed in use boating safety home study courses;
--Developed and placed at marine dealers, a boating information
display;
--Developed coloring books for elementary schools;
--Stepped up TV and radio public service announcements;
--Implementation of boating while intoxicated program including
purchase of portable testers, training classes and public
awareness announcements;
--Computerizing boat accident information and arrests, which provides
capabilities of responding to public, legislative and other
inquiries regarding boating accident and water fatality
statistics;
--Improved the integrity of the boat registration system;
--Upgraded enforcement equipment;
--Expanded our boating safety education capabilities;
--Purchased special search and rescue boats that are fully equipped
for marine law enforcement;
--Adding additional full-time and part-time marine patrol officers
and boating safety educators;
--Implemented special boating investigation teams to handle boat
accident investigations;
--Improved cooperation with volunteer groups such as the Coast Guard
Auxiliary by providing boat dock space, communication stations,
phone, utilities, etc. This has resulted in much more
visibility of search and rescue units and free boat safety
inspections;
--Bringing together federal, state and local authorities in the
interest of boating safety, law enforcement, training and
equipment needs;
--Better coordination with local governments to establish boating
restricted zones in heavy activity areas that present safety
hazards to the boating public;
--Updating film library with additional programs and equipment to
provide to the general boating community, and to maintain
literature dealing with safety equipment regulations, safe
boating information, registration, titling and numbering
requirements for statewide distribution, so as to be highly
visible and readily available to the boating public;
--Improve communications system to provide for better and extended
coverage with waterway enforcement officers, end result is
improved response time to marine emergencies and as a devise
for greater officer protection;
--Establishing new aids to navigation and regulatory marker system
for controlled areas;
--Construction and repair of boat access ramps;
--As preventative strategies, inaugurated programs to reach new
generation of recreational boaters to the public schools.
The fruits of our labor is evidenced by the fact that the annual
fatality rate in the United states has dropped from 1,754 deaths in the
seventies to a record low of 784 deaths in 1994, despite more people on
our waters in a wider diversity of craft than ever before.
Our Joint efforts are paying off. For this, we feel that we have
made the Administration, the Congress, the State Legislators and most
of all, the boating public that we serve proud.
[Clerk's note.--The other attachments to Mr. Carter's statement do
not appear in the hearing record, but are available for review in the
subcommittee's files.]
______
Prepared Statement of Capt. Fred R. Becker, Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.),
Director, Naval Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United
States
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: It is my pleasure to
address this committee concerning the fiscal year 1998 budget request
for the United States Coast Guard.
The Reserve Officers Association continues to strongly advocate
adequate resource allocations for the United States Coast Guard. Over
the past several years, providing the needed resources to the Coast
Guard has been a distinct challenge. It has continually required action
by the Congress to provided a unique combination of Department of
Transportation and Department of Defense funding to support the Coast
Guard's requirements. It would, of course, be preferable for the
Congress to fully fund the Coast Guard from within Transportation
appropriations. If, however, such is not possible given continuing
budget constraints, we would again ask that, recognizing the Coast
Guard's role unique role with regard to the Department of Defense that
additional Department of Defense funding be provided.
coast guard budget request
The Coast Guard has shown great professionalism and flexibility in
doing more with less. The Commandant, Admiral Kramek, has streamlined
the Coast Guard and reduced resource requirements while maintaining the
capabilities upon which our nation depends. Already Coast Guard
streamlining has saved the American public almost $100M and eliminated
over 4,000 positions. As a result the Coast Guard has the smallest
work-force in over 30 years. Concomitantly, the responsibilities and
work of the Coast Guard have not been reduced. Given the downsizing
that has occurred and the continued demands on the force, the Coast
Guard must not be further stretched to the breaking point by
underfunding.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 budget request will allow the
Coast Guard to maintain current services. It includes the following
important priorities:
--An increase in National Security and Drug Law Enforcement
Operations ($34.4M),
--Quality of Life Improvements ($26.4M), and
--Acquisitions, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) ($379M).
The AC&I account provides for the acquisition, construction and
improvement of vessels, aircraft, information management resources,
shore facilities and aids to navigation required to execute the Coast
Guard's mission and achieve its performance goals. It is noted that the
AC&I account is at the lowest level in 10 years. If not funded to this
bare minimum, the Coast Guard would be forced to cancel long-standing
contracts to build ships and purchase mission-essential equipment.
selected reserve strength
We strongly support the fiscal year 1998 authorization request to
maintain the Coast Guard Selected Reserve end-strength at the 8,000
level. While recognizing that the Coast Guard Reserve's end-strength is
currently below 7,600, we have serious concerns regarding the
administration's proposal for an appropriated end-strength of only
7,600.
The plans of just a few years ago to reduce the personnel strength
of this key part of the Coast Guard's Total Force below the post-World
War II low of 8,000 Selected Reservists now authorized was a source of
major concern. Since that time the Congress, the administration, and
Coast Guard leadership have ever increasingly recognized the unique
capabilities of the Coast Guard Reserve. It is now well-recognized that
the Coast Guard Reserve has clearly become a value-added resource for
peacetime day-to-day operations, as well as a highly cost-effective
source of needed trained personnel to meet military contingency and
other surge requirements.
In view of the foregoing, we are particularly concerned that the
administration and the Coast Guard allowed the Coast Guard Reserve's
end-strength to fall below the authorized and appropriated level for
fiscal year 1997. We attribute the end-strength shortfall to a failure
to devote the requisite assets to recruiting Coast Guard Reservists.
By way of background, Team Coast Guard, has, with limited
exceptions, resulted in the complete assimilation of Coast Guard
Reservists into the active duty force. Prior to Team Coast Guard,
Reserve unit commanding officers had specific responsibilities for
recruiting. These recruiting responsibilities were not transferred to
active duty commanding officers following Reserve integration.
Furthermore, Reserve recruiting quotas have not been assigned to active
duty Coast Guard recruiters.
Until just one year ago, no recruiter in the system had ever
recruited a Reservist. Recruiting a Reservist is substantially more
difficult than recruiting a new entrant. This is because Reservists
must be recruited to a targeted billet at a specific location.
Concomitantly, it must be noted that the Coast Guard has undertaken
some effort to recruit Reservists, to include the production of a
formalized recruiting plan for Reservists, requiring Selected Reserve
participation for 59 days following release from active duty; mailing
out letters to over 6,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve;
creating a Reserve-specific Recruiting Web page; and engaging in
limited advertising. Despite these efforts, while the Coast Guard
exceeded one-hundred percent of the goals for the active-duty force, it
has recruited only 65 percent of those needed for the Reserve force in
fiscal year 1996 and through January 31, 1997, only 32 percent of its
monthly requirements. Finally, it should be noted that the Coast Guard
has not applied the various bonus programs that currently exist in law
to recruit Reservists up to authorized and appropriated end-strength.
The administration has requested $65 million for the Reserve
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 1997. We support this
request as the minimum needed to fund a full training program for 7,600
personnel. Additional funding required to support the full 8,000 level
authorized is only $2M. This additional funding would allow sufficient
resources, with additional efforts in recruiting, to attain the 8,000
level. Such additional funding would also have a positive morale-
building effect on Reservists by avoiding the negative signal that
Reserve strength is again in jeopardy.
This committee's support of the Coast Guard has been critical to
maintaining its military capability. Your continued support is vital.
team coast guard
The Coast Guard has embraced the reality that its Reserve is a
value-added resource. This fact has been demonstrated by the adoption
of Team Coast Guard, which as previously discussed, includes the full
integration of Coast Guard Reservists into their parent Active force
commands. This expansion and modification of the historic method of
augmentation training directly benefits the Coast Guard. As a result of
Team Coast Guard Reservists now perform day-to-day operations as an
integral part of the active duty force. In addition, integration has
reduced administrative overhead by making the parent command
responsible for Reserve personnel in the same manner as the assigned
active-duty personnel.
We support the goals and objectives of this new method of
operations. The Coast Guard Reserve has become the ``bench-strength''
of the active duty force. At a strength of 8,000, the Coast Guard
Reserve consumes only 700 full-time equivalent positions. Simply
stated, the Reserve leverages the entire organization and stands ready
to go in response to both domestic and national emergencies. As a
result, the Coast Guard is readily able to surge its forces to meet
domestic and national emergencies in an extremely cost effective
manner.
Concomitantly, the Coast Guard active duty force must recognize its
ownership role of Reservists, from the deck-plates to headquarters, and
direct responsibility therefor. As previously noted, integration has
eliminated the Reserve support structure in the field. Reserve training
officers and administrative officers no longer exist. As a result,
questions regarding Reserve career progression, professional
development, meaningful assignments for senior Reservists (officer and
enlisted), and effective advocacy for Reserve issues are not yet fully
resolved. The Coast Guard active duty force must step forward and take
a pro-active leadership role and direct responsibility for officer and
enlisted Reservists to ensure that they are not ``lost in the shuffle''
as a result of integration. Finally, we are also concerned about issues
such as effective advocacy, identity and continued management
responsibility for the Reserve component as the Coast Guard's
headquarter's structure is realigned.
port security unit requirements
As part of the continuing review of mission requirements, the Coast
Guard must establish three additional port security units (PSU's) to
meet validated war-fighting CINC requirements. This action has been
coordinated with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Chief of Naval Operations and stems from war-gaming at Total Force 1993
and 1994 as well as development in several CINC deliberate planning
processes.
PSU's are manned by 115 selected reservists and 2 active duty
personnel. Each unit has six transportable boats, of Boston Whaler type
design, with twin outboard engines, a .50 caliber machine gun forward
and two M60 7.62 mm machine guns aft. These units are air deployable
worldwide within 4 days' notice. The units provide waterside security
of ports and high value assets and fill the security perimeter gap
between the land side security force and coastal assets.
The three existing units performed critical mission-essential
functions during Operation Desert Storm and during Operations Support
and Uphold Democracy in Haiti. The major lessons learned from these
operations are:
--The port security unit mission is logical for the Coast Guard
Reserve,
--Three additional PSU's are needed to meet CINC requirements, and
--Equipment is needed to replace what has been consumed by the high
tempo of operations by the three existing units and to outfit
the three additional PSU's.
roa recommendations for fiscal year 1998 ng&re
Coast Guard Reserve
Refurbishing existing PSU's............................. $4,600,000
Equipping 3 additional PSU's............................ 9,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Coast Guard Reserve equipment for
consideration in .................................
fiscal year 1998 NG&RE.......................... 14,500,000
Unfunded equipment needs include transportable PSU boats, secure
communications equipment, organizational outfitting and facility
equipment, personal equipment and replacement parts.
We recommend that the fiscal year 1998 National Guard and Reserve
Equipment (NG&RE) appropriation include funds for port security unit
equipment for the Coast Guard Reserve.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the position of the
Reserve Officers Association to this committee. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have at this time.
______
Highway-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Donohue, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations, Inc.
executive summary
ATA asks the Transportation and Related Agencies Subcommittee to
evaluate the Federal investment in transportation and increase spending
on those programs that are clearly national in scope and economic
significance. Recognizing large unspent balances in the Highway Trust
Fund and urgent highway needs, ATA encourages the Subcommittee to
define the national interest in transportation by supporting those
programs that contribute the most to interstate and international
travel and commodity flows, national defense, safety, and research.
Specifically, we urge the Subcommittee to increase the Federal
investment in transportation and appropriate the maximum allowable
funding under current legislative conditions, or $26 billion for the
Federal Highway Program. This level of funding would mark a return to
the user fee principles of the Highway Trust Fund and deflate efforts
to turn back the highway program to the states.
ATA does not believe that the unspent balances in the Highway
Account should be allowed to accumulate at the current annual rate of
13 percent. Although over $20.2 billion was appropriated to fund the
Federal Highway Program in 1997, annual revenues will reach a net $21.8
billion this year. The resulting annual unspent surplus of $1.6 billion
in highway users' tax revenue represents a 13 percent annual increase
and brings the total Highway Account surplus to $13.7 billion.
The importance of properly funding the NHS cannot be overstated.
The NHS represents only 4 percent of the nation's total highway miles
but carries 40 percent of all traffic and 75 percent of all commercial
truck traffic. The core of the NHS is the Interstate system. Sadly, the
FHWA finds that over 37 percent of urban Interstates and 27 percent of
rural Interstates are in poor or mediocre condition. Over 24 percent of
Interstate bridges are classified as deficient. A total of 115 billion
vehicle miles of Urban NHS travel occurred in congested conditions in
1995. Over 50 percent of the investment requirements to maintain
conditions on the NHS are needed to increase highway capacity. But
investment remains 40 percent below even basic maintenance
requirements. These deplorable conditions can only be remedied through
funding the Federal Highway Program at the maximum allowable level of
$26 billion.
U.S. economic growth and the Highway Trust Fund depend on trucking.
The trucking industry is the prime mover of American freight and is
four times larger than all other freight modes combined. In 1995,
shippers moved 5.5 billion tons of freight by truck, spending 79
percent of their freight dollars on trucking. That $348 billion outlay
represents 5 percent of gross domestic product. Furthermore, commercial
trucks pay 43 percent of the Highway Trust Fund taxes. The vital role
of trucking in the economy and its strong contribution to the Trust
Fund, dictate that maximum allowable levels of funding be directed to
the most productive programs.
i. introduction
ata represents the trucking industry
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) is the national
trade association of the trucking industry. The ATA federation includes
nearly 4,200 carriers, affiliated associations in every state, and 13
specialized national associations. Together, ATA represents every type
and class of motor carrier in the country. Combined with ATA's direct
membership, we are a federation of over 36,000 member trucking
companies, representing an industry that employs over 9 million people.
All across the country, ATA represents businesses whose survival
depends upon a high quality and productive work place--the highway
network.
ATA appreciates the opportunity to present testimony to the
Appropriations Transportation and Related Agencies Subcommittee. We
applaud the Committee for its strong commitment to good highways and
for its decision to fund the Federal-aid Highway Program at the
authorized level of $20.2 billion for fiscal year 1997.
However, ATA urges the Subcommittee to increase that funding to $26
billion, the maximum level allowed under current legislative
conditions.\1\ This is the minimum level of funding needed to improve
safety, reduce congestion, maintain the roads and bridges on the
National Highway System, provide for national defense, and conduct
essential research. Unfortunately, it is still inadequate to deal with
the costs associated with improving the system as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current legislative conditions include the 4.3 cents that is
diverted to the General Fund, including the Highway Trust Fund in the
Unified Budget, and maintaining separate accounts for mass transit and
highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. the core highway program
In light of these urgent highway needs, ATA encourages the
Subcommittee to fully fund the following core highway programs as
essential to transportation goals that are national in scope and
economic significance: the National Highway System including the
Interstate Maintenance Program, the Federal Bridge Program, the Federal
Lands Program, the FHWA Highway Safety Programs, which includes the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), and the FHWA Highway
R&D (403) Program.
A. National Highway System
ATA encourages the Subcommittee to target Federal dollars to fund
the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS represents only 4 percent of
the nation's total highway miles but carries 40 percent of all traffic,
80 percent of all highway tourism, and 75 percent of all commercial
truck traffic. The Federal Highway Administration reported to Congress
on December 9, 1993 that ``the National Highway System (NHS) will serve
as the backbone of a national intermodal transportation network.'' The
NHS program addresses the problem of movement within cities--a fact
reflected in that 25 percent of all NHS miles are within urban areas.
Just as important, these areas must be linked together and bound to our
rural and suburban areas and our NAFTA partners by a system of highways
and bridges which are interconnected to the appropriate rail, airport,
and port facilities.
The National Highway System is a program that maximizes the
efficiency of past highway investment. In fact, only 2 percent of the
NHS involves newly constructed roadways. The program calls for the
maintenance, preservation, and improvement of 160,000 miles of road
deemed by FHWA and the Congress as most critical in meeting America's
future civil and defense transportation needs.
B. The Bridge Program
ATA supports a separate appropriation for the bridge program.
Maintaining our nation's bridges is imperative for safe and efficient
highway travel for both passengers and freight. A total of 11,035
bridges on the rural Interstate System are classified as deficient, as
are 28,063 of the bridges on the Urban Interstate.
FHWA estimates an annual investment over the next 20 years of $5.1
billion is needed to ensure that the nation's bridges deteriorate no
further. ATA encourages funding the nation's bridge program at least at
the ISTEA authorized $2.76 billion annual program level.
Here in the Washington area we see the safety and congestion
problems created by the old and deficient Woodrow Wilson Bridge. As the
owner of the Wilson Bridge, the Federal government is responsible for
providing the funds needed to replace this major link on the I-95
corridor. A total of 17,000 trucks use the Wilson bridge every day to
provide groceries, petroleum, and other manufactured items to the
surrounding area. Approximately 80 percent of the truck traffic on the
Wilson Bridge serves communities along the I-95 corridor between
Richmond and Baltimore, including Washington, DC.
If the Federal government fails to provide the necessary $1.5
billion to replace the bridge, these trucks will be diverted to other
already seriously congested highways, worsening existing congestion and
air pollution problems. The additional costs imposed on truckers,
already operating on razor-thin profit margins, would have to be passed
on to area consumers as higher prices. The basic necessities, home
heating fuel and groceries would be especially hard hit.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Safeway and Giant food chains both have distribution centers in
Landover, Maryland. Closure of the Bridge would cause at least a 60
mile increase in length of haul. Home heating fuel currently delivered
to southern Maryland from the pipe transfer facility in Newington,
Virginia would be effected. Prices would increase due to increased
length of haul and increased exposure to accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal government should honor its obligation to fully fund
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
C. Truck Safety and Related Research
ATA supports full funding at authorized levels of the FHWA Highway
Safety Programs, and the FHWA Highway R&D (403) Program as integral to
the national interest in a safe, efficient, and well designed highway
system. ATA continues to support the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program (MCSAP), especially its program of roadside inspectors.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)
The trucking industry has long been a strong supporter of efforts
to improve highway safety and continues to promote and invest in
highway safety programs. ATA fully backs funding of efforts to get to
the root causes of highway safety issues. We have fully supported--and
we appreciate--efforts of this Subcommittee to fund safety initiatives,
such as the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), which pays
for state inspectors and roadside inspection programs. ATA applauds the
Subcommittee's decision to recommend an increase in MCSAP spending to
$77,425,000 in 1997 and encourages the committee to fund the MCSAP
program at the maximum allowable levels for fiscal year 1998.
iii. the importance of trucking
A. The Trucking Industry Works to Improve Highway Safety
The trucking industry continues to work to make travel on the
nation's highways safer. Truck safety has improved dramatically because
thousands of trucking companies across the country have made safety a
top priority. Over the 1985-95 decade, while the number of miles heavy
trucks put on the road increased 41 percent, the fatal accident rate
dropped 39 percent. Furthermore, 1995 police reports show that 72
percent of the fatal accidents involving a truck and a car cite the
driver of the car, not the driver of the truck. Successful safety-
related legislation and other initiatives we have supported include:
--creation of a single, national Commercial Driver's License, with
stringent standards to test and license commercial drivers;
--a more than ten-fold increase in the number of inspections of heavy
trucks;
--cost-effective drug and alcohol testing to ensure that truck
drivers are free of substance abuse when they are behind the
wheel;
--elimination of commercial zones in which trucks and drivers were
allowed to operate without having to comply with Federal safety
regulations;
--common-sense placement of reflecting tape to make trucks more
visible at night;
--a ban on radar detectors in trucks; and
--rear trailer guards at a height to reduce car under-ride of truck
trailers.
To make sure that the latest technical improvements are fully
employed to improve truck safety, as an industry, we are investing an
estimated additional $6 billion over the next ten years to equip our
trucks with anti-lock brake systems.
We are prepared to do even more. For example, we are redoubling our
efforts to understand and prevent safety problems:
--ATA, in partnership with the Federal government and several
universities, is investing millions of dollars through the ATA
Research Foundation to investigate fatigue-related questions.
One of the research findings was a shortage of highway rest
areas, a situation which ATA worked with Congress to address in
the recent National Highway System legislation. Those safety
areas are now eligible for 100 percent Federal funding.
--ATA is working with the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, National
Association of Truck Stop Operators, and the National Private
Truck Council to distribute crucial safety information and
driving best practices to all highway users.
--ATA created and recently expanded the America's Road Team, a group
of professional truck drivers who help teach motorists how to
share the road safely with trucks. We are sponsoring 40
communications programs annually in major cities to convey
highway safety education, through the local media, schools, and
community groups.
B. The Trucking Industry Pays Its Fair Share in Highway-User Taxes
Commercial trucks will pay an estimated $11.1 billion in Federal
highway user taxes, or 43 percent of all revenue to be paid into the
Federal Highway Trust Fund, although trucks account for only 15 percent
of all motor vehicle miles traveled. Commercial trucks will pay $21
billion in combined Federal and state highway user taxes this year. Per
gallon, the Federal diesel fuel tax is 24.3 cents and the average state
diesel fuel tax is 20.53 cents, as of January 1, 1997.
Fuel costs account for anywhere from 4 percent to 20 percent of a
trucking company's operating revenue, depending on the nature of the
company's vehicles, customers, and length of haul. Trucking companies
operate on razor-thin profit margins: reports show an average 2.08
percent profit margin in 1995. For example, a truck with 40,000 lbs. of
cargo typically would be paid by the shipper about $600 to move the
cargo 500 miles. The company would pay $20.25 in Federal diesel fuel
tax alone--and earn a profit of $12.00 on the shipment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Class 7-8 trucks average 6 miles per gallon. This trip would
consume 83.3 gallons of fuel at .243 cents Federal diesel fuel tax per
gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to spend Highway Trust Fund revenues to improve roads and
bridges increases trucking operating costs (fuel and vehicle
replacement) and makes it harder for trucking companies to provide the
timely and reliable service U.S. manufacturing industries require in
today's ``just-in-time'' inventory systems, which improve productivity
and sustain jobs.
But moneys from the Highway Trust Fund have been increasingly
siphoned off for non-highway purposes. In addition, 4.3 cents of the
Federal fuel tax is deposited into the general fund, for an estimated
revenue loss to the Highway Trust Fund of more than $6 billion per
year.
C. The Trucking Industry Plays a Vital Role in the U.S. Economy
Trucking is vital to the American economy. The trucking industry is
the prime mover of American freight and is nearly 4 times larger than
all other transportation modes combined. In 1995, shippers moved 5.5
billion tons of freight by truck, spending 79 percent,\4\ or $348
billion of their total $441 billion freight dollars on trucking. This
$348 billion represents 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). And
we're growing. By the year 2004, truckers will drive 29 percent more
miles while adding 14 percent more heavy vehicles to haul the nation's
freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Transportation in America, The Eno Transportation Foundation,
Inc., 1996. p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trucking firms employ over 9 million people and provide 1 out of 14
civilian jobs. And these are good jobs--with the potential to earn good
wages. Truck drivers earn an average annual salary of $35,000 with
additional benefits that bring average total compensation to $45,000,
greater than the national average salary.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid. p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Economic and Industrial Growth Depend on Reliable Trucking
The U.S. economy grows when industry is more productive. And
industry is more productive when highways, especially the National
Highway System (NHS), allow trucks to deliver their products in a
timely and reliable manner.\6\ That's why recent research funded by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shows a strong link between
carefully targeted highway investment and economic prosperity. In fact,
each dollar invested in the NHS allows industry to reduce its
production costs by 24 cents. And, between 1980 and 1989, 8 percent of
all U.S. annual productivity growth is attributed to highway
investment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Measuring the Relationship Between Freight Transportation
Services and Industry Productivity, Hickling Lewis and Brod Inc., NCHRP
(2-17(4), The National Academy of Science, April 1994. p. b-7.
\7\ Highway Capital and Productivity Growth, Nadiri, M. Ishad and
Theofanis Mamuneous, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chart below shows that economic prosperity, measured as
increased GNP, and industrial productivity depend on trucking.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Data for this Chart is complied from Transportation in America,
The Eno Foundation, Inc., 1996, pp. 38 and 39, Tables: Transportation
Outlays and the Gross National Product, and National Economic and
Transport Trends.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.034
Industry has substituted fast and reliable truck services for other
factors of production to reduce costs and the results are increases in
industrial productivity and economic prosperity.
Highway investment improves industrial productivity because better
highways let trucks deliver goods on more timely and reliable
schedules. Improved delivery schedules allow firms to restructure and
reduce the number and size of their warehouses along with their
associated labor costs. These changes allow industry to reduce
production costs 24 cents for every $1 invested in the NHS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nadiri and Hickling Lewis and Brod Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because timely and reliable truck services improve industrial
productivity, U.S. firms are able to maintain a competitive edge over
countries that compete in global markets on the basis of low wages.
2. Timely and Reliable Trucking Becomes ``Moving Warehouse'' for
Industry
Trucking has become a ``moving warehouse'' for industry, allowing
businesses to cut inventory costs and to respond immediately to changes
in consumer demand. Timely and reliable trucking provides easy access
to world-wide markets, allowing industry to save more when purchasing
raw materials and to increase market share by selling more goods at
lower prices.
U.S. industry will continue to press for more efficient delivery
systems in production and distribution. In 1994, 18 percent of total
shipments were ``Quick Response'' and ``Just-In-Time'' (JIT). By 2000,
nearly half of all shipments will fall under these categories.
Use of ``Just-In-Time'' and ``Quick Response'' truck delivery as a
percentage of total shipments \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bernard J. LaLonde, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University.
Published in Traffic World, September 23, 1996. p. 49.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.035
3. Trucking is Essential to Emerging Industries
To continue to grow, the U.S. needs to capture emerging industries.
Emerging industries include microelectronics, biotechnology, material
sciences, telecommunications, computers, civilian aircraft, and machine
tools and robotics. These ``brain powered'' emerging industries depend
even more on efficient trucking than established industries--and they
can locate anywhere on the globe. But, emerging industries will choose
to locate in those countries with, among other things, the superior
highway systems that enable timely and reliable truck services so
essential to competing effectively in global markets.
4. Trucking Vital to the U.S. Economy and the Highway Trust Fund
It is clear, therefore, that timely and reliable trucking is vital
to current and future economic growth and productivity, and that the
trucking industry pays its fair share of user fees into the Highway
Trust Fund. Further, failure to spend Highway Trust Fund revenues on
urgent highway needs can only result in less efficient trucking and
economy-wide productivity losses which result in lower wages and
reduced quality of life.
iv. federal funding is not sufficient
A. Current Highway Conditions
Unfortunately, the current Federal investment in highways is not
even sufficient to keep up with the transportation needs of existing or
emerging industries. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
estimates that an annual capital investment of $50 billion from all
levels of government is required just to keep the system from further
deterioration. Last year, all levels of government provided $30 billion
in highway capital investment. The shortfall in funding has resulted in
the following:
--Over 37 percent of Urban Interstates and 27 percent of Rural
Interstates are in poor or mediocre condition.\11\ (Poor
conditions require immediate improvement and mediocre require
improvement in the near future.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1995, Table HM-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Some 13,000 bridges, or over 24 percent of the bridges on the
Interstate system are classified as deficient.\12\ Twenty-eight
percent of the bridges on all other arterial highway systems
are deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FHWA 1995 Conditions and Performance Report, p. 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--A total of 115 billion vehicle miles of Urban NHS travel occurred
in congested conditions in 1995.\13\ The costs of congestion,
not including lost productivity, has reached $50 billion \14\
in the 50 metropolitan areas where highway congestion is the
worst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1995, Chart-page v-67, and Table HM
14.
\14\ Urban Roadway Congestion--1982-1993, Volume 1: Annual Report,
David Shrank and Timothy Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University, August 1996. p. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Safety is Suffering on the NHS
The shortfall in Federal highway investment limits states' ability
to make the roadway improvements needed to increase safe driving
conditions on the NHS. The importance of safe driving conditions on
these highways is underscored by the fact that Americans traveled over
1.04 trillion vehicle miles on the NHS in 1995.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1995, Table VM-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA 1995 crash statistics confirm this concern. On the Interstate,
there are .73 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. But on
the NHS, there are 1.16 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, or a 59 percent increase in the fatality rate. And on NHS
miles off the Interstate, the fatality rate jumps to 1.74 per 100
million vehicle miles traveled, or 138 percent higher than on
Interstate miles. The fatality rate on NHS miles off the Interstate
increased a full 18 percent from 1994 to 1995, from 1.48 to 1.74 per
100 million vehicle miles traveled.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1994 and 1995, Table FI-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a sad reminder of the life-threatening effects of failing
to fully invest in the National Highway System.
Unsafe conditions can be improved by increasing the Federal
investment in the NHS. In fact, improved roadway characteristics such
as 12-foot lanes and ample shoulders, gentler curves, and improved
median barriers can significantly reduce the number and severity of
highway accidents.\17\ A 1995 study estimates that full funding of the
NHS over a 10-year period would prevent 720 fatal crashes, 55,000
personal injury crashes, and 120,000 property damage crashes, for an
annual societal saving of $800 million.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Effects of Highway Standards on Safety, McGee, H.W., W.E.
Hughes, and K. Dailey, Final Report to National Cooperative Research
Program, Project 17-9. Dec. 1994.
\18\ Safety Effects Resulting from Approval of the National Highway
System, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Bellomo-McGee, Inc., July
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety impact of fully funding the NHS becomes more clear when
one considers that over 43 percent of the NHS is comprised of two-lane
roads, often with no median separation to prevent head-on collisions.
Two-lane roads are more prevalent on NHS mileage off the Interstate,
where the fatal accident rate is high and increasing rapidly (See
above).
Recent research shows that adequate lane width, wide shoulders, and
clear zones provide motorists with the critical space they need to
recover the control of a vehicle in an emergency situation. But these
features are inadequate or nonexistent on the NHS two-lane roads. In
fact, two-lane roads on the NHS are characterized by tight curves with
few warning signs and poor visibility to alert motorists before it is
too late to slow down and change direction.
C. The Administration Claims Highway Congestion has Stabilized
Deputy Secretary of Transportation Mortimer Downey claimed that
highway system performance, measured by peak hour congestion, ``has
stabilized'' when he presented the Administration's Fiscal Year 1998
Transportation Budget.\19\ This ``improvement'' was used to support the
Administration's budget, which would hold the Federal investment in
highways at fiscal year 1997 levels through 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Remarks Prepared for Delivery, Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Presentation, U.S. DOT. Office of the Secretary. p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, there are two measures of congestion. The Deputy Secretary was
referring to volume to service flow ratios. In fact, the volume to
service flow ratio has stabilized because highways, especially the
Urban NHS, have reached full capacity during peak periods of
congestion, or a volume to service flow ratio greater than .8, the top
of the scale. But by this measurement, things can't get any worse.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Urban Roadway Congestion--1982-1993, Volume 1: Annual Report,
David Shrank and Timothy Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M, August 1996. Introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second measure of congestion, the average daily vehicles per lane
(AADT), gives a more complete picture. AADT measures the severity and
the duration of congestion. By this measure, peak period congestion
continues to get worse. In fact, at current AADT levels, non-recurring
congestion, or incident-induced congestion, increases more rapidly than
recurring congestion.\21\ This is important to highlight because not
only does increased non-recurring congestion seriously reduce safety on
the nation's highways, but non-recurring congestion also makes it very
difficult for truckers to make ``Just-In-Time'' and ``Quick-Response''
deliveries. Reduced truck reliability erodes the productivity gains
made possible by previous highway investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ FHWA, Office of Policy Development, Highway Needs and
Investment Branch, Division Chief, phone number 1-202-366-9208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Congestion Increases on the Urban NHS
The severity and duration of congestion on the Urban NHS is getting
worse.
Average daily vehicles per lane Increased from 12.8 to 13.1 million
vehicles from 1994 to 1995, an increase of about 2.3 percent.\22\ (See
chart below.) At this level of use, highway capacity is decreased to
the point where any disruption will bring traffic to a standstill. This
is termed non-recurring congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1995, p. V-67.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.036
Travel on the Urban NHS increased 3 percent from 1994 to 1995,\23\
measured in vehicle miles traveled, or at about the same rate as
congestion. This indicates that highway capacity is not keeping up with
the additional truck trips required to sustain growing businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ FHWA Highway Statistics, 1994 and 1995, Table VM-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Capacity Requirements on the Urban NHS
The Urban NHS, the metropolitan component of the major trade routes
deemed by Congress as essential to continued growth and economic
prosperity, does not have sufficient capacity to support that growth.
The need to improve capacity accounts for over 50 percent of the
investment needs identified by FHWA to maintain the urban NHS at
current conditions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ FHWA 1995 Conditions and Performance Report, p. 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. True Costs of Congestion Include Lost Productivity
Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M University
reports that the costs of congestion for the 50 urban areas studied was
approximately $50 billion in 1993, up $7 billion from 1990. (See
appendix.) These are the latest figures available. TTI includes only
wasted fuel and driver time in its calculation.
But, traffic congestion and bottlenecks on major trade routes
serving large metropolitan areas not only impose delays on local
commuters and regional freight, it also interferes with the timely and
reliable cargo movement essential to increase industrial productivity
and enhance global competitiveness.
ATA believes that the true cost of congestion includes reduced
safety and additional loss of life in highway accidents. Add to this
reduced industrial productivity, which will limit future economic
growth and prosperity, and the critical nature of the problem is clear.
v. ata recognizes serious funding constraints
The American Trucking Associations supports well-targeted
investment in the nation's infrastructure. ATA also recognizes serious
funding pressures that constrain all federal discretionary spending. In
light of these conflicting considerations, ATA encourages the
Subcommittee to set two priorities when considering the Federal Highway
Program.
A. Spend Highway Trust Fund Annual Incoming Revenues
First, ATA encourages the Subcommittee to spend annual incoming
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. Last year, although $20.2 billion
was appropriated for the Federal Highway Program for fiscal 1997, the
Treasury Department's Mid-Session Review estimates that a net $21.8
billion in fuel and vehicle use taxes will be deposited in the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
The resulting annual surplus of $1.6 billion will increase the
total surplus in the Highway Account to $13.7 billion in 1998. This
represents a 13 percent increase over the $12.1 billion 1997 Highway
Account surplus. ATA believes that annual revenue into the Highway
Account should be spent to build better roads and bridges.
ATA encourages the Subcommittee to fund the Title I Federal Highway
Program at the maximum level allowable under current conditions,\25\ or
$26 billion. ATA supports this level of funding as the Federal share of
funding essential to provide for the maintenance and improvement of the
highways necessary to move people and goods safely into the 21st
century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Current conditions include a diversion of 4.3 cents of the
Federal fuel tax to the General Fund, including the Highway Trust Fund
in the Unitary Budget, and providing separate accounts for mass transit
and highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Programs that are National in Scope and Economic Significance Take
Priority
Second, funding for basic highway programs that are clearly
national in scope and economic significance should take priority. For
this reason, ATA urges the Subcommittee to target increased funds to
the Core Highway Program.
vi. conclusion
ATA urges Congress to provide the Department of Transportation with
the maximum levels of funding allowable under current legislative
conditions to maintain the nation's highway system, or $26 billion. The
inevitable funding shortfall between actual funding and investment
requirements just to maintain the system at current conditions requires
the Congress to target Federal investment to those programs that are
clearly national in scope and economic significance. That shortfall
argues strongly against diverting funds from the Highway Account of the
Highway Trust Fund to other transportation purposes or not fully
spending annual revenues.
More than 42,000 people die each year on our nation's highway--the
equivalent of a Valujet crash each day. To reduce this carnage, we need
to invest in better highways.
American industry, and the associated jobs, depends more than ever
on reliable, efficient, and timely freight movement. ATA encourages the
Congress to prioritize Federal investment in the nation's surface
transportation program and consider the urgent funding needs reported
by FHWA to maintain the nation's highways and bridges. By investing in
the NHS, Congress will ensure that the nation's infrastructure is able
to support a growing economy and a growing population into the 21st
century.
ATA urges the Congress to continue funding Federal safety and
research programs as integral to a well-balanced national
transportation program.
ATA thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our
testimony.
appendix
TOTAL CONGESTION COSTS BY URBAN AREA FOR 1993 \1\
[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban area Cost Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA.............................. 8,530 1
New York, NY................................. 7,600 2
San Fran-Oak, CA............................. 2,980 3
Chicago, IL.................................. 2,800 4
Washington, DC............................... 2,790 5
Detroit, MI.................................. 2,340 6
Houston, TX.................................. 1,920 7
Boston, MA................................... 1,560 8
Atlanta, GA.................................. 1,360 9
Seattle, WA.................................. 1,350 10
Philadelphia, PA............................. 1,310 11
Dallas, TX................................... 1,240 12
Miami, FL.................................... 1,090 13
San Berno-Riv, CA............................ 1,040 14
Phoenix, AX.................................. 880 15
San Jose, CA................................. 880 16
San Diego, CA................................ 770 17
Denver, CO................................... 750 18
Baltimore, MD................................ 730 19
St. Louis, MO................................ 640 20
Pittsburgh, PA............................... 560 21
Fort Worth, TX............................... 530 22
Minn-St. Paul, MN............................ 510 23
Portland, OR................................. 420 24
Sacramento, CA............................... 380 25
Ft. Lauderdale, FL........................... 380 26
San Antonio, TX.............................. 360 27
Cleveland, OH................................ 320 28
Norfolk, VA.................................. 320 29
Honolulu, HI................................. 310 30
Jacksonville, FL............................. 300 31
New Orleans, LA.............................. 300 32
Cincinnati, OH............................... 280 33
Austin, TX................................... 270 34
Columbus, OH................................. 240 35
Orlando, FL.................................. 230 36
Milwaukee, WI................................ 220 37
Tampa, FL.................................... 220 38
Kansas City, MO.............................. 210 39
Hartford, CT................................. 200 40
Nashville, TN................................ 170 41
Charlotte, NC................................ 160 42
Louisville, KY............................... 150 43
Indianapolis, IN............................. 130 44
Albuquerque, NM.............................. 130 45
Memphis, TN.................................. 130 46
Oklahoma, OK................................. 130 47
Salt Lake City............................... 120 48
El Paso, TX.................................. 60 49
Corpus Christi............................... 20 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs of Congestion in these Fifty Urban Areas: $50 billion.
\1\ ``Urban Roadway Congestion--1982-1993, Volume 1: Armual Report,''
David Shrank and Timothy Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University, August 1996, p. 62.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board, et al., California Industry and Government
Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 1998 funding request of $100,000 for the California
Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
by December 31, 2001, and the proposed PM-2.5 standards by mid-2003.
Attainment of these standards requires effective and equitable
distribution of pollution controls that cannot be determined without a
major study of this issue.
According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
for a soundly researched solution.
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, unpaved shoulders and
dirt loosened and carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural
land. Soil erosion through wind and other agents also leads to
aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5 air pollution problems. Chemical
transformations of gaseous precursors are also a significant
contributor to PM-2.5, as are combustion sources.
The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
understanding and more information--which this study would provide--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
attainment plain and control measures.
This research has direct applications to the Department of
Transportation. Specifically, Federal Highway Administration research
funds are available through Caltrans for a number of targeted proposals
under discussion by officials of both Caltrans and the California Air
Resources Board. Included among the priority research topics are:
1. Analysis of methodologies for estimating emissions of PM-10/PM-
2.5 from California roadways; Significant emphasis on characterizing
emissions from unpaved shoulders due to large amounts of heavy duty
vehicle traffic through Central California, which is necessary to
support California's economy;
2. Characterization of the sources and composition of PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions from roadway construction;
3. Tunnel study; and
4. Characterization of heavy duty truck activity.
These studies will explore the effects of roadway construction and
use on ambient PM-10/PM-2.5 levels. Other proposals under review would
address problems with unpaved road shoulders, roadway dust mitigation
strategies and assessment of heavy duty truck travel patterns.
Currently available data and other PM-10/PM-2.5 research efforts do not
adequately address transportation concerns, so DOT support of this
targeted research is essential.
California industry wants to be a part of the effort to solve this
major problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to support
research and efforts to deal effectively with what is essentially an
unfunded federal mandate.
Numerous industries, in concert with the State of California and
local governmental entities, are attempting to do our part, and we come
to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair
federal share of financial support for this important research effort.
In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study essential to
the development of an effective attainment plan and effective control
measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California. This unique
cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local government,
as well as private industry, has raised more than $14 million to date
to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-10/PM-2.5 air
quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue continues, and our
hope is that private industry, federal, state and local governments
will be able to raise an additional $13 million over the next three
years to fund this important study.
The following is a list of PM-10/PM-2.5 research projects which are
in progress:
--Planning.--Development of protocols for emissions, field
monitoring, data analysis and modeling.
--Technical support studies.--Suitability of data base; 1995
Integrated Monitoring study; micrometeorological parameters;
fog formation/dissipation; ammonia from soils.
--Modeling.--Demonstration of modeling system for application in
SIP's.
--Data analysis.--Analysis of existing data to aid project planning.
--Demonstration studies.--Almond, fig, walnut, cotton, harvesting;
unpaved agricultural roads; unpaved public roads; unpaved
shoulders of paved roads; dairies, feedlots, poultry, dry
cereal grain.
For fiscal year 1998, our Coalition is seeking $100,000 in federal
funding through the U.S. Department of Transportation to support
continuation of this vital study in California. We respectfully request
that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation provide this
additional amount in the DOT appropriation for fiscal year 1998, and
that report language be included directing the full amount for
California.
The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 air quality study will not
only provide vital information for a region identified as having
particularly acute PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model
for other regions of the country that are experiencing similar
problems. The results of this study will provide improved methods and
tools for air quality monitoring, emission estimations, and effective
control strategies nationwide.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
request for a fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $100,000 for DOT to
support the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
______
Prepared Statement of Wayne Shackelford, Commissioner, Georgia
Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Wayne Shackelford,
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Thank you for
the opportunity to present our appropriations request for the Sidney
Lanier Bridge, located in Brunswick, Georgia, and share with you our
concern about an undertaking that is crucial to both maritime and
highway safety in Georgia, as well as the economic future of our region
and nation.
As you will recall, last year I came before this committee and
requested your attention on the Sidney Lanier Bridge replacement at the
Post of Brunswick in Glynn County, Georgia. At that time, I pointed out
ten people were killed when a ship struck the Sidney Lanier Bridge in
1972, and that an eleventh life was lost during bridge repair work
following another incident in 1987.
I also reminded you that I was directed by Congress in the 1990
Coast Guard Omnibus Bill to remove this bridge. The Commandant of the
Coast Guard issued an order directing the state to alter the bridge by
reconstructing it on the same general alignment.
Under the provisions of the Transportation Appropriations Acts of
fiscal year 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 Georgia has received
$28.75 million in federal appropriations to begin removal and
replacement of the bridge. The State of Georgia has matched this
appropriation with $28.75 million, demonstrating our commitment.
Under the direction of the Coast Guard, these funds have been used
to advance the engineering and design for a new high level, fixed span
bridge that will remove the threat to public safety and provide the
navigation clearance necessary for the Port of Brunswick to remain
competitive in the rapidly changing global economy.
With replacement of the bridge and other planned port improvements,
the port will be capable of expanding services and competing
internationally. The Port of Brunswick is located in a region of the
United States that has the potential to benefit from both NAFTA and
GATT. Already, the Port of Brunswick is exporting automobiles
manufactured by the General Motors Saturn Division and lumber products
for varied uses around the world.
The Port of Brunswick is an economic generator for the southeastern
region of the United States. The Port created over $188 million in
business income in fiscal year 1996. The Port also generated $971
million in sales revenue for Georgia and is directly responsible for
over 8,400 jobs statewide.
Georgia's congressional delegation has requested $27.95 million in
federal funds for fiscal year 1998 to advance the replacement of the
Sidney Lanier Bridge. This will allow us to proceed on schedule with
the funding requirements for the main span, and pier protection for the
replacement bridge.
This request represents the 50 percent federal share provided for
in Section 302 of the Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990. Mr. Chairman, we
ask that funding continue to be provided under the Coast Guard
appropriation, and that the Coast Guard continue to be the federal
manager.
Our deepwater ports at Savannah and Brunswick are a valuable asset
for Georgia, and benefit the entire nation in the global economy we
must now operate in. We urgently request your help in getting the
maximum benefit from them for our state and the nation.
The attached ``Transportation Evaluation Criteria'' provides
additional detail on the design, construction, and funding requirements
for the Sidney Lanier Bridge.
Thank you.
Transportation Evaluation Criteria--Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick, GA
Criteria 1--Primary Congressional District: 1
Congressman: The Honorable Jack Kingston, The U.S. House of
Representatives
Criteria 2--Primary Implementation Responsibility:
Georgia Department of Transportation, No. 2 Capitol Square,
Atlanta, GA 30334
Criteria 3--Project Eligibility:
Congress designated this bridge as an unreasonable hazard to
navigation in the 1990 Coast Guard bill, and called for its replacement
under the Truman-Hobbs Act. The roadway and bridge are functionally
classified as a Principal Arterial making the project eligible for
federal funds. The project is also on the National Highway System.
Criteria 4--Design, scope and objectives of the project:
The principal objective of the Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement is
to provide the transportation infrastructure that will result in the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the US 17
corridor. Providing a high-level fixed-span bridge replacement can
achieve this by removing the potential for bridge/ship collisions that
continue to expose motorists and endanger lives.
The Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement project consists of several
phases:
(1) MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Preliminary Engineering and Design
(2) RWMLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Right-of-way Acquisition
(3) MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Roadway and Approaches
for Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement. (See the attached location map)
(4) CG-009-2(4)--US 17/SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Approaches
Construction Engineering and Inspection
(5) CG-009-2(1)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Main Span of High
Level Sidney Lanier Replacement Bridge and removal of existing bridge.
(See the attached location map)
(6) CG-009-2(3)--US 17 /SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Main Span
Construction Engineering and Inspection
(7) CG-009-2(2)--US 17 /SR 25--Removal of the Old Sidney Lanier
Bridge.
The composite of these phases will replace the obsolete Sidney
Lanier Bridge across the Turtle River in Brunswick.
Beginning at the Jekyll Island Causeway (SR 520), the project will
extend approximately 2700' north of the existing bridge. The
replacement structure will be a new high-level bridge on the east, or
downstream side, of the present lift-span bridge. The total project
length will be approximately 1.8 miles. Estimated base year traffic
(1996) is 12,500 ADT, with design year traffic (2016) projected to be
18,000 ADT. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
The existing bridge provides a width of 55' and a vertical
clearance of 18' for the roadway. Horizontal clearance under the bridge
for shipping is 250' and vertical clearance for ships is only 139'. The
present bridge is 4,471' long with a sufficiency rating of 54.0 out of
a possible 100.
The proposed typical section for the approaches will include two,
12' lanes in each direction with a raised median that varies from 6.5'
to 20' in width. Design speed will be 55 MPH. The cable-stayed bridge
will provide two, 12' lanes in each direction, with 8' outside
shoulders and 2' inside shoulders, with a median barrier. Both concrete
and steel design alternates will be considered for the cable-stayed
portion of this bridge. Traffic will be maintained across the existing
bridge during construction.
The Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement Project is a large scale
replacement project designed to remove a serious threat to public
safety. The principal objective of this project is to replace an
obsolete liftspan bridge that poses an extreme hazard to navigation and
to highway motorists. Ships have hit the Sidney Lanier Bridge twice in
the past twenty-two years, and ten lives have been lost because of
these collisions.
The new high-level bridge will provide a minimum of 185' vertical
clearance and 1,038' of horizontal clearance for shipping, which will
allow the development of a major container port in Brunswick. The
1,038' of horizontal clearance will also allow widening the Turtle
River to a proposed 400' channel width with a 45' channel depth. The
new bridge will improve safety for shipping and vehicular traffic.
Criteria 5--Total Project Cost and Source of Funding:
Estimated design, engineering, rights-of-way and construction costs
are $98.2 million. Adding contingencies brings the total estimated cost
to $108 million. The total estimated annual life-cycle costs for a
high-level fixed-span bridge are $20,000 in the early years, increasing
to $70,000 per year in the final years, with periodic maintenance of
$335,000 every ten years. For a fifty-year life-cycle, the estimated
annual maintenance cost is $78,500 per year. Funding for the annual
maintenance expenses of the bridge will be 100 percent state funds.
Private sector funding is not available for this project.
Table 1.--Completion costs
Phase Total
Preliminary engineering and design...................... $4,183,035
Right-of-way............................................ 100,000
Bridge approaches....................................... 18,884,886
Construction engineering................................ 5,700,000
Main span and pier protection........................... 65,475,129
Final construction--Including the removal of existing
bridge.............................................. 8,749,979
Contingencies (10 percent).............................. 10,309,303
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 113,402,332
Less previous Federal appropriations (see question No.
14)................................................. -28,750,000
Less previous State appropriations...................... -28,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Balance........................................... 55,902,332
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Federal authorization requested (50 percent)............ 27,951,166
TABLE 2.--FUNDING PHASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Fiscal year Total Federal State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary engineering............................ 1992-93 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000
Design............................................. 1994-95 4,083,035 2,041,518 2,041,518
Right-of-way....................................... 1995 100,000 50,000 50,000
Bridge approaches.................................. 1995 18,884,886 9,442,443 9,442,443
Construction engineering........................... 1996 5,700,000 2,850,000 2,850,000
Main span and pier protection...................... 1997 65,475,129 32,737,565 32,737,565
Final construction--Including removal of existing
bridge............................................ 1998 8,749,979 4,374,990 4,374,990
Contingencies...................................... ........... 10,309,303 5,154,652 5,154,652
------------------------------------------------------------
Totals....................................... ........... 113,402,303 56,701,166 56,701,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria 6--Obligation Schedule for Next Five Years:
All phases of the project are expected to be complete over the next
five years. Therefore, the full authorization request of $27,951,166 is
expected to be obligated during this period.
Criteria 7--Proposed Schedule and Current Status:
TABLE 3.--PROJECT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Fiscal year Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design and right-of-way............. 1992-93 Complete.
Environmental....................... 1993 Complete.
Bridge approaches................... 1995 Underway.
Main span and pier protection....... 1997 Underway.
Construction engineering and 1996-98 Underway.
inspection.
Final construction--Including 1998 ..................
removal of existing bridge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary engineering is complete. The Project Concept Report was
approved in March 1992. Design of the bridge approaches was completed
in 1994. The project environmental impact statement was approved in
November 1992 and the Section 404 permit has been approved.
Construction on the new roadway and approaches is underway. The State
awarded a contract for construction of the main span in January 1997.
Criteria 8--Metropolitan and/or State Transportation Improvement Plan
and Funding Schedule:
The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and
the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) both include the
main span and bridge approach projects. (See attachments)
Criteria 9--Support by State and/or Regional Transportation Officials:
Ten lives have been lost in the past twenty-one years because of
ship/bridge collisions. Following a 1987 accident, the Georgia
Department of Transportation began urgently seeking funding to remedy
this hazardous situation. Receiving funds is critical so that
construction of the main span and removal of the old bridge can
continue on schedule. The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Plan
and Georgia's Statewide Plan include the Sidney Lanier Bridge project.
Georgia Ports Authority expansion plans also include the replacement
bridge.
Criteria 10--National/Regional Significance:
The Coast Guard declared the bridge an unreasonable hazard to
navigation in 1990. US 17 is designated as a National Highway System
(NHS) route. US 17 serves as an emergency alternative route for I-95
and is a major linkage between the Brunswick area and the surrounding
coastal region. US 17 is significant to regional freight movement
because it provides a direct linkage to the Georgia Ports Authority's
Brunswick facilities.
Criteria 11--Environmental opposition, obstacles or concerns:
No significant opposition has been encountered, nor is it expected.
A project environmental impact statement was completed and approved
November 1992. The project has received strong support from local
governments. The Brunswick Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) both
include the main span and bridge approach projects. Construction for
the roadway and bridge approaches is underway. The State has awarded a
contract for the construction of the main span.
Criteria 12--Economic, energy efficiency, environmental, congestion
mitigation and safety benefits:
Economic.--With replacement of the bridge and deepening of the
channel, it is estimated that sales revenues will increase by $464
million annually; personal income will increase by $107 million
annually; tax revenues will increase by $15.8 million annually; and
jobs will increase by 1,100 by the year 2010.
The value of increased tonnage into the Port of Brunswick by the
year 2010 is estimated at $183,000,000 in 1991 dollars.
Energy Efficiency.--Current conditions on the Sidney Lanier Bridge
are a 50 mile per hour speed limit with approximately 120 minutes of
delay over a twenty-four hour period due to the raising and lowering of
the bridge. Current estimated average annual daily traffic (AADT) is
9,100 vehicles per day. Approximately 455 vehicles traverse the bridge
during peak hours. At this rate, the delays caused by the raising and
lowering of the bridge result in approximately 150 vehicle minutes of
delay for each raising. With an average of twenty railings per day,
there are approximately 3,000 vehicle minutes of delay per twenty-four
hour period. At the rate of $0.07 per hour of vehicle delay, the cost
associated with this delay is $27,375 annually.
Environmental.--Replacement of the current lift span bridge by a
high level fixed span bridge will result in continuous traffic flow.
Air quality benefits will be positive but negligible.
Congestion Mitigation.--Providing a high level fixed span bridge
will result in continuous flow in vehicular traffic and adequate safe
clearances for ships navigating the channel.
Safety Effects.--The value of improved safety improvements is
estimated at $3.5 million annually by the year 2010.
Criteria 13--Previous Federal funding:
The authorization requested for the Sidney Lanier Bridge continues
a prior Federal commitment for Federal funding from the General Fund as
originally provided in the Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990 (and
reaffirmed, by funding in subsequent Appropriations Acts, and Coast
Guard Authorization Acts) for bridges that are unreasonable hazards to
navigation. Further, the requested authorization conforms to the
Federal funding commitment provided for highway bridges as provided
under Section 1103 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991, and consistent with congressional directives included with
the passage and subsequent enactment of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Acts, 1994, 1995,
1996, and 1997.
Criteria 14--First Federal authorization or increase to previous
Federal Authorization:
PREVIOUS FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
year Federal share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard)............... 1992 $900,000
Do....................................... 1993 5,000,000
Do....................................... 1994 6,000,000
FHWA Demo--transferred to Coast Guard........ 1995 1,850,000
H.R. 2002 ``Alterations of Bridges'' (Coast
Guard)...................................... 1996 8,000,000
Public Law 104-205........................... 1997 7,000,000
--------------------------
Total.................................. ......... 28,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Clerk's note.--The attachments to Mr. Shackelford's statement do
not appear in the hearing record but are available for review in the
subcommittee's files.]
______
Prepared Statement of Harry Harris, Chairman, Executive Board, Deputy
Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, I-95 Corridor
Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for
submittal to the record of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
The I-95 Corridor Coalition, which I currently chair, is a
partnership of the major public and private transportation agencies
serving the Northeast Corridor of the United States. Since 1993, the
Coalition has focused on bringing our member agencies together to
develop and improve multi-agency activities that result in a more
effective and efficient use of existing infrastructure through the
integration of technologies. The relationships that have been developed
are continuing to expand and support the delivery of a seamless, multi-
modal transportation network benefiting both travelers and goods
movements throughout the Northeast.
The Coalition consists of twenty-eight transportation agencies and
over a dozen private sector organizations in the twelve states from
Maine to Virginia. These member agencies include the twelve state
departments of transportation (DOT's), the City of New York DOT, the
Washington, DC Department of Public Works, as well as most major toll
and bridge authorities, and Amtrak.
The transportation operating agencies who are members of the
Coalition recognize the importance of Intelligent Transportation
programs and are prepared to spend portions of their discretionary
dollars to support them. Public sector agencies in the Northeast are
now investing over $400 million a year to support over 350 Intelligent
Transportation projects and programs. The activities of the I-95
Corridor Coalition provide a foundation for the continuing coordination
and integration of traditional products and services, using new
technologies which enhance the effectiveness of transportation
investments.
background
In 1991, ISTEA established a strategic plan to enhance
transportation services through the use of technologies. The overall
goal of making the most of our nation's transportation investments and
resources with strategic applications of technology was supported by
the principles of economic productivity, safety, environmental
protection, return on investment, and innovation.
To assist the nation in incorporating these principles into
transportation projects, Congress provided for the designation of
several ``Priority Corridors,'' including the Northeastern United
States. Since that time, the I-95 Corridor Coalition and our member
agencies have worked hard to fully incorporate the ISTEA themes or
principles into the planning and development of transportation
projects. We are now engaged in deploying the technologies to make
these projects work.
achievements of the i-95 corridor coalition
Much of the Coalition's work to date has centered on the all-
important task of building operational coordination and
interjurisdictional cooperation among twenty-eight separate agencies
within our twelve member states. While the benefits of this effort are
difficult to quantify, this work has been, and still is, absolutely
critical in achieving our goal of uniform and coordinated applications
of technology to improve transportation flow for people and goods.
Successful ``Model Deployment'' can not occur until after a system of
institutional coordination has been established and tested. Having
successfully established this cooperative institutional framework, the
Coalition is now moving aggressively toward the deployment and
implementation of smart transportation projects.
Among our accomplishments to date are the following:
Operational Coordination.--The ``Information Exchange Network''
(IEN) allows any member agency to quickly communicate with other
Coalition agencies during emergencies, and to coordinate transportation
management and traveler information on a regional and Corridor-wide
basis. The Coalition's IEN system provides the points of entry and
access to transportation agency databases for highway operations
centers and metropolitan transit operation centers. Currently, there
are over 40 operating IEN stations with plans for about 12 additional
stations.
The Coalition's member agencies have developed standard operating
guidelines for the Incident Management process throughout several
subregions of the Northeast Corridor. Multiple regional workshops were
held to achieve consensus on elements of the ``Regional Response
Plans.'' The project also included the preparation of a ``Regional
Resource Guide'' based on an inventory of the Corridor's related
resources.
Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) Program.--The Coalition has
developed a CVO program that will enhance the productivity and safety
of the goods-movement industry through the identification and
application of technologies in the areas of safety, automated
credentialing, and information-sharing. These technologies and
applications are being developed and tested through a partnership of
public agencies and private industry. For example, the Coalition is
implementing a system that will provide commercial vehicle dispatchers
and drivers with information on traffic congestion, accidents, weather
and alternative routing to help meet the needs of businesses for
reliable delivery of goods and services.
Electronic Toll and Traffic Management.--All of the Coalition's
members agencies have jointly adopted an Electronic Toll and Traffic
Management (ETTM) vision for compatibility within the Northeast. The
Coalition will champion the achievement of only one automated tag per
vehicle, one account per customer, and one set of credentials per
commercial vehicle.
Traveler Information.--The Coalition provides travelers with
information in a variety of ways. For example:
--The Northeast Travelers Alert Map identifies locations of major
construction activities, dates and location of upcoming events,
and locations of holiday and/or weekend bottlenecks. Through
the I-95 Corridor Coalition, this map is made available to
travelers at welcome centers, rest areas, truck stops and
regional AAA offices, and is also located on the Coalition's
World Wide Web home page.
--The Coalition's World Wide Web home page includes traveler
information and facilitates the distribution of Coalition
products and services between member agencies and the traveling
public.
The Coalition distributes information to highway travelers through
the use of variable message signs, highway advisory radio, and public
broadcast traffic reports.
Additional achievements include:
--a two-year test of a variety of business arrangements to provide
enhanced traveler information services;
--installation of Highway Advisory Radio stations at critical points
where diverting traffic assists in managing congestion and
reducing delays;
--development of guidelines to ensure that messages on Variable
Message Signs are consistent throughout the Corridor; and
--encouragement of information and technology exchange.
We believe that these accomplishments are fully in keeping with the
strategic planning process laid out in ISTEA. We have done our best to
uphold our part of the ISTEA bargain.
istea reauthorization and the i-95 coalition
We believe that reauthorization of the ISTEA legislation, and its
funding support, should build upon ISTEA's strategic framework to
create a state-of-the-art transportation system for the 21st Century.
Americans will demand this kind of transportation system as our economy
becomes more fully integrated on both a national and international
basis. More than ever before, the quality and availability of
transportation services is tied to our standard of living. With the
application of new technologies and other infrastructure support,
innovations such as integrated logistics and ``just-in-time''
deliveries will continue to allow us to maintain a high level of
competitiveness relative to other areas of the world.
Coalition members well understand the realities of the current
economic conditions and the resulting pressure placed on the federal
budget and the need to restrain spending. However, it is very clear
that wise investments in the delivery of Intelligent Transportation
Systems will allow us to address our ever growing transportation needs
more effectively at a lower cost, over the long term. For example, it
is estimated that as much as two thirds of the new capacity required
for our most congested corridors can be provided by intelligent
transportation systems at significantly lower cost than traditional
infrastructure construction. Assuming that the benefits resulting from
a comprehensive application of I-95 Corridor strategies could postpone
the need for new construction for ten years, the savings could be as
high as $40 million.
economic benefits of the i-95 corridor program
As noted above, investments in Intelligent Transportation are
clearly investments in economic growth. The I-95 Corridor Coalition
Program has been, and will continue to be, instrumental in enhancing
and supporting future economic opportunities.
It is estimated that by the year 2020, travel will increase by 35
percent in the New York metropolitan region alone. At the same time,
government resources available for infrastructure investment are
certain to be limited. If the nation's transportation infrastructure is
expected to continue to meet our national needs and to enhance our
economic vitality, it is imperative that we manage the existing
transportation system as efficiently as possible. The potential
economic effects of transportation investments integrating traditional
and new technologies are likely to be analogous to those of highway
construction in the past. It cannot be disputed that great benefits
were realized from the development and construction of the Interstate
Highway System, both in terms of enhancing the quality of life and in
providing economic stability. Likewise, investments made today in the
integration of technologies and transportation services will also reap
many benefits.
Specific economic benefits of the I-95 Corridor Coalition Program
include:
Enhanced business efficiency.--The ability to deliver goods and
services in an efficient and timely manner is critical to US businesses
hoping to compete in a global economy. The reality of today's market
place requires that many businesses operate within a ``just-in-time''
delivery framework. Improvements in mobility through the implementation
of the Coalition's initiatives will enhance business profitability in
the Northeast, and throughout the nation. For example, time savings of
as little as ten minutes per trip for the 14 million eastbound trucks
entering New York City each year, would translate into direct cost
savings of nearly $50 million a year. Reduced inventory costs
associated with ``just-in-time'' operations could add an additional
$20-30 million in benefits each year.
Lower infrastructure costs.--The capital costs for new highway
construction are approaching $18 million per lane mile in some parts of
the Northeast. Over 380 new lane miles would need to be constructed
each year in the principal I-95 Corridor urban areas just to maintain
traffic flow at current levels of congestion. The total estimated cost
of this construction could reach almost $6.9 billion annually without
considering the associated legal and political difficulties.
Reduced travel delay.--The annual costs of incident-related travel
delay exceeds $7.8 billion in the five largest metropolitan areas of
the Northeast Corridor. Chronic traffic congestion adds approximately
40 percent more to the costs of delay in these areas. I-95 Corridor
Coalition Program initiatives promise to significantly reduce these
delays. For example, in Maryland, the early results of the state's
incident management program are showing a benefit/cost ratio of almost
6:1.
These significant economic benefits are clearly consistent with our
national goals of quality transportation, cleaner air, lower societal
costs, and economic prosperity.
future activities
Coalition members are proud of what they have accomplished and are
excited about the future. Assuming the continuation of adequate
funding, the next few years will enable us to further realize tangible
benefits from dollars invested. The Information Exchange Network
Project and the Commercial Vehicle Operations related projects will
continue to achieve gains from expanded use and economies of scale. In
addition to our focus on integration and deployment of technologies, we
are now directing attention toward the development of a comprehensive
Intermodal Program as a means of encouraging and facilitating the
integration of all modes.
Building on the strong foundation already in place, and with your
continued help, we will continue to meet our national transportation
objectives.
funding recommendation
Thanks to the Priority Corridors Program and the related funding
levels made available in ISTEA, the institutional foundations required
to create and support a state-of-the-art transportation system have now
been put into place. The I-95 Corridor Coalition has played a key role
in building these critical foundations. To realize the most significant
benefits of the Coalition's previous work, adequate funding for these
coordination efforts must be continued.
We have estimated that the I-95 Corridor Coalition can continue to
provide the coordination and cooperation among its member agencies with
an appropriation of five million dollars, per year. This modest level
of funding is needed in order to support the required administration
and coordination duties, as well as, key projects and field operational
tests for the coming five year period.
summary
The I-95 Corridor Coalition appreciates the opportunity to submit
this discussion of our accomplishments and our plans for the future. To
continue our work, we need continued congressional support. Our members
have worked hard to fulfill the goals and objectives which were
established by Congress in ISTEA. The foundation of an institutional
framework to build a state-of-the-art transportation system is in place
in the Northeast, and we are now focusing on the deployment of
technologies in conjunction with the more traditional transportation
solutions to better serve the demand for transportation services.
The potential economic benefits of these efforts, not only to the
Northeast, but to the nation as a whole, are enormous. Over the next
several years our efforts promises to demonstrate significant and
quantifiable benefits for dollars expended as projects go on-line. The
Coalition needs your help in meeting our common objectives. Again, to
continue this important work, we respectfully request $5 million in
appropriations for fiscal year 1998, and an equal amount for each year
of the life of the next authorization legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Anne Shane, Chief of Staff, to Mayor Stephen
Goldsmith, City of Indianapolis, IN
For those who may have missed it, the reality of the new
Indianapolis is a far cry from the old image of Indianapolis as a
traditional conservative midwestern city. The City of Indianapolis has
invested more than $1 billion in our downtown projects in recent years,
including $300 million in the Circle Centre Mall, $240 million in the
convention center, and more than $200 million in the RCA Dome. We are
researching the possibility of investing $175 million in a new
basketball arena downtown.
In addition, at a time when many central business districts in mid-
sized cities are facing serious problems, employment in downtown
Indianapolis has risen 15 percent over the last five years, while the
vacancy rate for commercial office space has fallen 10 percent.
While all this is happening in downtown Indianapolis, the
commercial and entertainment center of the central Indiana region, the
region as a whole is expected to maintain its strong economy and to
continue to attract new residents drawn to our high quality of life and
economic opportunity. According to forecasts in the ``Indianapolis
Regional Transportation Plan,'' population in the urbanized area is
forecasted to grow 27 percent between 1990 and 2020. The number of
households is expected to increase by 38 percent, with employment
rising by 44 percent.
Much of that development will occur in suburban areas. Growth will
be especially concentrated in the area to the north and northeast of
Indianapolis and Marion County. Hamilton County is expected to be among
the fastest growing areas in Indiana over the coming decades. So we are
facing strong development trends at both ends of the northeast
corridor. This means that increasing strain will be placed on our
already overburdened transportation system. The transportation plan's
forecasts are for daily person trips to increase by 48 percent, vehicle
miles of travel by 69 percent, and daily vehicle hours of travel by 77
percent. Such dramatic increases in travel could threaten the very
quality of life that makes the region so attractive to those of us who
live here now and to those who would like to live and work in central
Indiana.
Our traditional approach to addressing transportation needs has
been to expand the highway system to accommodate greater automobile
usage. But we are now at the point where simply adding lanes to
existing roads, as well as building new freeways, will not solve the
transportation problem. Congressman Burton mentioned the recently
completed study of the I-69 corridor which foresees a massive expansion
of highway facilities in the northern end of the northeast corridor.
That comes two decades after the community killed a plan to extend I-69
into the heart of Indianapolis.
The project that we are discussing today would move toward an
alternative solution to a problem widely acknowledged in the community.
Under the direction of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning
Organization, we are completing a feasibility study of several
transportation alternatives. These are likely candidates for detailed
analysis in a Major Investment Study. We are seeking a fiscal year 1998
appropriation for that study. These include two light rail options,
commuter rail, HOV/busway, transportation systems management and
highway expansion. We will have preliminary cost and ridership
forecasts soon.
We want to carefully consider the costs and benefits of many
transportation options in order to connect the downtown with the high
growth area to the northeast of Indianapolis. In this way we can help
assure the continued vibrancy of the downtown and safeguard the City of
Indianapolis' enormous capital investment. I hope we can count on your
support to help us address and thoroughly analyze these critical
transportation issues.
______
Prepared Statement of Lee R. Redmond, III, Senior Vice President-Real
Estate, Kaiser Ventures Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you for the record
materials regarding a proposed project in San Bernardino County,
California that we believe is worthy of your consideration for the
fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations Bill. Our project is
located at the juncture of Etiwanda Avenue and the I-10 Freeway,
approximately 1 mile east of the I-15 and I-10 Interchange in San
Bernardino County, California. The area affected by this project is
generally the area known as the former Kaiser Steel Mill.
Over the past several years, Kaiser has been re-developing a
portion of this property into the California Speedway, a major
motorsports facility owned and operated by Penske Motorsports which
will open on June 22, 1997. We are continuing our efforts to return the
remaining acreage to productive new uses. We have identified many uses
that are appropriate for the area which will have a direct impact on
goods movement through Southern California to both international and
national destinations.
A unique attribute of our property is that it is served by both the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads. This provides
for a significant opportunity to establish major intermodal facilities
in the area. We also believe that the development of the property for
such intermodal use will contribute meaningfully to achieving the
purposes of NAFTA.
In light of efforts to improve rail and truck transportation to and
from the ports of LA and Long Beach, this freeway improvement will
assist in improving the efficiency with which goods move, as well as
encourage additional development to serve this expanding sector of our
economy. In fact, one of the proposed developments for a portion of the
property around this interchange is a major truck stop to provide
adequate facilities for the significant existing and future truck
traffic.
In order for these goals to be achieved, it is imperative to
alleviate certain safety and congestion impacts that currently exist.
The project will provide for a grade separation of a major rail
crossing at Valley Boulevard which has been identified as one of the
most dangerous in the State of California. It will also improve certain
congestion safety factors that exist on Etiwanda Avenue and the I-10
Freeway due to the mixture of automobile and truck traffic. In fact,
the California Department of Transportation has found this project of
such interest that they are working with us to facilitate an expedited
review as an emergency safety project.
In summary, the project addresses a number of worth-while
objectives: it will relieve congestion; eliminate a hazardous
intersection of truck and auto traffic; contribute further to truck
safety by providing a major rest stop which addresses fatigue;
establishes the linkage for a future intermodal rail/truck facility;
and assists the region and the state to maximize the benefits from
NAFTA.
We had the opportunity to meet with the clerk of the Transportation
Subcommittee, Mr. Wally Burnett, on May 12 to discuss this project. If
you should require additional information, I stand ready to provide it.
I would also be pleased to provide a tour of the project if you are
interested.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Interstate 10/Etiwanda Avenue/Valley Boulevard Interchange Improvements
Proposal for Project Specific Funding Authorization Under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1997
1. Name and Congressional District of the primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any Members supporting the
project (each project must have a single primary sponsoring Member).
The project site is within the 42nd Congressional District, Hon.
George Brown, H.R.
2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient responsible for
carrying out the project.
The local agency sponsor for the project is the County of San
Bernardino, California, in cooperation with the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) and Kaiser Ventures, Inc. (Kaiser).
3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds (if a
road or bridge project, please note whether it is on the National
Highway System)?
Yes. As an Interstate route, the project is eligible for Federal-
aid funds. Interstate 10 (I-10) is on the National Highway System.
4. Describe the design, scope, and objectives of the project and
whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In doing so,
identify the specific segment for which the project funding is being
sought, including the terminus points.
The project objectives are to: (1) improve safety and enhance
mainline freeway operations on I-10 in the vicinity of the Etiwanda
Avenue and Valley Boulevard interchanges by eliminating existing
weaving movements with new ramp configurations, and (2) improve access
to proposed intermodal and truck stop facilities to be located on a
portion of the Kaiser site. The project's regional location is shown in
Figure 1. Specific design elements are shown in Figure 2 and include
the following:
--Realign and reconstruct Valley Boulevard from east of the SPRR spur
track and extend the road west to Slag Haul Road, eliminating
the existing at-grade rail crossing of the 1-10 off- and on-
ramps.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.038
--Reconstruct the existing weaving section on westbound I-10 between
the Valley Boulevard on-ramp and the Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp
as a ``braided-ramp'' configuration, which will eliminate the
westbound weaving movement.
--Reconstruct the existing Etiwanda/I-10 interchange by converting
the existing four quadrant full cloverleaf interchange to a
partial cloverleaf, retaining the northeast and southwest loop
on-ramps and demolishing the northwest and southeast loop off-
ramps. The exit ramps from I-10 in each direction will be
connected to Etiwanda Avenue at two new signalized
intersections.
The project is not part of a larger system of improvements.
5. What is the total project cost and proposed sources of funds
(please identify the federal, state, or local shares, and the extent,
if any, of private sector financing or the use of innovative financing)
and of this amount, how much is being requested for the specific
project segment described in Item No. 4?
The total project construction cost is $13,031,000. Currently, the
only project funding commitment to date is private sector funding to be
provided by Kaiser. Kaiser's share of the project costs will be
determined based upon the Kaiser project's relative contribution to the
need for the improvements. Kaiser is funding project design costs, and
will be dedicating additional right-of-way needed for the improvements.
The amount of funding requested at this time is $10,000,000. The
balance of $3,031,000 will be locally funded.
6. Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be obligated
over each of the next five years?
The project is proposed for construction in fiscal year 1998-99,
and it is anticipated that all funds requested would be obligated in
that year.
7. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the project?
Preliminary engineering is currently in progress, and will result
in a Combined Project Study Report/Project Report approval by December
1997. Project design will be completed by mid-1998, with project
advertisement for construction scheduled to occur by late 1998.
8. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State
transportation improvements plan(s), or the State long-range plan, and
if so, is it scheduled for funding?
Caltrans has approved the project for inclusion in Administrative
Amendment No. 3 to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP) and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), and
has forwarded its approval to the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG) (see Attachment A).
The project is consistent with and implements Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) policies supportive of goods movement and
intermodal issues, and will have a positive benefit toward meeting the
needs generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The project has been included in the Southern California
Association of Government's (SCAG) list of projects for ISTEA II
consideration per its Transportation and Communications Committee
meeting of February 21, 1997.
9. Is the project considered by the State and/or regional
transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please provide a
letter of support from these officials, and if you cannot, explain why
not.
The project is considered important by Caltrans as it has been
defined as a needed improvement since the 1980's. Caltrans has approved
and is the sponsoring agency for the RTIP/FTIP amendment request.
SANBAG has not formally endorsed this project since the specific
project proposal was in early stages of development at the time project
submittals were due to meet SANBAG's deadline for Board action at the
meeting of February 5, 1997. However, there has been extensive
coordination with SANBAG staff, which has assisted in coordination
between Kaiser and Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) staff for presentation of this project funding request.
The transportation improvement project contributes to meeting
regional transportation goals for improvements to existing freeways and
facilitating intermodal operations. The proposed combination of an
intermodal facility and a large-scale truck stop to be served by the
transportation project will also facilitate efficient movement of goods
into and from the Southern California region.
10. Does the project base regional or national significance?
Yes. The project has regional significance relative to its location
along I-10, 1 mile east of the I-10/I-15 interchange. By improving I-10
operations in this segment, the project will facilitate the traffic
movements from I-10 to I-15. The proposed improvement has national
significance, since both I-10 and I-15 traverse the nation and are
critical linkages in increased goods movement resulting from the NAFTA.
The proposed intermodal rail yard to be served by the
transportation project is intended to facilitate the movement of goods
from throughout the nation into the Southern California region by
creating a Southern California hub to which goods can be shipped by
rail, and then be transferred onto trucks for local deliveries
throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The area adjacent to the
I/10 Etiwanda interchange is the only location within Southern
California that is served by both the BNSF and the UP/SP rail systems.
As such, it is an ideal location for an intermodal facility, the
development of which is dependent upon the proposed interchange
improvements.
11. Has the project encountered, or is it lively to encounter, any
significant opposition or other obstacles based on environment tat or
other types of concerns?
There is no known opposition to this project, nor are there any
environmental issues that would be an obstacle to project
implementation.
12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency, environmental,
congestion mitigation, and safety benefits associated with completion
of the protect.
Economic benefits of the project will result by increasing the
capacity of the regional transportation system to accommodate existing
traffic as well as new traffic generated by new local and regional
economic development. The project will improve energy efficient and
assist in improving regional air quality by reducing traffic congestion
and vehicle idling time, thus resulting in reduced fuel consumption.
Environmental benefits of the project will result from reduction in
vehicle emissions due to reduced idling time. Congestion mitigation
will be achieved since the project will improve the level of service on
west-bound I-10 by eliminating a mainline weaving section, as well as
eliminating weaving movements on the collector-distributor roads for
the Etiwanda/I-10 interchange. The proposed project will improve safety
by reducing the potential for congestion related traffic accidents that
occur in these short weaving sections. Each of these benefits will be
further enhanced by facilitating the movement of goods into the Los
Angeles metropolitan region from distant locations throughout the
nation via rail for local delivery by truck.
13. Has the propel received funding through the State's federal aid
highway apportionment, or in the case of a transit project, through
Federal Transit Administration funding? If not, why not?
There have been no previous apportionments of federal aid funds for
this project. Although the project need was identified in the late
1980's, project funding was never pursued due to the backlog of other
critical transportation needs in San Bernardino County, such as full
funding of the State Route 30 freeway project.
14. Is the authorization requested for the project an increase to
an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it fit federal
statute (if so, please identify the statute, the amount provided, and
the amount obligated to date), or would this be the first authorization
for the project in federal statute? If the authorization requested is
for a transit project, has it previously received appropriations and/or
received a Letter of Intent or has FTA entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement for the project?
This is the first federal funding authorization requested for this
project.
[attachment a]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.041
______
Prepared Statement of Allen Greenberg, Government Relations Director,
League of American Bicyclists
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Allen
Greenberg and I am the Government Relations Director of the League of
American Bicyclists and also represent our International Police
Mountain Bike Association (IPMBA) division. The League also works very
closely with the Youth Bicycle Education Network (YBEN), which serves
at-risk inner-city youths.
Last year I submitted a statement to this subcommittee to describe
the national problem of bicycle crashes and the resultant injuries and
fatalities. This year I will provide an update on federal activities
relating to bicycling safety and will also address a new area: the
potential for the bicycle to play a vital role in welfare-to-work
transportation.
bicycle safety
Annually, bicycle crashes are responsible for 800 fatalities and
600,000 emergency room visits in the United States. This is more than
the 600 annual railroad grade-crossing fatalities, and far more than
the 30 or so children who have died because of air bags this decade. It
is more than aviation, railroad, and maritime fatalities, to which the
Clinton Administration proposes to dedicate $839 million, $57 million,
and $804 million, respectively, in fiscal year 1998.
Over the last year, Congress has held multiple hearings on air bag
safety and the Clinton Administration is now proposing $8 million for
air bag safety research and another $2 million to educate parents about
the risks that air bags pose to children. Yet for every child who died
because of airbags this decade, seventy children died in bicycle
crashes, but there is no response. Last year, the House Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee told the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), through report language, that ``greater efforts
are necessary to insure that children are trained to be safe
bicyclists.'' This made sense since NHTSA's ``Traffic Safety Facts
1994'' reported that 82 percent of bicyclists under the age of 15
killed during that year were at least partially responsible for their
fatal crashes.
So what's happened since last year? Senior NHTSA officials met with
us and agreed that bicycle safety should get more attention. NHTSA's
non-motorized program staff, whose dedication and professionalism are
second to none, has been very helpful, but without new resources little
has been or can be done.
Washington is a town of rhetoric. But talk is cheap and we must
follow the dollars to discern our true values. Are the 30 kids who have
died from air bags in the U.S. more important than over ten times that
number who die each year in bicycle crashes? If this subcommittee
approves the Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget as proposed, your
answer, regrettably, will be yes.
We need to put resources into developing a system to enable every
child to receive comprehensive bicycle safety education. NHTSA told the
House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee last year that it
didn't have the data to demonstrate that bicycle education would work;
however, the agency's own data shows that 82 percent of child bicyclist
fatalities could have been avoided if the cyclist had behaved
differently. NHTSA hasn't spent a dime to get the data it says it needs
(despite a detailed proposal we submitted to do this) or to create a
program and delivery system to teach our children what they need to
know.
There is a double standard being applied here and our children are
paying the price. No one has provided data to show that the $800,000 a
year ``Stay Out of the No Zone'' safety campaign to educate drivers
about truck blind spots. And where's the Administration's data to show
that the $2 million it is seeking to educate parents about air bag
safety will work? In each case, education is designed to close a
knowledge gap and to encourage people to think about things that
they're not now thinking about. This is why we need bicycle safety
education, and particularly on-road training, for children. Training
serves to improve on-road bicycle handling and overall knowledge,
encourages conformity to the rules of the road and to traffic laws, and
more experienced and formally trained bicyclists are much more likely
to wear helmets and to wear them properly. As the statement I submitted
last year said, there is no other transportation safety investment that
this subcommittee could make that would be nearly so cost effective in
saving lives and reducing injuries.
bicycling to work and off welfare
The League commends the Clinton Administration and Congress for
their interest in providing transportation links to jobs for welfare
recipients. The Clinton Administration's proposed fiscal year 1998
budget includes $100 million for a national welfare-to-work
transportation initiative. The League believes, however, that
insufficient attention has been paid to the essential role the bicycle
can play in providing such transportation. We are seeking funding from
this subcommittee for an initiative to provide bicycles, training, and
commuter support to interested welfare recipients seeking job
opportunities that are not transit accessible.
This initiative would entail social service agencies identifying
clients who would benefit from bicycle transportation and who are
willing to learn what is necessary to make it a viable transportation
option for them. The initiative would involve the League's Effective
Cycling (EC) instructors teaching EC Road I and Bicycle Commuting
Courses, the Youth Bicycle Education Network (YBEN) refurbishing old
bicycles, bicycle advocacy groups such as the Washington Area Bicyclist
Association inviting welfare recipients to participate in their bicycle
commuter mentoring programs, our Police on Bikes helping both YBEN find
and collect used bikes and our EC instructors teach bicycle commuting
skills, and National Bicycle Dealers Association members offering
program participants timely repair services under contract (much as
City Bikes in Washington does for bicycle messengers). Working with
YBEN, a network of inner-city organizations serving disadvantaged
youths, provides the added benefit of having already established
credibility in neighborhoods and among populations that are targeted by
this proposal.
At the October 1996 People, Jobs and Transportation National
Conference in Washington, the personnel director of the Boca Raton
Resort Club (with 1,900 employees) said he began offering workers
alternative commute incentives to help recruitment and reduce the need
for new, costly car parking facilities. Incentives for bicycle
commuting were included only as an afterthought, but they are now the
most popular and least costly of all those offered. This result is
consistent with a December 1994 national poll, commissioned by Rodale
Press, which found that while nine percent of all American bicyclists
commuted to work by bicycle at some point in their area's last mild-
weather month, 20 percent did so among households with incomes of
$25,000 or less.
Similarly, a Michigan transportation provider at the conference
said that there is typically good fixed route transit service between
central city homes and destinations within a couple of miles of
suburban employers. Combining a bicycle with transit (such as through
popular and inexpensive bike racks on buses) would allow welfare
recipients to take advantage of such service and explore employment
options beyond those within walking distance of bus routes that pass
near their home.
Welfare and job placement agencies often overlook bicycle commuting
as a viable, low-cost option and even the few that might be open to it
don't know where to begin in helping their clients realize this
potential. This initiative would focus on individual welfare recipients
who find jobs that either are inaccessible or difficult to access by
transit. We would recruit local networks of bicycle clubs, advocacy
organizations, and others in no more than ten partner cities to help
welfare clients by: acquiring or preparing commuter-ready bicycles;
supplying lights, apparel, and other equipment; helping with route
selection; teaching Effective Cycling skills; ensuring readily
available (and funded) repair services; and helping combine bicycle and
transit commuting into a single trip, where appropriate. The network
would also work with transit agencies, paratransit providers, taxi
companies, employers, and others to identify or provide at least one
alternative to bicycle commuting for snowy and icy weather and
emergencies.
The League and its local networks would work with job placement and
welfare agencies in partner cities by taking full responsibility for
meeting the complete range of bicycle commuting needs of welfare and
low-wage clients. Once a welfare agency or other government entity,
employer, or client determines that bicycle commuting services are
needed, or at least should be explored, the League-led bicycle network
would take over and provide the combination of services that I have
outlined to make bicycle commuting a realistic option. Each client
would be fully served for up to one year, and in that time period would
acquire all of the equipment, skills, knowledge, and confidence that is
needed for independent year-round bicycle commuting. We hope this
subcommittee will support this important initiative.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this statement. I look
forward to the opportunity to discuss it further.
______
Prepared Statement of John West, California Department of
Transportation and Chair of the NAHSC Program Management Oversight
Committee, National Automated Highway System Consortium
introduction
I am John West of the California Department of Transportation and
Chairman of the National Automated Highway System Consortium (NAHSC)
Program Management Oversight Committee. I represent a unique public/
private partnership that includes the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) and the nine member National Automated Highway System
Consortium (NAHSC). Our mission is to develop the specifications and
prototype for automated highway system (AHS) deployment in the United
States--the next major improvement in our surface transportation
system. An integral part of this effort is to foster the development
and early application of safety and control technologies to provide
early benefits to all highway users. (See Appendix ``A'' for our
complete Mission Statement.)
We appreciate Congress's past support for the AHS mission and
endorse the Administration's proposed budget request of $26 million for
the continuing Federal share of this program in fiscal year 1998. This
level of funding is essential to continue the established momentum and
compares with our current year Federal funding level of $22 million.
The Consortium Core and Associate Participants--now totaling more
than one hundred transportation stakeholder organizations throughout
the U.S. (see Appendix ``B'' for list of Associate Participants)--
collectively feel that this work is vital if this nation is to maintain
its excellent transportation network so critical to economic vigor and
international competitiveness. This is truly a pioneering effort to
support and assist the driver by integrating vehicle and infrastructure
technologies into a cooperative system with benefits to safety, traffic
congestion and the environment.
national ahs consortium
The NAHSC is a government-industry-academia collaboration working
to apply automated control technology to the U.S. vehicle-highway
system to greatly improve its safety and efficiency. In response to a
provision of ISTEA-91, the USDOT, late in 1993, issued a request for
applications for a cooperative research and development program leading
to a prototype AHS. The Consortium was formed early in 1994 to prepare
an application for this competitive solicitation. In December 1994, the
Cooperative Agreement between the NAHSC's nine Core Participants and
the USDOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was initiated. This
agreement charges the NAHSC to carry out the systems definition phase
of what ultimately could be deployed as the next major performance
upgrade of the U.S. vehicle-highway system.
The Core Participants of the Consortium are: Bechtel, the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Carnegie Mellon
University, Delco Electronics, General Motors, Hughes Aircraft,
Lockheed Martin, Parsons Brinckerhoff and The University of California
Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH). Each contributes a
high level of prior effort and expertise in technologies the automated
highway will use as well as extensive program management experience.
Collaboration of the roadway infrastructure designers with vehicle
designers and leaders in the development and application of information
and control technologies provides unprecedented opportunity to improve
the safety and efficiency of our surface transportation. This
collaboration, uniquely enabled by the consortium format, also provides
vital support in providing an environment that encourages the
development of a market for these technologies.
The agreement by the National AHS Consortium to share at least 20
percent of the total cost, without any profit or fee, underscores the
commitment of the national transportation system stakeholders to the
development of a socially, economically and technically viable AHS.
In addition to the Core Participants, the NAHSC now includes one
hundred and three Associate Participants representing nine categories
of stakeholders in highway transportation: (1) local, state and federal
government agencies, (2) transportation users, (3) public transit, (4)
environmental interests, (5) the highway industry, (6) the automotive
industry, (7) the electronics industry, (8) commercial trucking, and
(9) the insurance industry. These stakeholder organizations have all
pledged support for the goals of the AHS program and each category has
a voting representative on the Consortium's Program Management
Oversight Committee to ensure its interests are accounted for in the
direction and conduct of the program.
u.s. department of transportation (usdot)
The partnership of USDOT with the National AHS Consortium makes
possible the development of the fully integrated automated highway,
capable of flexible deployment and interoperability between all states
and municipalities. In developing AHS, a long-term view is necessary to
fully realize the benefits to society. Interlinking the roadway
infrastructure, which is generally owned and operated by the public
sector, with vehicles, which are developed, owned and operated by the
private sector requires the participation of both sectors from the
early stages. This partnership must continue to maintain the effort.
Leadership from USDOT in this longer-term research and development
project is essential for timely and smooth evolution from research to
the development of prototype automated highway lanes. In the nearer
term, many advances in safety technologies being developed to support
vehicle automation should spin off into improved driver aids and safety
features on nearer term production vehicles. In addition, USDOT and
NAHSC are working together to provide a framework so that Intelligent
Transportation Systems technologies being deployed in the near term
will be compatible with the later addition of vehicle-highway control
technologies.
global competitiveness
At the present time, the NAHSC is the sole focus of vehicle-highway
automation development in the United States. Both Japan and Europe have
active public-private cooperative development of vehicle-highway
automation technologies.
In Japan the major government sponsor of AHS is the Ministry of
Construction. After a visit to the NAHSC Program Office in 1995,
Minister of Construction Mori returned to Japan and significantly
increased funding for AHS which has led to organization of the
``Advanced Cruise Assist Highway System Research Association''. This
organization, patterned after the NAHSC, was formally launched in
September of 1996. The Association has public-private participation and
is funded by the Ministry of Construction at $70M for fiscal year 1996
and $105M for fiscal year 1997 with twenty-four private industry
members supplying additional funding. Among these are: Toyota, Nissan,
Honda, Mitusbishi, Oki, Sumitomo, NEC, Hitachi, Toshiba, and
Nippondenso. Members of the Association have given public
demonstrations of automated vehicle-highway technologies in November
1995 and October 1996. The Association has an initial goal of deploying
the first AHS roadway in Japan in 2010.
In Europe the focus of automation is primarily on commercial
vehicles with a consortium of fourteen organizations led by Daimler
Benz with funding coming from the European Commission. A public-private
project called Promote-Chauffeur, part of the much larger European
ETHOS program, is developing automation technologies for heavy trucks.
Initial development employs an ``electronic tow-bar'' that controls a
tractor-trailer to follow one that is driver controlled. The project
plans to progress into automated platooning of several automated trucks
following a driven lead vehicle and eventually into fully automated
platooning without a driver.
The Dutch Ministry of Transportation is planning the development of
an automated truck roadway to carry freight from the port of Rotterdam
to central Germany. Freight operations within the port of Rotterdam are
already fully automated.
It is of vital importance that the public and private
transportation sectors in the United States participate in the
development of vehicle-highway automation. Only in this way can the
U.S. ensure that the technical and operational standards for this
future transportation option meet the needs of its citizens for
efficient, convenient personal and commercial transportation. Only in
this way can the U.S. maintain the vitality of its surface
transportation system into the twenty first century.
the relationship of ahs to intelligent transportation systems
AHS is the most advanced component of the Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) plan--and the component that offers the
most potential for major gains in safety, efficiency and the
environment. The AHS program is building upon and integrating ITS
services as they evolve to ensure overall compatibility. AHS activities
are fully coordinated with other Federally-sponsored ITS programs and
with development of the National ITS Architecture.
The AHS program encompasses the planned evolution from today's
vehicle-highway system to the ultimate deployment of automated lanes.
The evolution has already begun with the introduction of limited
sensing and control systems on vehicles, and simple sensing and
communications systems in the roadway infrastructure. It will be
spurred on by the integration of more advanced features in vehicles,
more advanced capabilities in the infrastructure and by establishing
communications and coordination linkages among the vehicles and between
the vehicles and the roadway. Some of the initial enabling technologies
are coming to market today; many more will be produced over the next
decade. For vehicles, these include obstacle detection and collision
warning to detect and warn of imminent crashes; adaptive cruise control
to maintain safe following distance between vehicles; and lane keeping
to warn of lane or roadway departure. For the infrastructure, these
technologies include road condition monitoring, automatic toll
collection and communications.
benefits of ahs
Recent research in automated highways has clearly indicated that
automated vehicle control technology can offer major improvements in
safety and efficiency of existing highways. Approximately 40,000 lives
are still lost each year on U.S. highways and more than 1.7 million
people are seriously injured. The annual cost to the nation is
estimated to be more than $150 billion. Dramatic increases in highway
safety through AHS deployment will mean fewer fatalities and injuries
with less property damage and should lead to a reduction in driver and
shipper insurance costs. The efficiency of automated highways is also
expected to greatly improve the mobility and convenience of highway
travel. Today, the estimated loss of productivity due to traffic
congestion in the U.S. totals more than $50 billion annually. AHS
offers the opportunity to turn that loss into a direct gain in
productivity by increasing the capacity of each highway lane for the
transport of people and goods.
Minimizing traffic congestion and maximizing highway safety are the
more obvious benefits of highway automation. Other benefits will
include reduced fuel consumption and lower exhaust emissions due to
smoother traffic flow with no stop-and-go congestion, reduced driver
stress and less fatigue due to safer, less congested highways. These
positive effects will improve every aspect of highway travel, even for
those not using the automated lanes.
The NAHSC has defined necessary AHS system design characteristics.
Characteristics such as ease of use, operation in inclement weather,
affordable cost and economic feasibility, beneficial effects on
surrounding conventional roadways, operation with non-AHS vehicles,
progressive deployment, flexibility, modularity and the ability to
support a wide rage of vehicle types were determined to be the baseline
design requirements for successful AHS deployment and operation.
Top level service objectives for system users were determined to
facilitate intermodal and multimodal transportation, enhance operation
for freight carriers, support automated transit operations, be
adaptable to urban and rural highways for all vehicle types and to
support travel demand management and sustainable transportation
policies. Ultimately, the system will provide operation for the
disengaged driver. However, this will not be available for some time to
come. To paraphrase Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, if the
AHS approaches the kinds of benefits expected, this program will
represent one of the most productive transportation investments ever
made.
1996 accomplishments
AHS Concept Development.--During 1996 the Consortium completed
phase two of AHS Concept Development. Five concept families produced by
phase one were further developed and analyzed against the growing body
of system requirements. This analysis work was tied to real-world
issues through the use of three application scenarios: (1) the urban
freeway network, working with the Southern California Council of
Governments (SCAG); (2) the rural highway, working with Interstate 70
and Colorado DOT; and (3) shared transit and high occupancy vehicle
lanes, working with Houston Metro. The results of this analysis led to
the definition of six key concept attributes that must be addressed to
produce an AHS concept sufficiently adaptable to meet a wide variety of
local and regional needs while still maintaining national
interoperability. These key concept attributes will form the basis of
much of phase three concept development:
1. Mixed Traffic Operation--the issues surrounding the intermixing
of automated and manually driven vehicles, including decisions about
shared and/or dedicated lanes;
2. Deployment Sequencing--the ordering and timing of the steps to
evolve from the current vehicle-highway system to one which supports
automated operation;
3. Distribution of Intelligence--the allocation of sensing,
computation, communications and decision making responsibilities among
individual vehicles, groups of vehicles and the roadway;
4. Vehicle Separation Policy--the rules governing the degree of
coordination among AHS vehicles: whether they operate in closely
coupled platoons or as independent, ``free agent'' vehicles;
5. Obstacle Management--the degree to which the AHS relies on the
ability of the vehicles and/or infrastructure to detect roadway
obstacles and the ability of the infrastructure to prevent the
intrusion of obstacles; and
6. Driver Role--the issues associated with the division and
exchange of responsibilities between the AHS and the driver, driver
comfort and driver alertness.
Planning for phase three of concept development was begun and the
first draft of the report on phase two was finished. This report will
complete Milestone 2 for the AHS Program.
AHS Technologies and Analytical Tools.--As concept development
activities matured, the development of technologies and tools have been
brought more in line with the specific needs of AHS concepts being
proposed.
Technology development focused on the needs of (1) obstacle
detection and identification using radar, laser and vision sensors, (2)
lateral (steering) control using magnetic markers, radar reflective
markers and vision, (3) longitudinal (throttle and brake) control and
(4) other critical technologies including road friction estimation,
actuator development, electromagnetic compatibility of radars with
other vehicle electronics and software reliability. Significant
progress was made in most of these areas, and it has become more widely
recognized that these developments have near term applications to
vehicle and highway safety features.
Development continued on a suite of computer-based analysis and
simulation tools. These tools are used for assessing different AHS
concepts for: (1) safety effects of different sensors, control
algorithms and vehicle characteristics, (2) capacity and throughput
effects of different system architectures, roadway geometries and
communications strategies, and (3) social benefits including increased
safety, reduced travel time, less congestion, reduced fuel consumption,
reduced emissions and improved freight delivery schedules.
Societal and Institutional Viability.--Studies of the societal and
institutional issues associated with the future deployment of AHS
continued. Working sessions were held with many transportation agencies
across the U.S. to understand their processes for introducing new
transportation options and acquaint them with the potential for AHS.
These included agencies in Denver, Houston, Pittsburgh, Seattle, New
Jersey, Michigan, California and the Dulles Corridor in northern
Virginia. Five Perspectives white papers were published on issues such
as ``AHS in Transit Operations'' and ``Human Factors Issues in AHS''. A
panel of experts on transportation effects on land use was convened to
address the potential effects of AHS deployment. The panel concluded
that AHS, as only one component of the surface transportation system,
would not have any significant effect on land use.
1997 Demonstration of Technical Feasibility.--Most of the planning
for the Congressionally-mandated 1997 Demonstration was completed this
year. The demonstration plan was developed, technical specifications
and interface requirements were established, and risk analysis and risk
mitigation plan was produced. Hardware and software development is well
underway and the demonstration vehicles are in various stages of
development. These will show increasing degrees of driver support
features leading to full automation. The demonstration will take place
on 7.5 miles of the high occupancy vehicle lanes of Interstate 15,
north of San Diego, August 7-10. Enhancement of the roadway
infrastructure to support the AHS demonstration was completed and
additional support infrastructure work continues. The 1997
Demonstration has already attracted international attention and will be
attended by public sector and private sector leaders of the
transportation world. A ``local'' kick off ceremony in San Diego for
the roadway enhancements in June of 1996 attracted more than 350 guests
and twenty five print and electronic media outlets, demonstrating the
high degree of interest in the concept of highway automation. The on-
the-road demonstrations of partial and full automation features will be
accompanied by a technical exposition and a conference on future
transportation technology jointly sponsored by the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The technical exposition will explain those
aspects of the AHS program that cannot be shown in the demonstration
such as institutional, social and economic issues, and show that AHS
technologies have many near term transportation applications.
Stakeholder Participation.--The Consortium has been particularly
successful in attracting stakeholder interest in the AHS program and in
providing ways for those stakeholders to participate in and shape the
program. There are now 103 Associate Participants in the program in
nine stakeholder categories. Each of these categories has selected a
representative to the Program Management Oversight Committee where they
serve in a role equal to the Core Participants' representatives in
setting program goals and direction. Stakeholders also provided input
to the program through the Stakeholder Forum held May 30-31, 1996 in
Boston and the Concept Development Workshop held September 19-20, 1996
in Minneapolis. The Consortium also communicates with the stakeholder
community through its Internet site and through its quarterly
newsletter AHS Update.
work planned for 1997
The two major activities for 1997 are the continuation of concept
development and the Congressionally mandated demonstration of technical
feasibility.
Phase three of concept development is a nearly three year activity
to produce the AHS design concept that best meets national needs in
terms of technical, economic, social and institutional aspects. In
1997, concept development will address:
1. Identification of user needs as seen by different categories of
stakeholder;
2. Development of an AHS system architecture compatible with the
national ITS architecture;
3. Producing an AHS operations concept that includes a multi-stage
evolutionary path;
4. Focusing of technology and tool development activities to
support concept elaboration, analysis and evaluation and to encourage
early deployment of advanced safety features;
5. Development of practical AHS deployment strategies through a
series of case studies carried out jointly with regional transportation
authorities; and
6. Development of a viable range of options for the key concept
attributes of Mixed Traffic Operation, Deployment Sequencing,
Distribution of Intelligence, Vehicle Separation Policy, Obstacle
Management and Driver Roles.
The development of technologies for vehicle-highway automation and
the development of computer-based tools to support concept development
and evaluation will continue, both becoming more focused on specific
concepts as these become better defined.
Investigation of the societal and institutional viability of
automating highway travel will continue. These studies will address the
economic, environmental and social benefits of AHS as well as providing
a better understanding of the roles that will be played by the public
and private sectors in providing and operating the infrastructure for
AHS. The Consortium will work with USDOT to support an independent
review of the AHS program goals and the value of the public-private
consortium approach.
The 1997 Demonstration will be completed. Preparations include
development of the AHS demonstration vehicles, enhancements to the
roadway and demonstration support infrastructure, logistics and
production. There will be seven scenarios demonstrated on Interstate
15: (1) free agent AHS transit buses and passenger cars, (2) platooned
AHS passenger cars, (3) rural to urban freeway transition of AHS
passenger cars, (4) an evolutionary path to AHS showing the potential
for early spin off of safety features, (5) alternative lane sensing
methods for AHS vehicle control; (6) tractor trailers with AHS
precursor safety technologies, and (7) AHS maintenance operations.
Together, these scenarios will demonstrate the evolution from near term
safety features to full AHS for a variety of vehicle types. An AHS
Exposition and Future Transportation Technology Conference will be held
in conjunction with the vehicle demonstrations. The technology
developed for the demonstration and the lessons learned from conducting
the tests will be reported and will play an important role in the
subsequent concept development activities.
plans for 1998
The major focus will be on AHS concept development activities with
the goal of completing the design of the AHS functional and physical
architecture, incorporating the inputs from a broad range of
stakeholders. Decisions will be made on the sensing, communications and
control requirements for vehicles, the sensing, communications and
decision making requirements for the roadway infrastructure, the level
and method of Intervehicle coordination, the physical configuration of
AHS lanes, entrances and exits and similar architectural issues. These
decisions will be documented in a substantial set of draft AHS system
specifications backed up by analytical and experimental validation
supported by application of AHS technologies and tools now being
developed. Technology development activities will be focused on the
specific needs of the selected AHS architecture and will be used to
produce prototype subsystems. Computer-based analytical and simulation
tools will be tailored to evaluate concept and technology alternatives
and to support specification development.
The Consortium will fund a number of independent evaluations of the
system specifications and the ability of the chosen architecture to
meet those specifications. These evaluations will address performance,
costs, benefits, safety and environmental issues, among others. These
formal independent evaluations will supplement the continuing dialog
with stakeholders through workshops, public forums and direct
participation in the program.
The development of specifications and designs for vehicle and
infrastructure subsystems will begin as the key concept attributes are
determined, leveraging from the physical properties developed for the
1997 demonstration. The study of AHS applications to transit will
continue with follow on work to the Houston Metro case study and other
transit opportunities. The needs of Commercial vehicles will continue
to play an important role.
1999-2002
The preferred AHS system design will be selected in 1999 and a
complete set of system and subsystem specifications will be developed.
A subset of these specifications will be used to build and test a set
of prototype AHS lanes with a variety of vehicle types. The success of
these tests will be evaluated within the NAHSC and by independent
organizations. The results of these tests and evaluations will be used
to update the AHS system specification. This system specification for a
deployable AHS, along with supporting studies of the path to
evolutionary deployment, forms the key output of the program.
If the prototype shows AHS to be technically, economically and
socially viable, this will provide the basis for an operational field
test deployment of AHS lanes shortly after 2002.
closure
The AHS Program:
--Is an important investment in the future;
--Offers high potential for social benefits and international
economic competitiveness;
--Provides significant opportunities for near-term payoffs in
improved highway safety;
--Has the full commitment of all of its public and private Core and
Associate Participants; and
--Deserves your continued full endorsement and support.
[appendix a]
NAHSC Mission Statement
The NAHSC will specify, develop and demonstrate a prototype
Automated Highway System. The specifications will provide for
evolutionary deployment that can be tailored to meet regional and local
transportation needs. The Consortium will seek opportunities for early
introduction of vehicle and highway automation technologies to achieve
early benefits for all surface transportation users. The NAHSC will
incorporate public and private stakeholder views to ensure that the AHS
is economically, technically and socially viable.
[appendix b]
NAHSC U.S. Associate Participants
Organization City/State
3M, ITS Project............................................ St. Paul, MN
Aaderaa Instruments, Inc................................... Burlington, MA
Air Force Development Test Center (AFDTC).................. Eglin AFB, FL
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials................................................. Washington, DC
American GNC Corporation................................... Chatsworth, CA
American Mobile Satellite Corporation...................... Arlington, VA
American Public Transit Association........................ Washington, DC
American Trucking Associations............................. Alexandria, VA
Argonne National Laboratory................................ Argonne, IL
Aurora Exhibit Solutions Inc............................... Columbus, OH
Automobile Club of Southern California..................... Los Angeles, CA
Barrier Systems Inc........................................ Cherry Hill, NJ
Battelle................................................... Columbus, OH
BRW, Inc................................................... Phoenix, AZ
California Highway Patrol (CHP)............................ Sacramento, CA
Calspan SRL Corporation.................................... Buffalo, NY
CCG Associates, Inc........................................ Silver Spring, MD
CDW Consultants, Inc....................................... Framingham, MA
City of San Diego.......................................... San Diego, CA
Concise Systems, Inc....................................... Milford, MI
Contract Compliance, Inc................................... Philadelphia, PA
Creative Controls, Inc..................................... Warren, MI
Creative Transit Alternatives.............................. Falls Church, VA
Daniel Consultants, Inc.................................... Columbia, MD
Digital Systems............................................ St. Clair Shores, MI
Diversified Risk Insurance Brokers......................... Emeryville, CA
Dunn Engineering Associates................................ Westhampton Beach, NY
Dynamic Technology Systems, Inc............................ Alexandria, VA
Eaton Vorad Technologies, L.L.C............................ Cleveland, OH
Enerdyne Technologies, Inc................................. Santee, CA
Enterprise Group--Colorado Dept. of Transportation......... Denver, CO
Epsilon Engineering, Inc................................... Houston, TX
F. R. Aleman & Associates, Inc............................. Orlando, FL
Federal Highway Administration--Office of Motor Carriers... Washington, DC
Federal Transit Administration (USDOT)..................... Washington, DC
FPL and Associates, Inc.................................... Irvine, CA
GERI, Inc.................................................. Huntsville, AL
Global Embedded Technologies............................... Oak Park, MI
Harvard Design and Mapping Co., Inc........................ Cambridge, MA
Haugen Associates.......................................... West Bloomfield, MI
Honda R&D North America, Inc............................... Torrance, CA
HP Microsystems Inc........................................ Rochester Hills, MI
I-95 Corridor Coalition.................................... Alexandria, VA
Idaho National Engineering Lab............................. Idaho Falls, ID
IMRA America, Inc.......................................... Ann Arbor, MI
International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Association (IBTTA) Washington, DC
Iowa State University...................................... Ames, IA
ITP/Fleet.Net.............................................. Boca Raton, FL
ITS America................................................ Washington, DC
ITS Consortium, Inc........................................ Washington, DC
Jet Propulsion Laboratory.................................. Pasadena, CA
L. S. Gallegos & Associates, Inc........................... Englewood, CO
Louisiana State University................................. Baton Rouge, LA
Maricopa County Department of Transportation............... Phoenix, AZ
Martin Enterprises & Associates, Inc....................... Reston, VA
Matrix Corporation......................................... Raleigh, NC
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County............ Houston, TX
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc............................ Seal Beach, CA
Michigan Department of Transportation...................... Lansing, MI
Michigan State University.................................. East Lansing, MI
Minagar & Associates....................................... Irvine, CA
Montana State University, Western Transportation Insti-
tute...................................................... Bozeman, MT
National Institute of Standards and Technology............. Gaithersburg, MD
National Private Truck Council............................. Alexandria, VA
New Jersey Institute of Technology......................... Newark, NJ
New Jersey Transit Corporation............................. Newark, NJ
New York State Department of Transportation................ Albany, NY
Oakland University......................................... Rochester, MI
Penn. Transportation Institute/The Penn State University... University Park, PA
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission........................... Harrisburg, PA
Public Technology, Inc..................................... Washington, DC
QST Electronics Inc........................................ Lajolla, CA
Reason Foundation.......................................... Los Angeles, CA
Red Zone Robotics, Inc..................................... Pittsburgh, PA
Rizzo Associates, Inc...................................... Natick, MA
Robotic Technology Inc. (RTI).............................. Potomac, MD
Roper and Associates, Inc.................................. Santa Monica, CA
Ruan Transportation........................................ Des Moines, IA
SAE International.......................................... Warrendale, PA
San Diego Association of Governments....................... San Diego, CA
San Diego Regional Transportation Technology Alliance
(RTTA).................................................... San Diego, CA
Sarakki Associates......................................... Foothill Ranch, CA
Shell Oil Products Company................................. Houston, TX
South Coast Air Quality Management District................ Diamond Bar, CA
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company............. Bloomington, IL
State University of New York--University at Stony Brook.... New York, NY
Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc.............................. Santa Clara, CA
Technology Management, Inc................................. San Diego, CA
Texas Transportation Institute............................. College Station, TX
The Institute of Public Policy--George Mason University.... Fairfax, VA
The Ohio State University.................................. Columbus, OH
Toyota Technical Center USA, Inc........................... Ann Arbor, MI
U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center............................. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Armaments Command (TACOM)........ Warren, MI
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill................ Chapel Hill, NC
University of Florida--Transportation Research Center...... Gainesville, FL
University of Massachusetts Transportation Center.......... Amherst, MA
University of Minnesota.................................... Minneapolis, MN
University of Wisconsin at Madison......................... Madison, WI
Utilicom, Inc.............................................. Goleta, CA
Virginia Department of Transportation...................... Richmond, VA
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.......... Blacksburg, VA
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation........................... High Point, NC
Waveband Corporation....................................... Torrance, CA
Wayne State University..................................... Detroit, MI
Wilbur Smith Associates.................................... Columbia, SC
William F. Bundy........................................... Bristol, RI
Zapata Engineering, P.A.................................... Charlotte, NC
Aisin Seiki Company, Ltd................................... Kariya, Japan
ERTICO--European Road Transport Telematics Implementation.. Brussels, Belgium
New Flyer Industries Limited............................... Winnipeg, Canada
Ontario Ministry of Transportation......................... Downsview, Canada
Rijkswaterstaat--Dutch Department of Transportation........ Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Toyota Motor Corporation................................... Toyota, Japan
______
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sharpe James, Mayor, City of
Newark, NJ
On behalf of the City of Newark, New Jersey, let me first thank the
Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee for all their diligent
efforts in protecting and maintaining the transportation infrastructure
of the City of Newark, as well as the entire State of New Jersey. Now,
as you begin the difficult process of crafting the fiscal year 1998
Transportation Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring your
attention to a project of great importance to my City, the Urban
University Heights Road Connector.
This critical element in the overall transportation plan for Newark
is needed to connect the regional highway network to the University
Heights area, the County Complex and the Central Business District. In
doing so, this project will contribute to the economic vitality of the
core of New Jersey's largest city. The absence of this connector has
had an extremely negative impact on residential neighborhoods, which
are being strangled by backed up commuter traffic. If constructed, it
would eliminate considerable congestion and diminished air quality
caused by commuters exiting from I-280 to the local streets in order to
get downtown and to the five institutions of higher education in the
City.
The purpose of the Urban University Heights Road Connector is to
channel vehicular traffic directly to University Heights and the
business district, thereby providing an improved distribution from the
regional highway system to the City street system. The new highway
connection would provide these connections along First Street, from
that street's exit on I-280. Further, it will relieve peak hour traffic
build-up presently being experienced on I-280 through Newark and reduce
traffic exiting at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard ramp and the
Harrison Exit.
The project will, for the first time, provide the major
universities in the City of Newark direct access and linkage to the
Interstate system via I-280. The colleges and universities alone are
visited by more than 50,000 people daily. Much of this traffic exits I-
280 at First Street, which currently empties onto a tertiary through
street and residential grid.
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is a
national research hospital facility which receives federal research
monies in conjunction with infectious disease research, AIDS research,
trauma research and numerous other Federal research programs. Improved
access to this facility via the Urban University Heights Road Connector
is essential in order for UMDNJ to effectively provide safe and quality
care to its patients.
Further, this project will provide direct access to the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT), Rutgers University, and Essex County
College. NJIT's only campus is also located in the University Heights
area of the City of Newark directly next to the urban campuses of
Rutgers University and Essex County College. These institutions not
only house students in the vicinity of this project but also receive
daily thousands of commuters in and out of the City of Newark. This
construction and widening project will improve access to these
facilities.
In conclusion, the Urban University Heights Road Connector has
received strong support from the City of Newark and all the university
communities throughout the City. This valuable project will Improve and
increase mobility, improve air quality with decreased congestion, and
support economic development. Therefore, the City requests $5.7 million
from the subcommittee to complete design and construction of this
project.
______
Prepared Statement of John T. Durbin, Executive Director, Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission
intelligent transportation systems on the pennsylvania turnpike
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is committed to continued
investment into Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). A $300,000
ITS Early Deployment Strategic Plan, financed jointly by the Federal
Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, was
completed on April 11, 1996. This comprehensive, coordinated,
integrated and seamless ITS plan is the basis for implementing ITS on
the Turnpike.
Several elements of the intelligent transportation infrastructure
will be the result of a number of private/public partnerships.
One private/public partnership is the travelers information boards
located in the 22 service plazas along the Turnpike that have been
financed by the travel industry. It gives real-time pertinent
information to the traveler as well as other necessary travel
information such as lodging and attractions, and is controlled through
leased telephone lines. Other potential private/public partnerships are
being explored such as additional leasing of space on microwave towers
to cellular phone companies. The Commission is also discussing a
partnership with a firm to test a new technology to provide variable
displays along the roadway. These displays will be capable of
displaying information similar to that displayed on a computer monitor
or television. This system will enable the Commission to provide
valuable information to travelers in a number of different manners.
A significant contributor to an efficient and cost effective ITS is
the monitoring and availability of personnel on a 24-hour basis in the
Turnpike's Operations Center. With individual ITS components supported
by a microwave communication system and leased communication lines,
real time information exchange could occur with all service plazas,
maintenance yards, State Police barracks. highway advisory radios,
travel boards, weather and traffic sensors. incident management (call
boxes, *11, and radios), variable message signs, electronic toll and
traffic management systems, traveler initiated phone calls, and
interact access.
This data, voice, and video communication ability, when all the ITS
components are installed, will create a seamless transportation
facility for real-time information and customer services on a 506-mile
freeway facility that connects the largest five metropolitan areas in
Pennsylvania, and will greatly assist intermodal transfers and just in
time delivery systems. Rural and recreational areas of the Pennsylvania
Turnpike will also be served. The new communication system will
integrate and coordinate various independent components of ITS into a
single, comprehensive system that will be controlled from a major
transportation center in central Pennsylvania.
Electronic toll collection (ETC), when implemented, will provide
access through or around toll barriers for the toll agencies in New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It will provide real-time
information for public or private companies as to the location of their
vehicles and facilitate electronic transfer of information and
collection of tolls by one organization for all members of the Inter-
Agency Group. ETC will provide a reduction in operating costs and
reduction in air pollution and delays at toll plazas. ``Smart Card''
technology is currently being investigated for the next generation of
electronic payment systems.
Safety and costumer service are two of the most important goals of
the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Many ITS components already exist
on the Turnpike and are currently operational. The Turnpike accident
rates are lower than the Interstate Highway System and has a well
established incident management program. Call boxes are located at
every mile: cellular number *11 can be utilized for instant
communication with our operations center: emergency services and
response time have been integrated and coordinated for all sections on
the Turnpike: radio communication can be transmitted on the 506 miles
of toll road by the microwave communications system; and the Sonic Nap
Alert Pattern (SNAP) installed in the shoulder of the highway has saved
numerous lives. The Turnpike has committed to enhancing its
communication system to provide the capacity for current and future
ITS's.
Portable highway advisory radio systems are currently available
across the Turnpike, and travel boards are currently in all service
plazas where pertinent travel, traffic, and weather information can be
obtained by the traveler.
Currently the Commission is installing five Highway Advisory Radio
sites and three Travelers Information Displays in the Philadelphia area
to provide travelers with information on construction, weather and
delays both on the Turnpike and on the roadways adjacent to the
interchanges. This $2 million system funded by the Turnpike will be
operational by the summer of 1997. In addition, the Commission will be
adding staff to the operations center to provide improved 24 hour
operations of these and future systems.
The Commission is preparing plans for the installation of 10
additional Highway Advisory Radio sites, four additional Travelers
Information Displays, two Closed Circuit Television cameras and an
integrated control system. The Highway Advisory Radios will be
installed at the Turnpike interchanges with Interstate Highways and
will be used to provide information to travelers on the Turnpike as
well as those traveling on the interstates. The Travelers Information
Displays will be installed in advance of critical junctures on the
Turnpike where alternate routing of traffic are available. The Closed
Circuit Television Cameras will be installed at two of the Turnpikes
largest interchange to allow operators to monitor backlogs, detect and
verify incidents and provide immediate and appropriate response to
these incidents. Finally, an integrated control system will be
developed to provide integrated control of the Commission's existing
and future travelers information components. These components of the
Commission's ITS are being funded in part with the $3 million Federal
appropriations provided in fiscal year 1997.
Although financial resources are being maximized from public and
private agencies, there is still a significant shortage of financial
resources for deployment of ITS. It is anticipated that 10 to 15 years
will be needed for full deployment. A federal-aid grant of $8 million
would greatly assist the acceleration of the Commission's ITS program
and will demonstrate a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated
statewide system on a toll road. It will marry separate components of
ITS systems into a universal system that will be comprised of advanced
telecommunications, information and computer technologies with the
transportation infrastructure. It is a consumer oriented system for
information and traveler service that would benefit both intrastate and
interstate transportation.
The Commission would like to further expand its Travelers
Information System to incorporate additional Highway Advisory Radio
sites and Travelers Information Displays at tunnels and other
interchanges with significant traffic volumes. In addition, additional
Closed Circuit Television Cameras will be installed at major
interchanges to monitor traffic flow, verify incidents and provide
immediate and appropriate response to these incidents. This will help
to lessen interchange area congestion and allow the Commission to
provide accurate information to travelers.
To obtain more timely and accurate information on traffic and
weather conditions. the Commission would like to install traffic and
weather sensors.
Traffic sensors will be installed at interchanges and at
intermitted locations between interchanges to monitor traffic flow and
provide a means for Turnpike Operators to detect slowing traffic as a
result of a disable vehicle, accident or heavy volume of traffic.
Initial implementation will occur in the Philadelphia area where
reoccurring congestion exists at interchanges and where a minor
incident can create gridlock if not detected and cleared immediately.
Traffic sensors will be installed on the exit ramps to these
interchanges and will detect when traffic is beginning to backlog
towards the mainline. This will provide a warning to the operations
center as well as providing advanced warning to drivers to slow or
stopped traffic in and around the interchange areas. This will provide
an essential warning system when Electronic Toll Collection is
implemented and higher speeds are anticipated in the interchange areas.
Weather sensors will be installed in areas along the Turnpike where
the roadway historically experiences recurring weather events such as
fog, icing and extreme temperature variations. Initial implementation
will occur in the mountainous sections of central, western and
northeastern Pennsylvania where travelers (particularly Commercial
Vehicles) rely on the Turnpike to provide safe and efficient travel
during inclement weather. This system Will allow the Turnpike to
anticipate and more quickly respond to weather events and provide
maintenance crews with information to better maintain the highway. In
addition, this system will allow travelers to obtain more accurate and
timely weather information through the Commission existing and expanded
Travelers information System.
The Commission will be remodeling and expanding its operations
center within the next few years as part of the rehabilitation and
expansion of the Turnpike's Central Office located in Harrisburg, PA.
To provide for a state of the art facility, the Commission will provide
advanced technologies to provide and obtain real-time information such
as traffic sensor data and Closed Circuit Television feeds with other
public and private entities. This would include exchanging data with
PennDOT's traffic control centers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and
provide a link between the major operation centers across the state of
Pennsylvania. In addition, it will allow for links with agencies in
neighboring states and with private entities such as traffic reporting
services and office parks.
Other improvements to the operation center include development of a
Geographic Information System or electronic map. This system will allow
operators to identify on the map locations of incidents, the number of
lanes opened at an interchange, lane closures, and will automatically
identify the locations of call box calls and nature of the call, status
of detectors and cameras, slow moving traffic when detected, weather
sensor information and messages on the Travelers Information System
components. This electronic map could be projected on to large screen
TV so that all management personnel and operators could view everything
that is occurring on and near the Turnpike at the same time. This will
provide a more coordinated approach to day to day management of the
roadway and during incidents. This system will also allow an operator
an up-close view of a roadway segment so that he or she can provide
emergency response vehicles with information on narrow shoulders,
closest access gate, nearest water source and another features which
could delay a response or effect the management of an incident.
The Commission currently has Closed Circuit Television Cameras
installed in three of its five Tunnels. Images from these cameras are
currently only transmitted to the tunnel portal building located at
each of the tunnels. The Commission would like to transmit these images
to its control center better assist tunnel personnel during tunnel
incidents and repairs.
As Author Dan Cupper seated in his history of the Pennsylvania
Turnpike. ``As America's first superhighway, the Turnpike sparked a
revolution in the way motorist, truckers, engineers and consumers view
highway transportation. Simply put it changed the American perception
of time.'' Although we do not intend on changing the American
perception of time by implementing ITS, the Turnpike will provide
travelers with a timely perception of what is occurring on the roadway
in order to provide, as it has for the last 56 years. the most
efficient network for the movement of goods and people across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, by implementing proven
technology in a phased approach, the Commission is demonstrating how
ITS's can provide improved safety, efficiently, traffic flow and
costumer service to all travelers.
The Turnpike's mission is to ``Operate and manage in a fiscally
responsible manner, a safe, reliable and valued toll road system.'' By
providing appropriations for the implementation of ITS, the Turnpike's
mission will drive us to deliver these services in an efficient and
effective manner.
______
Prepared Statement of Kurt Weinrich, Director, Regional Transportation
Commission of Clark County, NV
Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, members of the Subcommittee, I
am Kurt Weinrich, Director of the Regional Transportation Commission of
Clark County, Nevada. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
submit this testimony to the Subcommittee.
The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada
(RTC) is a public entity created under the laws of the State of Nevada
with the authority to operate a public transit system and administer a
motor fuels tax to finance regional street and highway improvements. In
addition, the RTC was designated by the Governor of Nevada as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. The
RTC is not only a multimodal planning entity, but also a multimodal
service provider. As well as funding over $150.0 million annually in
new roadway construction, the RTC operates a mass transit system that
moves more than 3 million passengers a month and recovers nearly 50
percent of its operating and maintenance costs from the farebox. See
Exhibit A.
Over the last several years, the Las Vegas metropolitan area has
experienced phenomenal growth. The economy of the Las Vegas Valley is
characterized by a favorable business environment, including minimal
government regulations, an absence of business and personal income
taxes, and a comparatively low property tax by national standards. This
environment has fostered an era of explosive growth that has fueled the
creation of over 150,000 new jobs since 1990, and has witnessed the
influx of over 400,000 new residents to the valley since 1990. As shown
in Exhibit B, current projections indicate that population will exceed
2 million residents and employment will exceed 750,000 jobs by the year
2015. Currently, over 5,000 new residents move to the Las Vegas Valley
each month. With Nevada's positive business climate, strategic
location, and reputation as a tourist destination, it is clear why Las
Vegas is the fastest growing urban area in the United States.
Las Vegas welcomed over 29 million visitors in 1996. With over
100,000 hotel rooms available, and 14,100 more rooms under
construction, Las Vegas continues to remain a world class resort
destination that affords a wide variety of recreational opportunities
and unparalleled convention and meeting facilities. On any given day,
the actual population of Las Vegas, defined as residents and tourists,
exceeds 1.5 million persons. To maintain this position and serve the
needs of the growing tourist economy, workers must staff the resort
hotels in a variety of jobs over a twenty-four hour period.
On December 5, 1992, the RTC initiated the Citizens Area Transit
(CAT) system, the largest single start-up of new bus service in an
urban setting funded entirely with local funds. CAT has proven
extraordinarily successful. In only 4 short years, annual CAT ridership
has grown from 14.9 million riders to over 35.0 million, equating to an
average annual growth rate of 44 percent. See Exhibit C. This rate of
growth is faster than the growth in population, employment, hotel
rooms, visitor volumes, airport passengers, vehicle miles traveled,
auto registrations, and new home sales in the same time period. While
the CAT routes operating along the Las Vegas Strip provide service to
over 800,000 passengers per month, this accounts for only 25 percent of
the total monthly ridership. Clearly, many Las Vegas residents rely
heavily on the CAT system to get to work, school, shopping, and
recreational facilities. CAT has proven itself an integral part of the
Las Vegas community.
To respond to the huge demand for transit services, the RTC has
continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual hours of
revenue service have increased by 46.7 percent; from 585,134 hours in
1993 to 858,746 in 1996. See Exhibit D. Similarity, annual vehicle
miles have increased by 76.7 percent, from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to
11,283,446 miles in 1996. However, CAT carries its phenomenal
ridership, over 3 million passengers per month, on a total fleet of
only 192 vehicles. As shown in Table 1, CAT transports up to three
times the number of passengers per vehicle as compared to other peer
cities.
TABLE 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
System 1996 total Fleet passengers
passengers size per vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAT............................. 35,044,533 192 182,523
Phoenix......................... 35,028,406 462 75,819
Orange County................... 44,700,000 425 105,176
Foothill Transit................ 13,000,000 259 50,193
San Antonio..................... 36,284,571 519 69,912
Austin--Capital Metro........... 29,100,000 466 62,446
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with the overwhelming success of CAT, only 36 percent of the
current routes operate more frequently than once per hour. See Exhibit
E. Many routes in the CAT system operate well in excess of the 150
percent capacity standard. Additionally, with the continued growth and
development of the Las Vegas Valley, numerous new residential
developments are not yet included in the CAT service area. While the
demands for service seem to increase daily, the RTC is severely
constrained by a lack of rolling stock. Simply stated, additional
vehicles are necessary to increase service within the community. To
enhance the convenience and reinforce transit as a viable
transportation option, increased frequencies on all routes are
necessary.
The RTC currently has 55 new vehicles on order for replacement and
expansion of the CAT fleet. However, even this number of additional
vehicles will be insufficient to meet the ever growing demands for
expanded service. To meet this need, the RTC requests $9 million in
Section 3 bus discretionary funds to allow the RTC to purchase 23
additional vehicles which would be used to provide more frequent
services on a number of heavily utilized routes. Consistent with past
appropriations requests, the RTC will provide a substantial overmatch
of 30 percent in local funding for these equipment purchases.
Despite the dramatic growth and expansion of CAT, the Las Vegas
Valley continues to experience rising congestion levels, especially in
the area known as the Resort Corridor. The Resort Corridor defines the
true Central Business District (CBD) of the Las Vegas Valley. While
many American cities maintain central business districts of multiple
city blocks, the Las Vegas CBD is in fact an eight mile long segment of
the valley. The employment in this area is not just limited to the
resorts. The University of Nevada-Las Vegas, the Hughes Business
Center, McCarran International Airport, three regional shopping malls
and the region's medical centers are also located within the defined
Resort Corridor. Although it covers only 10 percent of the land area of
Las Vegas, over 50 percent of the regional employment is located within
the Resort Corridor, while 93 percent of the area residents live
outside the corridor. In 1996, 70 percent of all trips in the Las Vegas
Valley either traveled to, from, or through the Resort Corridor. To
meet projected levels of travel demand without the addition of new mass
transit services, the Las Vegas Valley would need to add 18 lanes of
arterial capacity in the north-south direction and 21 lanes in the
east-west direction.
To frame the solutions to these growing problems, the RTC sponsored
a Major Investment Study (MIS) for the resort corridor to evaluate the
effectiveness of multimodal solutions to regional mobility issues. The
MIS process led to the RTC's recent adoption of a Master Transportation
Plan that includes a fixed guideway element as well as enhanced bus
services. The objective of the fixed guideway system is to provide
residents and visitors with environmentally clean, cost effective,
public transportation services that will meet the dramatically
increasing transportation needs of the Las Vegas Valley.
As described in the Master Transportation Plan, the full fixed
guideway system would consist of approximately 18 miles of double-
track, elevated, automatic guideway providing service to 28 stations
and 3 major terminals. However, since the completion of the MIS, there
has been considerable discussion locally about the possibility of
dividing the project into two separate but complementary components: a
privately funded monorail serving a portion of the resort area, and a
publicly funded system extending north to the City of Las Vegas
downtown area. Regardless of the specific outcome of these discussions,
the RTC is ready to move forward to the next phase of project
development on the public system by proceeding with system and
technology refinements and initiation of a Draft EIS in calendar year
1997. To this end, the RTC requests the sum of $5 million in Section 3
new start funding for preliminary engineering and design of this
project. We should also note for the committee's information that the
RTC is requesting an authorization for this project in ISTEA II.
The RTC appreciates the Subcommittee's continued support of transit
projects in the Las Vegas Valley. Through a continued Federal
partnership, the RTC will strive to meet the tremendous demands placed
upon it through the rapid growth of Las Vegas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.045
[Clerk's note.--Exhibit E could not be printed in the hearing
record but is available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
______
Multimodal-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), founded in 1852, is
the oldest national engineering society in the United States.
Membership is held by more than 120,000 individual professional
engineers, and is equally divided among engineers in private practice;
engineers working for federal, state and local governments; and those
employed in research and academia. The Society's major goals are to
develop engineers who will improve technology and apply it to further
the objectives of society as a whole, to promote the dedication and
technical capability of its members and to advance the profession of
civil engineering.
infrastructure investment
ASCE has a longstanding interest in our nation's infrastructure
system. As civil engineers, we have played an historic and significant
role in building and maintaining the infrastructure that supported the
development and prosperity of the Nation. We are deeply concerned about
the nation's growing public works infrastructure investment needs.
America's infrastructure system has been placed on hold for so long
that it is now in immediate need of substantial investments and repair.
The maintenance needs of the nation's highways and transit systems
continue to outpace the rate of investment.
The Administration's own studies reveal that annual surface
transportation spending needs to be increased by $18.2 billion, or more
than 40 percent, simply to maintain current highway, bridge, and
transit conditions and performance. The United States, however, is
investing less than $41 billion each year.
Meeting these challenges is one of the greatest public policy
issues facing our nation as we move into the 21st century. Failure to
meet these needs will threaten our ability to compete in the global
marketplace, and will ultimately jeopardize American jobs and our
quality of life.
In order to address these problems, the federal government needs to
develop infrastructure investment programs which promote long-term
economic growth. The current budget structure however does not
highlight for decision making purposes the differences between spending
for long-term investment and spending for current consumption. As a
result, Congress is not encouraged to make decisions about how much
spending overall should be devoted to programs having a direct bearing
on long-term growth and productivity. To assist the federal government
to more rationally account for the cost of physical infrastructure,
ASCE supports the establishment of a multi-year capital budget that
would create an infrastructure investment account within the unified
federal budget.
Instituting a capital budget would help eliminate the existing bias
against investment in physical infrastructure and would better
represent the value of government investment in infrastructure
projects. It would also help focus public attention on the nation's
physical infrastructure needs. Many state and local governments already
use capital budgets to finance the orderly planning and financing of
capital assets like transportation infrastructure. ASCE urges the
federal government to look to those jurisdictions for guidance in
setting up its capital budget.
ASCE commends the efforts of the congressional leadership to
control federal spending and reduce the federal deficit. However, we
caution lawmakers to approach the deficit problem in an even-handed
manner. Disproportionate cuts should not be applied to infrastructure
investment programs in general, and transportation programs in
particular.
Moreover, the fact that key highway, transit and aviation
investment programs are supported by dedicated user fees, such as the
federal motor fuels tax and the airplane ticket tax, should be taken
into account as Congress confronts the deficit problem. A failure to
appropriate adequate funds for highway, transit and airport investments
in fiscal year 1998 will further strengthen the case of advocates for
moving the four federal transportation trust funds off-budget. ASCE is
a strong proponent of H.R. 4. The Truth in Budgeting Act, which now has
224 co-sponsors.
There is strong, if not overwhelming, public support for capital
infrastructure investment. Every public opinion survey we have seen on
this issue shows strong support. Even proposals to raise the gas tax
for infrastructure investment--but not deficit reduction--attract
impressive support from the American people. But if transportation
excise taxes continue to be used to mask the size of the federal
deficit, or diverted to fund other non-infrastructure programs, public
support for these dedicated user fees will begin to decline.
fiscal year 1998 budget request
ASCE is very concerned about the direction of federal
infrastructure investment. Under the Administration's proposal, federal
spending on transportation programs would remain essentially flat under
the fiscal year 1998 budget. The overall request of $38.5 billion for
transportation programs next year amounts to a one percent reduction
from the level that was appropriated by Congress in fiscal 1997. ASCE
strongly opposes any cuts in key infrastructure investment programs and
urges full funding of federal aviation, highway and transit programs in
fiscal year 1998. Congress must recognize that cutting transportation
funding will not cut transportation needs.
In a major shin from previous policy, the bill also proposes--for
the first time--to shift $4.8 billion from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
to finance Amtrak's capital and operating expenses and moves another
$250 million to the Washington, D.C.-area transit program. Such a move
only puts further pressure on our existing highway and transit systems
which are in critical need of repair and investment.
reauthorization of istea
ASCE is committed to a leadership role in helping Congress rewrite
a surface transportation bill that will not only meet the
transportation needs of today, but will prepare the nation for the
transportation needs of tomorrow.
Recognizing that the reauthorization of ISTEA provides an
opportunity to build and improve the existing framework, we support a
continued federal role in the nation's surface transportation system.
With billions of dollars in state highway funds threatened by any lapse
in the program, we strongly recommend that the reauthorization of ISTEA
be completed before the September 30. 1997 deadline and encourage
Congress to reauthorize the program for a period of at least five
years.
We believe that the reauthorization should build on the principles
of the original ISTEA legislation with increased emphasis on
accelerating the implementation of technologies that will improve
safety and efficiency on U.S. highways. The federal government should
continue to focus on the essential elements of ISTEA: ensuring a
balanced intermodal system; improving transportation safety;
encouraging the development and use of advanced technologies;
supporting research and education; enhancing U.S. economic
competitiveness; and, protecting the environment.
In addition to maintaining current activities and programs, the
reauthorization of ISTEA should be enhanced by the following:
increasing emphasis on proven and productive safety programs;
encouraging efforts to use innovative financing, including public/
private partnerships; incorporating innovation and technology transfer
as key components; removing barriers to the use of proprietary
technology in federal-aid projects; and, strengthening research and
development programs by providing adequate resources to implement and
improve new and existing technologies.
While ASCE commends the Administration for maintaining and building
upon the core principles of ISTEA by providing increased funding for
safety and research and development programs, we are deeply concerned
that the six-year, $175 billion authorization proposal falls short of
the funds needed to maintain and improve our existing transportation
infrastructure system. We estimate that Congress will need to spend at
least $220 billion in the next reauthorization bill just to maintain
the nation's current highway and transit systems.
Under the Administration's plan, annual highway spending would be
between $20 and $21 billion over the next six years which translates
into roughly a $1 billion increase over current levels. These figures
do not take into account the eroding effects of inflation on purchasing
power.
A much greater portion of Highway Trust Fund revenues can and
should be spent for transportation investments than is currently
outlined in the Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal.
Reports show that the Highway Trust Fund could easily support annual
highway spending of $26 billion. Currently, there is a cash balance of
more than $20 billion in the Highway Trust Fund, and this figure is
projected to grow to about $48 billion by 2002 under the proposed
budget. The existence of this balance not only represents a breaking of
the government's contract with American taxpayers, but also undermines
our nation's ability to invest in critical transportation improvement
projects.
The proposed annual highway spending of $20 billion is unacceptable
given our growing infrastructure needs. According to the Department of
Transportation's 1995 biennial report to Congress, an estimated $57.2
billion in capital investments would have been needed just to maintain
1993 conditions and performance of our nation's highway, bridge, and
transit systems. Instead, capital investments for that year amounted to
only $40.5 billion. An estimated $80 billion would have been needed in
1994 to improve the current infrastructure conditions; almost double
current spending.
When you compare these figures to the actual conditions of U.S.
roads, where 59 percent of the nation's major roads are in need of
repair or improvements, the arguments for increased infrastructure
spending become even stronger.
In order to increase overall spending for ISTEA programs, we
strongly urge the Administration to follow through on its commitment to
``rebuild America'' by supporting legislation to move the four
transportation trust funds off-budget and to redirect the 4.3 cents-
per-gallon gasoline tax from deficit reduction to the Highway Trust
Fund. Combined, the proposals would allow annual funding for ISTEA
programs to grow to approximately $30 billion annually and would help
to solve many of the difficult issues confronting the Administration
and Congress, including the contentious issue of how to divide highway
funding among states.
innovative financing
Despite the widely recognized need for increased funding, it has
become increasingly apparent that budgetary constraints limit the
federal government's ability to adequately address our growing
infrastructure problems.
In order to close the gap between transportation needs and
available resources, ASCE supports the development of new and
innovative methods of financing infrastructure to attract new sources
of capital.
The Administration calls for more funds to be used to attract
private investment in the highway system. In addition to the $150
million proposed for the State Infrastructure Banks (SIB's), another
$100 million would be set aside for a new Transportation Infrastructure
Credit Program which would provide seed money to leverage new projects
of ``national significance.''
ASCE applauds the provisions in the President's proposal that
encourage creative financing solutions and more private sector
involvement in infrastructure improvement and management of America's
transportation system.
aviation
America's aviation system is a key component of the nation's
transportation infrastructure. Since fiscal 1992, the number of airline
passengers has grown by 100 million, an increase of 21 percent, while
aviation infrastructure investments have significantly declined.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would see a mix of cuts
and increases in fiscal year 1998. Overall, the FAA would receive $8.46
billion, a slight decline from current year spending of $8.56 billion.
FAA's operating budget would be $5.4 billion, up from $4.8 billion this
year.
The biggest cut would be in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
which would be reduced by 31 percent under the Administration's
proposal, from $1.46 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $1 billion in
fiscal year 1998. To make matters worse, while the AIP funding is cut,
the administration is not proposing to allow airports to increase the
maximum Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to make up for the loss of
federal funds. ASCE strongly opposes these cuts. The most recent data
reveals that the Airport and Airway Trust Fund could support spending
roughly $4.8 billion to finance programs like the AIP.
The AIP helps fund necessary safety, security, noise and capacity
enhancement programs at the nation's airports. Such cuts threaten the
security and safety at our nation's airports.
Tremendous capital needs remain to be addressed at the nation's
airports. The FAA projects that the number of passengers will increase
by 351 million in the next 12 years. Much more investment is needed if
airport authorities are to come to grips with increasing numbers of
customers.
ASCE strongly believes that greater investment in our air transport
infrastructure will be necessary to create a safer and more efficient
U.S. aviation network
civil engineering research foundation
Increasing public interest in, and reducing obstacles to,
innovation is a formidable task. ASCE, as the representative body of
the profession largely responsible for the design and construction of
the manmade environment, is deeply concerned about the nation's growing
infrastructure needs and believes that R&D programs leading to
innovation are vitally important to help close the gap. In pursuit of
this goal, ASCE established the Civil Engineering Research Foundation
(CERF) in 1989 to foster a unified civil engineering research effort
and create a coordinated R&D program that both addresses industry and
profession needs and involves industry and the profession in planning
and conducting appropriate research projects. CERF is now working with
government, industry and academia to develop and finance new
cooperative research initiatives in the infrastructure area.
A major focus of CERF's activities is to assist practitioners in
moving research findings into practice. Accordingly, CERF has
undertaken numerous initiatives to attack existing barriers to
innovation, both technical and institutional in nature. Likewise, it
``coordinates and integrates'' the diverse elements of the design,
construction and civil engineering communities to plan and conduct
collaborative research to solve high priority real world.
In order to move highway innovation into practice more quickly,
CERF, under a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHwA), established the Highway Innovative Technology
Evaluation Center (HITEC) in 1994.
As a nationally recognized service center, HITEC evaluates new and
innovative products and technologies for the highway community. Working
with a variety of public and private sector organizations, it serves as
a national clearinghouse for a wide range of technologies which have
application to all phases of the construction process--design,
construction, operation and maintenance.
In 1996, HITEC initiated over 25 new evaluations. Currently, HITEC
is evaluating numerous other innovations, including: seismic isolation
and dissipation devices, bonding agents for pothole repairs, a heated
pavement system, a high retroreflectivity traffic sign system, and a
precast segmental overpass system. HITEC illustrates the kind of
public-private sector collaboration CERF promotes.
research and innovation
ASCE has a long-standing position in support of greater education,
research and development related to infrastructure facilities to foster
innovation and increase productivity in design, materials,
construction, maintenance and operations while maintaining engineering
quality and structural integrity.
Investments in surface transportation research have led to
significant improvements in our nation's infrastructure system and have
provided a great many benefits to users and the economy in the form of
safer, faster and more efficient travel. These improvements are largely
a result of innovative materials, technologies, and practices that were
developed by federal research programs and implemented by
transportation planning officials.
Research and development are critical to finding effective and
innovative solutions to the growing problems facing our transportation
system. Failure to meet these challenges could slow our economic growth
and reduce our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Research
and development hold the potential to increase the quality and
durability of future infrastructure investments as well as to improve
the productivity of U.S. businesses which rely on a healthy
transportation system for the movement of goods and services.
America's historic decline in infrastructure investment over the
past two decades has included an unfortunate under-investment in
infrastructure R&D. The Department of Transportation has spent only 2
percent of its total surface transportation budget on transportation
research programs. Most of this funding has gone to the Federal Highway
Administration which received $2.1 billion.
In recent years, cuts in annual spending for research programs
below the amounts authorized by ISTEA have had an adverse effect on the
economy and our transportation system, including: increased commuting
times and delays, additional cost from wear and tear, decreased
industrial productivity and international competitiveness, and
increased transportation costs for businesses. Driving on roads in need
of repair costs American motorists $23.7 billion a year in extra
vehicle repairs and operating costs.
While ASCE commends the Administration for proposing significant
increases in programs which support the advancement of technological
innovation, much more work needs to be done.
Implementation of research and development programs will enable us
to achieve the following explicit strategic goals:
--Reduce the large backlog of needed rehabilitation and renewal of
existing transportation infrastructure;
--Improve performance of transportation infrastructure in terms of
life-cycle cost, safety, reliability, environmental impacts,
transportation service, capacity, efficiency and mobility and
access for all; and
--Provide the infrastructure technology base that will be needed for
transportation systems of the future.
For example, CERF, working in close coordination with ASCE, has
brought together a broad-based coalition of experts from industry,
government and academia to develop a specific strategy and program
focusing on high-performance construction materials and systems. The
initial cost of the transportation portion of this is roughly $70
million per year; half of which, as originally envisioned, would be
paid for by the federal government, and half by the private sector
partners. Obviously, this is a substantial investment to make at any
time and certainly at a time of unprecedented demand to reduce the
federal deficit. However, we would like to emphasize in the strongest
possible manner that these investments in research and development will
ultimately reap dramatic reductions in construction costs and schedules
and substantial improvement in overall system performance.
The bottom line is that our nation's infrastructure needs must be
satisfied now or later. If we are bold enough to invest in strategic
research and development for new materials and construction systems,
those long range needs will be met more quickly because our
construction dollars will go farther and accomplish more. On the other
hand, if we take the short sighted approach and reduce research and
development, it will take longer and be more expensive to achieve the
same levels of system performance.
conclusion
ASCE believes that transportation infrastructure has been and will
continue to be one of the best investments in America. When viewed from
myriad perspectives, whether public safety, economic development,
national productivity, jobs or international competitiveness, it is not
difficult to see why there is such strong public support for
infrastructure investment.
We have deep concerns about the Administration's apparent retreat
on infrastructure investment in general, and transportation in
particular. This fiscal year 1998 budget request is a long way from the
one proposed by Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton, who spoke about
``Rebuilding America.''
______
Prepared Statement of Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois Department of
Transportation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony concerning fiscal year 1998 US DOT
appropriations on behalf of the Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies. We thank Subcommittee Chairman Richard Shelby and the
members of the Committee for their past support for a strong federal
transportation program and for taking into consideration Illinois'
unique needs. Our recommendations for overall funding priorities and
our requests for transportation funding for special Illinois' interests
are described below.
highway obligation limitation
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set an fiscal year 1998 obligation
limitation at a level which will allow the full use of the federal
resources of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). At a minimum, IDOT supports
an obligation limitation well above the fiscal year 1997 ISTEA level,
preferably equal to the full authorization level that will be set by
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in its surface
transportation reauthorization bill this spring.
In the past, revenues from the HTF have not been fully utilized and
spending has been constrained because overall the obligation limitation
has been less than authorization levels. In the six years of ISTEA,
state and local transportation agencies have been unable to spend
approximately $7 billion dollars in highway funds because of the
disparity between authorized and appropriated levels. In fiscal year
1997, the transportation appropriations bill set an obligation
limitation of $18 billion--$338 million less than the ISTEA-authorized
level. Due to restrictive obligation limitations in past years,
Illinois has accumulated a balance of $296 million in highway
apportionments that cannot be obligated for highway construction
projects. Federal funds are a crucial element in the state and local
highway preservation and improvement programs. An efficient highway
infrastructure is in turn a crucial element supporting the state and
national economies.
intelligent transportation systems earmark
If the Subcommittee earmarks Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) highway funds in fiscal year 1998, Illinois, along with Wisconsin
and Indiana, requests an earmark of $16.5 million for projects in the
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) corridor.
Illinois supported securing the designation of the corridor
extending from Gary, Indiana through Chicago, Illinois to Milwaukee,
Wisconsin under a special ISTEA funding program formerly called the
Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) corridors program. The GCM
corridor is one of four designated priority corridors. Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin are working together to coordinate ITS efforts
for the corridor. The three states agreed to develop joint or
coordinated efforts and pursue multimodal products and services to
improve the traveling safety, mobility, and productivity of the 10
million people who live and conduct business in the 16 counties
connecting the metropolitan areas of the GCM corridor. Implementation
of a carefully planned, multi-year program of projects is under way.
The proposed earmark would support a complete program of multimodal
projects for the upcoming year.
transit discretionary grants
Bus Capital
IDOT, the Regional Transportation Authority (which oversees the
planning and financing of transit in the six-county northeastern
Illinois area), the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), and PACE (which
operates suburban bus service) jointly request an earmark of $34
million in fiscal year 1998 Section 5309 bus capital funds for the CTA,
PACE and downstate providers. This joint request is a demonstration of
our mutual interest in securing funding for essential bus capital needs
throughout the state.
The joint request will be for funds for three downstate facilities
and to purchase buses in order to replace over-age vehicles and to
comply with federal mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
All of the vehicles scheduled for replacement are at the end of their
useful life; many are well beyond their expected useful life. Downstate
urbanized areas have 103 buses older than the standard 12-year design
life and the CTA has 718 such buses. Illinois transit systems need
discretionary bus capital funds since regular formula funding is
inadequate to meet all bus capital needs.
New Systems and Extensions--MetroLink
IDOT supports the Bi-State Development Agency's (the bus and light
rail service operating agency serving the St. Louis region) request for
an earmark of $120 million in fiscal year 1998 New System funding for
the MetroLink light rail system which serves the St. Louis region. This
amount is for the eastward extension from East St. Louis into St. Clair
County to Belleville Area College including final engineering, land
acquisition, construction and rail car acquisition. The line now in
service has been a tremendous success and ridership has far exceeded
projections. The Administration entered into a Full Funding Grant
Agreement for the extension project in 1996.
New Systems and Extensions--Metra Commuter Rail Extensions
IDOT supports Metra's (the commuter rail operating agency serving
the six-county northeastern Illinois region) request for an earmark of
$7.516 million in fiscal year 1998 New System funding for preliminary
engineering to upgrade and/or extend service on three lines--the North
Central, SouthWest, and Union Pacific-West. These planned improvements
are in areas where significant population and development increases
have already been experienced and are projected to continue well into
the 21st century. The projects will improve and/or extend commuter rail
service which will in turn reduce highway congestion and contribute to
attaining clean air objectives.
transit formula grants
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Funds
IDOT supports fiscal year 1998 funding for Section 5307 Urbanized
Area Formula Grants at as high a level as possible. We urge funding
higher than the fiscal year 1997 level of $1.978 billion, preferably
equal to the full authorization level that will be set by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in its surface
transportation reauthorization bill this spring.
Section 5307 is a formula grant program for urbanized areas which
provides capital and operating assistance for public transportation. In
Illinois, these formula funds are distributed to 18 urbanized areas
which provide approximately 560 million passenger trips a year. IDOT
supports the continuation of operating assistance at least to the
smaller, under 200,000 population urbanized areas. A further reduction
in the current level of federal operating assistance would especially
harm these areas, likely necessitating further fare increases and
service cuts. Strong federal funding support for transit service in
urbanized areas is necessary to enable transit to continue the vital
role it plays in providing urban transportation service.
Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Formula Funds
IDOT supports fiscal year 1998 funding for the Section 5311 Rural
and Small Urban program at as high a level as possible. We urge funding
higher than the fiscal year 1997 level of $115 million, preferably
equal to the full authorization level that will be set by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in its surface
transportation reauthorization bill this spring.
The Section 5311 program plays a vital role in meeting mobility
needs in the nation's small cities and rural areas. Adequate federal
funding assistance for this program is very important to transit
systems in Illinois. The needs in these areas are growing yet their
local revenue sources continue to be very limited. In Illinois, such
systems operate in 41 counties and 7 small cities, carrying
approximately 2.3 million passengers annually.
amtrak appropriation
IDOT supports an fiscal year 1998 appropriation at least at the
fiscal year 1997 level of $423.5 million to fund capital and operating
expenses. IDOT also urges that all Amtrak funding come from general
funds.
Amtrak operates a total of 52 individual trains throughout Illinois
as part of the nation's passenger rail system, serving approximately 3
million passengers annually. Illinois subsidizes an additional 18
state-sponsored trains which provide intrastate service in four
corridors (Chicago to Milwaukee, Quincy, St. Louis, and Carbondale)
which carried nearly 514,000 passengers in fiscal year 1997. Amtrak
service in key travel corridors is an important component of Illinois'
multimodal transportation network and continued federal capital and
operating support is needed.
airport improvement program (aip) obligation limitation
IDOT supports an fiscal year 1998 AIP obligation limitation above
the fiscal year 1997 level of $1.46 billion and as close as possible to
the fiscal year 1998 authorization of $2.347 billion.
The federal AIP program, which provides funding to states and
airports for the development of a national system of airports, has
suffered substantial reductions in appropriations since fiscal year
1992. Obligation limitations have been reduced from a high of $1.9
billion in fiscal year 1992 to $1.45 billion in fiscal year's 1995 and
1996 and $1.46 billion in fiscal year 1997. In these three years alone
there has been a disparity of $2.3 billion between the amounts
authorized and the obligation limitations. There is inadequate federal
funding support for airport expansion and improvements needed at
general aviation airports and at commercial airports--which served 605
million people flying on the nation's air carriers in 1996.
Enplanements are expected to grow to nearly one billion by 2008 and
airports must make improvements to safely and efficiently serve this
rapidly growing demand. We believe that the AIP program has suffered
disproportionate reductions and that there is a legitimate need to
increase the obligation limitation.
The recent underfunding of the AIP program has caused substantial
problems, particularly for general aviation, reliever, commercial
service and small primary airports. Larger primary airports have been
able to more than replace reduced AIP funding with Passenger Facility
Charge (PFC) revenue, but small airports are not able to generate
sufficient additional revenue to offset the major reductions in federal
support. Therefore, adequate AIP funding is especially important for
these airports.
This concludes my testimony. I am keenly aware of the pressures you
face trying to meet demands for increased transportation funding given
the tight federal budget constraints. However, an adequate and well-
maintained transportation system is critical to the nation's economic
prosperity and future growth. Your recognition of that and your support
for the nation's transportation needs are much appreciated. Again,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss Illinois' federal
transportation funding concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of Louis M. Kodumal, City of Media, PA
The statement of policy of the federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) expresses the following
purposes of ISTEA (emphasis added):
``. . . to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System
that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides
the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy
and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.''
Ostensibly to satisfy such a broad mandate, Congress authorized
approximately One Hundred and Fifty Five Billion Dollars
($155,000,000,000) in funding over five years (fiscal years 1992-1997).
Among the programs funded by ISTEA dollars are so called
``transportation enhancements'' under the Surface Transportation
Program (STP). Ten percent of all STP funds were set aside for these
``transportation enhancements'', which the U.S. Department of
Transportation has described as encompassing a ``broad range of
environmental-related activities''.\1\ Another ISTEA component, the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement program,
would, in theory, reduce congestion and improve air quality. CMAQ funds
were to be made available to areas that failed to meet air quality
levels for ozone and carbon monoxide under the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991: A
Summary'', U.S. Dept. of Transportation, at page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A basic question must be asked by the Congress in the ISTEA
reauthorization debate: Have the costs incurred in funding so-called
`transportation enhancements' been justified by commensurate benefits
to the environment or to the infrastructure of our national
transportation system?
A careful examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that the
answer to this question must be `NO'. An illustrative example will
demonstrate that these `transportation enhancements' fail to satisfy
the three objectives set forth in ISTEA's policy statement, i.e., (1)
economic efficiency; (2) environmental soundness; and (3) energy
efficiency. Consider a proposed conversion of an abandoned railway
corridor to a pedestrian and bicycle trail (one of the listed
``transportation enhancement activities'' defined by Section 101(a) of
title 23 United States Code). Under 23 U.S.C. Section 217(a), a state
may use both STP and CMAQ funds for constructing bicycle/pedestrian
facilities.
Assuming that the land needed for the ``rail to trail'' project is
indeed abandoned (which may be an open question whose answer is far
from certain given any reversionary rights of adjacent landowners and/
or the cost of eminent domain proceedings if necessary), it is likely
that this land has returned to its natural state. Destroying what has
become the home for various species of plant and animal wildlife over
the years as part of the construction and operation of the
``transportation enhancement activity'' hardly seems consistent with
improving the environment. Moreover, disturbing this area may unleash
long-dormant toxic chemical compounds, e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's), which were often used as insulators in electrical equipment
used by railroads. Would this improve the national ambient air quality?
Moreover, are there any ascertainable standards as to the expected
improvement in air quality that must be satisfied in advance of a
project moving forward, or are STP/CMAQ funds being allocated and spent
in practice on the basis of questionable assumptions or relaxed
standards (e.g., ``likely to improve . . . the air quality'') without
meaningful underlying scientific data? Does the estimate that a small
group of bicyclists or a single cyclist may decide to travel this
bicycle/pedestrian path automatically result in a rubber stamp
determination that motorized vehicle miles are necessarily reduced and
therefore the project must be a success, regardless of the per mile
cost in terms of dollars or emissions reduced? Only a thorough
investigation by the Congress will result in answers to these
questions.
Finally, once the ``rails to trails'' project has started
operation, what of the benefits then? Would there be any monitoring to
determine whether engine cold starts actually increased the congestion
in the area as motorists started their cars in the morning, drove to
the ``rails to trails'' project, parked their cars at a stationary
point and cycled away, only to return later in the day to drive away
(again)? While there may be some merit in having a designated bicycle/
pedestrian path as a form of inter-city travel within a major downtown
area, surely it is beyond doubt that the vast majority of suburban
commuters must travel distances longer than is feasible by walking and/
or biking. Wouldn't a designated high-occupancy vehicle lane (i.e. for
vehicles carrying more than three passengers) or mass transit lane
(i.e. bus or light rail) do more for the reduction of congestion than a
bicycle/pedestrian pathway? Would such a bicycle/pedestrian pathway do
anything to reduce congestion caused by commercial traffic (i.e.
traffic necessary to move goods in significant quantities)? The above
are valid questions pertaining to ``transportation enhancements'' which
must be asked and answered in the course of ISTEA reauthorization.
For all of the above reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the
best interests of our nations transportation system and (more
importantly) the people that use this system would best be served if
the financing and environmental aspects of so called ``transportation
enhancements'' activities are investigated by the Congress and
subjected to audit, with funding for these ISTEA ``transportation
enhancements'' activities to be deleted in the successor statute to
ISTEA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Navajo Nation
greatly appreciates this opportunity to present our views and
recommendations regarding fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the
Department of Transportation. This testimony highlights several of the
Navajo Nation's priorities for fiscal year 1998 appropriations.
At the outset, we want to thank Chairman Mr. Shelby as well as the
other Subcommittee Members for their attention to Navajo Nation's needs
in the past years. We look forward to continuing our working
relationship with the Subcommittee.
The Navajo Nation
Spanning Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, the Navajo Nation
encompasses 17.5 million acres--one third of all Indian lands in the
lower 48 states--and is larger than Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined. Unlike those states, however,
the Navajo Nation is home to the poorest of America's rural poor and
while the average unemployment rate in America today is about 5
percent, the unemployment rate in the Navajo Nation averages 38 percent
to 50 percent, depending on the season. Over 56 percent of the Navajo
people live in poverty. Per capita income averages $4,106, less than
one-third of that in the surrounding states. Basic ``necessities'' of
life taken for granted elsewhere in the United States are sorely
lacking in the Navajo Nation--77 percent of Navajo homes lack plumbing,
72 percent lack adequate kitchen facilities, and 76 percent lack
telephone service. Though the Navajo Nation is slightly larger than
West Virginia, our 2,000 miles of paved roads compare to barely 11
percent of West Virginia's 18,000 miles. Until recently, we had just
three banking facilities within our entire 27,500 square mile area.
Ironically, the Navajo Nation is perceived as one of the more
prosperous Indian tribes. Tragically, these types of living conditions
are mirrored at hundreds of other Indian reservations throughout the
United States, with the nationwide Indian reservation unemployment rate
averaging 56 percent.
We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to address Indian country's
economic deprivation by marshalling available federal resources in a
dramatic, comprehensive, government-wide effort that can at last
rectify the massive infrastructure deficiencies that prevent us from
competing on a level playing field against even the most economically-
distressed non-Indian communities. Resolving our infrastructure
shortfalls, through such redirection of federal resources, is perhaps
the key component necessary to enhance Indian nations' efforts to
develop self-sustaining reservation economies consistent with self-
determination and self-governance. The construction and maintenance of
all weather roads is a start in the right direction. Adequate roads is
important to economic and community development by providing quick and
safe access to businesses, schools, health care and community services.
requests for fiscal year 1998 budget inclusions
The Navajo Nation requests funding for the following high priority
programs. There are additional projects and programs which we would
like to discuss with the Subcommittee; however, today we are merely
presenting highlights of our overall requests.
Reauthorization of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991
Statistics show that the Navajo Nation has greatly benefited from
the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991. From fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1996, the Navajo Nation
has achieved a total of 950.8 miles of improved roads; 1,008 linear
feet of newly constructed bridges; and 1,061.7 linear feet of bridge
rehabilitation or replacement. The improvements have allowed for the
enhancement of infrastructure development necessary for the continued
and increase in economic development and employment opportunities.
The Navajo Nation Council and its Transportation and Community
Development Committee supports the reauthorization of ISTEA so that an
adequate transportation system can be provided to the Navajo people.
Faced with a total projected need of $1.4 billion for the Navajo Nation
and an overall Indian Reservation Road (IRR) Program need of $5.5
billion, the Navajo Nation strongly urges the following:
1. Reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1997;
2. Increase ISTEA funds from $191 million to $300 million per year
for Indian Reservation Road's Program;
3. Funnel ISTEA funding directly to the Navajo Nation from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and
4. Distribute Indian Reservation Road Program Funding at one
hundred percent (100 percent) in accordance with the established
relative need formula based on three (3) factors: total Indian
population, total vehicle miles traveled, and total cost of
construction.
Since the enactment of ISTEA, the Navajo Nation has received $235.9
million for new road construction and new bridge and/or rehabilitation/
replacements. While Navajo receives funds for new roads, there is no
comparable allocation in the Road Maintenance Program. fiscal year 1997
had an allocation of $6.02 million, Navajo has to maintain 4,490 miles
of gravel roads; 1,124 miles of paved roads, and 163 bridges of which
16 are severely deficient. History shows that the program has always
been underfunded, despite requests made by the Navajo Nation. Funding
for the BIA Navajo Area Branch of Roads Maintenance Program was cut
during 1996. The data shows that the level of funding for the Road
Maintenance Program needs to be increased in order to maintain an
adequate and safe transportation system on the Navajo Nation. The
Navajo Nation is requests the subcommittee support an increase of $97
million from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
navajo transit system facility request
The Navajo Transit System is in great need of a new maintenance and
office facility and has submitted an application to the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA). We hope to secure your support
with our application to the FTA. The Navajo Transit System has
requested $900,000 for an 8,000 square foot facility. The facility
would house a parts department, bus bays, offices, a concrete pad to
wash busses, and a parking lot.
For the past 16 years, the Navajo Transit System has provided much
needed transportation to the Navajo people. However, the building which
the Transit system works out of in Fort Defiance, Arizona was set up as
a temporary site and has been determined to be unsafe and inadequate.
Further, the Navajo Transit System has experienced problems with many
staff members becoming ill due to ventilation problems within the
existing building. The Navajo Transit System has selected a site for
the new facility in Window Rock Arizona. The initial land acquisition
and the environmental assessment work has been mostly completed with
minor amendments remaining. While the Navajo Transit System has a
relatively small fleet, the geographical area which is covered on a
daily basis is enormous and includes Gallup, NM; Farmington, NM;
Shiprock, NM; Crown Point, NM; Tuba City, AZ; Toyei, AZ; Kayenta, AZ;
and Sanders, AZ.
Both the New Mexico and Arizona Transportation Departments have
expressed support for the construction of the new facility for the
Navajo Transit System. The Navajo Nation appreciates your continued
assistance to secure federal assistance.
Federal Aviation Administration
Finally, the Navajo Nation requests $500,000 for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate formal consultation with the
Navajo Nation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The
FAA has recently released new rules for overflights of the Grand Canyon
National Park. These rules are, at least in part, a response to new
regulations requiring that the natural ``quiet'' of the Park be
restored. However, the action of the FAA and implementation of these
new flight rules will result in the movement of some flight corridors
from the Grand Canyon to Navajo lands outside the Grand Canyon National
Park boundary. The Navajo Nation is requesting these funds because the
FAA failed to comply with Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA in its
preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA) (Special Flight Rules
in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park). These funds will also
be used to address the FAA's insufficient initial ``106'' consultation
under the NHPA. According to correspondence received from the Arizona
State Historic Preservation Office, there remains a concern that the
effects and cumulative effects of overflights on historic properties
have not been adequately considered by the FAA.
conclusion
The Navajo Nation thanks the Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee for their leadership and support of Indian programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
introduction
The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) appreciates
the opportunity afforded by the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations to present testimony in support of its
project initiatives for transportation appropriations in federal fiscal
year 1998. The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) is a
regional multi-modal transportation authority responsible for air,
water and surface transportation in Erie and Niagara Counties. NFTA
businesses include a bus and rail system, two international airports, a
small boat harbor and transportation centers in Buffalo and Niagara
Falls.
In support of its transportation mission, the NFTA respectfully
requests your consideration of the following transportation
appropriations in fiscal year 1998. The appropriation requests are
described in the following narrative.
Transit Project Appropriations
FTA Bus Capital.--Appropriate $4 million for HUBLINK, the NFTA
Transit Restructuring Program, in federal fiscal year 1998.
Aviation Project Appropriations
Greater Buffalo International Airport (GBIA).--Appropriate
$7,526,359 for GBIA Letter of Intent (LOI) in federal fiscal year 1998;
or, appropriate $2,452,294 if NFTA's pending application for $5,074,065
under the GBIA LOI agreement is approved in fiscal year 1997.
Niagara Falls International Airport (NFIA).--Appropriate $1.8
million for new taxiway at NFIA.
hublink--transit restructuring program
Legislative Request:
Appropriate $4 million for HUBLINK, the NFTA Transit Restructuring
Program, in federal fiscal year 1998. These funds will be used to fund
capital infrastructure and start-up expenditures.
Project Background:
Metro, the NFTA's public transit business center, is working to
meet the difficult financial challenges that impact the viability of
the transit system. Fundamental changes in the demographic
characteristics of Western New York have altered transportation
patterns in and around the urban area that have been prevalent for
nearly 50 years. Population shifts to the suburbs have occurred but,
for the first time, the loss of population in the central city has been
accompanied by a similar migration of business activity as well. Metro
is faced with a changing market of potential transit riders. Metro's
current service radiates out from the COD to suburban areas and
primarily meets that traditional travel demand. In order to remain
competitive, Metro must redesign its system to meet the changing
demands for service.
A strategic business planning effort that recognized changing
demographic characteristics for both population distribution and
employment spawned the need to restructure local transportation
services. Restructuring Metro is necessary in order to improve mobility
for all Western New Yorkers and to meet national policy goals such as
the Access to Jobs and Training initiative advanced in the
Administration's 1998 budget proposal, as well as the provisions of the
Clean Air and Americans with Disabilities Acts legislated by Congress.
During the past year, technical work has been initiated to develop
a new vision for Metro. ``HUBLINK'' is the term that has been coined
for the restructuring effort. Simply stated, HUBLINK is a concept for
comprehensive, coordinated public transportation. The preliminary
concept divides the region into three service areas, urban, suburban
and rural based upon geography, population density, and needs for
public transportation. Each area would be served by the transportation
that best suits its needs. Both traditional fixed route service and
non-traditional service approaches will be considered in each area.
The HUBLINK study also seeks to evaluate the opportunities for
Health and Human Services (HHS) agency transportation coordination and/
or collaboration. The objective of this evaluation is to encourage
efficient investment of all sources of transportation funding. This
objective is consistent with Congressional intent adopted in fiscal
year 1996 transportation appropriations legislation. The aforementioned
Access to Jobs and Training program, whereby transit operators can be
awarded discretionary funds for securing matching social service
transportation funding in support of employment training initiatives,
is a good starting point for transportation coordination. We suggest
that the transportation appropriations committee consider enhancing
both its prior Report language and the Administration initiative by
providing such incentives to communities that identify and implement
transportation coordination strategies between transportation providers
and social service or labor agencies, regardless of trip purpose.
The HUBLINK effort is structured to address the complex technical
issues related to coordinating local public transportation services and
developing a community consensus on a vision for such services in
Western New York. Local participation and involvement are crucial to
this project given its focus on coordinating local transportation
services with Metro services to create a unique and cost effective
transportation system. To date, Metro has introduced this concept to
over fifty organizations at informal meetings and briefings. The
enthusiastic response has demonstrated the importance of restructuring
local transportation services. Also during the past year, a Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have
been formed. The membership of these committees demonstrates the broad
involvement of the community's leadership in the process.
The HUBLINK study is only the first step in the process of
restructuring the region's mass transit system. The study effort will
produce a financial plan to implement the program that will include
capital improvements, such as transit centers, park and ride lots,
passenger information equipment, and vehicles. Startup expenditures to
demonstrate the new, non-traditional transit services will also be
necessary.
The initial financial plan is expected by June, 1997. At this time,
the total estimated cost of full implementation of the HUBLINK system
is $25 million over five years. In federal fiscal year 1998, we
estimate project costs at $5 million. Thus, the NFTA requests your
support of a $4 million appropriation to launch the HUBLINK system in
federal fiscal year 1998. These funds will be used to fund capital
infrastructure and start-up expenditures.
gbia airport improvement program
Legislative Request:
Appropriate $7,526,359 for GBIA Letter of Intent (LOI) in federal
fiscal year 1998; or,
Appropriate $2,452,294 if NFTA's pending application for $5,074,065
under the LOI agreement is approved in fiscal year 1997. NFTA will
update the transportation appropriations subcommittee during fiscal
year 1997 as to the status of the pending application for funds.
Project Background:
The construction of the GBIA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is
approximately 58 percent complete, with over $101.2 million of
construction projects underway. A principal NFTA objective in the
coming months is completing the AIP on time and within budget.
The completion of the AIP will enable the NFTA to provide quality
aviation services and facilities in a manner which is both cost
effective and enhances customer service. The new facilities will
upgrade the region's ``Gateway Image'' and meet future service
requirements.
The total cost of the AIP is $157 million. The financial plan to
implement the program consists of federal, state, and local resources
that include passenger facility charges, airport revenue bonds, and an
NFTA airport development fund allocation. Federal participation
includes individual grant awards, and a multi-year Letter of Intent
(LOI) commitment of both entitlement and discretionary funds.
Fulfilling the projected federal commitment to the AIP is critical
to completing the project. The LOI agreement totals $39,004,356 and
includes discretionary and entitlement funding. Under the LOI, NFTA
received six payments from fiscal years 1992-96. These payments include
$6,629,398 entitlement and $14,787,410 in discretionary funding.
In federal fiscal year 1997, NFTA applied for LOI Payment No. 7 in
the amount of $13,427,791, including $13,317,538 in discretionary and
$110,253 in entitlement funds. These funds are required to meet the
cash flow requirements of the program. Congress recognized the
importance of this LOI payment in the reauthorization of the Airport
and Airways Improvement Act of 1996. However, the FAA has notified NFTA
of a grant award in the amount of $8,393,726. This allocation creates a
shortfall of discretionary funds of $5,074,065. The reduction of
federal AIP appropriations in recent fiscal years has already affected
receipt of funding committed under our original letter of intent by
stretching out the scheduled receipt of entitlement and discretionary
funding from the original financing commitment. Unless we are able to
secure the currently unallocated funding, it will be necessary to
further increase the use of revenue anticipation bonds and add
unbudgeted borrowing costs to the program.
In fiscal year 1998, our financial plan calls for discretionary
funds in the amount of $2,452,294. However, in the event that the
aforementioned shortfall in funding is not secured, the fiscal year
1998 need is $7,526,359. Please support an allocation in this amount
from fiscal year 1998 AIP transportation appropriations. We will update
the transportation appropriations subcommittee during fiscal year 1997
as to our initiative to secure the unallocated funds.
niagara falls international airport new taxiway
Legislative Request:
Appropriate $1.8 million for new taxiway at NFIA in fiscal year
1998.
Project Background:
The Niagara Falls International Airport (NFIA) is an integral part
of the Western New York Regional Airport System. This airport serves as
a reliever airport for Greater Buffalo International Airport (GBIA), as
well as serving the charter needs of both the commercial and
supplemental carriers. The airport is also the home base for the 914th
Tactical Air Group in the United States Air Force Reserve, as well as
the New York Air National Guard (NYANG) 107th Unit.
A recently renovated passenger terminal building contains
facilities to handle domestic and international scheduled air carrier
and charter flights. Ground handling and security screening are
provided by airport personnel. The 12,000 square foot terminal building
contains all necessary facilities to accommodate international and
domestic passengers, including U.S. Customs and Immigration offices.
NFTA is striving to expand the airport's commercial service
activity with a focus on charter service that can utilize NFIA's
excellent runway system. Several factors, including the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and ongoing initiatives to increase
Niagara Falls tourism, could alter dramatically the role of the
airport. We believe NFIA is ideally suited to capitalize on NAFTA.
Joint marketing initiatives with Niagara County, including a
comprehensive utilization study, are targeted at identifying specific
markets that may be served most efficiently at NFIA. International air
charter passengers, scheduled air carrier service, Canadian air cargo
and aircraft maintenance opportunities are being pursued vigorously.
In terms of future development plans, the location of the Niagara
County Industrial Development Agency adjacent to the airport property,
proximity to the Canadian border, and the international trade
opportunities afforded by recent treaties suggest an expanded role for
NFIA in Western New York business development. We request consideration
of one project by the transportation appropriations subcommittee that
will facilitate an expanded role for the airport, the construction of a
new taxiway parallel to Runway 6/24.
The current configuration of the airport's runways and taxiways
limits the ability to develop the southeast corner of the airport. The
southeast corner is adjacent to the Niagara County Industrial
Development Agency buildings and its accessibility is critical to the
future development of the airport. The construction of a new taxiway
and the closing of other obsolete taxiways would open up a considerable
area for aviation-related development, as well as create a more
efficient taxiway system for aircraft.
The design and construction of the new taxiway is estimated to cost
$2,000,000. We request consideration of an appropriation in the amount
of $1.8 million to construct the new taxiway under the fiscal year 1998
AIP.
status of prior years' earmarks
1995 Bus Capital:
Crossroads Intermodal Station, $800,000.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant awarded, March, 1996.
Project Status: Design of Intermodal station will be completed
during federal fiscal year 1998.
1996 Bus Capital:
Crossroads Intermodal Station, $496,250.
Project Status and Obligation Date: Application for FTA grant funds
for construction will be submitted during federal fiscal year 1998.
1997 Bus Capital:
Crossroads Intermodal Station, $992,500.
Project Status and Obligation Date: Application for FTA grant funds
for construction will be submitted during federal fiscal year 1998.
______
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of John H. Siegel, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.C.C.M., Wesley
J. Howe, Professor of Trauma Surgery, Chairman of the Department of
Anatomy, Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully present testimony on behalf of the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical
School. The University of Medicine and Dentistry (UMDNJ) is the largest
public health sciences university in the nation. Its New Jersey Medical
School (NJMS) is the academic medical facility for all of Northern New
Jersey and its University Hospital serves as the Level I Trauma Center
to coordinate the entire Northern region of the State.
This testimony requests your continued support for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Trauma Network composed
of four university trauma systems functioning together in a consortium
known as the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury Project''. In addition to the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School in Newark, N.J., the consortium
includes the Charles Mc Mathias, Jr. National Study Center for Trauma
and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of the University of Maryland in
Baltimore, the William Lehman Injury Research Center of the University
of Miami in Florida, and the Children's National Medical Center of
Washington, DC. These four centers have been working together in the
study of motor vehicle crash injury which affects both adults, as well
as children. Individually and collectively, these studies have resulted
in new knowledge which has enabled the identification of the patterns
of specific injuries resulting from real motor vehicle crashes. They
have pointed the way towards the deployment of the newer safety devices
and enabled the evaluation of their impact in reducing the severity of
these injuries or preventing their occurrence. In the proposed NHTSA
Trauma Network which will support the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury
Project'', three additional centers designated under the agreement
between NHTSA and the General Motors Corporation have also been
established and linked to the already existing four operational Trauma
Network Centers. These three additional centers are totally funded by
the General Motors Corporation under an agreement which excludes
funding for the four NHTSA centers
Important information concerning the effect of motor vehicle
crashes on car structural integrity has been learned from
experimentally-staged motor vehicle crashes and from the use of inert
motor vehicle crash-dummies. However, it is necessary to go beyond the
behavior of crash-dummies back to the scene of the accident, in order
to determine the real mechanisms of injury and to understand the
variability of the impact on different types of real people. For
instance, the sixty year old woman who has some degree of osteoporosis
will likely have a different pattern and magnitude of lower extremity
and pelvic fracture injuries for the same impact velocity of crash
compared to a twenty-five year old male.
The studies carried out so far, at the New Jersey Medical School
have enabled the identification of different patterns of organ and
extremities injury related to specific sites of passenger compartment
intrusion and shown that these patterns are significantly different as
a function of the direction of crash and its impact velocity (See
attached reprint). Collaborative studies in Baltimore and New Jersey
have identified, subtle but important, aspects of sex and body habitue
related driver behavior which can result in more, or less severe
injuries to the lower extremities resulting from the same crash forces.
The New Jersey and the Miami studies have allowed recognition of the
motor vehicle crash patterns which provide clues to occult injuries
which would otherwise be missed by the emergency medical services team
in triaging patients from severe motor vehicle crashes. These factors
have important implications for safety design and creation of
biomechanical test instruments to ensure driver and passenger
protection. Also, studies carried out by the Children's Medical Center
in Washington, DC have focused on the precautions necessary in
designing and locating children's safety seats to prevent infant
injuries in motor vehicle crashes.
Most important, the net result of these studies has been to focus
on the development of motor vehicle safety measures which reduce the
chance of injury rather than solely on the prevention of death. For it
is injury which is the most costly aspect of the motor vehicle crash,
raising health-care costs and forcing insurance premiums upward, not to
mention the personal catastrophes which occur daily when a family
member is severely injured.
The studies carried out by the New Jersey Medical School and
Maryland components of the Human Crash Injury Group have already
identified important characteristics of injury which were not
previously recognized. These studies have focused on the importance of
lower extremity injuries and pelvic fractures as major causes of
disability and cost, and have focused on the importance of the air-bag
in reducing the severity of brain injuries in high impact frontal motor
crashes. In regard to this last observation (see attached reprint),
investigations carried out jointly at the New Jersey Medical School and
the Charles Mc Mathias National Study Center, have shown that air-bag
deployment in frontal motor vehicle crashes significantly (p<0.01)
reduced the incidence of severe brain injury (GCS12) from 67
percent to 29 percent even though the total incidence of brain injuries
remained unmodified (See attached reprint). Air-bags in these types of
major force car crashes also reduced the incidence of shock, face
fractures, and lower extremity fractures and as a consequence lowered
the resulting need to extricate the patient from the motor vehicle,
thus speeding the time to treatment. This type of study emphasizes how
the ``Human Crash Injury Project'' (CIREN) and the NHTSA Trauma Network
can develop information about the effect of protective devices that
cannot be obtained from crash-dummy research, since crash-dummies have
no brains and the crash impact on a crash-dummy's skull produces no
discernible change in the dummy's intellect or problem solving ability.
The prospective detailed medical:crash injury research
investigations carried out under the ``CIREN:Human Crash Injury
Project'' supplement and enhance the retrospective statistical studies
now carried out by NHTSA under the NASS Program. It is a measure of the
importance with which this project is viewed nationally that the
present Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D., has indicated that NHTSA
wishes to integrate these research efforts into a national Trauma
Network to include New Jersey Medical School:UMDM, The Lehman Center at
Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, the Mc Mathias National Study
Center in Baltimore, and the Children's Medical Center in the District
of Columbia, and to link these four existing centers to the three new
privately-funded GM Centers.
Finally, there is a major new initiative occurring in the
Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration), which is
the development of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). As part
of the ITS the Automobile Crash Notification System (ACN) program is in
the process of developing an automatic crash notification micro-chip
which could be inserted into motor vehicles so as to identify the
location and nature of the crash. This new technology has the potential
to enable the crash forces which are producing specific injuries and
injury patterns to be identified and quantified so that improved safety
measures including motor vehicle structural modifications and the
deployment of additional air-bags-can be developed. The proper
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the ACN and the rate at
which this new technology can be integrated with Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) systems nation-wide could be most effectively determined
by integration of the testing aspects of the ACN Program with the
Trauma Network and its CIREN:Human Crash Injury Project. Not only can
this combined program more rapidly evaluate the ACN system, but it will
also result in its being implemented immediately in the six states of
the Trauma Network, plus the District of Columbia, as a first phase
effort.
This effort could solve a very serious problem identified by
studies of the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). This is that
while the death rate of trauma victims brought to Trauma System
Hospitals is decreasing, there has been an increase in on-scene
fatalities. This is due in part to delays in notification of EMS team
to find and retrieve these injured patient especially in rural areas.
The NHTSA supported by Trauma Network could also provide a mechanism
for translation of this technology into true state-wide safety
programs, since all of the regions mentioned and all of the
participating trauma centers have excellent EMS systems which are
closely linked to their network of trauma centers. The ACN technology
has the potential to be an order of magnitude increment in motor
vehicle safety. Its technical development and independent field testing
should become integrated at an early phase, so that its value can be
determined and a feedback relationship with the Department of
Transportation's Highway Traffic Safety Programs and the state-wide EMS
Trauma Services can be more rapidly accelerated. The value of allowing
the Trauma Research Centers which form the CIREN:Human Crash Injury
Project to provide this interactive feedback is that all of the
principal investigators are not only experienced trauma surgeons, but
are also recognized as trauma investigators with extensive experience
in studying the mechanisms of motor vehicle crash injury.
Speaking for myself, with the concurrence of the other directors of
these affiliated programs, we request that the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies designate funding
at the level of $500,000 per center to each of the four present NHTSA-
funded trauma research centers participating in the Human Crash Injury
Project for a total of 2 million dollars. We also request that this
appropriation be established on a multi-year basis to extend over a
five-year period at the same annual rate adjusted for inflation, so
that continuing evaluation and feedback can be provided by the Trauma
Network. Also, we request that these Trauma Research Centers be used to
evaluate the role of the Intelligent Transportation System's Automobile
Crash Notification System in reducing excessive field mortality and
injury exacerbation of motor vehicle crashes due to the prolongation of
crash recognition by the present EMS system. This will take additional
support to implement and test.
This latter additional support should allow approximately 4,000
cars per core center to be instrumented with appropriate communications
equipment. This level of support would enable the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the ACN Program in identifying potential serious
injuries and in facilitating the rapidity with which Emergency Medical
Services Advance Life Support Teams could be deployed to the scene of
the crash. It is felt that this type of immediate crash notification
and localization technology when fully developed and integrated with
all of the Nation's regional Trauma Centers could have a major impact
in reducing the mortality and injury complications resulting from rural
motor vehicle crashes and from serious crashes occurring in urban areas
at times when there are few bystanders to request EMS 911 services.
In closing, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the
past support of the House and its Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation and Related Agencies of our group's collective research
which, by identifying the mechanisms of human crash injury, has already
resulted in improved safety and in a reduction in the incidence and
severity of motor vehicle crash injuries. Motor vehicle crashes place
all of us at risk, both personally as well as financially, and
negatively impact on major segments of our economy. The development of
safer motor vehicles and the invention of new and imaginative state-of-
the-art motor vehicle crash safety devices and notification systems has
spawned a new industry with enormous growth potential, which has
already begun to integrate the telecommunications and motor vehicle
industries. The small amount of national resources directed into this
type of research will pay enormous dividends, not only by the reduction
of motor vehicle crash injury costs, but also by the creation of new
technologies and new businesses which can stimulate employment and
national growth.
[Clerk's note.--The attachment to Dr. Siegel's statement are not
printed in the hearing record but are available for review in the
subcommittee's files.]
______
Prepared Statement of Fraydun Manocherian, the Manocherian Foundation
summary
The Manocherian Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated
to reducing accidents, deaths and disability on our highways. The
Foundation was established in 1962 by Mr. Fraydun Manocherian, who as a
high school student, lost two friends to a drunk driving crash.
It is extremely important that the reality of highway fatalities
not be overlooked when your Subcommittee makes important decisions
about how to allocate the resources of the Department of
Transportation. Highway fatalities have increased in recent years, the
fatality rate based on vehicle miles traveled is stagnant, and the
human tragedy of highway crashes continues to plague us all in epidemic
proportions.
Although great progress has been made over the past 15 years in
reducing road trauma, our achievements are not the envy of the world
and many other countries have achieved better results in critical areas
like drunk driving and safety belt use.
Funds spent on highway safety return more benefit to American
taxpayers than many, if not most, government programs. Studies
conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
conclude that $6 dollars in benefits are returned to the Nation for
every federal dollar invested in the vehicle safety programs of the
agency, and $30 for every dollar invested in the behavioral aspects of
highway safety. Reductions in health care costs, lost productivity, job
training, insurance costs, and police and emergency services costs are
the result of this investment.
Since progress has slowed in recent years, it is time to devote
additional resources to this national health problem. In order to again
achieve further gains and the historical return on investment in
improving driver, passenger, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior, new
initiatives and approaches to spending federal dollars must be
considered.
Increases in the funds available for state programs, like those
proposed by NHTSA for alcohol incentive and occupant protection grants,
is money well spent. But it is time to aggressively attack the problem.
We propose a five-point program to be achieved over five years that
would have several features:
1) require NHTSA to articulate national goals to be achieved in
five years for safety belt use, percentage of alcohol-related
fatalities, and the highway fatality rate,
2) support traffic law enforcement directly with added resources,
3) develop modern educational tools taking advantage of Internet,
cd-rom and other technologies,
4) conduct aggressive research to understand aggressive behavior on
the highway and its relationship to other injury-causing behavior, and
5) increase national advertising to create awareness of this
national tragedy.
Incremental increases in resources will simply not get the job
done. By putting further resources into national research and outreach
programs, the driving public will be assured that reducing highway
death and injury is a national priority and that the appropriate
research is conducted to understand behavior and to act on further
gains.
We propose that $34 million be added to the NEITSA budget in fiscal
year 1998 to begin this important work, and that a longer term solution
be considered in the ISTEA reauthorization. One additional single
percentage point of funds from the Highway Trust Fund applied to
national NHTSA programs would result in about $260 million additionally
becoming available. We will propose to the authorizing committee that
funds be increased to this level over the life of the next ISTEA
reauthorization. But this committee can begin the process by adding
badly needed funds to the fiscal year 1998 appropriations. Since over
90 percent of all transportation-related fatalities occur on our
nation's highways and 80 percent of those are attributable to driver
errors, the additional amounts are appropriate and necessary.
A full discussion is presented below.
the problem
Despite large successes over the past 15 years, highway fatalities
were about 42 thousand in 1996 with over 3 million reported injuries.
Increases in fatalities have taken place in each of the last several
years although slight reductions occurred in calendar year 1996. While
the fatality rate, measured in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, has been reduced dramatically over the past 15 years, the
rate of approximately 1.7 is essentially unchanged since 1992.
Although the United States has a solid record of achievement in
reducing highway deaths and injuries, we are by no means the world
leaders, particularly in important areas like drunk driving and safety
belt use. In the United States, over 41 percent of highway fatalities
were alcohol-related while other countries, Scandinavia countries in
particular, routinely achieve alcohol-related fatality percentages of
less than 30 percent.
Safety belt use in this country is stalled at 68 percent while
Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and other countries routinely achieve
belt use over 85 percent with some, like Canada, over 90 percent. Since
each 10 percent of safety belt increase saves nearly 2,000 lives per
year, the potential for further improvement is enormous.
The heart of the problem lies with the willingness of drivers and
passengers in this country to aggressively engage in risk-taking
behaviors. Not buckling up, driving drunk, driving too fast, not
wearing a motorcycle helmet, and even jaywalking or not wearing a
bicycle helmet are all manifestations of risk-taking. Right here in
Washington, aggressive driving has taken its toll with several recent
deaths being attributed to behavior that is unleashed in a vehicle.
highway safety economics
According to a NHTSA report released in 1996, highway deaths and
injuries cost the Nation over $150 billion in 1994, up from $137
billion in 1990. That amounts to 2.2 percent of the Nation's Gross
Domestic Product and $580 for every person living in the United States.
Every fatality costs society $830,000 and each critically injured
survivor $706,000.
There are few of us who do not pay the bill in one of several ways.
According to the NHTSA study, the costs of highway crashes are
distributed as follows:
Type of loss Amount of loss
Productivity and workplace losses....................... $58,600,000,000
Property damage......................................... 52,100,000,000
Medical costs........................................... 17,000,000,000
Travel delay............................................ 4,400,000,000
Legal and court costs................................... 5,900,000,000
Emergency services...................................... 1,700,000,000
Insurance administration................................ 10,500,000,000
Rehabilitation.......................................... 156,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 150,400,000,000
Despite their enormous cost, highway crashes needn't extract this
toll from the lives of families, government, and business. Highway
crashes are not random events over which there is no control. Many
highway crashes and the consequences of them are controllable.
The bottom line is that highway crashes are still a huge economic
and social problem in this country and the amount of resources we are
devoting to reducing the toll is very small in proportion to the
problem.
nhtsa's budget in perspective
NHTSA's total budget request for fiscal year 1997 is $333 million.
There are several ways to put this figure in perspective. The first is
to compare this amount to the $150 billion lost each year in highway
crashes. NHTSA studies have concluded that the return on investment
ranges from $6 dollars for every dollar spent on vehicle programs and
up to $30 dollars for each dollar spent on programs to alter driver and
passenger behavior. With this solid return, further investment,
particular in the behavioral programs, makes economic sense. The
current levels of investment are far below that which is comparable to
the problem and far below those needed to achieve effective economic
gain and reducing the devastating effect on families from losing loved
ones.
The Highway Trust Fund collects $26 billion per year, and the NHTSA
budget makes up just over 1 percent of that figure. The economics of
highway safety demand a greater investment. And since about 80 percent
of the cause of highway injury lies with driver and passenger behavior,
that new investment should be weighed heavily towards changing
behavior.
Recent experience with air bag safety makes the effort more
important. An extraordinary amount of attention has focused on changing
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. The subject has become
almost daily fare in the nation's newspapers and electronic media and
NHTSA has come under increasing fire to alter the standard to allow air
bags to become less aggressive and to promote the development of the
so-called ``smart bags''. But the simple truth is that the majority of
the deaths attributable to air bags could have been avoided through the
use of safety belts and ensuring the children under 12 are seated in
the rear seat. Again, the need is to increase efforts towards the
appropriate use of safety restraints already available in every air bag
equipped vehicle.
the proposal
The traditional approach to changing behavior on our highways is to
1) enact good state laws, 2) effectively enforce them, and 3) educate
drivers and passengers on the importance of avoiding alcohol, buckling
up, reducing speed, and other behaviors. When applied aggressively,
effective reductions in fatalities and injuries will result. A number
of state programs, including North Carolina's ``Click it or Ticket''
program, have repeatedly demonstrated the usefulness of this approach.
Foreign success, particularly safety belt use programs in Canada,
Australia, and Great Britain, and drunk driving programs in Scandinavia
and Australia, is attributable to this approach.
NHTSA's traditional role in promoting these programs is threefold:
1) conduct national advertising and programs through national
organizations to identify highway safety as a national priority and to
create issue awareness, 2) develop and provide technical and
educational support, both in a research and program development sense,
and 3) administer the state and community grant program.
In recent years, the state and community grant program has received
increased funding from Congress, principally through the section 402
grant program. An additional $12.5 million was provided in fiscal year
1997 funds for the NHTSA section 402 program, a result of combining the
Federal Highway Administration and NHTSA requests. The same amount is
asked for by NHTSA for fiscal year 1998. In addition, NHTSA has asked
for an addition $8.5 million for fiscal year 1998 in alcohol incentive
grants and a new $9 million program for occupant protection incentive
grants.
But Americans want more. A recent poll conducted by Louis Harris
for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety concluded that 9 out of 10
Americans want the federal government to display strong leadership in
highway safety.
For national level programs, however, conducted through the section
403 program, only small amounts of additional money are being sought
for an air bag safety campaign, for emergency services support, and a
new youth drug initiative. The total amount of increase is $4 million,
but occupant protection and alcohol program development efforts will
actually receive less funding under the Administration proposal. The
highway safety research request is flat at about $5 million.
While progress is being made in funding state and community
efforts, the amounts available for national level programs is
inadequate, especially given the stagnation in reducing highway
fatality and injuries and the Nation's mediocre performance in highway
safety compared to the rest of the world.
If the Nation is to commit resources commensurate to the problem,
new investment in changing behavior should support state and community
efforts and the need for national leadership in five areas:
1) Set national goals to be achieved over the next five years
--National leadership requires developing national expectations.
Aggressive goal-setting is an important facet of national
leadership and costs nothing.
--The key areas for which goals should be set are: overall national
highway fatality rate, percentage of alcohol-related
fatalities, and safety belt use rates. On April 17, 1997, NHTSA
announced 5 and 10 year goals for safety belt use. This is a
positive step and NHTSA should follow with ambitious drunk
driving and fatality rate goals.
--NHTSA should decide the goals to be reached and the time frame
without delay and in concert with the highway safety community.
2) Develop an aggressive new program to support traffic law
enforcement efforts nationwide directly through police organizations
and state highway safety offices.
--Less than $1 million in the NHTSA request supports traffic law
enforcement through national organizations and though financial
aid and technical assistance to the states.
--An additional $19 million is needed to replicate the success of
programs like North Carolina's safety belt and drunk driving
programs. Additional resources should be provided to the law
enforcement community to reverse the trends of recent years
towards less traffic law enforcement.
3) Develop and distribute aggressive education approaches using
modern education and communication tools targeting high risk
populations.
--Fatality rate reductions among the highest risk populations are
stagnant, including the vulnerable risk-taking populations of
21-34 year-old males. Older drivers and new drivers need
special attention and program approaches need to be developed.
Less than $3 million in program development funds are requested
in the NHTSA budget and very few of the NHTSA programs designed
to reach youth, older drivers, and the 21-34 age groups have
been evaluated.
--An additional $7 million is needed to develop innovative approaches
to reach the vulnerable populations, including full evaluations
of existing educational approaches to these problems and the
development of new technology using the latest Internet, cd-rom
and other electronic and motivational approaches.
4) Conduct new research to better understand risk-taking and
aggressive driving behavior on the highway.
--Understanding why some drivers and passengers take risks by not
wearing safety belts, driving drunk, speeding, or engaging in
other behaviors is fundamental to developing effective
programs. Although NHTSA has made some progress in
understanding risk-taking, these fundamental understandings are
crucial to developing national leadership in highway safety.
The NHTSA highway safety research budget only contains $550
thousand devoted to this type of research.
--An additional $5 million for risk-taking research is needed.
Understanding behavior and how driver and passenger risk-taking
behaviors are linked to other non-highway injuries is essential
if the NHTSA priority of establishing Safe Communities is ever
to reach its potential.
5) Significantly increase public service advertising.
--Of the total NHTSA budget request of $333 million, only about $1
million is devoted to national public service advertising for
highway safety.
--An additional $4 million is appropriate to bolster current national
efforts and to assist states and communities in supporting
increased traffic law enforcement.
The total added funds under these proposals is $34 million, roughly
a 10 percent increase in NHTSA's budget and between one and two-tenths
of one percent of the expected revenues in fiscal year 1998 to the
Highway Trust Fund.
Highway safety program spending should represent a larger portion
of Highway Trust Fund revenues. Miles traveled on the Nation's highways
is a direct measure of exposure to safety risks and directly affects
the amount of money flowing to the Highway Trust Fund. The more miles
traveled, the greater the risks, and the more resources that should be
available to counter those risks and to make further progress in
reducing these intolerable human and economic wastes. If an additional
one percent of Highway Trust Fund money were dedicated to NHTSA
programs, the programs described above and others could be funded
easily. We believe it is time for Congress to consider such an
approach. As Congress considers the next ISTEA reauthorization, the
portion devoted to highway safety should be proportional to total
revenues and should increase dramatically over the life of the bill.
Thank you very much.
______
Rail-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Harriet Parcells, Executive Director, American
Passenger Rail Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to
the Subcommittee. My name is Harriet Parcells and I am the Executive
Director of the American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC), a national
association of rail suppliers and businesses working for an efficient,
safe and world class U.S. intercity passenger rail system.
The U.S. stands at a crucial crossroads in defining the future for
intercity passenger rail in this country. With a federal commitment to
provide Amtrak with a more secure base for capital investments and the
tools to operate in more businesslike and efficient fashion, Amtrak can
become a world class national railroad and yield the country a strong
return on its investment.
Citizens from coast to coast have expressed their desire for more
and improved intercity passenger rail service. At rail forums held 1\1/
2\ years ago, Amtrak and federal and state officials heard citizens,
local officials and businessmen from New York to Texas to Washington
state, call for improved, not reduced, Amtrak service and emphasize
that Amtrak service is critical not only for mobility in congested
metropolitan areas but for citizens of smaller communities as well, for
whom Amtrak is often the only affordable and reliable means of
intercity transportation.
States increasingly view rail as a vital component of their
transportation infrastructure. Over the past two years, sixteen states
have entered into partnerships with Amtrak to initiate new rail service
and preserve service that Amtrak would otherwise have been forced to
eliminate or reduce for lack of adequate funding. States such as North
Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Vermont, California, Washington, Oregon,
New York, Pennsylvania and others are using state funds to purchase new
rail rolling stock, to make strategic investments to increase rail
speeds on key corridors and/or to improve the quality of rail service
in other ways.
Amtrak is taking strong actions to become a more efficient and
customer-focused railroad. Last year, Amtrak was named the ``Most
Improved in Customer Service'' among American transportation companies
in a survey of business executives by Knowledge Exchange, a financial
analysis and publishing firm. Amtrak has purchased new equipment--a new
generation of Superliners, Viewliners and new locomotives--that has
been greeted enthusiastically by rail riders and improved the
railroad's efficiency and reliability. Amtrak is forming new
partnerships to bring customers better service: partnerships with the
states and the partnership announced in November between Amtrak and
Greyhound to work together to improve connections between trains and
buses. And, last year, Amtrak awarded a contract to a consortium of
Bombardier/GEC Alsthom to build 18 high speed trainsets that will
operate at top speeds of 150 mile per hour in the Northeast Corridor by
the turn of the century and bring a new generation of rail travel to
America.
The federal investment in Amtrak is crucial to the success of these
developments. A strong federal commitment to Amtrak and the advancement
of high speed rail in key corridors in fiscal year 1998 is essential to
keeping these developments on track.
a dedicated source of capital investment: key to a healthy future for
amtrak
In testimony provided by our association to the Subcommittee last
year, APRC underscored the critical need to provide Amtrak with
adequate capital funding and urged Congress to establish a dedicated
source of funding for Amtrak capital investments, funded by \1/2\ cent
of the federal gasoline tax. APRC appreciates the support of many
members of this Subcommittee, and the support of other Senators, last
year for the Sense of the Senate Resolution offered by Senator Roth to
create a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak capital investments, which was
approved 57:43 by the Senate on May 23, 1996.
Yet, one year later, Amtrak remains without a dedicated funding
source. Senator Roth and co-sponsors--including Senators Lautenberg and
Specter, introduced S. 436, the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act
of 1997, on March 13, 1997, to create an Intercity Passenger Rail Trust
Fund and dedicate \1/2\ cent of the federal motor fuels tax (a portion
of the 4.3 cents per gallon now going to the General Fund) to Amtrak
capital investments for a 5 year period. The country's five states
without Amtrak service would receive funds that could be used to help
initiate or improve intercity Passenger rail service or intercity bus
service. Similar legislation was introduced in the House of
Representatives yesterday, April 24, by a bipartisan group of Members
from states around the country. APRC strongly supports these bills.
A dedicated source of capital investment is essential to Amtrak's
future viability and Amtrak's ability to become free of federal
operating subsidies by 2002, as directed by Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget. APRC asks the Subcommittee to provide Amtrak
with $751 million in capital appropriations in fiscal year 1998 (the
amount \1/2\ cent of gas tax would generate), as requested by Amtrak in
its fiscal year 1998 budget request. We urge members of the
Subcommittee to work with other Members of Congress to ensure that this
year the nation puts Amtrak on a secure track to the future. Congress
will write and enact legislation to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the surface
transportation trust funds. This presents the time and opportunity for
Congress to enact S. 436 and ensure a healthy economic future for
Amtrak that will provide multiple benefits for current and future
generations of Americans.
The fiscal year 1998 request for $751 million for capital will
provide for Amtrak's general capital needs as well as critical
investments in the Northeast Corridor. For Amtrak operations, APRC asks
the Subcommittee to support Amtrak's request for $245 million and for
railroad retirement, $142 million. Last year, Amtrak requested $250
million for operations but was appropriated $200 million, a gap of $50
million. We urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the operating request
of $245 million this year to allow Amtrak to meet its operating needs
and continue on its path to reduced reliance on federal operating
subsidies.
Amtrak is committed to reducing its operating costs and becoming
more customer-focused. The Amtrak Board of Directors adopted in 1994 a
Strategic Business Plan to guide Amtrak's actions and put it on a
downward glide path to operating self-sufficiency by 2002. Amtrak has
been taking the necessary and difficult steps (employee and management
staff reductions; service adjustments and other actions) to reduce its
operating expenses. Amtrak cannot, however, get there without key
actions by Congress. Key to the successful outcome of the Strategic
Business Plan is enactment of a dedicated source of capital funding,
adequate operating funding to keep Amtrak on the glide path to zero
federal operating subsidy and the implementation of high speed rail
service in the Northeast Corridor, with service beginning in 1999.
high speed rail in the northeast corridor: amtrak's ``economic engine''
The electrification of the Northeast Corridor from New Haven to
Boston and implementation of high speed train service in 1999, to
reduce trips times between Boston and New York to under 3 hours and
reduce travel time along the entire Northeast Corridor, is vital to
Amtrak's future. Federal Railroad Administrator, Jolene Molitoris,
recently referred to the high speed rail investment as the ``economic
engine'' of Amtrak. We are in complete agreement. We urge the
Subcommittee to provide Amtrak with strong capital funding in fiscal
year 1998 to ensure that needed capital investments in the Northeast
Corridor are undertaken to ensure the high speed rail project is
implemented on schedule.
The electrification of the Northeast Corridor from New Haven to
Boston, along with the purchase of 18 high speed trainsets, will bring
a new generation of rail travel to the United States. The high speed
rail service will attract an additional 2.6 million riders annually to
Amtrak and is estimated to generate a net annual profit of $150 million
that will benefit the entire Amtrak system. No other single investment
is as strategic to Amtrak's future economic health. The high speed rail
investment will provide relief to heavily congested airports and
highways in the New York and Boston regions and speed travelers in
safety and comfort to their destinations. The high speed rail project
will create thousands of new jobs in communities throughout the
country, as components for the high speed trains and other strategic
infrastructure investments are supplied by manufacturers and businesses
in over 20 states. A study by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
estimates the high speed rail investments will generate $440 million in
new business sales in the region. And, the successful implementation of
high speed rail in the Northeast Corridor will open opportunities for
high speed rail developments in other key corridors of the country.
investments in rail safety and high speed rail r&d
Efforts to improve the safety of the country's passenger and
freight rail systems must be a top priority of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA). APRC urges the Subcommittee to provide FRA with
strong funding in fiscal year 1998 to continue its vital rail safety
work. APRC also supports funding for the valuable work of Operation
Lifesaver, working with the states to educate the Public on railroad
safety matters. And, APRC asks the Subcommittee to continue funding
FRA's high speed rail research and development program and Next
Generation High Speed Rail Program to carry forward the important work
underway on positive train separation, advanced train control and grade
crossing technologies, development of a high speed non-electric
locomotive and other research and development critical to improving the
safe operation of the nation's passenger and freight trains.
states see improved passenger rail service as cost-effective investment
for the future
As states around the country plan for the future mobility, economic
health and quality of life for their citizens, they are entering into
partnerships and making strategic investments with Amtrak, the federal
government and each other to bring about improved intercity passenger
rail service.
--The benefits of investments by the state of Michigan and U.S. DOT
to upgrade the corridor between Detroit and Chicago were
showcased in October 1996 when a special Amtrak train was
operated over the corridor at speeds of more than 100 miles per
hour. Speeds will increase in 1997 from 79 to 110 miles per
hour over a 20 mile stretch of track.
--Washington and Oregon are working cooperatively to increase train
speeds and quality of rail service over the ``Cascadia
Corridor'' extending from Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver,
BC.
--Pennsylvania recently approved funding to purchase new, more
efficient equipment to operate on the Philadelphia-Harrisburg
rail corridor.
--In New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, in cooperation with Amtrak, will
contribute $25 million per year for 5 years (Amtrak will
contribute an identical share) for important improvements in
the NJ portion of the Northeast Corridor.
--The Missouri Department of Transportation and Amtrak on April 4,
initiated a three-week service demonstration of a Danish-built
Flexliner passenger train, operating between St. Louis and
Kansas City, with funds provided by the Missouri legislature.
The majority of seats for the demonstration service were
purchased weeks in advance of the train's arrival by an
enthusiastic public wanting to ride the versatile, new
passenger train.
--The state of Vermont has made substantial investments in new
passenger rail service, working cooperatively with Amtrak to
establish the ``Vermonter,'' which features a menu with
specialities of the state and a baggage car retrofit to carry
bicycles and skis. More recently, Vermont initiated the ``Ethan
Allen'' to serve the west side of the state. Ridership has far
exceeded projections, with over 3,000 riders carried between
New York and Rutland in the month of December.
--North Carolina used state funds to purchase railcars and
locomotives for operation on the Piedmont Corridor.
--Most recently, the Texas legislature approved legislation--now
awaiting the Governor's signature--that would enact a loan
arrangement between Texas and Amtrak to keep the popular
``Texas Eagle'' in service.
Other states undertaking studies and infrastructure investments to
improve the quality of intercity passenger rail service within their
state and region.
A healthy future for Amtrak is key to the success of these rail
developments around the country. APRC urges the Subcommittee to provide
a strong level of capital and operating investment for Amtrak in fiscal
year 1998 and to work with other Senators and the House of
Representatives to ensure that a dedicated source of investment for
Amtrak capital needs is enacted this year.
APRC thanks the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to provide our association's comments on fiscal year 1998
appropriations for Amtrak and high speed rail developments to the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Memphis Area Transit Authority
Overview.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) and elected
officials are making a strong commitment to transit as a viable
mobility alternative for citizens of the Memphis area. Priorities
include: (1) completion of the downtown rail circulation system with
additional financial assistance for the Medical Center Rail Extension,
and (2) initiation of a regional rail system in accordance with the
recommendations of the Memphis Regional Rail Plan.
Background.--On April 29,1993 the downtown Main Street Trolley was
inaugurated. This project was the first step in the development of a
complete downtown rail transit and terminal system. The Main Street
Trolley has carried 2 million passengers since its inception. Ridership
continues to grow and the system averages 4 passengers per mile--more
than twice the rate of the bus system.
With federal support, two downtown transportation terminal projects
are fully funded and under construction. The historic Central Station
building will be restored and expanded to operate as a regional
intermodal terminal at the south end of the Main Street Trolley line. A
unique public-private partnership has been formed to blend $17.8
million in federal and local funds with monies provided by a Developer.
This partnership will insure that the project serves an important
transportation function, and, in addition, becomes a vital commercial
and residential center in downtown Memphis. The first phase of
construction is underway with completion of the entire facility
expected in May 1998. A new North End Terminal, at the north terminus
of the Main Street Trolley is also under construction to be completed
by the end of 1997.
The Riverfront Loop extension to the Main Street Trolley is under
construction as well. It will be in operation by Summer 1997. This line
will serve existing and proposed developments along the Mississippi
River and connect with the Main Street Trolley, Central Station and
North End Terminal.
medical center rail extension
With all of these projects under construction, only one link
remains to complete the downtown rail circulation system. That link is
a rail connection to the Medical Center. The Medical Center Rail
Extension, in addition to completing the downtown system, can be the
first phase of a regional light rail line.
Congress provided $1.25 million of ``new start'' funds in fiscal
year 1996 and $3.039 million in fiscal year 1997 for this project.
These monies are being allocated to engineering, program
administration, and utility relocation activities.
The Medical Center Rail Extension involves new construction of a
light rail line connecting the two largest activity centers in the
Memphis region: the Central Business District (CBD), and the Medical
Center. The line will be approximately 2.5 miles in length and will
operate on-street in mixed traffic using Madison Avenue for most of its
length. The line will be integrated with the Main Street Trolley and
Riverfront Loop at the west end of the line (in the CBD). At the east
end of the line, near the Medical Center, a major station will be the
focal point for bus-rail transfers. Other stops will be spaced along
the route and will have sheltered waiting areas and wheelchair ramps.
The Medical Center Rail Extension is a key in MATA's five year plan for
redesign of the bus system from a CBD-oriented radial system to a
transit center-based system. A substantial number of bus trips
currently made between the CBD and Medical Center will be reassigned to
outlying areas since downtown demand will be handled by rail. The
operating cost of the Medical Center rail extension will be more than
offset by the reduction in duplication of bus service in the corridor.
Projected daily ridership in the forecast year of 2020 is 4,200-6,100,
depending upon the exact alignment.
A Major Investment Study (MIS) and Environmental Assessment (EA)
has been completed for this project. A contract is in place for
engineering design which will begin immediately upon receipt of final
approval of the MIS/EA by the Federal Transit Administration.
The current cost estimate for design and construction is $30.4
million, with a federal share of $24.3 million. Since the federal share
is less than $25 million, this project is not subject to the new starts
criteria in Section 5309(e)(2)-(7) of ISTEA. The fiscal year 1997
funding request is for $5.3 million to cover the cost of the following
activities: Trackwork fabrication and vehicle acquisition. MATA intends
to continue the previous 80 percent federal/20 percent local funding
split for this project. Remaining funds for construction of $14.7
million will be requested in fiscal year 1999.
regional rail plan
In addition to completing the downtown rail circulation system,
Memphis is also prepared to begin the process of implementing a
regional rail system. The recently-completed Regional Rail Plan
includes recommendations for light rail in three corridors. The Medical
Center Rail Extension project is included in the Germantown/
Collierville corridor. A summary of key characteristics of the
corridors is presented below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Corridor Length (miles) Capital cost ridership
(2020)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germantown/Collierville......................................... 24.8 $443,000,000 34,300
Whitehaven/Mississippi.......................................... 19.0 330,000,000 21,200
Frayser/Millington.............................................. 17.6 304,000,000 6,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A request will be made to the Senate Banking Committee to authorize
the three corridors as a Program of Projects in the reauthorization of
ISTEA.
The next step is to prepare an MIS to aid in determining priorities
and detailing the engineering and financial plans. The MIS will be
funded entirely from local sources. The proposed federal/local split
for subsequent requests to this committee for the Regional Rail Plan
will be 50 percent federal/50 percent local. Additional funding
requests will be dependent upon results of the MIS.
local commitment
A strong local financial commitment results from a growing
recognition among elected officials of the importance of a modern,
efficient public transportation system in meeting mobility and economic
development needs in the 21st century. One example of past financial
commitment is The Main Street Trolley. It was largely financed with
Interstate Substitution funds that local decision-makers chose to
allocate to transit rather than highways. No Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 3 funds were used in the project. In
addition, private funding commitments are being secured for restoration
of vintage trolley vehicles. The fund-raising effort is continuing with
additional corporate sponsors continually being added. Overall, the
project was completed within 1 percent of budget. The Riverfront Loop
Rail Extension is also being constructed without Section 3 funds.
Commitment to the Regional Rail Plan is shown by recent actions of
local governing bodies. The Memphis City Council and Shelby County
Commission adopted identical resolutions supporting state legislation
to change the formulas for distributing revenues from automobile
registration fees and 6-cents of state gas tax. The changes would give
local governments the authority to dedicate these revenues as a
permanent funding source for public transportation.
summary
With the support of local governments, MATA is building on the
success of the downtown rail system and initiating major investments
identified in the Regional Rail Plan. To continue to move forward,
financial assistance is requested in fiscal year 1998 as follows:
Medical Center Rail Extension, $5.3 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.046
Prepared Statement of Ross B. Capon, Executive Director, National
Association of Railroad Passengers
We appreciate this opportunity to comment for the record. Our
Association is supported by about 12,000 individual dues-paying members
who believe that the nation needs a balanced transportation system.
The committee's hearing book on the National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 contains the bulk of our comments
about the current and potential future importance of Amtrak to the
nation's transportation system.
A fiscal year 1998 operating-grant appropriation of $245 million
(vs. $200 million requested by the Administration) and a mandatory
payments appropriation of $142 million (the Administration supports
this) are essential if Amtrak is to survive and provide the benefits we
anticipate.
With regard to capital grants, we urge committee approval of
Amtrak's request of $750 million, with the understanding that any
``half-cent'' capital investment trust fund--as finally enacted--would
replace Amtrak's regular capital appropriation.
Amtrak now projects a fiscal 1997 year-end cash shortfall of $80
million. This is a marked improvement from the $96 million projected a
few months ago, but still substantial. It is one indication that an
inadequate fiscal 1998 operating grant may cause Amtrak to cease
operations sometime during that year.
Amtrak is starting to benefit from recent restructuring efforts and
stability in services offered. In the second quarter (January-March),
passenger revenues were up 12 percent, passenger-miles up 4 percent
compared with the year-earlier months. For the Intercity Business
Unit--which operates the Chicago-based corridor services and almost all
of the long-distance trains--second-quarter passenger revenues were up
16 percent and passenger-miles were up 7 percent. Clearly, the public
wants to ride trains.
Thank you for considering our views.
______
Research and Special Programs Administration-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of David Albright, Research Bureau Chief, New Mexico
State Highway and Transportation Department
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the importance of a test facility for systems
engineering in transportation, as part of the strategic planning
efforts of the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA), US
Department of Transportation.
My testimony is presented in two parts. The first is an overview of
a Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET) Test Facility. This
includes the national need, the proposed response to the need, and
basic attributes of a proof of principle to demonstrate that the
response is equal to the challenge. The second part of the testimony
details elements of success for the proposed proof of principle.
Documents supporting the testimony are noted, perhaps most helpful
among them the recently published Sandia National Laboratories
Colloquium presentation, ``Systems Engineering for Transportation''.
overview
A National Problem: Fracture of the Transportation System
In the past, transportation has progressed by optimizing one
subsystem after another. Canals, railroads, and highways have each
played important roles in different times and in different ways.
Although there has been and continues to be an economic interest in
making the connection among modes efficient, modal research, planning,
implementation, construction, maintenance and evaluation mechanisms are
characteristically separate rather than singular.
Fracture exists within as well as among transportation modes.
Separate, static design of vehicles and infrastructure creates
inefficiency and unanticipated effects. In highway transportation, for
example, this is seen in premature pavement failure from lack of
cooperative vehicle and infrastructure design. It is seen in safety
problems such as initial design of antilock braking systems not
anticipating pavement deformation at intersections, and initial design
of airbags not accommodating some passengers. The problem in fractured
highway design is seen, too, in the negative impact of noise on some
neighborhoods and communities. Fracture of transportation within modes
separates vehicles, infrastructure, and users.
The cost of fracture is high. Fracture optimizes parts of the
system and results in secondary, negative effects. Unfortunately, the
cost of secondary effects on the system may be as great or greater than
the benefit from the optimized subsystem performance.
In some instances, costs are significant, but difficult to express
in economic terms. The cost of failure is expressed in loss of human
life through accidents, environmental degradation and resulting impact
on health. Some costs associated with failure of the transportation
system can be more readily quantified. Cost of traffic congestion, for
example, can be calculated in urban areas. Cost can be calculated in
reduced competitiveness of transportation products and services due to
inadequately understood system interface or product acceptance.
Transportation products and services are needed not only to meet the
current market, but that can help define future markets.
The separation of functions within and among modes results in
denial if not removal of responsibility for the negative system effects
of transportation products and services. Public and private
transportation investments should be based on system performance,
rather than optimizing parts of the system then trying to mitigate
unanticipated results that are secondary to the subsystem but primary
to a sustainable transportation system.
There is a need to move from system fracture to Systems Engineering
for Transportation (SET). Systems engineering offers the potential to
address the system as a system rather than as a collection of
subsystems. Each transportation mode can benefit from such an approach
to transportation. This is true for highways, rail and transit. In
addition, the interconnections among modes may be more effectively
assessed. There is the potential to enhance economic competitiveness
and reduce unacceptable problems in safe, equitable and environmentally
responsible movement of people, goods and ideas. There is a need to
design and develop vehicles and infrastructure in an interactive
environment, termed Simultaneous Vehicle and Infrastructure Design
(SVID), and to analyze transportation problems in the same, integrated
environment, termed Simultaneous Vehicle and Infrastructure Analysis
(SVIA).
This need has been explored with public and private vehicle and
infrastructure interests, as well as non-governmental organizations
concerned with energy, environment, and social equity. There is
interest in the addressing the need, as presented in supportive
testimony on SVID by Basil Bama, Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, to the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation
and Infrastructure ISTEA Reauthorization Field Hearing, March 22, 1997.
While there is general agreement the need is urgent, and the systems
concept may be helpful, there has not been a clear sense of how the
concept could be put into practice beyond encouraging dialogue.
The Proposed Solution: Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET)
Test Facility
How the concept could be put into practice was first suggested by
Steve Roehrig, Sandia National Laboratories. It is an approach which
lends itself particularly well to a proof of principle. Mr. Roehrig
suggested developing a Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET)
Test Facility. The facility would not duplicate existing capabilities,
nor would it obsolete them. Rather, the SET Test Facility would
integrate existing test centers, creating a virtual environment to test
vehicle products in relation to the current and planned changes to
infrastructure. The SET Test Facility would enable system performance
questions to be addressed in a way currently beyond our test
capabilities.
A Proof of Principle
A proof of principle is recommended to demonstrate that the concept
can be implemented. The technical proof must include the ability to
integrate information from existing, separate facilities to dynamically
assess proposed changes in vehicle and infrastructure design. The
institutional proof must include the ability to bring together public,
private and non-governmental organizations, employing the technical
capability to improve transportation products and services. It is
recommended the proof of principle be cooperatively selected and the
scope agreed upon by the Research and Special Projects Administration
(RSPA) and the proposed partnership. Because all modes can benefit,
RSPA is well-positioned to advance a systems capability on behalf of
each of the modal administrations.
The Proposed Partnership
In cooperation with RSPA, a partnership will be needed to prove the
principle and, if successful, move toward implementation. The idea for
the SET Facility began with Sandia National Laboratories, which should
lead the partnership. It should do so in cooperation with the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. These laboratories
have collaborated on the concept, and have the technology and systems
engineering experience to prove the technical principle.
The Alliance for Transportation Research (ATR) Institute, the
University of New Mexico, has convened an SVID workshop in Dearborn,
Michigan, and conducted various meetings to bring together automobile
manufacturers, representatives of state and federal government,
institutes of higher education and non-governmental organizations. The
ATR Institute is well-positioned to serve as the hub to bring together
the additional, diverse partners required to prove the institutional
principle. The ATR Institute should work with the Surface
Transportation Policy Project (STPP) toward this purpose. STPP has
helped refine the SET concept since its inception. This team, combined
with the leadership of RSPA Administrator David Sharma and his fine
staff, can demonstrate the benefit of a systems approach.
development of a proof of principle
The Benefit from a Proof of Principle
The SET Test Facility is a response to urgent national need; but,
there must be a clear demonstration of the team's ability to develop
such a facility, and feasibility of the approach to meet the need. An
important problem for consideration as the proof of principle is to
analyze and begin to improve highway vehicle and pavement performance.
A proof of principle requires agreement between the interested federal
agency and the partnership. The agreement required is on the level of
funding, term of the proof of principle, and if successful, the
anticipated level of implementation funding.
The sponsor and partnership must agree on what is, and what is not,
a successful proof of concept. With agreement on how success is
defined, an initial investment can be made to prove the concept. If
unsuccessful, there is no further funding. If successful, funding is
provided.
Utilizing a proof of principle to initiate significant research
such as the SET Test Facility is beneficial in several regards. A proof
of principle reduces the funding risk. It also focuses on metrics of
success, which is helpful in the transition from scientifically
significant research to useful research products. Finally, a proof of
principle initiates constructive communication between the sponsoring
agency and the research partnership. This builds trust both in conduct
of the proof of principle and in assessment of general capabilities
that may be employed in other efforts.
Elements of A Successful Proof of Principle
Elements of success for the proposed proof of principle are similar
to proven elements of successful research utilizing the national
laboratories and strong, diverse transportation partners. (Elements of
Success: TRANSIMS, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department, March 1997) However, because the subject is the system
rather than subsystem or specific technology or technologies, the
elements of a successful proof of principle for the SET Test Facility
are slightly different and perhaps more challenging.
The five elements of success for the SET Test Facility proof of
principle are: 1) base research in need; 2) address need from
underlying science; 3) define both technical and program success; 4)
build research partnership; and 5) build an effective team. These
elements of a successful proof of principle are described below.
1) Base Research in Need
Brilliant minds do not necessarily address the most pressing
questions. Innovative technologies do not necessarily solve immediate
and most critical needs. Research must be in response to well-framed
questions and well-defined, challenging needs. We cannot afford our
best researchers and best research capabilities addressing the wrong
problems, or providing nominal solutions that induce incremental
subsystem improvement. Fundamental research with the potential to
significantly enhance the transportation system and its associated
products and services must be based in enduring, challenging and urgent
need. This is descriptive of transportation as well as other sectors of
our society in which the nation's science and technology base may be
meaningfully employed.
It is for this reason the SET Test Facility partnership includes
exceptional technical competencies combined with exceptional experience
in public and private teamwork. Other public and private organizations
may well be added to the team; but necessarily for specific strengths
added to help meet the need, rather than for expediency.
The need must be understood before technical competencies can be
meaningfully employed. Understanding the need is necessary, but not
sufficient. In the absence of exceptional technical competencies to
resolve issues in an innovative and impartial manner, institutional
barriers, intransigence and cynicism tend to constrict research,
development and constructive change.
The principle must be proven in response to significant
transportation need. The principle must be proven in relation to the
feasibility and desirability of implementing the response.
2) Address Need from Underlying Science
Fundamental research is important to address the enduring
challenges in transportation. The nation's science and technology base
can and should address national needs from the underlying science. The
proof of principle should not only propose to address a need; the proof
of principle should identify the scientific challenges raised in
attempting to address the need.
The SET Test Facility will present scientific challenges. One set
of challenges relates to considering transportation as a system rather
than collection of subsystems. This will require the design and
development of new processes and tools. Meeting the challenges
associated with systems engineering may well identify another set of
challenges to information science.
Other scientific challenges will be associated with the specific
problem addressed in the proof of principle. Highway vehicle and
pavement design for improved performance was suggested as an example.
The selected problem, as well as its associated scientific challenges,
should be identified cooperatively by RSPA and the proposed
partnership.
The general systems and information science challenges, however,
will be associated with any selected problem for the proof of
principle. They are briefly described below.
Systems Science
Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET) will provide a
conceptual framework to represent the transportation system. In this,
SET is concerned with systems science. From the SET framework,
processes and tools are proposed to improve transportation analysis and
design. The framework, boundary interface for the defined system, and
relationship between the framework, processes and tools will require
innovative theoretical work.
Systems engineering is a discipline initially developed by the
government of the United States to engineer large, complex, and
multidisciplinary systems. Once a system has been defined, such as
transportation, and a framework developed, systems engineering is a
process by which elements of the framework may be designed or improved.
The SET framework will require thoughtful processes and tools for
integrated transportation analysis and design. This system framework
and these tools do not now exist, and their feasibility must be part of
the underlying science demonstrated in the proof of principle.
Information Science
Transportation data are extensive, complex and changing. The SET
framework will be required to integrate extensive and complex data, if
the data are to serve as useful information in decision making.
Transportation data needs change as new questions are asked about the
system and new metrics are suggested to indicate system performance.
The nature of transportation base data will present a challenge in data
representation. This challenge is, in part, one of graphic integrity.
It is also a challenge in rendering complex data accessible to
individuals from diverse backgrounds. With development of innovative
processes and tools, issues of information integrity and clarity will
likely emerge. The SET Test Facility, whether used for design (SVID) or
analysis (SVIA), will present difficult challenges to information
science.
3) Define both Technical and Program Success
Technical Success
Technical success for the proof of principle should include
demonstration of the facility, with some specific problem addressed. A
compelling example is highway vehicle and pavement interface. The
facility could permit the simultaneous design of vehicle suspension,
tire characteristics, and pavement design and maintenance procedures.
With limited funds for highway construction and maintenance, it is
imperative that roads be designed and built to last longer. The
proposed test facility could allow the interactions of vehicle, tire,
pavement and environment to be examined, understood, and performance
specifications improved.
The proposed highway vehicle and pavement interface example would
require involvement of vehicle manufacturers, pavement designers,
public and private construction companies, and a variety of other
concerned organizations. This example would also serve to demonstrate
public involvement in the process. A highly efficient interaction
between vehicle and pavement must also be acceptable to the public in
regard to noise and cost. The assessment of noise and impact on
neighborhoods also helps describe the importance of placing the
innovative work in the context of systems engineering. Any potential
solutions to improve pavement performance must be assessed in relation
to the environment; tracing the current design and proposed solution
from extraction to recycling.
A successful technical proof of principle should address the SET
conceptual framework, and processes and tools for transportation design
and analysis. A formidable technical challenge will be to advance the
science and engineering of transportation and to do so in a way that is
understandable to and involves the public. This should be established
as a criterion for technical success.
Program Success
Program success follows technical success. If the SET Test Facility
can be built, whether or not it will be used will largely define
whether or not the program is a success. Program success is public,
private and non-governmental organization interest in participating in
the process and providing or using resulting products and services.
The potential value of the SET conceptual framework must also be
the proven value of the SET Test Facility. An idea to change and
hopefully improve some aspect of transportation must be placed in
context of the system as a whole, and refined as a result. The
recommended demonstration in the proof of principle is concerned with
subsystem performance. The need is in the highway mode, and within this
mode vehicle and pavement interface.
The SET framework, and its design application, SVID, would permit
alternative vehicle and pavement designs to be assessed in relation to
system impact. Alternative investment and implementation strategies
could be assessed within highway transportation, and could be assessed
as well among modal strategies.
The SET Test Facility would integrate vehicle and pavement tests to
model improvement in design. Alternative improvements would be assessed
in context of the how they would affect the transportation system. The
impact on the user, as an individual and in community, on vehicle and
infrastructure would be assessed. Technical success is the ability to
make the assessment. Program success is the ability to implement the
assessment.
4) Build Research Partnership
National laboratories have the technology and personnel to lead in
providing tools and processes for systems engineering in transportation
design and analysis. The national laboratories can lead; however, their
leadership will produce useful tools only to the extent their
capabilities are guided through meaningful partnership.
Universities are critically important to provide the connection to
public and private organizations. An institute of higher education will
be essential to serve as a hub for communication; and, other
universities will be needed to work with the laboratories, improve the
tools, and help apply the tools in cooperation with other public
agencies and the private sector.
The private sector is essential to the proof of principle. First,
private companies involved in vehicles and infrastructure must be
involved in developing the tools and processes for there to be
technical success. The private sector defines program success in
implementing the tools and moving toward system-supporting products and
services.
The SET Test Facility must include the public as a partner in
research. The transportation system attempts to accommodate people in
their interest to move themselves, their ideas and objects from one
point to another. Diverse individuals, not just organizations
representing groups of individuals, should have an opportunity to
understand and advise the results. Each individual will be the most
knowledgeable expert about how a change to the transportation system
will affect them, their experience of mobility and access. Individuals
form the public that public agencies intend to serve; and they form the
market that private companies intend to serve. How broad-based, diverse
individuals have an opportunity to interact with the SET Test Facility
process and results during the proof of principle may well define how
diverse individual insight is gained should the principle be proven,
the facility built and operated.
5) Build an Effective Team
In research projects, team building is concerned primarily with
sustaining the technical team at a peak level of performance throughout
the project. In a proof of principle, the concern is to bring the right
persons together to prove, or disprove, the principle within the agreed
upon time line.
Sandia National Laboratories and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory have the capability to assemble the right
technical team. In addition to working on the SET framework, transport
within the US Department of Energy, the laboratories also share
responsibility for a systems approach to hazardous waste.
From the beginning, the Alliance for Transportation Research
Institute, the University of New Mexico, supported this work. The ATR
Institute developed and maintains a website specifically for dialogue
on simultaneous vehicle and infrastructure design. Combined with its
commitment to and experience in public involvement in transportation
research, the ATR Institute can be an important part of the team. The
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) has worked with the ATR
Institute on several national transportation research projects. In
addition, Hank Dittmar and Don Chen of STPP made substantive
contributions to the SET framework and potential implementation.
Working with RSPA, with these organizations at the core, other
organizational interests can be attracted to and meaningfully engaged
to help demonstrate the proof of principle. Together, there is the
potential to address the need from the underlying science, and to
successfully produce technical and program results.
conclusion
The value of the proposed SET Test Facility extends to all
transportation modes. Each mode has user, vehicle and infrastructure
issues that may be assessed within such an environment. The value of
the facility holds potential for research, providing an invaluable tool
for assessing the system impact of proposed modal change.
Because the proposed SET Test Facility is a system performance
capability, the proposed proof of principle should be coordinated by
the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA). RSPA has
responsibility for system level assessment and improvement of
transportation. RSPA also helps integrate the work of critically
important research partners in such an effort: federal laboratories and
institutes of higher education.
A sense of responsibility for system performance can be addressed
by regarding transportation as a system, but the present fracture of
transportation interests presents a formidable implementation issue.
Fracture will only be overcome if public, private and non-governmental
organizations recognize the potential benefit from a systems approach
so significantly outweighs potential cost that historic resistance,
resentment and mistrust can be set aside.
There are several references that may provide helpful background.
Introductory comments on simultaneous design were documented in a
presentation, ``Simultaneous Vehicle and Infrastructure Design,'' Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, October 1995.
Discussion of simultaneous design with vehicle manufacturers,
government agencies, and non-governmental organizations was documented
in, ``Transportation Opportunities and High Purposes: The Right
Persons. Compelling Problems and Appropriate Resources,'' Proceedings
of the First Invitational Workshop on Simultaneous Vehicle and
Infrastructure Design, Dearborn, Michigan, published by the Alliance
for Transportation Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March
1996. Steve Roehrig outlined his concept of an innovative, virtual test
facility in a presentation, ``SVID Test Facility,'' briefing document,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 1997.
Finally, in April 1997, I presented a colloquium on ``Systems
Engineering for Transportation,'' which is available through Sandia
National Laboratories. The colloquium paper describes potential SET
framework, SVID and SVIA processes and tools. It also proposes a proof
of principle to implement the concept and address the national need.
The nation has a Research and Special Projects Administration
charged with and affirming responsibility for transportation systems
level understanding and improvement. There is a concept that has the
potential to significantly enhance this effort, Systems Engineering for
Transportation Test Facility. There is a team that can work with the
Administration to realize the concept and build the facility. The next
step is a proof of principle. There is now the opportunity to refine
the concept, build the tools, and prove the principle.
Thank you.
______
Transit-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transit Association
introduction
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) appreciates the
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1998 Transportation
Appropriations and Related Agencies bill. This testimony complements
our April 10, 1997 statement before the Subcommittee on reauthorization
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Because Congress is likely to pass the fiscal year 1998 Transportation
Appropriations Act before it finishes action on legislation to
reauthorize ISTEA, we felt that it was important to comment on
development of these bills separately.
As we mentioned in previous testimony, APTA strongly supports
ISTEA. We supported its enactment in 1991 and our experience over the
last six years leads us to conclude that the new law is an effective
way to address transportation needs. As a result, APTA has adopted a
comprehensive ISTEA reauthorization working proposal that would
preserve and build on the ISTEA and transit program structures, and
expand opportunities for flexible funding.
We welcome the acknowledgment--clearly demonstrated by transit
funding increases in fiscal year 1997--that even though it is important
to control federal spending, it is also vital to increase investment in
the nation's transportation infrastructure. An efficient transportation
system is the foundation on which we build economic growth. For fiscal
year 1998, APTA urges the Subcommittee to provide the maximum funding
possible for the federal transit program.
capital funding needs
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), APTA, and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) all
agree that total capital funding needs are at least $13 billion
annually. Based on an APTA study of the transit industry, these capital
needs over the next decade include:
--$38 billion for new vehicles, including 67,800 buses and 51,400
vans;
--$25 billion for new bus facilities including parking lots for bus
passengers;
--$13 billion to modernize bus facilities and equipment;
--$23 billion to modernize and rehabilitate existing fixed guideway
rail and bus routes, stations, and maintenance facilities;
--$46 billion for additional fixed guideway services that respond to
new customer demands; and
--$5 billion to rehabilitate more than 14,900 buses, rail cars, and
other vehicles to extend their useful lives.
fiscal year 1998 transit funding
In light of these critical needs, we urge you to approve the
maximum possible funding for the federal transit program. APTA urges
the Subcommittee, in developing its fiscal year 1998 bill, to consider
the following priorities:
--Increase funding for the federal transit program and all surface
transportation programs authorized under current law;
--Retain operating assistance at no less than the current level if
the Subcommittee proceeds under current law;
--Maintain balance within the federal transit program by funding
formula and discretionary programs in a manner consistent with
ISTEA authorization levels and relative funding shares,
including the 40:40:20 ratio among the Major Capital Investment
program's New Start, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus/Bus
Facility components;
--Fully use Mass Transit Account resources for their dedicated
transportation purposes;
--Increase funding for the transit capital program and support
authorizing changes that permit a broader definition for the
use of formula funds for preventative maintenance activities,
as is currently allowed for highway activities under the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program. We understand
that, as the FHWA program's eligibility extended beyond
construction to include maintenance, its outlay curve has
hardly changed, and we expect the same result on the transit
side. Indeed, we understand that FTA outlay rates have not
increased even as the eligible definition of capital has
expanded over the past few years;
--Support APTA's authorizing recommendations that maximize spending
on transit capital and minimize reliance on federal operating
aid. Small urbanized areas (UZA's) should be given the
flexibility to use federal funding for operating or capital, as
is permitted in non-urbanized areas; and
--Help transit systems fully implement service associated with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without compromising
existing services.
continuing challenges
The transit industry's future success requires a concerted effort
to support economic development while protecting the quality of life in
communities of all sizes. The availability of transit services will
also have a significant impact on the success of welfare reform. At the
same time, transit must comply with a variety of federal mandates.
Metropolitan Mobility and Economic Growth
Transit is an effective tool for economic development. It returns
three times its cost in business revenue to the communities it serves,
according to a recent APTA study, and each $10 million invested in
transit creates or maintains 550 full-time jobs. When cities add bus
routes or build rail stations, they stimulate private investment around
the new transit service in the form of housing, retail and other
privately-financed, tax-generating development. In the Washington, D.C.
area for example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
has generated at least $15 billion in surrounding private development.
A KMPG Peat Marwick study found that the Commonwealth of Virginia is
expected to benefit from $2.1 billion in state tax revenue attributable
to Metrorail between 1978-2010, a healthy return on a projected state
investment of $940 million.
The more people use transit, the less crowded urban and suburban
roadways are. A full bus removes 40 cars from the road, and a full rail
car removes 125 cars. Fewer cars on the road mean that commercial
vehicles can move more efficiently, reducing transportation costs for
business and minimizing need for additional highway construction that
is often prohibitively expensive. Transit accounts for 20-50 percent of
work trips in many of the nation's largest cities, including 54 percent
in New York; 34 percent in San Francisco; 30 percent in Chicago; and 20
percent in Atlanta.
Sufficient funding for transit promotes efficient use of all
transportation dollars by subjecting every proposed project to
alternatives. From fiscal year 1992 through 1996, local officials chose
to use almost $3 billion in flexible federal funding for their
communities' transit needs. It is estimated that American businesses
will lose $24.5 billion annually over the next 20 years because of
traffic congestion. If the federal government fails to invest
adequately in transit, gridlock and the corresponding losses in
economic productivity will worsen.
Small Town and Rural Transit
In the nation's small urbanized areas--those with fewer than
200,000 people--and rural counties, the availability of transit service
provides essential mobility and access to jobs, social and health
services, church, and stores. An estimated 30 million non-drivers in
rural America depend on transit; in some cases its availability allows
the elderly to stay in the homes they cherish and out of more expensive
nursing homes. APTA supports proposals to increase small UZA and rural
transit funding. It is our position that all federal assistance to
these areas should be available for capital or operating needs, so that
transit operators in these communities will have the maximum
flexibility to meet local needs.
Environmental Benefits
Transit is also an effective tool in the fight against air
pollution. Vehicle traffic is responsible for 40 percent to 60 percent
of pollution that produces ozone and 70 percent to 80 percent of carbon
monoxide emissions. Air pollution has enormous costs and is a major
factor in a community's quality of life. A person using public transit
for a year instead of driving an automobile, reduces hydrocarbon
emissions by nearly 90 percent and carbon monoxide by more than 75
percent.
Access to Jobs
Transit is vital to the success of welfare reform. The cost of
commuting to and from work by transit can be as low as 10 percent of
the annual cost to own and operate an automobile. That can make a
critical difference in an entry-level worker's budget.
The American public understands that many welfare recipients do not
own cars and must rely on public transit to get to work. In a recent
nationwide public opinion survey, an overwhelming 83 percent of those
asked agreed that the availability of public transit is very important
to a welfare recipient who wants to get a job. Another 12 percent said
that it is somewhat important, with only three percent saying that the
availability of transit is unimportant.
Because most new jobs are in the suburbs, transit operators must
provide special ``reverse commute'' and suburb-to-suburb bus, rail and
van services to match center city residents with suburban jobs. Since
1989, JOB-RIDE, a reverse commute program in Wisconsin, has provided
access to more than 3,500 suburban jobs and reduced the welfare and
unemployment rolls. In cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, transit
agencies use special buses, vans and other employer-supported programs
to serve workers who live in one suburb and work in another.
Coordination of transit service with other government functions can
save tax dollars at all levels of government.
Federal Mandates
APTA supports the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Clean Air Act, federal drug and alcohol testing laws, and the Clean
Water Act. However, the costs of these goals add at least $1.5 billion
each year to transit capital and operating costs--nearly four times the
$400 million allocated for transit operating assistance in fiscal year
1997. Absent sufficient federal funds to cover these costs, many
transit systems are forced to sacrifice some existing services.
Transit agencies met the January 27, 1997 compliance deadline to
make paratransit service comparable to fixed-route service, but their
ADA capital and operating costs may be $1.4 billion annually for the
next several years. The demand for ADA paratransit service is expected
to grow, and complementary paratransit service will still be required
even after all fixed-route service is fully accessible. The noble
vision of ADA must be fulfilled with the support of our entire society.
The costs of compliance should not be placed disproportionately on
transit riders, yet that is what happens if service is reduced, or
fares are raised, or plans for expanded service are canceled, if ADA-
related costs should lead to cutbacks in other parts of a transit
agency's budget.
the administration's fiscal year 1998 transit budget
While APTA is pleased that the Administration proposes to retain
the ISTEA program generally, those of us who serve millions of transit
customers each day are disappointed that the Administration has not
sought higher funding for transit, highway, and rail programs in fiscal
year 1998.
Capital Funds
The Administration proposal to permit the use of capital funds for
maintenance activities is a positive step, as is the provision to allow
transit agencies in small UZA's (those with fewer than 200,000 people)
to use all federal funds for capital or operating assistance. This
proposal, which is similar to APTA's reauthorization proposal, would
make it easier to preserve the value of federal capital investments in
transit. Also, it is consistent with FHWA policy, which allows the
expenditure of federal capital funds on maintenance of capital
investments in highway projects.
Transit Program Structure Changes
Within the transit program, the Administration has proposed
significant shifts in funding. We support the ISTEA-authorized major
capital investments program with its 40:40:20 funding ratio among the
New Start, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus/Bus Facility programs.
We are very concerned about the Administration's proposal to reduce New
Start and Fixed Guideway Modernization funds by 17 percent, so that
each program would receive only $634 million in fiscal year 1998,
compared to $760 million each in fiscal year 1997. In contrast, we note
with pleasure that the Administration's NEXTEA authorization proposal
call for $800 million in fiscal year 1998 for the New Start program and
$800 million for Fixed Guideway Modernization, with funding increases
in subsequent years. We believe that each of these programs address
specific investment needs, that funding for each program should be
retained and increased.
The discretionary bus/bus facilities program is needed to address
bus capital requirements that are not easily addressed through the
formula program. The existing program structure is right for the
transit industry and our customers. Small bus properties would be hard
pressed to make substantial investment in bus and bus facilities if
Section 3 bus funding is eliminated with the current prohibition on
banking federal funds under the three year ``use it or lose it'' rule.
In addition, we are concerned that the elimination of the discretionary
bus/bus facilities program and the movement of this $380 million
program into the formula program will result in the shift of about one-
third of the funds (the amount that goes only to rail properties under
the formula program) from bus needs to rail needs.
We also question the Administration's claim that its NEXTEA
proposal would increase transit formula funding when these structural
changes are analyzed. APTA has a long-standing policy to preserve the
ISTEA-enacted funding relationship of $1.36 in formula funding for
every $1 in major capital discretionary funding.
Finally for rural transit providers the NEXTEA proposal reduces
authorized funding and places service to customers at risk. The Non-
urban program (formerly section 18) would receive 3.75 percent of an
expanded formula program--a lower percentage than the current 5.5
percent of the combined total for urban and rural formula funds.
Additionally, rural formula funding would be reduced because 4 percent
of the total would go to the Rural Transportation Assistance Program,
which is now funded through the Research program. The elimination of
the Bus Discretionary Program would also take away a guaranteed 5.5
percent share of that program for rural communities.
Access to Jobs and Training Initiative
The proposed new Access to Jobs and Training Initiative recognizes
that transit providers can help address a critical need. APTA believes,
however, that this important new initiative should be funded with new
resources and not supported with a takedown of the existing formula
program as proposed in NEXTEA.
conclusion
APTA strongly supports a continued federal role in funding surface
transportation. ISTEA has worked well and must be continued. While we
recognize the need to control spending and reduce the deficit,
increased investment in the transportation infrastructure is needed to
facilitate economic growth, international competitiveness, successful
welfare reform, and other national goals. Putting off necessary
investment will only increase federal costs in the long run. We urge
this Subcommittee to fund the federal transit program at the highest
possible level in fiscal year 1998.
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Drewel, Chair of the Board, Central Puget
Sound Regional Transit Authority
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, as the Executive of
Snohomish County in Washington State and the Chair of the Board of the
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA), I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony about our Sound Move plan to improve
mobility for the central Puget Sound region and the assistance we need
from the federal government in fiscal year 1998 to expeditiously
advance this plan.
On November 5, the voters of our region approved our Sound Move
proposal by a majority of 56.5 percent. Sound Move will increase the
capacity of the region's transportation system through a mix of light
rail, commuter rail, High Occupancy Vehicle Expressways, regional
express bus routes and ``community connections'' such as park-and-ride
lots and transit centers. Transit customers will be able to travel by
local bus, regional bus, light rail and commuter rail under a single
ticket.
Our region's voters agreed to pay for most of this plan through a
\4/10\ of one percent increase in the local sales tax and a \3/10\ of
one percent increase in the motor vehicle excise tax. These tax
revenues will provide a stable, dependable, dedicated source of local
revenue for building, maintaining and operating the system.
The RTA needs federal financial help, however, to successfully
implement the light rail and commuter rail portions of this plan:
Our light rail plan includes a 25-mile line with 26 stations
between the University District of Seattle and the City of Sea-Tac via
downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport. If sufficient funding is
available, we want to extend that line north from the University
District to the Northgate region of Seattle. One of the most
significant investment required for this line, the downtown Seattle
transit tunnel and its five stations, is already in place. Our plan
also calls for a 1.6 mile light rail line between downtown Tacoma and
the Tacoma Dome train station. Last year, Congress appropriated $3
million to begin preliminary engineering and environmental work on our
light rail system.
Our commuter rail plan calls for an 81-mile line between Everett
and Lakewood, via Seattle and Tacoma, with at least 14 stations. The
commuter trains will run on existing freight track. RTA funds,
supplemented by funds from our public and private partners including
the railroads, will help pay for track and signal improvements on this
line in order to secure the speed and reliability necessary for quality
commuter passenger service on this line. We have obligated $1.88
million in federal funds for the environmental work on the Seattle-
Tacoma segment of this line and $1 million for the ``Tryrail''
Demonstration Project in 1995. We expect to obligate an additional $1.3
million very shortly for the environmental work on the Everett-Seattle
and Tacoma-Lakewood segments of this line.
We will be seeking an authorization for federal funding for our
light rail and commuter rail projects, in the bill reauthorizing the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), as the
elements of a program of inter-related projects.
For fiscal year 1998, we are seeking $22.7 million for our light
rail project and $21.9 million for our commuter rail project:
1) The light rail funds would be used for the capital costs of our
preliminary engineering and environmental impact study work on the
entire line between Northgate and the City of Sea-Tac. These tasks will
include:
--data collection on rights-of-way requirements;
--environmental and geotechnical issues;
--systems specifications for the procurements of vehicles,
electrification equipment, training signaling and
communications systems;
--a project management plan;
--a systems operation plan;
--siting and design of the light rail transit maintenance base;
--alignment and station design;
--a Definition of Alternatives report; and
--refined cost estimates.
2) The commuter rail funds would be used for the capital costs of:
--our environmental assessments/environmental impact statements on
the Everett-Seattle and Tacoma-Lakewood segments;
--design and engineering of a vehicle yard and shop facility and
vehicle layover locations, possibly in coordination with Amtrak
and the Washington State Department of Transportation;
--engineering and construction of railroad track, signal and capacity
improvements;
--property acquisition;
--station design for 14 stations, with special emphasis on the major
terminals in Everett, Seattle and Tacoma; and
--the development of vehicle specifications.
We are very pleased by the very broad support we have received for
Sound Move from business, environmental and community leaders and
especially the citizens of our region. We believe that Sound Move will
help maintain the economic vitality and quality of life of the central
Puget Sound region and all of Washington State. Because Washington
State is the most trade-oriented state in the country, this investment
in regional mobility will benefit the entire nation.
We are convinced that any analysis of our project will conclude
that it is a cost-effective investment. We anticipate strong ridership
numbers and we expect our local match rate to be one of the highest in
the nation for new start projects.
This subcommittee can help us put our plans into action as promptly
and efficiently as possible. We appreciate your consideration of this
request and we look forward to working closely with you during the
coming years. Thank you.
p_____
Prepared Statement of the Electric Transportation Coalition
i. introduction
This statement is submitted by the Electric Transportation
Coalition (Coalition), an organization of public and private groups
joined together to advocate the use of electricity as a transportation
fuel. A membership list is attached. A principal activity of the
Coalition is to encourage the adoption of policies and programs to
support the development and use of electricity as a ``fuel'' in the
transportation sector.
This statement addresses the fiscal year 1998 budget for the
Department of Transportation. Since this year's transportation
appropriations process will coincide with reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Coalition
has included in this written statement recommendations for policy
objectives and programs that we recommend be included in that
legislation.
ii. the role of electricity in the national transportation system
The Coalition believes that electricity should be a principal fuel
for the future to power the national transportation system. Electricity
offers significant advantages in transportation applications. From an
energy security standpoint, electric transportation presents our nation
with an important means for reducing our dependency on foreign
petroleum and increasing the diversity of fuels in the transportation
sector. A wide variety of transportation modes--individual passenger
and light-duty vehicles; heavy-duty vehicles, like buses and trolleys;
light rail; commuter rail; high speed rail; and heavy rail services--
can be powered by an abundant, domestically produced energy resource
generated from a variety of sources. That domestically produced energy
resource is electricity.
In addition to diversifying sources of transportation ``fuels,''
air quality considerations are requiring municipal transit operators to
consider the use of alternative fuel technologies as a means to reduce
emissions and achieve air quality goals. For many urban areas, electric
transportation may be a particularly important means to substantially
reduce emissions of mobile source pollutants, including volatile
organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, that are the precursors of
smog.
Electric vehicles (EV's) and electric buses, for example, are truly
``zero emission'' vehicles in operation. They produce no tailpipe
emissions and generate insignificant operation emissions. Also, unlike
other vehicles, EV's are not subject to emission system deterioration
over time and there is no danger of tampering with emissions controls.
iii. electric bus deployment and evaluation program
In order to focus government and public attention on the exciting
possibilities that electric transportation holds, including a cleaner
environment and economic growth and jobs creation, the Coalition is
advocating the creation of an Electric Bus Deployment and Evaluation
Program in this year's reauthorization of ISTEA. Specifically, the
Coalition supports the enactment of a new five-year $50 million program
to deploy and test various applications of electric bus technology in
10 sites across the country. The members of the Coalition believe this
program will assist the electric bus technologies--currently built by
hand, at low volume--to reach commercialization and allow the American
public to realize the full extent of benefits electric buses can offer.
The Coalition urges the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to
support the creation and initial funding for this program in fiscal
year 1998.
Today, much of the Nation's public transportation system depends on
the use of buses in public transit, school and shuttle applications.
Diesel powered buses produce noise and emit tailpipe emissions. In
stark contrast, electric and hybrid-electric buses are both clean and
quiet. Studies in California have concluded that electric buses are 90-
97 percent cleaner than diesel powered buses even when power plant
emissions are considered. Furthermore, electric transportation
technology is well suited for bus applications because buses typically
operate over limited distances and the driving range achieved with the
current generation of batteries is acceptable. Moreover, electric buses
are centrally garaged, which allows for central charging, or quick
change-out of the batteries, or ``opportunity charging'' (charging for
10-15 minutes), all of which are techniques of conveniently
``refueling'' an electric vehicle.
Currently, electric shuttle buses are being operated across the
country. For example, 30-foot electric shuttle buses have become
operational for daily use in Santa Barbara, California and Chattanooga,
Tennessee. In addition to the 30-foot battery shuttle buses, hybrid-
electric technologies have been used in 40-foot transit bus
applications. Several different ``fueling'' options (batteries, hybrid-
electric systems, and fuel cells) are under development and available
for different bus transportation applications (transit, shuttle or
school bus applications). These examples highlight the potential for
the use of electricity in bus-related applications to effectively and
efficiently meet transportation needs while enhancing air quality,
promoting energy security, and helping to create domestic jobs.
Despite the potential benefits from electric buses, barriers exist
to their expanded use and must be removed. Specifically, while electric
buses currently in operation have demonstrated the opportunities and
benefits from electric bus utilization, they also have illustrated that
additional information and testing are required before the state-of-
the-art electric bus technology reaches commercialization. Further,
because of the limited range associated with current and near term
battery technology, additional costs are incurred to maximize the use
of the bus in a transit application. These costs include spare battery
packs for battery exchanges and/or fast charging devices. Greater use
of these buses are expected to resolve some of these problems, bring
down costs and further advance the technology.
The new technology must be evaluated and deployed widely enough to
give potential users an adequate set of experiences (including, for
example, climatic and regional diversity) by which to make decisions
regarding widespread utilization. Information must be collected and
disseminated regarding training for this new transportation technology
and systems integration issues regarding the vehicles and the
supporting infrastructure must be resolved.
As Congress considers the transportation needs of the country
through the reauthorization of ISTEA, an opportunity exists for the
federal government, in partnership with industry, and state and local
governments, to work towards establishing a program and process which
will ensure that the barriers to electrified bus transportation are
overcome.
Through the reauthorization of ISTEA, the Coalition seeks to enact
a program for a federal government/industry cost-shared deployment
program of electric and hybrid-electric bus technologies. The purpose
of the program would be to promote the deployment and evaluation of
buses and the infrastructure associated with the use of such buses. The
program would be administered by the Department of Transportation,
allowing for a consultative role for the Departments of Energy,
Commerce, and Defense as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.
As currently envisioned, at least ten (10) electric bus deployment
projects would be selected to participate in the program. The proposals
would represent a diversity of regional and climatic settings, as well
as a variety of customer applications (including transit, shuttle, and
school transport). Further, this program would be designed as an
industry/government cost-shared endeavor. Cost-sharing will reduce the
financial burden of the program for the federal government and ensure
community participation and commitment to the success of the program.
We would suggest that project costs also include the increased, or
incremental, costs associated with the maintenance and operation of
these buses.
Finally, we would suggest that projects be selected on a
competitive basis and that project participants produce reports on
operation, performance, and maintenance. The program should also
require project participants to host a limited number of presentations
or visits for representatives of other communities. Participants would
also be required to submit a post-program plan for continuing use of
electric buses.
iv. istea reauthorization
In 1991, Congress approved a six-year $151 billion surface
transportation authorization bill, commonly known as ISTEA. On
September 30, 1997, the authorization for ISTEA will expire. The
Coalition realizes that the Appropriations Committee does not maintain
jurisdiction over the reauthorization process of ISTEA. However, the
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations plays a critical role in
the implementation of transportation policy, and since the fiscal year
1998 appropriations process and the ISTEA reauthorization process
coincide this year, it is critical for Congress to support, through
authorization and appropriations, the innovative tenets of ISTEA.
ISTEA fundamentally restructured the manner in which transportation
officials, and the public at large, think about transportation planning
and operation. No longer is transportation development considered
solely along modal lines; instead, intermodal planning is the
reasonable approach now employed. In addition to connections between
modes, today's transportation policy connects national goals through
transportation policy as well. Enhancing air quality, promoting public
safety, and improving land-use planning are all objectives of ISTEA.
A. ISTEA Should Continue To Pursue A Multi-Modal Strategy and Multiple
National Goals
The Coalition strongly urges the Subcommittee to support a
reauthorized ISTEA that promotes a multi-modal system and multiple
national goals. It is vital that these connections among modes and to
other national policies, especially the Clean Air Act, be supported and
maintained. The Coalition supports expanding transportation development
beyond a focus of traditional highway projects to include innovative
transportation technologies, as well as to link transportation policy
with other national goals such as energy security and efficiency.
The Coalition also believes that federal efforts to link
transportation development with improved community planning should be
continued and that deployment of innovative transportation modes and
infrastructure such as electric transportation should be encouraged.
The Coalition supports the efforts of the Federal Transit
Administration under the ``Livable Communities'' program to make
communities more livable through improved transportation planning.
The reauthorization of ISTEA also should continue to support such
programs that encourage communities to consider, or integrate, multiple
factors and goals into their development plans so as to create the most
desirable and ``livable'' areas. Such factors include: clean,
convenient, efficient and safe transportation development; energy
efficiency; environmental conservation; and economic growth. For the
transportation sector, this effort should focus on long-term solutions
rather than quick-fix alternatives. Innovative, 21st century
transportation technologies and infrastructure--such as electric
transportation--should be showcased in this program.
B. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ) is one such innovative program in that it promotes both greater
efficiency and reduced pollution from the transportation sector. The
Coalition supports continuation of CMAQ with increased focus on
advanced transportation technologies.
To obtain the greatest benefit from limited program funds, the
Coalition urges the Subcommittee to consider a CMAQ project selection
system which evaluates and competes projects of a similar nature but
would not consider (and compete) dissimilar projects, e.g., projects
which promote future, long-term benefits versus projects supplying more
immediate returns; e.g., alternative fuel fleet conversions should not
be ranked against HOV lane projects.
The Coalition also supports a process whereby eligible CMAQ
projects, which receive a portion of private funding, would be favored
over projects funded only with public sector funds. Such a provision
would not damage the quality of the program but would encourage
private/industry support for community projects and stretch limited
public resources. We also believe that non-attainment areas,
redesignated as maintenance areas, should remain eligible for CMAQ
funds. However, we believe those funds should be focused on projects
that continue to address air quality concerns.
C. The Surface Transportation Program
The Coalition supports continuing the funding flexibility
established through the Surface Transportation Program. We urge the
Subcommittee to support this important program and expand the project
eligibility for STP funds to include fueling stations and supporting
infrastructure for alternative fuel transportation technologies.
D. Federal Transit Administration Funding
The Coalition also urges the Subcommittee to ensure that federal
transit funds are adequately and fairly maintained. When transportation
programs are considered for federal funding cuts, we urge the
Subcommittee to make sure that transit programs do not receive a
disproportionate share of those cuts. The Coalition also urges the
Subcommittee to support the 20 percent allocation of the gas tax
collected for transportation programs and all congressional efforts to
focus these gas tax funds on capital projects.
Furthermore, as ISTEA is currently written, the law provides a
higher federal cost share for mass transit projects involving the
acquisition of vehicle-related equipment required by the Clean Air Act.
The standard federal cost share for mass transit projects is 80
percent, but if the funds are required to purchase alternative fueled
buses in order to comply with the Clean Air Act then the federal match
increases to 90 percent. The Coalition supports this higher federal
cost-share and urges the Subcommittee to support the link between
federal transit programs and obtaining Clean Air Act goals by
maintaining or increasing the federal match for mass transit projects
required by the Clean Air Act.
E. Access to High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
We encourage the Committee to support efforts to seek, though the
reauthorization of ISTEA, enactment of a provision to grant states the
authority to provide non-fleet alternative fuel vehicles (AFV's)--
including electric vehicles--access to high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes without regard to number of vehicle occupants.
Such an amendment would provide a budget-neutral incentive for
purchasing and using AFV's and would provide sates with increased
ability and authority to address Clean Air Act mandates through the
promotion of AFV's, including electric vehicles which produce zero
tail-pipe emissions.
F. Emissions Reduction Credits
The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to encourage the consideration
of innovative techniques that will facilitate the deployment of new
electric transportation technologies. One such option is mobile
emissions reduction credits (ERC's). This program would allow for the
sale and trade of emission credits from the deployment of low or zero
emission vehicles in a manner similar to the stationary emissions
credit trading program. ERC's would allow market forces to encourage
the attainment of cleaner air through deployment of low or zero
emission electric transportation technologies.
G. Decrease Bus Size Requirements
Many transit organizations currently follow a policy that only a
40-foot bus will meet transit needs. However, data collected in Santa
Barbara, California and Chattanooga, Tennessee, where smaller buses
represent a majority of the transit fleet--prove that smaller electric
buses can meet--and even surpass, the needs of a community. In Santa
Barbara, for example, ridership has increased with the introduction of
electric buses to existing and new service routes. Furthermore, the
quieter buses have allowed transit officials to maximize capacity and
operate satellite routes into neighborhoods thereby permitting more
efficient and convenient transit service. For these reasons, we urge
the Subcommittee to encourage transit officials to adopt a definition
of transit buses which includes buses smaller than 40-feet. This
seemingly insignificant step is vital to promoting innovative thought
and technology into 21st century transportation policy and planning.
v. other public transportation opportunities fueled by electricity
A. Electrification of Airports
Airports are often one of the major sources of air pollution and
noise in urban areas. The frequent idling and accelerating of diesel
and gasoline powered off-road, airport and airline service vehicles
contribute to the airport pollution problem. Airport electrification
could provide for the replacement of conventional, fossil-fueled
vehicles now used for air-side baggage handling and airplane service,
as well as a majority of the land-side shuttle vehicles, with electric,
zero emission counterparts. The characteristics of airport vehicle use
are well suited to electric transportation technology.
B. Electric Station Cars
Some urban communities are considering the emissions reduction
benefits from the operation of so-called station cars. Station cars are
non-polluting, battery powered vehicles linked to public transit
service. They are used by transit riders between transit stations and
the riders' destinations. As the concept is developed, the cars could
be available for short trips during the day, evenings and weekends.
Multi-passenger station cars can lead to significant vehicle congestion
mitigation around stations. Station cars also will allow transit
agencies to extend beyond station-to-station service to provide door-
to-door service. The expanded service, coupled with the electric
vehicle technology, will greatly assist efforts to increase the
accessibility of transit and to reduce urban emissions.
C. Electrified High Speed Rail
Electric high speed rail (up to 185 mph) is a proven technology
used in much of Europe, Japan, and Taiwan. This technology is being
developed in the United States in various locations, including the
Northeast Corridor and Florida. Operation of electric high speed rail
systems offers a clean, efficient, and safe transportation alternative.
In addition, this transportation mode offers several benefits for the
nation including: domestic job creation in the areas of civil
engineering, construction, and operation; emissions reduction (compared
to airlines, electric high speed rail systems can reduce pollution
emissions by as much as 98 percent); and traffic congestion alleviation
on highways and at airports.
D. Electrified Rail
In the heavy rail sector, imposition of NOX emissions
limitations on rail sources could require significant emissions
reductions. Currently available compliance strategies for rail
operators include additional emissions controls or operating
modifications. An attractive alternative, particularly in areas with
significant air quality problems, is likely to be rail electrification.
vi. conclusion
The Coalition appreciates this opportunity to make its concerns
known to the Subcommittee and to submit for the record its funding
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. We look forward to working
with the Subcommittee and the Congress to achieve these worthwhile
goals.
______
Prepared Statement of Father William L. George and Father T. Byron
Collins, Special Assistants to the President, Georgetown University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L.
George, S.J., and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to
the President of Georgetown University, the Reverend Leo J. O'Donovan,
S.J. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
on the 40-Foot, Fuel Cell Powered Transit Bus Commercialization
Program.
The Federal Transit Administration continues to support the Fuel
Cell Transit Bus Commercialization Program within its existing Research
and Development budget. Previous funding provided by this subcommittee,
coupled with the money supplied by the Department of Defense, has
allowed us to demonstrate that liquid-fueled Fuel Cell buses are
practical and the technology is truly ready to be designed and tested
in industry. These buses are the herald of clean, efficient power for
the transportation industry. We would like to thank the Committee for
their continuing support of the Fuel Cell bus program as a means to a
cleaner environment and as a way to reduce this country's dependence on
petroleum fuels.
In fiscal year 1998, we identify an absolutely necessary
requirement of $8 million to demonstrate that fuel cell powered transit
buses can be integrated into mass transit fleets. A portion of this $8
million will maintain a basic program to develop two such buses and the
remainder will provide for the inclusion of additional buses which are
necessary to further the pre-commercialization process. Furthermore, we
recommend that the FTA Research and Development budget should be
supplemented by that amount to ensure that necessary resources will
remain available for the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Commercialization
Program within constraints of other priorities in the FTA budget. We
are asking the Committee on Banking to authorize funds for this fiscal
year and ensuing fiscal years in the amount of $27 million for the
continuation of the development of these buses and to supply FTA with
the necessary funds. Specifically, we are seeking $8 million in fiscal
year 1998. $10 million in fiscal year 1999. and $9 million in fiscal
year 2000.
When Georgetown embarked on the development of Fuel Cell powered
transit buses, that technology was little known outside of the space
community. It took great imagination by this Committee among others to
envision the vast benefits to be reaped by applying this clean, quiet
power source to transportation. Now we see a world-wide effort to
capitalize on the potential of Fuel Cells for automotive applications.
Europe and Japan are pouring major resources to bring the technology to
the marketplace. Those efforts are being matched by this country. Even
so, the only successful liquid-fueled, Fuel Cell powered vehicles that
have ever been demonstrated anywhere are the three, 30-foot Test Bed
Buses built within this program and now being tested at locations
across the country Georgetown has consistently stressed liquid fuel as
the only energy source that can provide the range and refueling
convenience necessary for commercialization in the foreseeable future.
We are on the threshold of seeing a commercial version rolling off the
assembly line this year.
What has been accomplished with the funding provided by this
subcommittee over the past year? We have scaled a commercially
available, 40,000 pound, 200 kW utility Fuel Cell power plant to a 100
kW version that weighs about 3,800 pounds and fits in the back of a
bus. Equally significant, the reliability of that unit should exceed
25,000 hours rivaling that of the electrical utility model fuel cell.
The bus to house the Fuel Cell has been designed and is being
fabricated as we speak. By this fall, a commercial version of a 40-foot
Fuel Cell powered transit bus will be on the road. And we are not
sitting still. Another 100 kW Fuel Cell of a newer variety is under
development and will be available for installation into a transit bus
by year's end. This will afford the opportunity to evaluate potential
operational advantages of two candidate fuel cell power systems. All
the elements are in place for a paradigm in propulsion systems for
transportation.
Georgetown is confident that the technology is truly ready for
commercialization. However, it is not feasible to commercialize a
product with only one of each type of vehicle. We must get transit
buses into the hands of the operators to permit them to see the
advantages of the technology and identify any necessary improvements.
Short of this, we would have spent considerable resources and effort to
simply demonstrate a technical curiosity. Multiple vehicles are
absolutely essential to prove technology readiness.
A key element of commercializing Fuel Cell powered transit buses is
the establishment of a National Depository Fuel Cell Facility. It
serves two purposes: (1) prototype monitoring and maintenance services
for Fuel Cell powered transit buses, and (2) a Fuel Cell information
depository for evaluation and transfer of Fuel Cell technology for
transportation. Strategically located at Georgetown, this facility
would be a national exemplar serving the needs of the nation to advance
the introduction of fuel cells first into the transit industry and then
to meet the general energy needs of the country. We are also asking the
Committee on Banking to authorize $10 million for the facility in
fiscal year 1998 and to authorize $7 million in fiscal year 1999 for a
total of $17 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
executive summary
Metropolitan Atlanta is the fastest growing major metropolitan area
in the nation, with a population that now exceeds 3.5 million. In order
to provide transit service to this fast-growing region, the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is requesting
Federal financial support for two major undertakings in fiscal year
1998. These programs consist of the continued development of the North
Line heavy rail extension to North Springs, and the purchase of
alternative-fueled buses.
MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the
105th United States Congress to earmark $60,000,000 in fiscal year 1998
FTA New Fixed Guideway and Extension funds for the continued
development of the North Line Extension Project. This project was
authorized in ISTEA and is the subject of a Full Funding Grant
Agreement between FTA and MARTA. These funds will be utilized for the
continued development of the heavy rail extension to the Sandy Springs
and North Springs Stations.
MARTA's North Line rail service will consist of over 9 miles of
heavy rail transit and 5 stations upon completion in December 2000.
Currently, there are 7 miles of track and three stations that opened
for passenger service in June 1996. The opening of these initial North
Line stations increased MARTA's total operating rail system to 46 miles
of track and 36 stations.
Additionally, MARTA has significant capital funding needs in
support of our Bus program. As part of an effort to improve air quality
in the Atlanta region, MARTA is committed to converting up to one-third
of its bus fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG) operation by the year
2000. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Appropriations
Committees of the 105th Congress to earmark $12,300,000 in fiscal year
1998 FTA Section 3 Bus and Bus Related funds for the purchase of 56
CNG-fueled buses.
The justification, rationale, and background supporting these
requests are set forth in the following pages.
overview of the atlanta region
Metropolitan Atlanta is the fastest growing major metropolitan area
in the nation. The metro area's growth rate from 1990-1996 was 19.7
percent--the growth leader of all metro areas over two million people.
Metro Atlanta has added over 575,000 people since the 1990 census and
now has a population of over 3,540,000. By the year 2020, the
population of the Atlanta MSA should approach 5 million.
Atlanta has become a major metropolitan area of international
importance. Always a primary transportation hub, Atlanta is served by
Hartsfield International Airport--the second busiest airport in the
World. Atlanta currently ranks 10th among U.S. cities in the number of
national corporate headquarters. The area's robust economic growth is
expected to continue with recent forecasts calling for the addition of
374,000 jobs in the 10-county region between 1995 and 2005.
The area to be served by the North Line Extension Project is the
fastest growing segment of the Atlanta region. The Atlanta Regional
Commission projects that this corridor alone will have grown by 144
percent between 1980 and 2005. Employment will grow even faster: up 422
percent from 53,000 to 277,000 over the same time period. As the
geographic center of the region migrates north, there is a visible need
to improve access between the burgeoning north Atlanta suburbs and the
central city and international airport to the south.
Not surprising, given the growth in population and employment, the
Atlanta region has a serious air quality problem. Atlanta is a non-
attainment area for ground level ozone and has not met the 1996
deadline for air quality goals. The region is currently facing the very
real possibility of having its road-building program frozen because of
the inability to reduce ground level ozone levels.
The region's air quality problem is directly tied to the elevated
level of automobile exhaust emissions. Registered vehicles in the 13-
county area have increased 32 percent in the years 1986-1995.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Metro Atlanta have increased 65
percent over the last decade, due in part to the booming growth north
of the City. Traffic congestion has reached crisis proportions,
particularly in the northern suburbs to be served by the MARTA North
Line Extension. Clearly, viable alternatives to single occupant vehicle
travel must be implemented if the region is to continue to prosper. The
provisions of both the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and ISTEA point
to rail transit service as the solution to mobility problems in this
major development corridor.
Current projections indicate sustained growth north of the city,
and MARTA transit services will be critical to meet the growing public
transportation requirements. Atlanta's pressing transportation needs
did not end with the 1996 Olympics. As the region goes forward into the
new millennium, the mobility challenges are enormous. MARTA is ready to
be the vehicle carrying metro Atlanta's citizens into the future.
overwew of marta
In March 1965, the Georgia General Assembly, by a vote of 205 to
12, passed the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Act,
thereby creating MARTA. The sole purpose was to plan, build, and
operate a public mass transportation system serving the metropolitan
area, including the city of Atlanta and its five surrounding counties.
The local referenda ratifying participation in the Authority succeeded
in the city of Atlanta and all but one of the five counties. The
following six years were devoted to technical studies, reports, forums
and public hearings to confirm the need for a long range regional
transportation plan.
Voters in the City of Atlanta, Fulton, and DeKalb Counties approved
the Rapid Transit Contract and Assistance Agreement (RTCM) in November
1971. The RTCAA described in detail the planned service improvements
for bus and rail, and authorized the local governments to impose a one-
cent MARTA sales tax.
Additionally, MARTA bought and overhauled the Atlanta Transit
System. New equipment, new maintenance and operating garages, passenger
shelters, new bus routes, increased frequency of service, extended
operating hours and improved customer information systems were vital
improvements to the ailing bus system.
MARTA currently operates a state-of-the art, intermodal regional
transit system which fully integrates rapid rail, fixed route bus and
paratransit service. At present, the combined bus-rail system carries
67 million passengers annually over 53 million vehicle miles of service
area. MARTA currently operates heavy rail service over 46 miles of
track to 36 passenger stations, and bus service over 1,550 route miles
using 156 routes. MARTA continues its progress toward the expanded
RTCAA plan configuration.
MARTA, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), has served as a role model for others to follow.
--Atlanta's modern transit system (MARTA) was a key factor in the
selection of the city for the 1996 Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games.
--MARTA was designated as the Official Provider of Public
Transportation for the 1996 Olympic Games. For the first time
in Olympic history, public transit and Olympic venue
transportation were combined and included in event admission.
--MARTA accelerated the opening of 7 miles of the North Line in time
for the Olympic Games in 1996.
--MARTA's early compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) was a factor in the selection of the city for the 1996
Paralympic Games.
--Atlanta and MARTA were a showcase for American technology during
the summer of 1996 with the extensive deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure.
--A new era has been ushered in with the advent of a public/private
partnership in which MARTA, Atlanta Gas Light Company and the
State of Georgia are jointly proceeding with, and funding the
use of, compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses.
--MARTA is the best solution for compliance with ISTEA and Clean Air
Act Amendment requirements for the metro area's congestion and
air quality problems.
--MARTA operates one of the most cost-effective heavy rail transit
systems in the country.
update of the marta rapid transit rail program
The current MARTA rail system consists of 46 miles, 36 stations,
and 238 rail cars. At present, the network includes two (2) main trunk
lines (North/South and East/West) that intersect in the Atlanta Central
Business District, and two (2) branches (Northeast and Proctor Creek)
(see map at Enclosure 1). The last three stations placed in revenue
service--Buckhead, Medical Center and Dunwoody--were completed in June
1996 as the initial phase of the new MARTA North Line. Through the
completion of these North Line stations, the Federal share of MARTA's
rapid rail development program has been 54 percent of the total $2.8
billion invested. MARTA has been fortunate to obtain Federal funding to
build one of the country's premier transit systems.
Focus has now turned to the North Line Extension currently under
development.
North Line Extension
The central portion of the Atlanta northern corridor has become a
dense urban center that rivals downtown Atlanta. It is the largest of
the six edge cities in the metropolitan area. More than 20 million
square feet of mixed use space exists now or is under development. Just
north of this core, another 30 million square feet of commercial space
either exists or is planned for development. This explosive growth has
led to significant automobile traffic congestion and delays. Traffic
counts on the GA 400 expressway serving the corridor already exceed
those predicted for the year 2010. Additionally, the demand for public
transit to transport workers from the central city to jobs in the
corridor is increasing.
Based on the existing and projected high rate of growth in this
area, in the late 1980's local officials in the Atlanta region--after
receiving extensive community input--determined that MARTA heavy rail
was the preferred transportation alternative for the corridor.
Following the completion of the environmental review process in 1991,
the North Line Extension project was authorized in ISTEA. ETA
subsequently entered into a Full Funding Grant Agreement with MARTA for
the development of the 1.9 mile portion of the extension beyond
Dunwoody Station through and including the Sandy Springs and North
Springs stations, including the purchase of additional rail passenger
cars.
The new MARTA North Line begins at the junction with the Northeast
Line 0.8 mile north of the Lindbergh Center Station. The initial
portion of the new North Line was constructed in the median of Georgia
State Highway 400 (``GA 400''), a six-lane toll road built to
interstate standards connecting I-85 with the pre-existing GA 400
freeway north of the Perimeter (I-285). This segment of 7.5 miles and
three stations (Buckhead, Medical Center and Dunwoody) opened ahead of
schedule in June 1996. This segment was financed with 26 percent
Federal funds and 74 percent local funds. Now, MARTA requests $60
million in fiscal year 1998 Federal funds to continue the North Line
Extension Project beyond Dunwoody Station.
The Dunwoody Station, which opened in June 1996, serves the large
retail centers and office developments in the Perimeter Mall area and a
number of upscale hotels nearby. (See Major Developments in North
Atlanta map at Enclosure 2.) This station is located immediately north
of the I-285 perimeter freeway. The North Line Extension for which
funding is now requested begins at the end of the Dunwoody Station tail
track and proceeds 0.9 mile northwest in subway to the Sandy Springs
Station. (An aerial photograph of the Extension can be found at
Enclosure 3.) From Sandy Springs Station, the line extends one mile
north on the east side of GA 400 freeway to the North Springs Station.
The Sandy Springs Station will be located at the hub of the
extensive development of corporate office complexes and full service
hotels north of the Perimeter Center area. The station, located one
mile north of the Dunwoody Station, will also serve the local area with
bus service as well as significant park/ride capacity (1,100 spaces).
This will be an underground station with provisions for direct
connections to the major transit oriented development planned for the
immediate vicinity. According to year 2005 projections, Sandy Springs
Station will be used by 11,332 patrons daily, including 2,692 during
peak hours.
The North Springs Station will be built adjacent to the Georgia 400
freeway, thereby providing easy access for bus feeder routes as well as
automobile commuters bound for intown destinations. This end-of-line
station will include a 2,530 space park/ride facility divided into two
areas: a six-level deck (2,230 spaces) for those coming in from GA 400
and a 300-space surface lot for local neighborhood residents. North
Springs Station will serve as an intermodal node and will alleviate the
heavy traffic congestion on GA 400. One of the unique characteristics
of the station is the exclusive entrance ramp from GA 400 directly into
the station parking deck. According to year 2005 projections, North
Springs Station will be used by 24,979 patrons daily, including 3,464
during peak hours.
The Sandy Springs and North Springs stations will be built in full
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): each station
will include a visual public address system, tactile warning edge
strips, accessible ramps, Braille and high contrast signage, and glass-
enclosed elevators. Both stations will open for revenue service in
December 2000.
The MARTA North Line Extension will result in significant long-term
economic benefits to both individuals and businesses. This extension
will encourage reverse commuting from areas of high unemployment in the
central city to job-rich suburban employment centers. Several major
international corporations are headquartered in the project area,
including United Parcel Service (UPS), Holiday Inn Worldwide, and the
Southern Company. Also, the regional offices of several high tech
firms, including Hewlett Packard and MCI, are located in the North Line
corridor.
This extension will significantly improve mobility between this
burgeoning growth area and major points of origin/destination to the
south. The estimated economic benefit resulting from reduced congestion
is projected to be $377 million, with an estimated benefit of $216
million in travel time savings. The extension will provide a direct
rapid rail connection to Hartsfield International Airport (24 miles to
the south), which has a MARTA station inside the main terminal.
Travelers' boarding the train at North Springs during rush hour will be
at the Airport within 42 minutes.
Project Status
The project is progressing on schedule towards the targeted
December 2000 revenue service date. Final Design of the Sandy Springs
Station is complete. Construction of the line section and station shell
began in October 1996, and construction of the station interior work
will start in January 1999. Final design of the North Springs Station
is nearing completion, and initial earthwork construction activities
are now underway at the station site. During CY 1997, two other
facility construction contracts will begin--North Springs Line Section,
and North Springs Station and Parking Deck. Detail design of systemwide
work began in July 1996. All necessary right-of-way and real estate
acquisition is nearing completion with prior year appropriated funds.
MARTA's recent reevaluation of expanded customer service demands
and estimated patronage growth in this rapidly growing area resulted in
a decision to increase the number of rail cars to be acquired for this
extension. The planned rail car requirement has been increased from 28
to 54 passenger vehicles, a net increase of 26 cars. A Request for
Proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1996 for the manufacture of 28
rail cars under a base buy, with options to include an additional 26
vehicles to reach the total of 54 cars needed for operation between
North Springs and the Airport.
Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1998 will primarily pay
for the next year of construction activity at Sandy Springs (station
and line segment) and initial construction activities at North Springs.
Financial Status
The initial phase of the North Line through Dunwoody Station has
been constructed at a cost of $362.3 million, with a federal share of
only $92.5 million (26 percent). The balance of the North Line (North
Line Extension) is budgeted at a cost of $487.7 million and is expected
to be financed with 80 percent Federal ($390.2 million) and 20 percent
local ($97.5 million) funds. Included in this cost estimate is the
acquisition of 54 additional rail cars required to provide service on
this extension.
Taken together, the entire North Line--from the junction south of
Buckhead through North Springs--is programmed at a total cost of $850
million, of which $368 million, or 43 percent, will be locally funded.
This sizable local contribution demonstrates the Atlanta region's
significant commitment to this vital transportation improvement.
Upon completion in December 2000, MARTA's North Line rail service
will extend 9.4 miles in length, with five stations (Buckhead, Medical
Center, Dunwoody, Sandy Springs and North Springs) and 5,188 park and
ride spaces.
update of the marta bus plan
MARTA's fixed-route bus fleet consists of 704 transit buses. There
are 156 bus routes that cover 1,550 miles and, on a daily basis, MARTA
buses travel 97,131 vehicle miles. Our buses operate a total of 30.3
million annual vehicle revenue miles. During 1996, MARTA experienced an
average daily bus ridership of 242,000.
MARTA strives for safety in the operation of buses and successfully
competes with other comparable systems for safety recognition.
Recently, MARTA received the 1995 William T. Coleman Silver Award for
bus safety from the American Public Transit Association.
MARTA has committed to provide 100 percent accessibility of the bus
fleet. Currently, the fleet is 80 percent wheelchair accessible, and
all future bus purchases will meet ADA guidelines for accessibility.
Due to the serious air quality problems in the Atlanta region,
MARTA has embarked upon a program to convert up to one-third of our bus
fleet to CNG operation by the end of the decade. Through the combined
assistance of the Congress, the Federal Transit Administration, the
State of Georgia and the Atlanta Gas Light Company, MARTA recently
acquired 118 accessible low-floor, CNG-fueled buses. This was our
initial procurement of compressed natural gas (CNG) buses with the
ultimate goal of acquiring 200 CNG buses before the year 2000.
These new buses will fully meet the emission requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. MARTA is introducing CNG-fueled buses to the
Atlanta region through a significant partnership with the Atlanta Gas
Light Company. A new $28 million CNG bus maintenance and refueling
facility, paid for with private and MARTA funds, recently began
operation. Cleaner fueled buses will help the Atlanta region meet its
ambient air quality goals for 1997 and beyond.
fiscal year 1998 federal funding request
MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the
105th United States Congress to earmark fiscal year 1998 ETA Section 3
funds to address two specific transit needs: (i) $60,000,000 in New
Fixed Guideway Systems and Extension funds to continue the North Line
Extension Project; and (ii) $12,300,000 in Bus and Bus Related funds
for the purchase of approximately 56 replacement CNG-fueled buses.
Section 3 New Fixed Guideway and Extension Funds
The North Line Extension above Dunwoody, through Sandy Springs to
North Springs Station, is estimated to cost $487.7 million. This
estimate is based on completion of the project in the year 2000 and
includes $152.6 million for the design and purchase of 54 additional
rail car vehicles. This estimate is $106.4 million higher than the cost
estimate submitted to Congress last year. The increase in the estimated
cost of the project is due to the following factors: (i) an increase
(from 28 to 54) in the number of rail cars required to meet heightened
customer demand; (ii) scope enhancements, including the substitution of
a parking deck structure at North Springs Station in place of a surface
lot; (iii) added customer safety, security and convenience features
(e.g., see-thru glass elevator enclosures in station facilities); and
(iv) cost impacts resulting from Georgia DOT's proposed modifications
to the adjacent GA 400 expressway. With the exception of the projected
impacts from the GA 400 alterations, these changes were primarily made
as the result of a comprehensive reevaluation of customer service
demands and expectations, particularly in light of MARTA's role and
experience during the 1996 Olympic Games. Other factors--such as
increased development potential--led to the decision to change the
parking at North Springs Station from a surface lot to a deck
structure. While this change will result in an increased capital cost
of $22.3 million, building a parking deck instead of a lot makes
available a 10-acre site for future transit oriented development.
Moreover, placing a surface lot on the current site would not
accommodate initial projected demand and leave sufficient room for
future expansion.
MARTA is requesting $60 million in fiscal year 1998 FTA New Fixed
Guideway and Extension funds. This level of funding will allow MARTA to
undertake the following activities: complete construction of the subway
section north of Dunwoody Station through Sandy Springs, including
Stage I of the Sandy Springs Station; and proceed with construction of
the North Springs line segment and station. Total MARTA contractual
obligations for the construction of these segments through October 1,
1998, are estimated to be $371.5 million. Thus, there is a clear
justification for continued Federal funding during the upcoming period.
Of the total proposed Federal contribution, $153.7 million has been
secured to date either through previous Congressional appropriations or
FTA reobligations to the Project MARTA expects to request total
additional Federal appropriations of $236.5 million for the North Line
Extension Project. This amount, when added to the $153.7 million
appropriated and reobligated from previous years, will total $390.2
million, or 80 percent of the cost of the Project.
The balance of the proposed Federal contribution remaining to be
funded in future years, assuming the appropriation of the full amount
requested, will be $176.5 million [$390.2 million-$153.7 million (past
years)-$60 million (this year)=$176.5 million]. These out-year funds
will be needed to complete construction activities and procure the 54
additional rail cars required for this extension.
Section 3 Bus and Bus Related Funds
The requested $12.3 million in fiscal year 1998 Section 3 Bus
Capital funds is required as the Federal share to purchase 56 new CNG-
fueled buses to replace aging, non-wheelchair accessible buses. This
level of funding will enable MARTA to achieve our goal of placing 200
CNG buses in operation by the end of the century.
All buses being replaced will exceed the minimum FTA replacement
criteria of 12 years or 500,000 miles of accumulated service, and are
not wheelchair accessible. The new buses will fully meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as,
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Efforts to bring the bus fleet
into full compliance with these two statutes are crucial to meeting the
mobility, accessibility and air quality goals of the Atlanta region.
The continued support of the Congress is critical if MARTA is to
realize the promise of ISTEA, comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments
and meet the future transportation challenges facing the Atlanta
Metropolitan Region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NON.049
[Clerk's note.--The aerial photo does not appear in the hearing
record but is available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
______
Prepared Statement of Alex Penelas, Mayor, Metropolitan Dade County, FL
Mr. Chairman and members of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee: I am Alex Penelas, Mayor of Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida. I thank you for the opportunity to present a summary of our
community's requests for 1998 Federal transit funds.
Last year, we reported to this subcommittee that Dade County has
been aggressively pursuing and creating innovative financing
opportunities to reduce our dependence on Federal transit monies. While
we continue to pursue such opportunities, despite our noteworthy
successes through joint development, public/private ventures, capital
leasing, and tax-increment financing, we still require a nominal level
of Federal support for our much needed and ambitious transportation
projects.
In brief, our requests for 1998 Federal transit funds include $24.3
million in discretionary bus and bus related funds to accomplish
several specific projects that will substantially improve the
efficiency, safety, and service quality of our existing bus system.
Additionally, we are requesting $55.3 million in discretionary new
start funds to continue our steady progress in three fixed guideway
projects. One of these projects is nearing the end of the final design
phase and the other two are finishing preliminary engineering and
entering the right-of-way and final design phases.
Over the past several years, we have reported to this subcommittee
about the expected growth in both the economy and population of the
south Florida region and Metropolitan Dade County, in particular. Those
projections are becoming reality. Our phenomenal rate of growth is
significantly impacting the mobility of our citizenry in the country's
fourth most congested urban area.
The prestigious Texas Transportation Institute annually ranks urban
traffic congestion. For the third year in a row, the urbanized area of
Dade County has achieved the dubious distinction of being ranked the
fourth most congested urban area in the Nation. While we continue to be
ranked just behind San Francisco, we are steadily narrowing the gap
separating us from third place. Speaking on behalf of the people of
Metropolitan Dade County, I can assure you that we would prefer not to
achieve this distinction.
Although our transit system is performing adequately, its capacity
is being strained and expansion is now critical. During the past few
years, the Metro-Dade Transit Agency has moved from the eighteenth
largest to the thirteenth largest agency in the Nation, as measured by
ridership--all while keeping our bus operating recovery ratio well in
excess of forty percent. To accelerate this growth we are moving
forward with a public transit initiative to reconfigure our service and
expand our capacity to attract and serve new riders. One of my mayoral
objectives is to expand our number of buses on the road to 800 per day
from its present level of 563.
Earlier this year, we opened a 8.5-mile exclusive busway linking
our Metrorail line with the south Dade area along U.S. 1. you may
recall that this is the area most heavily damaged by Hurricane Andrew
in 1992. It is still undergoing economic recovery and we are counting
on the busway to accelerate that recovery. Early statistics indicate
that transit ridership in the busway corridor has already increased by
over 30 percent.
As part of the busway inauguration, Metro-Dade Transit concurrently
introduced several new neighborhood circulator services with minibuses
that feed to and from the busway and its Metrorail link. We are
planning to expand this concept to other areas of Metropolitan Dade
County, with municipal and community minibus circulators feeding
reconfigured larger bus, mainline service. The additional minibuses
will contribute to my expansion goal.
This somewhat radical change in our historic service
characteristics is a result of much public input and extensive travel
demand pattern analysis. We strongly believe that this concept will not
only serve to increase ridership, along with its concomitant mitigation
of traffic congestion, but will also motivate our commission to
introduce much-needed reforms in land use policy to further increase
our utilization of public transit.
But, as you well know, before we can persuade drivers to curtail
their auto-dependence and switch to transit--the transit service must
be there first. This is why Federal funding programs are so vital to
our community. We need Federal assistance to acquire vehicles and
facilities to implement additional transit service.
You have heard, and probably have been involved in, discussions
about donor State status, as it relates to returns of contributions to
the highway trust fund. Although the methods of calculation and the
level of computed ``donation'' ratios may differ among the discussing
parties, there is no argument that Florida is indeed a donor State.
Essentially all of the discussions and calculations about return on
contributions have centered on the highway portion of the trust fund
and few participants have looked at the corresponding transit donation
status. Regardless of whose calculations are used, Florida is a larger
donor of transit monies than it is for highway monies.
The highway fund apportionment formula is at the heart of the issue
in that its application fundamentally disfavors growth States--like
Florida. such is not the case for Federal transit funds. The formulas
used to distribute a portion of the transit funds are not being
challenged. However, because nearly 30 percent of the transit funds
distributed to States or transit properties are distributed by
earmarking, this subcommittee has significant control over who ends up
as donors or donees for transit funds.
Although, during the life of ISTEA, this subcommittee has, with our
sincere appreciation, granted discretionary transit funds to Dade
County and other Florida communities, the results have not corrected
the donor status of our State with respect to transit funds. By our
calculation, even with the earmarks that have gone to any part of the
State, Florida still receives less than 70 cents of the gas tax dollar
it pays into the mass transit account. Typically, Florida contributes
approximately 5 percent of the Federal gas tax revenues, yet the State
gets back only 3 percent to 3.5 percent of the transit appropriation
proceeds. Florida's contribution to the trust fund is larger than that
of New York and is exceeded only by California and Texas.
By assisting us with our bus and rail expansion programs, this
subcommittee can simultaneously help improve our equitable return on
trust fund contributions. Toward this end, the following is our fiscal
year 1998 program:
bus and bus-related program funding requests
For 1998, Dade County is requesting $24.3 million in discretionary
bus and bus related program funds to finance a set of projects designed
to improve our existing bus system in several service quality
categories. Most of these projects are carry-over from last year's
request
Replacement buses
The first two projects in the bus related package are for the
purchase of buses. The first of these two requests is $5 million for
replacement buses. As you may recall, we have requested discretionary
funds from this subcommittee for this purpose for the past several
years as installments for the replacement of a 260-vehicle sub-fleet
which reached its regulatory retirement age in 1992. Monies that we
have been granted in the past have been obligated to purchase these
replacement buses but not enough to maintain the preferred replacement
schedule. Although we have replaced most of the vehicles that we had
targeted, the extended funding has delayed the actual replacement so
that it has now overlapped into the retirement period of another
subfleet of buses. This next group of buses is smaller than the
previous group--187 coaches--and the requested funds are supplementary
to the use of formula funds for replacement buses. A designation of $5
million in discretionary transit bus funds is requested for an
additional 25 of these replacement vehicles.
Expansion buses
The second bus purchase request is for expansion buses. As I
mentioned earlier, through the Metro-Dade Transit Agency, Dade County
is initiating a bus service expansion program, primarily utilizing less
expensive small buses to operate municipal and neighborhood circulator
service to augment its mainline operations. Both county officials and
the general public feel that this type of service will offer more
convenient transit service and lead to an increase in ridership and
significant improvement to our traffic congestion situation.
In addition to a lesser capital acquisition cost, the smaller buses
can be operated at a lesser cost per vehicle hour than the larger,
conventional buses. Consequently, additional service can be provided at
a much lower marginal cost. We propose to purchase 95 minibuses for the
95.7 million requested in this line item. This request is the first of
three to expand the existing bus fleet to support a peak vehicle
requirement of 800 buses, compared with the current fleet which
supports a peak requirement of 563.
Central garage expansion
Another project included in our bus-related funding request
involves the expansion and upgrading of bus servicing facilities.
Recent reconfiguration of our bus service to accommodate changing
ridership trends has necessitated garage reassignments of the bus fleet
to minimize inefficient deadhead mileage. This reassignment has
overburdened the agency's central operating and inspection garage.
Using a capacity measure of assigned vehicles per maintenance bay, the
central garage facility has a 40 percent higher ratio than the agency's
other operating garages. This overcrowded condition requires central's
buses to operate 7 hours longer between servicing which contributes
significantly to in-service breakdowns and higher operating costs.
The central garage site is conducive to reasonably low-cost
physical expansion that will relieve the overcrowded condition and
reduce operating costs while improving service performance. Specific
features of the proposed expansion program include adding three
maintenance bays, expanding the parts storeroom facilities and
relocating an employee parking lot. We request $3.0 million in Federal
transit funds to accomplish this garage expansion effort.
Bus security system
Another bus related component project relates directly to improved
safety and security for both bus riders and operators. Violent assaults
and batteries on transit operating staff and passengers demand improved
personal security measures. Such demands have come from the passenger
community, transit employee bargaining units and elected officials. A
systemwide solution must include over 600 vehicles.
Utilization of security personnel is cost prohibitive for the whole
fleet. The timing, however is conducive to implementing a security
camera system in conjunction with the new federally funded 800
megahertz radio and automated vehicle locating system currently being
installed fleetwide. The security monitoring technology is available to
operate any of a number of taping schemes, e.g. continuous
transmission, periodic snapshot and tape, periodic snapshot and
transmit, driver activated continuous or instantaneous, etc. Any of
these capabilities can be incorporated into the existing on-board
communication technology. We request $3.6 million in Federal transit
funds to implement such a system across the entire bus fleet.
Northeast Dade Transit Activity Center
A fifth proposed bus related project included in the requested
package comes as a result of a federally funded area study just
completed in the high-density northeast area of Dade County. The set of
study recommendations serves to significantly improve the mobility
characteristics of the residents of the area, increase public transit
utilization and significantly involve the private sector in transit
capital and operating support.
Implementation of the recommended passenger transfer activity
centers focuses on the operation of arterial, trunk-line transit
service through major transfer ``hubs'' which are served by
neighborhood or community-based circulator services with smaller
transit coaches. These ``hubs'' would be integrated with commercial
facilities, either existing commercial sites or new sites created using
joint public/private development concepts. Three transfer hubs, located
with or within shopping or residential complexes, would contain
environmentally compatible passenger shelter facilities, public phones,
intelligent transit kiosks, seating and other passenger amenities. Real
estate and facility maintenance, along with community meeting space and
day-care or after school care facilities, could be provided by the
private sector or jointly with local public partners.
We are requesting $4.0 million to implement a first phase of the
transfer center concept, including bus facilities, furnishings and
passenger amenities for at least one such center. State funds to
provide operating assistance for the community-based circulator
services have been requested.
Flagler Downtown Bus Station
The final component project in the block of requested bus funds
focuses on the Miami central business district--the second largest
employment center in the county. The Miami Downtown Development
Authority has developed and is pursuing a project to revitalize the
central downtown area of the city of Miami. An integral part of this
project is the reconfiguration of the downtown bus transfer center into
an integrated transportation center linking bus routes, a new Flagler
trolley, Metrorail, Metromover and taxi service. The proposed facility
will include thirteen bus bays, a taxi area, Flagler trolley depot,
automated transportation kiosks, and a covered promenade to the
Metrorail/Metromover Government Center Station complex. The requested
transit portion of this downtown intermodal transfer center is $3
million.
Each of these bus related projects contributes in its own way to
the substantial betterment of the existing bus system. Already at a 42
percent operating recovery ratio, the bus system is expected to
experience a further reduction in subsidy requirements as a result of
the implementation of these projects--either through reduced costs or
by increased ridership due to the improvement of service quality.
new start funding requests
Palmetto Extension of Metrorail
This project is a 1.4-mile extension of the existing 21.2-mile
Metrorail system. The project extends Metrorail westward from its
existing north terminus to intersect with the Palmetto Expressway. When
completed, the extension will provide more accessible park-and-ride
service to commuters from northwest Dade County and southwest Broward
County. These two of the fastest growing residential areas in south
Florida were not developed when the Metrorail line was constructed, but
have grown substantially since then. The growth has substantially
increased traffic congestion during commute periods with residents from
these areas traveling to and from areas served by existing Metrorail.
Natural barriers and limited-access roadways prevent easy access to the
existing end-of-line station from these areas.
The extension project is currently funded in-part with congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement (CMAQ) funds and in-part with
transit new start funds. The bulk of the transit new start funds being
used for this project are project savings from funds previously
appropriated for the Metromover extension project.
In 1992, when it was first forecast that the Metromover extension
project would be completed under budget, Congress authorized Dade
County to use up to $25 million in savings for the Palmetto extension
project. The funding package for that project was developed with a $25
million transit contribution to an estimated $76 million total project
cost (in 1992 dollars).
Now that the Metromover project has been completed and most of the
post-construction expenses and claims have been resolved, the actual
project savings to be realized will be approximately $17.6 million.
Additionally, project costs have escalated slightly due to both
increases in scope and inflation such that the revised estimated
project cost is now $84.6 million. The combined effects of these two
factors have resulted in a funding shortfall of $16 million, $5.4
million of which has been covered by additional State and local funds.
The remaining $10.6 million is now being sought from new transit
appropriations from the New Start Program over the next two years--$5.3
million in 1998 and $5.3 million in 1999--to complete the funding.
All project development and environmental work has been completed
for the project. Final design is 60 percent complete and the right-of-
way acquisition activities have already begun. This project is
scheduled to begin operation in 2001 with minimal effect on total
system operating costs.
North Corridor Transitway
One of the fixed guideway expansion projects that Congress has
funded for the past two years is the Dade/Broward North Corridor
Regional Transitway. This regional impact project has progressed, with
previously appropriated Federal transit funds, through the alternatives
analysis and selection of a locally-preferred alternative phases of a
major investment study (MIS) and entered the preliminary engineering
and environmental impact analysis phases. The estimated project
implementation costs have been reduced from an initial estimate of $574
million to a current estimate of $457 million. project implementation
remains programmed at a 30 percent non-Federal share level.
To further integrate this project into the Dade County program of
interrelated projects, the final MIS activities for this project
incrementally increased in scope. Additional analyses are being
performed to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of
directly connecting this corridor with the proposed Miami Intermodal
Center and with the Opa-Locka Airport, a reliever airport for Miami
International Airport. Last year's appropriation of $1.0 million funded
the final project development phases, including the expanded scope, the
environmental impact statement and complete preliminary engineering.
These tasks are expected to be complete during the first quarter of
1998. At that time the final design and right-of-way acquisition phases
of project implementation can begin. During the remainder of fiscal
year 1997-98, the major project efforts will concentrate on advance
acquisition of right-of-way. Therefore, we are requesting a fiscal year
1997-98 appropriations of $26.5 million for this right-of-way
acquisition phase of the project.
East-West Multimodal Corridor
The third element of our 1997 New Start request is the centerpiece
of Dade County's long-range program of interrelated transportation
projects previously presented to this subcommittee. The East-West
Corridor/Miami Intermodal Center project, on which we are now
completing the major investment study developmental phase, has become a
national showcase of inter-agency cooperation, at both the local and
Federal levels.
This $3.5 billion combined roadway and transitway project, of which
less than a third is proposed to come from Federal transit sources,
involves private interests, six local agencies and every modal
administration in USDOT, all operating under a common written
cooperation agreement. The project development team has just completed
the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) phase of this project.
Preliminary engineering has begun and it, along with the final EIS, is
expected to be complete by the end of summer, 1997. Once a subsequent
record-of-decision has been granted, expected sometime in the fall of
1997, final design and early right-of-way acquisition can be initiated.
Recent reconfiguration of the financing profile for the Miami
Intermodal Center (MIC) component of this project has minimized Federal
transit funding for this facility.
With no ``New Start'' funds needed for the MIC, transit funding can
now be concentrated on the fixed guideway component of the project.
Advance right-of-way acquisition can reasonably be expected to begin
during the fiscal year 1997-98 period. The transit right-of-way part of
the project is estimated to cost $229.0 million and is expected to be
spent over a multi-year period. The projected funding flow requires
$23.5 million in Federal transit funds, being requested for 1997-1998.
In closing
The implementation schedules for these two New Start projects are
intentionally staggered to preclude significant mutual competition for
future Federal, State and local funding. The current funding requests
will allow an orderly acquisition of right-of-way for both projects
while maintaining the schedule stagger for the larger requirements of
construction funds later in the implementation cycles of the projects.
Dade County is eager to implement all of these proposed projects
for the benefit of its residents and visitors. We are grateful for the
past support from this subcommittee and pledge to continue our good
stewardship over the increasingly scarce Federal funds. I sincerely
appreciate the opportunity to present our requests to this subcommittee
and I am hopeful that the results of your upcoming deliberations will
enable us to move ahead with our critical and worthy public mobility
projects. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Jose Garcia-Pedrosa, City Manager, City of Miami
Beach, FL
On September 16, 1996 the Transportation Appropriations Committee
approved funding for phase I of the city of Miami Beach Electric
Shuttle Park & Ride Demonstration Project. The funding appropriated by
Congress has been received towards the purchase of a fleet of 22-
passenger electric shuttle vehicles, the first seven (7) of which have
already been acquired. The vehicles will serve a highly congested,
urban-residential, and commercial historic district.
The city is now requesting funding for phase II of the project.
Phase II will include the design and construction of a multi-modal
center and as been estimated at a cost of $21,000,000. The multi-modal
center will provide a vital transportation hub for the area. The center
will also serve as a link for the future east west corridor, that will
link together the Palmetto Expressway, State Road 836, the Miami
Intermodal Center at Miami International Airport, downtown Miami, the
seaport, and the island city of Miami Beach. The second phase will
provide for a commuting/transportation center that will bring together
commuters, parking, the electric shuttle system, local transit
services, maintenance and charging facilities for the shuttle vehicles,
and a commuter/visitor store where commuters can catch the shuttle to
area destinations, purchase transit passes, and obtain information
about the surrounding area.
The Miami Beach Transportation Management Association, the city's
public private partnership has the financial support of the Florida
Department of Transportation, the Dade County Metropolitan Planning
Organization and Transit Agency, the Florida Environmental Trust, the
Clean Cities Coalition, the Florida Department of Energy, the Florida
Alliance for Clean Technologies, and the Florida Power and Light
Company.
The objective of this project is to reduce demanding traffic on the
already over-capacity roadway system of this island community by
providing a comprehensive park & ride system. The project is totally
supported by the Miami Beach City Commission and the Miami Beach
community. Your support of phase II is critical to the implementation
of this city wide park & ride program.
______
Prepared Statement of Morris Fisher, Chairman, Monterey-Salinas Transit
background
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) serves a 110 square-mile area of
Northern Monterey County and Southern Santa Cruz County on the Central
Coast of California. MST provides fixed-route transit service on
twenty-eight lines and carries 3.8 million passengers per year. MST
also operates the RIDES Program which provides paratransit services to
individuals with disabilities. MST offers convenient and reliable
public transportation to residents and to the many tourists who visit
our community.
Fort Ord lies in the middle of MST's service area. Fort Ord was
established in 1917 and served as a training and staging facility for
the United States Army until its closure in 1995. Fort Ord consists of
44 square miles, which is approximately the same size as the City and
County of San Francisco. Planning and implementing the reuse of Fort
Ord is one of the biggest issues facing the region. The provision of
transit services as reuse occurs is one of the most significant
challenges MST must address.
projects to be implemented in fiscal year 1998
In order to maintain transit services to the residents and visitors
to Monterey County and to begin the implementation of the reuse of Fort
Ord, MST requests that funding be provided for two major projects
during fiscal year 1998:
--Replacement of 27 buses with Compressed Natural Gas Powered buses--
$9.6 million.
--Development of the Marina/Ft. Ord Intermodal Transit Center--$2.5
million.
critical project need
MST is long overdue on bus replacement. MST's current bus roster is
shown in the table below. All available capital funds from the federal,
state, and local governments are being used to rebuild and replace the
MST fleet, most of which is over 15 years old. Providing additional
funds for fleet and capital replacement will allow MST to maintain
existing transit services, meet high priority corridor transit needs,
and continue to operate tourist shuttles.
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT BUS ROSTER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of Average total
Fleet number/manufacturer Number service miles per bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1201-1215, Flxible.............................................. 15 21 890,000
601-605, Flxible................................................ 5 20 624,000
301, 308, 309, 311, Flxible..................................... 4 18 636,000
501-521, Flxible................................................ 21 16 732,000
701-716, Gillig................................................. 16 8 254,000
801-808, Flxible................................................ 8 1 25,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... .............. 69 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traffic and funding situation Monterey County faces is
critical. Traffic conditions now and projections based upon expected
growth result in the need to widen four U.S. Highways--highway 1, 68,
101, and 156. Each of these roadways is on the National Highway System.
At current rates of funding, such a widening program would require 56
years to accumulate funds assuming no inflation or project cost
increases. All of the federal and state highway funds for the next 20
years will only pay for one-half of the Highway 101 Bypass and then
funds are currently programmed. This is why MST and the Transportation
Agency for Monterey County regard the institution of quality, frequent
transit service to be a critical element of future mobility for
residents, tourists, and goods.
The Fort Ord transit facilities have been strategically planned as
part of a comprehensive county-wide planning effort so that transit
will assist in reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and delays
while encouraging reuse of Fort Ord. MST has requested the conveyance
of land for the Marina/Fort Ord Intermodal Transit Center through the
public benefit conveyance process. MST expects to receive the title to
this property in Spring 1997. Funding is requested to allow MST to
develop this property, which will serve as a catalyst for the reuse of
Fort Ord.
The bus transit facilities on Fort Ord and the access they provide
are critical to successful Fort Ord Reuse and to reducing traffic
congestion. The military contribution to the local economy was
approximately one-third of the total Monterey County economy. When the
base closed in 1992, approximately 21,000 local jobs were lost.
Following the closure of Fort Ord, local public agencies alone lost
$188.6 million in tax revenues in 1992.\1\ The loss of military
expenditures and wages need to be replaced as soon as possible with
successful reuse of the Fort. The development of the Marina/Ft. Ord
Intermodal Transit Center is critical to avoiding the traffic
congestion that may develop as Fort Ord reuse occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of the Army, ``Environmental Impact Statement, Fort
Ord Disposal and Reuse,'' Volume II, December 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national significance
Fort Ord Reuse is a national model of military base conversion to
peacetime uses. The primary anchor for the reuse is the establishment
of a Monterey Bay branch of the California State University which is in
place and is expected to serve 25,000 students. The new campus
currently contract with Monterey-Salinas Transit for bus service. As
the campus grows along region, existing transit services must be
maintained and expanded to provide critical transportation to students
as well as the employees and residents who will make the reuse of Fort
Ord a success. The implementation of alternative transportation
programs will be an important component of the national reuse model
that Fort Ord represents.
economic significance
Bus service throughout the Monterey Peninsula, Watsonville, and
Salinas carries an average of 12,000 daily passengers, one-third of
whom have no other alternative means of transportation. Monterey-
Salinas Transit is among the top one-quarter of transit operators in
California in on-time performance and cost effective service delivery.
Our farebox recovery rate of 41 percent is among the highest in
California.
The Monterey Bay Sanctuary, numerous federal parks, 17 golf
courses, Monterey Bay Aquarium, historic Monterey adobes, and
communities like Carmel all contribute to the $1 Billion Monterey
County Tourist Industry. The maintenance of transit services is
critical in maintaining this major facet of Monterey County's economy.
Transit provides access to tourist-oriented employment and provides
transportation for visitors.
Some of the buses purchased will operate in shuttle service on the
Waterfront Area Visitor Express (The WAVE) route which connects
downtown Monterey with Cannery Row, Fisherman's Wharf, and Pacific
Grove. Each day it runs, The WAVE carries an average of 1,400
passengers at significantly less public cost than other alternatives
that were studied. In addition, The WAVE service is valued by the
business community which helps fund its operating costs. The business
community now directly funds one-third of the cost of this service.
Exceeding the tourist industry as an employer and economic engine
is the $2 Billion Monterey County Agricultural Industry where support
infrastructure and services are needed to move both people and goods
efficiently in order to minimize traffic congestion and travel delays
for Central California Coast residents, tourists, businesses, and
shippers. MST provides transportation for agri-business employees and
reduces traffic congestion so that agricultural goods can move more
efficiently to market.
proven high-technology equipment
The buses to be replaced are high technology, low pollution, state-
of-the-art Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses, eight of which now
operate in the MST fleet. CNG Fueling infrastructure will allow MST to
efficiently fuel the new buses. This will result in lower operating
costs and better service to existing residents and tourists.
The MST system is currently operating mostly diesel buses that are
long past the FTA's useful service life goal of 12 years. The MST fleet
is one of the oldest transit fleets in the State of California. The
oldest buses in the fleet are remanufactured 1977 Flxible coaches which
are 20 years old. Each of these buses has traveled almost one million
miles.
MST plans to continue to purchase vehicles fueled by compressed
natural gas. This new technology will allow MST to operate its service
while producing significantly less air pollution than diesel buses.
Each of the 27 CNG buses to be purchased will reduce air pollution by
nearly a ton per year. The total CNG fleet to be purchased will reduce
air pollution by nearly 23 tons per year.
conclusion
The 27 buses and the CNG infrastructure will allow MST to continue
to provide transit services to the residents of Monterey County and
will support the reuse of Fort Ord. The federal funding requested for
these buses is critical to MST's ability to support the economic
vitality of our region and to maintain the quality of life of Monterey
County residents.
The Marina/Fort Ord Intermodal Transit Center will serve as a focal
point for the reuse of Fort Ord. This project sits at the heart of a
new, mixed-use development. In addition to being a valuable and
relatively modest investment, this facility will serve as part of a
national model for the reuse of military bases.
______
Prepared Statement of Lori Holt Pfeiler, Chairman, North San Diego
County Transit Development Board
As Chairman of the North San Diego County Transit Development Board
(NSDCTDB), I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide written
testimony to the Subcommittee regarding the Oceanside-Escondido Light
Rail Project. NSDCTDB is requesting an appropriation for fiscal year
1998 of $13 million to proceed with final design and mitigation costs
associated with the project.
introduction
NSDCTDB serves a geographical area of 1,020 square miles extending
from the northern boundary of San Diego County, south through the city
of Del Mar and inland from the Pacific Coast to the city of Escondido
and the unincorporated communities of Fallbrook and Ramona. As can be
seen on the attached map, this service area includes Camp Joseph
Pendleton Marine Corps Base (situated in extreme northern San Diego
County adjacent to the Orange county line). The other cities in
NSDCTDB's service area include the coastal cities of Oceanside,
Carlsbad, Encinitas and Solana Beach and the inland cities of Vista and
San Marcos. Total population of the service area is approximately
720,000. NSDCTDB's operating agency, North County Transit District
(NCTD), provides fixed route and demand response bus service, ADA
paratransit service and passenger rail services via the Coast Express
Rail Service (COASTER).
The railroad right-of-way for the COASTER service and the proposed
Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project was acquired from the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1993 by NSDCTDB and the San Diego
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), each agency owning the
right-of-way in its service area. Shared-use agreements with Amtrak and
Santa Fe provide revenues from these entities which are available to
offset passenger rail operating costs, thereby reducing the amount of
public operating subsidy required.
project description
The Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project consists of the
conversion of an existing twenty-two mile freight rail corridor into a
light rail system running inland from the coastal city of Oceanside
through the cities of Vista and San Marcos, to the city of Escondido.
The project additionally includes a 1.7 mile realignment on new right-
of-way to serve California State University San Marcos. Passenger rail
service will be provided to a total of fifteen stations including four
at existing transit centers. The western most terminus, the Oceanside
Transit Center, already serves a variety of transportation modes and
has developed into a truly regional and intercity transportation hub,
serving Amtrak, Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail), COASTER,
NCTD bus service, Greyhound bus and taxi. Horizon year 2015 ridership
for the Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project is projected to be
5,215,700.
This project will include track work, signal, other right-of-way
improvements, a maintenance facility, station construction and the
purchase of diesel multiple unit (DMU) vehicles.
The Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project was approved by the
voters in San Diego County in 1987 through Proposition A, a local sales
tax initiative. Proceeds from the proposition will fund 27 percent of
the project. The remaining 18 percent of the local commitment will be
funded with Proposition 108 and other state funds.
The Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project is supported by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) based on the following series
of actions adopted by their Board of Directors. The project is
contained in the Revenue Constrained Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP), 1996-2020. Additionally, the project is programmed in the 1996-
2003 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). As part of the
RTP and RTIP adoption process, the project has been certified as being
in conformity with the planning requirements of the federal Clean Air
Act.
economic benefit
Studies conducted by the SANDAG in 1987 determined that the light
rail alternative using self contained diesel multiple unit (DMU)
vehicles was found to be the most cost effective because it
demonstrated the lowest operating cost of the three alternatives
studied. Additionally, the DMU alternative proved to have the lower
capital cost when compared with the cost of the electrical powered
system. The light rail alternative studied using electrical power cost
twice as much as the alternative using the DMU vehicles. The proposed
Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project will be using the DMU vehicles.
This capital cost of the Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project, at
$8.8 million per mile, compares extremely favorably to other Southern
California rail projects. Comparative capital costs for other rail
projects range from $31.7 million to $50 million per mile.
The Federal Transit Administration requires that annualized cost
per new transit rider be used to measure cost effectiveness of proposed
rail transit project alternatives. The cost effectiveness indicator for
the Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project is $4.61 per new rider. This
number is less than the $5.00 figure that is considered to be a very
effective project threshold.
Projected subsidies for fiscal years 2001-2003 for the rail service
range from $.59 to $.53 per passenger. The projected subsidies the
fixed route bus service range from $2.03 per $2.14 for the same time
period. As these comparisons indicate, the rail service in this
corridor will be cost effective. Also, the fixed route bus service will
eliminate one route that provides service in the same corridor and
another route will be modified due to the reduced demand created by the
service. The savings from these changes will be used to subsidize rail
system operation.
The majority of funds used to operate the rail service will be from
passenger revenues. The farebox recovery ratio beginning in the first
year of operation is projected to be 59.6 percent increasing to 63.3
percent by the year 2003.
Other benefits include an increase in employment expected by both
the construction of the project and the operation and the maintenance
of the service. Because of the multiplier effect additional secondary
jobs will be created as well.
regional significance
The Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project will be situated along
the State Route 78 Corridor, which connects Interstate Highway 5 and
15, and is the principal east-west corridor in Northern San Diego
County. The closest parallel expressway is State Route 76, located
fifteen miles to the south. State Route 78 carries inter-regional,
intra-regional, commuter and recreational travel. The corridor contains
a diverse mixture of residential, local commercial, light industrial
and educational land uses, generating increasing volumes of trips.
Existing major activity centers within the corridor include a
regional shopping mall, two community colleges, a state university, a
private university and two hospitals. Employment growth along the
corridor is projected to increase progressively by a total of 58.6
percent from the 165,725 jobs in 1990 to a total of 262,869 jobs by
2015. This is over twice the rate of growth of the rest of the San
Diego Region which is projected to increase by 25.8 percent during the
same period. The majority of the increase in employment is expected to
stem from lower-paying service and retail employment providing a
growing market for this highly successful transit corridor.
The region's economic growth could be hindered by current and
projected congestion on State Highway 78. Currently operating at
moderate to heavy congestion, traffic on the highway is projected to
reach a heavy congestion level by 2015. According to the California
Department of Transportation, widening this freeway to eight lanes is
not economically feasible due to right-of-way constraints and bridge
reconstruction costs. The Oceanside-Escondido Rail project has been
developed to help alleviate this projected congestion.
Regional land use policies recognize the importance of public
transit to the region's quality of life and encourage an increase in
the density of employment within walking distance of planned rail
stations. Additionally encouraged is an increase in the density of
single family and multiple family units around planned rail stations as
well as mixed-use development.
The cities in the State Highway 78 corridor are taking action to
implement these land use guidelines. The city of Oceanside is currently
conducting a study to determine opportunities for pedestrian oriented,
mixed-use intense development around the six rail stations in the
city's jurisdiction. The city of Vista's redevelopment project, located
immediately adjacent to the planned rail station in downtown Vista,
also recognized the opportunities for economic development provided by
the project. The city of San Marcos considers the construction of a
rail station as one of the critical elements to their 60 acre
redevelopment project. The newly constructed San Marcos City Hall is
situated within the redevelopment project and directly adjacent to the
planned rail station. Just south of the city of San Marcos
redevelopment project lies California State University San Marcos,
which opened in 1993, and is already a major regional activity and
employment center. In addition, three hospitals are planned for
developed at cities adjacent to the University. The city of Escondido
is already served by a major transit center in the downtown area. The
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Line will serve a station directly adjacent to
the existing transit center, making all of the downtown area, including
the Escondido Center for the Arts, within walking distance or
accessible by a short bus trip.
energy efficiency, environmental benefits and congestion mitigation
The Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project is expected to require a total
energy demand of 43 billion Btu per year. This is a positive net effect
compared to the No Action Alternative. If the project is implemented an
annual reduction of 174 billion Btu could be achieved, relative to the
No Action Alternative. The express bus alternative shows a comparable
energy demand of 43.1 billion Btu annually.
In terms of environmental benefits, studies indicate that this
project would incrementally decrease pollution to the region airshed
and therefore result in a beneficial impact to air quality. Vehicle
miles traveled would be reduced by 57,728 daily as a result of this
project.
Mitigation of congestion will be realized by shifting the single
occupant auto driver to the rail system. Primarily, the benefits will
be to State Route 78 during commuter peak hour periods. Rail service
would contribute indirectly to a reduction in commuter traffic along
Interstate 5 and 15.
project status
Between 1986-1992, a series of studies were conducted by SANDAG and
the California Department of Transportation to determine the best way
to accommodate current and future travel demands in the State Route 78
Corridor. The studies recommended a multimodal approach to optimize the
existing State Route 78 facility that focuses on State highway
improvements, sub regional arterial network improvements and the
provision of a passenger rail system operating over the existing
railway to achieve a balanced intermodal east-west corridor. The
results of this Alternative Analysis led NSDCTDB proceed with an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR was later supplemented to
provide for an alignment directly serving CSUSM. The EIR and
supplemental EIR were certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively.
In February, 1993, NSDCTDB acquired the right-of-way for this
project from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway at a cost of
$19.2 million, and to date, a total of $43.1 million of local and State
funds have been invested in property acquisition for this project.
In August, 1994, a regional consultation meeting was held with
representatives of FTA, FHWA, SANDAG, Caltrans, City of San Marcos and
NCTD in attendance. As a result, the Oceanside-Escondido Passenger Rail
Project was determined to be a ``pipeline project'' in that the
alternative analysis had been completed at the regional level.
It was recognized that in order to qualify for federal funding, the
project would have to undergo further environmental documentation in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ; however,
NSDCTDB decided to defer further environmental work until the
completion of an advanced planning study, which would provide refined
capital cost estimates. Completed in December, 1995, the advanced
planning study reviewed several operating scenarios, taking the basic
system elements to as much as a 30 percent design level. This level of
detail afforded the Board with confidence in the capital costs. The
Board selected an operating scenario and directed staff to proceed with
the NEPA process. A subsequent EIR was required under CEQA. A draft
CEQA/NEPA document was completed in October, 1996. The NSDCTDB
certified the CEQA document in February, 1997. NCTD is currently
preparing the documentation required by FTA to issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
summary
The Oceanside-Escondido Rail Line is a cost effective project which
enjoys significant local support and will have important benefits to
the economic health of the region. The current financial plan calls for
a federal investment of approximately $107 million which is 55 percent
of the total cost of $194 million. This request for $13 million would
be the first appropriation towards the $107 million. If this
appropriation is approved, the funds will be used for final design and
costs associated with mitigation.
The planned opening date of December, 2000 is driven by State
mandate requiring projects funded by Proposition 108 (the state funds
referenced above) be in service by fiscal year 2000. Design must
proceed in fiscal year 1998 in order to comply with this state
requirement.
The current Amtrak and Santa Fe shared-use agreements, a variety of
lease agreements and the high farebox recovery have afforded NCTD the
benefit of using minimal local subsidies for its rail program. No
federal operating assistance will be applied to NCTD's rail operations.
I urge the Subcommittee to give favorable consideration to the
Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project. Thank you for the opportunity
to present this important transportation project.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, Executive Director, Port
Authority of Allegheny County
Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
submit testimony on behalf of Port Authority of Allegheny County, the
principal public transportation provider in the Pittsburgh urbanized
area. Port authority provides 75 million public transportation trips
annually within a 730 square mile area through a variety of services
including bus, busway, light rail, incline, and the Nation's largest
specialized paratransit system.
I am Paul Skoutelas, newly named Executive Director of Port
Authority of Allegheny County. It is my privilege to present this
testimony regarding Port Authority's, phase I airport busway/Wabash HOV
facility. This intermodal project provides an excellent example of the
Federal-State-local partnership that has been so successful in
financing public transportation investments.
Port Authority is requesting $40 million for this project in fiscal
year 1998. Port Authority is also requesting a ``bus/bus facility''
earmark of $12 million to be used to acquire approximately 55 buses in
fiscal year 1998. Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority
to ensure reliable and comfortable service to its customers.
With strong bipartisan support from this subcommittee, I am happy
to report that the airport busway/Wabash HOV facility is now under
construction and will be, when completed, a critical element of
Allegheny County's busway system. The project will provide access to
jobs through an essential transit link between downtown Pittsburgh and
the new Pittsburgh International Airport. The airport busway/Wabash HOV
facility will also cut travel time to the western suburbs bypassing
traffic congestion at the Ft. Pitt Bridge and Tunnel, and along Parkway
West (I-279). Accordingly, the project will provide a viable
alternative to traffic gridlock anticipated during the upcoming
reconstruction of the bridge and tunnel, a project to be undertaken by
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Through fiscal year 1997, a total of $130.9 million in new start
funding has been provided for the project. In addition $19 million in
section 3 bus/bus facilities funding and $15.8 million of intermodal
funding pursuant to section 1069 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) has also been earmarked.
An amount of $76.5 million in ISTEA flexible funds has also been
obligated, and $9.6 million in contract authority has been made
available pursuant to section 1108 of ISTEA. In addition, Pennsylvania
State Act 223 of 1990 authorizes $70 million for the project.
At present approximately half of the length of the 8.1 mile
intermodal project is under construction. By December, 1997 in excess
of $271 million is scheduled to be encumbered. All funds obtained
pursuant to the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill will be encumbered
in fiscal year 1998.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has ranked the airport
busway/Wabash HOV facility among the most cost-effective projects in
the Nation. The FTA negotiated a full funding grant agreement (FFGA)
with Port Authority on the basis of that evaluation. However, due to a
number of factors unknown in October 1994 when the FFGA was formalized,
project costs are now expected to be higher than the estimates included
in the FFGA. Amendments to the FFGA are currently being discussed by
Port Authority and FTA.
Port Authority is also requesting $12 million in the fiscal year
1998 transportation appropriations bill to be used toward the
procurement of approximately 55 buses, some of which may be powered by
alternative fuels. The new buses will replace buses which have
completed their useful service lives and are eligible for retirement by
virtue of age or mileage standards. The buses will be used in Port
Authority's overall route network which serves 255,000 riders each day,
or about 75 million annually.
I would now like to stress the importance of increasing the overall
level of investment in transportation infrastructure. Traditionally,
transportation has been a bipartisan program where both political
parties have shared a belief in the national importance of
infrastructure investment. The bipartisan work of this subcommittee has
enabled undercapitalized and physically deteriorated public
transportation systems in our great cities, suburban communities, and
rural areas to be rejuvenated. Further, this subcommittee has helped
create an Interstate Highway System and airport network that is the
envy of the world. Now, it is imperative that all levels of government
continue to develop our transit and surface transportation networks.
Finally, I want to commend the subcommittee for including in recent
transportation appropriations bills the provision allowing FTA to
implement new guidelines for vehicle overhaul projects. This new
initiative encourages maintenance and preservation of rolling stock
while also helping mitigate the impact of cuts in Federal operating
assistance. This offers a strategic direction to build on for the
future of the Federal Transit Assistance Program. However, to take full
advantage of this opportunity funds for the Urban Capital Grant Program
(formerly section 9) must be increased.
I look forward to an active and ongoing dialogue with the
subcommittee in the coming years. I would be pleased to submit any
additional information at this time as would be useful to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Carlos I. Pesquera, Secretary, Puerto Rico
Department of Transportation and Public Works
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Carlos I. Pesquera, Secretary of Transportation and Public Works for
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I am honored to appear before you
today to report on the progress of the transit system that we call
``Tren Urbano.'' Since my last formal report to this subcommittee, we
have entered a critically important and exciting phase of this project.
Tren Urbano is under construction.
While the groundbreaking ceremony on August 2, 1996, symbolized the
launch of the construction phase, the awarding of major construction
contracts has made the project a reality. To date, $720.8 million in
contracts have been awarded for the first four packages. The remaining
$529.5 million in contracts will be awarded by June of this year for
the final three segments. We have established an aggressive schedule
for final design and construction. System testing is scheduled for the
year 2000, with system opening scheduled for the summer of 2001.
Tren Urbano is evidence of our commitment to build a world-class
transportation system. That commitment has also motivated our
dramatically increased investments in highway construction
rehabilitation, and maintenance over the past four years. By the end of
1996, the Government of Puerto Rico had invested $1.1 billion in
transportation infrastructure, compared to $815 million during the
previous four-year period, an increase of 32 percent. We have also
significantly increased investments in existing modes of public
transportation, to build a transit ridership base and to prepare for
integrating these modes as feeder systems for Tren Urbano.
The Federal government has been our indispensable partner in our
efforts to build a world-class transportation system. Back in 1993, the
Federal Transit Administration chose Tren Urbano as one of four turnkey
demonstration projects in the nation, and the only new start project
among them. Aside from the technical merits of our project, the FTA has
highlighted Tren Urbano's cost-effectiveness, which it estimates as
0.67 per net new rider.
The innovations in project management, financing, and procurement
strategy developed for Tren Urbano are being closely followed and
widely praised by the transportation industry. I believe that our
vigorous and highly effective community participation program, the
extraordinary measures we have taken to assure top-quality system
design, and our search for ways to couple the project with urban
redevelopment will one day present an instructive case study for
transit planners, not only here in the mainland U.S. but around the
world. In October of last year we cooperated with the Federal Transit
Administration in hosting an international conference on turnkey
transit systems and joint development. Over 150 representatives from 16
countries gathered to discuss trends and recent experiences. We used
the occasion to highlight the innovative turnkey procurement process we
have devised for Tren Urbano.
By the year 2010, the number of daily person trips by car within
the San Juan Metropolitan Area is expected to increase by 45 percent.
The high concentration of development and population in the
metropolitan core precludes expanding existing roadway facilities
without great cost, community disruption, and increased traffic
congestion.
In light of these factors, there is a pressing need for a high-
capacity rail system in the San Juan Metropolitan Area. To alleviate
worsening gridlock and to avoid future inflationary cost, Tren Urbano
is implementing a fast track, design/build procurement rather than the
traditional method of procuring a public facility.
Congress has recognized the importance of Tren Urbano to
maintaining economic growth in Puerto Rico. The FTA and Puerto Rico
Highway and Transportation Authority have entered into a full Funding
Grant Agreement providing for FTA capital program funds totaling
$307.34 million. Congress approved an initial earmark of $5 million for
federal fiscal year 1995 and an additional earmark of $7.4 million for
federal fiscal year 1996. FLEA has approved a grant application for
this $7.4 million for federal fiscal year 1996. In addition, Congress
has approved a $4.35 million earmark for fiscal 1997. This earmark has
been supplemented by an additional $1.3 million of discretionary moneys
awarded by the FTA.
The financial analysis for Tren Urbano assumes that federal funds
will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Full Funding
Grant Agreement which allocates federal funds over a six-year period,
commencing in federal fiscal year 1996. Our Highway and Transportation
Authority is also evaluating alternatives for the application of such
FTA capital program funds in order to avail itself of the innovative
financing techniques currently under consideration by FTA and DOT. In
addition, during the Tren Urbano design and construction our Highway
and Transportation Authority anticipates receiving $90 million in FTA
urbanized area formula apportionments in accordance with the provisions
of 49 USC 5307. These apportionments, in addition to the Full Funding
Grant Agreement funds, will be devoted entirely to transit.
I wish to emphasize that in the financial plan for Phase I of Tren
Urbano, the funds provided by the FTA's Full Funding Grant Agreement
amount to approximately one-third of the total cost of the project.
Puerto Rico will finance the other two-thirds using the Highway and
Transportation Authority's revenue sources. Last week, we proposed that
the Legislature of Puerto Rico enact a number of transportation
financing enhancements that will provide the Highway and Transportation
Authority with an additional $120 million per year. These enhancements
include giving the HTA more of the vehicle licensing fees and more of
the 8-cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel now being collected. In
addition, we will raise the gasoline tax by 2-cents per liter, which is
about 7.6-cents per gallon. This tax increase will add approximately
$80 million per year to the pledged revenues received by the Highway
and Transportation Authority.
We are here today to request that the Members of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation continue their support for the Tren
Urbano project by granting a fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $45
million. These funds will help pay for ongoing construction. I look
forward to keeping Members of Congress apprised of our progress on Tren
Urbano.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for your time
and consideration. And now, I welcome your questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Leon Williams, Chairman, San Diego Metropolitan
Transit Development Board
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this
opportunity to provide testimony on the critical and cost-effective
Metropolitan Transit Improvement Project in San Diego. The San Diego
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is seeking an
appropriation of $31 million which would allow us to proceed with final
design and right-of-way acquisition for the San Diego Metropolitan
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Program. This LRT project consists of two
elements, Mid-Coast (3.4 miles initial phase) and Mission Valley East
(5.9 miles completes the Mission Valley line), which would extend the
existing San Diego Trolley system to a total of 64 miles.
However, before I describe the project and its elements, let me
offer some highlights of our record in San Diego:
1. ``Intermodal'' Works in San Diego!--We continue to be a model
for intermodal efficiencies. Since introduction of LRT in 1981 we have
had a ``seamless'' transit network of buses, commuter rail, and LRT.
The integrated and unified fare structure allows easy interchange
between modes, and the bus services have been fully tied in with the
LRT network through strategically located transit centers that serve as
``hubs.''
2. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Economies Have a 16-Year Proven Record
in San Diego!--The metropolitan bus-LRT system performs well, and has
an enviable farebox recovery rate of 51 percent, with the LRT portion
being about 70 percent.
3. Incremental System Development Works in San Diego!--Our LRT
system has been developed incrementally in seven stages to date--which
ensures relevancy of the system to the growing and changing needs of
the metropolitan area.
4. Local Funding is the Foundation for LRT Development in San
Diego!--Therefore, as we explain our request please be aware that we
have largely built the LRT system that is in place or under
construction today with local and state funds. Of the $813 million
investment in the LRT system development to date, only 8.5 percent has
come from federal funds. Thus, with a proposed federal share of $323
million of the total $409 million in costs for both elements of this
project, the total federal participation in the overall San Diego
Trolley LRT system would amount to only 32 percent!
Now, let me turn to the two elements of the San Diego Metropolitan
LRT project and describe their primary features. First, they share some
common characteristics:
--they would offer access to and connections between the four major
employment areas in San Diego (centre city, Mission Valley, the
``Golden Triangle,'' and Otay Mesa at the International
Border),
--they would continue and expand upon the seamless network of transit
services that have been developed, and complete a ``gap'' in
the present LRT system, and
--they would offer a functional, attractive alternative mode to
travelers in parallel, heavily traveled interstate freeways.
The Mid-Coast LRT Project is the first element of the appropriation
requested today and would be used to undertake design for the Mid-Coast
LRT Phase 1 to Balboa Avenue, which is a 3.4-mile segment of the
corridor. This segment would be constructed on railroad right-of-way
owned by MTDB, and establish a rail transit link with Mission Bay Park,
the largest aquatic park in the United States. The Mid-Coast element
has proceeded through the MIS and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
with funding originally authorized in ISTEA, and the element is now in
the Preliminary Engineering and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(PE/FEIS) phase. The current schedule calls for completion of this
phase in late 1997. Importantly, this element has received widespread
community support.
The locally preferred alternative for the entire Mid-Coast corridor
was selected by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board of Directors
as a result of an alternatives analysis and Major Investment Study
(MIS). Today's request for 3.4 miles in the Mid-Coast element runs
north from the Mission Valley West LRT extension (now under
construction and scheduled to be completed late this year), roughly
paralleling Interstate 5 (I-5) to Balboa Avenue.
Our second element is in the Mission Valley East Corridor and is
approximately 5.8 miles long paralleling Interstate 8 (I-8) from just
east of Interstate 15 (I-15), terminating in the city of La Mesa. This
LRT extension would complete the gap that will exist between the new
LRT service starting this later this year, called the Mission Valley
West extension, and the current East LRT Line. Thus, completion of this
gap in the system will immediately allow travelers on the Mission
Valley East extension to have rail transit access to the many activity
centers in the area including major employment sites, San Diego State
University (with a daytime population of approximately 35,000), and
Qualcomm Stadium with a capacity of 70,000 seats and the host to year
round events.
The Mission Valley East element is an FTA ``pipeline'' Major
Investment Study, and MTDB is currently studying no-build, best bus,
and LRT alternatives for meeting the needs of the corridor. The LRT
alternative would extend the locally funded six-mile Mission Valley
West LRT extension which, mentioned previously, is currently under
construction between the Old Town Transit Center and I-15. The
extension would run through the I-8 corridor to connect with the
existing East Line LRT in the suburban city of La Mesa.
The Mission Valley East element is currently in the MIS and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process, with adoption of the
locally preferred alternative scheduled in late 1997. The final
environmental document and completion of preliminary engineering for
the Mission Valley East element is scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 1998.
A major objective of these two elements is to reduce further
congestion of the north-south (I-5) and east-west (I-8) corridors. The
Mid-Coast element parallels I-5 which carries from 151,000 to 227,000
vehicles per day. The Mission Valley East element parallels I-8 which
handles between 185,000 to 302,000 vehicles on an average day.
Interstate 8 is the most heavily congested freeway in the San Diego
region. Existing bus service must contend with the same highway
congestion as the private automobile. Other significant benefits
include air quality improvements that would be continued in our region
with the help of these elements, and land use integration at and around
the station sites. Recognizing the importance of mass transit in
dealing with congestion problems, the city of San Diego has adopted a
transportation-land use policy that fosters transit oriented
development.
To summarize our request on behalf of MTDB, I am asking the
subcommittee to take into consideration MTDB's multi-year, successful
LRT development program. This program includes a total investment of
$813 million dollars over the past 17 years, of which only 8.5 percent
was from federal resources. Further, of the federal funds used, only
$21.6 million were from the FTA discretionary program. MTDB's
creativity in funding the system development is shown with the use of
the following resources: state gas tax, state sales tax, local
transportation sales tax, city hotel-motel room tax, sale-leaseback
transactions, San Diego Unified Port District contributions, private
developer right-of-way contributions, and city redevelopment funds.
However, in order to get the system developed as soon as possible,
using local and state resources, we have exhausted those resources.
Now, we need your help to finish our system.
Our request for fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $31 million is
the first of a multi-year request totaling $323 million. We believe
that this amount for our two elements makes cost-effective sense. Even
if we ultimately receive our full request of $323 million in federal
funding (currently pending consideration for authorization by the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure), the total federal share would
remain below one-third of the cost of the overall San Diego Trolley
system. I also ask that the subcommittee, in considering this request,
take note of MTDB's past performance in delivering projects in a timely
and cost-effective manner and, importantly, the operating performance
of the system. We at MTDB are very proud of our record in ridership and
farebox recovery. The San Diego Trolley carries an average of 50,000
riders per weekday and has gradually increased over its 15+ year
history from an initial 11,000 daily riders in 1981.
In addition to being cost-effective, as the agency responsible for
development and funding of all transit in the San Diego metropolitan
area, MTDB has been forced to be innovative and resourceful in funding
operations during several years of diminishing operating revenues. As
part of our current LRT system investment, we used $48.2 million of our
federal formula funds towards the cost of LRT extensions without
constraining our local bus replacement and capital program. We were
able to issue Certificates of Participation to provide for the capital
leasing of 130 buses in 1990. Then, subsequently, we used revenues from
sale/leaseback of light rail vehicles to provide for both operating and
capital needs. These funds have been used to leverage both state and
federal funds.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the San Diego
Trolley, under the policy direction of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board, has been an unqualified success, and the San Diego
Metropolitan LRT Program, consisting of the Mid-Coast and Mission
Valley East Corridor elements, would provide mobility to travel markets
that rely upon public transit, offer a high capacity transportation
alternative to two critically impacted corridors, and provide air
quality benefits to residents in the San Diego region.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., prepared statement........ 1079
Albright, David, research bureau chief, New Mexico State Highway
and Transportation Department, prepared statement.............. 1169
American Public Transit Association, prepared statement.......... 1174
American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement.......... 1143
Anderson, John H., Jr., Director, Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic Development, General
Accounting Office.............................................. 355
Prepared statement........................................... 374
Barclay, Charles, president, American Association of Airport
Executives, also representing Airports Council International... 531
Prepared statement........................................... 533
Barger, David, vice president-Newark, Continental Airlines....... 487
Prepared statement........................................... 498
Bartholow, Steven, Deputy General Counsel, Railroad Retirement
Board, Department of Labor..................................... 561
Prepared statement........................................... 567
Basso, Peter J., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and Programs,
Federal Highway Administration................................. 123
Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr., JAGC, USN (ret.), director, naval
affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
prepared statement............................................. 1095
Belger, Monte, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration.................................................
317, 487.......................................................
Prepared statement........................................... 509
Bell, Gerald W., director, commercial and property lines,
National Association of Independent Assurers, prepared
statement...................................................... 271
Blunt, Harry W., Jr., president, Concord Coach Lines, Inc., vice
chairman, American Bus Association............................. 256
Prepared statement........................................... 257
Bolen, Edward, president, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association.................................................... 531
Prepared statement........................................... 552
Bouin, Remy, member, Cessna Owner Organization, letter from...... 555
Boyer, Phil, president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association... 531
Prepared statement........................................... 546
Brown, Henry, New York Systems Management Office, Professional
System Specialists [PASS]...................................... 487
Brown, Kirk, secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation,
prepared statement............................................. 1147
Buzzi, Frank, Chief Actuary, Railroad Retirement Board,
Department of Labor............................................ 561
Prepared statement........................................... 567
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, letter
from........................................................... 326
Calkins, Charles L., national executive secretary, Fleet Reserve
Association, prepared statement................................ 1090
Capon, Ross B., executive director, National Association of
Railroad Passengers, prepared statements.......................
276, 1169......................................................
Carter, Ed, boating law administrator, Tennessee, president,
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators,
prepared statement............................................. 1092
Clower, W. Dewey, president and CEO, NATSO, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 285
Collins, Father T. Byron, special assistant to the president,
Georgetown University, prepared statement...................... 1183
Collins, John J., senior vice president, government affairs,
American Trucking Associations, Inc............................ 240
Prepared statement........................................... 242
D'Amato, Hon. Alfonse M., U.S. Senator from New York............. 461
Donohue, George, Associate Administrator, Research and
Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 317
Donohue, Thomas J., president and chief executive officer,
American Trucking Associations, Inc., prepared statement....... 1098
Donovan, Dan, chief of staff, on behalf of Hon. Guy V. Molinari,
borough president, Staten Island, NY........................... 461
Prepared statement........................................... 476
Downey, Mortimer L., Deputy Secretary, Innovative Transportation
Financing, Department of Transportation........................
355, 573.......................................................
Prepared statement........................................... 366
Downs, Thomas M., Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)......
391, 573
Prepared statements..........................................
400, 580...................................................
Drewel, Bob, chair of the board, Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority, prepared statement.......................... 1178
Durbin, John T., executive director, Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission, prepared statement................................. 1136
Electric Transportation Coalition, prepared statement............ 1179
Ellingstadt, Vernon, Office of Research and Engineering, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 287
Fay, William D., president and CEO, American Highway User
Alliance....................................................... 232
Prepared statement........................................... 235
Fisher, Morris, chairman, Monterey-Salinas Transit, prepared
statement...................................................... 1196
Garcia-Pedrosa, Jose, city manager, city of Miami Beach, FL,
prepared statement............................................. 1196
Gardner, Guy S., Associate Administrator, Regulation and
Certification, Federal Aviation Administration................. 317
Garvey, Jane F., Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 123
Prepared statement........................................... 133
George, Father William L., special assistant to the president,
Georgetown University, prepared statement...................... 1183
Gillespie, Tim, Vice President, Government and Public Affairs,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)............... 573
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, prepared statement........... 1086
Greenberg, Allen, government relations director, League of
American Bicyclists, prepared statement........................ 1126
Gruel, Frederick L., president and CEO, AAA New Jersey Automobile
Club........................................................... 247
Prepared statement........................................... 249
Hall, James Evan, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board. 287
Prepared statement........................................... 296
Haueter, Tom, Office of Aviation Safety, National Transportation
Safety Board................................................... 287
Institute of Transportation Engineers, prepared statement........ 283
James, Hon. Sharpe, mayor, city of Newark, NJ, prepared statement 1136
Johnson, Jack, president, Professional Airways System Specialists
[PASS]......................................................... 487
Prepared statement........................................... 502
Kenny, Michael P., executive officer, California Air Resources
Board, et al., California Industry and Government Coalition,
prepared statement............................................. 1109
King, Hon. Peter T., U.S. Representative from New York........... 461
Kodumal, Louis M., city of Media, PA, prepared statement......... 1150
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared statement. 131
Krasner, Barry, president, National Air Traffic Control
Association.................................................... 487
Prepared statement........................................... 489
Kurland, Susan, Associate Administrator, Airports, Federal
Aviation Administration........................................ 317
Lew, Hon. Jacob, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget 573
Prepared statement........................................... 575
Linton, Gordon J., Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. 146
Prepared statement........................................... 133
Maldonado, Raymond D., FAA Control Tower, Newark International
Airport........................................................ 487
Prepared statement........................................... 511
Manocherian, Fraydun, the Manocherian Foundation, prepared
statement...................................................... 1159
Martinez, Ricardo, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 144
Prepared statement........................................... 133
Memphis Area Transit Authority, prepared statement............... 1165
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, prepared statement. 1184
Millar, William W., president, American Public Transit
Association.................................................... 251
Prepared statement........................................... 253
Molinari, Hon. Susan, U.S. Representative from New York.......... 461
Prepared statement........................................... 474
Molitoris, Jolene, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration 391
Monaghan, Tom, FAA control tower, John F. Kennedy International
Air- port...................................................... 487
Morgan, Linda J., Chairman, Surface Transportation Board,
prepared statement............................................. 1051
Morgan, Ron, Director, Air Traffic Service, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 487
Nagle, Kurt J., president, American Association of Port
Authorities, prepared statement................................ 273
Navajo Nation, prepared statement................................ 1151
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, prepared statement.... 1153
Parcells, Harriet, executive director, American Passenger Rail
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 1162
Penelas, Alex, mayor, Metropolitan Dade County, FL, prepared
statement...................................................... 1191
Pesquera, Dr. Carlos I., secretary, Puerto Rico Department of
Transportation and Public Works, prepared statement............ 1203
Pfeiler, Lori Holt, chairman, North San Diego County Transit
Development Board, prepared statement.......................... 1199
Phillips, Karen Borlaug, senior vice president, Association of
American Railroads, prepared statement......................... 267
Reagle, George, Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 123
Redmond, Lee R., III, senior vice president-real estate, Kaiser
Ventures, Inc., prepared statement............................. 1118
Rensink, Darrel, director, Iowa Department of Transportation,
president, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials....................................... 225
Prepared statement........................................... 227
Sanders, David G., Deputy Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, prepared statement.................... 1033
Scheinberg, Phyllis, Associate Director, Resources, Community,
and Economic Development Division, General Accounting Office... 391
Shackelford, Wayne, commissioner, Georgia Department of
Transportation, prepared statement............................. 1110
Shane, Anne, chief of staff to Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, city of
Indianapolis, IN, prepared statement........................... 1118
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama, prepared
statements.....................................................
125, 289.......................................................
Shelton, L. Robert, Associate Administrator for Safety
Performance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration................................................. 880
Siegel, John H., M.D., chairman of the Department of Anatomy,
Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School,
prepared statement............................................. 1156
Skoutelas, Paul P., executive director, Port Authority of
Allegheny County, prepared statement........................... 1202
Slater, Hon. Rodney, Secretary of Transportation................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Stoll, Louise Frankel, Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation. 1
Valentine, Barry, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 317
Prepared statement........................................... 320
Vogt, Carl, Fulbright & Jaworski, and member, White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security..................... 303
Webb, Wellington, mayor, city and county of Denver, prepared
statement...................................................... 1082
Weinrich, Kurt, director, Regional Transportation Commission of
Clark County, NV, prepared statement........................... 1139
West, John, California Department of Transportation and chair of
the NAHSC Program Management Oversight Committee, National
Automated Highway System Consortium, prepared statement........ 1128
Williams, Leon, chairman, San Diego Metropolitan Transit
Development Board, prepared statement.......................... 1204
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Railroad Retirement Board
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Page
Adjusting railroad retirement policy............................. 570
Amtrak:
Calculation of excess payments...............................
570, 576...................................................
Components of operating subsidy.............................. 573
Cost of bankruptcy........................................... 583
Financial integrity.......................................... 582
National ridership........................................... 584
Obligation under current law................................. 587
Requirements................................................. 574
Retirement and tax liability................................. 569
Budget:
Accuracy of justification presentation....................... 577
Clarity needed in presentation............................... 588
Increased clarity needed......................................... 578
Purpose of funds must be clearer................................. 586
Railroad retirement system explained............................. 565
Retirement expenses double-counted............................... 585
Tier I benefits in excess of Social Security benefits,
description of................................................. 566
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Administration's surface transportation reauthorization, status
of............................................................. 41
Airport improvement funding...................................... 42
Alcohol-impaired driving......................................... 31
Amtrak funding................................................... 24
Appalachian Highway system:
Mileage of................................................... 33
Status of.................................................... 30
Atlantic City, FAA facility in................................... 25
Aviation computer systems procurement............................ 36
Aviation trust fund.............................................. 27
Commonsense Government........................................... 15
Departmental priorities.......................................... 13
Driving while intoxicated........................................ 23
Golf cars, regulation of......................................... 42
Highway trust fund, varied uses of............................... 35
Maryland, transportation issues for.............................. 38
Proposed highway obligation levels............................... 20
Safety........................................................... 14
Regulations.................................................. 22
Strategic investment............................................. 14
Submitted questions.............................................. 44
Traffic safety terminology....................................... 44
Transit new starts............................................... 21
Funding...................................................... 26
Transportation and welfare reform................................ 41
Transportation-related employment................................ 40
Trust funds, spending of.........................................
27, 29.........................................................
Washington, DC, area parkways, safety of......................... 32
Woodrow Wilson Bridge............................................ 38
Federal Aviation Administration
Accelerated modernization, cost of............................... 332
Airport funds:
Best use of.................................................. 330
Transit projects............................................. 330
Airport improvement program...................................... 319
Airspace, redesign of............................................ 527
Air traffic control:
Problems with................................................ 513
School....................................................... 517
Air traffic controllers.......................................... 515
Hiring of.................................................... 518
Increase..................................................... 508
Staffing of.................................................. 523
Automated surface observation systems............................ 325
Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART].................................... 329
Better safety and security, cost for............................. 329
Canine teams..................................................... 318
Category X airports.............................................. 328
Collision avoidance system, recommendation on.................... 514
Commuter air carriers, safety performance of..................... 331
Contract weather observers:
At smaller airports.......................................... 327
Paying for................................................... 327
West Virginia................................................ 326
CTX-5000......................................................... 334
Deregulation..................................................... 328
Domestic and foreign carriers, security measures for............. 333
Equipment failure................................................ 515
FAA installation and procedures, problems with................... 496
Implementing safety and security recommendations................. 322
Cost factors................................................. 323
Inspection and oversight methods................................. 332
Modernization, budget request for................................ 333
Modernizing the national airspace system......................... 319
New entrant airlines, certification of........................... 325
New York:
Controllers survey........................................... 468
TRACON incident.............................................. 528
90-day safety review............................................. 318
Operational errors............................................... 523
Out of date equipment, vulnerability of.......................... 325
Passenger profiling.............................................. 318
Secured areas, access to......................................... 324
Security equipment integrated product team....................... 318
Security, airlines cost for...................................... 331
Staffing solutions............................................... 488
Submitted questions.............................................. 335
User fees:
Fuel taxes................................................... 550
Tax.......................................................... 557
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security........... 317
Wide area augmentation system.................................... 334
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Aggressive driving............................................... 153
Appalachian corridors............................................ 162
Appalachian development highway system........................... 162
CMAQ flexibility................................................. 161
Definition of capital, changes in................................ 157
Ferryboat funding................................................ 160
Flexibility...................................................... 146
Gas tax revenues................................................. 147
Highway apportionment formulas................................... 150
Innovation and welfare reform.................................... 147
Interstate:
Reimbursement costs.......................................... 164
Tolls........................................................ 166
ITS role in transit.............................................. 152
ITS technology................................................... 151
Use in trucking industry..................................... 154
New starts....................................................... 149
NEXTEA:
Formulas..................................................... 156
Transit funding under........................................ 148
Olympics......................................................... 159
Predictability................................................... 147
Puget Sound regional transit plan................................ 160
Streamlining..................................................... 146
Submitted questions.............................................. 168
Utah I-15 project................................................ 158
Design-build................................................. 159
Welfare reform and coordination between agencies................. 157
Zero tolerance law............................................... 152
Federal Railroad Administration
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Amtrak:
Administration's budget request for.......................... 411
Federal Government's liability if liquidated................. 405
Federal subsidy on per passenger basis....................... 407
Financing.................................................... 387
Long-term funding needs...................................... 407
Aviation user fees...............................................
372, 384.......................................................
Gore Commission recommendations, cost of implementing............ 387
Labor-related costs.............................................. 410
Northeast corridor............................................... 413
Other proposed transportation user fees.......................... 385
Privatization, opportunities for................................. 406
Route profitability.............................................. 409
Submitted questions.............................................. 416
User fees coverage of costs...................................... 388
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Commuter airline safety.......................................... 308
Flight data recorders............................................ 312
Gore Commission recommendations..................................
304, 310.......................................................
Insurance company responsibilities............................... 302
Investigation financing.......................................... 302
Most wanted...................................................... 294
Navy costs....................................................... 305
Submitted questions.............................................. 317
Supplemental request.............................................
295, 305.......................................................
TWA Flight 800................................................... 295
Costs........................................................ 306